it is a self-evident fact that the kind of dysfunction we witnessed here in washington this past summer had a negative impact on confidence both here in america and probably globally, business and consumer confidence, it was a drag on our economy. the kind of self-inflicted wound that we should not be self- inflicted. here in washington when we have so many challenges we need to sell. we should not create more challenges for ourself.

>> so not everybody shares the idea that this is the model of -- >> well -- >> well, let me finish. in the european community there is a discussion whether one should do that or not do that.

>> i don't think anyone is involved in a blame game. we need to know the capacity exists to address it and that decisive, forceful action needs to be taken. i don't think that is a particularly controversial observation. it is certainly not meant to be. it is a global economy and we need to work collectively with our allies and partners around the world in europe and elsewhere to help it grow and to prevent the kind of problems.

on monday the president will hold a cabinet meeting at the white house. on tuesday the president will travel to eastville college in texas to urge congress to pass the american jobs act now to keep teachers in the classroom, rebuild our schools across the nation, and put money in the pockets of working americans while not adding a dime to the deficit. on wednesday the president will host the president of honduras at the white house. the president looks forward to addressing a broad range of topics at their meeting. the president also welcomes the opportunity to underscore the strong bonds of friendship between the american and honduran people. also their return to the american states this year.

also the president will welcome the women's ncaa championship team. on friday the president will welcome the chicago bears to the white house. later in the afternoon, the president will host the prime minister of tunisia at the white house. during his meeting, the president looks forward to expressing his strong support for two nearbyia -- tunisia as well as areas of mutual interest. the president also welcomes the opportunity to highlight the strong bonds of friendship between the american and tunisian people. >> did you individually invite the players or the team? >> i honestly don't know. >> what were the circumstances? >> i'm sorry. well said. [laughter]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> we welcome your comments on how you feel about the targeting and killing of a u.s. citizen.

if you called in the last 30 days, make sure you allow other people to call. we want to start with bringing you the statement by president obama this morning about the killing of al-awaki and kahn. >> earlier today anwar al- awalaki was killed in iran.

the death of a leader of external operations for al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula. in that role he took the lead to murder innocent americans. he attempted to blow up an airplane on christmas day, 2009. he directed the failed attempt to blow up u.s. cargo planes in 2010. and he repeatedly called on individuals in the united states and around the globe to kill innocent men, women, and children to advance a murderous agenda. the death of al-awlaki represents the death of al-qaeda forces. this is a victory for forces that have worked with the united states over several years.

al-awe milwaukee -- al-awlaki's hateful receipt restrict has been rejected by the vast majority of muslims and people of all faiths. he met his demies because the -- demise because the government of yemen has joined forces with us to stop al-qaeda. going forward we will remain individual lent against any threat to the united states or our allies or partners. make no mistake, this is further proof that al-qaeda and its affiliates will find no safe haven anywhere in the world. working with yemen and all of our allies and partners, we will be determined, deliberate, relentless, resolute in our commitment to destroy terrorist networks that aim to kill

americans and to build a world in which people everywhere can live in greater peace, prosperity, and security. >> president obama earlier today commented on the killing of anwar al-awlaki and semir kahn. on the line from minneapolis is richard from our democrat's line. caller: what i wanted to say, what can you do when they go against your own country, you know? if any of us did that, you would expect the same thing. what i was going to say is, on cnn they were talking to al-awla kifment's father, and he couldn't believe he would do anything like that. he was trying to bridge between

the west and the muslim world, trying to bridge the gap between them so they could understand each other. how can you do that when you have fanatics that don't like your country and they think you are evil and they think you are trying to control the world, and you are not. host: next up, botavia, illinois. caller: i shed no tears for this terrorist. having said that, i find it deeply troubling that obama would use extra-judicial measures by mortgaging american citizens. let's not forget, this guy was not even indicted. this was an impeachable offense. he can't go around murdering american citizens without a trial. host: greg, ron paul, the congressman, termed this killing an assassination. do you agree?

caller: yes, i agree with him on this point. host: our democrats line is next. john in waukegan. hi. caller: yeah, i have a comment. it is not about attacking u.s. citizens. when you have killers running around in this country and they track them down and they get caught in a building and they shoot the heck out of a building and kill them, what's the difference? if they are traitors, they are traitors. get rid of them. host: "the new york times" reporting about the killing this morning. nytimes.com. "u.n. al-qaeda leader killed in yemen." part of which reads "the strike appeared to be the first time in united states-led war on terrorism since the september 11, 2001, attacks that an american citizen had been deliberately killed by american

forces. a step that has raised constitutional issues in the united states. it was also the second high-profile killing of an al-qaeda leader in the past five months under the obama administration which ordered the american commando raid which killed osama bin laden in pakistan last may. that's this afternoon in "the new york times". republican line. caller: i think he's a domestic enemy. when we say foreign and domestic, that's what this guy is. that's in my opinion, i don't see anything wrong with it. i don't think we should rejoice in killing others. i think that's another issue. i think we should make it clear to the world, i guess, that it isn't necessarily a pretty thing to be killing people. these are combatants. i think it's ok. host: next up, florida. neal, independent.

caller: just basic commentary regarding the killings, quote, unquote, in yemen. i think we fail to realize and remember, after all where was timothy mcvay born? look what he did in oklahoma city. terror is terror. the question of due process does arise and the sense of, well, say, he was one of us. once you cross that line and alie yourself with al-qaeda and other groups of people throughout the world who seek to undermine, destroy, and kill innocent americans, due process is not applicable. again, to reiterate, timothy mcvay was one -- mcveigh was one of our own. i was embarrassed and ashamed at that point in time to be an american to think that one of us did this to his own people. host: washingtonpost.com writes

"at the northern virginia mosque where al-awlaki preached, some had yet to publicly embrace the anti-american extremism that would make him a target of u.s. drones." that's from washingtonpost.com. here's thomas, independent line. welcome. >> thank you. thank you for taking my call. while i am glad he was gone, al-awlaki was an american citizen. the administration attempts to bring to trial foreign detainees who were not citizens of the united states. now is it the law in this united states that a u.s. citizen can

be murdered without due process while noncitizens will have a trial? thank you for allowing me to speak. host: thank you for calling. this is eddie on our democrat's line. caller: hey, there. how are you doing? i'm a veteran since 1970. i think a job well done. once he crossed the line, he was not an american. he was killing americans, wanting to kill more americans, and no way. job very well done, mr. president. thank you very much. host: a couple comments on one of our twitter feeds -- if you go to twitter.com, you can see what members are saying. "the killing of al-awlaki is a significant blow to al-qaeda and its recruiting in the united states."

another saying, "we are safer with him dead." and more comments from members of congress at our twitter feed at twitter.com/cspan and click on the list there. ernie next on rur republican line. caller: thank you for your courtesy, and as far as i'm concerned, i'm glad they got that guy. but let me tell you something, better not go to sleep because there are more of them running around. i'm a veteran, 81 years old, and i am a veteran of the korean war. i smelled bad apples long before they got to me. that's how i survived in korea. i did not vote for the president, but i would pin a medal on him at this time for this. because of the constitution, this guy didn't believe in the constitution. he didn't care less about the constitution. he was a traitor. a whole bunch like him should be taken out. period. god bless you.

host: ernest in san antonio, texas. thank you for all your calls. we appreciate you weighing in on your thoughts. you will be able to see the white house briefing later in our program schedule and also on our web site at c-span.org. we have more live from the white house this evening. now, rick miller -- perry holding his first town hall meeting live at 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> he founded several labor unions and represented the social party of america as candidate for president, running five times. last time, from prison. eugene debs made history. tonight at 8:00 p.m., "the contenders." get a preview about deb, and

watch some of our special programs about him at c-span.org/thecontenders. >> tenure creates an atmosphere where people can speak. if you don't like a proposal that the board of trustees or the president makes, you have to be able to speak freely about it. administrators ought to be able to as well. that will shared governance is important. >> cary nelson the author of "no university is an island" sunday night on c-span's "q&a."

>> always start with the assumption that they are not telling you the truth. >> he's an eagle scout, trected and produced three of the top-10 grossing documentaries of all times. his latest a memoir called "here comes trouble." sunday your chance to call and tweet michael moore on c-span2, "booktv." >> the british house of lords, a debate on climate change. those attending included representatives from kenya and other areas. d trinidad and tobego. this debate in the british house of lords is two hours.

>> i'm delighted to welcome you here to the chamber of the house of lords. many of you i will have met before, yesterday and the day before. but not all of you. and so this is a good occasion for me to see you all together. and i do so warmly welcome you. now, i think you all know what it is we're here for. but you'll for give me if i perhaps go over it a little bit more. i am frances d' souza. i was recently elected speaker of the house of lords. my work today is to moderate the debate. but the work is going to be all yours. i want to reiterate that we will have two speakers, the prime minister leading the opposition to speak for and against -- don't forget what motion is. but this house really is that the commonwealth land should reduce its carbon emissions by 100% by the year 2050.

then we will open it up as a free for all so that you will all have a chance to put your views and have a comment and you can ask questions of the speakers. the most important thing, the most important thing, is that you all keep to time. and i think you'll recognize that reason for that is because it allows everyone a fair chance to express their view. i'm absolutely delighted we have here representatives from the house of commons who i extremely welcome. and i rather hope that they will be here at the end of the session so that they can perhaps say a few words about who they are and what they do and who they represent. and we also have a representative from the house of lords who will be familiar to all of you. thank you very much for coming. so without more adieu, let me invite the opening remarks first of all from the prime minister, young democratic party who will speak for the motion. >> thank you, lord speaker. fellow youth par lemt aryans, we are assembled here today to

debate what is arguably the single greatest threat our species has ever faced. it is important, however, to remember that climate change is not the only problem facing our nation. youth unemployment, migration of highly-skilled workers, economic diversification, food security and pollution, they all pose a serious challenge to the fabric of of our society and to the governance of our country. climate change is not an isolated problem, and its solutions are not isolated solutions. this is not just a grave threat but also a golden opportunity, an opportunity to diverse fire our economy and build a prosperous future for our people. an opportunity to solve the problems in our society and build a secure future for our children. and an opportunity for our nation to rediscover the ambition upon which it was founded and lead the world into a carbon-neutral future.

now, many of you will see the 100% figure and say, this is impossible. it is unachievable. but i say, give hope a chance. we can develop a green economy. we can create highly-skilled jobs for our educated young people. and we can work with the private sector to develop new ways of combatting climate change. make no mistake, this is not an easy task. but neither was achieving our independence and founding a new nation. we will need all the options on the table, including carbon taxes, carbon trading, reforestation and renewable energy sources as well as many technology sources which have not yet been developed. so today, i invite you to take this opportunity to the heart of this institution, and let it guide the good governance of commonwealth land for the decades ahead. is it ambitious? yes.

is it a challenge? yes. is it achievable? absolutely. >> the leader of the opposition, matthew crowe, progressive youth allowed to speak against the motion. >> thank you, lord speaker. i want to begin by congratulating the prime minister on his remarks and for bringing this debate to the floor of the house. i don't suppose it's going to surprise honorable members opposite very much that we are in broad agreement with the principle of a target reduction in emissions. we're the progressive party. and what we believe is that we can go further with this proposal. we're suggesting, as i'll move on to talk about in more detail, that the 100% reduction is brought forward 10 years to 2040. my lord speaker, the progressive youth alliance acknowledges the severe risks of climate change. and i welcome the prime minister's comments on a multilateral solution which will

not focus solely on climate change in itself throughout this debate. my party's become used to lending its policies to the government, so if i could suggest that we move on with interand mid-term targets. i'm surprised the prime minister didn't choose to mention that. these are ways, of course, of holding such a state to account and allowing this parliament to have a say on how we reach the target that is put forward. so we've been looking at ambitious, front-loaded targets. we believe this is the best way to progress in line with the u.k. stern report. by front loading the prime minister will be aware that changes have to be less serious to meet the 2020 peak. so we'll be looking at a 2020 target of 40% reductions. it's ambitious we know. a 2030 target with a further 30%. and a final 30% target for the 2040, bringing us to the 100%

overall. we wanted to front load these as i explained because it's going to put forward a pressure which is hard at first. and we acknowledge that. but it's an opportunity for us say after the 2020 peak our party to be able to really reduce the pressure. we're obviously very concerned about investment in renewable energies. we've not heard a lot from the government about that. we'd be looking -- i'm sure we're going to be asked about funding. so we're going to be looking at international investment loans from the development mechanism. china's taken a similar theme of around 8 billion. lord speaker, before we hear any more from the opposition, on the effects of climate change and legislation on business which i'm sure they'd like to raise, i want to assure them that it's our concern as well. we are the party, progressive indeed, but we also have the concerns of business at heart. and we agree that it's with business that these solutions in the private sector can be found.

the opposition -- the opposing party must accede in this debate that this will not be solely a focus on energy emission but also private sector business and that we will acknowledge significant contributions from the non-energy emissions sector. and we didn't hear a lot about that from the government, either. lord speaker, my party is the progressive force in this chamber. and what's more, beyond any claims that the prime minister may make, my party believes in this proposal. our manifesto said it and i will deliver it. >> hear hear. >> hear hear. >> we now come to the part where you will all have an opportunity to participate. let me remind you once again, please say who you are, do not go beyond two minutes. who is going to begin? >> the gentleman there at the back in the gray suit, and then after that. >> [ inaudible ]

i fully support for the reduction of carbon emissions by 100%. however i put to you, lord speaker, that by 2050 is far too short a time to do it. in and i feel this parliament will fall short of these targets. and i would like to ask the prime minister exactly how he propose toss cut by 100% by 2050 as he proposes. >> on the front bench there, you stood up. >> yes. [ inaudible ] from the youth democrat party representative of australia. lord speaker, this is a debate about whether the commonwealth land is a leader or a follower. the experts tell us that an emissions reduction target by 40% by 2020 globally is needed. we need a carbon-neutral economy by 2050. this is what the ipc c and their 2400 experts told us in their fourth assessment report.

we need a global plan to limit emissions -- to limit emissions and to limit the temperature increase by less than two degrees. commonwealth lands, reducing our emissions, will not reduce global temperatures. however, we can and we should play a part in global action. we should bewarery about developing economy status. we should bewary of our vulnerable industries and bewary of industries moving out of commonwealth lands, moving overseas and setting up places in places where they do not have the environmental regulation standards, where they do not have the strict controls that we as a socially responsible country put on our business and our industry in commonwealth land. commonwealth land should not introduce measures that will adversely impact on commonwealth lands 14 million low and middle-income households. so what does this mean, lord speaker? this means we need a fundamental

shift in the economy of commonwealth land. we need the greatest microeconomic and macroeconomic reforms to achieve a 100% reduction in emissions by 2050. we need a carbon tax. and this is exactly what this chamb chamber legislated yesterday. we need to achieve the interim and final targets. i support clean investment in clean energy and research development. commonwealth land needs to lead the world also in taking global action. as a newly-formed country, less than 50 years old, we need to show other developed countries that it is possible to reduce our own emissions. we need to be a leader rather than a follower. however, 100% is well achievable. however, we need the structural adjustment in our economy, and we need it now, lord speaker.

>> thank you. >> i thank the people on the opposite side for actually agreeing with us when we talk about extreme need for action and action soon. however, you have failed to engage with us on our proposition that this deadline be moved forward to 2040. and ladies and gentlemen, and my honorable colleagues, let me bring your attention to the good work of the new economics foundation based in the u.k. itself. they are a think and do think tank that has done economic analysis as well as social policy and underground action in order to do a research on what sort of action can be done from top and from the bottom to improve our climate change situation. and very recently, lord speaker, they published a report called "zero carbon in 2030". now, those on the opposite speak of being leaders rather than followers. then why are they not going far

enough and proposing that we do what we want to achieve by 2040 rather than 2050, which is a long time away. >> hear hear. >> i'm tired of the political inner sha that we saw at copenhagen as well as all the other governments that we see elsewhere in the world with regard to climate change. i'm tired of the splitticing that we see so often when it comes to climate change. ladies and gentlemen, i put to you that we put aside past differences today. we talk about what we can really do, what we can do as a united government, and with the people of commonwealth land in order to achieve a collaborative movement towards the improvement of the climate change situation. if we mobilize the human capital of commonwealth land rather than relying purely on the businesses

and relying purely on the private sector and all the brocks bureaucracy in the government we're never going to get anywhere. and i beg you, lord speaker, as well as people of opposite sides, to please respond to us regarding our proposition on achieving 100% carbon reduction by 2040. >> hear hear. >> could you just say who you are? >> my name is -- i'm representative -- but today i stand not just the shadow of the defense minister but also a member of commonwealth land and somewhere from a. [ inaudible ] >> the gentleman from the cross benches. >> i thank you, lord speaker. my name is james rundell and i am an independent with the commonwealth youth parliament. i stand before you because i am firmly opposed to both sides reducing by 100% in the next 40 years or 30 years. i believe that we have common but differentiated responsibilities with the rest of the world when it comes to

climate change and how we are to handle. this and i would like to go on to elaborate. this i believe that under no uncertain circumstances should we be reducing carbon emissions at all. i believe that for centuries we have seen western countries develop and develop without being limited. and i'd like to remind this chamber, lord speaker, that we are still a developing country. and as a developing country we have a responsibility to our people, 60% of whom who are under 30. and we need to provide them with jobs. i firmly believe by implementing this legislation and introducing carbon taxes we are crippling the industries which are going to provide jobs. only this morning we saw with our select committee we were having to come with new ways to cope with youth unemployment. i firmly believe that by introducing a carbon tax we are going to be strangling the industry such as agriculture and manufacturing in the same ways that emissions are strangling the atmosphere. and it's for this reason i'd

like to stress on the idea of a common but differentiated responsibility. before i go onto what i believe commonwealth land should do, i'd like to introduce a statement of fact to the chamber. 19 million inhabitants of new york produce a larger carbon footprint than 766 million people across 50 developing countries. and for this reason, lord speaker, i ask this chamber, is it us who should be cutting our emissions or is it the west, the already developed countries, the countries who have taken advantage of our atmosphere who have already exposed us? is it them, the united states for example who have still to ratify the [ inaudible ] is it up to them? they've got a 20% per capita -- emissions per capita while we've only got 4%. for this reason i believe the future is educating our people so we're aware of the dangers. thank you. >> hear hear. >> the gentleman here? yes. first one here. in the darker jacket.

>> thank you, lord speaker. my name is kevin cardwell, with the progressive party. i'd like to commend all the parliamentarians today for bringing this motion to the house. we all agree and i think there is bipartisan agreement on the fact that this issue of climate change presents a direct threat to the very survival of low-lying nations such as ours. so those in the opposite the prime minister started off by talking of opportunity. how about let us give our nation the opportunity to survive? the opportunity to survive past 2050. this would mean bringing the target back to 2040. this would mean being as ambitious as possible. and this would mean reaching for the stars so that we might fall in the tree tops. lord speaker, what you've heard is rhetoric. what we need is action and

commitment. we implore all our young parliamentarians today to think of practical means to make this target happen by 2040. this would mean investing in renewable energy. having the firm commitment, a firm commitment to investing in our businesses and giving incentives and magnifying national insentives to our local community and our businesses to make this happen. this would mean working together with our younger generation, with our young people. this would mean working together with our young people to make sure that this debate does not stop here but continues throughout the generations. and let us continue in life after the progressive party did, let us continue engaging them in policy debates. for example by selling them to the commonwealth climate change summits which we did in 2009. this would mean capacity building and support for advocacy and aiding advocacy for climate change. lord speaker, i commend the house once again for bringing this to the floor.

and let us work together to make sure that this does not stop here, that we will go on and work towards this together. thank you, lord speaker. >> the colleague there. >> hello. my name is tanya sorris. i would like to propose against this motion. the reason is simply that this is a completely unrealistic target. the commonwealth land to achieve. i say this because the ipcc fourth assessment report actually said that carbon dioxide emissions are projected it to grow between 2000 to 2030 to 410% globally. so keeping this in mind, i would like to reassert that this is ridiculous for us to think that we can reduce carbon emissions by 100%. and i would also like to remind this house that our primary concern for our country is economic growth. and we need to keep our eyes

fixed on this. i do believe that the climate change agenda is important. it's definitely important. but it should not be at the expense of economic growth to our land. and i also believe that a carbon tax should not be imposed. the inflationary effects that this can have on our country would be very drastic, and we do not want this for our nation. and the loss of competitiveness of our goods would go down. and we do not want this, either. so i would propose for ladies and gentlemen to please vote against this motion. thank you. >> gentleman there? >> [ inaudible ] youth parliamentaryian. i put it to my honorable friend across the way that she mentions that a developing country that we are can complete your goals

for 2040 in reducing carbon emission by 100% without the help of the public sector? i put it to her that i find that doubtful. and i put it to my honorable friend the deputy prime minister that he speaks about keeping business within commonwealth land. but then also mentions how important it is to have a carbon tax. i put it to my honorable friend that a carbon tax would encourage companies and businesses to find maybe greener pass turs within other countries, economically speaking, because they are business-oriented. and also that businesses that do stay would be encouraged to heighten their prices, putting pressure on the middle classes, et cetera.

thank you. >> gentleman in the front bench here. >> thank you, lord speaker. -- representative from new zealand. ridiculous or not, these targets are aspirational. they're aspirational for our future. before i start i've just got to comment. i'd like to start by saying what an honor it is to be in the surroundings of the lord speaker and especially being able to debate here in the lord's chamber. it's an abc privilege. -- absolute privilege. i'd like to thank the house for making this a possibility. >> hear hear. >> global warming is without a doubt the biggest issue facing our generation. let's be clear. if we don't make major and proactive -- if we don't take a measured and proactive approach to these issues it is not us that will face the consequences of issues we have caused. it's our grand children and future generations. as a world of unpredictable weather, rising seas, warmer

temperatures and polluted atmosphere something we want to pass onto future generations? i think not,load. this government is greater than the manifesto to bander to big business in the private sector. many factors obviously require consideration when based on the approach of combatting these issues. we need to take an approach that does not cut the economy at the knees. we need to take incremental and significant steps towards our emission goals. once again, lord speaker, we must be clear the potential consequences of not dealing effectively with global warming are greater than the economy. if we remove the domestic and global economy from the picture, what are we left with? we're left with planet earth. and we cease to exist as human beings with others. nothing less than a global approach towards these issues will suffice. however, lord speaker, we need to be realistic and implement proactive measure today and

assure a better tomorrow for us, our family, our friends and future generations. arguments that the current government goals are in line with with international standards is simply a cop out. lord speaker, let's not follow but let's lead the world in combatting global warming today. >> hear hear. >> second bench there. yes, indeed. >> thank you, lord speaker, for giving way. we must propose for the motion to reduce emissions in the commonwealth land by 100%. if we are to do this properly, we must go all the way and we must aim high. i appreciate this is an ambitious target. but i equally appreciate we must equally appreciate this is an important target to meet for the future well being of our younger generations, and the environment they will subsequently inherit from us. there is no secret that we have provided intensive humanitarian assistance to those who have been affected by a number of recent disasters which begs the question, will we as a nation not ultimately face such

disasters? and one they do come to us in their numbers, will we be prepared? will our global economy that's already been suffering be not suffering anymore? i agree we must be a leader. we may lose valuable resources, finances, fine effort to mitigate these natural disasters when they do actually occur. we must create a pre-emptive strategy to ensure that in many years to come such disasters will be prevented. and it is a scientifically proven fact that such disasters will be prevented if carbon emissions are reduced by 100%. we will indeed prevent further disruption to an already growing agriculture economy. the solution really is to support development of a grown economy through investment into the private sector which will create jobs, generate wealth and provide confidence to the agricultural sector in the global community, enabling a domino effect to help those

industries that are in decline to grow as well. we must make sure that we do not overregulate the existing private sector but instead build a country of trust and confidence, that in the future one day we cannot be uncertain but we can be certain that one day we will make sure that our young generations can enjoy the coastlines that have already been degrading and enjoy the beaches and make sure our tourism industry is in better growth. and must ignite this carbon emissions -- reduce it by 100%. we must go all the way with it. >> the gentleman at the second bench. >> thank you, madam speaker. i would first like to commend the government on seeing the urgency and importance on acting on such a vital issue. i would also like to commend them for setting such a laudably ambitious target. i would like to urge the government to act on multilateral efforts. we must reach an international consensus on this issue.

otherwise the efforts that we go to as an individual nations will not be enough to give a decisive change to the global warming that we face. furthermore, i would like the government to focus on adapt to go the climate change that we know is inevitable to a certain degree. because carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for such a long amount of time, we know that in the coming decades we will face certain changes to our climate which will adversely effect us if we are not prepared. we will see hotter and drier summers, and we will see warmer and wetter winters. and we need to be prepared for any consequences that may arise as a result of that. so again, i'd like to thank the government for putting forward targets for carbon emission, but this cannot be our sole focus if we are looking at climate change. >> please say who your. >> david ogachay, cyp, united kingdom. >> my name is lisa garvey. on behalf of the commonwealth

parliamentarian. it has been proved by scientific facts that greenhouse effects that we put to the world the more it affects us. we should be leaders in improving our industry through use of reusable sources like solar, hydro electricity. if we invest in the future of our future generations for profit we will see more and more adverse effects like in the past we've seen japan, the hurricanes. and it will continue to happen. we should be the ones who should be the chains and in the words, we should lead them, not us wait for someone else to do it. if we don't do it, who will? load lord speaker, i suggest that we show the rest of the world, lead by example, that we will do it, we will make the change. because if we don't do it, no one will. the sea temperatures are rising.

the polar ice caps are melting. if we don't do anything we'll just keep increasing. i as a human being have faith in us. we have 39 years to make a difference. and i believe that we can do it. i have faith in us as human beings. 30 years ago there was no answer. but look at us now. we can effect with the touch of a second to people that are miles and miles away. we can do it as a human being. we can. thank you. >> gentleman there? >> hugh renlard, commonwealth -- ladies and gentlemen, there's no denying that global warming is a massive threat. not only to our society but to the world as a whole. however, we talk of being leaders. let me ask you, how many countries listen to japan on nuclear disarmament? how many countries listened to norway when preaching peace? i put it to you, ladies and gentlemen, that we are debating the wrong issue. there will come a time, and

maybe it is now, for innovation to reduce our carbon footprint. but today we must look after our own. a recent poll conducted prior to the british election asked how important is climate change to young people today. in 2007, the figure was 17%. when it was conducted recently it was 4%. we are facing huge youth unemployment in commonwealth land. our young people will not thank us in 2050 if they were faced with no jobs when they were younger, carbon footprint or no. we must look after our own. we must not try to overinfluence the world. we are not a massive nation of the west. we do not have the influence. we are 30 million strong. we must ensure that our borders are secure. we must ensure that our young people have jobs that they can foster and that our country can continue to grow.

>> hear hear. >> thank you, lord speaker. first i would like to say that government should not govern with a theory of [ inaudible ] we should be working together to make young people worried about the issues. we should be encouraging young people to participate in these debates as we are now. we do have to act. but we have to act in a rational and a reasonable way. i will not be supporting this motion. do i support a carbon tax that transition noose a cap-and-trade scheme, because i believe in markets. i believe in maintaining a viable economy. i believe in allowing business to adapt. i believe in the need for certainty. i will also support and encourage any discussions about the correct system to employ for the cap-and-trade scheme. what we see over the years is a lot of the times that we both agree on what should be done but we just fail to agree on how, which is so important.

we must also remember not to let the best be the enemy of the good. let's commit to work together to solve this issue that we all face as global citizens. let's be realistic about the goals and set realistic targets. realistic goals that inspire innovation in the energy sector, not just planting trees to have negative reductions. really inspire the movement to a growing economy in the society, not closure of businesses that are so important for employment. i challenge those on the other side of the chamber proposing the amendments to inform the house of how the targets will be reached, how we'll be reaching them by 200040. thank you very much. >> the gentleman from the cross benches there. thank you. >> thank you, lord speaker. fellow youth parliamentarians -- at first i would like to bring about some figures about global effort to reduce the carbon emissions. in the u.k. the government has

increased the reduction target from at least 80% in the climate change act in 2050 from the previous 60% target. in 2007 japan has unveiled its ambitious plan to cut global greenhouse gas by 50% by 2050 that would include the world's big e biggest, united states and china. on the other hand, european union has targeted about 90% of the reduction in the emission by 2050 to transform the european union into a competitive low carbon economy. -- so i would have a question to ponder in this commonwealth country, is it feasible for this commonwealth country to reach the target for 50% by 2050? from here i would like to call the government to strengthen its cooperation with the global

communities and international organization to meet our target. there is only one earth. and there are no national boundaries for the air. even the most outstanding strategy would be meaningless unless all countries would actively participate in it. even our commonwealth country could not be comparable with other developed countries in terms of investment of the technology in the greater technology. but then we could still initiate to work hand in hand in order for us to move forward for a less carbon and fossil fuel-dependent country. the government must therefore strengthen the enforcement of the legislation that we found just yesterday for all the participants including the business and the private sectors toer more efficient in using the energy and deliver the [ inaudible ] that the scientists are calling for in order for earth to reach the target. and then there's no guarantee that we can succeed. but then at least we act ambitiously with proper road maps will have reason to hope

that it can be achieved. 50% reduction by 2050. thank you. >> the lady here? yes, thank you. >> thank you. elizabeth anderson, parliamentarian. i put it to this house that we have a duty to use the adversity of climate change to grow our economy and make our mark on the world. commonwealth land is young enough to change its ways. the motion for 2050 provides an ambitious but realistic time frame in my opinion. we have to act now, though, to develop the skills that we need to our education system to enable the growth of decar onized and low carbon industries. for promoting and nurturing our growing technology industry which we know is one of our main strengths within commonwealth land we can create a haven for scientific leadership in the sector. we should be encouraging entrepreneurship to bring forward more companies that can help the public to develop the tools that they need to change their behavior. because only through the public's behavior will change an

industry working with them can we achieve this. and in this we can then do what every country has always wanted. the government, industry and the public working together to make its nation a better place. thank you, lord speaker. >> gentleman in the light green. yes. >> lord speaker, fellow parliamentarians, i think we need to readdress the way we are talking about this issue. the issue is not concerned why should we decrease the number of carbon emissions that we have. i mean, there should be a road map. we should be talking about a strategy. we should be talking about a road map where we can follow and lead us to this place where we need to decrease this number of carbon emissions we have in our society. if we're talking about employment, if we're talking about economy, you don't want to have an economy where the young people come in behind you will not enjoy those things you're enjoying. there are some very, very deprived part of this commonwealth society, i mean the

commonwealth land, that are suffering. i mean, in the dry season they don't have clean water to have. the wells are dry. and so you're talking about the economy when we can only be facial the economy, we've got to facing a culture. we've got to face all other things. and just like fellow parliamentarians said just now, we need to look at it. because this is the opportunity for us to look inwards and look at ways that we as a young economy can -- and all the technology we have around now and use it to our good. if we use it to our good we'll be able to look inwards and look at ways where we can come up with that would not only encourage us to reduce the emissions but will spur the west to action that going to look at this smart nation, they are thinking ahead. now, we are not going to leave it to them. but because they see us doing it they're going to be encouraged

to do it as well. so don't let us just look at the economy, just at agriculture, just unemployment. because we've got to look at the issues. so i put it to those on the opposite, give us your strategy. give us your road map. let us see how would you want from one step to the other. let us see how you want to tackle this issue. we can't just keep on discussing that we need to have a road map. let's know where we're going. thank you, lord speaker. >> hear hear. >> the gentleman right at the end there. thank you. >> thank you, madam speaker. steven marshall. just want to mention the fact that of key importance is to gain the individual support in this so therefore the government must obviously state what benefits their individuals can have. because the individuals are key behind this. they can change consumer behavior, thus companies will have to change behavior within the country. that is one important fact. the next point is also government support around

community actions whether or not be helping them community grassroots setup and community groups whether it be creating energy or other forces good for the environment. and people have to really see benefits before they want to change the mind. so if they can't see say like wind turbines, et cetera, out the back window, if they cannot see themselves benefitting directly they will not be in support of it. so we have to make sure all the time that individuals are on board with this vote. and finally, there's a lot of youth graduates and experts leaving our country. this is because of various reasons, probably because we're still developing. but one fact is, we can lead the way by becoming a green economy, therefore we have a very, very strong export that we can give to the world. so let's keep them here. let's fund the different schools of research in universities in the country. keep the graduates here. we can do it. we just have to do it in the right places with the right support and the right time.

>> thank you, madam lord speaker. [ inaudible ] from pakistan. commonwealth youth parliament. democratic party. reduce carbon emissions by 50% in 29 years or 29 years actually seemed impossible. because i'd like to mention that even the refrigerator at home in the homes, they emit carbons. so you have to see how the is carbon se they have to replace everything because they getting into new enrollment. so we have to look at how the public adopts this change. now another thing i would like to mention is it should be mentioned that there should be more reforestation.

because the commonwealth lands have a greater issue of deforestation nowadays. and another thing i would like to mention is there should be a flexibility in the bill if a commonwealth land has a problem like which is serious such as floods, as floods in pakistan. so it actually put them decades back. and they had to put money on reconstructions rather than technology. so that's another point that you have to look at, the flexibility. because that can reduce the input into the reduction of carbon emissions. thank you, madam speaker. >> indeed. lady. yes. >> lord speaker. [ inaudible ] . like some things in life, hopefully not all things, the way climate change works is definitely not fair. the smallest states emit the least carbon resources but

effectively would be the most to suffer the consequences. >> hear hear. >> small state from the republic of malta. size has nothing to do with how much or effective a state can be on a global sphere. only a few weeks ago [ inaudible ] in the libyan crisis. however, in terms of climate change, size does matter. small states should be positively discriminated and the large scheme of things. not to mention carbon tax and the carbon efforts and the community through the commonwealth must give adequate financial and social assistance to them. unless this principle of solidarity is applied, it will lead to a situation where so

much will be carried by so few. thank you. >> i think one or two people who have spoken before are standing up. colleague, honorable colleague. >> thank you, lord speaker. my name is caroline king from kenya. i stand here to support this motion. [ inaudible ] today the threat from climate change it is a serious threat. it is urgent and it is growing. and when generations respond to this challenge we'll be judged by our future generations. so it is our duty to act boldly, swiftly and together. as we seek to concerning future generations, to avoid concerning the future generations to a universal world catastrophe. industrial processes, transportation, residential and

commercial activities -- banning some of the barometers of carbon gasses. [ inaudible ] small non-nation, even the poor cannot escape from the impact of climate change. lord speaker, the security and civility of our nations of the commonwealth land is in jeopardy of our people, of our prosperity, of our health and safety. and the time to address this is now. lord speaker, the problems that we are facing today are monumental and the problems can be resolved by man. creating awareness on the causes and the effects and the solution to climate change, investing in

reforestation of our forests, investing in restoration of our ecosystem, river basins and development of renewable energy are some of the ways we can do to reduce climate change. our lord speaker, with those few remarks i beg to support motion. >> indeed. lady here. thank you. >> thank you, lord speaker. i'm quite baffled, lord speaker, frankly, by the term marrity of some in this chamber who do not support this motion. because i believe that 100% reduction of carbon emissions by 2050 is ambitious but achievable. we cannot in commonwealth land afford not to be a leader in reducing our carbon emissions. >> hear hear. >> my honorable colleagues, need i remind you that in 2007 at a commonwealth heads of government meeting in uganda it was said that climate change, and i quote

"is a direct threat to the very survival of some commonwealth countries". the last time i checked, commonwealth land was part of the commonwealth states. >> hear hear. >> okay. we need to be cognizant of what is going on in our global economy. we cannot be more compassionate to our private sector than we are to our people. if we are concerned that irnt duesing a carbon tax or carbon trading scheme is going to push businesses out of our land, i tell you, my government is committed to operate entrepreneur to our people so we can have our own businesses. we do not need those from foreign coming into our country when we can do it for ourselves. >> hear hear. >> as minister for development, i say to you, my government is committed to a dual approach to reducing carbon emissions. not only do we have a carbon tax

and a trading scheme, but we are also going to look into the use of sustainable means. we are going to use our land properly. we are going to use our forest properly. we are going to encourage sustainable development of our resources. we need to expand our agricultural produce. all this is in my government's policy. we are committed to the people of commonwealth land. and i beg you, my honorable colleagues, to support this motion. i thank you. >> please say who your. >> alicia alley. the youth democratic party. >> thank you very much. the lady in the third row there. yes. >> lord speaker, i would like to point out that this motion is unique in the sense that both parties agree on this motion on the whole. but there is one main difference that i would like to propose. the we will reduce reductions by 100% by 2050, by

relying heavily upon the private sector. i feel as if this is a very ambitious motion and in order to achieve it we need to smudge the lines between the private sector and the public sector and have a jail approach, invest in heavy flee green industry, and trying with every resource we have to make this a reality. the secretary of state very articulately stated that we're a leader and not a follower. so i feel that it is important to invest in green industry, not with for the larger nations to do so or the western nations to did so and encourage green -- and encourage our own domestic produce industries alcohol employ the youth of tomorrow. has been stated as a very important issue. i believe that to remain competitive in the world economy we need to develop renewable, in source and other countries will, in turn, invest it these industries. during a financially difficult time i believe the green

industries remain one of the few industries that are certain to grow in the next 30 years. ao lawyer, gardener, scientists, the list goes on, thousands and thousands of young employees will benefit from our sizable investment in the green industry. sorry my name is anna chestnutt, i'm representing northern ireland on the commonwealth parliament. thank you. >> very much, indeed. gentleman at back there. >> okay, i'm josh, thank you. i am from the dees pa. we heard a lot today about this bill. it's a great chance to reduce our common emissions. the list -- attacks on our missions. must be ring-fenced both to promote growth but by we must grow our way out of this problem by promoting growth within our green industries. i'm seeking to employ as many young people as possible. we must seek to reinvest the tax

that would damage our business. into thats same businesses to promote groegts. thank you. >> gentleman at the end of the row there. yes, thank you. >> thank you, madam speaker. lord speaker, sir. straight-talk, unequivocal and necessary. carbon emissions are the leading cause of the drastic climate change phenomenon we see today. we are gambling with our future every day we do not acknowledge this fact, that we are responsible for our actions. i'm not asking this honorable house mary as a member, as a fellow human being, don't turn a blind eye on this. this debate on climate change has been over for years from the scientific perspeperspective.

two of the world's leading organizations have proven that, in essence, drastic climate change is happening now. the time to act to stop it was yesterday. and if we don't change our act now, we will have no tomorrow. the leader of the opposition and his members seek to -- the target date forward ten years and have yet put forward nothing tangible to support their pulling for the bill. they do not understand the fact that there is still work to be done in reaching development. as well as in changing public opinion. the honorable hour, the entire world will rest on the cusp of a tipping point. we cannot see the edge of this precipice. threaten nothing short of global anarchy. the members of the independence who spoke earlier said that they believe that we should not

reduce our emissions. said that they have the responsibility to our people. i agree with his part of the statement. that we do have a front our people, a responsibility to their lives, their security, and their ways of living pithank you, honorable house. >> at the end of the front bench, yes. >> lord speaker, lucy from south australia from the commonwealth youth parliaments. stand and support a significant reduction in carbon emissions in commonwealth land by 2050 but not the 100% proposed. while should be common welt land's goal. commonwealth land has a unique population distribution which does provide an opportunity to significantly address our carbon emissions. this is the large youth population. we see that in our youth we are best able to learn new behaviors and change our current ones and

this stands true for positive environment action. we see this internationally in countries, such as australia in which we've had significant droughts in recent years and water is now viewed by the youth as a finite resource which should be valued and preserved. education is the key to bringing around these changes and i look forward to seeing commonwealth land's curriculum integrating awarns as we do work towards emission reduction. but it's also this youth population which is going to be -- which needs protection and we seem common welt land high youth unemployment and already unwillingness by employees to employ young, particularly less-skilled workers and impact 100% carbon emission reduction would have -- which would need to be brought about by rapid change in businesses would discourage them further from employing our young workers. what we need is a more gradual transition which would allow practices in manufacturing and

agriculture to change slowly without discouraging them from employing our youth. are going it allow us to reduce our carbon emissioning and also a group that needs to be protected and, therefore, i do believe that the 100% by 2050 is too severe and in the interest of today's youth, i beg this house to reconsider. >> and the lady from the cross benches, sfleez thank you, lord speaker. amy robinson from the northern territory of australia. it is my privilege to stand before you. forgive my digression, lord speaker, bur i must acknowledge my mom and dad who have raise mead to be outspoken. as an independent youth parliamentarian, i stand to speak against the motion. i mean no disrespect to my fellow citizens of commonwealthland and the concerns that they hold. i hold the view that the planet has been changing for millions of years. the planet will continue to change for millions of years. i feel that we humans now feel that we can control the planet to suit us.

that as of using a television remote, we can hit pools and help the planet and common weltland. commonwealthland will forever stay the way that it is now. i havem embraced that the climate is changing that we need to adapt. i think that there are many pressing climate change issues that are often put to the snide favor of the carbon emission debate. sustainable use of water, sustainable population growth, and the gratuitous overuse of commonwealthland's limited resources need to be addressed. cutting carbon emissions does not solve these and i feel we have lost focus on what is vitally personality. my use on carbon emissions is unpopular yet i know i represent many young people who are often confused by the wide variety of source of information that are available. by young people that are bullied and later denies if they dare ask questions of popular scientific belief.

and yet they members of the global community with a conscience. i ask youth parliamentarians that we do not forget that climate change is not just about reducing carbon emissions. thank you, lord speaker. >> gentleman in the back -- at the back row, thank you. >> lord speaker. cdp. regarding the issue being green, we have to relate to my honorable prime minister of the opposition. co 2 emission the only problem, no. then coming to my own path. is the target achievable, yes. so far the commonwealthland part of the union. who are also talking with the goal in the position of the what is it called. the tce,s tech -- sorry.

yeah. trying to maintain the technology to be able to reduce carbon emission. so far we've got a power plant reducing the rate of carbon emission ahead by 80% to 90%. what my question is is why are we doing this? is it good to reduce this 100%? yes. but the fact is, why are we using it? is that issue we should face now is and are we balancing with the other problems? the problem in the economy. what the purpose of reducing carbon emissions 100% and in other paths? looking at sboev this decision. make sure that everyone is -- is carbon emission a disaster, yes. but why i need to put on is that we need to balance it and make sure that everything goes right

according to time and for the benefit of these front areas. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, lord speaker. ydp. as stand in support of a significant reduction of carbon emission by 2050, by 2050 but not 100% but at least 60% by 2014. climate change is undoubtedly the single greatest environmental issue of the 21st century. and threat to mankind inon which one can sustain developmental effort. reduction of poverty and sustained economic growth as i speak now -- from coastal erosion. if it must -- concentrations.

under control rising seas. commonwealthland including countries that are lying on low-est canal areas at the same time people being displaced with no legal protection. i must point out -- i must point out that the countries eye must point out -- i must point out -- sorry. i must point out that the countries contribute at least to endangering the planet are amongst us. as we discuss and deby the as we discuss and debate the global playing for sustainability and also remember the vulnerability of so many effective less and developing states. it is imperative that we take strong action against climate change immediately to protect commonwealthland and also depends on it. now as i can see the opposition -- [ laughter ] as i can see the opposition party is trying to make climate change responsibility of the government and they're trying to

put it in our faces. that's not discriminate. why should you? we should come up with policies and frameworks that can follow on how we can combat and how kewei can come about these targets. i thank you, lord speaker. >> thank you. >> thank you, lord speaker. -- to support the motion. a reduction of carbon emission 100% by 2050 is t is unachievable objective. climate change is a growing concern on climate change a. as a government to come up with -- among them include -- the environment yamcondition. a reduction of use of -- unless

invest in energy. we have reduced carbon emission. more important, my fellow colleagues, it is important to understand that carbon emission has done more harm in most of these countries, both develop d developed -- countries. important for all of us. fights this common enemy. which is climate change. and by so being, we will achieve our target, let's be positive and forward-thinking when it comes to a reduction of carbon emission. and we enhance sustainable

development. to help the benefits in an environment that is -- i thank you, lord speaker. >> the gentleman here if the front. yes. >> lord speaker, i'm francis from nigeria. youth alliance. i have said this a couple of times that this government decide -- [ unintelligible ] it shows that the house is in disarray and lack a common agenda. emissions by 2050 which we on the opposite side have actually talked about 2040, we believe that all the -- have to be addressed. the government for once has never mentioned -- in which supposed to serve. talk about carbon tax,

businesses and all of the likes. but the citizens are actually call the agenda for any government that actually has an initiative to lead. we are at a vital crossroad. and as -- the minister, i would say agenda, and what is needed. we have to not stand alone but partners to put this forward. i hereby call on the government on the other side of the divide to help us in our quest to attend -- but by adopting our common agenda of pushing this forward -- bringing this backtwoord 2040 we could achieve 100% emission reduction by 2040. so i call on you to accept our plan and to support our proposal, thank you. >> the gentleman here, thank you. >> thank you, madam speaker. i found myself as a young -- who lives not far from here. who's parents came to this country in the 1970s. immigrated here as born and

brought up here. they were in search of a better life. i was honorary fellowship in 2009. where i spent six weeks living in india and working there. and i was with a poor family there in one of the most rural areas of india, who didn't have tv, who are living in tins. that's the situation in which meant developing countries find themselves in in rural india. are we really saying to those countries who are developing that you can't develop? we've had 150 years of development in the west. we've got tv screens all across this room. we are using more cars than ever before. we've had kyoto protocol. we've had a responsibility in the west as much as the commonwealth to reduce carbon emissions but it can't just be an effort for the commonwealth. there's already been improvements made. about if you look at

commonwealth statistics, the facts state that the people are recycling more than ever before. so that's challenges that the commonwealth are taking themselves but it needs take collective effort with the united states with china with india, all of the global economies together as the honorable members were saying earlier on, there needs to be a road plan to collectively fight this. but the issue presented by the government, the fact of reducing it by 50% in 50 years is unrealistic and i find myself on the opposition benches also, disagreeing where what the opposition benches are saying to reduce it by 2040 is i think losing -- somewhat. i think that we need to be realistic. we need to -- we all agree in this house that carbon emissions need to be reduce bud we need to collectively together in the year end and in our international framework to fight this global evil. thank you. >> lady in the front here. >> thank you lord speaker. i'm eliz bectmurray from the

young democratic party. i would like to express my concern that attack it is from opposition coming towards our party suggesting disarray because as far as i was concerned this forum is for expressing individual opinions and sentiment on our problem, climate changes and emission targets and not seem to be parting party rhetoric. now there is one point that seems to be consistently overlooked over this entire debate. and it seems to me that the only way to meet emission's targets whether they are 100% by 2040 or less is through motivating behavioral change. and the only way do this is through setting achievable and realistic targets. i would like to put to you that 100% by 2040 is just simply unrealistic for

-- political policy forcing action through monetary disincentives such as carbon tax and emissions trading schemes changes behavior people behaviors that increase carbon in the environment. people will no longer -- because they can't afford it. people will drive their cars less because they can't afford it but for long-term change, and by this i mean 2100 and beyond not just 2050, for this to be effective paralleled with forced

economic behavior, there needs to be a shift in attitudes. so that people fact these ways because they want to. they want to not turn on their hating. they want to drive their cars less in order to protect the environment. the essential part of doing this is in setting realistic and achievable targets. it is no good to be excessive on targets but yet labbing in realism. >> the second bench there. >> thank you, lord speaker. my name is justine from uganda. reduction of carbon emissions by 2050 and i'm proud to report that us in uganda we are already trying to do so. we are talking about a 2050. because it will give the government time to educate the

commonwealth population about the negative effects of carbon emissions, and also give us time to research and develop and also encourage -- carbon and renewable sources. two about proposition of taxes. would discourage yashon emission. and also help us invest more in the renewable energy resources. i support the motion. >> very much indeed. gentleman, at the end of the row here, yes, yes, thank you. >> thank you, lord speaker. progressive youth ash lines. can i start by thinking the government. i think a fantastic initiative and it does have my support. i'm particularly pleased that have suggested a carbon tax but most surprised that it is the party opposite suggesting this. the party of antispend and

antitax but i must say i'm very glad they've momentarily adopted my party's center left values and may that continue. i'm also very pleased that in earlier proceedings my parent's amendment was accepted to determine whether revenues from this tax will go. this is really good news. economic case against the carbon tax is actually a strong one. companies can just compensate themselves by raising their prices which would affect the poorest now in society most and also reduce economic growth. so our proposition which has been accepted will use these revenues to provide increased welfare support and will address this issue and also ensure that there will be invest in the renewable energy to help us reach this target. it's all on that basis that i will be supporting this motion and would urge all my commonaries on all sides of the house to support this motion as well. and what i would say is why it may not be as ambitious as my party would like i would say a target is better than no target

at all and so we should all vote here in motion and also say that it is legitimate to concern some the concerns raised from my honorable friend from jersey an also say it is not good to go down his rate of pessimism and not my problem attitude. i think we should be ignoring that. these initiatives are very positive and i do welcome them, we must acknowledge that they will count for absolutely nothing they're only unilateral measures. it doesn't matter what we do if countri countries like china and india continue to increase their carbon emissions. we could reduce them by 100%, even 200%, let's say we do d it it would matter for nothing if china indiaa increase their's by 5% so what i'm asking government to do is to put forward their foreign affairs minister to make a statement on what exactly he's going to do internationally to encourage other countries to adopt the same things that we've done, but i must say i'm very glad that i believe that commonwealthland is going to be

an example to the rest of the world so thank you for putting forward this motion. >> gentleman there with the ominous -- >> good afternoon, my name is nate. i'm representing the cdp. i just wanted to raise some notes from earlier. you say you want to bring a carbon tax, but yet you haven't really looked at the little man in the picture, the man that has a small business, who runs one fan which is very old. it does create carbon but he's struggling. >> n these difficult times. show this tax going to help him survive his business if he's going to have to -- more money for another tax to pay for a van that he can barely afford and not have enough customers. you've also got look at also the youth. you are say you want the youth to help but where is the government's support? again you've got take out of climate change and look at the things like raising the

university fees the unemployment for youths as well and also the rising cost in travel. probably looking at buying a car because they find it's cheaper and again their carbon footprint will be increased. what is the government doing to help them with their travel costs? >>. >> from the common youth. reducing carbon emission by 100% in 2050 is feasible. my lord speaker, samoa is a pacific island. they already invested a lot in renewable energy to reduce carbon emission. if the small islands in the pacific can do it why not common

weltland. my fellow young parliamentaries on opposition side say if you do talk about reducing carbon emission by 100% in 2040 why don't you explain how. how, then? 250 reducing carbon emission by 100% is realistic. reducing it in 2040 by 100% is unrealist unrealistic. let us then forechange, let us lead by examples. let us be the one that can actually, our young generation can, look at and say, that was my mother, that was my father, that was my great-grandmother that actually stand up for a change. thank you, lord speaker. >> i think that we're back to this side, are we not? the gentleman there and then the lady behind. yeah. >> thank you. i'd like to bring all of my -- friends, fellow parliamentarians. i have a question to propose to the house today and the question is simple. the question is, how realistic are our aims to reduce carbon emissions if all it takes to stop the procedure from

happening is one head of state of a big economic country who does not agree? what if the next american president is a climate skeptic and does not agree? do we go on without america? how will we -- how do we proceed when we have nations that we, let's face it, depend on hob part of our goals? we all know the effect that individual administration, prime ministerships can have on the world, how do we do it if all that it takes is one prime minister or a leader of a nation of a big economy that says, no, i'm not interested in that. i'd rather look at education, or i'd rather look at health. how do we reduce carbon emissions to zero if we do that? thank you. >> i'm against the motion. we should be hopeful and we should be welcoming toward the

italian youth and we should be realistic and we should be are very practical. our factories, our industries are running on nonrenewable researches. commonwealthland renewable resources of economy. we're struggling to find a renewable source for that. >> it's the people who are paying for all of these mutations. commonwealthland includes those countries where people -- where a large population live on the poverty line and do not even manage average 20 pounds per month making this ambitious goal impractexam thank you. >> take one more from this side.

gentleman with glasses there. thru. >> thank you, lord speaker. this house, so far, we all recognize there's a problem with unemployment. we recognize there's a problem that we have -- that we need to compromise with the nature that we have to have green energy. while i think, lord speaker, this is the first time. with the government now putting forward the commitment of putting money forward in providing a greener and a better life in the commonwealthland. therefore, i urge that the government, to call back, all these skilled workers because now we're still face the migration of those -- workers who are going outside and we're having the problem of unskilled workers in our own country. and we need to have solved that problem to begin with.

now, the whole 2040 target, i think it's not realistic. but whole idea of reduce -- of the reduction gradually 30%, 20%, 40% i think is good. because we need to adapt. because we at end of our day, we're still a developing nation. and we need that leeway to provide ourselves the growth for our country. thank you. >> thank you very much indeed. >> thank you, lord speaker. let's all -- i start like this let's all of the commonwealthland unite in the fight for a realistic figure, that is 100% by 2050. it is a fight, so we y do we insthaft we're such targets in 2040? it's thyme we --

our future generation living in a healthy and sustainable environment. coming from a small country, we are already affected by the carbon emission. i believe that commonwealthland shall be the leader to be the first who reaches emission by 100% by 2050. by saving our country, we will be saving our world. thank you. >> the gentleman -- you haven't spoken before? >> no. lord speaker, i represent the ruling party. i'm standing up in support of this motion because i believe that the people from the smaller island nations and the people from the nations that are under the direct threat of climate change, also has a right to call -- to dmift our planet. lord speaker, the pessimists

will rush to stand up and say what we are discussing is ridiculous. but the realistic truth is is this is happening. this is real. climate change is real. it is time to act up, ladies and gentlemen. climate change is something that is going to happen if we ignore it. you do a lot of global temperatures rise by 2 degrees, just 2 degrees, it could mean disaster. it could mean countries like the maldives like samoa to day, pier from the map. we need to act now. we need to act now because we are not in the position to cut a deal with mother nature. we are not in the position to negotiate with the laws of physics. we need to act now. lord speaker, to the world, commonwealthland may be just one single country, we may be just one, but we need to become

leaders rather than followers. we need to lead by example. and we need to show the world that we do care about those people who are under direct threat and who are -- w and while i mention refugees. so let us all join together and let us set out our differences and let us think mutually and let us agree together that we need to pass this motion. we need to achieve 100% in 2050. who are with me? thank you very much. >> lady at the back there. i'm a member the cdp. we cause the co2 emissions to rise and obviously we can

reverse that. resources in the green industry to find new ways to generate power. we should educate our citizens in climate control so that they know the importance of reversing it and also to equip them in sufficient ways to survive when the carbon tax does come in, or if it does come in. that way we have secured the future for our children and samoa and maldives. this lazy attitude of waiting for more developed countries to start this change and that we should be the ones to take it's to change first, to lead. so we should ask ourselves whether why they're more developed than us? is it because they use more carbon than us? why is it? and also how also we support the small man. i think that shuremember the small man in this. and how our ways it changing the carbon emissions will affect him. thank you very much.

>> you have spoken before. >> yes. >> cdp. i would like to thank the lord speaker for giving me this chance to speak. after hearing all of the commons i would like to give my own -- to you to this debate. i would like to say that i think we need a balance between renewable and nonrenewable energy. since if one fails, we can always rely on the other. and as we've seen in libya a fuel-producing country which is now war-torn and especial loo in the uk, prices have definitely soared if a nonrenewable, in here in the uk, fueled cars and when disasters like libya strike and fuel prices do go up, we've got that backup. and i think that's what we need to have. a balance between renewable and nonrenewable energy. i think this house needs to come to some kind of agreement to say that we need more -- more renewable -- or more unrenewable

balance. if one fails we can use the other. this is to preserve the nation and the earth. but until the end of time itself. thank you. >> thank you very much indeed. the gentleman there with the red tie, yes. >> -- of this humanity and high morality. i'm from the commonwealth -- fr from sierra leone. [ unintelligible ] i'm not sure we are here here in. we have to accept. the facts are there. it is clear. we do not need to ask questions. but my point is why do we need a bill? why do we need to tell people how to live our life? climate change is about us.

take to prison. so responsibility to us young people. we need to act. we need to shot world that we are serious about reducing carbon emission. in is simple. it's a simple process. we just need change our attitude. and it's not just as pligzs. i know that we are good at delivering good speeches. very nice talks. but fact of the matter is it is about action. the people in the kmurnt let's take it to the politicians and get it done and let's make it better please for ourselves and our children and our children's children. >> hi. my name is judith. i'm from the cdp. i'm against the motion because in order for us to do this we're going to have to put money into it. when the money can go somewhere else, we are common welt but we're all different countries and we all have different problems. so for the uk to put money into

reducing carbon dioxide when we have other problems, like ununemployment,iate emissions might reduce but then we might have the advisories as the other day so no point. if certain countries have undergreater threat then they should be putting their own sbhoin their own country for reducing their emissions and we can deal with our own issues. we do recycle. we can do other things to progress and help it but we don't need to center as a target and put pressure on ourselves which we can't deal with. >> one more from this side. >> yeah thank you, lord speaker. i'm from the british virgin islands. lord speaker, in a world of dr. annan, the primary responsibility of any government is to protect its citizens and care for them.

lord speaker, most arguments in favor of climate kmanc atclimat. we deponed ourselves. however, on the contrary, many scientists believe -- and this is in the american policy around the table -- there is no convincing scientific evidence that anyone who believes in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the foreseeable future cause -- a catastrophic events on the world's atmosphere and distribution of the earth's climate. therefore, lord speaker, i maintain that in commonwealthland at that time climate change is not a priority. we have other matters of concern. we need to concentrate on the environment and instant implementation of measures of how to preserve and how to protect it. we need to focus on health and how to improve our health care

system. lastly we need to focus on education for the betterment of our citizens. the environment is one of our gre greatest resource. everyone wants to reduce pollution however pollution is complicated and we focus a lot of our pollution efforts on pollution from cars. however, if you look around, you will realize that we have a higher degree of garbage litter. sewage that's running into the rivers and the seas and definitely take these measures into consideration. commonwealthland has begun to degrade and my colleagues may be able to climate change i maintain that pollution in this country is a major contributing factor to the degradation of the land. lord speaker, the biggest asset we have is our health. how can we forecast or limiting greenhouse gas emissions when our universal health care system is in poor shape. we need monitor our health. we need to look at our mortality

rate and that's why i stand in opposition of this bill. thank you, lord speaker. >> the lady from the cross benches please. >> thank you, lord speaker. the targets proposed are indeed aspirational and i'm not convinced that commonwealthland will be able to achieve them. and some -- may not come with us if we speak follow these targets. but this cannot be an excuse for inaction. if we use this as a big excuse for inaction, other countries will follow. we will get nowhere and our earth will not be what we need it to be for future generations. this global journey can start with smaller countries, small steps. commonwealthland is already a leader in climate change. we've been signed up to the u.n.

framework conventional climate change from the outset and we've succeeded in reaching our targets to date. we have a commitment to transferring to renewable energy sources and citizens already have an awareness about climate change and recycling is common around households. there's foundations upon which we can build a very strong strategy. i'm not convinced that we have a strong strategy at the moment. we need a strategy that has depth. and we need clear, tangible support from all sectors and partners at home and abroad. without this to follow these aspirational targets, we risk becoming a laggard rather than a leader. we risk becoming uncompetitive with our neighbors which would be to the detriment of our quality life and of our citizens and we'd be failing as a government if that were to happen. thank you. >> lady at the back. and then the gentleman next to her.

>> thank you, lord speaker. representing the commonwealth. i think that we cannot ignore the fact that -- are going to be running out andintually finished. it's very ambitious. it's vital and very practical and realistic. i say realistic because whether we reduce the carbon emissions by 100% by 2050 or not, there will be by -- by 100%. so we need to act now. we need to act quickly. we need to stop being so dependent on them and look for greener alternates because we need to be able to function without them. thank you. >> yes. >> thank you, lord speaker. my name is raphael. part of the cdp. i don't oppose the bill. however, both the government and as it's clear the parliament haven't met the answers -- sorry, haven't answered all of

my questions. firstly, we're a nation that has free education up to the age of 16 yet it's not compulsory. we're a nation that does not have a universal immunized program. this parliament's relationship with the media is not a positive one. the media is what the people think of us. how do we then expect to actually create this motivation to change behavior? and if we do not, if we do not, and we have not created this relationship with our own people. i'd also like explanations as to, in the bill it states that we want for each target year 80% of the net reduction to come from domestic productions. where does this end? are we simply talking transportation and electric, or do we actually mean the

industries that are creating and polluting in order to give our people all of the amenities that they're used to. also we as a nation have a higher import to export ratio. we favor import. meaning we are not actually reducing any of the carbon emissions caused by other countries which we still contribute to. many of our rogue network are major arteries for those companies. if those companies do not have a base in our country yet they still pass, create incredible, incredible emissions. if improve our roads they are still our responsibility due to our contribution. are they taxed also? many -- i want to state very clearly that i do not oppose the bill. however i do oppose it if we're

entering into a false -- if our research is not full enough and if our research and insight into commonwealthland's entire contribution does not completely show and explain our contribution to emissions. >> gentleman here, thank you. >> lord speaker, my fellow youth parliamentarians. framemalawi. i've been living to all of the points that my fellow parliamentarians are presenting. and i have realized that much of their issues has been -- in two minutes but issues have just been no, no, no to what the government has proposed. my take on the climate change bill is that i have seen that the opposition is drilling the agenda of the day for their political ambitions to get -- into government. much as they agree on our

proposal they -- to constructively help the got achieve its goals for the benefit of all of us. lord speaker, 2050 reduction of carbon emission by 50% is an issue that is supported. we'll have the future generation, that issue of natural disasters will be a thing of the past. as we are in an economic crisis already, which resources that are there will be used for development activities? lord speaker, my government believes in working with, which as a government in pourns that the input that the opposition may add will greater help. 2040 puts pressure on government as this alone incorporates other social, political, and economic elements. i support motion. thank you. >> we're coming to the last question. and i think i'm going to give it

to the cross benches. >> thank you, lord speaker. ben. independe independent. once again we see the scare mongering from the government and the opposition. as a nation we have far more important issues to worry about. high unemployment, health and education well-being, being some many. these targets proposed by the government are ludicrous and absolute farce. if this government wants to be taken seriously, propose something that's realistic. thank you. >> honorable friends and colleagues, i'm afraid that we've come to the end of the question time. i must congratulate all of you for extremely well sustained research arguments but we must come to our closing speeches. so now i would like to call upon the sflkt state for the environment to speak. for or against the motion.

for the motion. >> lord speaker, honorable prime minister, opposition and honorable youth parliaments. i'm a representative of trinidad and tob ago and i am also representing the young democrat party. today we have heard an extensive debate on the matters of climate change. we have collectively understood that there's a distinct difference between a climatic change as a natural process and a process that is occurring quickly because of human interference. we have all recognized as in commonwealthland there's a huge raise the pollution along with degradation and the vulnerability to the effects of climate change. the opposition has suggested that the year 2040 should be the year in which -- should be the end in which we reduce our

carbon emissions by 100%. this is a ten-year difference. a difference that would infringe upon our research and development and thus affecting our framework to achieve our 100% goal by the year 2050. some honorable parents of the whole have also suggested scientific projections of carbon emissions in the future. most of these scientific projections have been made on current trends that would alter the consideration of technological advancements and the expansion of greener technologies. with the fast pace of information and knowledge feasible growth is the only way forward. throughout our proceedings, i believe most of my honorable colleagues have used climate change very loosely. climate change is such a generic term and it deserves extreme attention to its many

subdivisions. its use of global warming, emissions of greenhouse gases, sea temperatures, sea levels, increasing land and air temperatures, a disproportionate distribution of weather patterns leading to a very unstable climate must all be individually addressed. our government supports the development of a green economy through the private sector. we have been promoting the concept of corporate. in order to please their environmentally sensitive customers. in exercising their corporate social responsibility, these companies can open up employment opportunities while increasing -- while exercising their corporate responsibility by investing in environmental initiatives. do we believe that we can reduce our carbon emissions by 100% by

2050 through efficient communication with the private sector that is willing to act responsibly for the adversed environments through taxation and carbon trading? we believe 100% that it is a responsibility. insurance companies that lose millions after natural disasters are now willing to invest their money into environmental issues that mitigate the affects of climate change. our government has every intention of expand our technological sources a and implementing energy efficienty within these environment yamcompanies. we have kpresds interest in renewable energies. to invest in biofuels. this would include into not limited to providing heat, lighting, and motor power. the changes that we must make would not happen overnight. it would definitely take some time. however with proper communication, education and implementation and working

through the private sector, it can be a realistic goal with a collective and a democratic approach. i strongly recommend for the honorable youth parliamentarians to have some fate and set some feasible and yet stringent goals as a employ you to vote here in motion to reduce our carbon emissions by 100% by the year 2050. thank you very much, lord speaker. >> i now call the opposition secretary of state for the environment. >> i'm from malawi and representing the progressive youth alliance. lord speaker and honorable parliamentarians other you'd all agree with me that climate change is not negotiable. and in fact nobody gambles with their own life. it's an issue survival. also if this house would agree with me that climate change does not only pose as a threat in obtaining the mggds but

sustaining economic growth and development that is obtained during the years of our -- honorable parliamentarians, climate change has not since been given the credit that it deserves. it has effects on all leading sectors such as agriculture, trading industry, energy, in what leads in our economy. and also regard iing its implications. lord speaker and honorable parliamentarians, what we see here is a proposed motion that has little substance and does not deliver fully and respond to climate change in the commonwealthland. therefore, i would condition curwith the leader of opposition in his opening speech to maintain -- but however in the year 2040 and not 2050. this will mean that have a

target of 40% of 2040. and 20% again in 2040. in addition, lord speaker and honorable parliamentarians it has to be -- that even if we cut our emissions today or even in 2040 by 100% carbon will still remain in the atmosphere for 2040 and this honorable house has to know that carbon has a lifetime of not less than 100 years. that means that still needs to have drastic measures even after 2040 and later 2050 as i suggest. honorable member -- honorable parliamentarians, i realize that this motion is narrow and does not consider other options. when we look at climate change not only affecting the

commonwealthland but also other countries. and needs to consider energy sectors. looking at land use, land use change forestry. and cdms. which mechanisms. and forecasting and sustaining our livelihoods. lord speaker and honorable parliamentarians, climate change is not tackled now will have adverse effect and cost in the near future. demanding our support in advocating for sustainable development. honorable parliamentarians, with substantial investment and renewable energy and favor into adaptation programs, we will ensure that we obtain emission reductions that's proposed by the progressive youthar lines. the commonwealth has its --

which is the agriculture already facing challenges brought by the issues of climate change. and surprised when the minster agriculture was calling for 60% reduction in 2040. i thought it was a little ridiculous. and we're a country -- and also agree with me that we're a country with nations that are in the -- such as maldives and we need to take drastic measures as threatened by sea levels. and yes, lord speaker and honorable parliamentarians, we are the leaders and yes we're ambitious and also looking at the long-term effects and we'll do everything to ensure that we still survive after 2040 and probably have the chance to meet in here in 2050 because we might not be there after all. lord speaker and honorable

parliamentarians, lord speaker and honorable parliamentarians, the differences that we have with the government on the motion are however small, we are a constructive party and we vote from the motion and however we still stress and maintain should be done earlier if we're to really combat climate change and achieve economic growth. honorable speaker, what we have of course witnessed here is a view that is popular with no one but the government. despite that goal, we also -- the position as taken by the -- as the opposite side. as if those measures are even worse. and not viable.

in conclurkz lord speaker and honorable members, our party is to set radical reforms, policies and ambitious target that will ensure economic growth and in addition the government approach involving -- needs to be invest and also look at public participation. climate change also involves behavioral change. thank you, honorable. >> honorable friends and colleagues, we now come to the next part which is the voting. as i'm sure you've been briefed there will be two votes. one, content, and one not content and it will be by a show of hands. the door keepers will count. so number one, i can ask you all of those who here in favor of the motion which is to reduce carbon emissions in commonwealthland by 100% by by o put up their hands.

>> really high, please. so the not contents. so those of you who do not agree with the motion to reduce carbon emissions by 100% by the year 2050, please put up your hand. >> bit higher please. the results of the vote, you can put your hands down now. will ha laugh lau [ laughter ] . the contents number 68.

congratulations. [ applause ] . thank you all so much for a really, really interesting series of arguments. i have to say, i was a little bit surprised by the outcome. but there you go. i thought most of you were trying to say that it wasn't realistic, though you do agree with the principal involved. it was wonderfully argued. i hope on the government side are well-satisfied with the results. what i'd like to do now very briefly if i may is to call upon your distinguished visitors here and please and indeed representative from the hospitals to just say a few words about who they are and which areas they represent. and what they have done particularly in their respective jobs. >> thank you very much. >> i'm co-- this is my first te in parliament. i came in last -- a year last

may. my particular interest, which is why i came here, was international development. so i'm on the international development select committee which gives me the opportunity to visit many of the places that you've come from. so it's been very interesting to hear you, hear the passion that you've argued your case with and i hope that those of you who would like a parliamentary career will continue with it, because it is the best job in the world. and i particularly hope that the women that are here today will take it forward. because we definitely need more women in all parliaments. and especially -- [ applause ] especially in the british one. >> hello, my name is scotland. i'm baroness scotland of -- i was the former attorney general. i've been in this house since 1997. i hope none of you can do math since i'm really only 21.

[ laughter ] i was the first woman in 700 years to be appointed her majesty's attorney general because we do things very quickly in this country. we definitely need more parliamentarians. i have the privilege, to come in with other guests. there was the princess royal, royal highness, princess of malaysia. she came in as the malaysian candidate spoke. i'm afraid your name has been taken. together with the first lady of the region in nigeria. they were blown away by the wonder of listening to all of you. our future will depend on the quality of the politicians that we are able to create in the next generation if our world is going to be a safe one. i can tell you from the old crones on this side that make

up -- >> withdrawn. >> thank you. >> my name is -- i'm the recently elected conservative member in west. the reason that i wanted to be here this afternoon, the reason i haven't gone back to my constituency as i normally do on a friday is i want to show the support of members of the house of commons for you and for what you're doing. in 1922, a man called j.m. barrier, play right and novel he's, the author of peter pan, made his one and only public speech as rector of st. andrews university in the aftermath of the first world war. addressed those young people and told them that in his judgment, the time had come for young people to rise up and demand an equality in decision-making, a partnership with their elders and betters because the

decisions that we take in these parliaments will more affect your lives in the years ahead than they will ours. you have that equal voice. you should have that equal voice. as you walk around this building as you leave today, you will see fingers immortalizedized in granite marble. in their day, they were confronting real decisions. as you leave through the hall, on the right-hand side, you will see a statue of edmond burke and edmond burke said that life was a partnership. a partnership in all science, in all art and in all things. because of the nature of that partnership, it could never be achieved in one generation. it could never even be achieved in many generations. it was in fact a partnership between those of us who are living, those of us who are dead and those yet to be born. you have shown today that your

generation will be equal to the challenge of that partnership. well done. >> thank you very much. my name is -- i'm a labor and cooperative member of parliament for hamilton west which is just outside in the city of glasgow in scotland. it's a great honor to be here, not only high quality of debate and contributions this afternoon but i have to say probably on behalf of at least four of us in the front. probably the only one we'll get to sit on these benches. >> for some of the -- probably forever. [ laughter ] but it is great to be here and to hear the debate. as conrad said, it's been impressive afternoon and doi join with -- imploring those interested in politics to keep interested in it. there are so very many issues that will affect people's lives into the future. it's very important that young

people are involved and engaged and that we end this young people not being interested in politics. it's about what happens in your lives, your community and the society you live in. pay great tribute to all of you who have been here today and involved in this debate. [ applause ] my thanks to the parliamentarians who stayed the course. i really truly grateful that you did so. my thanks to everyone who has been involved in the organization of this amazing event. most of all, my profound thanks to all of you. i know that you've worked incredibly hard. it hasn't been -- you haven't had a shopping trip. it's not opinion a jurn i i know you've been working very, very hard. it shows in the arguments you've produced. i learned a huge amount this afternoon. i thank you for that. i just would like to repeat what's been said by many of the parliamentarians. keep at it. just persist. go on.

you've got lots to offer. the world is a difficult, complicated, troubled place. you've been offered something. you can do politics and we'd very much like you to come back again soon or indeed certainly for the youth parliament reconvened in the not too distant future. i would like to meet you again. as i continue to meet you, you will be rising up and some of the parliamentarians have said, not 20 or 30 years' time, in ten years' time -- >> 20 minutes. >> 20 minutes. some people will be amongst the leaders of their countries and you will have an extremely important task to carry out. which is to ensure governance and indeed you know the adherence to the millennium goals. but thank you again. i've had a very wonderful afternoon and i do hope that you have an enjoyable evening before you all return to your countries tomorrow. thank you. [ applause ]

>> coming of this evening on c- span, texas governor and presidential candidate rick perry will hold a town hall meeting live, here on c-span. he sounded several labor unions and represented the socialist party of america as candidate for president, running five times, the last time from prison. he lost, but he changed political history. he is one of the 14 men featured in c-span poser new weekly series, the -- c-span new weekly series, at the contenders. what some of our other videos about him at our special website for the series.

>> the ceo of conoco-phillips, nation's largest oil companies, recently spoke about national gas production. his remarks are about 45 minutes. p in the great lakes area and i can assure you this is a special part of the country for me. i actually can recall the big four carriers on lake michigan. nice to see them from time to time. they pulled iron from the north throughout the entire region. one that manufactured oils such as building cars, tractors, trucks and machinery, so did the ship errs, miners and support industries. as a result of the great lakes area, it it flourishes really was a good lesson in how we've come to learn to need each other. that is industry from the states

and throughout interdependent. clearly, job retention and job creation are foremost in everyone's minds today. of our president, to the state capital, jobs are the most pressing need. i give you my view on this issue, speaking as the ceo for the company and i do serve on a number of our corporate boards. one of the ways we enhance the value of said 10 to our shareholders is too careful allocation of capital. so we must provide capital businesses that can escrow. the growth is either limited or declining. we have to make discipline investments. and generally, only the very best projects go forward. they're also investor return expectations that we have two me to share performance, dividends

and purchases. we must continually adapt to changing market conditions. in our case, we plan to split our company into its two logical elements. that is x duration and production, define and develop energy and, refining and marketing to transform energy into the can timber products that we need. our success at implementing the strategic element is a key to keeping the enterprise healthy. so if we do this correctly, but will also retain and create the maximum number of jobs that our business can support. in turn, we need are many other society obligations to help enhance the health of the american economy. so like energy, the either industry has the same capital allocation need and challenges as well as changing markets. it has adapted in the past.

it will do so again. as always, the adult industry remains foundational to our economy, both here as well as nationwide. the auto industry account for 20% of all u.s. manufacturing, jobs directly or indirectly. the manufacturing is absolutely essential. so this then brings me to the topic i want to focus on india too is very essential. it is the area where we have chosen to devote a substantial share of our company's capital and that is natural gas. we have done this because it is important to our business. also because it contributes to a nation energy security into american job creation. natural gas, as you know, he's our homes, schools, factories and helps generate electricity and she has another vital characteristic with any attack shares. it creates jobs.

president obama visited detroit on labor day to talk about jobs. unfortunately, he did not mention natural gas either then or drawing his speech this past week. but i can assure you that gas is already helping spark the american job creation machine. and we intend to grow that into a plan. i conocophillips, we believe so strongly natural gas that it's a major portion of our company's portfolio. we believe that natural gas must be part of any discussion strengthening our company's long-term economic health. they should also be part of any discussion on improving energy security, protecting the environment and gas, creating jobs. like a president, i'm very enthusiastic enough to turn around the prognosis for the u.s. senate industry. you have added 115,000 new jobs

since 2009 than those in 13 years. sales are up, quality is rising and are our exciting new domestic cars. my wife and i just bought one and we love it. the automotive future is all so exciting. fuel economy is rising. plug-in hybrid cars are building a following. via publicity to recharge these cars must come from somewhere in here again, natural gas can help. there's also congress for natural gas powered vehicles. at least where they are practical. inflate trucks and buses that can be refueled and central facilities at night. so it's fair to say he can come a detroit and the energy industry are in lockstep. a strong american job creation machine and natural gas is an important part of that future.

we have ample reserves here. we can access them in a safe and environmentally sound way. these resources are generating new jobs by the tens of thousands. this isn't just our story. it's yours too. for every job created by natural gas as to the customer base for cars, houses, appliances and essentially about everything else. the availability of natural gas of low cost represents a key, u.s. competitive advantage. very few countries can match our expanded energy resource base. we can use it to strengthen competitiveness of energy of american manufacturers. i'm both a direct and indirect basis, natural gas currently sustains 2.8 million u.s. jobs. and then there is more. the consulting firm recently looked at the oil and gas

industry's future job potential. now with predicted, half a million new jobs would be added by 2030 under existing government policies. but if government adopted more favorable policy, we could create another million new jobs on top of that. and that would be at no cost to the government. in fact, government revenue would rise by about a hundred billion dollars, which would certainly help deficit reduction. now companies are really big numbers. say you might ask, are they really achievable? to answer what we've heard it done, and a relatively few years, the north american natural gas output has been completely transformed. we now recognize over 100 years of survive. that's enough for children, grandchildren and beyond. the novices creating jobs and not just in the traditional producing states.

shale gas now comes from at least 15 states, including kentucky, new york, ohio, pennsylvania, west virginia, indiana, illinois and yes, even michigan. this has been made possible by no less than a modern industrial revolution. it has been known for decades that shale rock and many in the united ditzel's natural gas and sometimes form. weisbrod deposits of this rocking cover thousands of square miles, even entire states or multiple states. but until recently we didn't have technology to produce economically. then, in the 1990s, we started complaining to different innovations. one was hydraulic fracturing. this is the pumping of fluid down under pressure to create micro-fissures in the rock commit tpd for surface of the

earth. these features are very tiny and we prop them open by and check sand with water. and then, that provides pathways for the gas to flow and ultimately produce. now, fracturing isn't something new. it was developed in the 1940s and has been used safely on a million wells over several decades. but in the case of shale rock, this still wasn't enough. another innovation require, this time a new one called horizontal drilling. unless they start with a vertical well control down thousands of feet and at the bottom recurve the well out the other side. these horizontal wells can extend a mile or more in a targeted formation. dan, this exposes the well tomorrow i guess. rock. so these long, horizontal wells

combined with fracturing a production possible for the first time from a number of these rap tapes. i may also help reduce a surface footprint since only one well can replace it would have been required for a number of wells. so combining these two technologies to create major shale production online has any real game changer for our industry. as recently as the 1980s, natural gas was considered a sign that industry in the united states. production, reserves and demand were declining. the turnaround fence has been so dramatic that we shale now refer to natural gas is nature's gift, partly because of its abundance and its low cost. also for his benefit the national energy security and the environment. in fact, natural gas is essential to helping both

short-term and long-term environmental goals. it produces nitrogen, sulfur compounds that cause acid rain and smog. when used for power generation company produces only only half the carbon dioxide of coal. it requires one 20th the land footprint of equivalent wind energy. power plants fueled by natural gas use 60% less water than coal plants generate the same amount of electricity. and they do it without producing site or ash. also, the availability of natural gas facilitates the use of renewable energy. gas power plants have very flexible with respect to ramping up in ramping down. so they can easily ramp up when the wind doesn't blow for the sun doesn't shine. electric vehicles catch on in the future, we could recharge

them with electric power generation and do it cleanly and efficiently. so let's bring this home to michigan. as you probably know, there is a shale gas here. it was produced from the formation as early as tonight team for these, but intensive development related to take place at the 1890s. nearly 10,000 wells are online today and after all these years, production is starting to fall. there are two new shale glucagon tram and they are called hollywood in the utica permissions. that is attracted $170 million in lease payments to michigan state government this past year. acceleration development is still in the early stages. natural gas currently provides 80% of michigan's home heating and also provides 10% of michigan's electricity so there's plenty of room for growth. gas is an important option for midwestern utility can be used.

the epa is tightening standards on emissions of mercury and other substance is. this may cause a shutdown of some of the older coal-fired plant. some natural gas we believe is the best option to sell them. by the way, you probably use natural gas in more ways than you know. besides energy, it's about material and fertilizer, plastics and chemicals. this combination means that natural gas plays a role in the production of countless household products. now let's take a look closer at some of its job creation benefits. the barnett's shale trend is located in northeast texas and that has created 100,000 jobs. in south texas, a new field he go for it will create 60,000 jobs by 2020 and so thousands of jobs already exists.

the surrounding area is booming for new trilling and increase business across the board from restaurants or grocery stores to hotels. a marsalis trend is located in the northeastern part of the united states and as the largest resources of them all. it covers all or part of seven states. according to penn state university, gas development now supports 140,000 jobs in pennsylvania alone. natural gas benefits other industries. for example, petrochemicals. the american chemistry council said it would be keen for greater domestic use of natural gas production. they see a 25% increase in supplies associated with gas production because this is used as feedstock for making chemicals. this would create 17,000 jobs in that industry at 395,000 more jobs outside it. the numbers like these are really very, very encouraging.

so we had a powerful job creation machine available if you put it to its full use. but capturing the full potential of natural gas, our industry faces a number of challenges. some are not unlike those faced by detroit. we recognize we must always continue innovating. we must keep on innovating -- inventing new technologies to minimize our environmental footprint and enhance safety. we must overcome some mistake in public perceptions. for example, the silver bullet. this is the belief that there's a great new energy source just around the corner and that it will be cleaner, cheaper and easier to port than the use of fossil fuels, while also creating this wonderful new green jobs. well, i've got news for you. natural gas comes closer to being that silver bullet than anything else does.

it's here today. it's increasingly abundant, cheap and clean. the infrastructure already exists. rather than merely promising jobs in the future, gas is creating the now. by the tens of thousands without special government subsidies. this is not to say that natural gas is the only energy source needed. we believe all sources will be necessary in the future. also feels, biofuels, wind, solar, even some sources not invented yet. this would be particularly true if the national economy rebounds. that natural gas is far more than a bridge to the future as a key part of the one term solution. since the shale gas is breathed new life into the natural gas industry, it's unfortunate to see a serious threat emerged to its further development. and that is the perception that hydraulic fracturing pollutes

groundwater. the record is in our favor. those million wells safely fractured since the 1940s. now come and epa has studied the environmental record of fracturing the past. it concluded no additional federal regulation was required. a new study is underway and we expect the results sometimes next year. that is not to say that there is no reason for public concern. there have been some problems, but they are rare and they were caused not by fracturing, but by faulty drilling and well completion work for an proper handling of fluids on the surface. the fracturing is not inherently risky to groundwater. it occurs far below drinking water aquifers. typically thousands decorated by multiple heirs of solid rock. in the wells are carefully

cemented in place to seal them off from groundwater. but to address the public concerns, our industry must follow good practices. these existed we must adopt a and make them standard procedure. there is a role for government oversight in this and also we must demystify fracturing. conocophillips supports disclosure of a nonproprietary substances contained in fracturing fluids. over 99%, say 99% of these foods by content or water and sand. the rest is so-called toxic chemicals are primarily traced out a taste. each serves a purpose. you can find some of them in everyday products that use. food preserver to cause mandates , detert chair, table saw come into others. so next, let me spend a moment or two when government policy.

washington talks a lot about encouraging energy development and probably believes it does a great job. but the walk doesn't match the talk. for example, the energy industry faces threats of tax increases the target us alone. this despite the fact they're effective global tax rate far exceeds those of other industries. we face the imposition of new regulations that cause unintended impacts. regulations to protect the environment may not adequately be assessed for their impact on consumers and on business. the cost-benefit analysis used to justify enactment of regulations may use skewed numbers that support solution. regulations are required, they should be affect even reasonable and should not duplicate the thousands of federal and state requirements that are already in the books. we also face political risk

resistant to opening new areas for exploration. this despite the fact the public favors expanded, domestic energy development. also many states have enacted renewable fuel standard that may require utilities to use certain muscles that renewable energy. these sources are more expensive than natural gas so they can try the consumer cost and the retired demand for natural gas itself is a clean energy source. so government should not and the retired demand for natural gas itself as a clean energy source. so government should not and the retired demand for natural gas itself as a clean energy source. so government should not and let the market determine the best way to need it. these are challenges ahead of us as we strive to deliver the full job creation and let the market determine the best way to need it. these are challenges ahead of us as we strive to deliver the full job creation potential of natural gas. we have work to do. we're going to have to tell her story and that has never been easy for industry. most of our people would rather focus on developing energy than debating public policy.

but for the good of the country, we are going to try. for that reason, we just introduced the public information campaign in recognition that natural gas is an important issue for america. we want ever to be able to make informed decisions and we believe as the u.s. centers action campaign season, energy policy will be a point of debate. perhaps not because the energy prices, which are somewhat more moderate comments that hopefully the debate will center in using energy development, particularly natural gas, to drive job creation. we further believe there is cooperation. rather than polarize ideological petition simply talk to to each other as americans instead of as democrats and republicans, instead of liberals or conservatives, we will succeed in anything we do. it includes creation of a

comprehensive energy policy. the policy that is balanced in economically and environmentally sound. just as important a policy that puts more americans back to work. thank you very much for the invitation to speak to you. i appreciate your patience listening to my comments and hopefully we now have time to take questions or observations from yourself. [applause] [applause] >> thank you, jim. what a number of questions, some still coming in. let's start with one about conocophillips. what percentage of conocophillips's revenue comes from natural gas and went to future projections look like? >> well, i think it's not so much revenue because much of our revenue stream by the refining side of their business. we reproduce or buy crude oil and run it and refineries, it's refined product for customers.

it's really gorgeous birds or investor capital of a percent of our portfolio is really natural gas? and that represents 40% of our company. we know that the prices are quite low. that's good for the consumer, good for the economy. to the extent energy prices are the is actually a stimulus to help consumers restore and improve the economy. we do think natural gas prices will improve somewhat. we're thinking more in the $5 or $6 range over the long-term. this promotes investment, but it also provides clean energy in an affordable way. >> a number of questions about understanding the pipeline infrastructure and other ways of transporting internationally and so forth. how does that interact with their own use here in the states? >> essentially we have established over many decades the infrastructure of

transporting natural gas and that is best accomplished safely and efficiently through pipelines. the thought waves, about 10 years ago, maybe five to 10 years ago, we didn't have this abundance course because the type elegy development of unconventional natural gas amira going to import about of gas in the form of allergy. imported energy we are building terminals. the concern was we're running out of natural gas in the concern was that al and she would be priced more closely to oil. the prices at the gas to be going up and down. that this change to magically transform because the technology advances we don't really have to be importing any significant amount. ..

>> what is the interaction between the car companies and the natural gas companies? is there a time there that needs to be developed? >> there is a tie, because we have provided, historically, the fuel that runs automobiles, trucks, and the heavy machines that are produced here in detroit. obviously, our approach is how we can provide fuels, engines and motors that are more efficient, me more standards, rules and regulations, and also, how do we develop engines and fuels that are best with respect to meeting and improving the cleanliness of the fuels that are used in the transportation sector? with the development of natural gas, we keep looking at all of

those things we have in the past. we're now looking at the opportunity of how natural gas can be used in terms of transportation fleets. we believe that is best in large metropolitan areas where you can use more for delivery, buses, trucks, or whatever, transporting in a large metropolitan area, where you have the ability of refueling. it is much better and can be done efficiently. we see the opportunities with transportation, but probably more in metropolitan areas. but we work very closely with those who produce these transporting vehicles because we provide the fuels that are required and we want to do this in a way that is affordable and clean. affordable. >> one of the students asked about the million potential new job see reference from the natural gas bringing to our economy. where would you see those jobs come and?

>> where do i see those jobs coming? >> when and where. >> we are always looking for employers to help out in their own companies that rely very much on the service in the contracting industry to help us develop our unconventional natural gas. where the areas? i said in my comments the marcellus areas in the northeast. we see in the middle part of north america, the states of north dakota wyoming, montana. we are finding new areas in haynesville barnett which is located in arkansas and texas but we are also our geologist and our people in our company as well as other companies are looking for the new haynesville in the new barnett. we are trying to find those and in other parts of the united states. we know we have a lot of natural gas resources and now we are trying to find them and we are looking at things we have merit and looked at because of the

technology developments our industry needs people. is highly technical. we also know that we need to meet the environmental requirements that society and the government demand of us are go so we need the jobs now and they will be growing over the next several decades. is going to take place essentially many if not most of the states in the united states. once we develop the natural gas we have to get into the market so the marketers everywhere, all 50 states. so i look at our industry. i feel i work for a very noble industry because we have the growth and development of our country and our economy if we didn't have the development of energy. we need to continue to develop that energy. is becoming more and more technological, very high-tech in the way we are going to succeed like we have in the past is that we need three things. we do have really good people which we have always had in our industry and need to continue to

attract people. we need technology and policy. it is important in the development of our indigenous resources. >> eight question here. what is conocophillips latest going green initiative? do you consider yourself a leader in environment with respect to them are mental concerns? >> when we say concern, very concerned because it relates to our ability to operate to continue to operate in a very safe and efficient way but also addressing the government and society's demand from us with respect to the energy that we produce. it has got to be affordable and it must be claimed. with the company of always endorsed the sustainable operations which means our run very efficiently being a good corporate citizen. we want to be safe and continue to reduce our use of water, continue to emphasize the metrics with respect to our releases of emissions. we want to continue to improve

bad as every year that goes forward. we have also been a participant with u.s. cap climate change initiatives that we can work with the ngos and we can work with other industries and a in a way that comes up with what is technologically feasible in the short-term and medium-term and we believe in the power of cooperation that we talked to everyone because in the way we talk with each other all industry government as well as ngos. we believe we can develop a more informed, make more informed decisions and judgments in how we proceed with energy policy in our country. >> another question from one of the students about recycling and energy conservation programs that are actually looking on for tips on what you recommend to help them get started? >> one of the best ways you can get started is to -- a wealth of information that is available on the web and so you can go and you can find not only what our company is doing in terms of

sustainable development, but you get into the web and you can see all of the different ways by which you can promote energy efficiency just by how you conduct your own lives, how you drive your cars, how you utilize energy in your homes. there are many ways you can be done without brearley and a significant way altering your lifestyle in a way that promotes use of less energy. because, we help climate change first and foremost, the best ways to use energy more efficiently so if use it more efficiently and use less of it as the most significant way you can take actions. to help in terms of climate change. and, also translate with less use of energy leads to less cost for your energy for your lifestyle. one of the best ways i think is to keep more informed and one of the best places to be informed is get into the web and you will find an incredible wealth of information about how you can participate through conducting

our own lives as well as participate with others in talking to become more informed and more involved. >> we have a question here about the air arab spring and i know you mentioned earlier that you have been involved in libya. what do you see this having long-term impact on the oil industry and particularly on pricing? >> i don't know for sure with respect to impact on pricing. obviously when production has taken off it as a result of the unfortunate situation that has taken place in libya there is less production. it generally is to higher prices because they're such a fine balance between what the world supply of oil is and what the demand is. currently it is in the neighborhood of about 87, 88 million barrels a day of oil is consumed, and so it is so finally balanced because many people look at is what is the reserve capacity of oil. around the world that is generally centered around the middle east with only two or

3 million barrels so if you lose one or 2 million barrels of production and it has quite an impact with respect to price. now what has taken place in north africa and the middle east is going to have a long-term impact i think and certainly on pricing. i think there is not an easy replacement in the short term or the long term for oil to really have superior transportation fuel and so we work need fossil fuels, oil natural gas and coal and it will represent more than 80% of the energy supply for decades to come. we need to use it more efficiently, but i think because of the growth of the worldwide economy the growth in population and the expectation for higher standards of living will lead to increased demand, and that will result in some upward oil prices. the other thing is what is taking place in north africa and the middle east as a result of expectations of society and changes is not just a short-term

phenomena in my thinking is going to go on for a long period of time as adjustments with respect to governance, adjustment to the economy and expectations of the people. as a result of technology, the knowledge that is available to everyone around the world is certainly made more available and the expectations of people has grown pretty dramatically. this is going to cause quite an adjustment for the area and the world over the next several decades but because there is no easy replacement for oil and the growing population and the expectation for growth and economy and standard of living so many people live in poverty. we see in upward bias on oil supply because of supply and demand. >> a question about problems in the oil industry. this one relates to the gulf of mexico. last year do you see this having continued impact and look forward to future drilling in

that region? >> it certainly has had an impact with respect to the growth and development in the gulf of mexico. we have a substantial amount of discovered and expected to be discovered oil and gas resource in the gulf of mexico. it is very unfortunate what took place with a macondo incident because we believe two things. one, certainly could have been preventable and second, having that amount of oil or any oil hit the water and stay on the water and go to shore and response capability industry is not acceptable so obviously we must learn from what took place and ensure these incidents are not repeated and second that the response capability industry is dramatic we improve. now, we along with four other companies and quite a few others that have joined us a one to 2 billion-dollar broke and that essentially should such a situation occur in the future,

we have in place the assets and the equipment that can immediately within a few days essentially take of blowout will condition like like that and essentially with the assets that we have constructed and made available, can actually control the flow in a way that it produces more like a controlled well, not lack of low out well and captures all of the oil that is being produced. thereby having a minimum impact with respect to the incident and the pollution and the oil getting onto the water. so we have got bad and we believe we will have that in place within the next 12 months. that helps address the response capability of the industry. now, we have had a moratorium on drilling. it has been essentially starting to restore drilling in the gulf of mexico but nowhere near the

pace of drilling that we have had in the past. it is really important for us we believe. we can certainly develop these resources and they are indigenous resources to the united states so we can develop these resources which reduces the importation of oil, so there is less money leaving the united states and there is more investment and more job creation and it leads to more revenues paid to the states, the communities and federal government so for every reason we understand our responsibility that we have to drill and operate in a very safe efficient environmentally sound way but it is time for us to get back to business them back to work in the gulf of mexico. it is having quite a dramatic impact with respect to those communities and states and also as i said in developing our own resources and it has quite an impact on imported into jay and helping with respect to jobs in the deficit. >> someone asked the question

quoting this, why do you feel this administration rarely talks about natural gas is part of our energy independence solution? >> while the administration and running for election and immediately after election was really pushing very hard new energy sources, getting off fossil fuels and the result of that was essentially the expectations were created very high that we were going to develop the silver bullet and we were going to have all these new green energy jobs and we are not related to oil or natural gas or too cold and the result was very quickly that the technology wasn't developed nor was the investment capability. all these millions of jobs that were essentially discussed and with expectations very high never really materialized. i think it was because such a strong approach and view towards green energy which means anything but fossil fuels, which essentially did not materialize

requires quite a dramatic change and approach by the administration. i believe the administration and the representatives of congress understand natural gas and that we have a lot of it. it is affordable but now is the time to embrace its come in dorset and push it so that is what we need to do. >> there's a question here about billing rates for natural gas being sent by state or federal government. who controls drilling rights? >> well, it depends on which lands you are on. if you are on federal lands or state lands and all we would save is an industry, a lot of land is not available to our industry. to go unexplored. and we believe the public opinion in the united states is really moved dramatically. let's get people back to work and let's develop our own resources so let's open up more land access availability so we can develop our own resource in their own energy. that helps energy security,

health investment and helps jobs and helps with respect to revenues for addressing the deficit. >> we need more acreage. to put our industry back to work, more than it is today. >> the question is do you think what a company should continue to receive the subsidies they get? >> well, it is a very popular discussion by many people and when we think about quote subsidies for the oil companies, it is a very unique industry. some of the things we are saying is rules and regulations that say promote employment. if we promote employment we would like to get the same benefits and incentives to promote employment that all other industries do. don't take that away from artistry versus a job as a job and we think we should get the same incentives for that as well. second, in our business when we drill wells one of the hot buttons people talk about

intangible drilling. when you build the facility and i will say in a different industry you build a manufacturing facility. you are putting concrete steel and other -- say you pay 100 for that a 100 is the cost and it depreciates. when we drill wells the steel for the wells might represent certainly less than half, less than half of the cost of the well because it takes a lot of completion and a lot of contractors and suppliers and in support to drill the wells. that results in costs and that is payments made to other people. all we are saying is whatever the cost of the total well as we would like to be able to depreciate it and that is where you get into intangible drilling costs. some of you view that as a subsidy and we view it as the cost of drilling a well. then another point that is important is don't discriminate to the oil industry when we pay taxes in a foreign land. we would like those taxes to be credible against taxes in the

u.s. for operations outside the u.s.. don't treat us differently than you would all industry. given all these issues and points that i just talked about, we really favor, i do come our company, we really favor -- let's get back in reform or tax system. let's just make it more simple. let's just make it the same for everyone. let's lower the tax rates and do away with all these different issues of what is deductible and what is not. let's just make it simple. flat tax rate and make it the same for everyone. we really support that. [applause] >> one final question, jim. a a question for monitor students. i'm a student at cass tech high school. what career advice would you give an aspiring biostudent? >> well the most important thing i would say is stay in school, study really really hard. it is important because the better you do in school the more

you learn the more you develop yourself, the more first of all you are going to feel good about yourself but does the rest of the road really need to? the best advice i can say to you is keep studying, keep working hard in school, stay very focused on your objectives, not just what is ahead of you for the next day or the next week. look out five years, three years, 10 years where you want to go and another thing, stay in school and another thing that is really important, make sure you surround yourself with good friends and people who have similar objectives and the other thing is don't forget your responsibility to your family, to your brothers sisters into your parents. [applause] >> you wow. i am not sure, i'm thinking how

do you keep all of -- keep up with all that in your head. jim mulva thank you very much. last time mr. mulva was here, this is your third visit and we are so delighted. leaves from my perspective really help me understand the global picture of energy security versus independence and now i feel like you are coming back and kind of here is the next big thing, natural gas, so thank you so much for being here and enlightening us with some things to think about and future directions and energy security obviously which is so very important to our country. steven pulled as always a terrific job. thank you so much in wow i'm telling you we had so many great question so thank you all of you for making that happen. and in our usual on time kind of way, we know that you have been spending a couple of hours with us. we appreciate you doing that

because we know you are all very very busy. with that, this meeting is adjourned. have a great day. thanks so much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> more white house coverage coming up. we will take you live to new hampshire for a town hall meeting with texas governor and republican presidential candidate rick perry live at 6:00 eastern. starting live at 8:00, "the contenders" continues with a look at the life and career of eugene debs who represented the socialist party and ran for president five times. on c-span2 roof later ginsberg

-- ruth bader ginsburg. all of that tonight at 8:00 eastern on the c-span television network. >> this is a dangerous time for britain and its economy. the government austerity plan is failing. you can sense the fear that people have as we watch the economic crisis that stocks our alked our- that st country threatening to return. >> annual party conferences are continuing in the u.k. watch the keynote from the labor party conference at 9:00 on sunday. then, conservative leader david

cameron. >> you should start with the assumption that when a politician or ceo is saying something, they are not telling the truth. they may be telling the truth, but the burden should be on them to prove it. >> as an eagle scout, was an editor of "mother jones" magazine, and made three of the best-selling documentary's of all time. his memoir is "here comes trouble." u.s. and yemeni officials confirmed today that known terrorists anwar al-awlaki and amir khan were killed in an attack on a convoy. he was carried out by cia and joint operations command. president obama at the retirement ceremony for admiral mike mullen spoke about the

event earlier today. want to say a few words about some important news. earlier this morning, anwar al- awlaki, was killed in yemen. [applause] the death --the death is a major blow to al qaeda'most- actives operational of cilia. he was the leader of the external operations for al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. he took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent americans. he directed a failed attempt to blow up an airplane on christmas day in 2009. he directed a failed attempt to block u.s. cargo planes in 2010. he repeatedly called on individuals to kill innocent

men, women, and children to advance the murders agenda. the death of anwar al-awlaki marks another significant milestone to defeat al qaeda and its affiliates. the success is a tribute to our intelligence community and to the efforts of yemen and its security forces who have worked closely with the united states over the course of several years. his organization has been responsible for the deaths of many yemenis citizens. this has been rejected by the vast majority of muslims and people of all faiths. the governor and people of yemen have joined in a common effort against al qaeda. al qaeda in the arabian peninsula remains a dangerous

terrorist organization. we will remain vigilant against any threat to the united states or our allies and partners. this is further proof that al qaeda and its affiliates will find no safe haven anywhere in the world. working with yemen and our other allies and partners, we will be delivered and we will be relentless and resolute in our commitment to destroy it terrorist networks that aim to kill americans. we will build a world in which people can live in peace and prosperity. >> almost 70 years later, hear his story on american history tv on c-span3 from the dedication

of the interpretive learning center. explore 19th century america through its part, inventions, and discoveries from the "hall of wonders" exhibit." she became the youngest woman ever elected to congress. one year later as a member of the house judiciary committee, she was voting to impeach the president. look for the complete we can schedule -- weekend schedule. housetoday's white briefing, a major topic of discussion was the killing of the leader of cockeyed on the arabian peninsula, anwar al- awlaki. spokesman jay carney also to questions on the president's jobs plan and his fund-raising activities for the 2012 campaign. this is about 50 minutes.

>> the red sox nation owes him greatly. [laughter] i am a red sox fan because i grew up here without a team. baltimore did not work for me. i love baltimore. i just did not -- my fan allegiance did not travel up interstate 95. [unintelligible] [laughter] i love the inner harbor. i have taken my kids to the aquarium and the children's museum. i do like to go to games at

camden yard when the red sox are playing. i guess there is nothing going on today. [laughter] i do not have any announcements so i will go straight to questions. associated press. >> on the killings of anwar al- awlaki and samir khan, does the president will leave a different standard applies -- believe a different standard applies? does he have a different standard of proof when the target is an american citizen? >> you heard the president speak today about anwar al-awlaki's death and whether it is a significant event. he was the principal leader in al qaeda on the arabian peninsula. he was the most operational affiliate of al qaeda. he was directly involved in

plotting terrorist attacks against the united states and american citizens, including the so-called underwear bomber in december of 2009 and the failed attempt to bomb cargo planes headed to the united states. in the overall effort to continue to put pressure on al qaeda, this is a significant fact that anwar al-awlaki is dead. questions about the circumstances of his death, i will not give in to. the question you just asked contains within it assumptions that i will not address.

>> is the administration willing to wait out the case against him? >> the fact of his death today, that he was a leader of of credit in the arabian peninsula and was operationally involved in serious attempted terrorist attacks against the united states and americans is an established fact we've talked about for a long time. we have talked for a long time about how dangerous aqap is. that is the focus of ours. our corporation with yemen has been so important because of that. this reflects on the partnership we have had in that effort with him in and with the yemeni officials.

it is important for that to continue. there are many components to the overall efforts we have made. i spoke yesterday about pakistan in the complicated but important relationship with them. our cooperation with pakistan has helped us in the efforts against al qaeda. our cooperation with him and has done the same. -- our cooperation with yemen has done the same. >> does the administration make a differentiation between his status is? >> he was engaged in inspirational efforts and was a recruiter for al qaeda. he was also demonstrably and probably involved in operational aspects of apap.

he was a senior leader. those are statements of fact. those are things i would have said last week if you had asked me. in terms of anything relating to the circumstances, i think i have said all i can say about that. >> secretary clinton on wednesday said the administration is in the final review of terrorist networks. you had a meeting with the president yesterday. are you any further along in those discussions? are you going to designate the alhani network as a terrorist network? >> i was going to make the point that individuals have been designated and that the review continues. i do not have an update on the review. i do not have the time for you.

>> did the president personally order or approve the attack in yemen? >> i will go back to what i said to jim. the circumstances of his death, i am not going to address. what i will say is what i said to jim about who he was, the threat he posed. this is significant and dose to our corp. -- goes to our cooperation with yemeni officials and counterparts in the region and why it is so important. the principal victims of the violence perpetrated by aqap, al qaeda on the rebellion -- on the arabian peninsula, where arabs.

going into the circumstances of his death is not something i am going to do here. >> his focus was primarily international. because of his english language capabilities, what affect will his death have on efforts by aqap tuesday stableboys -- to stabilize the governments of saudi arabia and yemen. >> we remain extremely vigilant. the organization remains dangerous and has proven itself to be operational and capable. the vigilance continues as it has in the wake of the successful mission against a summit in london. al qaeda remains a serious threat that we continue to

confront in a variety of ways this is an important milestone, but it is not the end of aqap. it does not change our posture towards the organization. >> do you sense a willingness in the yemeni government to help with this? >> i was asked this because of the unrest in yemen about how it affected our corporation. it made it more difficult, but it will continue. it is separate from president saleh and our view of him. we continue to call on him to abide by the commitments he has made to begin the transfer of power immediately as stipulated

in the gcc agreement. that has not changed. we call on him and his government to cease any violent actions against the yemeni people. it has also been important to maintain the kind of cooperation we have had against this threat with al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. >> where, when, and by whom was the president notified? >> he was notified earlier this morning by his counter-terrorism adviser. he was briefed again on it this morning. >> was it by phone call? >> was notified. i will not get into it specifically. it was early this morning. i do not have a specific time. it was early. >> he was notified when he was

still in residence. this morning in the oval, he had his normal daily briefing. this was obviously a subject of the discussion. >> nobody questions that this administration and the prior have identified aqap as a threat. other officials have said this was a u.s. drone. do the u.s. people have the right to know the justification for who and where someone can be killed two is on indicted -- who is not indicted? >> i cannot speak about the specifics of his death. i am not aware of anyone who has made the statements you have said. >> can you explain why you will not get into any of the specifics of what has gone on. we have all been reporting that u.s. drones have been involved

and that there is u.s. involvement in this attack on this american. help us to understand why you are not sharing any more details? >> i will not give in to the circumstances of his death. i will say that we are asked questions like that all of the time. our response is the same. we cooperate with partners around the world. with corporate with partners around world in taking the fight to al qaeda. it takes many forms. it is vital to the success we've had integrating al qaeda -- in the greeting -- degrading al qaeda. and that cooperation continues. i will not get into circumstances of his death. >> you said that anwar al- awlaki was demonstratively and probably involved in operations. >> it has been well established

and it has been the position of this administration and the previous one that he is a leader in aqap. aqap was a definite threat. it was operational. it planned and carried out terrorist attacks that fortunately did not succeed but were extremely serious, including the ones i mentioned with the would-be christmas day bombing in 2009 and the attempt to bomb numerous cargo planes heading to the united states. he was obviously also an active recruiter of al qaeda terrorists. i do not think anybody in the field would dispute those assertions. any credibleknow of terrorist expert who would dispute the fact u.s. and -- the fact he was a leader in al qaeda and involved in terrorist attacks against american

interests and citizens. >> do you plan to bring before the public any proof of the charges? >> the question has assumptions about the circumstances of his death that i will not address. >> you were asserting he had operational control of the cargo plot and the other. he is now dead. can you tell us or has the judge been shown? >> i am not going to go any further than what i have said about the circumstances of his death. i will not going to the case against him. >> said he is responsible for these things. is there going to be any evidence presented?

>> i do not have anything for you on that. >> does the administration not see at all how a president a searching that he has the right to kill an american citizen without due process and that he is not even going to explain why he thinks he has a right, why that is troublesome to some people? >> i was not aware of any of those things you have said happening. i will not address the circumstances of his death. it is an important fact that this terrorist who was actively plotting to attack americans and american interests is dead. i will non from any angle discuss the circumstances of his death. >> the aclu tried to get permission to represent anwar al-awlaki.

his father had asked them to do that. they needed to get permission from the treasury department so that they could challenge his being on this targeted killing list. the obama administration refused to let them represent him. he could not even have the aclu representing him. >> i would recommend you take that to treasury or justice. i do not have anything on that. >> what would law professor barack obama have to say? parts i think he spoke about that today. -- >> i think he spoke about that today. i have had that question. it is not a question that i would have an answer to. generally speaking, i am not going to answer a question like that in any way that it relates to the events of today.

i will not talk about circumstances of al-awlaki's death. and will not acknowledge, concede, or except -- accept premises imbedded in questions. i am not talking about the circumstances. but after 9/11, president bush gave the cia and later the military the authority to kill a u.s. citizen abroad if they were plotting attacks on the united states. it is correct the president obama continued that? >> that is a question i would have to take. it would be best addressed to the justice department. >> does the president have any cosponsors for the american job act? >> we are confident the senate will take up the american jobs act.

it has broad support from democrats in both houses. it has sweeping support. you are talking about legislative process. the bill will be taken up. how and with whose names attached to it, i do not know. i would refer you to the leadership in the senate. important facts are what is in the bill, why those things would be beneficial to the american economy and help put teachers back to work and put construction workers back to work rebuilding bridges and schools. it would give tax cuts to everybody that gets a paycheck. it would give tax cuts to small businesses. it would give incentives to small businesses to hire or increase wages. there are specific provisions to hire veterans. these are all things that outside economists have said would have a demonstrable and

positive effect on the economy. there is no higher priority for the president than to continue to push congress to take action on those important measures. >> speaker pelosi has signed up as a co-sponsor? senator durbin has concerns. >> a couple of things. i am not aware of any democrat that does not support the provisions ago to creating jobs, reducing taxes, and that sort of thing. it has broad democratic support. it also, as a matter of record for those who consume public opinion data, it has broad support across the political spectrum. in the past, the provisions have

had democratic and republican support. we are confident that congress will move and act on it. we hope congress will pass the entire american jobs act into law and be signed into law by the president. if portions of it are sent to him, if it is paid for in a way that is modeled after the principles the president insists on, he would sign those and tell them to send him the rest of it. all of it is important. our economy needs this kind of action. who is sponsoring it, the legislative minutia and details are not particularly important. the broader principle here is

what is important. i think the american people want to know when washington will take action to help the economy and create jobs through >> senator durbin is not any rank- and-file center. he is a close ally of the president and no. two. is the president going to stop saying to pass a even a fellow democrats say they cannot? >> the vote is not tomorrow or today. >> he said we do not think we do but we can work on it. >> we're working on it. we will get it. we face certain realities in the senate. you cannot name a post office without 60 votes the way the filibuster is used. that was meant to be an exaggeration. the reality is even if every democratic senator supported it,

we face those obstacles. the president has made the point that these provisions have historically garnered republican support as well. we are making the case for why this report should be there this time. the american people need it. they want it. they want washington to take action. >> warren buffett was on cnbc. it sounds like republicans are taking one piece of it and suggesting he came out against the buffett rule. when asked about how the president is paying for the jobs bill and changing deductions, he said he would appear the overall plan and decide what he does or does not like. if one of the president's economic gurus is not offering his support for the way the president wants to pay for the

jobs bill -- >> u.s. distinguishing -- he was distinguishing and making sure the interviewer understood the act was not the same thing as the buffett rule. he wants to look more deeply into the various provisions in the jobs act. the overall principle that he supports has been established many times for him in a variety of forms. >> he said he was not sure he supports the mechanism the president wants to support the jobs bill. >> i think he said he was going to look at it. are you have any problem getting democrats to support it? >> we are open to other ways to

pay for this that are fair and do not put burdens on the middle class or seniors unfairly. we are absolutely willing to look at that. we understand members of congress may have changes around the margin or different ideas about how to do that. my point about the best support for the provisions in the bill was about the provisions that go to stimulating growth and accelerating hiring. the president believes strongly that the provisions to pay for the bill are fair and represent the kind of choices we need to make as a country when we have to ensure that we can pay for this. we want to make sure everyone is paying their fair share and that you are not unnecessarily burdening one section of

society. other ideas about how to pay for deficit reduction bills have had those problems in them. we think there's a better and fairer way to do it. >> "the washington post" is reporting secretary chu is taking responsibility for the restructuring of the solyndra loan. it has been suggested that is to shelter others at the white house. does anyone think he is to blame for what happened was solyndra? >> secretary chu does have the president's fall congress -- confidence -- does have the president's full confidence. career professionals of the minister the program, reviewed

the application, and made the recommendation. ultimately, the head of the department is responsible. there were numerous people involved who are career professionals and work on this kind of issues every day. >> explain how the u.s. confirmed his death. he has been dead before and then was found alive. anwar al-awlaki. was it only a yemeni source or u.s. government confirmation? >> i do not have the specifics on whether it came from the yemenis or not. >> there has been a report that samir khan was also killed in the strike. >> i do not have confirmation on anyone but al-awlaki.

i do not have the confirmation. i would not know where the others are getting it. i do not have it to give. >> could we have a briefing on these questions? >> i am saying we will not address circumstances of his death. i would not anticipate a briefing on it. >> is there a difference between what you cannot answer because you do not know the answers? >> specifically in terms of notification and things like that. i will take the question about notification and where it came from. i do not have any details on that. >> on the buffett conversation, he talked about his idea was a tax on the altar rich -- ultra rich.

>> you have to look carefully. this is important. i appreciate you clarifying this. there has been a lot of the liberal misrepresentation and misunderstanding. -- deliberate misrepresentation and misunderstanding. if you make $5 million, and i hope you do, and it is all in wages or $50 million and is all in wages, you are paying an effective tax rate that is at least as much as middle-class taxpayers are paying. if you are like warren buffett making millions paying a tax rate that is lower than a lot of

this year, that is where the principle would apply. it does not apply -- >> he thinks it affects 50,000 people. >> i do not know what the figures are. this is not -- this is a principle that should guide tax reform. we have acknowledged that obviously there are a lot of very affluent americans to make millions region who make millions of dollars. a portion of them are paying an effective tax rate that is as much as a middle-class wage earner. there are certainly numerous very affluent americans who are not. that is what the buffett rule was meant to apply to, to those who because the way the tax code is written and the nature of

their income can find themselves paying 15% on substantial income where most folks are paying much more than that. >> complaints have been filed against a number of super pacs, including one started by former white house officials. one was filed to have the irs look into whether they are using their charitable tax status. given the president's previous denunciations of super pacs, does the president's support the investigation? >> that is news to me. i would have to investigate. early in my tenure, i addressed this question. i have not thought about it

today. i will take it. >> does the death of anwar al- awlaki complicates whether president saleh should go? >> we have said our position has not changed. he needs to keep his commitment in the gcc agreement that he signed to transfer power right away. we continue to have that position. >> he would say this proves his point, that under his leadership yemen has been a valuable ally to the united states in the counter-terrorism by it. >> our cooperation with yemen with civilian and military counterparts is not limited to one person. it has never been about one person.

it has been about a partnership around the goal of dealing with the threat to the united states, allies, and yemen. that cooperation continued throughout the unrest. the unrest has made it more difficult. that is one reason why we need president saleh to abide by his commitment. the cooperation will continue going forward. it does not change our position with regard to the president. >> can ou say or confirm the president is able to designate individuals on a cia capture or kill list? >> i cannot. i do not have an answer to that.

i can take your question. i will not get into backdoor way s to discuss the circumstances. i do not know what discussions have been had about that in the past. i can look at that. i want to make it clear and i am not discussing the circumstances here. >> is the way warren buffett explain the rule consistent with the way the rule is written? >> i appreciate the opportunity to make it clear. there has been some accidental blogging by republican leaders and tweeting and websites that have misconstrued what warren buffett was saying. the principle is that affluent americans should pay the same,

at least the same tax rate as middle american wage earners. that does not mean that everyone making over a certain figure would have a change in their tax rate. many are paying an effective tax rate at least as high as middle americans. but there are many others paying an effective tax rate that is much lower because of the nature of their income. as we look at tax reform and try to address all of the different loopholes and subsidies and aspects of the tax code that benefit some at the expense of others, that principle should be applied. >> 50,000 people are affected? >> i do not know if we have

numbers we have put together on this. i know it is not an insub stantial number. it is a principle that warren number ofd and large americans agree with. i do not know if we've gathered figures on estimates for the number of people that would be impacted by the principal. those numbers may not reflect our numbers. the principle is the principal. >> could it be as high as 400,000? " we will have to give you the numbers. >> can you talk about the role governm -- can you talk about the role the yemeni

government played? >> it has been an objective of this administration and the prior one that we work to have the cooperation because of the threats of the private -- because of the threats al qaeda on the arabian peninsula represented. it is through that corporation that the threat continued. the corp. continues today. >> do you think the tax on all players will be affected? >> i do not know about that. i am aware that paying -- having the largest payroll does not translate into altman victory. even the second-largest. speaking of a bad headline. sorry. >> the president is doing a lot

of fund-raising. what has he gleaned out of the meetings and interactions with donors? can you give us a summary of how things are going? >> he has enjoyed the opportunity to get out and talk to his supporters. it is part of what you do when you are running for office. i think the message he has carried has been the same everywhere. when he took office in january of 2009, he made it clear this would not be easy. the challenges we face were enormous. as it turned out, they were even

more enormous than people realize that the time in terms of the economic challenges. we have made progress, but our work is not done. we have to continue to struggle and fight to do the things that need to be done to help the american people economically. we need to make the investments in our future with education, innovation, and infrastructure the will allow american to dominate the 21st century the way it did the 20th. that is the message he has been bringing to his supporters. that is similar to the message he is delivering in general about where he wants the country to go, the steps we need to take, the challenges that we face, and the need to keep working and pushing forward to achieve the goals that he has

said. >> he was proud to send a grass- roots small dollars were important. is he concerned he will not be able to replicate that? >> i would address those questions to the campaign in terms of fund-raising and the makeup of donors. my understanding from what i have read in the press is that he is getting broad support from all over the country in small and big ways. >> at fort myers, the president said the operation was a tribute to our intelligence community and the efforts of yemeni security forces. can we and for this was a cia operation without military

involvement? >> no. i think the point is we have had a cooperative relationship at a variety of levels with our yemeni counterparts. that has been the case for some time and continues to be the case today. >> in the osama bin laden rate, it was clear from the outset. based on what the president said, it appears there is no such involvement in this operation. >> i am not going to parse words and get led down teh path and discussing the circumstances and details of his death. >> use said the u.s. decision on saleh is not related to the

anwar al-awlaki operation. does that also mean the timing regionh's return to the has no connection to what happened with al-awlaki? >> there is no connection to my knowledge. has theina's currency, administration taken a position on it? >> i had this question yesterday. it remains the same. we are reviewing the bill. we share concerns about the need for the chinese currency to appreciate. there has been some progress but there needs to be more. that is what i have to say today about it. >> does the president believe there is the risk of retaliation and danger to americans after the al-awlaki

killing? >> we're always mindful of the possibility of actions by those who generally have as their goal of doing harm to the united states and our allies. regardless of the circumstances of his death, we need to be extra vigilant. i would expect that is the case in terms of the community that deals with this. >> of the president often talks about innovation and new businesses and industries. on the buffet rule, it would substantially affect venture capitalists who make capital gains on investments in new businesses. is he concerned it could harm investments in these new

businesses he is promoting? >> as a matter of principle, the president believes strongly that someone making millions of dollars in income should not be paying a much lower tax rate than an american receiving a paycheck and making $75,000. >> if the new businesses do not get started, will that be at the cost of new jobs? >> the administration has taken numerous measures towards helping businesses create jobs. in the american jobs and, we have tax relief for small businesses aimed at putting more money into the pockets of small businesses that will hopefully enable them to grow and hire.

we give them incentives to grow their work force or increase wages. the commitment this president has to helping our businesses grow is strong. >> i have two questions on the eurozone. the president was outspoken about his concerns over the eurozone and the consequences for the world economy. european countries and the parliament's took action. is this a model of how foreign leaders should deal with other countries? the inability of congress to deal with the debt problem in a timely and decisive manner is also a danger for the world economy. would you think leaders in congress should take into

consideration what european leaders could do to help them get their house in order? >> if european leaders or those from other parts of the world want to make the point that we have made that political dysfunction in washington is bad for the economy, that is fine with me. i am sure it is fine with the president. it is a self-evident fact that the kind of dysfunction we witnessed in washington this past summer had a negative impact on confidence here in america and globally. it was a drag on our economy. it was the kind of self- inflicted wound we should not be self-and put in in washington when we have -- we should not be self-inflicting when we have so many challenges.

the president is in regular contact with his counterparts in europe. we work well with our european counterparts on this issue. our position remains the same. we urge europe to take decisive action to deal with this challenge. it obviously affects the european economy and the eurozone and the global economy as well. we are working with our counterparts to help them in the process. >> the german ambassador put a statement out today that this is no time for transatlantic blame games. in the european government and german discussion, there is a discussion of whether or not to

do this. the markets get more nervous. what is your reaction now the the german ambassador has put out a statement like that? >> i do not think anybody is engaged in a blame game. we are noting what everyone knows. this is a real challenge that needs to be addressed. collective, decisive, and forceful action needs to be taken. i do not think that is a particularly controversial observation. it is not meant to be. this is a global economy. we need to work collectively with our allies and partners around the world to help it grow and prevent -- bless you.

[laughter] anyway, thank you all very much. i have to go now. every friday, i forget. i think i will be back here tomorrow. on monday, the president will hold a cabinet meeting at the white house. on tuesday, the president will travel to mesquite, texas, to deliver remarks urging congress to pass the american jobs act now to keep teachers in the classroom, rebuild schools, and put money in the pockets of working americans while not adding a dime to the deficit. later, he will travel to st. louis, missouri, to attend campaign events. on wednesday, he will host the president of honduras at the white house. he looks forward to discussing economic and security issues during their meeting. he also welcomes the opportunity to underscore the strong bonds of friendship between american and honduran people as well as

the efforts to restore democratic order in honduras. on thursday, the president will welcome the texas a&m women's basketball team to the white house for a ceremony honoring their 2011 n.c.a.a. national championship. on friday, the president will welcome the 1985 super bowl champion chicago bears to the white house. later in the afternoon, he will host the prime minister of tunisia at the white house. the president looks forward to discussing america's strong support for tenacious -- tunisia's historic transition and items of mutual interest. he looks toward to highlighting the strong bonds of friendship between american and tunisian people. that is your week ahead. >> is it the whole team or did you individually in by the players -- invite the players?

[laughter] >> any security clearance problems? [laughter] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> coming up in two hours, "the

contenders" will look at the life and political career of eugene debs. he represented the socialist party and ran for president five times. all those events are starting at 8:00 on the c-span networks. >> the head of the american association of university professors says tenor is in jeopardy and needs to be protected. >> it creates an atmosphere on campus where people can speak freely, not only in terms of their subjects, but in university governance. if you do not like the choices the board of governors mix, you should be able to speak freely.

without that, you do not have the faculty available to you. >> the author of "no university is an island." sunday night. >> american citizens, forced from their homes. no trial, no charges. for this 10-year-old, his family and over 10,000 other americans, a heart mountain internment camp was his home. hear his story from the apartment and interpretive learning center. explore 19th century america from the smithsonian's new "hall of wonders" exhibit. a new york democrat became the youngest woman ever elected to congress. one year later, she was voting

to impeach the president. look for the complete schedule on c-span.org/history. you can also get the mails to your in box. >> in a couple of minutes, we will take you to new hampshire. texas governor and republican presidential candidate rick perry is holding his first town hall meeting in the granite state. new hampshire is set to hold the first national primary in early january, based on the decision by florida to hold their primary at the end of january. we will have coverage of that meeting once it gets under way, live here on c-span. in the meantime, part of an event held by the u.s. small business administration, looking at minority business development. among the speakers, caramels. -- karen mills, the usba

administrator. >> i have to tell you i love this song. welcome. welcome, everybody, to the 29th annual minority development week conference. if you're in the back, please move up. we are delighted you are able to join us at this very important event. this year, in addition to our guests from around the nation, we have guests from turkey, england, china, and other parts of the world. we all come together not just to celebrate the entrepreneurial spirit of this nation, but to learn about business opportunities in the global marketplace, to network, and to

build stronger relationships across industry sectors. we come here because it is crucial to our nation that we work together to rebuild the economies within our communities. it is business owners, those of you who have taken it upon themselves to accept the risks and talent is to build a business, who are leading the way. that is why the theme of this year's conference is emerging industries and markets, a blueprint for success. over the next three days, you will have the opportunity to discover how to use trade fairs and trade missions to expand your business, to learn about the international financing alternatives made available to you through the federal government, to learn how to expand your business through acquisition. we have a wonderful seminar that will teach you how to buy a business, and to learn how to leverage the vast resources of

the small business administration. this year, you will hear from senior members from the obama administration. you will hear from ceo's of fortune 500 companies. you will hear from some of the most successful entrepreneurs in our nation, who have built their companies from small mom and pop organizations to global enterprises. i cannot promise you a lot of sleep over the next three days. but if you take full advantage of this conference, if you bear down and focus on the opportunities available to you at this time, i can promise that when you leave washington, d.c., you will leave with a new contract, a new strategic partner, greater access to capital, and a greater appreciation for the opportunities in the global market. all of this would not be possible without our extraordinary group of sponsors.

what makes them extraordinary is that during difficult times, when companies small and large are struggling to maintain, they stepped up big. they recognized the power of diversity, and understand the future of our nation exists with the minority business community. by 2042, america will be a nation that has a majority minority population. thus it is imperative that the minority business community grow and prosper. unlike many corporations, our sponsors understand the business case for rebuilding the wealth base in the minority community. i ask that you join me in giving all of our sponsors a warm round of applause. [applause] today, we are in a difficult economic time. when the president first took

office, our economy was losing 750,000 jobs per month. while we have created 2.2 million jobs, there are still far too many of our fellow citizens who are unemployed. over 14 million americans are unemployed. another 6 million have given up looking for a job. we know that in this administration, the best way to create jobs is through private business ownership and stimulating the entrepreneurial spirit that makes america great. the most productive companies that create jobs in america are your company's, those companies that are minority-owned, women- owned, and those small businesses. minority-owned companies create 6 million jobs for american citizens, and an additional 10 million jobs through their economic activity. if we are able to eliminate the impediments to their growth,

this sector of the economy has the potential to create 18 million jobs. the role of the minority business development agency is to serve as a catalyst for job creation by helping overcome the challenges you face in accessing capital, contracts, and new markets. we have been successful. since the beginning of the obama administration, we have helped minority owners gain access to nearly $7 billion in contracts and capitols, creating 11,000 jobs and saving tens of thousands of existing jobs. going forward, we will set greater goals. we will work to better integrate our a to rick -- to integrate our activities with government and other stakeholders. we will work to establish a minority-owned businesses and raise growth strategies through

mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, and strategic partnership. we will strive to help minority-owned firms leverage their unique competitive advantages in the global markets. why is this important? the bigger your firm is, the better able you are to create more jobs for your fellow citizens in need. we are here to help you. in a couple months, one of the areas where mbda providing fire support is in the area of federal government contracts. i am pleased to announce the establishment of our new federal procurements center. this business center, which will be located in washington, d.c., is the first of its type in the nation. it will provide minority-owned businesses with the tools, information, and relationships necessary to compete for federal contracts, and to win.

the center will join our national at all -- national network of business centers. the opening is a direct result of the obama administration's commitment to ensuring all businesses share in the growth of jobs and economic opportunity created by the federal government. i will add we just opened it two new centers, one in denver, and one in cleveland. thank you. [applause] in the coming months, we will open new centers in new york, boston, connecticut, minneapolis, riverside, california, and anchorage, alaska. what all the members of the business -- the mbda business center network please stand? thank you for your efforts and commitment. take note of these people. before we leave, we implore you to get to know the senior

business consultants from our business centers and become clients of a minority business development agency. even with the support of mbda, sba, and others in the executive branch, our nation's businesses still need help so they can prosper and create jobs. that is what earlier this month president obama unveiled to the nation the american jobs act. this plan, which congress should pass without delay, will provide significant new tax cuts for small businesses. specifically, it will cut payroll taxes in half on the first $5 million of wages paid, and it gives incentives to hire veterans returning from war. the american jobs act extends to 100% expense and for capital expenditures into 2012. if you are thinking about buying new equipment -- computers,

factory equipment, or buying equipment for your biotechnology company -- you can expense 100% of that investment today. the american jobs act will also empower states with new flexibility to allow out of work americans to continue to receive unemployment benefits while they look for internships and apprenticeships. this will create a stronger worse foreshore you -- workforce for you. it will help you as the economy moves out of the downturn. equally important, the payroll tax cut puts money in the pockets of consumers. under the american jobs act, the average american family will have $1,500 to spend that they otherwise would pay in taxes. we believe this will dramatically increase consumer spending, which should help create greater certainty in our

economy. these measures and others in the american jobs act, such as modernizing our schools and rebuilding our infrastructure, will boost private-sector intensity and put people back to work. most important thing in the american jobs act is you. we need to hear your voice of support for this act. i want to conclude by saying we are indeed in challenging times in this nation. it is in times of challenge that we have the greatest opportunity to show our values. the president once said we are who we have been waiting for. we are the ones that can truly change the world. but we must be willing to embrace this view. the alternative is to cede ground to other countries, to let somebody else lead. but i would submit to you that allowing someone else to leave

it is not what made you great, and it is not what makes america great. i am sure there is not one person in this room that would be comfortable with america being a follower nation. certainly, our administration does not accept following as a standard approach. as a country, we do not complete -- do not compete to place. we compete to win. let us all work together to win. thank you very much. [applause] i am very excited to introduce our first speaker this morning. our first speaker has been involved in small businesses for her entire career. as an owner, manager, mentor, and investor, and now the administrator of the united states small business administration. she leads a team of 3000 public servants helping entrepreneurs

and small-business owners grow and create jobs by providing access to capital, counseling, contract and opportunities, and assistance. each year, through her leadership, the agency leverage is nearly $100 billion in federal contracts for small businesses, and supports free counseling and technical assistance to more than 1 million entrepreneurs. before joining the sba, she invested and group businesses in sectors such as consumer products, food, textiles, and industrial components. she understands the experiences of businesses have in the market, and understands small businesses are the heart of our economy, and critical to american competitiveness. we are fortunate to have a strong national voice on small businesses and supporting

emerging entrepreneurs. it is my pleasure to introduce to you the sba administrator, karen mills. [applause] >> good morning. thank you, david. it is terrific to be here. welcome. we are delighted to see everybody at medweek, and i want to thank all of you who support this, particularly our great sponsors. let us give them a round of applause. [applause] how many of you out there are small business owners? raise your hand. everybody knows that minority small-business owners are one of the fastest-growing segments of american business.

we also know that this community was especially hard hit by this recession. our job at the sba is to make sure that you have the tools you need so you can grow your business and start creating jobs again. let me look back for a minute. when i stood before you last year, we were about to pass the small business jobs act. this was the most significant piece of legislation for small business in over 10 years. i want to thank you for your support. it passed almost a year ago this week. it was well worth passing, for a lot of reasons you know. it resulted in the biggest quarter of lending in s.p.a. history.

at the end of this week, we will close on a record year of sba lending. thank you. you may know that at the sba we are three to five times more likely to make a loan to a minority-owned business or a woman-owned business than a conventional lender. three to five times more likely. but there is still a gap in lending to minority and underserved businesses. last year, we did a number of additional things to help that situation. for the first time, we are allowing michigan-based lenders to make sba loans. we gave them streamlined paperwork. who does not like stream work --

streamlined paperwork to make it easy? many of you participate in the aid program. we strengthened it to make sure benefits are flowing directly to the small businesses, like yours. we went after the bad actors who did not qualify. we also rolled out the women's contracting program. that was 10 years in the making. we are helping women in over 300 industries where women with small businesses are under represented. finally, we convened our first council on underserved communities, chaired by cathy hughes of radio 1. if you do not know her, you will. she is fabulous. we had ron busby from black chamber. they are advising us where to go next with capital, counseling,

and contracting. what are we going to do for you this year? how about the american jobs act? as david just said, this is a critical priority. the number one thing in this bill is to help small business. it will help you do what you do best, which is to create jobs. it is smart. it is bipartisan. it is paid for. it puts more money in your pockets. congress should pass it now. [applause] david talked about what is in it for you, but i am going to reprised that a little bit from the small business lines. what will it do right now for your small businesses? it cuts in half the payroll taxes for all small businesses,

and it eliminates completely the tax you are going to pay if you add new jobs. that is going to affect about 350,000 african american and hispanic-owned small businesses in the united states, 350,000 small businesses. this bill is also going to expand the the 100% expensing through 2012. that means more money to buy the next piece of machinery or equipment, and to hire the workers to run it. the bill also means tens of thousands of dollars of tax credits for hiring the long-term unemployed, and giving even more tools to help them either get hired or start their own business. we need this right now,

especially in our underserved communities, more than ever. there are hiring credits if you hire veterans. these are people who went out and fought for their country. they should not have to fight for a job when they come home. one last point, but not least. $50 billion in infrastructure -- i know some of you are contractors out there. small contractors are really going to benefit from the infrastructure investments in this bill. i am also particularly happy with something else we are doing for small business. these are the small businesses who do business with the federal government, like many of you here.

the couple of weeks ago, the president announced and told all federal agencies to start paying their small-business government contractors in 15 days instead of 30. it is an idea called quick pay. [applause] i want to think long busby and a number of you who supported this. -- i want to thank ron busby and a number of you who supported this. why is that a big deal to get paid in 30 days instead of 15? you all know what i know, right? when you consistently pay a business 15 days sooner, that is a permanent infusion of cash flow into their business, right? you can put money toward working capital. you can expand your business. you can market your product.

you can create more jobs. [applause] one more thing. last week, i sat next to vice- president biden at a minority- owned business in cleveland, and we made a big announcement. i am very pleased to say -- >> we are going to break away from the remainder of this, with a reminder you can see this event in our video library at c- span.org. next, presidential candidate rick perry at a town hall meeting in new hampshire, live here on c-span. [applause]

>> good evening, everyone. i am the chairman of the derry republican town committee. i welcome you to a historic night. you might think that is the meet and greet with governor perry and his colleagues. actually, it is the new floors. aren't these beautiful? i provide a value-add service up here. in the case of emergency, sit quietly until i leave the building. [laughter] then you will find exits behind you in here.

there are staff people who will help you. please turn off all cell phones, and be respectful of this evening. nobody is the antichrist, including the current president of the united states. everybody would like to talk to the government. please do that in a respectful manner. please rise for the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. i would like to introduce the former director of health and human services, a former gubernatorial candidate john stevens, one of the leading figures in republican politics in new hampshire. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you for being back in new hampshire, and being a frequent visitor to our great state. i want to talk briefly, when i introduced the governor and my great friend, tom thompson, about the governor. i have endorsed governor perry so enthusiastically for a reason. he is not known as the jobs government because of small accomplishments. he has made a lot of accomplishments in the area of jobs. he has also done a lot in budget and taxes. we are here to talk about taxes. but on jobs, 40% of all jobs since 2009 in the united states of america come from the state of texas. that is a major accomplishment, governor kerrey, and it is because of you. -- perry, and it is because of

you. [applause] it is not so much about one person, and the governor will tell you that, but he led the charge in creating the environment where a private sector is able to create meaningful jobs. on the budget, which is important to me -- when we ran last year, and this year, on balance in our budget, they had a $28 billion deficit in texas this past year. many people were talking about raiding the rainy day fund and raising taxes. when a person who was not talking about that was the governor. at the end of the day, not only did they balance their budget, they were able to restore the rainy day fund, over $6 billion. another great accomplishment. [applause] and on taxes, in 2006, governor perry signed and led into law the biggest property tax rate

decrease in the state of texas, 1/3 reduction in school property taxes across the board, which has lead to savings for taxpayers of over $16.40 billion in the state of texas. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, that is major accomplishment, and that is what we need in our leader as a president. i also want to end on a topic that has recently been discussed on immigration. many of you know i was commissioner of health and human services. a lot of you do not know i was a prosecutor for 10 years at the district attorney, county attorney, and attorney general level. i prosecuted illegal immigrants selling or smuggling drugs in our state. i have seen times when i saw and the federal government would not do their job -- when i.c.e. and

the federal government would not do their job and that person was back on the street. there is no governor or person in this race stronger in taking a stance against illegal immigration in actions and governor rick perry. i am going to tell you why. [applause] governor rick perry, during his governorship, has vetoed legislation to give driver licenses to illegal immigrants. he has also been able to support and allow for the spending of $400 million in the state of texas to protect the border, because the federal government was not doing their job. that is leadership. [applause] he also is opposed to the federal dream act, and is absolutely opposed to granting illegal immigrants amnesty. that is leadership.

[applause] i just want to tell you tonight, i am honored to be here to introduce the governor. i am also honored to introduce a great friend of mine, tom thompson, whom many of you know. his father, a great mentor of mine -- i met him when i was 15 years old, in his office. my dad was in the state senate. he was a commissioner of boxing and wrestling, but later went to the state senate and was involved in public service. i went to the governor's office. i will never forget a sign that said "low taxes are the result of low spending." that is what our elected leaders have forgotten today. tonight, it gives me great honor and privilege to introduce two great americans -- governor rick perry and tom thompson. [applause]

>> thank you. and thank you for coming. i do not know if you just saw that i reached in my pocket and dropped money. it is just like what is happening in washington, throwing money away. but i picked it up. i think i know how it must feel down in texas. it is hot. [laughter] i am going to invite the governor back to new hampshire this winter to go snowmobiling. >> i will be back. >> i want to thank jim foley and the derry gop for inviting me down, and john stevens for his kind words. i would also say -- a show of hands. how many veterans are in the audience tonight? let us give them a big hand. [applause]

thank you to all of our veterans for all you do. i am here tonight to ask -- i have asked rick perry, and he has agreed to sign the thompson presidential pledge, which you see here. i would like to give a little background. new hampshire is a state which has no sales or income tax. this is because of my father, in big part. [applause] 40 years ago, he galvanized the pledge in new hampshire. he promised the people before they voted for him that he would veto a sales or income tax. today, new hampshire is one of two states that does not have a sales or income tax.

excuse me. the pledge is a promise to the people of the state of new hampshire that before you vote for the individual, they have signed a pledge, making a promise to you, the people. a number of weeks ago, i was holding a brand-new granddaughter. i looked in her eyes and thought to myself, "this granddaughter is already -- she has a $48,000 debt with the national debt, for every man, woman, and child." it is this next election which is the most critical in our lifetime to be sure that we have a conservative republican in the white house. it is absolutely important. this pledge, which the governor will sign in a minute, lays out cutting taxes, cutting spending,

cutting the size of government, protecting our borders, becoming energy independent, and upholding the constitution. i believe everyone in this audience wants that. i believe every person running for president should sign that. they have all been asked. you see the individuals appear that have signed -- mitt romney, rick santorum, buddy roemer, and christopher hill. i thank you for coming to new hampshire and signing the pledge. [applause] i forgot to tell the governor that the act was my father's when he campaigned for years ago. i know things are busy in texas.

[applause] but in new hampshire, we have the biggest axe. >> thank you, and i know how to use it, sir. i want to say how great it is to be back in new hampshire. thank you. thank you, sir. i am proud to sign the thompson presidential pledge. it provides the kind of conservative reform we need in this country. it is the reduction in taxes, the spending and the size of government we are seeing grow on an almost exponential basis. it is the commitment to secure our border. it is the commitment to make american energy independent in eight years. and my solemn commitment to uphold and protect this

constitution of the united states. [applause] i want to thank you. i want to thank you as the author of this pledge. on behalf of all the conservatives across this country, and for people who believe in those principles, i want to say it is a great honor to be with you. jim is a marine of some renown. thank you for your service to this country. you and other men and women are defending our freedoms today. the greatest privilege in my life. -- in my life was to wear the uniform of our country. [applause]

our country is in trouble. when one in six work-eligible americans cannot find a job, our country is in trouble. i am not just talking numbers. we are talking about fellow americans, neighbors. friends. our relatives. the fact is there is nothing ailing america that the rebirth of freedom cannot cure. [applause] i am going to bring that prosperity back by enlisting america's greatest american -- greatest economic advantage, and that is freedom. freedom from too much government, too much spending, too much borrowing, too much regulation. imagine for a minute and

america -- an america where we can set our people free. employers who are free from over regulation would once again be able to invest in the economy and create jobs. americans would get back to work, stop worrying about whether they could meet the mortgage payment, put food on their table, put fuel in their gas tank. families would be able to get a head again and plan for the future. the key to prosperity is liberty. the larger government grows, the smaller our circle of freedoms. it is time to set the american free again from the burden of big government. your father understood that, tom. freedom works. it has been working that way in my state for some time. as john shared with you, my home state, this june of 2009 -- 40%

of all the jobs created in america were created there. our credit rating went up at the same time, i might add. [applause] i have a government based on a few guiding principles. your dad would love this best of all. do not spend all the money. second, have a tax burden that has as light a touch on job critters as you can. three is a regulatory climate that is fair and predictable. fourth, a legal system that does not allow for over-suing, so you can create jobs. [applause] we cut our property taxes by a third. we cut our taxes on small businesses. we cut state spending for the first time since world war ii.

i was proud to sign the budget that said we can operate within our needs. we do not have to raise taxes just so some people can say you cannot live without government spending at this level. we are doing it in my home state. since i became governor, we have created more than a million jobs in texas. the simple truth is freedom works. freedom has always worked. sadly, washington has forgotten that fact. it is time to get america working again. we have to cut the taxes for the families and employers. we have to freeze phaedra regulations. we have to stop the generational flecked with this monster is and record debt. if you elect me president, i promise to things. on my first day in office, i

will walk into the oval office, take out a sharpie, and sign an executive order to do away with this bunch of obamacare. [applause] thank you. while you are up, let me share with you the second thing i am going to do. i will go in that office every day and try to make washington, d.c. as into -- as inconsequential in your life as i can. [applause] i believe in this country. i believe in our purpose. i believe in her promise. i believe that our best days are yet lived. there are young people in this audience his best days are going to be ahead of them. their future is going to be better than ours.

we're going to write history in the days ahead that are some of the greatest exploits in america's history. with your help, we will get america working again, get this country moving forward. i will say one more thing. thank you for loving your country enough to be here, to be engaged, and to get our country back and working again. god bless you. [applause] >> your water is over here. thank you, governor. >> i think we are going to do a few questions. let me get rid of that, because they may start -- i may start sweating in a minute. that is a good thing. john, i will let you moderate. let's go. >> first question, front row. right here. >> about the tax on small

business -- as president, what would you do to alleviate that so we can grow? >> in my state, you have a record to back it up, not just hear somebody talking. we reduced our franchise tax from 1% to 0.5%. every small businessman and woman knows something. if you have a regulatory climate that is unpredictable and burdensome on them, you have a tax structure where they cannot keep more of what they work for, they are not going to risk their capital. the government's job is this. the government never creates the jobs. the government takes money from the private sector and spread it around. we need to get back to understanding truly that the engine of this country is in

small business, men and women who are willing to risk their capital. the way you build the confidence for those individuals is to create an environment -- as i said earlier, the government does not create jobs. government can create an environment that is positive for job creation, or they can put up barriers, which are higher taxes, higher regulation, allowing a legal system that causes flowerless -- frivolous lawsuits to flourish. those are the things we will do. lower the corporate tax rate. lower the personal tax rate. the idea that we have $1.70 trillion offshore that has been generated by american companies that they will not bring back into this country to invest or create jobs because the tax it at 35% -- that money will never come back.

lower the taxes. there is a model for this working. in the last decade in texas, we have lowered our taxes. we have lowered our regulatory climate. we have put protections in our legal system. we just passed "blues or pay -- lose or pay." you are not going to spend time at the courthouse. you will be out there doing what small businessmen and women do. when you are confidence you will not be over regulated or over litigated, you will hire people, expand your business. that is the way this country can get back on track, and get back on track in a hurry. pull those regulations that are killing jobs. either get rid of obamacare, and lower the tax burden on americans. it is that simple, but you have

to have a president that is committed and courageous to do that. i will do that. [applause] phyllis, how are you? >> thank you for coming. >> absolutely. >> thank you for coming to derry. right now, the senior population is the highest population in the country. seniors -- there are the most seniors on food stamps, welfare. anything that helps reduce their burden, they are doing it. but they have not had -- from social security, they have not had a raise in three years. what are we going to do to help the senior population? >> one of the big costs seniors have is the cost of energy. whether it is buying gasoline for the automobile, putting its electricity or oil or however you heat the and/or cool -- you

do not have a real problem with the cooling appear. we have that down in texas. energy cost is one of those things. freeing up our domestic energy production will do two things. it will get this country working and more people put to work than anything we can probably do. to do that, i am talking about removing onerous regulations we are seeing out of the epa and other agencies of government that our job-killers. -- are job-killers, and free up this country. we have centuries of energy in this country -- oil, gas, coal, and wind. allow those sectors to compete against each other. that will drive down the cost to seniors. they are on fixed income.

everything we can do to drive down those fixed costs for senior citizens -- and frankly, there may be a lot of individuals, if they so choose, that will go back into the work force again if there are jobs available, either part-time or full-time. i will suggest again this goes back -- the woes of this country, the problems america has, are associated with over taxation and overregulation, particularly out of washington, d.c. our state's need to compete against each other. that is what we do. we should compete. i shared with john one of the ways new hampshire can become one of the most competitive states from a standpoint of being able to create jobs, in my opinion. you already do not have a sales tax and are relieved of personal income tax. make this a right to work state,

and i guarantee you will bring people into this state by the thousands. [applause] let me wrap up and say one more thing. right to work is not an anti- union bill. it is a pro-jobs bill. our friends who have chosen to be in unions will have access to more jobs, making it a right to work state. >> governor, welcome to new hampshire. >> thank you, sir. >> you have said that you disagree with the national academy of science's conclusion that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming. this position is supported by an overwhelming consensus of data. in california, you said we should find out what the science is before putting american jobs in jeopardy. but you were asked twice for sources on climate change, and

you ducked the question. what sources of information do you rely on -- >> i am ready for you this time. >> for your views on climate change. >> just within the last couple of weeks, a renowned nobel laureate, who also joined the chorus that has time after time , after information becomes available, they look at all the data. those that want to take the position that global warming is man's fault and it is incontrovertible -- that is not correct. there are scientists standing up all across that are saying that. [applause] i just have to say here is my issue. hold on. i have the microphone. you have your question. i am going to insert.

i will let you have a rebuttal. a nobel laureate, a nobel laureate of some acclaim, who stood and said, "i want to be removed from the role" -- i believe it was the physical society. he said there is not incontrovertible evidence. here is my point. the climate has been changing for millennia. we go back. it has been changing for thousands of years. for us to take a snapshot in time and say what is going on in this country today. the climate change that is going on is man's fault. we need to jeopardize america's economy. i am a skeptic. i am not afraid to say i am a skeptic.

why would i put our children's future in jeopardy for signs that is not proven? just because a large number of scientists say it is man's fault and that is that -- but we are also seeing scientists standing up and saying, "we are finding problems with the model. we are seeing evidence that there may be some small part that man is playing in this." we in texas have addressed this. do you realize we clean up our air in texas more than any other state during the decade of the 2000's? it was not epa regulations. they tried to come into texas after we cleaned up our air and take it over. they will take a bunch of jobs and not clean the air. we lowered our ozone levels by 27% during the 2000's. we lowered our nitrogen oxide levels by 58%. that is what we need to be

working on. allow the states to be flexible in how they do this. i will assure you those of us who believe that air, and our children who brief that there, -- breathe that air will make the right decision. we do not need the federal government telling us how to run our state, even with air quality, because we are doing a good job in texas. you may rabat. >> you are very kind to let me rebut. it has been said that climate change is not federal science. do you agree? >> i think we should be skeptics of those who say there is incontrovertible evidence that global man-made it warming is happening and it is man's fault. >> even though there are other things that are not necessarily

-- such as the link between cancer and smoking. >> i would suggest that is pretty subtle. i would suggest that is pretty settled. >> thank you, governor. four years ago, we had a president elected on a blank slate. he was able to do that because he had no track record 2.2, none for his opponents to demonize. -- to point to, none for his opponents to demonize. if i give you my vote and you are nominated, i want to know you have the stones to take it to him and hang his record around his neck. [applause] thank you. i want to know that you were going to ask him about the $7 trillion in debt we will have by

election time. i want to know you will hamper him -- hammer him over the quadrupling of the last butch deficit -- bush deficit, and for testing deficits for the next 10 years. lastly, i want to know if you will ask him or debate with him about the fact that -- excuse me. about the fact that his budgets and regulatory aspects are not only killing jobs, but we have returned to the days of the carter malaise. [applause] >> i am not confused about what you have just asked me. let me lay this out. 2.5 years ago, gasoline was about $1.60 a gallon. the unemployment rate in this country was around 5.7%.

we had a aaa credit rating. we also had a national debt it had taken from 1776 until the end of 2008 to reach approximately $8 trillion. today, driving in, it was $3.40 a gallon. the unemployment rate is somewhere between 9% and 10%. we have a aa credit rating. and our national debt, stacked upon the back of those young men and women in that middle row, it is approaching $15 trillion. you ask yourself -- are you better off today than you were at 2.5 years ago? no, sir. we will take it to this

president, day in and day out. let me add one other thing. we need a nominee for the republican party that is a clear contrast with barack obama. [applause] we need someone who will clearly draw the line between his policy and republican conservative policy. ronald reagan said it pretty good when he said, "now is the time for bright colors, not pale pastels." let me tell you -- i am that bright color. [applause] >> governor, welcome to derry. representative john o'connor, for derry, the fourth largest government in the state of hours. i was pleased to see you sign the pledge on the taxes. one comment for mr. thompson.

it is no longer 40,000. it is 138,000 per child. per person. my question. recently, you initiated and approved taxes in the state of texas, especially on the internet. you recently signed in a sales tax. if that came forward to you as a national, where everybody is looking for revenue -- my apology -- in taxes and fees, if it came toward you as president, what would you -- what would be your position on those taxes? >> that piece of legislation passed in texas. our house and our senate passed it. it allows for the taxation of internet transactions. i vetoed that bill.

that is what i will do in washington, d.c. again, it gets back to low taxes created by low spending. you do not raise the taxes, so they do not have it to spend. i think it is very important for us, across the board. it made it into they added a special session to a finance bill that i could not veto. but when that bill came to me, initially during the regular session of the legislature, i took my veto pen out and i vetoed it, to clearly send the message that i want the people in the country to know that texas is going to be a job-friendly state. and we're also a job-friendly state because we keep the taxes low. [applause] oh, here you go. >> do i need a mic?

i don't think so. >> marines don't need mics. >> governor, before i get started i was the chairman of the veteran's affairs committee to endorse you because we can only wish that you've done half the things that you've done for them in texas here in new hampshire. my question is -- and it's not texan related. you're the only candidate that said that social security is a ponzi scam, which i agree with. many of our seniors have been promised that all these years you're going to have money to live off of. seniors get $900, $1,100. how are you going to protect the seniors? i know what you want to do for the ones coming up the line.

how do we protect the seniors that are living off $1,000? >> we're going to revisit phillip's question. but the key is social security. and americans need to really understand the commitment that this country has made to men and women who are on social security today. and those that are approaching social security, that have planned their retirement on those social security payments. those payments will be there. do not buy into any individual's stair -- scare tactic that somehow or another because we are courageous enough to stand up and say, listen, we have a broning system. and we do have a broken system.

those two ladies, i guarantee you they know instinctively that when they get into the workforce and if we have not addressed this issue of social security, it will not be there for them. and that is in essence the description and the characterization of a ponzi scheme for them to pay into it. and those that are in first than those that were last, don't get it. and we as a country have the courageous conversation and say we've got fix this for our children. we cannot allow it to continue on and say, oh, let's kick the can down the road. let the next president or the next congress deal with it. no longer. we're republicans. we fix things and lay out the idea whether it is a staggered in moving up the age. we're living quite a bit longer bay long shot that when it was initially put into place. is it to allow young people to

have private options of -- mike, you might want to sit there and say, you know what, i want a private option to decide how this is going to be invested rather than having the government. somebody else might say, i wan the government to run that program. i also think we need to open it up so that the states can again, like they had historically been able to take the employees of the state or the retirees of the state opt of social and create their own programs. all of those would help, i think, create a foundation of change for social security so that those mid career americans will know it's going to be there for them and young people will know it's going o be there for them. and our seniors, again, allowing this country to get back to working and creating the wealth and running down the energy cost by allowing a domestic energy industry to flourish in this country are

ways that we can help our seniors. again, i feel comfortable that we're going to be able to get this country working again because everything goes back to that. i can't impress enough. we're going to get asked 100 different questions, 1,000 different ways. and i know they're going to be important questions. but if we don't get america working, if we don't get focused on creating jobs in this country, all those other questions really don't matter. we're not going to be able to have a foreign policy that will matter, a military one that's funded appropriately,a the research on the military side to be able to keep up with aggressive nations like china. you have to have your economy working or people working and your economy growing first. and there's only one way to do that is get the tax burden off, get the regulatory burden off of them.

and they will go out and create the jobs and the wealth. yes, ma'am. hi, cindy. howdy. >> you were saying that someone like myself in my mid 50's that i would be entitled to social security or maybe a portion of what i might be entitled to, is that what i'm understanding? >> no, what i'm saying for someone -- if you said you're 55 i'm going to -- >> ok. you're holding up well. >> thank you. >> but you're -- i'm 61. i'm on my way. obviously people your age, your planning your retirement you're thinking at it. that social security payment in total is going to be there for you. any american that's either your age -- i don't know what the right cut-off date is. we can have this conversation with the congress. before that, we're going have a

transitional period and for the 25 to 36-year-old we're going to have a new program created for them so that they know that they're going to have a retirement program. for those of us that are approaching social security, planning on it, it will be there for us. it's not going to be a percentage of it. it's guaranteed it's going to be there. don't let anybody, anybody, cindy, tell you this guy is talking about taking your social security out of the way. that's an outright false statement. >> i work in the health care. and as of monday, nursing homes are going to be getting 11% reimbursement to their budgets. and i'm very concerned because, you know, these nursing homes, they can't cut their lights off. they can't, you know, cut their

electric bill or whatever. what -- what is the long-term range for these sneem they have to cut their food and what they're eating. are they going to get orange juice or kool-aid? are they going to get water instead of milk? you know, i don't know. but they need to be able to fund these nursing homes and hospitals so that they can take care of the elderly. and then they're not getting like -- if they get a urinary tract infection, knew gnome yeah, they're not -- new moan yeah, they're not going to get treatment. they don't want it. they don't know what it is. and we're going to get cut. 20% they're telling us they'll cut. >> here is the kool-aid was drank by the members of congress that passed obama care. and they didn't read that bill. and now we are starting to see the cost of obama care.

and let me tell you what the real tragedy of this bill is. the tragedy is going to be in the lack of access. that is what's -- it's going to be our mother's, our fathers, ourselves that don't have access to health care because of the cost associated with this. i don't know, tom, what it's going to cost the state of new hampshire. i do know what the bill additionally is going to be for my home state. 2.7 billion dollars more every year over and above what we're already paying. in california, i will suggest to you it will bankrupt that state because of that maintenance of effort clause in that piece of legislation. fp there is one piece of legislation -- if there is one piece of legislation that has to be repealed with and done away with it is obama care but we will not be able to deliver health care. [applause]

there are a multitude of way to deal with these issues of health care. here is one. as a governor of a state in the last decade, i've had to deal with this issue. i've had to balance those budgets. we've gone to washington, d.c. i think since 2005 and asked for waivers on her medicaid so that we can deliver health care in a more efficient, more effective, give options to the different populations out there and we were turned down time after time after time. washington, d.c. has to get a lesson. and the lesson is all wisdom does not emanate out of washington, d.c. they need to let the states be greatly more involved in how our medicaid populations are taken care of. block grant those dollars back. the idea that washington ought to be taking your money up to washington, d.c. and deciding how and when it goes back to

your state for education purposes is counter to our constitution -- one of the last things number six is the faithfully up hold and protect the united states constitution. there is nothing in that constitution that says washington, d.c. is supposed to be telling us how to deliver health care. there's nothing in there that says washington, d.c. is supposed to be telling us how to educate our children. that needs to stop. and i'm the president that's going to stand up and say no longer is washington, d.c. going to mandate back to the states how to take care of health care or their children and their education. [applause] >> is that the last one? hey, bob? >> governor, i should start pointing out that you have a bit of a reputation. and that reputation is this -- some of us blog for you. and one of the most interesting things as i had some whiney democrats who were all upset because you go around to states

an you were actually pulling in businesses for them and you were bringing them into the state. we're about to get a new governor in this state. i have a two-part question. the first part is what advice would you have for any future governor of new hampshire on how to get that business into the state? and the second part of my question is while some candidates have built a -- a -- a reputation also of actually succeeding, exporting our jobs to china and other places, how would you use what you did in texas to actually go out and pluck the businesses back here? thank you. >> states compete against states. and that is how it is supposed to work. if a state and their legislators decide that they want to have a higher tax burden, a more ownerous regulatory climate or however they want to describe that

regulatory climate. if they want to allow for the personal injury trial, to have easier access, to sue doctors or businesses, that should be their right. i'm a huge believer in the 10th amendment that sates need to decide those issues state by state. the united states of america, we compete with other countries. so why do we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world? do you know what that does? it makes us be not as competitive with a country that does not have that high of tax burden on those businesses. canada comes into iowa. i was talking to terry brandted. they were talking about come up to canada because we have a lower corporate tax rate. this is really pretty simple. i do believe that states should

make the decision on their own. if you don't want to compete for jobs if you don't want to have a low tax burden if you don't want to have a regulatory climate that's at a certain lelvet, that ought to be your call. but when the neighboring governor comes over and knocks on the door of your business and says, come on over here to whatever that state might be because you're going to be able to keep more of your money, that's how it's supposed to work. and here's the reason why -- because when my neighbor bobby jindal who is a great competitor or my neighbor susana martinez who is a great competitor, when they lower their taxes, or when bobby puts a film together and they come to louisiana, i've got to sit back down with our luggetor and say, listen we're getting outworked so how are we going

to make our state more competitive. that is the reason that i vetoed that internet tax bill. it is the reason that we passed the loser-pay bill in texas. it's to make texas more competitive. i think that's how this country will get stronger. it's no allow the states to compete against each other. but you cannot do it when washington, d.c. forces you to deliver health care a particular way, when they force you to education your children a particular way, when they force you to meet all of these washington, d.c. centric regulations or tax burden. the way to free this country up and get it working again is to lower the tax burden both on the personal and on the corporate level, have a -- i call for president obama to put a six-month stay, if you will, on -- because it's job-killing,

regulations. put a six-month stay on all these regulations. pull them back in. test them for whether or not they actually create jobs or they kill jobs that's how you get america working again. i'm excite about the opportunity to make america competitive again. i think question bring companies. i assure you, i don't think companies like to be in china or they like to be in other places. they would rather be in the united states of america. but we have run them off with overregulation and overtaxation. and you elect me president and those days are over. [applause] >> we ready to brap it up? >> yep. -- wrap it up? >> thank you for letting me be a part of this. god bless you. an through you may god continue to bless this country we live in. thank you. ♪

♪

>> we'll take a look at our primetime schedule tonight on the c-span networks. starting in about 40 minutes at 8:00 eastern, c-span series "the contenders" continues with a look at the life of eugene debs who represented the socialist party of america and ran for president five times. on c-span2 remarks from ruth bader ginsberg speaking to law students in california about gender equality and civil procedure. and on c-span 3, the deficit committee holds a hearing on reforming the u.s. tax code. awe of that tonight starting at

8:00 on the c-span networks. >> this week the kaiser family foundation released a study of increases. a look at how much it provides families and individuals and the way it could increase obama's administration on health care coverage. >> and now joining us from new york city is reed ableson. she's a reporter with the "new york times." ms. ableson on wednesday of this week you had the lead story in "new york times" and here it is. health insurers push premiums sharply higher. been charging sharply higher premiums, outstripping those working and creating more problems in unrelenting raises

in medical costs and go on to talk about the large increases in premiums. why such a large increase? guest: we really don't know. the 9% increase was one no one really expected there was some thought before the health care law takes full effect the insurers were raising their prices. there were a couple of percentage points due to the new provisions in the health care law, but the truth is we don't know why it went up so much. host: could you ex 357bd on what those health care provision costs may have been with regards to the new law going into snesket guest: sure. under the health care law some of the early previsions that go into effect are things like covering preventative services or adding adult children up to

age 26 on your policies, and all of that costs a little more money, so the estimates are that perhaps 1% to 2% points was the cause, but the real driving force was the increase in underlying health care costs. doctors and hospitals charging more. people who are sick getting care, and that's costing money. host: as someone who covers the health care industry, is it fair to say that health care costs always seem to rise higher than normal inflationary costs, etc.? and if that's true, why is that? and it's been a trend for years. >> yes. guest: that's very true. there's no doubt even when it's relatively low, it's much higher than inflation. last year, for example,

installation was about 3%, and we had a 9% raise. and someone joked with me that it's because no matter what the rest of the economy is doing, health care is always a boom economy. and part of that is because of our system where the payment system encourages as much use as possible. at least that's general wisdom. and it's also because we have an aging population and new technology. there are a lot of drivers for health care costs, and that's why we're having so much de tpwhate washington and in board rooms over what to do with health care costs. host: many talk about that there's no real cost controls until you get to the states or government saying cost control. guest: i think that that is a

fair criticism. one of the issues is that most of the people with insurance that have insurance don't fay bills directly. there's also very little real negotiation between patients and doctors, between patients and hospitals. it's very hard when you're being wheeled in for an extra to say oh, gee, can you shave off some money or is there another provider somewhere? so it doesn't act like a typical market. host: now reed abelson's lead story in the washington times was based on a kiezer foundation of family study for health care costs. here's one of the costs they found on premiums. insurance premiums and the percentage paid by employers and employees. in 2009, you can see that costs per person was $13,375 and $

9,860 paid for by employers. then the big jump for 2011 up to $15,073 per person to cover a person and the employer on average picking up $10,944 of that and the worker contribution, $4,129. some of the headlines from this study, reed abelson, were that employers were pushing costs -- health care costs off to employees. have you found that? guest: i think that's been generally true in recent years with the costs being so high, customers are looking for ways to keep their own expenses down, and the easiest way to do that so shift more of the cost on to the worker where in

general people are paying higher deductibles and higher co-payments in addition to paying higher premiums. so there's no doubt the average person is paying mump more of their health care bill than they did. >> -- guest: it's interesting. they are not adding employees. and it's difficult to say because i think those decisions are complex. 3wi certainly it doesn't help that that's a real cost and what customers often say is it's an unpredictable cost. you don't know whether it's going up 3% or 9% or as it has in some years, 12%, 15%. this is particularly true of small businesses where you can have much higher increases if you start higher older workers

or if someone has the unimportant to experience of being in poor health, it's costly. you can see it with groups. host: reed abelson is our guest. her lead story from wednesday, health insurers push premiums sharply higher. this is a kiezer foundation study the story is based on. 202 is the area code. 737-0001 for democrats and 0002 for republicans and 628-0205 for independents. you can also send a tweet at twitter.com/cspanwj. first call up for reed abelson comes from pat on our republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i work within the insurance industry, the health care insurance industry. and i think your information is a little short on what impact the obama care had on insurance

agencies or insurance companies. not only are there adult children they are covering, but there's the i.c.d. nine to i.c.d. 10 change and medicare changes in certain programs and compliance with medicare and all their rules, and you have to have a compliant -- compliance administrator, and you have to train all your employees, and there's been layoffs in the insurance companies, so you have a big impact and that is all part of our business world. the costs, if i were to be someone who could make decisions, it would be to add since there's a crisis, why not ask everybody across the board, pharmaceuticals, and get down to realistic cost.

there is no ceiling on cost. there needs to be a control on what things cost. host: reed abelson. guest: thank you. i think you make an excellent point. there is plenty of blame to go around. all the parties are often reluctant to make difficult choices or to make any sacrifices to keep the cost down. but i think you make a good point. one of the most compelling criticisms of the new health care law is that it did not do enough to control underlying cost. being that continues to be needed -- and thing that continues to be needed. host: what kind of assistance

should be considered? guest: we are doing a lot of piloting. the private sector is also doing a lot of this. things like changing the payment system so you could be paying a flat fee for bundled care. you pay a fee for heart disease rather than pay every time a person gets a test or everytime that person gets a visit. making it so that if the person has to go into the hospital, the hospital visit could have been avoided, the doctor or hospital bears some of the cost of that. and if they can keep people out that should be out, that makes savings. host: brooklyn, maine, robert.

caller: i love your show. remember the human side of this. i have a friend in north carolina who died last year of the gang green. there she was in the emergency room and cannot afford health insurance or cannot afford to keep up with her meds. was dying in a public emergency room -- she was dying in a public emergency room. i have a sister who was gone through bankruptcy. her employer cut back and cut back. she had tens of thousands of dollars in emergency medical bills. this is horrible. i am self employed.

the premiums are ridiculous. the policy is only good if i get run over by a bus or struck by lightning. this is terrible. we are out there waiting for something to happen and we will be financially ruined. host: any comments for that caller? guest: i think there's been too much of an emphasis on not doing the kinds of things that would prevent someone from being in the hospital. one of the goals of the new health care law would be to expand coverage to help people buy coverage. this is why cost has been a big issue. almost anyone of us could be bankrupted if we have a poor insurance plan. too often people are cutting

back when they should not be. there are some four-looking employers -- some forward- looking employers trying to change coverage. i know this is a real problem and the country. host: when you talk with health- care providers and manufacturers, what is their view about the health care law -- the new health-care laws as they are being implemented? guest: i think it is mixed. there continues to be lobbying. that may be asking too much of

businesses and individuals to think outside of their self interest. it is going on. -- it isn't going on. perhaps the supreme court could overturn the law. one theme i hear is that the businesses and individuals are struggling with the uncertainty, wondering how much of the law will survive and how much funding there will be, and that is a difficult position to be in. host: is director talk that this 9% increase is due because of the new lot is taking a fact and maybe the new laws are pre- empting any incurred costs? caller: it is difficult --guest: it is difficult to say.

some may decide not to do a procedure. if you look of the use of health care, that has been slower than expected. everyone thinks if the economy recovers or if at some point we will seek a spike in demand for health care demand, it is difficult to know why the insurers have been pressing the premiums they have been. there has been speculation they are doing this in anticipation of the new rules. but i think it is hard to know. host: next call comes from texas, caroline. good morning. caller: my interest is and congress and the drug and pharmaceutical industry and

medical device industry. i have been trying for 10 years to get congress to require that the fda release information as soon as they realize there is a serious problem with a drug or a medical device. i have talked to congressman on both sides. many of their assistancts. an example is the olympus americana scope. they realize it trapped a dangerous bacteria. the pharmaceutical - the medical device company and the fda knew it was true, but they did not information for four months.

i would like congress to force the fda to release information within a short time after they agree that a device or a pharmaceutical product is dangerous. host: reed abelson. guest: i'm afraid i'm not familiar with that individual case. i am not sure what the rules are. regulators to step in when there does seem to be a clear danger. i do not know whether the holdup is they are trying to make sure that this isn't some how a few incidents that did not mean something or i don't know the source of the delay. the sooner people know, the better, i agree with you. host: in your story from wednesday, you talk about alan evans and emblem health. could you summarize that story?

guest: he had a policy and was suddenly face an astronomical increase because the policy he was in was no longer available and this was the only option. the only thing he could do was find -- he was lucky. he was able to find work and coverage through another source. this is a real issue of the small group in individual markets where you are potentially a victim to real significant increases in premiums in the because of the group dynamics have changed or what have you. this is one of the areas where we're going to have to see whether state regulators, presumably with the backing of the federal agencies, are going to be able to make a difference and hold down rates.

host: is there evidence this is preemptive policy dropping by the insurance -- health insurance company due to the new law going into effect? guest: in this case, we do not know. companies right now are looking hard at different markets. there are some who are dropping coverage in certain areas because they do not think there will be enough profit in it. it is difficult to say. the health-care law was aimed to address some of the problems in the small group and individual market. it is difficult to know what is going on because the full force of the regulation has not taken effect yet. host: next call comes from jimmy in columbus, ohio. caller: ok. i wanted to find out if anyone

-- what they are doing in europe. host: if what? caller: if anyone was doing anything to have health coverage in the european countries without paying for health insurance? and think as far as -- how they are real to have health insurance in the country without paying for it? host: reed abelson, is our new health-care law as passed, will move us in that direction? guest: i did nothing so. -- i do not think so. someone is paying for the cost. what extent are we going to control health-care costs

through price controls or some other fashion? to what extent are we going to limit people's choice? during the discussion of health care law, the question of whether i can go see my doctor or i can keep my health plan is a central one. that makes it difficult to see how far we move towards a european system. the federal and state governments are increasingly the ones who are paying for health care to medicare and state medicaid programs. the new health care what is a big expansion of people who are eligible for medicaid. i don't think we're going towards the european system. whether we should experiment with some of those things, it probably makes sense to look over the world to see what lessons we can learn. host: call in massachusetts --

paula in massachusetts. caller: can you discuss the massachusetts health care? i think a lot of people in this state have benefited from it. i would like people to know more about it. guest: i can talk generally. it is one of the few examples we have of what happens when you require people to buy health insurance when you set up exchanges. my sense is that it has worked out well in terms of expanding coverage. there has been concern that it has not done enough to control the underlying health care costs. costs still remain high and people still remain priced out of the market and they could be

at risk of racking up huge medical bills. there is a lot good about the law and the experience in massachusetts. some say it shows how difficult the problem is. host: dan from tennessee, a republican. you're on c-span. caller: a comment and maybe a couple of questions if i can stay on top here. in regard to health care, crammed down legislation is clearly a failure that -- what happens when special interests, lobbyists move in favor of the

insurance industry. don't get me wrong. i believe in capitalism. when insurance companies -- the major three by means of capitalization -- is increased by double and a family of three living on an income of $35,000, i cannot afford $700 policy on just my wife and child. host: dan -- caller: there are people in much more dire situations that may. nobody benefits from all this legislation except the insurance companies and drug makers.

host: let's take that, and get a response from reed abelson. guest: it is tough to know who will benefit from the health- care law. the trade-off for the insurers is they theoretically get more people. how much they can charge them is the question. what is happening in recent years is that the insurers, not necessarily consciously have benefited from the fact that fewer people are going to the doctor. they are putting off expensive surgery because they cannot afford it. some of this is an economic story, not just a political story. i think the question is, when people -- if the exchanges are up and running, but if people -- more people sign up, will some market forces premiums -- help keep premiums down?

you raise an important question. this will not work over the long term for the insurers because you don't make money if nobody can afford to buy your products. are we going to be able to address the affordability of health care? host: the headline in "the boston globe" this morning -- host: any comment for that? guest: i think it is interesting and an example of the interest

looking out after their own. i do not know enough about the implications of what happens if you raise the eligibility to those medicare beneficiaries who are not gap. as one gets older, the coverage gets more expensive. one might worry that those folks could be in trouble finding private insurance. it is a case where the hospital says, do not -- we're going to see a lot of that as the drug makers say don't look at us. in churns makers say don't look at us -- insurance people say do not look at us. host: the supreme court could take up the health-care law and what to be the implications if it is overturned -- have you looked into that?

guest: i have just started looking into that. i'm just starting to talk to insurers and some of the policy analysts about that. one of the issues is trying to figure out what steps are likely to be forgotten and others that you will continue despite -- even if the new health-care law is repealed. some of the consumer protections, things like not being able to cancel your policy if you get sick -- those might continue. and states might continue some of their initiatives on overseeing insurance. i'm just going to look at that and that is a good question. host: next call comes from

wisconsin, mary jo on the democrats line. caller: i have been a nurse practitioner of for 35 years and watching this unfold is fascinating. we look at cost savings in massachusetts. one massachusetts -- when they made their law and needed to look at saving money, they change to law so that the nurse practitioners could practice to the full scope of practice. that reduced costs in massachusetts. this is an insurance and medical devices profits protections. there is pretty of propaganda. they are trying to make certain we are not having a single-payer system. i have two stats. look at the overhead cost of

medicare and medicaid. they are operating with an overhead of 3% to 5%. private insurance , 20 insuranceto 25 -- 20% to 25%. profits and sellers for the insurance company. this is really fascinating. in a single-payer system, we would be reducing the cost dramatically. i want to point an article that appears this month that looks set health costs and looks at all of the costs directly to physician fees and physician costs. i like your response on that. guest: i think you make a good point. i'm glad you brought in the

doctors. nearly everyone involved in the system have been aggressive in pricing when they can be. massachusetts is a pretty good example of that. some of the more powerful entities have been managed to charge a fair amount for what they do. i think that is fair. i do not know whether merit aside, whether politically single-payer has any real future. i do not know. i think it depends a little bit on what happens in the next few years. if the health-care law stands but we continue to see a real significant increase in cost so becomes a moot point because no

one can afford it anyway, i am not sure what will happen. if some government clout man is to rein in costs, which might be talking differently -- if some government clout manages to rein in costs, we might be talking differently. they pay -- they write checks to pay bills, but they didn't see whether the person who was been in and out of the e.r. would be better served with better care. host: we have a tweet and i do not know if this is something you like to address. guest: i think the best thing i

can say is that there's some debate. you have non-profit and for does profit payers -- and for-profit players. i think it is tough. if you're going to allow a for- profits system, you have to have a lot of oversight. i suspect that debate will go on for a while. host: do you know how much of the health-care industry is for- profit? guest: it depends on the soccer. there are -- it depends on the sector. some of the major insurers are for-profit. i don't know what the breakdown is in terms of the insurance industry, but it is mixed.

host: we have a tweet from james. is there some validity to that? guest: i think there is to the extent that one of the facts of life is that the more you cover, the more expensive to policy is going to be. insurers have complained about state requirements as well as sometimes federal requirements. but whether in fact that is the main driver of the increases we have been seeing, i am not sure that is clear. host: if somebody asked who said health care prices, how would you answer the question -- who set health-care prices? guest: it depends on the market. in the free market, it is a

negotiation between the private insurers and hospitals and doctors. that is one of the issues -- does that system -- hospitals and doctors simply charge private insurers more. host: brooklyn, new york, john. caller: good morning. a couple of things i wanted to mention have already been brought up, and i want to correct one of the things. i work as it medical director for medical insurance company that was very much in line and questioned for the things included in obama's health care. it essentially -- one of the

important things about insurance companies is that although there's a certain degree of fraud and overcharging in the medical industries, one of the main reasons that private insurance companies run at basically a 20% overhead rate is in order to try to control that. medicare functions with almost no controls over fraud and overcharging and only discovers it on a mass basis when there are gross phenomenon. god knows how many fraud and overcharging their axes is within the medicare system. on a physician basis, overcharging is almost impossible because rates are fixed. unless you let something that you have not done. if medicare would be spending the 20%, god knows how mmuch

money they might be saving. as somebody just mentioned, government insists that medical insurance policies cover basically everything so that everybody wants it for their $15,000 a year to be able to run out and buy a ferrari if they happen to need one. unless there is some kind of a control over that, and to make people settle for a ford, there's no way to control the continuing and escalating costs. guest: i think you make some good points. i think you're right there is some concern that the government does not spend enough money overseeing care. the flip side is that the health insurers have to prove that they're worth the money and the need to make sure that they can make the case that they are

catching fraud and that they are managing care. in terms of people, i agree with you. the idea that you have to pay 20% of the medical bill even if you go in network is starting to change people's minds. i have talked a primary care physicians and they say their patients are much more cautious than the war, partly because of the economy but also because they know they will be pay more of the bill. that may be changing, but i think you're right. host: the last call comes from frederick starr, virginia, william on the republican line -- fredericksburg. caller: is there something out there -- is there someone out there who was doing a list

comparing hospital to hospital and insurance company to insurance company on the cost of the individual procedures? i do not understand what the government is so involved when it comes to cost. free market is the way to get the cost down. who is stopping seniors from going to canada and buying their medication there? who is this say no/ ? the government. you will see costs come down to competition. guest: your first question is prowling the answer to the second question. right now it is difficult to know what prices the hospitals are charging, the doctors are charging. it is hard to know when you buy a policy what exactly is covered and what they will pay

if you go to dr. x. part of the reason the market forces do not work better is that historically is difficult to get the kind of information that consumers would need to make choices. that is one of the big difficulties. the real question is whether technology is going to change things so that at some point you'll be able to say that dr. smith charges me x but dr. y who seems to have better results with his patience charges me less. bright not the kind of comparison shopping -- but right now that kind of comparison shopping is difficult to come by. host: reed abelson, "the new