but for most of you we have found that natural gas to get through your lifetime. remember, this is assuming we don't find more. the numbers for oil -- 10 years ago north dakota had 150 million barrels of reserves. the current number is 24 billion. north dakota this year passed california and alaska and is now the second-largest oil- producing state in the united states. this is what is wrong with liberalism. if you went 10 years ago and said north dakota will be the number two or of the state, they would say you are crazy because they live in a polaroid snapshot world. but history is made dynamically, it is made by inventing things, creating new potential. how many of you have a phone that has a video camera? i rest my case. just think about the dynamics of what is happening to your personal capacity to deal with the internet. so, there are things we can do

when we need a generation of innovation, and we need people to be noisy about why we should get it and we need to reset the country on a belief that we could have a dramatically better future. i think that is the challenge for you generation. let me, if it is ok, toss it over to questions. [applause] and i gather you should ask the questions into the microphones of a nice spin people know what is going on. -- the nice c-span people will know what is going on. >> what do you think is the most effective way for us to encourage young people to join the conservative movement? >> i think the starting points are two things. one is -- do they like having a job? would they rather live in a future where there are a lot more jobs, opportunity, and take-home pay and a lot more choices or one where we all

come to resemble downtown detroit? second is a question of freedom. do they want to live any world where they get to define their future and make their choices or do they want to live in the world or somebody in washington, d.c., and an unknown bureaucracy issues. regulation that the deregulation is to define their life? would that work? ok. i am not a young person. i don't know what works. >> thank you, mr. speaker. from north dakota state university -- >> that is why he kept nodding, yes. >> thank you so much for pointing out the successes we have had. -- and the state of north dakota, especially of the energy in this day. but to take my question in the different direction -- how do we when the culture war in this country and win the cultural battle for conservative soul of the nation?

>>been a very good question. first of all, about -- north dakota. vote left will start whirring about north -- north dakota, because you know when there is an oil boom there are not enough -- there are so many jobs, too many jobs. having no jobs, and no roads -- if nobody puts a truck on the road, the road last a very long time. just think about it. just watch the way the left will react to north dakota. western north dakota has to many jobs, to many people, too many folks striding around. it is a small town that has one traffic light, it's a long time to get through because all of these people are there. so, you have this constant complaint, either why can't we all lived in detroit where they

are going back to farming in downtown detroit because half the buildings are unoccupied or the complexity of succeeding. it is a very important part of life. if you succeed, there will be changes. i bet all of you have had this experience. you go back home with folksy went to high school with and you try to describe your new life and for a fair chance for some of them you live in two different worlds. my impression is most north dakota andns are happy to have so much will produce they have a $3 billion surplus -- most north dakota residents are happy to have some much oil produced. i think the greatest the lustration of winning a cultural war in a very direct way is abraham lincoln. there are a couple of books by a theologian, one only and that

the greatest speech, about his second inaugural, -- one on linkedin's greatest speech, and one as president, and one called cooper union. if you want to understand being persuasive and you want to see a cultural fight, studied abraham lincoln. abraham lincoln in 1850's, there is a very unformed argument in 1850's. should slaby allowed to expand, does it matter? -- should slavery be allowed to expand? you have in abraham lincoln's somebody who is very carefully moving public opinion extraordinary -- in an extraordinarily well thought- out way and it all blows up in his face and you end up in a war. and he then has to mobilize and sustain the north, despite huge casualties. we lose more people between the

north and south combined in the civil war and then all of the other wars combined. and from a much smaller population base. if you read abraham lincoln's gettysburg address, it is a campaign document. no president has been reelected since andrew johnson -- and dejection -- andrew jackson in 1832. the gettysburg address we looked at as a historic, cultural -- read it as a politician speech. basically saying to the north, if you vote against me, your son was killed in vain. now, are you prepared to let your son's death be meaningless or are you on the side of freedom? it is really designed to take this cultural fight. callista and i have done a series of books on american exceptional is in and we are doing it to pick a fight with the left. either the declaration of

independence matters or it does not. if it matters it is a real document and it says your rights come from god, you are endowed by your creative. this is a cultural fight we want to have a country because the hard left of not believe any of that. you get in a very serious question on the nature of america. and i think you want to get people down to first principles and you want to get the down to facts. is it a fact that we now have a lot more oil because of innovation or not? this is why i am reading this piece on the muslim brotherhood. is it a fact that there are people on the planet who said -- say they would like to kill us? let's start with that. if you are on the hard left, they will say it is just political language. you would think after 9/11 or this week's bombing in iraq or the car >> -- car bomber in times square, maybe people who say i want to kill you actually mean they want to kill you.

it is a very important core level argument and we have to be more prepared to wage a those kinds of first principles fights. >> mr. speaker, thank you very much. i am from florida. i became a citizen last year and recently ran to be a delegate for the rnc convention and was told by the good old boys i could not make it. the young people could not become a delegate. i became an alternate delegate but as of the republican party need a transformation for the next generation? do we need to go back to the 1980 idea of ronald reagan expressing a genuine message to be inclusive and open? >> sure. of course, we do. if the old timers say there is no room for them, beat them. marco rubio did not wait and line. he beat the incumbent governor and he said i want to run for the u.s. senate.

i knew him before he became speaker of the house. he had a very methodical campaign to become speaker when he was clearly too young. politics in the end -- there is a very good book of "plunkett of tammany hall." plunkett later in life told this reporter about how things worked. you find an office you can win and you beat somebody. then when you won, you are somebody. you are now a real person. in the age of information -- let me give you two examples. i did jay leno the other night. did any of you see it? what did you think? ok. i saw snooki and i had a

serious and meaningful dialogue. seriously. snooki exists because she exists because she exists. this is part of the nature of the modern world. you could have a brother or a sister and do your own tv show and three years from now if it catches on, you make money. if it doesn't, don't make money. so, part of the trick is to be noisy. part of the trick is to take yourself seriously. i first appeared asking for a zoo in the city of paris for what i was 10 -- harrisburg when i was 10. i had people my whole career thinking i was too noisy. my attitude is it is nice to have an occasional republican willing to debate and argue and be in the media. but for a large part of our party, i was seen as so guy -- why doesn't he just be quiet?

there is a famous book where the title was "tell newt to shut up," and it was a quote from john boehner. he was probably right. when you are speaker, you should probably talk less. go back home and be it rather than complaining about it. energy and courage. >> first, i'd like you better than snooki. i am michael, going to law school in boston. i have been doing research on campaign finance. as you probably know, you have a world in course in it this past year. what do you think of the state of campaign finance and how would you fight the left on things like the disclose act and other things they have been attacking super pacs for monday utilize the in the 2008 cycle? >> i think the ideal campaign finance system would allow any

american to get any amount of after-tax income if they filed on the internet every night and they gave it to. i think it would clear up all the current bologna, the current red tape. the way the system currently works, if you are rich enough -- if you are mayor bloomberg, you can buy re-election. but he is writing a personal check. he spent so much the it -- getting reelected for mayor of new york that it was virtually impossible to give -- compete because if you are a middle- class candidate you could not raise the money. i think it would be healthier, instead of the money going to the supers -- super pacs that are so all outside of the system i would have the money went directly to the candidates and the candidates have to take responsibility for the advertising, and i think you would have a much cleaner system. every night reporting on the internet, you know who gave what to whom and just relax and get away from the mess we're in now. campaign finance has consistently made the system worse and it had diverted

incumbents' toward spending so much of their time raising money that they have far less time to think and far less time to work with the legislators then they did 30 years ago. -- than they did 30 years ago. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker, for this wonderful speech. i am currently with the foreign affairs committee. i want to shift the dynamic of the discussion and ask a foreign policy question, if you don't mind. recently, in the last few days, there have been a lot of reports from both sides that are sort of taking this critical view of candidate romney's foreign policy, saying he does not have a specifically defined foreign-policy, and that is because president obama has had almost more aggressive foreign

policy to some extent than president bush. i wondered if you could comment on that and what is your view in terms of this upcoming election, and in particular, how do you define it republican foreign-policy in the next foreign -- coming election? >> that is a good question. i think it is actually an advantage that romney does not have an automatic sense of what he would impose on foreign policy, because i think the world is evolving in ways we don't understand right now. i would just give you a couple of quick examples. i was at a speech in singapore in june and i went early to listen to some of the speakers before i talked. one of them was a chinese in economist who pointed out in the next 10 years, india will add 70 billion -- 70 million workers and china because of the

one child policy will lose 70 million workers. i went back to rss who works -- russ for me here, i asked sen meet the comparative numbers. 70 million workers added to india is the equivalent of the gentleman and british work force combined. nobody here -- our foreign- policy establishment in both parties doesn't think about a world in which the addition is bigger than germany and great britain, and yet that is the reality. if you look at the build up of military force in asia and the decline of military force in europe, there are very substantial changes underway in ways we don't fully understand. in fact, there was an article

this morning about the iranians by new technology to try to maximize their first 648 our capacity to inflict damage to the u.s. navy -- 6 or 8 hour capacity to and flood damage to the u.s. navy. if i were to say to you what is the most dangerous country in the world today, what would you pick? china, russia -- i am going to give you two countries not on that list. the most dangerous country in the world today is pakistan. pakistan probably has well over 100 nuclear weapons. it had a growing islamist factions. it is a very precarious, very complex country. it has substantial terrorist organizations operating all over the place. the pakistani intelligence

service funds some of those operations. i mean, it is truly complicated. we all worry about iran might get a nuclear weapon. pakistan has 100 nuclear weapons. iran -- ahmadinejad talked about eliminating is a row, so from that point, but there are a lot of people in pakistan who would like to eliminate somebody. whether it is india, what have you. the second most dangerous country from our standpoint is saudi arabia. it is the largest funder of wahabism in the world, a radical islamist position totally incompatible with your lives. this is one of the conversation nobody in our elites want to have. none of you women would be in this room. he would not be allowed to be here. you have to look carefully at what does this all mean. i don't think today that we

have designed systems that fit the realities of the world that is emerging, and i think one of the things i would recommend to a president-elect is he really methodically rethink -- and not just assume that he wants the right wing version of the establishment but that he actually wants to rethink what are our principles, goals, and what kind of systems we need to get there. i think the changes in the world around us are that big. i think are some of -- i am about to get the hook. >> one last question. i want to ask you about electromagnet pulse. i know you have written a little bit on it. it is such a frightening prospect and we had a taste of it if you weeks ago when the power went out of the storm. the you know people in the private sector working -- do you know people in the private sector working on it? >> that everything that are the

most immediate threats to your lives on a grand scale -- assuming there is not a nuclear war -- is cyber warfare, which we don't understand very well, and an electromagnetic pulse and of the two, electromagnetic pulse is much worse. we clearly know the technology because we first discovered it in the late 1950's when we set off a hydrogen warhead in the south pacific and 28 miles of -- 20,000 miles away in hawaii it knocked out lights and telephones. if you launch the weapon at the right out the to be potentially can knock out in large part of the country. the reason it is so formidable is if you burnout elektra generating systems can't replace them. -- electric generating systems, began replace them. you going to a pre-elliptical world. -- pre-electrical world. if anybody wants a sobering the

deduction, michael author wrote a great book called "one second after" actor -- where he shows you the town of north carolina after an electromagnetic pulse event. it is one areas, if i was looking at restructuring our national security system, we should have a very methodical program of hardening our systems. and you can hardin all of these large generating systems so an electromagnetic pulse would not destroy them. and also think through how you harden and of stuff that if there was an attack you could rebuild the system pretty fast. today it would truly be a nightmare. let me just say, i hope all of you will get active and stay active and be engaged and i hope you will be engaged in an aggressive and direct way, and don't be too patient. we need people who are pushy and willing to work hard. do we have a couple of minutes

to take pictures? who is my leader? you are my leader? the you want them to take pictures outside? -- do you want them to take pictures outside? [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> there's a discussion on the 2012 campaign and the issues affecting voters and the impact of social media during the campaign. that is today at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. former president bill clinton was the keynote speaker at this week's international aids conference held in washington, d.c. the final session included sessions on improving treatment options and increasing domestic spending on a tight the aids research for the former president spoke for about 35 minutes.

[applause] [applause] >> thank you very much, thank you. thank you. thank you very much. i want to thank you for the introduction. i would like to thank the u.s. share of aids 2013, thank you for your leadership as president of the international aids society. i wish you and your successor well. i thought you did a heck of a speech, by the way. [applause] i want to talk a little bit

about where we go from here. how do we propose to implement these goals that have been set for 2015 tax if we believe there can be an aids regeneration even if you define it in the narrowest possible terms, how can we achieve it? when the aids conference first took place in america 22 years ago, the passionate corp. of activist, community leaders, and researchers shouting silence equals death made the world listen. we did not have the first cancer drug, azt. it was treating 5000 people in europe and the united states. it was at a prohibitively high cost.

that is a long way from where we are today with 8 million people on treatment around the world and the ability to treat all the rest needed. [applause] -- all the rest who need it. [applause] back then, it was a death sentence and those of us old enough to have been fully grown still have lots of painful memories of our friends who did not survive. then we could not really a match and an end to the epidemic. now all of you have created the possibility that we could have an aide to regeneration. as bill gates said, we still have a good ways to go but we have come a long way. everything i say today comes from the perspective of the work my foundation has done in the last 10 years. before the global fund was

funded, before there was any pepfro, our job was to go around and raise my country by country to figure out how to cut costs and to provide a working delivery system that would save lives. change has been made here and by people throughout the world to achieve universal access and eliminate most of the child transmissions and cut the aids cases in half by 2015. we can do that but it will not be easy. just last week, on my annual trip to africa to look at our programs, i visited uganda, mozambique, rwanda and i saw amazing progress. i saw leaders committed to offer treatment to anyone in need. i saw a willingness to

completely eliminate mother to child transmission and i met with program managers who don't know where the money will come from and are not sure we have the systems to do that. to achieve universal access by 2015, we will have to increase the number of new people on treatment by 30% per year. for example, in 2005, there were only 10,000 children on treatment and low income countries. thanks to many of you in this room, and a special thanks to filling the gap, the global effort to accelerate pietri treatment means there are 500,000 kids on treatment today. [applause] to reach the goal, we will have to have 1.5 million more. to eliminate mother to child

transmission, we need to test and treat women earlier and keep them on the treatment longer throughout the entire breast feeding peiord when many of them live miles from the place where they get their medicine today. to cut new investments in half, we will have to implement treatment as prevention and implement combination prevention programs. [applause] we can save a lot of lives if all this is done. but we will have to do together to do what works, spend the money we have with maximum impact and to raise what we will still need. it is worth remembering, and i don't but enough has been the of this that of the $16 being

invested annually, this is the first time in my memory that more than half of it comes from the affected countries themselves and they deserve an enormous amount of credit for that. [applause] one of the reasons universal access is achievable as we can do it for less money than previously thought. my foundation recently released the results of a study that we did with five african governments across more than 160 treatment facilities. in ethiopia, malawi, zambia, south africa and i thank the leaders of these countries and all the health care personnel partake in the epidemic seriously and for the progress they have already made. the study was the largest of its kind and shows that with the exception of south ever worked

labor and land costs are higher, treatment costed an average of $200 per patient per year which includes the cost of drugs, diagnostic test, personnel, and outpatient costs. there is no excuse for failing to provide treatment to the remaining 10 million people in need. [applause] even if -- even in south africa, there are opportunities with the commitment that government has already made. our foundation recently redid the drug [unintelligible] for them and they say 7 hunt -- they saved $700 million in what they're spending on drugs and immediately added 340,000 people to the treatment roles. [applause]

more savings are on the way. it is $125 now and it is a good drug. the savings of that drug alone by 2015 will be $500 million. we can use that money. in the fight. [applause] beating the goals of treatment by 2015 will require some activities especially community programs that work. you've got to have community elrich if you want to get mother to child transmission down to zero. you just have to do it. [applause] clearly, we can meet the treatment goals.

and we should. we also know that smart investments save money. united states center for disease control presented an economic model this week suggesting that implementing a test to treat strategy for key populations like pregnant women and people with tb and accelerating the skill for others will not only save lives and avert new infections, it will actually lower costs within just five years. where will we find money? we all know that last december, pulled global fund had to postpone the funding round because it was short on cash. the fund is now back in business. the gates foundation and japan and saudi arabia stepped up on the heels of president obama fulfilling america's three-year commitment. secretary clinton recently announced a few more money for the u.s. to meet the 2015 goal.

[applause] i am hopeful that other donors will do the same especially big countries that are growing fast like china and brazil. there is an, enormous amount of private money being raised and spent and there will be more from the gates foundation, elton john, and many others. government, even in this difficult time, i believe will do more if we prove we are maximizing the impact of giving. the united kingdom has followed a strict austerity program without cutting its development assistance. [applause] it is an astonishing fact.

our foundation works with them, with the irish, the norwegians, the swedes, the government of australia, all of whom are giving. and giving even in this difficult time. finally, we need to make something good out of what is the other was not a particularly wholesome development -- the growing inequality of income in wealthy countries. bank got a lot of wealthy people want to give more and would give it to this cause if they knew what an enormous impact to their dollars can have. do not minimize the possibilities we will have more private giving as we make more progress as demonstrated. [applause] i also think we can learn a great deal from unitate which has created a new revenue stream which is saved hundreds of

thousands of lives in my experience from what it has done outputting children's arv's there and more affordable prices, leveraging short-term investment for long-term gain. we need more innovative financing. the international finance facility for immunization the offer a good model for us. it raises my by issuing bonds in the capital markets which are backed by long-term commitments from donors so that donors can buy now but pay later. increasing flows over seven- years and paying them back over 20-years. as we all know now, at low interest. applying this model to raise funds to implement accelerated treatment, prevention would mean that infections and costs will be lower when the time comes to pay the money back.

results,keep producing i believe the money will be there. [applause] and i am committed to doing whatever i can to see this happen. we have to prove over and over again that we're making the most of the money. we have managed to lower treatment costs at the facility level from what un-aids said in 2003 was about $1,000 per year per person to about $200 per today. further cost reductions are coming. looking ahead, there are other things i think we should do. first, we can target the money we're spending more effectively. especially in prevention. it was recently reported that in two african account -- countries where 30% of new infections were driven by high-risk populations,

less than 1% of the prevention dollars were spent to reach those people most in need of services. we can do better than that. [applause] last year, the investment framework provided guidance on how to prioritize national strategies, to focus on the interventions that have greatest impact. it is an excellent tool that i would like to see more countries adopt. secondly, and this may be somewhat controversial but i feel strongly about it, we need a new level of openness about how every last dollar is spent. by countries, by governors, but ngo's. [applause] program notpect

rigid programs all over the world to make the smartest decisions if they're trapped in a financial black box. all donors, all nations, all ngo's should make their spending records open and available not so somebody can be embarrassed, so we can see who is doing better than -- and the rest of us can copy. we have to work together. if we do this, we can have a much bigger impact with the dollars we have. thirdly, i think we need investment based on evidence, not politics and vested interests that too often drives spending decisions. [applause] to meet these goals, we will have to turn to the things we need to do but shut down

programs that are not working and channel more money for the population is driving the epidemic and the evidence-based interventions that are working. [applause] finally, we've got to make sure that we're paying for services that directly help the people involved. and businesses start operations in new countries, they often send in their people, expatriate's. they get to work -- they get the work of the ground than management's responsibility is transferred i think we have reached a point in the age of the response where we have to do more of that, transfer responsibility to national governments and local ngo's. [applause] that i want to imply think spending on international organizations can go to zero. that is not true. many countries still meet support to grow and sustain

their progress and build an infrastructure necessary to run their own health programs effectively. >> international technical assistance can be very expensive. some organizations take themselves up to $600 a day. for the cost of the day of consulting, and we can put three people on treatment for a year. every time we make the former rather than the latter choice, we have got to know what we are doing and prepared to defend it in the light of day. otherwise, we should go on for life savings. let me say that i think channeling more money to catchable governments is catching on because it will save money and because it will build capacity and reduce sustainable results in the countries that need them.

they have recently announced their intention to transition ownership to national governments. i am very grateful to pepfar. the national government and the health minister is here today, dramatically reduce overhead and the entire health care work force of the country. i applaud these efforts and i think more of this can, should, and must be done are around the world. having said that, we all know that money is not the only impediment to meeting our goal. two years ago, we heard about the promise of combination prevention. we heard about the evidence of this prevention. we agreed about the impact of male circumcision, accelerated action in that area. we heard about promising ways to improve the effectiveness of

treatment including point of care technology. something our foundation has been involved in. we did not know how to implement these programs that scale but i think most of you left vienna willing to act, eager to act, and a newly energized. two years of progress though none of these proposals have been taken to scale. many hard questions remain. and we could spend a lot of time talking about the hard questions. they feel sick? how'd you make sure people get the information they need to make their own decisions? how can we -- improve care? what treatments are best? and if we do even more circumcisions, will it lead people to give up less costly

and proven prevention's that they were observing? all these questions are important, but should any of them be a bar to doing what we know we have to do? i remember well, back in 2003 when gm lost to the 355 initiative, there were lots of serious questions about whether we could meet the goals of increased treatment. there were people that even said, since we can't treat everybody that needs it, wouldn't we be better off because it is so much cheaper just doing universal? but guess what? we responded to the challenge and now there are a million people on treatment. that is how we have to respond to these challenges.

[applause] sometimes you have to make a commitment before you know you're going to get there. china, rwanda, and swaziland have announced their commitment. we are working with the government as was the land in our foundation. -- of swaziland. it is about 26%, and i am really impressed by the leadership and foresight there. they know that this is the only way they are going to achieve their goals and their focus -- they're focused on how to do it, not whether to do it. i also have the honor of doing a lot of economic work. in malawi. they made the decision to put all pregnant women on treatment immediately. they did not wait to figure out how they are going to pay for it. they made a commitment and i believe the president showed wisdom and strength in doing it.

we should all be grateful to her because -- because now everyone [applause] of you can say if they are not waiting, how can the rest of us? you might think this is not leave, but i have seen it happen over and over again. if you scale it up and it works, the money will be there to fund it. [applause] we also talked a lot about improving treatment that works. the-defying patients earlier, reaching them where they live. treating diseases that really killed people like meningitis.

today, we know about best practices. we know about the importance of decentralizing services and empower and community members. we know that if we provide at the point of care, we can cut our losses and a follow-up in hand. we know that of nurses play a larger role in caring for patients, including initiating treatment -- [applause] we will reach more people in an environment where they feel better understood and cared for. so when we scale uphill, and we will stop just plain -- pay lip service to community engagement and we will have to start engaging in relying on communities.

these are things that i believe. i think the money will be there if we prove that we are responsible with the money we've got. and if we prove that these approaches work. you have no where near taft in the universe of people that will invest in meeting these 2015 goals and creating an aids- free generation. you have to keep pushing the rocks of the hill. since we are in our nation's capital, where the prevalence among some groups is as high as it is in southern africa, i would like to say a couple of words about that. we have about 1.2 million people in america living with hiv. barely more than a quarter of them are getting care. infection rates are rising and exploding among young black gay men.

native americans, asian americans, pacific islanders, many of them feel hot because of the overall progress made in the fight against aids, they will be left behind. in the city, government and community leadership has been reinvigorated. a round load testing when a and strategies. they are making a difference. since 2007, there has been a threefold increase in the number of people being tested every year. a tenfold increase in the number of condoms being distributed every year. 300,000 clean needles provided every year. [applause] and 90% of the people that test hiv-positive in washington d.c.

see a doctor within three days. [applause] president obama's administration was the first to develop a comprehensive strategy for a domestic epidemic. the affordable care act that thank god the supreme court upheld will provide coverage. [applause] the funding that he and a secretary committed this week to close the waiting list is very important. and i want to emphasize something else, that in the context of the united states, can be huge. you all know that when i do work around the world, when the foundation does, we used generic drugs. and they have made a huge difference. that money can be used to buy

those drugs. first because erik and all those people that have come forward agree that they should, and because i made an agreement with president bush that i would submit all the medicine we send anywhere in the world to the fda had he said, if the fda approval is being effective and appropriate, in the local country can use their money to buy that madison. -- medicine. and he kept his word. [applause] that was the beginning of this. i am very grateful for that. that means that with these drugs are not available, you have got to do something for people without insurance that can't afford the drug. [applause] our foundation is partnered

with major pharmaceutical companies to make access to affordable hiv medication available faster in a simpler way on a longer-term basis for people that don't qualify but who can afford the drug. here is the idea. it will provide a one-stop shop how to access all of the patient assistance programs available. the program will simplify the neighborhood and cut through red tape. i want to thank the pharmaceuticals that have stepped up to support with steeply discounted medicines. i hope all other manufacturers will soon follow suit. [applause] one more word about the united states.

besides d.c., the next biggest problem we have with aids is the south i am sad to say since it is my home region, there is still too much stigma. stigma against men, against people that are drug users. it is not treated and tough as a public-health problem. and that with of the poverty in the disproportionately high percentage of people in our country in the south of the live in rural areas and have some of the same problems that people in southeast asia and other places have. [applause] it has created a big problem for us. i wanted to say two things.

it is embarrassing that the stigma against people with aidsexists anywhere in america. it is still a problem in other places around the world. a look at the numbers that came out this week. his it is true that 56% of the people that need medicine to stay alive are getting it. look at the numbers in the area where there is more stigma. central and eastern europe. in the middle eastern and north africa, even less than that. not even 25% in the latter, he barely 33% in the former. all of us can't be applied to the fact that no matter how much we come together and see the evidence, we still have to fight a stigma wherever we find it in to support friends and neighbors that are doing that.

and we also have to deal with the fact that not everybody treats the drug problems the way washington d.c. and a lot of nations duke, as a public health issue. ethan middlemen had an amazing article a couple of days ago document in the death rate from aids that has come as a direct consequence of the refusal to see drug-related infections as a public-health problem as opposed to a criminal justice problem. we have to deal with it. [applause] i think, for me, thinking about where we were in 2002 with nelson mandela and by going to the aids conference in barcelona, literally rattling a tin cup for money. by the way, this was on his

ninety fourth birthday and i told him i was coming here. he said, i am retired. [laughter] tell them, i wish them well. [applause] i think you should be excited about this. i know you're worried about the money, but you should be really excited about this moment because you are committed to work through the financial crisis, to embrace profoundly ambitious goals for 2015. i have been asked to work, thanks to the aids-group in austria, with a couple of african countries to figure out how you would take a mother to child transmission to zero. we know it is more than just

getting the medicine out there. but it is exciting, and we will do well as long as we refuse to let what we don't have slow us down. we have to use what we do have to get the programs off the ground and we will answer the questions as we go along. we have stronger leadership from every sector that i can remember. the research community labor in a way towards the dreams of a vaccine and a cure. more people from the private sector bringing their business acumen to the financial question. civil society pushing us to do the right thing. communities in america from oakland to mome by and sao paulo to saint petersburg. all of them taking

responsibility for their children and their future. they have not gotten enough credit, the developing world and the middle-income countries for spending even more money than the donor countries and the individuals to fight this epidemic. they are worth supporting because they are coming up with this. money. [applause] we also have a lot of policymakers who seem committed to keep working on this if necessary, and tell everybody in this room is as old and gray as i already am. [laughter] if that is what it takes. this is serious. i have been doing this a long time. all this has happened because of you and the people that sat in these chairs at every

previous aids conference going back to the beginning. millions of people and an aids free generations still depend on your tenacity and courage. no, we don't have all the money or all the answers we need. but we have you to thank her for the progress that has been made, and you to make as believe we can achieve an aids free generation. and all over the world in places where we were, millions of people nourishing their dreams and their children's dreams instead of giving up. it is worth a lot. we have to deliver for them. thank you. good luck, and god bless you all. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> next year calls and comments on "washington journal." and remarks from the international aids conference. after that, house and senate reaction to the mass shooting in a movie theater in her rock, colorado. -- in aurora, colorado. >> when that eighth amendment was ratified, it was not considered to be prohibitive. indeed, the death penalty existed in all the states and was the only penalty for a felony. for somebody today to say that

somehow the american people have prohibited the states by ratifying the constitution, from applying the death penalty, i don't know where this comes from. the american people never voted for such a thing. >> antonin scalia reflex and over 25 years on the bench and interpreting legal documents and had lupus -- in his latest book. >> this morning, marc glaze and ilya shapiro on gun control. later, dr. peter delaney from the substance abuse and mental illness administration pinned "washington journal," is next. "washington journal," is next.