said there wasn't a level playing field because the public insurer would be in a market regulated by the government suggesting that the government might create regulations for the, that advantaged the public insurer while creating a disadvantage for the private insurance company. .. harry reid has called attention of the american public to that. he said the post office has competitors. fedex and ups seem to be doing pretty well.

as a matter of fact, they're doing well even though there is a competitive advantage for them. that the government has done. that mailbox can't be used by federal express and ups. it can only be used by the post office. so they do have a competitive advantage. they're the only one with access to your mailbox where there's a public insurer, all companies public and private will have equal access to your mailbox and to your business. which leads to another point. nothing -- this is something i think that is used as a scare -- it has to be a scare tactic since it's so far from the truth that there's no other reason for it. nothing in the bills being considered in congress right now or suggested by president obama will require that anyone choose the public provider. you get -- if you love blue cross or united healthcare or you love cigna you can stay with

that. there is no reason why you would have to change. honestly, if i was in the middle of chemotherapy, the idea changing anything that seemed to be working for me might scare me. you don't need to be afraid of the public provider. anybody can choose it and anyone can say, i don't want it. our choices don't get smaller. our choices get larger at least by one. and once more, if the market works the way it should, your choices become less expensive, too. this is pretty important right now for middle class family has an average income of $80,000 and the average health insurance policy for that middle class family is about $12,000 making insurance cost a little bit less is pretty important at your kitchen table. if we want to solve families economic downturn we need to remember that 62% of bankruptcies are attributable to a significant degree on crippling healthcare costs and you think the subprime mortgage crisis is behind all those foreclosures, well, you're

half-right. half of the foreclosures appear to be attributable instead to the cost and the burden of health costs. [applause] >> but whatever our macro goals are with respect to healthcare, in the end, there is only that one rule. that we have to meet when people are sick that get the healthcare that they need. i think about sheila, the woman in cleveland a lot. in many ways her story seems to be a story about hopelessness. and surely on one level it is. but it's also a story about hope. sheila still believed that in america if you got the chance maybe on your lunch hour you could find someone, and if you just whispered in the right person's ear things could change. i don't know if sheila picked the right person's ear when she spoke to me. she left by the time we tried to hook her up with someone at cleveland clinic and i hope she has gotten the care that she needs but i heard her and all

the people she represented and i use every opportunity to repeat her plea. when people get sick they should be able to get the care that they need. she whispered in my ear. i've spoken in yours and it's time to shout in the ears of those who are going to decide whether or not the sheila's will get that healthcare. i end this speech the way i end most of my speeches. i mentioned i heard from many people after my cancer diagnosis in 2004 alone i received 65,000 emails and 30,000 pieces of snail mail. i read each and learned so very much from them. the lessons are advice that the advocates and case managers at the patient advocate foundation know and have shared for years. i learn you become a survivor on the day that you're diagnosed. i learn that humor is a great weapon. which sandra taught me when she wrote during her third bout of cancer -- she also sent prayers and her regrets that her hair loss made her look like dick cheney. [laughter] >> i learned about the value of

living as sandra did when she wrote -- >> and we will leave the last few minutes of this to go to a live event now, a look at u.s.-india relations in the obama administration. over the next few hours, analysts will examine security and economic issues impacting both nations and up first are remarks by india's ambassador to the u.s. introductions being made. this is c-span2's live coverage from the american enterprise institute. >> the world's oldest and world's largest democracies have many aligned interests in the security and economic areas. yet, the strategic partnership will require close attention by both parties to remain strong. to look at these issues today, i want to first extend a warm welcome to our ambassador who is here with us this morning. following the ambassador's remarks, we will discuss bilateral defense and security

cooperation followed by a discussion on economic cooperation as well. we will conclude our program today with a keynote by ambassador robert blake assistant secretary for central and south asia at the department of state. with no further ado, let me hand over the program to danielle pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policies at aei. >> thank you very much, nina. we don't often do this kind of a format and i think -- well, you'll all have to let us know how it works but it's a great pleasure to be me sitting need to the ambassador who is recent joined us in washington. you have her full bioin your folder and online but prior to coming here she was the indian ambassador to berlin to the federal republic of germany. what we're going to do this morning is take our first half an our and we're going to try to have a little bit of a conversation and then we're going to open up the floor to

questions. we thought that it would be -- we thought that it would be a more interesting way to have a conversation. it was the ambassador's suggestion, and i think that it'll be a lovely way for us to start a very nice monday morning in washington on this holiday week. so you did just have an election. >> yes. >> let me turn on your mic for you. >> yes, we had an election in india and, you know, it's always a huge scale just to give you an example, you know, it had about 714 million eligible voters. out of whom 460 million cast their votes, 830,000 polling booths and i think the important aspect is that the whole process was conducted smoothly and that the outcome was perhaps better than predicted by our media

pundits, who were apprehensive that the verdict could be a bit fragmented involving a lot of jostling in coalition formation. in the event the indian voter showed that he can make smart choices and the election is seen as a vote for continuity, stability, performance and good governance going beyond the bounds of identity politics. i think it puts india in a strong position to continue the policies of inclusive economic growth and to be a ambassador for the u.s. as a partner. >> so we were a little bit surprised perhaps by the election as you rightly suggested. i think that the pundits had promised a little bit -- a little bit of a different result and it's always nice to see some

continuity and some reliability in governance. but where do you see the priorities of the new government in india? what changes do you think they'll make and what do you think that they feel reassured about public support to actually take some risks? >> well, i think that there will be a focus as, you know, with countries all over the world, the focus will really be on regaining economic momentum in the economy and on ensuring physical stability. the indian economy has been relatively better off in the global economic and financial crisis. we have felt the secondary impact but our banking and financial system is sound and has not been affected. growth has moderated. it's down to 6.7% last year from 9% on an average for four years,

but it's still growth. and it's reasonably good levels of growth. this year in 2009/2010, the predictions are that growth will again be 6%. that's the predictions of the reserve bank, central bank. but private analysts are saying that it could be closer to 7% again. so if we look at the kind of growth that we are expecting, it's in a band between 6 and 7% for 2009/2010. for 2010, the world bank is predicting that we should be able to jump back to 8%. whether that is a prediction which at this stage can't be called reliable because it's too far in the future, it's nevertheless the objective that the indian government would have before it to try to get back to a growth rate of 8 to 10%

because we need to sustain this growth rate for several decades if we are to really overcome the challenge of poverty and ensure that all sections of our people can have a reasonable standard of living. so that's the first priority. i think then there are a range of social challenges which we face and, therefore, ensuring that not -- that we not only have growth but that growth is inclusive, which was also part of the government's agenda during its last will again be one of the priorities and for this, we expect a lot of concentration of focus on social sector spending. perhaps, an extension of some of the programs for social security like the national rural employment guarantee scheme which had offered to one person

in each rural family categorized being below the poverty line 100 guaranteed days of employment in the year and that helped reduce vulnerabilities in the rural economy. certainly, stepped-up expenditure on education and health and in education, focus on school and primary education, secondary education, but also higher education and vocational training or skill development so the whole band. beyond this, we see the challenges of rural development and food security, energy security and sustainable development will be key challenges for the government. and finally, of course, the whole area of infrastructure, which has been an area where there are serious shortfalls and

where we need to spend around $500 billion over the next five years. >> i suppose it's hard for me to press you to be controversial but i do want to push you on some trade issues, which i think will be of great interest in washington. one of the reasons that india has prospered and has had such unbelievable growth, which is really pulled so many above the poverty line is because at once the government has seen fit to change decades of regulation and licensing. but, of course, the other is that it has very much become part of the global economy. and in that regard, i was really sort of interested -- and i have to confess a little bit unhappy to see the president make a little stab at our tax code suggesting that the previous tax code got us jobs in -- got us jobs in bangalore but not in the united states as if somehow jobs in bangalore was a bad thing.

and there has been a real undercurrent of protectionism of america first at least in the most economic sense of the word in the last few months. i don't want to ask you or to push to you speculate about american politics but i would like you to think about india's concerns, you know, if america, in fact, falls back in that direction, then there's some real risks that it will endanger not just the global trading system but your own growth rates. talk to me a little bit about that. >> well, certainly. i think india's growth has been a product of the opening up of the indian economy and its growing integration with the growing economy. so an open trading regime, which facilitates the flow of goods and services is certainly a key element conducive to growth in the developing world.

but particularly in this situation of an -- an economic and financial crisis, retaining openness to trade and economic interconnections is one of the keys to pulling countries out of the slump that they are facing at the moment. it's also sometimes important to remember that these interconnections are not a zero-sum game and that they build prosperity in both ends, you know. for instance, our federation of indian chambers of commerce and industry has just done a study which shows that indian investment in the u.s., foreign direct investment in the u.s., which in recent years has been more than american foreign

direct investment in india has directly created 30,000 jobs in the u.s. economy. this is in the last few years and many more jobs indirectly. and similarly, the confederation of indian industry has done a study which shows that the partnerships between indian and u.s. companies have added, you know, billions of dollars in value. in fact, they estimated that over $100 billion in value to the competitiveness and profits of american companies and thereby helped to generate jobs in the american economy so we see this as a very productive partnership and we would certainly hope that going ahead we can build on this and strengthen this rather than face constraints. >> i don't want to introduce the regional element too quickly, although, i have to confess my friends in the audience will

know that's the part, a, i understand the best, and b, interest me the most. you know, for many, many years even i would say in the post-cold war era we saw that our relationship with india was never discussed as the u.s.-india relationship. we had an entirely hyphenated relationship in which we talked about indopak and we talked about the subcontinent as you suggested earlier the phrase as a zero-sum game. if we did it for india we had to do it for pakistan and if we did it for pakistan we have to do it for india. india has become a little bit of a after-thought and we have talked to afpa, which but at least in my mind it's highly regrettable. now, before we talk about some of the national security challenges. i just wonder on this hyphenated question how you feel we can sort of get past that, whether it's a perception in india as

well and perhaps, you know, as you think about it, last week the -- last week the senate passed a kerry-lugar bill that has $1.5 billion in assistance per annum with very few restrictions to pakistan. i don't think that it's necessary for you to make a criticism of that or a comment on it, but i think it's interesting to see how the -- how it reflects american priorities. think a little bit about that for us. >> certainly, i think the india-u.s. relationship in the last few years has developed largely and it is a very important relationship for india, certainly. which we feel is essential for meeting our development aspirations as well as for enhancing global peace and security. and meeting some of the common global challenges that we face. it's a relationship which stands

on its own merits, and from our point of view, has to be viewed as such. there's an economic element which has been growing substantially, trade has doubled in the last four years, investment flows now going both directions as i mentioned with indian investment, foreign-direct investment, in the united states being larger than u.s. foreign direct investment in india in recent years. and there are very interesting technology collaborations between our two countries and the u.s. is the larger collaboration for the indian companies who are looking up the value chain. there's this whole economic and business dimension. there is -- there are shared security challenges, for

instance, terrorism, proliferation or -- there are shared global challenges of food security, energy security, so there are a range of areas where india and the united states work together. this is also underpinned by a very lively and vibrant relationship at the level of the people. for instance, there are 92,000 indian students in the united states of america today. there are 2.7 million indian americans in the u.s. and it's a community which has become very much more active and confident in recent years. and all this builds the relationship in a very substantive way. it's our effort to try to take this relationship to the next

level, building on the gains which were made and on the strong bipartisan support within the united states for building this relationship as well as broad political support in the indian polity for building this relationship. as far as aid to pakistan is concerned, we certainly share the objective of the united states that we should, you know, help to stabilize afghanistan and pakistan and move them in the direction of both stability and modernization so there's a shared objective that we have with the united states. as to how best we can pursue the achievement of this objective, well, we support the flow of assistance to pakistan,

particularly, economic assistance, which we think is essential at this stage given the very precarious state of pakistan's economy. security assistance, we feel, should be focused more specifically on building counterinsurgency capabilities rather than, you know, conventional defense equipment or provision of conventional defense equipment and, of course, we think that the pursuit of the objectives that we share would certainly be easier if there are benchmarks to ensure that the assistance is linked to deliverables on the ground and that there is both transparency and accountability in the process. >> and i'm going to open up the floor in just one second. i'm going to ask one last question of you. on the issue of china, it's

interesting that on her first overseas trip, secretary of state clinton went to asia. she spent a good deal of time at least according to the american press reassuring the chinese about our relationship, not talking a lot about human rights or any other priorities. not talking about concerns in the indian ocean and pacific, anywhere else. really just talking about a lot of economic issues. which perhaps was appropriate in light of the economic circumstances. but something of a disappointment to those who have put -- who have put china's rise in a slightly different context. this is really -- again, it's not an either/or but it's interesting that india has seemed a little bit less of a priority perhaps to this administration than china has. and i wonder if you can just tell us how you see it. >> well, you know, we don't compare our relationship with the u.s.'s relationship with any other country. and as i said we would hope that the u.s. would give priority to

india on its own merits. and the secretary of state is due to visit india in july, and we hope that visit will provide the basis for both countries, you know, announcing a roadmap to take the india-u.s. relationship to the next level. >> very good. we're going to open up the floor for just a few questions. if i can just ask our audience to be nice enough -- raise on your hand and i would call on you and if you would wait for a microphone. identify yourself and as i always say, please do put your brief statement in the form of a question to the ambassador. and wait for the mic. you know the rules. >> miles pomper from the james martin center for nonproliferation studies. a couple of questions.

the first question there's two issues that are likely to be on nonproliferation issues and disarmament issues that are likely to be on secretary clinton's agenda for her visit. do you see any change in india's position -- obviously, the negotiations have gotten started, but how do you see that moving ahead and do you see india -- since the u.s. is now supporting the idea of ratification of the cbtb do you see any changes on that. and secondly, india is the reliance is one of the major petroleum refineries for iran. do you see any change in india's position on that especially given recent events in iran? >> not to speak of the passage of the kirk amendment. >> well, fmct, india's position has been fairly clear. we have always said that we are

prepared to participate constructively in front multilateral negotiations for fissile material cutoff treaty. that is universal, nondiscriminatory and verifiable and indeed the delays in commencement of negotiations were because, i think, the u.s. was seeking a treaty without verification but now has shifted its position and is agreed to the common mandate that it should be a treaty with verification. and the other was i think the chinese and russian desire to link it to commencement of talks on outer space. so i think there also -- there has been some movement and so now as the negotiations for a fissile material cutoff treaty proceed, india will participate actively in those negotiations and as i said, the principles which have guided our disarmament policy and will apply to the fmct are that it

should be universal, nondiscriminatory and verifiable and that is the agreed upon mandate on which the disarm has adopted. on the cbtb, india has a test moratorium in place and that is the position as of now. we are following developments in the united states, and that is what i can say at the moment. what was that -- >> on reliance. >> well, that's a private company so i can't say what the private company will do. it's not a government company. but we have a relationship with iran and what interests me is, you know, u.s. companies also through some of their subsidiaries have relationships with iran in the energy sector

so i think singling out a particular company is not very good. we also see that pakistan and iran have signed an agreement on their gas pipeline. that doesn't figure as a continue for aid to pakistan. so there are double standards operating here. >> i think the audience is to make me look like aoftie which is great. do you have any additional questions in the audience? yes, sir, back here. >> i'm from voice of america in the news service. my question to you, madam, you know recently pakistani prime minister gilani made a statement about kashmir and u.s. wanting the peace process to resume and possibly include kashmir as well. my question to you is, what will be india's position in this regard, whether bringing kashmir into dialog or whether starting the peace process, whether countering their terrorism if

you could elaborate on that, please. >> you know, india had a composite dialog with pakistan which lasted three years. and that dialog made considerable progress on a range of issues including j confidence-building measures for increasing people to people contacts for opening new transport and trade routes including a link across kashmir by bus. but this whole process received a very severe setback with an increase in terrorism. first, there was the terrorist attack against the indian embassy in kabul, which u.s. sources also said had -- you know, there was evidence of direct involvement of elements of pakistan security agencies in this attack. at least so the news rts