also have it in your head and you have it in your heart. thank you. [applause] >> now we bring to providence college commencement ceremony. the speaker is john ratzen ratzenberger. we begin the coverage here at the providence college commencement ceremony and john presenting his daughter, nina, with her diploma. >> nina katharine ratzenberger.

[cheers and applause] caroline janet rendy. heather jane renny. heather ma rear. casey m. reyes. lee anne riley. tracy anne riley. gloria margaret. katelye joyce. freda rodriguez. daniel joseph row. melny patricia ramono.

john joseph rossi. andrew don rusino. scott kenneth royals. julie irene raerer rei. chase preston. [applause] >> john bratzenberger, in a career spanning more than 30 years, you displayed characters on popular television programs, iconic films, and ground breaking movies. perhaps best remembered for the portrayal of the salt of the earth mailman, you've been a champion of american ingenuity

employing your background in acting, producing, and writing, you introduced us to the amazing work of entrepreneurs, inventers, and manufacturers throughout this nation whose products have contributed to its greatness, and true to your entrepreneurial nature, you invented a biodegradable paper as an alternative to plastic products. your ability to inspire the next generation found expression in the unique foundation you formed to promote this mission. it is also reflected in your new campaign to help rebuild america's skilled work force through expanded opportunities for career technical and vocational training. also close to your heart is the cause of juvenile diabetes. you helped create the world's largest online source of research and national walk

chairman of the research foundation, you helped raise more than $100 million to fund research for a criewr. [applause] for these reasons father chairman and father president, the college presents john d. bratzenberger and request you to confer among him together with all of the rights and privileges. [applause] [applause] >> the impact of 21st century

technology has made an enormous difference this how we perceive the sights and sounds of animated films. as cutting i think computer technology advances the sound industry, animated films likewise have been enhanced encouraging the viewer listener to enjoy a unique experience. as a leading voice in the most successful animated movies in film history, john has been at the epicenter of all the technology advances. from his improv days in europe in the 70s to his role as the know it all mail carrier in the emmy nominated sitcom "cheers" to all of work in the feature films, he's demonstrated versatility in the performing arts industry. while john's work is grounded in the state of the art technology,

simultaneously, he's pursued passion for encouraging hands-on creativity in children. as such, the nuts and bolts foundation he established provides opportunities for children to be inquisitive, to be open to inspiration, and to prepare for jobs that require a mastering of basic manual skills. we are proud of john's many contributions, and we are pleased that he is here with us today, both as the proud parent of a class of 2000 graduate, nina, and as our principle speaker. please join me in welcoming mr. john ratzenberger. [applause] john? [applause] >> thank you, thank you. the best definition of the road to success that i've heard is winston churchill. he said that success is a result

of going from failure to failure with enthusiasm. [laughter] he's also the man who said never stand when you can sit, never sit when you can lie down. go figure. [laughter] when i was a young man growing up in the seaside village of connecticut -- [cheers and applause] great to have you here. [laughter] have you searched them for weapons? [laughter] much of my winter indoor time was spent reading books. now, books then were made of paper and didn't require batteries or a wall socket. the words were just right there like they were waiting for you. my first favorite author was james cooper, the writer of the deer slayer hawkeye. there was a protagonist played

by daniel day louis in the last of moo -- hohekans. the locals gave him the name the deer slayer and hawkeye, but the town folk knew him as that -- nathanial. what fascinates me blot the character is he set off into the deep green forests without any idea of a destination. you knee, he was more excited in the interested in the journey in the wilderness than the actual getting there, wherever that was. no cell phone, no debit card, just gun powder, shots, and enough to last until he could find something to eat, but he did have a moral compass. he knew the difference between right and wrong. he listened closely to the

natives that had been in the great wilderness for centuries and learned from them the ways of survival. they, in turn, respected him for his willingness to listen and understand the meaning of a cracked twig or a forest gone suddenly silent. every day was an education, and he was an eager and willing student. after my four years at the university with a degree in english, i set off with some tools and traveled new england trading the skills i picked up working summers as a deck hand on an oyster boat and building houses in the southern connecticut area. i thought i was a carpenter until i walked up to a building site and asked the boss if he needed a house framer. he looked down at the 18-year-old kid saying, so you take you're a carpenter do you? i said sure. he said, we'll see. he pointed to a huge pile of

joists, two by 12 inches, two feet long each and every one. move those beams over there pointing to a spot 200 feet away covered in snow and ice covered fields. i needed the work, so i moved them. took me five days, but i moved each and every single one of them. monday morning, the boss scratched his chin and said, well, i think they were better over there. [laughter] so, i moved them back. like i said, i needed the job. five days later i was standing taller and stronger than i had been before and the boss handed me a framing hammer and said, all right, carpenter, show me. up until that moment i thought i knew how to hold a hammer, but apparently i didn't. he showed me where to place my thumb and how to swing the hammer officially and drive in a

name with only three blows. i've been grateful ever since. the first job he sent me to do was nailing plywood flooring to the same 2 by 12s was friendly with the first weeks of the job. i pounded nails and did the fetch and carry demanded by the gruff crew who didn't take kindly to the new kid on the job. a few weeks later, on a fairly windy day, i was given the job to stand on the roof joists four stories up and lift 4 by 8 sheets of plywood passed man to man from the scaffolding below. i don't know how many of you have balanced yourself on beams holding wyden sails when the wind blows, it's scarry. you can become mary poppins with

a tool belt. [laughter] that day was one of the greatest in my life. when i was holding the last sheet of pliewood, i looked down to where i was handing them to the guy in the room below. he wasn't there. i couldn't drop the plywood because it would cause trouble. i was in pickle for sure. then i heard the sounds of rapid hammering and laughter as two of the carpenters niled the edges of my boots to the rafters i was standing on. to be clear, i was wearing the boots at the time. [laughter] they double and triple knotted my laces as i struggled to balance and hanging on to the wood. the crew left for lunch laughing hysterically. it took me awhile to maneuver the sheet of mywood a place where i can tack it flat and i

cut off my laces and lower myself to the floor below because they took the ladder i used to climb up there. [laughter] it took a long time to pry my boots lose and find twine to replace the laces enough to wear them again. the crew, they gave me a lunch they bought for me and sat around joking as i ate. i realized then that i had been accepted as one of them. i knew that it had been necessary for them to test my mental, to put me through ugly back breaking tasks to see what i was made of. on that day, the lunch they gave me and the laughter that came with it was as grand as any oscar or emmy. from there, journied north in the same region that he explored in the adventures given to him by cooper.

instead of stopping there, i was using my skills to help build a mime studio. as far as i know, i was the only carpenter that could ring an imaginary bell and walk an invisible dog. learn as much as you can about as much as you can. there is no such thing as useless knowledge. ask sherlock holmeses or cliff claven. they understood that. word came of a music festival about 60 miles away. a friend and mine went down, and i was given the keys to a large tractor after telling the hiring man i knew how to drive onement i lied, but like i said before, i needed the job. mind is good, but cash is better. almost flipping the -- after almost flipping the thing

over a few times, i got the hang of it and was a driver at the festival. i helped build a stage, and when it was raining, i pulled cars out the rain soaked fields of the farm. i would like at this time to say that i'm sorry for helping to ruin the world and apologize on behalf of the woodstock generation. [laughter] i could have stopped it. [laughter] i could have pulled the wires. i could have sent people the wrong direction, but i didn't, and the woodstock generation and their philosophy runs our cultures today. movies, television, music, and literature glorified the long haired drug fueled madness, but i was there. this is what really happened. once the rain started, everything fell apart, no food, not enough medical care or equipment, no sanitation or clean water. a half a million hepless flower

children very close to panic. then all of the sudden, we looked at the sky and heard the national helicopter coming over the horizon with equipment, one right after the other. if not for that, the woodstock festival would have possibly turned into the increase donor party. [laughter] the influence on our culture was saved by the national guard. a few years ago, senator clinton suggested there be a statue erected on the farm to remember the summer of love and its impact on a generation. my suggestion at the time should be of a national guardsmen feeding a crying hippie. [laughter] [applause] i was there. that was what happened, and i was one of them. i had a beard, long hair. it was sickening.

[laughter] even then when i heard the lyrics of the popular beetle song, lucy in the sky with diamonds, you know, picture yourself in a dote down the river, you know the song -- my question was who built the boat? [laughter] someone who is not stoned or drunk had to get up in the morning, measure, cut, bend, and shape wood into a boat before the beatles or anyone else could slap on a goofy smile and imagine magic dragons and marshmellow seas. somebody got up in the morning, put their hand to something useful, was responsible for their work, themselves, and their families. it was that philosophy that built and shaped this civilization. it is that philosophy that brought us to the dance and as the saying goes, dance with the one who brought you.

i have always been a fan of the judeo-christian ethic that you don't have to be christian to follow. be responsible for yourself and the family you create and let your work speak for you. while i was touring this great country during my show, john ratzenberger's made in america, i discovered bag pipes to baseball bats and bulldozers and bathtubs. i got to talking to the ceo about the young work force entering the marketplace. he told me a story that i've heard vaitions -- variations of across the country. he hired a young man fresh out of college to work at the headquarter office on a decent salary. after three days the ceo told me they had to fire the kid. apparently, he would not listen to anyone else's advice or direction. he always thought his ideas were the best and he refused to work

in the team atmosphere. the boss had no other choice but to show him the door after only three days on the job. on the fourth day, the kid returned with his mother. [laughter] the mother walked up to the ceo and told him to apologize to her son because he had hurt his self-esteem. [laughter] another true story. once again, i have to apologize on behalf of the woodstock jeep ration where the notion of anointing someone with self-worth for doing nothing first raised its ugly head. before that feel-good generation took charge, you had to earn self-esteem, go in the woods and figure things out for yourself, you had to listen to people who had been doing the job long before you got there, before the notion of giving a child rewards for doing nothing. you had to be a little good at what you did in order to participate. before the era of overpraise and

play dates, there was a time you had to try out for little league, and if you were not good at it, you simply were told so, and you didn't make the team. you didn't get a uniform and a trophy for just showing up, but what you did get was a golden opportunity that gifted you for the rest of your life. you were able, at a young age, to learn the skills necessary to handle an emotional crisis. if you department make the team, you practiced until you could or you found something else like stamp collecting, tap dancing or something else. nobody gave you a trophy for showing up, and, yes, i still enjoy tap dancing. [laughter] [applause] i didn't bring my shoes with me, so you're lucky. all your parents out there, i ask you not to scold your child's boss on self-esteem and nail the kid to the rafters and

let them figure it out on their own. [laughter] [cheers and applause] [applause] my advice to you graduates is learn how to cook, build something with your own hands, now how to change a car tire, learn to whistle, make a baby, laugh, oh, sorry, that's make a baby laugh -- [laughter] doesn't have to be yours. [laughter] and most importantly, if you are ever given the honor of speaking at the commencement of a place of learning, know when to stop. [laughter] thank you, god bless you all, and have a great life! [cheers and applause] [applause]

in about 10 minutes from now at 12:30 eastern time, live coverage of the white house daily press briefing here on c-span2 happening shortly after a meeting between president obama and congressional republicans about the national debt. a little later on, a hearing on the u.s. transition in iraq held by a house foreign affairs subcommittee. we'll bring you live coverage at 2:30 eastern time here on c-span2. more than 11,000 people were there to hear supreme court justice sotomayor to speak so south carolina graduates. this is about 15 minutes. >> are you excited, graduates? [cheers and applause] i am. thank you for this honorary degreement i am deeply touched

and grateful to be a part of your class this year. every once in awhile, there's special moments in my life when i pinch myself just to make sure i'm not dreaming, just before i came out, i pinched myself. this is my very first trip to columbia, south carolina. i hope not my last, and you may be among the largest audiences i have will addressed. this is a bit awesome. [laughter] now, i know there are many parents, grandmothers, aunts, and uncles in the audience out there who are pinching yourself right now. you dreamed of the baby you saw born growing up and graduating college, but i bet you really couldn't imagine what it would feel like to be here today, on the day reality caught up with

your dreams. maybe some of you in the class of 2011 pinch yourselves too. when you started college or graduate school and often during your years of study, it may have seemed as if your graduation would never come. today, you probably are thinking that the time has flown by too fast. trust me, class of 2011, yes, you are awake, and yes, very soon, you will be graduates of this pretee gas university. i'm honored to share this special day with you. i see faces filled with pride and accomplishment, accomplishment born of years of study, hard work, and sacrifice, and faces filled with hope for a future that is made brighter by your efforts. today, i hope to commend what you have accomplished and too affirm the optimism you feel.

to accomplish my goal, i have been up spiredded by the coming mother's day to tell you two stories about two remarkable mothers. the first story is about my mother, selena society mayor. the other story is about beatris, the mother of the first south carolinaian i ever met. my mother was born in puerto rico and raised her children in new york. the other born in georgia and raised her children in south carolina. those of you who grew up here in the state and those of you whose families call the south home for generations, i expect to have little in common with a my grant from puerto rico raising two children in the south bronx, but when you look past the surface, my mother's story is filled with

uncanny resemblances to vera's story and resemblances i'm absolutely sure to the lives of many of you in this auditorium. in my mother's story, i believe vera would see her own, and all of you will recognize the values that have guided you to this most significant and proud moment in all of your lives. my mother was born in puerto rico in 1927. although she grew up in a home with poverty and illness, my mom found happiness in one thing, learning in school. at the end of the school day, my mother was run home to spend an hour among the trees behind her house. there she would line up her towering friends in her imagination and use a stick as a pointer to teach the trees the lessons she had learned that day.

at 17, and during world war ii, my mom found a way out of her poverty while contributing to her country. she joined the army just like many others including senator lindsay graham which i shared a stage this morning at the law school, and just like vernon's dad, and i'm sure the family members of many of you. she became a member of the woman's army corp., and she was stationed in new york. my mom met my dad, they married, and chose to stay in new york. dad was a factory worker, and my mom worked in a private small hospital in the south bronx that became her home for the next 35 years. the hospital's boss encouraged her to get a practical nursing degree which she did. my dad died at the age of 62 when i was nine and my brother was 6. my mom was left alone with two

young children and no savings. during most of my childhood, she worked six days a week struggling to put us through college and catholic schools because she believed that was the best education she could afford for us. education was paramount for my mother, and through her sacrifice, we learned the value of education as well. my mom decided to pursue her own dream, and she went to college so she could earn more money to support us. my mother at age 45 went back to school. who is the 72-year-old graduate in this audience? please have the courage to stand up because i know what it took for you to do what you did because i lived it with my own mom. i hope that classmate is an up spir ration -- inspiration to all of you.

it takes a dream coming true and really hard work to make it happen. i congratlate that graduate. [applause] with an example like my mom, none of you have to wonder why my brother and i had no choice but to do well in school. it is always bus of the encouragement and family and friends that all of us are inspired to do well in some way, and that is true whether you grew up in a housing project in the south bronx or in a one traffic light town in south carolina like my friend vernon. i know that for a fact because of the second story i want to share with you today, the story of vera and her son vernon. vernon is now an accomplished author and professor of history here in the state of south carolina, but when i met him, i

was a college student, and he was a graduate student working on his dissertation. ..

>> we both have a deep admiration and love for bobby richardson. the price new york yankees second baseman who i understand started your universities national baseball program. jay to the usc gamecocks are winning the 2010th in sea double a national world series. and yet a to your football team. congratulations, gamecocks. [applause] >> when i first met vernon, it seemed a very deep chasm existed in his world and my. as i spent more time with them either that was was not the case at all. although he has the most intriguing and beautiful southern drawl, and i, to this day come have a very heavy new york accent, and although we came from such different

backgrounds, we nonetheless shared many common values. for example, we both shared a deep appreciation about the value of hard work. like my mom, vernon smith was a young widow. vernon's dad died when he was six. and vera, just like my mom, worked tirelessly to close, feed and educate her children. she was an insurance agent. she worked most of her career like my mom with one company. just like my mom, vernon smith instilled in him the value of hard work. and like my mother taught me, vernon smith are taught him to dedicate himself, not only to supporting his family, but also contributing to his community by public service. we both learned from others who are our heroines to this day, to love and cherish our families,

and to love our god. to support our country by being active participating citizens, and to be getting people to our neighbors. and we learned that it matters less what you choose to do, then what you do with whatever you choose, that you do it with all your heart. vernon and my mom both shared and unyielding passion for education. when i met her and he was knee deep in his dissertation about reconstruction and the rural old edgefield district in south carolina. and often carried about, around tax books documenting the history of the now five counties of that area. i in turn was working on my undergraduate thesis on the legacy of the first elected governor of puerto rico. today, the education our mothers worked so hard to give us have

taken us to places we could never have imagined. once a boy from the town of 96 in rural south carolina, vernon is now the director of the university institute, a professor and a historian. once a girl from a public housing project in the bronx, i am today a supreme court justice, and often have to pinch myself about that. i suspect that the story of my mother and vernon's, stories of hardships, sacrifices and a desire for a better future is not dissimilar from that of many of your families in the audience. like my mom and vernon's, many of your families have made enormous sacrifices for you to make it to this point today. even those of you who grew up in more fortunate circumstances than i have, have been guided to this momentous point in your lives either values you have learned from your families and loved ones.

everything we value, education, hard work, generosity, service on behalf of others, we learned from our loved ones. the challenges today are much greater than those vernon and i faced when we graduated. adapts you have incurred are also much larger. i hope, however, that you do not measure the benefit of your education by how fast you get a first job, how much money you make, or the public importance of your position. i hope instead that you measure the value of your education by how it improves the quality of your life and the lives of those you strive to benefit. any student of life can learn only with reflection. i hope that in the coming days and years each of you will think back on your years at this

wonderful university, and marvel at the immense value of that education. you will understand that the values having shared great sacrifices with your families and loved ones, and appreciating their guidance and support. the value is in the friends sitting next to you today who will cheer you on throughout your life. the value is in learning, including from the many esteemed professors who are here to applaud you today, about the generosity of sharing knowledge with others and the rich rewards of continuing to learn throughout your lives. the value is in the challenges you have certainly been, and overcome while on this college campus. challenges that i know have taught you to broaden your perspectives, and to be relentless in striving to improve yourselves. being with you here today, i see

living proof of the values that my mother taught me, the values that vernon taught -- was taught by his mother. and values i know your families and friends have taught you. i hope that each of you recognizes these values, and these challenges, in your self. if you let them be your guide, your life will be rich with personal and professional rewards. and you will enrich the lives of those around you. on this very special day, i hope for all of you and your family and friends much joyous celebration and accomplishment. thank you for allowing me to share this day with you. i wish every mother in this room an early happy mother's day. and every father a much earlier anticipated happy father's day. job well done, parents.

best of luck to all of you and the class of 2011. [applause] [applause] >> we expect the daily white house briefing to be live here shortly. president obama and congressional republicans met this morning about the national debt, raising the debt ceiling and spending cuts. here's what "the associated press" writes about the meetings. republican leaders emerge and those repeated talking point decide to gain political advantage and the partisan tussle over spending policy. there was no such as the meeting had produce any concrete progress ahead of an august 2 deadline for the federal government to raise the federal debt limit or go into default. that in "the associated press." you can see republicans remarks

at c-span.org and congressional democrats will go to the white house tomorrow to meet with the president about the debt. rejecting a measure raising the debt ceiling without any spending cuts, we will watch that while we wait for the white house briefing to start. sun and there's a story on last night's vote. they said that the proposal would increase the borrowing capacity by $2.4 trillion to cover the government's obligations through the 2012 calendar year. it was also designed to force on to the record democrats who sought a clean vote free from demands of budget cuts and policy changes. on that issue, "hill" says last

night's vote with democrats in an awkward position. after 114 members of the caucus signed a letter from peter welch calling on republicans to bring this to the floor. many of those democrats reverse themselves when it became clear the republicans were granting the request only to see the legislation failed. back to the "baltimore sun." its is the u.s. chamber of commerce has been working with lawmakers, many backed by conservative tea party supporters, to see the debt ceiling eventually raised. a republican in brentwood, california, what did you think of last night's vote? caller: seven weeks ago according to the headlines, they

did and then a clean lift of the debt ceiling. that proposition was put on the floor yesterday and at 44% of the democratic caucus will not go along with that. how will they return to their districts and tell their constituents that they are in favor of extending credit to these credit-challenged politicians with no protection at all? it has been two years and since the house and senate has passed the budget in times like this. and yet according to "politico", they are unlikely to produce one this year. you saw in the senate last year that obama is budget published in february went down 97-0. leadership, anyone? host: i was wondering about the arguments from democrats saying

that this type of vote that you saw last night, if it is rejected in the end, could spook the financial markets. caller: what is spookier than anything else is that nothing is done to restructure our budget, our big 3 government programs will disappear. in what, 10 years? host: "new york times" on this issue. republicans scheduled the vote for after the stock market's close. craig, an independent in texas, good morning. caller: the whole thing was about politics as usual.

it was not what needed to be done with this country. host: what should be done about the debt ceiling? should it be raised? caller: it is going to be raised, i do not have a problem with that. if they restructure the taxes, i do not see that happening right now. host: if they take a debt ceiling but again before the august 2 deadline, do you want to see spending cuts attached to it? caller: i want to see a balance between spending cuts and tax increases, and if i had my way about it, we go back to the late 1990's tax structure under president clinton. to me, i am a retired military and senior citizen. i can remember taking home half

my paycheck and i did not have a problem with that because we had a war to deal with. and now they do not seem to want to pay taxes and have all these wars and spend all this money with corporate america not paying any taxes on it. it's totally insane to me. host: a democrat in virginia. caller: i hear the republican party always wanting to balance the budget. you have to take medicare and social security away from the people. in the meantime, they are not talking about their salaries, their pensions, their entitlements. they will not touch their entitlements but to touch all entitlements. i do not understand anything that is going on right now. the military complex, all of our money goes into three wars but

nobody talks about how to take care of us americans. we do not take care of americans. the republican party lies. the democrats tried to play but i do not think any party cares about the american citizens anymore. and that is what i would like to say. host: will show you some of last night's debate this morning. we will show you what dave camp said who brought the legislation to the floor. this is what he had to say. >> businesses washington -- in washington as usual is over. republicans will not accept an increase in our nation's debt limit without substantial spending cuts and real budgetary reform. this vote, a vote based on legislation i have introduced, will and must fail.

most members are not happy when they bring a bill to the floor and it scales. but i feel that defeating an unconditional increase to be a success because it sends a clear and critical message that the congress has finally recognized we must immediately begin to rein in americans affection for deficit spending. host: ahead of this morning meeting with republicans, the entire republican caucus, but white house spokesman says that obama plans to listen to their concerns -- mike, democrat, good morning. caller: i think the republicans are very disingenuous. and that is putting it nicely. when they talk about being against tax increases, many of us want to go back to the

clinton-era tax rates, we are talking about a difference of 4.5%. the american people are being fed these misleading -- that democrats want to raise taxes, but we are only talking about 4.5%. i think it to be across the board back to 35%, i believe, to 39.5% for any time we hear the republicans say, the democrats want to raise your taxes, i think someone ought to step in and clarify that we are only talking about a 4.5% increase that could raise trillions of dollars, not to mention that there are so many other things that before they started dismantling medicare, there are so many other things that could be done in this country. i agree with most of your

callers. many republicans as well saying that we need to cut back on the military, and why are we in japan and germany and korea? maybe korea, there are so many things that the congress could do. genuinely, to raise taxes, miniscule, 4.5%, and i am just a middle-class guy and i am willing. thank you for c-span. host: larry in indiana or idaho? caller: idaho. i enjoy listening to c-span every morning. i like to respond to the lady that called in just a moment ago. i am a republican, and i certainly do want to push them off the cliff. i do not want to take anyone social security. i do not want to take anybody's medicare or medicaid. and i don think senator tom coburn of oklahoma does, either,

or any of the other republicans. >> we will go live to the white house for the daily press briefing. this is happening shortly after meeting between president obama and congressional republicans about the national debt. >> thanks for being here. i know there's a lot of interest in the readout of the president's meeting with house republicans, which i will provide to you. but first, if we could hold on that as much about that. that as much about that. first i have with me today ron bloom, the assistant to the president for manufacturing policy. many of you know him well. he is here to talk about report issued today that we put out which you should have by now on the auto industry and where it stands now after the measures that were taken by the president two years ago. so without further ado i will turn it over to ron. if you could, while he is here, if you could, while he is here, any questions you have regarding

his report, regarding manufacturing, directly and. i will call on you and then we can let him go. i will come back and we can deal with the other issues of the day. ron? >> thank you. two years ago general motors filed for bankruptcy, and we thought this would be a good time to take stock of what's happened since then, the difficult decisions the president made in the run up to that period, the assistance that we did determined to provide to the automobile industry and what's happened since. when the president took office we had an automobile industry in absolute freefall. we had an economy in great distress with the automobile industry in some ways falling faster than just about any other sector. the president face very difficult decisions about what to do to deal with this critical part of the american economy. accompanies came forward very early on february 17 of 2009

with plans that they believed justified additional taxpayer support. the president rejected those plans. he told them they needed to act more aggressively. they came back with much more robust plan that required substantial sacrifice from all their stakeholders. and on june 1 in the context of the general motors bankruptcy, substantial additional assistance was provided to gm. in a month earlier assistance was provided to chrysler. since that time i think we've seen some really positive and encouraging signs, and we think that at this two-year anniversary, it's reasonable to take note. in the last year the detroit three have all gained market share. they have all added jobs, and they have all shown the ability to make money. they are all making substantial profit. those three things together haven't been true of the detroit

three in a long, long time. now, the credit for that importantly goes to the men and women of those companies and their stakeholders who all made very, very difficult decisions to come together. but we think it is also worth noting that the courageous decision the president made to stand behind these companies, and this was not an easy call, in particular i think reiser was, in fact, a difficult call. last week chrysler repaid all of the loans that had been made to them. but with the time the president chose to help chrysler, at the time he chose to help the general motors a lot of people said you are throwing good money after bad. you will never get out. these companies are not suitab suitable. but i think the president demonstrated both great political courage as well as great faith in the men and women who work at these countries and their stakeholders, and so far at least i think we are seeing very good signs of progress. as i said, employment up. the industry has gained 115,000

jobs in the last year, fastest job growth in a long, long time. gaining share, making money. the road ahead for these companies is not easy. it's not simple. they live in a difficult environment, global competition, and so we by no means believe that their future is assured. on the other hand, we believe that the steps we took and steps they took in partnership with us have positioned of these companies to where they have a real chance of success. and that's important because these companies are not just the three companies themselves, or the two companies themselves. these companies as the report documents support a tremendous array of other businesses, workers, communities around them. on friday, the president will be going to toledo. he's going to meeting with workers at a chrysler assembly plant. is going to be hearing from small business men and women in the community. because these manufacturing

employers very important, and not the only one to do this, but very importantly these manufacturing companies play a central role in their communities. they are if you will oftentimes the anchor. so manufacturing which is today in fact leading our recovery, 250,000 new jobs in manufacturing in the last year, faster gdp growth than the rest of the economy, demonstrating that it can still play very, very important role in the american economy. so the automobile industry is a story of manufacturing but there's a broader manufacturing story as well that we think needs to be brought to attention. so that's what the report is about. happy to answer questions. >> you said we by no means believe that the future is assured. what about their survival? >> i don't think anything in life is assured. the fate of these companies rests with the men and women who work there, the managers, the board of directors and many

things in the external environment. when we make these investments, people said you'll never get out people said you'll never get out of the car business. we are exiting as we said we would as soon as practical. we have now had all our money paid back from general motors -- sorry, from chrysler. we have cut our stake in gm in half, and we have a small residual stake in chrysler. but we're pulling back from these companies. so i won't make any prediction about their ultimate fate. what i will say is we believe that as they stood today, making the kind of cars americans want to buy, making better cars, making more fuel-efficient cars, being able to be vigorous competitors in the marketplace, gaining market share, tells me that they have an opportunity to succeed. whether or not they succeed will be up to them. >> what money do we still -- the taxpayer still have invested in these companies and at what point will that be repaid, if ever? >> the total funds invested including the prior

administration into the industry is roughly $80 billion. roughly $40 billion has been returned to date. the remaining money is accounted for by states in general motors. we sold about half of what we owned but we still own the other half. a small equity stake in chrysler, and a stake in an alley financial which is the old general motors acceptance corporation. how the stakes are realize is not yet determined. we are as we've said repeatedly we are determined to exit the stakes as soon as practical. and so what effect in the market will determine the full accounting of the remainder of the money. >> are they worth what we paid for in terms of stock, that's what we will then sell at? >> no, i don't think we have a particular target price because the president has made clear that he does not believe that is the proper role of government in the long term to be an owner of

a private corporation. and so we do not view ourselves as kind of market timing, looking for the absolute best opportunity to sell. so we'll try to walk a fine line. we said we're not summit as soon as possible many women will not sell at a fire sale the first day weekend. on the other hand, when not holding, waiting for a target price. we will look to exit as soon as practical, and the price that they fetch in the market will be the price that they fetch. we report periodically and other oversight agencies report periodically looking at the values of the stakes, and as we pointed out, the loss, if you will, that has been reported early has come down substantially. the latest number from the cbo i think was a $14 billion loss here that reflects market prices at the time they did it. the final number will be the final number. and look, there is no joy in having to announce -- not

announcing anything today, but in recognizing that all this money will not be returned. on the other hand, as we record what was lost we need to also record what was saved. external experts have stated that over 1 million jobs were saved by the presidents actions, and other people of numbers substantially higher. the impact of the collapse of gm and chrysler would not have been just a couple hundred thousand people who worked at these companies. three times as many people work in the supply base, another three times as many work in the suppliers. say nothing of all the pizza parlors and all the dry cleaners and all the other people in these communities. so while we are obviously extremely conscious of our obligation to get every penny we can for the taxpayer, we're also not going to apologize for the fact that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of thousands of americans who are working today because of what happened. and that when the final accounting occurs we are quite confident it will be a far

smaller number than people predicted at the time. >> where does that number come >> where does that number come from? >> i think that's a reasonable number and we do our own and then the treasury department does their own account. again, there's been no attempt to not be transparent. you can look at what general motors shares are trading for. you know how many we have the. the other numbers are available. so again, there's no -- those of you that this is not an important number to track and to acknowledge. on the other hand, as i said, i think there are two sides to this story. >> will we get that 14 down to zero? >> look, the stock market will do what it does. and again, that's not what we are trying to do. we were a 100% private investor. we might consider taking certain kinds of steps to particularly enhance the value of these companies. but the president made a very conscious decision.

we do not manage these companies. we put an extraordinary group of men and women, we did put them in as the initial board of directors and then we have stepped back. so no, i don't anticipate there will be any particular action we would take. we will sell as soon as practical, by do not think -- in fact, i think you should not expect we would make any kind of innovation -- intervention. we're comfortable with the decisions the president made were in fact the right decision and would accountable in our commitment to sal and the final accounting will be what it is. >> use of the 14 billion, does that come from cbo? cbo uses 85 billion. >> there's a $5 billion on a supplier support program which went in and out. so that, we return all of. >> and then in terms of market share, how much increase of market share -- [inaudible] and prior to that the scandal,

how much of this is positive as opposed to negative? >> the recent problems in japan are quite recent so the gains in market share come before that. obviously, toyota has challenges last year but that does not explain the entire share of the big three. the big three are making better cars and they're making better fuel-efficient cars. the chevy cruise is selling off the law. the ford focus -- off the lot. the ford focus also. obviously, there are up and down numbers and, obviously, some of the competitors have faced challenges but i don't think there's any doubt that these three companies, chrysler has gained market share, retail marketshare 13 straight months. i think all of these companies are moving forward in a positive are moving forward in a positive way, based on their own performance. >> is there one lacking as opposed to others? it seems chrysler hasn't moved as much. >> chrysler's retail share has

gone up quite a bit the last year. so no, i think there's little puts and takes all over, but all three of them have gained your. >> i realize the government administration doesn't want to have a long-term position in the companies, private companies. but why not have the time strategy, because it's a bigger investment. it's an investment strategy for the taxpayers money to. >> do you know when the top of the market is you and i should have a conversation. [laughter] >> you watch the trends. >> we don't know. nobody, lots and lots of people in america think they know when the top of the market is. [inaudible] >> i don't know what he does. i wish i did, and again, if you can come i really do want to know because i would stop having to do this. [laughter] but i want to -- >> brokers do it all the time

and so when you think -- >> but here's what. i didn't say we were so whenever we want to what i said was we would responsibly sell as soon as practical. that does not mean as not mean as soon as possible. obviously, tomorrow morning we could sell it all if we wanted. we have chosen not to. but we have to be very careful. the president made an extraordinary decision to intervene in the private economy. it was justified by the most severe economic downturn since the great depression. that is not the normal weight that government ought to behave toward private actors. and the longer you stay in, the and the longer you stay in, the longer you stay in, the more you signal to the market that the government intends to be in the business of owning companies. that is not a business the president wants to be in. he said many, many times i did not run for office to be the ceo of an automobile company. take the knowledge that we have and again, i don't have to think

i'm smart to anybody else, but to take the knowledge and say if we just waited until longer, longer, a little longer, the problem is you start the and then all of a sudden you wake up to, three, four, five years from the and you still own a big stake in a private copy. i think our decision which we set up long ago, and again i think the most important thing you need to do in situations like this with markets is to be transparent. we told people what we're going to do. we said we will sell as soon as practical. we didn't say we are selling on may 17 but we get a clear signal that we're not going to be long-term investors but if you look at the success of the general motors ipl, which at the time if you remember was the largest ipo in history of the new york stock exchange, one of the reasons the $23 billion in private capital showed up on that day back last fall was because they knew we were not going to market time. we were not interested in a long-term investor because i think if they believe that they would've been more cautious

about becoming shareholders with us. i agree with you. it is ticking, and keen appreciation of the obligation of the stewards and taxpayers, but we have a broader obligation to play a constructive role in the overall economy. and i think those two things have to be balanced, and the way we have balanced them come and we said this two years ago and i think we've been extremely true to it is to sell as soon as practical. >> how do you see the high gas prices and the prospect continue to be high plain out in the future of the american automobile industry? >> again, what is quite encouraging is that the companies are producing -- is always true that when gas prices go up, people start buying smaller cars. that's been true in every rise in gas prices in the last 30 years. the difference is that most of the last 30 years, that activity

tends to law share. they did not have smaller competitive cars. the fact that every time gas prices went up, they were obvious he in secular in decline and share but it accentuated their share. now what you have is in the case of gm and ford, most assured and cries are coming behind, particularly with their new particularly with their new technology, all three of these covers are going to be able to offer america's fuel-efficient cars. the cruise is selling off the law. the focus is doing well. obvious he nobody was for high gas price but brown is that these three in particular are able to address consumer demand in that context and that i think is a very positive thing. >> once the governments current stake in chrysler in dollar terms? >> well, we own 6.6% of the common equity of the company. and it's a private company so there's not a stated number for

the value. >> and if you were to divest that now, with the company get by without a? >> it was -- fiat announce publicly so this is not a piece of news, but fiat do as you know what is the entity that put in a lot of technology and recently invested 1.3 billion in chrysler had option to purchase our state. and last week they notified us that they're going to exercise that option. and so i think at some point, we don't know when, but at some point we will be winding up stealing -- selling that to fiat. >> that will be before next to? >> whether or not chrysler determined to undertake an ipo will be up to chrysler. candidly, once we don't own shares in it it's not something that we have an economic interest into it the board of directors of chrysler believes an ipo is the proper course of action then we will wish them well in doing that.

>> can you comment on the index because this morning there was a slow down last month? was this just due to external prices? >> well, from what i think it is worth noting that the index has 22 straight months of increase. as i pointed out earlier to 250,000 jobs in manufacturing. the recent month was down a bit from the prior, it was still a growth month. growth month. indicator is above 50 indicate growth so we still saw growth. i think that most of that growth, most of that slow down is attributed to the situation in japan because the way global supply chains work can't you can't finish a part if you can't can't finish a part if you can't get the part. and so i think it is largely external factors. look, the long-term trend on manufacturing since the bottom of the recession is quite positive. and i think we remain optimistic

that manufacturing has a good future. look, i think it is worth noting in that regard, in the last year there is a very different attitude both in the corporate sector as well as in a lot of the academic and other people who follow manufacturing about the future of manufacturing in america. you are now seeing sophisticated and less, reports about america as a very competitive place to manufacture. you are seeing corporations talk about insourcing in the way they haven't before. so while i actually would accept month-to-month variation, i do think that we are in a good place. we are not where we want to be yet. there's still a huge distance to go, but i think the trends in manufacturing remains good. [inaudible] >> that something or academics to speculate on. i think part of what's happened is that the american

manufacturing economy has been revealed to be the most productive manufacturing economy in the world. and i think there's just a growing recognition among corporations and among others as well that this is, in fact, a good place to make things. and if you look at the data again, there are jobs being added, first time in a long time, absolute job growth in manufacturing is occurring. the american manufacturing economy has been becoming more productive for a long time. in fact, a leader in our economy and productivity, but these trends are funny how and when they sort of appeared to people and when they occur to people is hard to predict. but i think what you're getting is a growing consensus, not that we're out of the woods, not that there are not enough was challenges, but people are taking a new kind of look at america as a place to make things than they were, say, five years ago.

>> do you think taxpayers will be repaid 14 billion -- ill be lower than that amount? >> i said we'll get back what we get back when we sell the shares, spent but he will be smaller than 14 billion. smaller than 14 billion. >> i don't have a best guess. i'm not going to make a prediction about the. it would be what it is. and everyone will score it up when it happens expect not to belabor the point, you said we will no -- [laughter] one of the conditions when you think it will be right to sell? how do you define that? >> again, i want to -- nobody likes this answer but i'm afraid your not going to get a different one. we are committed to exiting the stakes. we're not committed to exiting them at the absolute first opportunity. we are committed to exiting assess practical. you can watch our behavior and you can see what we did. in the case of general motors, we and the company decided to undertake an ipo as soon as we

believe the company was ready and would be well accepted in the market. at the time of the ipo, we still have to our state which was a huge ipo at the time. i think that tells you something about how we viewed when to do and how to do it at the time. when the ipo occurred we agree to something called a lockup which investors act on behalf of sharing so holders. that lockup has just recently expired come and so we are going to look for opportunities when we think the market will be interested in purchasing additional shares. exactly when that occurs, we are not going to make a prediction. today, and we, however, we will review it and the proper way through the security and exchange commission when the time is right. >> can you define assess practical?

-- as soon as practical? [inaudible] [laughter] >> you got as much out of me on this one as you're going to get. >> you say as soon as practical. >> judge us by our action. we still have forsaken the largest ipo in history of in your stock exchange. i think what that tells you is we're quite forward leaning and trying to get out. we agree. we agree to it a six-month lockup that lockup has now expired. we will analyze -- the people at the treasure will analyze markets, look at opportunities and seek what the sentiment is and he'll make a judgment. [inaudible] >> what is your latest assessment on the situation? is improving? and what is the impact going forward? >> i'm not going to make that comment about the broader impact of what's going on in japan. on the united states economy. you can get hit with that one.

>> does the president feel opportunistic to sell that stock at or close to the top? >> say that again. >> does the president think it would be an opportunistic to sell clothes or at the top? >> i don't think that is it at all. we just don't know where the top is. i don't think it's a question of ethics or anything. it's a question of a printable we have adopted. we don't think we should be a permanent or long-term player in the private economy, and we're trying to make sure that doesn't happen. >> thanks very much. >> thank you. >> in answer to question i think we have a lot of faith that japan will rebound and rebuild, which we said before, but we don't have a time frame or an economic analysis to quantify

that. we are very confident in japan's resilience and remain so. i will start with a brief readout of the president's meetings. are here today with house republicans on this, conference rather. meeting lasted about 75 minutes, it was held in the east room, and i think the president's assessment of the meeting that goes the assessment provided by a couple members of the house republican leadership. that conference chairman representative said in a republicans and democrats are having a dialogue, this is a good day. the president would agree with that. that's why he looked forward to and enjoyed and thought it was productive meeting held today with house republicans, just as he felt that way about the meeting he had with the senate republicans. speaker banner said we had a very frank conversation.

i thought it was productive and i'm looking forward to a poor service conversations about how we reduce the deficit and debt to get our economy going and reading jobs. again the president agrees with that and also with the need in future conversations to move forward with a plan to significantly reduce the deficit. address our long-term debt, get our economy going and create jobs. that is what he is asked the vice president to lead the blair house negotiations. those negotiations as i've noted before the present believes have been making progress with participants in those negotiations, the the the same thing. we are optimistic that it will produce, those talks will produce an agreement, a bipartisan agreement that will reduce the deficit in a bipartisan way, because participants will find common ground. ground. i can announce also that the next round of those negotiations take place on thursday, june 9.

probably the blair house but as you note scheduling, apparently on the hill. they will be on the hill. we move them around to keep you guessing. and with that i will take your questions. yes for. >> thanks, jay. i heard a comment, about the meeting and i guess i'm still wondering whether any specific concrete progress came out of this meeting today. and ask in particular because it seemed like both sides went in with philosophical differences about how to reduce the debt, and came out with the same standard but with any specific progress? >> well, to point. one, it was a large meeting and not the forum for specific advances in the negotiations that have been conducted by the vice president with members of both parties and both houses. and yet it was productive.

for the reason that i think i mentioned before, that the chairman mentioned that it is always good in washington in this day and age when republicans and democrats sit down and listen to each other, and a nonconfrontational and private. i think that's a good thing. obviously, there are long-term disagreements between republicans and democrats, between this president and republicans on the ideas about how we should address our long-term deficit problems and debt problems. and those, all those disagreements will not be resolved in the next several weeks, as these negotiations move forward. but there is common ground and more common ground can be found to significantly reduce our deficit. and the president believes that with both sides negotiating in good faith, that a compromise can be achieved there and that's what the american people want.

so, so again i think this is part of a process that is very productive. and helps reduce i think some of those, you know, confrontational atmosphere that surrounds some of these discussions. it doesn't mean that we don't disagree on some fundamental issues. of course, we do, and we've been very clear and we haven't tapered over our differences and neither have they. but i think the american people understand that we have differences, and yet they still expect us to get things done. >> i understand that point about reducing the temperature. you think a discussion like this helps the two sides get any closer on the difference is? >> i think it helps in that it allows everyone in the room to look each other in the eye as one member makes the case, the republicans position and the present answers questions, to understand that each side holds

very strong opinions about certain issues. that there's a lot of overlap in terms of what the goals are here. and feathers overlap in terms of what some of the solutions are. and sometimes you miss that when you only hear the monologue, half of dialogue when each side is talking to each other through the press. so the president feels very strongly that this is a useful thing to do. >> last question. representative ryan said, he made the case in history for his medicare plan, and he doesn't want the president to be missed describing it. is that what the president is doing? >> no, he doesn't and look, as i said, there's no question that there are differences. there's no question that on the issue of medicare we have significant differences. and what the president has made clear is that he doesn't believe

that we need to end medicare as we know it, to dismantle the program as it currently exists in order to achieve significant deficit reduction. he believes that congressman ryan the author of the plant and members who voted for our sincere in they believe that is a preferred solution. we simply disagree. and we don't think that's a matter of demagoguery. it's a matter of fundamental differences of opinion, and a different assessment of the facts. the facts we believe in this case are on our side. one of the problems we have with it is in order to achieve the reductions that they seek in the house republican plan and to pay for the extensive tax cuts to the wealthy, that that plan calls for, they need to do things to medicare that are not necessary. and it produces an unbalanced plan, puts too much of the burden of deficit reduction on the shoulders of seniors, low-income children, and the

disabled. the president feels that's unacceptable. >> what specifically did the president tell the republicans about the debt limit? and republicans who came out said it was discussed at the beginning of the meeting and didn't take up a lot of times. that's accurate, it did not take up a long time ago. the president made clear he believes there is no margin here for him anyway casting doubt on the possibility that the debt ceiling would be phrased, that the effect of even suggesting that it won't happen could be highly negative. and could have dire consequences for our economy in the global economy. but it is accurate to say that was not a focus of the discussion. >> and was a secretary geithner and eating? >> i know he was any meaning. myerson was the president did most of the talking for the

white house, for the administration's. >> secretary geithner is going to capitol hill tomorrow. does that indicate you're worried -- [inaudible] >> i think it indicates how seriously we take this issue, and that the treasury secretary in particular can address the particulars and the substance of why it is so essential to raise the debt ceiling. the consequences of not doing and impact it would have on global markets, on interest rates, on economic growth and job creation. so i think that i do and others do from other venues, need to simply reiterate the absolute necessity of making that boat and raising the debt ceiling so that we do not reverse the very important and substantial progress that has been made since we've been through the worst recession since the great depression.

[inaudible] but that there needs to be an agreement on how to cut the debt. and they think it's unhelpful for the administration to keep saying, that would be better to focus on the cuts and how to get the debt down. >> what we said is we're doing both. and i think that the presence leadership on this is very clear, not only did he lay out his plan and his vision for how to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10-12 years. event passed the vice president of the united states to lead is very serious and so far productive negotiations with congress with both parties and both houses to achieve a compromise on significant deficit reduction. within the same timeframe that we need to address the vote on raising the debt ceiling, i think that demonstrates his commitment to both necessities. what we have said all along is that it sends the wrong signal and it would be a mistake to

directly link, thai or hold hostage one to the other. because of the absolute necessity of raising the debt ceiling. it is not an option. if you want to maintain full faith and credit of the united states and you don't want to send this economy back into a recession. >> congressman ryan in the meeting saying, according to an aide, and according to others may point to the president that has been mentioned, demagogue in the ryan plan for medicare is not helpful to this process. and while i understand the president believes -- does he think that the democratic party, has he seen the ad showing the paul ryan look-alike pushing grandma off a cliff? has he seen the ways democrats are using the ryan plan to win

elections? and does he have any issue without? >> i don't know what ads you may or may not have seen. what i will say is the substantive differences over medicare are real. and the facts about, whatever you call a system that is in the house republicans proposal, premium support for privatization or voucher of the program, it has the impact of shifting the cost burden for ever-growing medical costs on to beneficiaries. in large, large numbers, $6400. that's just an inescapable fact. our argument is you don't need to do that. you can find savings in medicare and entitlements as the president has already through the affordable care act and as he has proposed further in his future oriented proposal. and you can get that waste, fraud, and abuse and you can reduce the cost of medical care while still protecting our seniors. that's what he believes we have to do.

one of the fundamental problems and wiping people around the country have reacted poorly to the republican proposal is that it not only eliminates or changes the medicare program to the point where it is a log of the program we know, and does not provide the guarantees that it used to, but it does so in part in order to fund tax cuts for wealthy americans who have already benefited significantly at a time when the middle-class and others have been squeezed so tight. so those are -- that's an assessment of priorities. [inaudible] >> i haven't, no. >> i understand this is philosophical, legitimate philosophical difference. >> we need a bipartisan solution. we need to work together and find common ground.

>> so does the party running ads showing paul ryan pushing grandma over a cliff help that process of? >> i think the decisions of the negotiation will produce a result and demonstrate this president's commitment, significant deficit reduction, as well as democrats in congress and republicans in congress, occur here in washington. and the fact is that we can't achieve that in a way that the american people can feel that each side moved off its starting position, except that it was going to get one of% of what it wanted, that no absolutist position prevail in washington under our system, and he feels that he has demonstrated his commitment to that. his commitment to taking positions that often are at odds with members of his own party, repeatedly, and he's been willing to do that in the past and he is willing to do that in

the future because he is committed to finding solutions that work for the american people. >> but should the democratic party stop -- >> you haven't answered the question. you haven't addressed the question of whether or not the party -- >> you're asking if there's been a negative reaction to the aspects of the republican plan. i think it's because of the and controvert of a fat about what's in the plan -- the incontrovertible fact of what's in the planet and our opposition to those elements of the house republican proposal, we have not at all papered over. but we are not doing -- we're interested in bipartisan compromise. the president has made it clear and clear again. he has walked the walk not just talk the talk when it comes to making those tough choices. and he has shown his willingness to do that. [inaudible] the question is, is there a

resolution being offered by resolution being offered by congressman dennis kucinich that would stop u.s. military intervention in libya, and the our house democrats and house republican leaders who are concerned that it actually could pass. pass. asked ..

>> we feel that mission has been successful thus far, and in preacing in its mandate protecting libyans from attacks by the gadhafi regime, and we continue to participate in that mission. >> back to the tone of the meeting today. was it confrontational? were there sharp exchanges and republicans challenging the president? >> i think it was a frank discussion, dan, but not confrontational. in fact, i think it was productive and, you know, while nobody hid from the fact that there are differences, that is it was a useful conversation, and i think that's what i heard when i watched some of the republican members go out to the stake out after the meeting, and we agree with that. doesn't mean we don't have differences, but it means we

can, as -- or they can as, you know, elected officials, stand nearby their constituents to represent them in washington, can have conversations. if they are republicans they can have conversations with democrats, and if democrats, have conversations with republicans, and out of that dialogue comes agreement, not on every issue, but on a substantial -- on substantial areas, they allow us to move forward, and i think that's what the american people expect out of us. >> the fact that both sides are sitting down and talking, but there is dialogue. was there any real movement beyond the starting point? >> this was not a forum with many people in the room, you know, to put out proposals and spreadsheets and start negotiating details. that is happening in the negotiations led by the vice president, but it was an excellent opportunity for the

president to hear from house republicans and for the house republicans to hear from the president, and i think that is a useful exercise. almost on any occasion, but in particular, on this occasion. yes, sir? >> house speaker boehner said as a matter of principle the cuts agreed to ought to be at least as big as the cut raising the debt limit. it's a matter of principle, is that something the white house people want? >> i don't have a reaction to that as a matter of principle. i think the deficit packages are worked bout by the bipartisan group meeting with the vice president, and i don't want to get head of them, and then i think the treasury secretary is our lead on what we think the debt ceiling vote should look like and the size of it, so i don't want to -- and they are

distinct and separate issues. >> [inaudible] just a question of -- >> again, we understand there is links in the sense that some members have insisted there be deficit reduction. we agree with the sentiment that we need to seriously attack our deficits, but we also think it's an absolute necessity to raise the debt ceiling, and, again, you're not going to hear us list them in that way because we them in that way because we think they should not

>> there is a proposal over 10-12 years to include addressing spending in the tax code, include the issues the president has laid out, but once -- no, there were no lines drawn in the sand, no lines drawn in the sand. the process for negotiating the particulars takes place in a conversation led by the vice president. our position is well-known, the

president's position is well-known. obviously, the republicans, some of them anyway, made their position well-known on what's on the table. what says on the table depends on the progress made in those negotiations. yes, mike? >> any reaction to the letter that speaker boehner produced by more than 150 economists with the debt lint increase? >> again, i think that these are two important goals that need to be achieved. one is significant deficit reduction. we agree with republicans and democrats that that needs to be done. that's why the president put forward a plan that has $4 trillion in reductions. he -- that's why he asked the vice president to lead the negotiations which have been, we feel, productive thus far. he thinks an absolute necessity that the debt ceiling be raised, and, you know, i can pull out letters also and read one

yesterday to the senator majority leader. there is a vast array of evidence and vast number of experts who can testify to the fact that playing chicken with the full faith and credit of the united states government is a bad idea so that is certainly the president's position. >> you mentioned the next meeting on june 9. the clock is ticking. do you feel you need to move the timetable up a little? have more frequent meetings? >> you can sure the discussions don't stop without the meetings and conversationings continue between staff and participants. that is simply the next full meeting of the group of negotiators. we are obviously aware of the need to move quickly, and i think we've moved quite aggressively on this working with members of congress in

their schedule to make these meetings happen. >> last one. you said today the meeting was nonconfrontational. we heard at least one of the members challenged the president to lead on this issue. does that bother the president? >> well, i think that's -- what you're talking about is something we've heard before, and i think the president has clearly led in this. he established the fiscal bowles commission because congress would not, he established, and those recommendations helped guide him drawing up his proposal he put forward in his speech at gw. he demonstrated his willingness to accept spending cuts that were not ideal from his perspective, but were necessary in order to achieve the agreement he reached with republicans to fully fund fiscal year 2011, and he demonstrated by appointing the vice president

to lead these talks that he is very serious about leading this process to a conclusion that produces serious deficit reduction. >> offer anything new on medicare himself or plan to? >> well, i don't want to get ahead of the negotiations. he did not offer any new proposals today. his proposal is out there, and i think pretty extensive. >> medicare is on the table in the negotiations? >> well, what is on the table is serious deficit reduction. the president, as you know, mike, had reductions -- had savings out of entitlements, including health care entitlements in the affordable health care act, had savings in his vision for future deficit reduction. our beef, if you will, with the republican's proposal is not that you can't find some savings. it's that you do not have to undermind the fundamental guarantee of medicare and the

program ending as we know it in order to get substantial savings in part to pay for a tax cut for the wealth. we just don't think that's the right -- >> okay. >> right arrangement of priorities. >> there's no grand bargain, but how soon is the program need to be reformed? the life expectancy was downgraded -- >> i think that's -- you're forgetting there's significant medicare reforms in the affordable care act. >> i know that, but -- [inaudible] >> all the plan retained, not the protections it offered, but were the savings in medicare and medicaid put forward in that. again, the president's put forward other reforms. we believe in making a stronger, making sure that guarantee exists for seniors in the future, and that involves some reform in findings us savings, but it does not involve ending the program as we know it. >> finally, secretary geithner, and you said earlier in the

administration, they have been assured by republican leaders in the past that there would be a debt ceiling, the debt ceiling would be raised. did speaker reiterate that assurance today? >> i don't want to speak for the speaker, but my understanding is the president addressed the issue. i don't know if there was further conversation. it was mentioned earlier, it was not a topic of today's conversation. >> yesterday in the house, do you believe that assurance is still offered? >> well, i believe that the leaders in congress of both parties understand fully that it would be extremely dangerous and would have highly negative impacts on our economy if we were not to raise the debt ceiling. yes, we believe congress will act and it's important no one create doubt about the possibility that congress will act. yes, carroll? >> wanted something more specific from the president on deficit reductions. is that something that president intends to do?

>> what the president put forth, i think, a robust and comprehensive proposal in his speech at george washington university. i think we are now in a situation where in the negotiations being led by the vice president, they are getting into specifics, and we do not need another proposal out there -- our ideas, their ideas, ideas of others are known and out there and available for discussion in these negotiations. i think slowing down the process is not in anybody's interest. >> more broadly on the economy -- seems the housing market is shrinking and manufacturing numbers and other indicators the recovery is not going as well as we'd like. does that have impact on the deficit trials the vice president is holding? does it make the president rethink spending cuts or decisions on tax --

>> well, i think we addressed this a little bit yesterday. obviously, everyone is there, we believe, in these negotiations because the end goal here is a stronger economy and greater job creation. the president's view is that we should do nothing in these talks that underminds some of the foundation that we have to have in order to grow in the 21st century, and that's why he feels strongly we need to protect investments in education, research and development, and infrastructure. the -- it is also true that he believes that we need to reduce our deficit, get our fiscal house in order as an economic imperative, but you need to do it in a balanceed way so you don't upset the recovery we've been undergoing and put a halt to the growth we've seen. we're obviously still? a situation where we are emerging from the worst recession since the great depression where there's a lot

of positive indicators including the private sector job growth we've seen including the sustained period of economic growth we've seen, but we have a lot more distance to travel before we get to where we need to be so i think all of this is about making sure that we ensure job growth creation. >> rethink about the way that -- [inaudible] >> no, because i think his approach has always been driven in part by a concern we not do anything that would we verse the progress we've made. >> did the president, in fact, represent that reagan letter in the meetings today? >> not that i'm aware of. >> [inaudible] >> not that i'm aware of. another question on meetings -- >> do you feel if any breach of the closed nature of the meeting for a congressman to sit in there and send out a constant

stream of twitter pictures of the meeting while in progress? >> we obviously closed the press because we felt that was more conducive to having a useful conversation. we feel that it was a useful conversation. what individual members did is obviously up to them. >> doesn't bother you that they did that? >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> will the president stop calling his plan -- [inaudible] >> well, like i said, what you call it doesn't change what it does and what it is. it is a voucher plan. if you are giving a subsidy of a set dollar figure that's limited in its terms of its growth and won't stay up with the growth in medical costs, i mean, you're basically getting a certain amount of money towards buying

insurance. they may not get a voucher in the mail, but that is what it is, and -- but the issue isn't what you call it. it's the impact it would have on seniors, an impact we think is unnecessary, not only is it the wrong thing to do because we think it's important to maintain the guarantee we provided for seniors since medicare was created, but it's also unnecessary because it's -- the cuts are so deep in part because the need to restructure that program and to end its guarantee that it used to have is driven by the need to fund these tax cuts that we don't think are necessary, especially when we're trying to get our fiscal house in order, i mean, it's just defies logic as far as we see it. laura? >> keep on saying there's commonground and plenty of overlap, but listening to the house republicans reiterate their basic position on tax

increases, financial cuts to medicare, $2 trillion in cuts over 10 years, can you give us any specific examples of commonground that's been found so far? >> what i can tell you is the negotiations of the vice president has been leading continue. we have another meeting scheduled. they have been productive, and i think the participants in those meetings feel that they've been productive and useful and that they are leading to an agreement, and it would not -- it is not useful to the hope of having an outcome that's positive to give it a play-by-play as they are making progress, so -- >> i understand -- >> again, this is not a forum for negotiating those details. >> right. i'm asking about the fact not so much this meeting, but the question is why is it everybody's interest not to make

the markets think you're moving towards an agreement? are the talking falling apart? >> well, first of all, they are not. >> other than the need to say they are productive, you can't point to any specific example of how they are productive? i'm not asking you the negotiate the public, but it seems there's no sign of overlap. you keep saying there is, but -- >> again, the sign of overlap is that we share the same goal, roughly $4 trillion over 10-12 years. backing up, we have identify the the problem and agree on what the problem is,ed need to reduce the debts and deficit. on the broad goal, what the solution is of $4 trillion. in getting to the $4 trillion, there is commonground, maybe not all of it as i said. there's no doubt in my mind or yours that republicans and democrats will continue to

disagree and have disagreement on substantive issues about budgeting and the economy for years to come, but there is enough commonground, especially if each side is willing to move off its starting position to achieve significant deficit reduction, and i know that it's -- you can be step kl about it, but that doesn't guarantee an outroom. there's reason to be optimistic not just because we are by nature, but because we feel that the negotiations have been productive. >> okay, one other question about the medicare controversy. the president's reporters said the demagoguery comes from both sides. sounds like he's referencing the 2010 campaign. now -- >> i'm not going to get into a back and forth as to who said what and this and that --

>> but i mean, -- >> i think as a general statement of fact that politics can get -- >> sounds like he's acknowledging both sides are demagoguing. >> i will not comment on what he may or may not have said in terms of the dialogue in each sentence. i think the president made clear that he's committed to trying to find commonground, that there's no way to get a solution that's not a bipartisan solution, and so that requires an atmosphere where republicans and democrats who are in the room negotiating have a certain level of trust, and he's committed to that process, so, you know, beyond that, i'll leave it. yes, sir? >> john brennan has gone to sudan and is going to saudi arabia. what's his assessment in sudan, and what progress do you believe

was made there? how urgent is the situation between u.s. and saudi arabia and what do you think will be accomplished in those meetings? >> well, first of all, you're right that he's making these trips. i mean, you know, we've made our views known on sudan and our concern about what's happening there very clear. mr. brennen is there to assess the situation, and saudi arabia is an important partner and in regular contact in a variety of levels with the saudi government, and i think that's just part of that continued contact. one more from jackie. >> separate from the talk about the long term budget cutting. mr. canter indicated talks for further stimulus in the economy. what's the president's response

to that with job numbers coming out and unemployment at the highest levels since the depression. what does he feel about the current economy going forward? >> the president feels, as you know, that we need to further the growth in the economy and the growth in job creation that we've seen in the past several months and quarters. >> what did -- >> i don't have a specific read out because the discussion wasn't about stimulus. it was about overall, the overall economy and specifically about deficit and debt reduction. i mean, the president feels that we need to make, as i mentioned before, precisely for the reasons that you mentioned, we need to continue to make key investments to undergird our economy to allow us to grow in the sectors that are vital to future competitiveness, and he made that point very clearly

today. >> the discussion was focused on a philosophical difference on whether washington should continue to pump money into the economy or provide an insenttive for businesses to grow. the president talked about a need for us to continue to quote-on-quote to invest from washington's stand point, and that's code for more washington spending. >> the investments that the president was referring to are the investments i just mentioned, and in terms of encouraging private sector job creation, i note the rather strong private job creation we've seen recently including 750,000 over three months. the president has taken dramatic action in 17 or more small business tax cuts designed specifically for that purpose, and the republicans also talked a lot about regulation, and i think those of you who were here last week saw the significant action we've taken charging

agencies to review all the regulations under their control to find ones that are no longer efficient, are overly burdensome and to report out on those so they can be changed. we've taken a very aggressive approach to reducing or eliminating regulations that are no longer necessary that in any way impede economic growth. we agree on the need to create jobs and grow the economy. thanks. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the white house press secretary, jay carney getting questions about the meetings between president obama and congressional republicans that happened this morning. you can see that briefing at c-span.org. after the meeting, the gop lawmakers came to the microphones in the white house driveway saying they are still working on an agreement to create jobs, reduce the national debt, raise the debt ceiling, and cut spending.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, everyone. we had i think a very productive meeting with the president today. we appreciate the opportunity to be here. at the president's request to have a conversation about jobs and the deficit and the debt that's facing our country. this morning, i released a letter signed by 150 economists who agreed that if we're going to get serious about creating jobs in america, we have to reduce some of the uncertainties. some of those uncertainty is caused by the giant debt that's facing our country, and the fact if we're going to raise the debt

limit, the spending cuts should exceed the spending cuts in the debt limit, otherwise it will serve to cost those jobs in our country. that's not what the american people want. we had a very frank conversation. i thought it was productive. i'm looking forward to more serious conversations about how we reduce the deficit and the debt and to get our economy going again and creating jobs. >> good morning. today's meeting gave us an opportunity to express some concern that we have surrounding the current situation in the economy. adp issued a report today estimating that private sector job creation amounted to 38,000 new jobs in may. woefully short of the amount needed for us to see this economy get back on track and people get back to work. you know, i said to the president today, it's really important for us to focus on growth in this economy, and as we go through the discussions in

trying to get the fiscal house in order surrounding the debt limit boat, very, very important for us to look at growth as part of the fix. we can bring the deficit down through added jobs, but we can also get people back to work. we know that our chairman of the ways and means committee, dave camp, is working hard to put together a tax reform plan and the president will hopefully work with us to do so and to keep out of the discussions in or surrounding the debt limit and in the biden talks, any notion that we're going to increase taxesment it's counterintuitive to believe you increase taxes on those individuals and entities you are expecting to create jobs. >> it was a unique opportunity where the conference got to convey what they listen to across america. the president laid out from the debt discussion, from the conference he heard about jobs. he heard about unshackling the burden of regulation on small business to get them working

again from wipes to west virginia to members across the way. when i heard from this president that he wanted to sit down and find real cuts now and there needed to be entitlement reform, and we will work with him towards those ends to direct and create new jobs, put us on a new path to pay off the budget on a balanced budget and pay down the debt as well. >> i want to thank the president and the speaker for bringing us together for today for this important discussion. you know, every sen ration of americans have been proud to pass on a better country to the next generation, and yet, for a lot of americans right now, there's a question in their gut as to whether or not or children and grandchildren will have more opportunities, and the foundation we lay for them is so important. we can't take for granted we're going to continue to have that strong foundation on which opportunity and innovation and ingenuity take place. our tax policy matters. our debt matters. our energy policy matters.

whether it's the vote last night or the conversation today with the president about job creation, we are committed to taking the steps necessary to ensure that that next generation has more opportunities. >> any day republicans and democrats are actually having a dialogue, this is a good day. what the president heard from republican members of the house is that jobs are jobs number one. that is our job, and unfortunately, the greatest impediment we have to jobs today is a lack of confidence in the future. the republican house members were able to share with the president that the job creators in our district feel that the regulatory burden, much coming from the present administration creates a lack of competence in the future. tax policy that is not competitive tax burdens that are too high creates a lack of confidence, and then last but

not least, a debt burden. the president heard from republican members of the house that we know the debt burden is going to lead to high taxes which leads to low unemployment. unfortunately what we it not hear from the president is a specific plan of his to do with the debt crisis that could actually be scored by the congressional budget office. we hope there's still an opportunity to work on the drivers of this debt that is costing us jobs because republicans know that until we have the confidence that we can solve this debt crisis by dealing with the drivers, our entitlement spending that we're not going to get the kind of jobs that the american people want and demand. >> a couple questions. >> does the president have a response to that? a response to your concern? >> the president admitted we have to look at growing this economy.

the discussion really focused on the philosophical difference whether washington should continue to put money into the economy or provide an incentive for entrepreneurs and small businesses to grow. i think the president was well aware and admitted the fact that private sector job creation is not enough. he did mention that a lot of the lawsuits were in the public sector. again, our message is to focus on growth in the private sector to help bring down the deficit and get people back to work. >> did the president talk about additional spending? >> well, the president talked about a need for us to invest from washington's stand point. for us, that's code for more washington spending, something we can't afford right now. >> senator ryan? [inaudible] >> that's not exactly what i said. [laughter] that's not exactly what i said.

i said we have to take on this debt, and if we demagogue each other at the leadership level, then we'll never take on our debt. we have a debt crisis coming. we want to deal with this. if we want to grow jobs in the economy, we have to get our spending under control, the debt under control, and if we try to demagogue each other's attempt to do that, then we're not applying the political leadership we need to get the economy growing and the debt under control. that's what we were saying. >> [inaudible] >> i simply explained what the plan is and how it works. it's been misdescribed by the president and many others, so we described to him precisely what it is we're proposing so he hears from us how our proposal works so that in the future, he won't mischaracterize it. >> have you -- >> he didn't mention one way or another. >> mr. cantor?

>> what was the point of the meeting today? >> it was an opportunity for clearly or members to communicate directly with the president about our ideas about how to get the economy going again, how to create jobs, and our ideas about how we solve the debt problems that's facing our country. i told the president one more time, this is the moment. this is the window of opportunity where we can deal with this on our terms and work together and solve the problem. we know what the problems are. let's not kick the can down the road one more time. now's the time to deal with it. >> mr. speaker, any discussion of -- [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up tomorrow, mitt

romney making a formal announcement he's a republican candidate for president from new hampshire at 12:30 eastern here on c-span2 and c-span.org and c-span radio. about a hair hour from now, a hearing from the u.s. transition in iraq held by a subcommittee. live coverage at 2:30 eastern here on c-span2. the space shuttle and the six astronauts returned to earth closing one the last missions in the space program. their flight landed 16 days and four space walks completing the spacation effort that started more than 12 years ago. >> gear down and locked.

touch down. parachute deployed by rick johnson. forward gear touch down. and so after a journey of 6.5 million miles, landing in darkness and the ingenuity of every engineer, and mechanic and dreamer that helped it fly, the ship completing its 122 millionth mile after going to the international space station and will sift through the cosmic darkness for years to come. >> 122 million miles found in 25 challenges space flights. this ends a vibrant legacy for this amazing vehicle that will long be remembered.

welcome home, endeavour. >> thank you, this is an amazing vehicle to fly through the atmosphere. i mean, goes through the atmosphere like an airplane, lands on the runway. it's really an incredible ship. on behalf of my entire crew, i want to thank every person who got the mission going and every person who worked on endeavour. it's sad to see her land for the last time, but she really has a great legacy. >> thank you, mark, and we will meet you and your crew on 5-3. >> 5-3. >> after the landing, the shuttle endeavour astronauts held a news conference. [inaudible conversations] >> we're live? >> we are.

>> good morning, and thank you for joining us here at nasa community space center in florida for space shuttle post-landing news corchesz. it is my pleasure to introduce you to the sts134 crew and commander. commander mark kelly. >> hello, everyone. thanks for coming out very early in the morning at 2:30 when we landed, if you were there, and thanks for waiting. sorry it took so long. we were doing some medical tests and some medical experiments. one of our crew members is still in the process of doing that, so he's not going to be with us today. first like to introduce the rest of my crew. to my left, greg johnson, pilot, former air force colonel, f-15 pilot, second flight on

endeavour and second landing at night. mike fink, u.s. air force colonel as well. mike is now the u.s. record holder for time in space. he previously did two long duration flights flying up and down on the russian ship, and then colonel roberoto of the battalion air force who is with aussie, but on a mission with the european space agency. we have known each other the longest having served at the naval test center at the u.s. naval test pilot school, probably 15 years ago now. trust hoist, the lead space walker who led three of the space walks during this mission and supervised all four of them, really critical member of the crew. we did four eva's which are

very, as many of you know, are very, very high-risk things to do, and they went flawlessly, and we got everything done we planned to do. we installed the alpha magnetic spectrometer. it will be a new day tar astrophysics in space to have a high particle detector outside the earth's atmosphere. dr. king, and his team of over 600 scientists and engineers are now really, really busy analyzing 50 million particles a day. i have no idea how they do that. how do you sort through 50 million of anything? he is managing to do that, and hopefully we're see some amazing discoveries. now i guess we'll go around the

room and take your questions. do i get to pick? [laughter] >> wait for the microphone to come your way and state your name. we have just a few moments so limit it to one question, and if you have another, we'll come back. >> i'll ask fast. peter king from cbs news radio. did you truly say to your wife in your first conversation i'm back, and how did that first conversation go, and how did she sound? >> well, i haven't spoken to her yet. >> you haven't? >> no. it's 8:30 in the morning here, and, you know, she's in the hospital, and i don't want to wake her up, so i sent her mother an e-mail and said the first thing i do when i leave this press conference, let me know if she's awake, and then i'm go -- going to call her. >> i'm sorry to continue on the

same thread, but what are you beginning to tell her and, you know, do you think she got up to watch on tv? what are you thinking? >> i don't know. one of the reasons we didn't have her come down here because it was really late in the night, and what she's going through now is very, you know, physically challenging and difficult thing, very busy schedule. it would be disruptive. we have kids now that are just crashed from being up all night and for anybody, you know, just anybody in this room, for us it's kind of easy because we sleep shifted over a long period of time, but for, you know, you folks at the runway, you are probably pretty tired right now. what i'll say to her, you know, that i miss her and can't wait to get back there tomorrow to see her, so we're all looking forward to spending time with our families. >> okay. >> evan brown, fox news radio. you're going to be -- or you are

the last nonnasa astronaut to fly on the space shuttle. how important has the shuttle been to the nonnasa space program, the european space agency and so on and so forth. >> of everything we have done in europe, in space, and continually using the possibility to fly on the shadow since i don't recall exactly when was the first year, but sis the very beginning of the shuttle and it's a privilege to be the last one on board of the shuttle, on board the endeavour. the flight has been spectacular, and i was very pleased to see the space station almost double the size i had seen in 2005. i was very pleased to see the note three, note two, and

everything else that one way or the other went through the european space agency and the italian industry, so i'm very honored and privileged to have this opportunity and grateful to nasa. >> mark. >> mark with talking space. i first saw you and your crew here august 26, 2010 at the landing facility when ams came over from switzerland. i remember thinking how committed and focused you were on that hot august day. what do you think you'll always remember about the crew and mission? >> well, certainly in a 16-day flight, we've got a lot of great stories that we'll be telling for a long time, many that we certainly can't share with you, but what i'll remember most you

know, are the four guys here and craig, you know, this is an incredible group. these flights are really, really hard to do. it's really tiring, very long days, tech -- technology difficult stuff, the robotic arm operations. our pilot, greg johnson here, is probably one the most experienced robotic arms operator nasa has now with only two missions. this stuff is really, really difficult, and to do it with a group of people who are so accomplished and experienced, you know, it makes it, you know, really easier for me to have guys like this, you know, on this crew. i'll remember them more than anything. >>ed to halvorson.

i think you came in the corp. in the mid 1990s, and it's kind of fascinating for me to see how the content in the missions have grown in complexities over the years, and i wonder if you can comment on what your perception is on how much more complex the missions have become and whether or not it's possible, humanly possible, to squeeze more into a mission you guys seemed to have done this time around. >> well, that's a good question. they have become more complex and, you know, a lot of times crews say this is the most complex shuttle mission ever. you would not hear that out of me at this point. they are all really hard so i've never said that. they're all difficult to do, all completely jam packed, but, you

know, i think, you know, to address can you pack more in, well, it doesn't matter. we're going to fly one more flight in six weeks. that's a schedule written, a crew of four with an equally challenging time. it's on atlantis, the mission is shorter because they can't transfer power from the space station to the space shuttle, and so i think, you know, they'll have a challenging flight, and these are really hard, but they should be. it's really, really expensive to fly the space shuttle or any spacecraft for that matter. the fact that our days, we wake up, and we go to work, and we do not stop until we fall asleep is appropriate. you know, it's the way it should be. fortunately, we're able to do this without generally without making mistakes and thankfully without, you know, hurting people, you know, as we go about the day on the space station.

>> gina from abc news for drew and mike. you pulled off a space walk, exhausting for us down here, how was it for you on that night? >> it wasn't planned. [laughter] it was exhausting for us as well. i was lucky to have mike there. we sort of talked about the preflight about what the plans were. we knew this was the longest and most difficult eva -- it was two; right? eight hours? >> yeah. >> they blurred together. we knew that going into it. we had a plan to stay out there and do what it takes. we knew we had to finish the task and see it through to completion. it was tough. i think mike will lose a few fingernails over there, and i have beat up hands, but we're both, you know, i was fortunate that mark supported us staying out there and getting the job done.

we knew we had a day off ahead of us the next day, and so everything sort of came together and, you know, sometimes looking forward you don't see the path forward, but looking back, it was fortuitous to have the day off and land on that day to go late and i was happy to see it through and really overall over the four eva's one thing was left on the table, a cable we didn't deploy, and that's a fairly straightforward task that's left for others to do. the content was packed. we planned it that way, trained for a year and a half to optimize every moment of the eva's and i think luckily were were successful in doing that with the team work of the whole crew, support of the crew, and the three space walkers so it worked out well. >> i agree with drew. [laughter] >> me three.

>> i was wondering if any of you guys got to stay up to see the depart. if so, how neat was that or how eager are you to see that photo that hopefully will come out with you guys there, you know, on the outpost, the only time that picture of the shuttle there will ever be seen. >> if they did, they were not following the commanders orders. [laughter] we were asleep. that was our sleep time. it was right in the middle of our sleep time, and we really didn't have a chance to watch it as much as we wanted to, but we had to get the rest because the whole mission was a sprint. we needed rest. >> we are looking forward to that photo coming out. we also took a similar photo through some careful preplanning. we took a very nice fish eye lens and on the last part of the last eva, he was able to sit on

top of the world, on top of the space station and look back. we have nice shots where we can see the end to end of the space station with the shuttle on one side, the european transfer vehicle on the other side, the american segment, russian segment, european, japanese, and it's a stunning picture. we got to see that for real. it's not the only picture you'll see, but when palo took the shots, it's spectacular. you'll be impressed how big and magnificent that space station is. we saw it on the undocking and then the rerendezvez. we are older and not easily impressed guys anymore, but we were excited like 5-year-olds at a roller coaster park, i mean, it was pretty impressive.

>> if the shuttle program was winding down, endeavour did so well without problems, do you feel there's more years left in the shuttle that remain? >> want to take that? >> well, you know, we made a decision some time ago to retire the space shuttle on this schedule to use -- to use the, you know, the nasa budget, to build a new vehicle, to go on and do exploration to have a, you know, a simpler safer spacecraft. i love the space shuttle. i mean, i'd fly it just like jerry here, fly as much as i could. i'd go out there every couple months if i could have the opportunity to fly on the space shuttle, but it's 30 years old and, you know, we can -- we, you know, we've got to, you know, grow and adapt and build new things and it's going to be probably 5-6 years, maybe seven

before we have a new sprais craft to take members to the space station and hopefully outside the lower orbit, but we'll get there. this was the plan, but, you know, personally? yeah, i would love to, you know, fly the space shuttle every week if i could. >> question for mike fink. you're a very experienced space flier and on this mission you set the new record for the most number of days a u.s. astronaut has been in space, but this is your first space shuttle mission. what was that experience like in light of endeavour's last. >> oh, yeah, both myself and roberoto here both flew twice. it was amazing going through the russian program and we got to

push a lot of buttons pushing the checklist in russian language, and that was -- that was pretty, you know, magnificent, and we treasure that, but getting a chance to fly on thee space shuttle was a dream of mine and i couldn't have asked to do it with a better group of guys on the crew or a better ground support team. it was everything i dreamed of when i was an 8-year-old kid who wanted to fly in the space shuttle thing that was not built yet and it was still in the planning, and that's all i wanted to do. i made a t-shirt with a shuttle on it with markers because they were not in the stores yet. i still have that shirt. childhood dreams don't always come true, but, man, this dream -- the reality is better than the dream. i mean, can you believe that? it was so up credible. we just landed a few hours ago, and i'm basking in like i can't believe it was sur reel how

wonderful it was. i'm thankful for my crew mates supporting me get through these really difficult and tough mission. we got through it and did it really well. it was really amazing. >> time for one last question with ken. >> with space flight magazine for drew. you worked on space missions. can you compare and contrast challenges and excitement of those very different missions? >> space station is quite a bit bigger than hubble, that's for sure. talking about the eva experience. for hubble, we parked it in the payload station and worked in close quarters. the feeling of being there working on hubble although the tasks were intense and very detailed and very technical, and we did, you know, five space

walks back to back, that made the schedule hectic. however, on space station, space station is very large, and there's a long distance to move over, so that creates, you know, that's a lot of effort in and of itself spending that time moving across the space station doing that work. they are both challenging in different ways, very fatiguing, any eva you do, any work done outside in a space suit is fatiguing, and so to compare them is to compare the relative size of the two spacecraft, the satellite telescope versus the space station, but the work still wears you out after six or eight hours. the feeling is the same. you're sad it's over, but happy to be done. >> this will conclude continuing coverage of the sts134 mission. for more information on the

program or endeavour visit www.nasa.gov slash shuttle. thank you. also on c-span.org and c-span radio. going live now to capitol hill for a hearing on the u.s. transition in iraq. joining this house foreign affairs sub committee hearing a little early expected to start at 2:30 ian time. the senate is not in session this week. house members beginning a process of moving the fiscal 2012 spending bill through congress with debate on homeland security spending. ..

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> a few of the witnesses at this hearing on this transition in iraq include a state department official of the iraq transition coordinator, and an official from the u.s. agency for international development, and a deputy assistant secretary of defense for the middle east. so we are waiting for this hearing to get underway. a story from "the associated press." the obama administration said the government will lose less

than 20% of the $80 billion used to bail out the u.s. automobile industry. a report released today. the president's national economic council says the losses are less than the administration originally expected. the report says the treasury department first thought the government would lose about 60%. president obama will visit a chrysler plant in ohio on friday. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> representative steve chabot, the chairman of this committee, the house foreign affairs subcommittee has been seeded. a hearing on u.s. transition in iraq is up next. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] 3inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. the subcommittee on the middle east and south asia will come to order.

and i want to warn folks that we're probably going to be interrupted by those here in a relatively short period of time, in which time we'll probably be over there for a half-hour to perhaps 40 minutes, but we will come back as quickly as we can. and other members will be coming in so that they can avoid my opening statement probably, but they will get here. and i want to welcome all of my colleagues to this hearing of the subcommittee. this hearing was called to assist the obama administration's iraq policy as we approach the official transition from department of defense to the department of state lead. june 1 will mark approximate six months until all u.s. troops, combat or otherwise, are scheduled to leave iraq. as of january 1, 2012, it will fall to the state department to oversee iraq's continued progress and implementation of the goals outlined in the strategic framework agreement.

having just returned from iraq a little over a week ago, i appreciate how critical the work our military and our state department does as we continue to carry out the mission there. in conjunction with the iraqi partners on the ground, they have helped set iraq on the course to become a stable, secure and democratic country that respects human rights. but as we look with favor upon these hard-won gains, we must remember that we are not there yet. earlier today baghdad severed both a car bomb and a roadside bomb wounded 16 people so for. iraq's recent progress is regrettably as precarious as it is positive. it is far to easy to look at where we are today and forget where we were just several years ago. and although the administration's plan to transition the mission is well-intentioned, i'm concerned that it is either well timed nor unreason any number of very. our brave men and women in uniform have fought tirelessly

for over eight years to get us to where we are today. thousands of lives have been lost, billions of dollars have been spent. the worst possible outcome for us today would be to withdraw before iraq is ready to stand on its own. and there is reason to question iraq's readiness. in january, 2011, u.s. forces iraq reported to special inspector general for iraq reconstruction of that quote, the u.s. faces the choice of making additional investments to fill essential gaps in iraqi security forces, capabilities, or accept the risks that they will fall short of being able to fully secure iraq from internal and external threats by the time u.s. forces depart in accordance with a security agreement, unquote. echoing those concerned, lieutenant general, general chief of staff of the iraqi army acknowledged that the iraqi army still depends on u.s. forces for the protection of its airspace and borders.

in 2010, as the u.s. is in its combat mission, he stated that comical, if i were asked about the withdrawal i would say to politicians u.s. army must stay until iraqi army is fully ready in 2020, unquote. at its core, the discussion of the transition breaks down to two critical question. does the state department have the capability to succeed? and if not, should u.s. military rein in iraq in some meaningful capacity to help consolidate gains. many in both the u.s. and iraqi government doubt that the iraqi security forces will be prepared to defend the iraqi state from internal and external threats by december 2011, just the end of this year. and although it may be politically expedient vote in the u.s. and in iraq to seek withdrawal by that date, it may not be sound strategy. it is an undeniable fact that our military forces continue to play a vital role on the ground in iraq.

by continue to serve as the guarantor of iraq's security and stability we allow its nation and a crack institutions to grow and to mature. while there are many conflicts that draw our attention, america and this congress must remain dedicated to achieving success in iraq. it is in america's interests and is in iraq's interests to see a democratic iraq prosper and flourish. that is our strategic objective and we should do everything in our power to ensure it happens, including by extending our military presence on the ground. more and more iraqi political and military figures have come out in support of extending the deadline to withdraw, but if the check comes no one wants to be left paying the bill. the domestic political cost in iraq of asking the u.s. tuesday has left iraq's leadership pointing fingers and passing bucks, and i saw that firsthand when i was in iraq just last week. this cannot be where it ends. responsible leadership, whether in the u.s. or in iraq, cannot

sacrifice hard earned strategic achievements for short-term political gains. we, iraqis, and americans must not allow that to happen. this hearing is meant to be an opportunity for members to ask the administration what it seeks to achieve in iraq and how it plans to achieve it. however, our goal today should not simply be to judge up or down the plans presented before us. it should be defined that policy which will get us to where we need to go. the united states has spent nearly a decade securing and helping to build a foundation of a prosperous and democratic iraq, a premature withdrawal risks squandering those games. it would be a failure of colossal proportions to seize defeat from the jaws of victory, and yet that is precisely what i fear may come to pass. and i will now yield to the gentleman from new york, the distinguished gentleman, mr. ackerman, of the committee for five minutes. i thank the chairman.

today's hearing is indeed a very important one. at a hearing on the same subject last november i suggested that most americans and most members of congress think that we're basically done in iraq. our combat troops have left iraq last year and the rest of our 50,000 troops are coming home at the end of this year. as a political matter, iraq is yesterday's problem and yesterday's news. the only problem with this view is that it is completely at odds with both reality in iraq, and the administration's plans for it. as this committee heard last year from assistant secretary of state jeffrey feldman, america's assistance is intended to, quote, help iraq meet its needs, stand up its economy, and cement its democracy -- its democratic system over the next five-seven years, unquote. i will repeat what he said. five to seven years.

to do all this assisting and stand up being in cementing, the u.s. mission in iraq will be spending billions of dollars, operating five major diplomatic facilities and employ as many as 13,000 people who will be operating a fleet of military vehicles and helicopters, and maybe engage in such diplomatic operations. diplomatic operations. as, quote, counter rocket, artillery and mortar notification and neutralization response, unquote. at that same hearing deputy assistant secretary kohl warned that comical, we are now at a point where the strategic dividends of our sacrifice are within reach as long as we take the proper steps to consolidate them, unquote. meaning what? he said, a long-term strategic partnership with iraq based on a mutual interests and mutual

respect. secretary feltman emphasized essentially the same point noting that, quote, the strategic importance of this moment cannot be over emphasiz emphasized. i thought then that we had a major problem. i am now convinced that we have a total disconnect. while the administration is plenty for an iraq that is going to be continuing its recovery in reconstruction with the aid of a multibillion-dollar american presence, the public and congress are not just moving swiftly to the exits on this, they have actually left the building. if there's one lesson the obama administration can't seem to learn, is it has to be, that there is -- that nothing explains itself and nothing sells itself. if the administration thought last year it was vital to our national security interests that billions of dollars over the next five to seven years to

establish a strategic partnership with iraq, then a vastly more robust effort to sell this policy to congress and the american people was necessary. with all due respect to our distinguished witnesses, and they are indeed distinguished, this panel at this time will simply not be enough. personally, i would prefer that we do not repeat our dismal performance in afghanistan where, after driving out the soviets, and then driving out the taliban, we as a nation abandon our prior allies to their fates. it was shortsighted and will produce exactly the bad results anticipated at that time. it looks like we're going to make the very same mistake in iraq. all the blood, all the treasure, and all the national trauma, and where are we? we are on our way at the very moment when a small or smarter investment would finally give us some hope of salvaging some foreign policy benefit from the

horribly misbegotten war in iraq. but the administration is going to have to sell a lot of members on an outgoing effort that those members do not want, and they don't believe we need, and that they have been counting the days until it is finished. the collision of our expectations and the administration's policy is not going to be pretty. and with that, mr. chairman, i would yield back my time. >> thank you. the gentleman yield to back. i think the two boats have started on the floor. i didn't hear bells -- they haven't, but we can probably get to the introductions at least before we go over for votes. >> two boats? >> to bells. okay. we will begin with the ambassador. ambassador patricia haslach. i've been told that rhymes with a very popular insurance company commercial but i'm not going to do my imitation but that is the correct pronunciation?

excellent. she currently serves as the state department corny for iraq and transition of the office of the deputy secretary for management and resources, in this capacity she is responsible for courting all state department washington aspects of u.s. transition from military to civilian operations in iraq, working close with our ambassador in iraq james jeffrey, who was -- the u.s. military and the u.s. government departments and agencies. ambassador has previously served as deputy coordinator for diplomacy for the u.s. global hunger and food security initiative. assistant chief of mission for assistance transition at u.s. embassy baghdad, director of the office of afghanistan, ambassador to the asia pacific economic cooperation forum, a pet, u.s. ambassador that allows peoples republic. ambassador haslach received her m.a. in international affairs from columbia university, and her ba from gonzaga university.

we appreciate you being here and then i will introduce the other two witnesses. and secondly, -- [inaudible] >> i've been informed that we actually have five minutes to go on the boat, in which case we will save the introduction of the next two witnesses into we come back. so we are in recess you briefly come and we will be back as soon as the votes are over. we are in recess. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> chairman chabot clever break in the hearing some memos can go to the house floor for votes. this hearing on the transition in iraq will continue live when members return. until then a discussion of the pentagon's equivalent doctrine for conventional weapons response to a cyber attack. from this morning's "washington journal." is our guest. he is former deputy assistant secretary of defense for territorial security and now a senior research fellow for the potomac institute. he's here to talk about the front page story in "the wall street journal" yesterday. what does the pentagon say here. guest: i think it is a preliminary document. i have mixed feelings about that. put a paper that tries to

cyber in traditional law of armed conflict perspective. whether it is necessary, whether it is a good idea to do that, i'm sure we will talk about that. basically, that's what it is. i'm happy they're doing it. i'm happy they have done it. i'm a little surprised we have not done it before. i'm a little bit surprised we have not done it long before. should we be thinking about this kind of things? absolutely. are there big issues that are not addressed in what was talked about in "the wall street journal"? absolutely. i'm sure we will talk about some of those today. host: i want to read one paragraph of "the wall street journal." "if a cyber attack --

host: can you explain that more? guest: that kind of thinking is an attempt to -- this concept of proportionality, which is one of the principles of the law of armed conflict. that is, things need to be proportional. the question i have and the question i'm sure a lot of viewers and readers have is, what are we doing talking about proportionality when we are locked in a war on terror and the threats against us are, by definition, a disproportionate and irrational

and attacking targets that are otherwise immune from attack. host: how would that be defined, if you're talking about non state actors, alleged terrorist s? guest: that is another hard issue that is not addressed in this news release. you are raising an important question. attribution. how do you attribute a cyber attack? are you sure who is doing it? are you sure it is state- sponsored? are you sure that a state is sponsoring it and allowing somebody else to do it -- so as to keep their participation in the activity below view? these are really important questions that i hope are addressed in the document we are waiting to see. host: when will that come at?

guest: i understand we will get an unclassified version in about a month or so. i understand that there's a longer classified version of this document that is in preparation in the pentagon. i do not want to be unfair here. i spent a lot of time at the pentagon. these are smart, very thoughtful people there. they are trying to put this whole idea of cyber warfare in some kind of perspective to allow our force structure to be constructed to allow funding documents to be drawn, to allow a dialogue with congress, to put it into some kind of a priority. i mean, those missile system a have more priority than this or not? they have a lot on their plate. they're trying to take some beginning steps in a series of cyber war and get us thinking

seriously about that. host: 1 report in the paper says that the discussion is based on the 1950's effort in washington to come up with a plan for deterring nuclear attacks, but this is about deterring countries like china and russia from waging a cyber attack based on what we did in the 1950's. is that realistic? guest: it is a good place to start and it is a good thing to think about. dougherty used to say that to deter somebody, you need two things. you need capability to do it and you need the will to do it. when you are talking about a cyber things, however, you also need to know who is doing it.

that is very difficult. in the cold war, there was never any doubt about who the bad guys were. we knew who they were and we have forces. we made budget choices based on who the enemy was. today, we have this ubiquitous, and attributable, -- ubiquitous and unattributable enemy. my thinking is that maybe we should study attribution. we should spend a lot of time thinking about how we attribute things to state sponsorship, for example. host: explain that more. guest: attribution is a very simple concept. something happens and some terrorist organization wants you to know that they did it. as attribution is not a mystery.

yes, we blew up the bus and we are proud of it. more sophisticated groups -- a bus blows up and you're not sure who did it. terrorism dense not necessarily mean that you know who is doing it. the most insidious kinds of terrorism, the attribution is questionable. the attribution is always not clear. the state sponsorship is always not clear. the state sponsorship, by the way, is uniformly tonight -- is uniformly denied. with cyber and electronics, you have signatures. the important thing we should be thinking about is how we collect these signatures and how we determine who may be responsible. host: what kind of cyber attacks

are we talking about that could trigger retaliation? what does the geneva convention rules say about this? do you have to have proof that the attack came from this country or this group? guest: the assumption is that you do. in the geneva rules -- they were written for world war ii kind of wars, cold wars, traditional armed conflict. attribution in those circumstances is a genuinely -- circumstances is generally assumed. everyone wears a uniform, for example do you know who the forces on one side are. you know who the forces are on the other side. there is a whole school of thought -- a legitimate school of thought -- that says because

terrorists do not adhere to any of the traditional rules of armed conflict, they attack civilians, they attack in disproportionate measures. they attack the immune targets. the school of thought is that none of the rules that protect them should apply. we should not worry about the rules of armed conflict when we are talking about terrorists. there's some legitimacy in that argument. i do not believe that should apply all the way through. we have rules that have to apply to our armed forces. there are legitimate arguments for those principles. host: give me an example of the type of cyber attack we are talking about. guest: the kind of thing i'm sure was contemplated was a bit disabling cyber attack -- was a disabling cyber attack against our electronic power grid.

in the united states, as opposed to most countries in the world, we have private ownership of many of our critical infrastructure industries. most countries in the world -- there's no such thing as private ownership. that's owned by the government. the government owns the phone system. the government owes the infrastructure of the country. an attack like that in most countries, an attack on the electrical grid, for example, would be an attack against that state. there would not be any doubt about that. we have some infrastructure in this country. host: we're talking about cyber attacks. front-page story of "the wall street journal" yesterday and here is a quote by one official.

that is our topic for the next half-hour of "washington journal." host: first phone call, martin, a republican. you are on the air with daniel gallington. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i would like to ask this question. host: we're still listening. what is your question? caller: century cities in america, -- sanctuary cities in america, like san francisco, would they be exempt from prosecution? host: i'm not sure what you are referring to. our topic this morning is possible cyber attacks against this country and retaliation. let me show you another article

that was in "the washington post" today, following up on "the wall street journal" article yesterday. how long has this been in the works? guest: the area of information warfare goes way back. we have all kinds of communications warfare abilities that go back many years. just a simple jamming of radios, for example, or interference with the enemy's ability to use radar systems and that kind of thing. we have a lot of very traditional kinds of electronic warfare systems. more sophisticated ones, yes. we are developing those.

host: on the more sophisticated types of tools, here is what "the washington post" had to say. host: one example, the stuxnet worm.

jason, ans go to independent in dallas, tx. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. my name is jason. i'm with the u.s. marijuana party. i would be interested to hear this.he nra's stance on obviously, we can all have a nuclear weapon to keep our government in check. you mentioned at&t earlier.

the phone network or electrical grids. even the anti-virus software -- the government can put cookies on your computer and the virus companies are not allowed to take them off. host: daniel gallington? guest: let me respond. first of all, the quote from " the post" sort of addresses this. we've always had a recognition of the difference between intelligence activities and operations in this country. those are activities and operations which are designed to find out things, as opposed to military operations and things, which are designed to address traditional -- more traditional

military threats. i think the quote you read from "the washington post" says that in so many words. in cyber warfare, we have both of those things. we have the need to find out. we have legitimate intelligence activities that we need to carry on to find out. we also have -- we will have or may have situations where we need to take action. essentially, that's what that quote said. i think that's really what the caller is talking about. i should assure the caller, however, that intelligence operations are not done simply because we want to do them or we like to do them. you have to have authority and you have to have a reason to conduct intelligence operations. we have always had those rules. host: here is the ap reporting

out of london this morning that the chairman of one of the world's leading telecommunications companies says a new non-proliferation treaty is needed. is that in the works from our secretary? guest: no, i do not think that is in the works, but i do think you'll hear more about the internationalization of cyber issues and the need for traditional arms control agreements. with those, we have the same problems we have with other kinds of arms control arrangements. that is the ability to monitor and to prove that the other side is in fact complying with those arrangements. yes, there will be more pressure for that.

by the way, as i said, in european countries, much of the cyber infrastructure is government-owned. most of our cyber infrastructure in this country is privately owned. host: chris, democratic caller. caller: good morning. my comment is in reference to the geneva convention applying to terrorists around the world. we should be sending them a message telling them that the geneva convention should not apply to them. they do not play by the rules of war. after 9/11, all bets are off. guest: i appreciate the insight. you are reflecting the views of a lot of people.

we have been locked in this war on terrorism for a long time. whether or not it is politically correct to call it a war on terrorism or not is beside the point. we have people who are out to kill us who are not following any rules whatsoever. they're not wearing uniforms. they are attacking children. they are attacking immune targets. there are attacking hospitals. they are attacking civilian facilities. as the caller said, many of us are saying -- what in the heck are we doing following rules of civility when we are dealing with people like this? we are trying our best free we have a professional military that is trained to follow rules. we're trying our best to keep our system of rules and regulations in tact, but it is extremely difficult. host: when it comes to al-qaeda,

what capabilities do they have to wage cyber attacks? guest: at this stage, i would say a very limited, independent ability to wage any kind of a cyber operation or worar. however, the states that sponsor al-qaeda certainly have much more authority and much more capability to do that. that is who we should be worried about. that gets us right back to the attribution question that we addressed before. host: what countries represent the most threat? guest: i would say you have to have a pretty deep state sponsorship and state infrastructure. certainly, advanced technological countries have developed cyber capabilities. russia for example -- china, for example, has the so-called blue

army. we have always had a concept of electronic warfare. in the old wars, we had airplanes flying around jamming the ability of the enemy to see us and communicate. it is those kind of concept which are applied in the -- in today's military. host: the pentagon says over 100 foreign intelligence groups have been trying to compromise u.s. networks. guest: i would not be surprised. again, those people are trying to find out how well or how badly are systems -- badly our systems are protected. they are trying to manipulate those systems. they're trying to hack it.

again, sometimes it is very difficult to find the origination of those attempts. we're getting better at that. host: houston, texas, republican line. caller: i have two brief comments. first, what thought has been given to making the internet less anonymous? when the internet for started, it was a convenience and a toy. it was something that was new, unique, and interesting. it has rapidly become integral to our economy and other nations' economies. no different than a highway, for example. why shouldn't we have a license to access the internet? it might be a free license. if you have a license, if your license is good, you can do anything you want.

guest: you are not the first to suggest that. i would say that as we mature, as the internet becomes more mature, and you and i hopefully have this conversation in 10 years or so, we may be talking about such a system. right now, the internet is sort of like people being able to write an anonymous message on a wall somewhere, likes ablations have done for thousands of years. -- like civilizations have done for thousands of year. should there be an ability for people to anonymously address a worldwide audience, provided the audience understands where the comments are coming from?

maybe there should be. should there also be something like a more formal registration so that people are more responsible? i think so and so do a lot of people. host: jimmy, new york, independent line. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i'm a bit numb veteran and my two sons are in right vietnam veteran and my two sons are in right now to we've always communicated from facebook and skype. they are on the internet while in theater. also, i was a project manager for the navy and marine corps internet.

there seemed to be a lot of loopholes in that, as well. guest: i did not get the first part of his question very clearly. caller: my two sons are in the military now and they have been in afghanistan and iraq. we communicated through facebook and skype. there's never any talk about missions or locations, but it is quite active. everyone is on the internet. i was wondering if there's any threat of cyber attack on that. what about their safety? guest: thank you for your service and thank you for your sons' service. thank you very much. the safety of our troops overseas is of course paramount.

we should take every measure we can to make sure that by inadvertently or innocently using the internet they're also anyputting themselves anin additional harm's way. i suppose the best way to guarantee that is to allow those communications to go through some central d.o.d. hub in theater and i think that is the way it is done. i do not know for sure. i would assume the internet communications that come from a wartime theater are pretty carefully looked at so the kind of things you're talking about are not a threat. if they become a threat, we obviously have to come up with new ways to protect our deployed forces. host: daniel gallington serve as

the deputy assistant secretary of defense for territorial security from 2001 to 2003. front page of "the wall street journal" yesterday. illinois, ruth, you are next. caller: i ask you to consider this perspective. since 9/11, it seems like the obsession -- how contrary this is to what jesus teaches us. i wonder if making science fiction -- [inaudible] i wonder if we have to stop for a minute and think, are we celebrating the whole possibility of cyberspace war? in some way, are we too excited about the possibility of war?

guest: thank you for your question. i wish everybody in the world the way you do. unfortunately, they do not. as people involved in the national security business and those of us who have spent our lives doing that, what we do is to try to protect your rights and abilities to express those views and have those opinions. as i say, personally, i wish everybody felt the way you did. we would not have any conflict anywhere and everything would be wonderful. unfortunately, that is not reality and never has been. we have to deal with those who wish us harm. there are plenty of those people in the world who wish us harm. it does not matter to them. they hate us all. we just have to take measures to defend ourselves.

a very good question. host: all of our infrastructure privately owned -- guest: most of it is. host: the white house recently put out its cyber security plan to protect infrastructure. the industry has pushed back against this. what is the white house talking about here. guest: they're talking about the frustration of basically dealing with a private infrastructure. let me give you an example. in 1994, after the break up of at&t and all these communication companies springing up, we realize that we no longer could get them to comply with the law. there was a law passed that require them to comply with search warrants and warrants

given by state and federal courts. there was a law that required them to do that. the response was, "we cannot afford it." there was money appropriated to carriers to allow them to comply with the law and even allowed them to surcharge for it. you pointed out that our ability to control our pride infrastructure -- our infrastructure comes down to two things. it comes down to passing laws. and, we're going to give you money so you can comply with these requirements. the industry spokesmen is more concerned about the latter part, getting the funds from the government. host: the republicans, according to "bill" newspaper aired doubts about the white house

plan. it would need the approval of congress. when we talk about are subject for today, what the pentagon is putting out, does congress need to weigh in on that? does that any congressional approval? guest: it certainly should. they certainly have an equity here. the armed services committees, both in the house in the senate, should summon seniors from the pentagon and say, "tell us about this. what do you mean?" they should have the same kind of conversation we are having this morning with the callers and asked the same kind of questions of the people at the pentagon. i think that would be a very responsible thing to have happened. yes, congress has a big equity in this.

host: maryland, democratic line. caller: with a large concentration of our military in places like afghanistan and iraq, -- how are we to more effective cyber attacks? guest: the danger grows every day. for the reasons we've been talking about, we have been essentially unregulated, private cyber infrastructure that controls much of our -- the things we count on three our electrical system, our phone system, our pipelines. you name it. those are all computer

controlled with access to the internet. they have tremendous motor abilities -- they have tremendous vulnerabilities. e view cyber attacks as an attack on our homeland? certainly, if you were in a foreign country that owned those key facilities, you would conclude that. we're seeing a compression of thinking in the united states with the thinking in europe. host: here is a tweet. host: dan gallington? guest: yes, all that is true. it is costly. things like that to protect our

systems are costly pre .egistration -- are costly pr registrations are costly. that's nothing new for any kind of threat. it will cost us money. for every two steps we take forward, we take one back. eventually, we get it right. i think that is what the new pentagon study is trying to do. host: virginia, independent line. go ahead. caller: hello. i have a three-part question. guest: i will have to write this down. caller: can you talk about the virus? guest: i do not know anything about that. caller: blue screen of death

virus. that is what is called. guest: i do not know anything about that virus. caller: it causes it not to start. guest: i wish i was the apple or pc rep who knew what to do. caller: microsoft windows allowed these viruses. what is the thinking behind under gradual -- behind undergraduate courses in europe for ethical hacking? guest: as for the first question, i'm not a computer guy. i wish my wife was here to answer that. i do not know about the owner-ability of our boehn

occupied systems. of course, many of those are owned and occupied by our pride infrastructure, -- by our private infrastructure, as well. i will tell you are computer companies are scared to death of these viruses and they're working on these issues as hard as anybody else. in fact, we may see some of the more advanced thinking coming out of our private computer. as far as the undergraduate courses in ethical hacking, i'm not sure the idea of that sentence really fits together. i don't think you can do what is called hacking ethically. i do not even think you can do it legally in most countries. most countries have prohibitions against attacking -- against

hacking of any kind. sometimes there are civil penalties and sometimes there are criminal penalties associated. i do not know if a course like that would have a lot of content that would be in accordance with that nation's laws. host: here is a tweet. pittsburgh, independent, go ahead. caller: thank you for having me. i just have a quick question. it is a possible cyber attack with another country being in active were nothing more than a diversion to take away from our american liberties? guest: i like the first part of your question. i'm not sure i agree with it. could a cyber attack be a ruse

and a cover for some more insidious or traditional kind of attack against our country? oh, absolutely. in the cold war, in fact, we used to talk about how a nuclear attack might begin with a so- called emp blast, which would be a nuclear device set off in the space that would essentially black out every electronic capability within a radius of several thousand miles. it was an extremely draconian way to begin a nuclear conflict and we used to worry about that. yes, a cyber attack -- a less dramatic one than that -- could certainly serve as a ruse for

an attack that is to be conducted somewhere else. there are people who think about these things every day. as far as whether or not the ruse is part of a government plot to invade our privacies -- i know people worry about this. i have to tell you that we're so busy doing so many things in government that we really do not have time to snoop into the private affairs of americans without a reason. if you are a criminal, if you are a spy, a terrorist, a kidnapper or something like that -- yes. if you are a private citizen who has news on political things -- who has views on political things, we do not care. host: what about wikileaks?

guest: good question. a part of cyber warfare that worries me the most is the counter-intelligence part of it. we have the disproportionate ability for a pfc, for example, to take all these diplomatic cables and take them out in a microsecond and allow them to go out to god knows where. they went to wikileaks and published them all. the insidious counter- intelligence problems we have just with the access people have to the systems scarcely more than anything else. i think that's the most immediate cyber problem we have, the traditional counter- intelligence one. host: we'll go to kansas city. go ahead, doug. caller: i was wondering why we

cannot have a simple system. when they attack cyberspace, it automatically shuts down to protect us and refers back to an emergency cyber military and tries to trace down who it is and what it is so we can go on with our normal lives. host: dan gallington? guest: i think there are ways. he has an interesting theory behind this question. that is, we want to find out who this is. who is responsible for the cyber attacks? there are things we can do to disable their systems. there are things we can do to counter these things. it's important for us to find out who is doing them to us. host: we will take one last question. pat, go ahead. caller: i know how to eliminate these cyber attacks. you take the military and the return them from the other countries.

you help repair the disasters in this country for you help the elderly. you help the homeless and poor. you helped by being the brothers and sisters for the young. host: we will have to leave it there.

instead of following specific funding levels. it would also prevent using money at guantánamo pain to the u.s. so, waiting for chairman chabot to gavel the session in. the hearing was just starting when the house came out. a couple of introductions expecting the witnesses with a couple more introductions after the members return. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> waiting for this year and a transition iraq to continue. tomorrow, and that romney will make a formal announcement that he's a republican candidate for president. we will have that lyford stratham, new hampshire at 12:30 eastern time here on c-span 2. also, estes and.org and c-span radio. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the voting is finished on the house floor, so expect to see her in the transition in iraq to resume shortly. earlier today, congressional republicans that president obama found the national debt and raising the debt ceiling associated press writing the white house had a meeting between the president and republicans is worthwhile, even if it didn't reach the divided they suffer how to reduce the deficit.

the story going on to say that house republicans pressed the president of the senate for more specifics than worthy to share. one leading republican also asked the president to stop mischaracterizing a gop medicare proposal to set the center of this ending debate. we are expecting members of the house foreign affairs committee hearing to continue here shortly. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> and other stories the associated process wait for the house foreign affairs subcommittee to present. the administration says the government will lose less than 20% of the $80 billion used to bail out the u.s. auto industry. in a report released today, the president's national economic council says the losses are less than the administration originally expected. reports with the treasury department first that the government includes 60% of the taxpayer funds. i think about what is it a chrysler plant in ohio on

friday. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> chairman of the house foreign affairs that committee, steve

chabot has come to the room. we are waiting for the ranking member, top republican on the committee, congressman ackerman before this hearing kim gave resumed on the transition in iraq. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the committee will be back in order. i'm going to go on with the introductions. next we have dr. colin kahl serves as the secretary of defense for the medical needs. dr. kahl is on a three-year public service leave from georgetown university, where he is professor and and edmunda

walsh school of foreign service. prior to the defense department with senior fellow at the center for a new american security and served as coordinator for the obama campaign's iraq policy expert crew. and she testified, 2006 coming with the council on foreign relations fellow working at the department of defense on counterinsurgency, counterterrorism and stability operations. he received his phd in political science from columbia university in this ba of political science from the university of michigan. we welcome him here. last but not least as christopher d. kari lake who currently serves as a senior deputy assistant administrator for the middle east from 2007 to 2010. prior to this assignment, he was usaid mission director in iraq. foreign minister in the senior foreign service, mr. crowley joining usaid in 1971 as an assistant advisor in vietnam. he has since served as director of usaid's regional mission for central asia, director of program usaid india, and deputy

mission director and he chipped. in 1994, following the reports, mr. crowley became the first mission or for the west bank and gaza. mr. crowley holds a bachelor science degree of physical sciences from the ohio state university, master's degree in international relations from the university of pennsylvania and a master's degree in public frustration from the john s. kennedy school of harvard university and we welcome all three b. this afternoon. i see no we operate on a five-minute rule. if you can keep your remarks to that time, there is a lighting device on the table that will warn you in the red light comes on. your time has concluded and will ask questions for the same period of time and without further ado, would begin welcoming you ms. haslach. >> thank you for holding this hearing and invited me to appear

before you today to discuss the issues facing iraq and the challenges associated with the united states transition in the military led to a civilian led presents. i'd like to take time to submit our joint written testimony for the record. a significant national and truth in iraq that requires continuation of strong u.s. support to ensure that we do not lose the fragile progress that has been achieved through tremendous sacrifice. we face a critical moment that will determine whether we achieve our goal of the sovereign, stable and self-reliant iraq. we must recognize the ripples of iraq success also extends beyond iraq and the united states. iraq is poised to become a political and economic leader in the middle east region. as the middle east faces deep challenges in an unknown future, iraq must take center stage as a beacon of democracy and a curvy with support for the region. countries in and around the world that your efforts in iraq to a sincerity with which we approach the art world and

people of the middle east and north africa look to iraq as an example of what is possible in the region, a democracy whose government is elected by the people in his purpose is to serve the people. the transition we're executing is vital for a national interests to pursue and strengthen these interest-free months to expand our long-term partnership with iraq and the iraqi people. the strategic framework agreement and agreement between the united states in iraq serves as the framework and roadmap in building these bilateral ties. we have found determine partners who are committed to the shared vision. prime minister malloch he and other iraqi leaders consider it to be the foundation of u.s. and iraqi relations. the strong support from the iraqis, with a four to building a long-term partnership that will strengthen iraq secure the national interest of both countries and provide stability to the region. the time is ripe for this transition. the security situation while still a concern continues to improve, providing an opening for which the people of iraq

focused not on fear of violence but on the prospect of rebuilding a strong economy and for me in a government that is more efficient, less corrupt and committed to improving the nation. the people of iraq are eager to build a stronger rackley must be there to support them. at the state department around the agency are trying to accomplish with the transition is at the forefront of diplomacy. success will not only determine the fate of the emerging friend and ally to shape the future of u.s. engagement in the middle east and in conflict and post-conflict areas around the world. this transition is one of the most important international endeavors of the united states undertaking and success or failure will have global implications. we cannot fail. we will do this always mindful of the cost of requiring the american people to bear the united states sacrificed much to reach critical moment. now is not the time to hesitate or change course. we are in mid stride and must maintain our determination of momentum to secure footing in that direction. the transition we are

implementing now began years ago and it's critical we follow through. the strategy we will continue to pursue is the best balance between what is necessary to achieve our interest in what we can honestly call upon the american people to support. it's because of the tremendous sacrifice americans have made that we must continue critical missions they are and through the historic frame agreement made between the united states in iraq, we find that our two countries who for years kosice adversaries now share a common goal, a sovereign and prosperous iraq with a strong ally of the united states and committed to incapable of ensuring security, providing services in addressing the will of the iraqi people. now is the time to work together to achieve that goal. in closing i'd like to thank dr. kahl and mr. crowley. general austin and his troops and many offices and bureaus throughout the department of state and other u.s. departments

and agencies involved in this transition. planning and implementing the transition has required tireless efforts of her top and women's, many risk in mice to ensure everything we've been fighting and working for but the last decade is not lost. thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. i'd be happy to answer any questions the committee may have. >> thank you on that as ambassador. talk or kahl, you recognize for five minutes. >> thank you. chairman chabot, i appreciate the opportunity to appear today to discussion susan challenges associated the u.s. transition from a military to civilian led effort in iraq. ambassador haslach has discussed the situation enabling responsible drawdown and then say a few words about support from the defense department provided for the state department to help set them up for success. members have concerns about

readiness of the iraqi government to provide security in iraq if u.s. forces draw down between now and december 2011 in compliance with the u.s. iraq security agreement. indeed, terrorists and militia attacks. the attack consisting of bombs targeted iraq policemen killed over two dozen people in a may 22nd, al qaeda in iraq and a series of coordinated attacks in baghdad that left 14 dead and dozens wounded. iraq still faces dangerous and determined enemies, but it's important to emphasize these enemies do not have supported the iraqi people and these attacks have not spurred the returned committal solo work. moreover, despite the recent attacks commander lan security situation remains strong with tackle those remaining at the lowest levels of the entire world for the last two years. this is particularly remarkable considering the iraqi security forces have assumed primary responsibility for security for the entire country and the u.s.

or its members have declined from roughly 144,000 to roughly 47,000 today. since january 1, 2000 iraqi security forces have been the leader in security operations, it will be of mark capably for each passing month. on september 1 of last year, we made the transition from operation iraqi freedom to operation new dawn to below 50,000 u.s. troops fulfilling president about ms. in iraq and delete security role. while the united states continues to provide vital support to the security forces including training, mentoring, it in certain critical technical enablers, we need to be cleared the iraqis are very much in charge and since they no longer need large numbers to keep the virus in check. the iraqi security forces have also remained professional despite the long period of uncertainty with the negotiations.

indeed it remains unclear when they will rename a minister of interior. thomas and ambassador jeffreys continued to engage with ambassador said five to emphasize the importance of reaching finality on this issue. the continuing efforts to build the security forces and draw down forces in other regencies have also undertaken unprecedented levels of ordination and planning for the transition in iraq. dod has an excellent relationship and working together to achieve a successful transition. as one would expect, challenges exist the rest assured that dod is doing everything it can to help state department achieve success. to facilitate the whole government coordination november of last year coming dod embedded a staff officer within the transition team to serve as a liaison and dvd issues. dod and state have established not talk senior executive group for coordination issues. this is cochaired at the secretary level beneath a weekly

trivia status of the subordinate optional areas, supply chain come equipment, contracting, medical, facilities and construction, security and aviation. additionally, to expeditiously respond to requests for equipment to make them by secretary of defense waitstaff in equipping board was established in early june or 2011. the process consists of working level representatives for all services, joint that which feeds recommendations for servers and equipment, general officer chaired by the joint staff g4 for approval. currently the dod team has been established in nature main locations to suggest practical accretions from the downsizing of the site footprint. transition of the sites is not a turnkey operation in each presents unique challenges. for example, each team needs to have new parameters, housing units, reread utilities and where needed general site

preparation. tv provides members functions on the reimbursable basis. bobcat world be retained for general base operations might support. in conclusion, i want to emphasize our continued engagement with iraq will remain vital. we are now at the point where strategic evidence of our tremendous sacrifice is a huge investment within reach of funds to take proper steps to consolidate. strategic readerships based on mutual interests and respect continues to present many advantages to the u.s., which in turmoil and the broader middle east have importance of u.s. engagement with our key regional partners. dod lisa masterman focused on iraq in order to advance the regional object to the peace, prosperity. >> thank you this on daniel gallington much, mr. crowley. >> thank you, chairman chabot, honorable members of the committee. thank you for inviting me to appear before you today to

discuss the international development will the transition from a military led to civilian led president. usaid is played a major role in response to economic and social needs since 2003 and will continue to do so. the situation in iraq has dramatically improved over the past two years. but iraq is still much a post-conflict developing country, facing considerable development to human resources and fiscal challenges. reduction has created breeding room for iraqis to begin building democracy, restoring public institutions and creating conditions for private-sector led groups. continued support is required to further nature iraq's fledgling democracy and improve its ability to manage its own wealth. usaid has been supporting overall usg efforts in iraq since 2003. primary object is then was to restore essential infrastructure and services. beginning in 2007, u.s.a.

shifted much of its resources to a stabilization program to complement the military and civilian surge began at that time. this program focused on community stabilization in administering quakers unspun to the civil military provincial reconstruction teams. you said is aligned with the framework agreement which outlined the political economic and purity cooperation between the united states and iraq. the agreement focuses on sustainable development programs in several sectors and is characterized by increasing levels of country ownership of the cost of these programs. mr. chairman, the key challenge but iraqi government will be security. agile services come economic growth and strengthening of institutions of democratic governance. now is the time for iraq to transition from the legacy of foreign insurgency to one of economic opportunity and good governance. usaid governance programs will

continue to strengthen the capabilities of iraqi governance at the national, provincial and local levels. this concludes iraq's gradual transition towards a more decentralized model of decision-making and control of resources. usaid will expand its groove and nonoil factors such as agriculture, financial sector development in small and medium enterprise. usaid will also support the health are in iraq is focusing on strengthening iraqi primary health care. we will continue to assist ethnic and religious minorities in displaced persons. we also support the education are in iraq. usaid as a strong and growing network with key leaders in republican sectors throughout iraq. community action groups, provincial councils, warmer cooperatives, all of whom had been partners in who have been trained in their program continue to work to include the lives of the families and

communities. usaid has been able to adapt to changing conditions in iraq and fully expects to be altered to have circumstances of the military withdraws. we will continue programs for implementing partners both american and iraqi. this has been a major strength of our programs, both in terms of ability to engage more directly with any fisheries and that's the way to project her presence more widely into the country. in this way we are better at double to monitor and evaluate impact of our programs. mr. chairman, along with government back, partners in the community and broader u.s. mission direct was able to continue engagement and commitment necessary to build on that gave party achieve. usaid will be assisting iraqis in further developing their own abilities and resources to ensure sovereign, stable and ultralight iraq. in closing i'd like to thank ambassador jeffrey, hasek and their staff, general austen and the many offices throughout the

department of state and other u.s. departments and agencies involved in this trade mission. all of provided tremendous support to the usaid and its mission. thank you or the opportunity to appear before you today and i'll be happy to answer any questions the committee may happen that were to working with you in your congressional caucus. >> thank you, mr. crowley. want to thank all three witnesses. and now members will have five minute i recognize myself for the purpose now. the administration has developed a so-called minimum essential capability benchmarks which refer to an end state in which quote iraqi security ministries come institutions and forces can provide internal security and possess maximum foundational capabilities to defend against external arrests unquote. and it's shame 2010 report to congress on iraq, department of defense is satisfied only the

iraqi navy is presently encores to fully achieve its goals prior to december 2011 and iraq will not be able to independently secure airspace before that date. overall department of defense has reported the potential or the iraqi security forces to meet and maintain performance at minimum benchmark level quotes continues to be reliant on u.s. support, unquote. in march 2011, centcom commander general james madison said in senate testimony that they are going to be loose sense unless the iraqis asked his day and work on these -- ask us to stay and work on these issues. those loose sense of the difficult to overcome on their own, unquote. dr. kahl, you mentioned one of

recent violent occurrence that happened to be the one in baghdad. the first, this is the third time i was in iraq. at least they are before, after the fall, about two dozen three, around 2007 towards the end of the surge and most recently, as they say about a week to two weeks ago, the day we were in baghdad was the day the occurrence hatband aftercare cook and we met with people, the general who staff who are some of the victims. of course that is evidence of the ongoing threats in this country. everything we know at this point, how realistic is it for us to be able under the existing and planned to pull that many troops out and basically transition from department of defense.

if the state department up for that task? is there any precedent for anything on disk io? and you know, what do you think the committee should know about that? >> you know, it is our assessment iraqi security forces will be pretty good capabilities in terms of internal event. we spent billions of dollars in many years building up a very capable counterinsurgency force a force a vote for counterterrorism source. i think we see a few caps likely to exist beyond 2011. the challenge is an intelligent and challenges and logistics. ..

>> anything beyond the office of the security operation would be for the iraqis to ask. as you know, they haven't asked. the administration has been clear, where they to ask, we would be happy to start that conversation with them. >> let me get to a second question, if i can. and i'm going to address this to you if i can, madame ambassador. if you want to follow up on anything there, you can. i understand that the special inspector general for iraq reconstruction has initiated an audit of the police development program and has requested an entrance conference to begin the

audit. they have been told that the department has informally taken the position that sigar does not have authority, even though it's funded by the international narcotics control and law enforcement fund which fund sigar has authority over. my view is that sigar has done important work on police training which is clearly part of the iraq's reconstruction and will need to continue to look at the program going forward. and i also further think it's inappropriate for the department to try to block sigar's access to information on how preparations to carry out a perspective appropriation of more than a billion dollars. please let me know what you plan to do to facilitate sigar's ability to continue to do it's work. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have been forthcoming with all of the responses for documents and information during the planning effort, including

those from sigar. in fact, i worked very closely with sigar's employees when i was in iraq. we appreciate the efforts under taken by sigar to perform audits and investigations of reconstruction activities in iraq and have provided them with requested materials that we feel fall under it's mandate. as the department engages in a significant transition from a military to civilian led mission in aircraft, our assistance is also transitioning from largely reconstruction based to technical assistance and capacity building. we do not read the responsibilities assigned to sigar in it's founding statute of extenting to the state department operation in support of the diplomatic platform in iraq. those audit responsibilities fall, we feel, within the per view of other oversight and audit edittee entities, such as the accounting office, survey with and investigation staff of the house of appropriations, the department of state, office of

inspector general, and the commission on war time contracting. >> thank you. just let me conclude with a quick statement. we've spent billions of dollars auditing and making sure it's being spent appropriately and not being wasted and ripped off. we would ask your cooperation in continuing. thank you very much. i'll now yield to the ranking member from new york, mr. ackerman. discipline -- >> thank you very much. thank you all for your testimony. is there anybody in the administration that in charge of selling this to the american people? >> well, in my building, it's the secretary of state. >> i mean somebody specifically who has the responsibility of explaining to the american people why we're doing this that the american people think we've

already done? >> you know, the only thing that i would add, both of our secretaries are heavily involved. it's a top priority for both secretary gates and secretary clinton, and, of course, vice president biden was tasked with president obama right off the bat to lead our government's efforts. but in terms of a government spokesperson, i guess -- >> what you are both indicating is that there is none. and i'm suggesting that there is a key problem here because the american people thought they bought this, used it, and finished with it and are done with it and don't have to make any further investments. and it seems to be not the case. and these kinds of things are going to be very, very difficult to do in the ensuing months, if not years given all of the givens both realities and the political terms that we have to come to and deal with. and that's not necessarily a

good thing. this seems to be -- iraq seems to have been a marriage of convenience. and everybody seems to agree that there should be some kind of a divorce. but when and everybody thought we were waiting for the final papers to come through, and now we seem to have some remorse about that. maybe we're sticking around for the sake of the children. and now they are all says we should leave although they really mean we should stay, but we ain't staying unless they ask us, and is seems like a mess. i don't know how you explain that to the civilian population that's going to be asked to pay for child support. >>all right. i guess i'll move on to something else. [laughter] >> is there any war in the

region, in the entire region, that we can afford to ever finally leave? >> you know, i don't want to speak outside of the lane of, you know, my particular port foal ya stretches from egypt up through iraq and afghanistan and down. >> can we afford to leave egypt, iran, anywhere? >> i think we have found countering weapons of mass destruction, violence extremism, energy and security, the safety and security of israel and the other strategic partners. i think we are heavily invested in this part of the world. we have a sizable presence. we are likely to remain postured at a high level. i don't know whether the question is ever -- >> drawdown means 5-7 years and billions of dollars. you start multiplying that across the region where everything is five to seven years, that's going to shift to five to seven by the time we get to six years and it's going to

cost more billions of dollars. i'm not advocating leaving this place yet, you know. i just want to know because of the lack of the answer to my first question, if there's nobody in charge of selling it, nobody is going to buy it. >> you know, i would say that we've made a consistent case as the administration, and the president did so again last week when he gave his big middle east speech of emphasizing the importance of a long-term strategic partnership with iraq and it's especially important in light of all of the events with the arab spring. so we have -- iraq has been so important to our national interest for 20 years we've either been at war against iraq or in iraq for 20 years. clearly we have made an investment. >> what about a financial partnership? you are talking about billions of dollars in supporting a partner that's richer than we are in many ways. not really, but they seem to have some bucks. and they are going into

financial partnerships with other people. which means they are cheating on us. >> representative ackerman, we have no intention of leaving iraq. i think it was pretty clear in our opening statements, all three of us, in fact, we've asked for assistance -- >> the american people think we've left. they think we have made the political decision -- here's the problem. you have no intention of leaving, and everybody else in the country accept those who are really finely tuned which is a very limited audience thinks we've already done that. and i would suggest that's a disaster of a short and intermediate term problem. because it ain't going to be just iraq that is on the plate in the administration. somebody on the administration has to start thinking about that long term. even if long term is five to seven years, how do you sell the

program. to people that think we are done with the payments. >> representative ackerman, if i may, deputy secretary nides will be chairing a round table discussion on friday with approximately 30 presidents and ceos of major u.s. companies to talk about the challenges and the opportunities of investing in iraq. he will also be meeting, having a number of press interviews along with ambassador jeffrey to be making the case that iraq is worth all of the effort and worth the long term commitment that we've made. thank you. >> those people might have a financial incentive to invest in iraq because it might be good for their 30 or whatever companies. but the american people don't necessarily own that portfolio and aren't going to see it that way if i can put on my public relations hat and try to understand where the american people are going to be coming from. now i'll just say it again, if you ain't got no one to sell it, you ain't got no one going to

buy it. i taught english better than that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. ackerman. the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome. i wonder if you could comment -- first of all, i should ask. what is your understanding of how much cerp funding there is in this fiscal year? >> we'll see you later. >> thank you. >> for iraq and/or for afghanistan? >> i can't speak to afghanistan, congressman, because it's not in my portfolio. i believe we've requested $25 million -- $25 million for fy '12. >> are you particular with the cerp program? >> yes, i am. >> are you familiar that it's in excess of $12 billion -- >> not in iraq.

>> not in iraq, i'm talking about cerp. >> no, i'm not sure what the overall dimensions are. >> you don't know what the number is? >> no, sir. >> if it were that order of magnitude, what are the conditions on programming of that money? i mean you work for a.i.d., a.i.d. has all kinds of constrains and regulations and legal requirements. what are the comparable constrains on the use of and reporting of and auditing of cerp funds? >> well, i know how cerp funds were used in iraq during the period that i was there. and by and large, they were used by the military units and the prudential reconstruction teams to deal with rapid response capabilities to various economic and other issues on the ground. these are more short term programs to respond to local

situations. usaid works -- >> i'm quite familiar with how usaid works. would it not be a concern to you, it certainly is to me, i agree with your -- that was the original intent. but what you have that kind of an intent, that's a relatively modest amount of money. when you get to very significant sums of money, would it not -- i'm asking you to put on your professional hat, not a public policy. as a professional, would it not concern you that now we have a different management challenge when the magnitude isn't $25 billion, it's a $1 billion plus. next door to afghanistan, i know it's not your portfolio. would that be of concern to you as a professional from a.i.d.? >> yes, sir. i would be building in all kinds of safeguards and overlapping mechanisms in order to make sure the money is spent appropriately. >> i would too. mr. kahl, is it of any concern

at all? i know it's not your portfolio, as you are pointed out, the pentagon, any concern? >> congressman, i'm just not going to speak to afghanistan. it's not in my portfolio -- >> i'm asking you to speak about whether you have a concern on behalf of the taxpayer of the united states that we have a program irrespective of where it is that has now balloons in terms of value. it's not a $25 million, and there are only two countryies were really talking about here. does it concern you at all from a management point of view either in the theoretical realm that you are comfortable in your file that it has so little supervision and restraints in a way that would be comparable to how we do constrain the programming of usaid money. >> i think i disagree with the

characterization of accountability and restraint. there's a great deal of reporting to congress on all of the projects that are build with cerp, sigar an organization that we talked about earlier has done regular assessments of it. i can't speak to the magnitude of the specific projects in afghanistan. none of us work on afghanistan. i would encourage you to direct to the colleagues that do. we'd be happy to take that question back. in iraq, there was $100 million. we actually didn't spend all of that money. and then in fy '12, we've requested $20 million. to simply finish off the project in the last bit of calendar in 2012 and the fiscal year. >> for the record. i thank you for advise. i already took it. i did talk to the head of sigar, he would not share your confidence, i think, in cerp program, and as a matter of fact, in afghanistan a number of people have been fingered

because it's a cash program and the amounts are relative to a. a.i.d.s amounts that are substantial, we have some people who unfortunately have yielded to temptation. and it has to do with the lack of accounting and accountability. i commend it to you, since you've offered, please to get back to me and this committee in terms of what constraints are in place in the growing program. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman's time has expired. we'll go to the second round. if the gentleman has any more questions we'll get to him -- >> all right. what do you think about -- no, all right. >> i have a couple of questions myself. just a couple of quick questions. would -- i assume all of the panel members would agree that it's not only in iraq's best interest, but also in america's best interest that we see a

democratic, for the most part, iraq prosper in flourish. i'm seeing nods of ascent by everyone there. and how is it in america's best interest -- i mean i know it's an obvious question. why is it in our best interest at this point beyond not taking into conversation the fact that we've lost, you know, thousands of our men and women there which is clear and a lot of treasure has been spent there or money. but how is it in our long term best interest that iraq is essentially a successful country in that important and tumultuous part of the world? and i see two of you jumping at this? >> i think we have plenty of -- we have a recent example of when iraq was just the opposite of that. i think it's pretty clear it's in our interest that we have a

stable and democratic government in iraq, especially in that region, surrounded by some less stable and less democratic governments. >> why is it? >> well, it's for our own -- it's for our own security. but it's also for the security of the region and it also is for our world's economic benefit and for the potential that iraq, you know, has to become what it once was before, a middle income country, a prosperous country, a stable country, a partner of ours, a partner of other democracies in the world. i think we have only to gain from iraq being a democracy. frankly, we have a lot to lose if they were to revert back. >> dr. kahl? >> i would agree with all of that. i would add that iraq historically has been a source of instability and aggressor state in this part of the world. it's our hope that democratic iraq will be a more moderate

actor that we can work with in the middle east which is a region that's vital to our interests that we talked about before. given the mosaic and ethic communities, only a democratic system with hold it to together and lead to types of political accommodations and mechanisms that will keep iraq stable over the long term. saddam was able to keep a lid on instability. but iraq wasn't stable. iraq has gone now through a period of instability following the 2003 invasion. but it has come out of that and is now on the right trajectory and as president obama said, we have an interest in continuing that trajectory. in the context of the arab spring, it only magnified now we're trying to stand up in egypt and opportunity knee ya and encourage reform.

>> obviously, as i said in my opening statement, the united states has helped to build the nation of prosperous and democratic iraq. and that it premature withdrawal could risk squandering those gains. and that would be a failure of colossal proportions. i assume all of the members of the panel agree with that statement. ambassador did you want to -- >> this goes back to your actual first -- your first question too. i mean we are not abandoning iraq. we have asked for assistance to help to continue to train their police forces, we have asked for assistance to continue to train and equip the iraq security forces, and, in fact, we in fy '12, we've asked under the foreign military financing program for a substantial amount of money which we feel is essential to help iraq defend itself against the external threats that you were asking

about before. so our plan is to actually stay there and help them with this. usaid, we have requested economic support funds to help them. fragile institutions, years of instability and repression. and so we're not done. but we feel that we are well on the way to a much better situation there. >> and i assume that the panel would agree that they -- iran at least in the last 30 years or so has been a shall we say unhelpful actor in that region and if iraq falls under their influence or they are not able to stand up to iran, that would be a very unstable and would certainly hurt the u.s. foreign security interests around the world is that correct? i think i'm seeing affirmative. dr. kahl, did you want to say

something? >> yeah, i would say that a strong iraq is likely to not be a puppet dangling at the end of iran's strings. that has a partnership with us and the neighbors which is what iraq's leaders want is going to want to maintain it's sovereignty, independence, and going to be fiercely nationalistic play. i don't think the iraqis want to be dominated by iran. which is the most important aspect. >> without objection, i'll grant myself one additional minute to make one final observaton inthet one minute. that's what one the things that a bit disturbing, although not probably something you wouldn't expect would be the fact that the parliamentarians that we met with about whether not there needed to be u.s. involvement beyond the end of this year were unwilling to make that commitment although to a person every one of them indicated yes,

but we really can't say that publicly. because we run for office as well. and they said that's for mal -- maliki to say. everybody points to figure at the administration, maybe it's congress or democrat or republicans. but this is an important key issue and the politicians in iraq are going to have to step up to the plate as well. because for the united states to pull out by the end of this year and turn over complete the future of that country before they are ready could literally, you know, have defeat out of the jaws of victory. that's what we don't want to see here, for the united states or for the iraqis as well. i want to thank the panel and at

this point, i'll yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, if he has not additional questions. >> i do, mr. chairman. thank you. mr. kahl, you indicated in my previous round of questioning that your understanding the cerp program in iraq was $25 million? >> for fy '12, the request. >> for fy '12. >> it was $100 million, my understanding, for fy '11. which we didn't spend all of that money. >> perhaps your staff can confirm this, am i reading the sigar report right that since 2003, the total amount of cerp funding in iraq was $3.89 billion? [inaudible conversations] >> sir, i'll have to get back to you on the exact number. we've spent a considerable amount of cerp money in iraq since 2003. >> right. more than $25 million a year? >> yes, that's why i said $25

million for 2012. >> i'm trying to get the magnitude. is it your testimony if i understood you correctly in your answer to my previous question that you are satisfied or you believe that we can be satisfied that all of the right accounting and transparency in this place just as it is for usaid programming? >> what i would say is that, you know, cerp was an innovation in iraq, largely to enable our counterinsurgency operations and that we learned along the way, frankly, we are better now than we were at the beginning. it would not surprise me if going back and looking at the program at the beginning, you found a lot more problems with how it's executed. i would say the program is more accountable, better coordination, and the money is better used now than was the case in 2004, for example. are there no challenges. every program of this size will have challenges.

>> no one suggested there were no challenges, mr. kahl. the question was whether you felt there was adequate mechanisms of accounting, accountability and reporting and transparency as there sort of are with usaid programs such that the pentagon is satisfied. >> i feel that we are in a good place in executing cerp programs in iraq which is the portfolio that we speak to. >> i understand. however, certainly since the taxpayer pays for it, it's not unreasonable expectations that we might up here expect that what you learned in your portfolio has applicability exwhere? >> it is absolutely true, but on the ground in iraq, i can't speak to that. >> all right. i look forward to having more dialogue about this.

i think cerp has grown so big it presents very serious problems in terms of accountability and transparency. i would love to have you submit for the record more detail about what the pentagon learned in this time period as you said. we've improved and evolved. that's great. but i want to know what that is. and i also want to know how -- what it's applicability is to other places. obviously, i have afghanistan in mind. but i won't burden you with afghanistan. let me ask totally separate question real quickly. one the things in talking to reconstruction folks that they suggest is for this time we have a permanent office of stabilization and reconstruction operations because we sort of reinvent the wheel every time that something comes up. if we had an office centrally located with expertise, knowing the ropes on the sop and so forth and the rolodex and

providers and nonprofit and everything else, that would make us more efficient in taxpayer dollars. any comments on that suggestions or observation? mr. crowley? >> well, there is an office in the state department that has the purpose of doing exactly that. i think ambassador haslach would be better positioned to comment on it. usaid works closely with that office in situations where these kinds of responses are required. we also have our own office of transition initiatives which is itself built around providing responses to these kinds of situations. but it works hand in hand with scrs which is the state department office that's tasked with that responsibility. >> mr. chairman i know we are running -- would you indulge. >> gentleman is recognized for

additional minutes. >> i thank you chairman. >> mr. crowley is right. there is an office at the state department that is tasked exactly what you are talking about. and, in fact, under the quadriennial, qddr, the quadriennial diplomacy and review, there are a dumb of questions your office can strengthen the role you are recommending. >> okay. if you wanted to get back for the record, that would be great. thank you so much. thank you, mr. chairman for your indulgence. >> thank you, the gentleman from pennsylvania, we are ready to wrap up the round. if you have questions, tom. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you so much. if there's no further business, we want to thank the panel in answering our questions here this afternoon. without objection, all members will have five minutes -- excuse me, five days to submit the

questions or statements to the record. if there's no further business to come before the committee, we are adjourned. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] :

is stations] [ [[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> tomorrow former massachusetts governor and 2008 presidential candidate mitt romney makes his official announcement for his candidacy for president in the 2012 campaign. we will bring this announcement from new hampshire starting at 12:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2, c-span radio and c-span.org.

white house spokesman jay carney said the next round of debt and deficit negotiations led by vice president biden will be held on june 9th on capitol hill. he briefed reporters on meeting the president had this morning with the house republican conference. he is joined by the white house senior counsel and manufacturing on the state of the u.s. auto industry. this runs just over an hour. >> good afternoon, thanks for being here. i know there's a lot of interest in a readout of the president's meeting with house republicans which i will provide to you but first if we could hold on that, i have with me today ron bloom pleaded the assistant to the

president for manufacturing policies. many of you know him well. he is here to talk about reports issued today that we put out issues now on the auto industry and where it has been after measures that were taken two years ago. without further ado i will turn it over to ron. while he is here, any questions regarding his report, regarding manufacturing direct to him i will call on you and we can't let him go. we will come back and deal with other issues of the day. ron? >> thank you. two years ago general motors filed for bankruptcy and we thought this would be a good time to take stock of what happened since then. difficult decisions the president made in the run-up to that period. the assistance we did determined to provide the automobile industry and what happened.

when the president took office we had an automobile industry in freefall. we had an economy in great distress but the automobile industry was falling faster than another sector. the president make difficult decisions about what to do to deal with this critical part of the american economy. the companies came forward very early on february 17th, 2009, with planned they believe justify additional taxpayer support. the president rejected those plans. he told them they need to attack more aggressively. they came back with more robust plans that require substantial sacrifice from stakeholders and on june 1st in the context of general motors bankruptcies substantial additional assistance was provided to gm and earlier assistance provided to chrysler. since that time i think we have

seen some positive and encouraging signs and at this two year anniversary it is reasonable to take account of those things. in the last year the detroit three have gained market share. they have all added jobs, and they have all shown the ability to make money. they are making substantial profit. those three things haven't been true of the detroit three and along time. the credit for that importantly goes to the men and women of those companies and their stakeholders who have made difficult decisions. but we think it is also worth noting that the courageous decision the president made to stand behind these companies and this was not an easy call, in particular chrysler was a difficult call. last week chrysler repaid all of the loans made to them. and the president chose to help

chrysler and general motors and a lot of people said you are throwing good money after bad, you will never get out. these companies are not saveable but the president demonstrated great political courage and great faith in the men and women who work at these companies and their stakeholders and so far we are seeing very good signs of progress. the industry has gained 115,000 jobs in the last year. the fastest job growth in a long time, gaining share, making money. the road ahead for these companies is not easy or simple. they live in a difficult environment of global competition and so we by no means believe their future is assured. on the other hand we believe the steps we took and the steps they took in partnership with us have positioned these companies where they have a real chance of success. that is important because these companies are not just the three

companies themselves or the two companies themselves. these companies as the report documents support a tremendous array of other businesses, workers and communities around them. the president will be going to toledo on friday and meeting with workers at chrysler assembly plant. he will be hearing from small business men and women in the community. because these manufacturing employers are not the only ones who do this. but importantly these manufacturing companies play a central role in their communities. they are often times the acre and some manufacturing which is leading our recovery, 250,000 new jobs in manufacturing in the last year, faster ddt growth than the rest of the economy demonstrating it can play a very important role in the american economy. the automobile industry is the story of manufacturing but there's a broader manufacturing story as well that needs to be

brought to attention. that is what the report is about. happy to answer questions. >> use at we by no means believe the future is assured. is it fair to say their survival is an issue? >> i don't think anything in life is a short. the state of these companies rests with the men and women who work there. the manager and board of directors and many things in the external environment. when we made these investments people said you would never get out of a carpet. we are expending as we said we would as soon as practical. we have had our money paid back from general motors, from chrysler, we cut our stake in gm in half and had residual stake in chrysler. we are pulling back from these companies so i won't make any prediction about their ultimate fate. what i will say is we believe as they sit today making the kind of cars americans want to buy,

making better cars and more fuel efficient cars being able to be vigorous competitors in the marketplace and gaining market share tells me they have an opportunity to succeed. whether or not they succeed will be up to them. >> what money did taxpayers have invested and at what point will that be repaid if ever? >> the total funds invested including the prior administration into the industry is $80 billion. roughly $40 billion have been returned to date. the remaining money is accounted for by stakes in general motors. we sold half of what we don't but we still own the other half. and a stake in the old general motors acceptance corp.. how those stakes are realized is not yet determined. as we have said repeatedly we are determined to exit those stakes as soon as practical and

so what they fetch in the market will determine the full accounting of the remainder of the money. >> they are worth what we paid for in terms of stock equity? >> no. i don't think we have a particular target price. the president has made clear that he does not believe it is the proper role of government in the long term to be the owner of a private corporation. we do not view ourselves as market timing, looking for the absolute best opportunity to sell. we have tried to walk a fine line. we are not selling as soon as possible meeting we won't so a fire sale the first day we can put on the other hand we are not holding waiting for a target price. we will look to exit these as soon as practical and surprise they fetched in the market will be the price that they fetch. we report periodically and other oversight agencies report periodically looking at the value of those and as we pointed

out be lost if you will that has been reported that has been reported early has come down substantially. the latest number from the cbo was $14 billion loss and that reflect market prices at the time they did it. the final number will be the final number. there is no delay in having to announce -- not announcing anything but in recognizing all of this money will not be returned. on the other hand as we record what was lost you need to report what was save the. external experts have stated over a million jobs were saved by the president's actions and others have substantial numbers. the impact of the collapse of gm and chrysler would not have just been the couple hundred thousand people who work in these companies. three times as many people work in the supply chain. and other three times as many work for suppliers to say

nothing of the pizza parlors and dry cleaners and other people. we are conscious of our obligation to get every penny we can but we won't apologize for the fact that there are literally hundreds of thousands of americans who are working today because this is what happened and when the final accounting neckers we are quite confident it will be a far smaller number than 10. >> where does that number come from? >> that is a reasonable number. we do our own and the treasury department does their own accounting. there's no reason not to be transparent. you can look at what general motors shares are trading for and you know how many we have. the other numbers are available. there is no view that this is not an important number to track and acknowledge.

on the other hand there are two sides to this story. [talking over each other] [inaudible] >> the stock market will do what it does and that is not what we are trying to do. we are a 100% private sector. we might consider taking certain kinds of steps to enhance the value of these companies. the president made a conscious decision. we do not manage these companies. we put an extraordinary group of men and women in as the initial board of directors and stepped back. i don't anticipate there will be any particular action we would take. we will sell it as soon as practical. you should not expect we should make any kind of intervention. we are comfortable the decision the president made while very difficult at times was in fact the right decision and we are comfortable that our commitment to sell as soon as practical was a good decision and the final accounting would be what it is.

>> the $14 billion from cbo and $80 billion, you will be $85 billion. >> there's a $5 billion support program that went into this that we returned all of. >> in terms of market share how much of an increase from the earthquake and prior to that, breaking -- how much of it is positive? >> the recent problems in japan are quite recent so the gains in market share is before that. there were a challenges last year but that does not explain the entire gain in share of the big three. the big three are making better cars and better fuel efficiency. the chevy cruise is selling up the lot. it is a big seller. the chevy volt is the car of the

year. there are up and down numbers. some of the competitors face challenges. i don't think there's any doubt that chrysler has gained market share. all of these are moving forward in a positive way based on their own performance. >> one lagging factor seems chrysler -- >> chrysler's retail share has gone up quite a bit in the last year. there is a lot all over but all three have gained share. >> the administration doesn't want to have a long-term position in private companies but why not have a time strategy at the top of the market with a bigger investment? a prudent investment strategy for the taxpayers. >> if you know when the top of the market is we should have a

conversation. >> you watch it -- >> an important point. we don't know. and lots of people in america think they know when the top of the market is. [talking over each other] >> i don't know what it is. i wish i did. if you can tell me i really do want to know so i can stop doing this. but i want to make -- [talking over each other] >> i didn't say it was everyone. what i said was we would responsibly sell as soon as practical. that does not mean as soon as possible. tomorrow morning we could sell it all if we wanted. we have chosen not to. we have to be very careful. the president made an extraordinary decision to intervene in the private economy. it was justified by the severe economic downturn since the

great depression. that is not the normal way a government ought to be a. the longer you stay in, the longer you stay in the more you signal to the market that the government tends to be in the business, that is not a business the president wants to be in. he said many times i did not run for office to be the ceo of an automobile company. it is hugely tempting to take the knowledge we have and are don't think we are smarter than anyone else but to say if we just waited a longer, a little longer, the problem is you start that and more of a sudden you wake up five years from now and you still own a big stake in a private company. our decision with which we set up long ago and the most important thing you need to do is the market is transparent. we told people what we were going to do. we said we would sell as it is practical. we did not say we were selling on the seventeenth but we gave a

clear signal that we won't be long-term investors. if you look at the success of general motors ipo which is the time of the largest ipo in the history of the new york stock exchange, one of the reasons $23 billion of private capital showed up on that day was because they knew we weren't in a market time. we weren't interested in being a long-term investor. if they had believed that they would be more cautious about becoming shareholders with us. i agree with you. it is tempting and obviously there is a keen appreciation of the obligation to be stewards to the taxpayer but a broader obligation to play a constructive role in the overall economy and those things have to be balanced and away we balance them and i said this week to years ago and we have been true to is to sell it as soon as practical. >> how do you see the high gas

prices that continue to be high in the future of the american automobile? >> what is quite encouraging is the companies are producing. it is always true that when gas prices go up people start buying smaller cars. that has been true in every rise in gas prices of the last 30 years. over most of the last 30 years that activity meant they share because they did not have competitive smaller cars. the fact every time gas prices go up, it was a secular decline but accentuates their share loss. now what you have in the case of gm and ford most assuredly and chrysler coming behind particularly with fiat's technology all three of these companies are able to offer americans fuel efficient cars. so the crews is selling off of the lot and the chevy volt took

a big hit. nobody roots for high gas prices but the reality is the big three are able to address consumer demand in that context. that is a positive thing. >> what is the government's current stake in chrysler? >> we own 6.6% of the common equity in the company and it is a private company. there's not a stated number. >> if you were to divest that -- >> it was -- this is not a new -- this is not a piece of news but fiat who was the entity to put in a lot of technology and recently invested $1 million had an option to purchase and last week they notified us that they are going to exercise that option so at some point, we don't know when but we will sell that stake to fiat, not to

chrysler. >> that would be before. >> whether or not they undertake will be a chrysler. once we don't own shares it is not something we have an economic interest in. if the board of directors of chrysler believes an ipo is the proper course of action we wish them well in doing that. >> instead of manufacturing can you comment on the i s m index? is it just external prices with a long slow down? >> it is worth noting the index has 22 months of increase. as i pointed out earlier 250,000 thaw in -- jobs in manufacturing. is still a growth month as you know. indicator is above 50 indicates

growth. most of that growth, most of that slowdown is attributed to the situation in japan because of the way global supply chains work. you can't finish a part if you can't get the part. is largely external factors. the long term trend on manufacturing since the bottom of the recession is quite positive. we remain optimistic that manufacturing has a good future. it is worth noting in that regard in the last year there is a very different attitude in the corporate sector as well as the academic and other people who've followed manufacturing about the future of manufacturing in america, you are seeing sophisticated analyst reports talking about america as a competitive place to mfg.. you are seeing corporations talk about in sourcing.

i absolutely would expect month to month variation, i do think that we are in a good place. we are not where we want to be. there is a huge distance to go. >> why did that happen? >> that is something for academics to speculate on. part of what happened is the american manufacturing economy has been revealed to be the most productive manufacturing economy in the world. there is a growing recognition among corporations and others as well that this is in fact a good place to make things and if you look at the data again there are jobs being added for the first time along time, absolute job growth in manufacturing is occurring. the american manufacturing economy has been becoming more productive for a long time.

a leader in our economy's productivity but the trends are funny and when they appeared to people and occurred to people is hard to predict about what you are getting is a growing consensus. not that we are out of the woods. not that there are enormous challenges but people are taking a new kind of look at america as a place to make things than they were five years ago. >> taxpayers will be repaid $14 billion -- >> i said we will get back when we saw sharon -- sell the shares. >> what is your -- >> i don't have a best guess. i won't make a prediction. it will be what it is. everyone will see what it is. >> you say we will know -- [talking over each other] >> what are the conditions when it will be right to resell?

>> nobody likes this answer but you won't get a different one. we are committed to exiting these. we are not committed to xing them at the first opportunity. we are committed to acting as soon as practical. you can watch our behavior and see what we do. in the case of general motors, we and the company decided to undertake an ipo as soon as we believed the company was ready and would be well accepted. at the time of the ipo we sold have are for our stake which was a huge ipo at the time. that tells you something about how we view when to do it and how. when the ipo -- we agreed to a lock up which investors ask on behalf of shareholders can be at the next week's selling. that lock up recently expired. so we will look for

opportunities when we think the market will be interested in purchasing additional share. exactly when that occurs we won't make a prediction. we will be -- we will reveal it in the proper way through the securities and exchange commission when the time is right. >> april in the back? >> you say as soon as practical. [talking over each other] >> you got as much out of me on this as you are going to. >> you say -- >> look what we did in the gm ipo. we sold have our stake in the largest ipo in the history of the stock exchange. what that tells you is we are forward leaning in trying to get out. we agreed to a 6 months lockup. that lockup is now expired. we will analyze -- people at the treasury will analyze markets and look at opportunities and see what investor sentiment is

and make a judgment. [inaudible] >> what is your latest assessment of the situation, is it improving? what is the impact on the u.s. economy going forward? >> that comment about the broader impact of what is going on in the united states economy. .four eight in..

>> i think we have a lot of free that it will rebound and rebuild, like we said before. but we don't have a timeframe for economic analysis to provide to quantify that. so we're very confident in japan's resiliency and remain so. i will start with a briefer react of the president's meeting earlier today with the houston public caucus -- conference rather. the meeting lasted about 75 minutes in the east room and i think the presidents assessment of the meeting accuracy assessment provided by a couple members of the house republican