vote:

vote:

yothe presiding officer: are

there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 51. three-fifths of the senators duel lee chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: if we could have the attention of the senate. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senate will come to order. the majority leader. mr. reid: senator schumer and

alexander are that far from an agreement that we can move forward on the next bill. so with everyone's patience, i ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote scheduled to occur immediately -- right now be postponed until wednesday, that's tomorrow, june 22, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader, and that if cloture is invoked, time postcloture be counted as if cloture was invoked at 6:00 p.m. today. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered.

the presiding officer: the l. is not will come to order. the senate will come to order. mr. reid: thank you, mr. president. i ask that we now proceed to a period of morning business until 6:00 p.m. this evening. that's an hour and ten minutes from now. senators will be permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each during this period of time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: if the senator would withhold his request. mr. sanders: mr. president, i would ask -- the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated and i speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. sanders: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, today i want to say a word about a critical issue for the state of vermont

and for my state's energy future. and that deals with the vermont -- the presiding officer: the senator will yield. the senate is not in order. the senate is not in order. the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president, i want to say a word about the energy future of my state and the vermont yankee nuclear power plant. the vermont yankee nuclear power plant is one of 23 plants in our country with the same design general electric mark i as the fukushima plants that have experienced partial or perhaps full meltdowns in japan. all of us feel terrible about what has happened in japan, and our hearts go tou out to that struggling country. but at the same time in our nation, we also have some very disturbing developments regarding nuclear power, and i want to touch this afternoon on

two of them. the first is that we have a situation in the state of vermont in which a powerful $14 billion energy company called entergy is trying to force the people of my state to keep an aging and trouble nuclear reactor open for another 20 years. this is a plant that is 40 years old. they want to keep it open for another 20 years. the vermont yankee plant's original 40-year license expires in march of 2012, and i firmly believe that 40 years is enough. but that is not just my opinion. vermont uniquely, thanks in part to an agreement between the state and entergy when it purchased vermont yankee in 2002, has asserted its authority through our state legislature to

decide whether or not vermont yankee should operate beyond march of 2012. the vermont state senate, representing the wishes of the people of our state, voted on a bipartisan basis 26-4 -- 26-4 -- not to grant an extension of the license of that plant. the law is clear that states have the right to reject nuclear power for economic reasons, and that is exactly what the vermont state senate did in an overwhelming bipartisan vote. mr. president, we know vermont yankee has had serious problems in the last several years. including a collapse of its cooling towers in 2007 and radioactive tritium leaks in 2005 and 2010. the tritium leaks came from

pipes plant officials claimed under oath did not exist. in support of the vermont legislature's decision, the vermont congressional delegation has been clear that entergy should reject -- should respect vermont's laws. in other words what we're saying, the dell ghaition here -- the delegation here is that entergy should respect the laws of the state of the verlt and what our state senate has done. however, just last week we heard that enterg y's well-paid lobbyists and lawyers have been meeting with agencies including the nuclear regulatory commission staff pushing the federal government to intervening in the lawsuit entergy filed against vermont. entergy wants the federal government to take up its extreme argument that vermont's right to decide its own energy

future is preempted by federal nuclear safety laws. now, mr. president, it so happens that n.r.c. chairman greg yatsco, who is in my mind a fair-minded public servants, does not agree with entergy. he told me last week at a senate hearing that, and i quote, "i see nothing that would hell knee there is a preemption issue he here." he said in a conversation with reporters that vermont had a -- quote -- "role to play in determining vermont yankee's future" and that -- quote -- "he doubted the n.r.c. would do anything to interfere with the state's process." i believe the chairman's position is correct. the n.r.c. regulates safety -- safety -- although some vermonters believe that they don't do that very well. nevertheless, it is not the arbiter of political or legal

disputes between a powerful energy company and the state of vermont. that is not the business of the n.r.c. so i was very plied to learn last -- so i was very surprised to learn last week that the energy voted in skeet by secret by a 3-2 margin to tell the department of justice to intervene on entergy's behalf. when i requested the n.r.c.'s commissioner at a hearing last week, they refused to tell us how they voted. several of them admitted that they are not even -- they have not even read the major 1983 supreme court opinion on this issue. a case between pg & e versus california where the supreme court said, and i quoted, an important quote regarding states' rights and nuclear energy from the supreme court. "the promotion of nuclear power is not to be accomplished at all costs. the elaborate licensing and safety provisions and the

continued preservation of state regulation in traditional areas belie that. moreover, congress has allowed the states to determine as a matter of economics whether a nuclear plant vis-a-vis a fossil plant should be built. the decision of california to exercise that authority does not in itself constitute a basis for preemption. the legal reality remains that congress has left sufficient authority in the states to allow the development of nuclear power to be slowed or even stopped for economic reasons." end of quote. and that is the decision of the supreme court of the united states, 1983. i reminded the n.r.c. at that hearing and do so again today that this lawsuit, entergy v. vermont, is none of their business. and they're getting involved damages to credibility of the nuclear regulatory commission. the n.r.c. opted to relicense vermont yankee based on safety

and that is where their concern and authority begins and ends. the main point is this: the n.r.c. does not represent the people of vermont and has no right to tell us what kind of energy future we will have. the people of vermont believe and i agree that our future lies significantly with energy efficiency and sustainable energy. so today i renew my call right here on the floor of the senate for the federal government to stay out of this case. entergy is a $14 billion corporation. they have all kinds of lobbyists. they make all kinds of campaign contributions. they don't need the help of the federal government. i would be happy to yield to the chairman of the environmental committee. mrs. boxer: i am just very pleased that you took to the floor today to speak to the american people about what you're going through in your state, and i'm not as familiar as you about the condition of

your nuclear power plant. i won't even go there. although i do trust my friend's judgment on this, and there are some serious issues raised given the design of the plant and the fact that it's probably very close or identical to the design of the plant in japan that had all these issues. but here's the point i want to support you on, and i was so proud of the way you questioned the commissioners. because i can only ask awe question, i will -- only ask you a question, i will pose a question to you: isn't it true that there's a lot of talk around washington about how states' rights should be protected. that's the first question. mr. sanders: i would tell my good friend from california that day after day, we hear from some of our colleagues how they don't trust the federal government, how they don't want the federal government getting involved in the issues impacting their constituents. so the answer to your question is yes. mrs. boxer: and building on

that, isn't it true that the n.r.c., as we have learned by reading their founding documents, is an independent commission? isn't that a fact? they're independent? mr. sanders: yes, that is true. mrs. boxer: i would say to my friend given the two points that i have made plus the many my -- the many i have made, it seems untenable that the n.r.c., which is supposed to be an independent agency, would insert itself into a matter between the state of vermont and a private company. and i would just say as the chairman of the environment and public works committee how strongly i support what you are trying to do here, which is to allow your state to, frankly, have the say over something as important as the economic

surrounding energy and my friend knows we're working hard in this day and age to make sure america can leap forward and save energy and lead the world and invest in alternatives. and in light of what happened in japan, this becomes more and more important. so just -- i hope my friend will take heart and know that the chairman of this committee stands with him on this battle. mr. sanders: i want to thank senator boxer very much for her thoughts and the extraordinary leadership she's providing on the environmental committee. the issue here is, i think, that everyone understands that the function of the n.r.c. is very simple. it is to make sure that the 104 nuclear power plants existing in this country run as safely as possible. that's what their job is. their job is not to tell the state of vermont or the state of california or the state of

pennsylvania what future they might want to pursue in terms of energy. they are not supposed to be a proponent of the nuclear industry. that's not their job. their job is to make sure that our nuclear plants are being run safely. so in terms of economics, the people of the state of vermont and any other state in this country have the right to determine whether or not what the future of nuclear power plants is in their states. and what our state is saying is after 40 years, we want to shut vermont yankee down. we want to move in a new direction that we think benefits our state. and we do not want the department of justice to intervene in this case, where entergy is suing vermont. let me just conclude while we're on the issue of nuclear power in

pointing out that the associated press recently revealed that 48 out of 65 nuclear power sites in this country have leaked radioactive tritium, and vermont yankee is one of those sites. 37 facilities had leaks at levels that violated federal drinking water standards. and some leaks have migrated off the sites, contaminating private water wells, although none is yet known to have contaminated public drinking water supplies. these allegations by the a.p. are extremely disturbing. safety at our nuclear plants should be the top priority at the n.r.c., particularly after we saw what happened in japan. they should not answer -- the function of the n.r.c. is not to represent the nuclear power industry. it's to represent the needs of

the people of the united states. and that is why i will be working as a member of the environment committee, which has oversight over the n.r.c., with our chairperson, senator barbara boxer, and others on the committee who are interested in this issue to call for a g.a.o. investigation of the allegations made by the associated press. we need to determine whether it is true that the n.r.c. is systematically working with the industry to undermine safety standards for aging plants in order to keep them operating. mr. president, let me conclude by mentioning that around the world, around the world there is growing concern about the dangers of nuclear power, and i think that concern has been heightened by the terrible

tragedy in japan. it is important to note that germany has decided to close all 17 nuclear plants in the next decade and not to build any new ones. they're getting out of the nuclear business. switzerland is also phasing out nuclear power. and in italy, just a few weeks ago 94% of the people voted in an election against restarting the nuclear power industry. here in the united states, some states are moving in the same direction. in addition to vermont, new york, led by governor cuomo, wants the indian point plant shut down. massachusetts is supporting vermont in its lawsuit to preserve states' rights to decide their own energy future, and i believe other states will support us as well. the bottom line here, and the law supports this, is that if

states like vermont want to move away from aging and troubled nuclear reactors and to a sustainable energy future, we have the right to do that. and i will fight tooth and nail to protect that right. mr. president, with that, i would give -- leave the floor. mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: senate republicans in their unanimous, typically unanimous way just blocked this chamber from even voting on the economic development revitalization act of 2011. we heard senator boxer point out how many republicans who supported economic development administration for so many times and what they did for economic development in their states, we

know in vermont and pennsylvania and ohio how e.d.a. works, that for small federal investments, leverage that go money in the private sector through incubators in many cases or accelerators or whatever communities call them, they do in fact create jobs. unfortunately, the, every single republican in this chamber decided that wasn't such a good thing, perhaps to deny a political victory to president obama. but what it really did was deny it, take away another tool to get this economy back in, back on course. so many people in this body seem to think that it's all about reducing the debt -- and it is about reducing the debt. but it mostly needs to be largely about producing jobs, creating jobs. there doesn't seem to be that much interest from the other side of the aisle. last week i spoke with economic development directors and county commissioners, including from

the city of morain, a suburb of dayton where an auto plant closed a few weeks ago and from ashtabula county in the northeast corner of the state. they explained the importance of e.d.a. funding. e.d.a. had a traditionally been a noncontroversy bipartisan job-creation bill. it brokers deals, hopes to broker deals between the public and the private sectors, which is critical obviously to economic growth and recovery. it's particularly important in economically distressed communities particularly in these economic times, every $1 in e.d.a. grant funding leverages $7 in private investment. for every 10,000 -- this is what is stunning and this is proven by evidence in tpafbgt, for every $10,000 in e.d.a. investment which helps entrepreneurs start up companies, between 50 and 70 jobs are created. when you put money into the

youngstown incubator or put a bit of federal money into shaker heights, an incubator accelerator that was just launched, we know that will create jobs. it helps entrepreneurs, it helps people in start-up companies create jobs in our communities. some of these businesses will fail. a few of them will wildly succeed. many of them will hang on for several years, hiring 5 people, 10 people, 20 people, maybe hundreds in some cases. in ohio since 2006, 40 e.d.a. grants worth $36 million, leveraged a total of more than $87 million once private resources were matched. colleges and universities from bowling green in the northwest to my my in the southwest -- to miami in the southwest received e.d.a. funds. so too have port authorities in toledo, ashtabula, on the presiding officer's border with e r*eu e, and entrepreneurs in

cleveland and applay which a. if we're going -- appalachia. if we're going to strengthen competitiveness, we need to equip businesses with the tools they need to survive. communities will need to create higher-skilled jobs. that is what e.d.a. is designed to do. it's the front door for communities facing sudden and severe economic distress. when economic disaster hits, communities turn to the government in so many cases, and it's e.d.a. that does the job. e.d.a. has helped develop, redevelop the former g.e. plant in morain, several thousand plants once in that plant, g.e. jobs, fridaire jobs. now because of e.d.a. and local partnerships and outside private investment, we expect to see hundreds and hundreds, maybe a few thousand jobs in manufacturing in that morain plan. we've seen e.d.a. develop a

plant in ashtabula. in the bill that senate republicans just blocked from us even voting on, from even voting on, would have strengthened and improved a job-creating program. how many times do we hear about businesses worried about uncertainty created in a still recovering economy? this bill would have provided certainty in funding for an established job-creating program. it would have reduced regulatory burdens to increase flexibility for grantees, encouraged public-private partnerships we've already seen make a difference across ohio. i offered two amendments that would further assisted e.d.a. one would have assisted auto communities like moraine. the other would have made more ohio communities eligible to receive funds for business incubators. ohio is home to the national business incubator association, the trade association for all incubators in southeast ohio and

athens. we have a model for business incubators in toledo, youngstown and shaker heights. this amendment would have allowed more communities to support that homegrown entrepreneurship. if we -- just yesterday -- instead of -- republican senators chose to bog down the e.d.a. bill with other related -- unrelated amendments. all of them were unrelated to the task at hand, and that is how do you create jobs? yesterday i met -- i was at cleveland state university where its veteran students success program goes above and beyond in serving our nation's veterans. unemployment among young americans especially acute, it disproportionately affects young veterans and that is an outrage. today the unemployment rate for returning service members between 20 and 24 is 27%, twice, almost three times the national unemployment average. that means that more than one in four veterans can't find a job

to support her family or his family, easing the transition to civilian life. when our economy needs their skills, when veterans can get the job done, too often veterans are turned away. cleveland state university has a project serve program to ensure service members who return home and into the classroom receive the educational benefits they earned and deserve. imagine the difficulty for someone 25 years old has done two combat tours in iraq, they come back to -- they come back to cleveland or come back to if i philadelphia or anywhere else in this country and try to integrate into a classroom with 18 or 19-year olds who have seen nothing like the 25-year-old who has been in iraq or afghanistan. this project served at cleveland state has been ground breaking, one of the few in the country. now at youngstown state university, what they are doing will establish that veteran support programs for colleges

and universities. it started at a community roundtable i convened at cleveland state a few years ago. it became law in the last congress, we have ensured its funding. yesterday, i met with clarence rowe, a staff sergeant in the marine corps who is using the veterans' resources at c.s.u. to translate his military skills to the needs of the civilian job market. but as much as c.s.u. and other universities do to assist our veterans, high unemployment continues to hurt all americans. too often, people like staff sergeant rowe who has put years in serving his country come back and can't, even with developing the job skills that -- that he has done, that sergeant rowe has scheduled in school, they simply can't find jobs. education, work force investment, e.d.a. have long been sound federal investments that have helped create jobs and strengthen our economy. it's a shame that republicans have yet again placed a roadblock on that pathway toward a strong or prosperous middle class. we can do better than that, mr. president. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: we know that

the president is about to make, to announce a major decision on the policy. and as the president determines the degree and scope of the drawdown in afghanistan, there will be a lot of debate about troop levels principally. but while this is an important discussion, we need to step back and comprehensively focus on overall u.s. strategic interests in the region. over the course of my time in the senate, some four and a half years now, i've participated in more than 20 foreign relations committee hearings on afghanistan and pakistan. this week we'll hear from secretary clinton on the u.s. policy in both afghanistan and pakistan. i've personally chaired four hearings on u.s. policy in the region. i've traveled to afghanistan and

pakistan on two occasions, met with our military and civilian leadership as well as senior government officials in both countries. i've spoken repeatedly on the senate floor about the importance of accountability of u.s. military and civilian programs. when it comes to matters of war, the senate has a special responsibility to ask questions and to hold the executive branch accountable no matter what party is in the white house. i've taken this responsibility very seriously and have repeatedly questioned and examined u.s. policy in south asia. there's been substantial progress in afghanistan on the battlefield of the united states coalition and afghan forces have rolled back advances made by the taliban. we've made measurable, albeit fragile gains on securing key

provinces of the country. al qaeda, operating from pakistan, has been significantly degraded. there's also been measurable progress in the education and health fields. only 900,000 boys and no girls attended school under the taliban. today more than six million children are in school, and a third of them are girls. in the field of health, more than 85% of afghans now have access to at least some form of health care, up from 9% in the year 2002. these gains have not come without immeasurable sacrifice on the part of our armed forces and, of course, their families. in pennsylvania, we've lost 30 service members killed in action in operation enduring freedom since 2001. and to date, 461 have been

wounded, some of them grievously wounded. in iraq, the commonwealth of pennsylvania lost 197 service members killed in action, and 1,233 were wounded. these courageous men and women gave what lincoln called many years ago the last full measure of devotion to their country. and we owe them a debt of gratitude and we owe the same debt of gratitude to their families and to all veterans and their families returning from the battlefield. and so, after this exhaustive review and based upon measurable gains in afghanistan, i believe the united states can shift from a strategy of counterinsurgency towards an increased focus on counterterrorism. it's a time for the united states to lighten its footprint in the country. it's also a time to accelerate,

to accelerate the shift in responsibility to afghan forces in a drawdown of a significant number of united states troops from afghanistan. the capabilities of both al qaeda and the taliban have been severely degraded. the united states led development projects have strengthened the health and education sectors. a*s at a time of economic austerity here in the united states, approximately $120 billion per year, that price tag is for sure unsustainable. we must take a significant shift in our strategy. as chairman of the senate foreign relations subcommittee on near eastern and south and central asian affairs, i'm focused on our broader national security interests in both regions. we must focus on extremist

groups that have the capability and intent to project terrorism on the united states homeland and interests around the world. we should continue to conduct counterterror operations on al qaeda, pakistani taliban and others that seek to strike the united states homeland and our interests. significant challenges, however, do remain and the united states should focus on the following: first, redouble our efforts to train the afghan security forces. we made substantial progress in recruiting and training, but this needs to be ramped up. in the long run, afghanistan's ability to deny safe haven to al qaeda or any terrorist organization will depend upon a strong and durable army and police in afghanistan. second, much work remains in pakistan. in senate hearings and meetings with u.s. and pakistani officials, i have questioned

pakistan's full commitment to addressing the extremist threat within its borders. for example, pakistan has done little to stop the flow of bomb components across the border into afghanistan where they are used against our troops. terrorists in pakistan have the capability to strike internationally and have done so in recent years. these terrorists are also the central threat to the pakistani state itself. a concern that grows as pakistan inexplicably expands its nuclear arsenal. the pakistani people have suffered greatly in the struggle against these extremist groups as thousands of civilians and security forces have died. this is precisely why it is so unfortunate that the pakistani government is not fully committed to confronting this threat. i have been very patient with respect to this critical

relationship, but i'm compelled to speak the truth when the stakes are so high for the american people. u.s. troops and the people of pakistan as well have a lot -- the united states troops, i should say, and the people of pakistan both have a lot at stake in addition to the american people. in my judgment, recent developments are unacceptable and merit a serious examination of u.s. aid to pakistan. the senate should hold hearings so we have a full accounting of pakistan's efforts to combat terrorism. the third area of our focus should be the grave concerns that many of us have, and i have for sure, about the future of women and girls in afghanistan. if nothing else, we cannot lose precious ground gained and rights for this 50% of the population: women and girls.

over the past ten years, women have assumed seats in parliament. girls have returned to school. i mentioned the number earlier. and women's rights have become a part of the public dialogue at long last. when speaking to a group of afghan women in may, secretary of state clinton said -- and i quote -- "we will not abandon you. we will stand with you always." unquote. we must, as a nation, stand by this commitment to the women and girls who live in afghanistan. empowered women are the most influential voice to dissuade to, dissuade young men from taking up arms in afghanistan and places around the world. these women are the most likely to develop their own communities as well. finally and most importantlily, it's our moral obligation to protect those who are most vulnerable in afghanistan.

finally, i have significant concerns about governance in afghanistan. i've closely examined afghanistan's uneven governance record and have serious questions about the viability of the democratic experiment in that country. the foundational act of democracy elections have not met international standards in afghanistan and have established the basis for an unresponsive government and unresponsive government officials and corruption. as the united states draws down its military presence, the international community must renew its focus on governance in afghanistan there efficient dispersal of u.s. assistance. a recent senate foreign relations committee report suggests we must do a better job of accounting for the resources spent on bolstering the afghan government. so, in conclusion,

mr. president, we have made progress in afghanistan all these years. the surge in u.s. troops, working with coalition forces in the afghan army have rolled back gains made by the taliban of the our special forces have killed osama bin laden, and several other senior al qaeda leaders. the numbers and capabilities of the afghan security forces have increased. women and girls are better off than they were in the year 2001 and the health sector has improved. significant challenges remain, but based upon these advances and on the significant cost of our current policy, it is time, after ten long years, to begin the drawdown process. mr. president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res 202 and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res 202 designating june 27, 2011, as national post-traumatic stress disorder awareness month. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged, and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. casey: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be considered, the conrad amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the resolution as amended be

agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the matter be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res 212 which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res 212 congratulating the people and government of the republic of slovenia on the 20th anniversary of the country's independence. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. casey: mr. president, i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the measure be printed in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until

9:30 a.m. on wednesday, june 22, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, that following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. that following morning business, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 679, the presidential appointment efficiency and streamlining act. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: mr. president, we are working on an agreement for consideration of the presidential appointment efficiency and streamlining act. we will notify senators when votes are scheduled. mr. president, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it

adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

senate republican leaders told reporters today that the government needs to do less, not

more in order to create jobs. reporters also questioned them about the president's plan and the coming announcement of the troop withdrawal strategy in afghanistan. this is 15 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. the american people are extremely concerned about 9.1% unemployment. i was asked a couple of days ago what should we do, what should the government to? the government needs to do considerably less than it's been doing. we notice the president's chief of staff last week had been meeting with business people complaining about overregulation we tried overspending, we increased spending 35% the last two years, we tried an explosion of regulations. i think it's clear we now need to go in a different reaction if we want to create jobs. government spending and government regulations are not going to create jobs.

the single most important president the president could do is quit doing what he's doing. we're going to cut spending and are working on trying to reduce deficits and debt and people have an impact on that issue last november. but on regulations, all he needs to do is quite doing what he's doing because it's clear to me this administration is making it worse. the inherited a difficult situation and they are making it worse. with that, let me turn to senator alexandre. >> thank you, senator mcconnell. i think the president's chief of staff heard from manufacturers across america when asked about the administration's jongh agenda, the manufacturers said to the chief of staff he is making it worse. time magazine this week dredge

up something we haven't heard about a number of years the misery index which was part of the reagan carter campaign to read the misery index is a combination of unemployment and inflation. time magazine says the index's 12.6 is the highest in 28 years. it's because rising gasoline prices, palm prices dropped than any time since the great depression. because food prices going through roof and republicans have proposals for how to make it better instead of it worse and the include regulatory relief, lower taxes, fewer health care mandates, more exports, a series of steps we could be taking as a government to make it easier and cheaper to create private sector jobs. >> it's pretty clear with this administration is doing isn't working. it's making matters worse. and as the leader said and

senator alexandre said when chief of staff bill daly was in front of the national association and defectors questioned by small business person about of the regulations and burdens being placed on small businesses, finally concluded and i quote, you can't defend the indefensible. and so, the administration acknowledges that there are policies not working. so they ought to change them and do something about it and they can start by reining in the epa and of these agencies that are imposing new burdens, new mandates, new costs, making it more expensive and difficult for small businesses in this country to create jobs. bottom line is job creation and if you look at the president's accomplishments on that, his record so far we've got almost 2 million people unemployed, unemployment has gone up 30%, gas prices have doubled, health insurance premiums are up 19% and the debt is up 35% since

this president took office. dillinger and that's gone down as housing prices. so the record is clear the policies being employee are feeling, have failed and i think the chief of staff to the fine print garnik last week when he said you can't defend the indefensible. it's time to quit doing that and work on policies to put people back to work. >> one of the big impact on businesses is increasing cost of health insurance and health care and the president promised with his health care a lot it would make the cost of care godown and families would have a lower insurance premiums to pay read he said by $2,000 per year per family. so when i take a look of this and think about it from a health care standpoint isn't it interesting just friday afternoon the health and human service department came out with more laborers. another 116,000 weaver's were granted friday afternoon.

these ongoing waivers takes you to a total of 3.2 million beavers for the health care law. why are they giving all these wafers? because the policy of the set fenestration. this has been a nightmare for this administration, and frankly it's embarrassment. so the additional think the administration has done after announcing the 116,000 to weaver's we are not going to be able to continue doing this. these are waivers for a year and the real lives then they are going to have to renew these waivers another year which would put it in the election so they said we don't want to give waivers during the election, how do they do that? let's make everybody that has a waiver apply and careful way for all the way through 2014. 2014. they also realized that to qualify for a waiver they have

to offer an amount of insurance up to $2 million in 2013 to a lot of companies aren't going to be about to do that so a lot of companies are going to apply for waivers before september this year so by the end of this year we are going to see a tidal wave of wafers in by predicting 5 million people asking for waivers from this health care law. i think every american ought to be able to get a waiver and every employer because we want to make it easier and cheaper for the private sector to create jobs in this country and the health care law is making it tough and more expensive. >> one of the basic principles of the constitution is no one is above the law even the president of the united states. yet it's not just of the war powers resolution that the president appears to be ignoring. it also passed in 2003 in from medicare prescription drug bill which requires the president

upon the warning by medicare trustees the president has a within 15 days proposed a solution for the funding shortfall in medicare. we know the medicare trustees said it will be insolvent in 13 years by 2024 and the president not only is ignoring his responsibilities and no more power resolution that the mandatory obligation of medicare we need the president to come up with a plan and, just political advisers attack those trying to make proposals >> a couple questions if there are any. >> we've been advised on the true cost drawdown number and on a different note are their votes

to support that legislation? >> in afghanistan may be some of the guys behind me no more than i do but i'm not informed with the president will see tomorrow night. we look forward to hearing what his recommendation is going to be with regard to libya. i think there are different points of view and we all anticipate there will be some kind of libya debate in the senate in the near future. >> to the idea of extending the payroll tax cut as part of the debt limit. if you are cool with it is their anything temporarily you would want to do? >> senator alexandra's behind me. my statement is going to continue to be as opaque as it has been in the past with regard

to -- [laughter] to what's being discussed and there's a whole lot of things being discussed in the talks led by the vice president going on as we speak which is why senator kafeel was not here with us and by don't know what all was being discussed in the talks. wouldn't surprise me if some people are indicating what you suggest. senator alexander, since you were quoted here -- >> yeah, i think i will be a to better senator when i learned to be as opaque as senator mcconnell. on the payroll tax, my response was we don't need short-term gestures the long-term fundamental changes that people who create jobs can rely on. in addition, i believe this discussion is not about taxes, it's about spending. no one in that meeting should get the idea that the senate

republicans are interested in new taxes as a solution. that is what the discussion should be about. >> [inaudible] about the short term. what conditions do you support that? >> well, i've said about the debt limit discussions is we need to do a large package that includes both short term on the discretionary side. additional changes in the budget window on the entitlement side and the discretionary side which would include out here caps but candidly dwinell the caps on foot discretionary side of the first couple of years need to continue to take us down word and you can't do a large package

without entitlement reform. poland to the to president clinton and obama said that, the vice president said that everyone knows we cannot do a large package with credibility. that ignores where the bulk of the spending is. so, within those parameters we are still hoping for a very large package that will impress the ratings agencies, and press for an countries and astonish the american people we are going to come together and take advantage of this terrific opportunity. beyond that i am not prepared to do because all kind of moving parts underneath the general principles spinet the president will announce fewer than 10,000 troops withdraw this year at the remainder of the surge withdrawn

by the end of next year. i wonder your reaction to that in a separate senator cornyn what you intend to do on the libya de bate? >> i don't want to respond to my eye difficult to revive rather wait to see what he announces and then i would be happy to give you my view. thanks everybody. >> several weeks ago but the point is we want to know what the president's plan is. we don't initiate hostilities in a form of country like libya without a plan and then try to hand it off to nato which is predominantly faction supported, and we would like to know what the plan is and to consult with us to tell us what his plan is for success and hopefully then we can muster the support of the american people behind the plan. that's important for the military.

[inaudible conversations] >> after republicans spoke to reporters, senate majority leader harry reid came to the microphone and said republicans democratic efforts to improve the economy. this runs a little more than five minutes. >> we have to deficits in this country from the republican colleague only cares about one of them. we have a budget and deficit problem but we also have a job deficit problem that affects millions of americans every day. not only republicans ignoring our jobs deficit, but they are making it worse. we know we have to cut wasteful

spending. our economy will not get back on track until we close the jobs deficit. right now we have 14 million americans who are unemployed. consumer spending accounts for 70% of what happens in our economy. consumer spending is the lifeblood of some economy. as the lifeblood of our economy being able to recover. and families all across america in nevada, arizona, new jersey, everything should we go to dinner tonight, should we buy -- should we go on vacation this summer? and we can all ourselves imagine what families are trying to do. every dollar they spend helps some small business person or large business conglomerate. that's good. buying houses and cars and building better lives for people in america. but this life lot will not start pumping the way it should to put

americans back to work. and congress common sense bipartisan jobsites bring to the floor. every single time we do that one way or the other republicans stop it. we continue to push for measures supported by both democrats and republicans as we have done. i don't like to question my colleagues motives but where the republicans were with us to pass these policies and continue opposing ideas. >> [inaudible] >> can you talk about that? does it have anything to do with him running? >> steve, i think it has something to do with running for the senate because it is so dramatizing he misled me and everyone. here is a guy i didn't know he

lost a number of house races about the jobs created all the jobs are in china. he didn't bother to tell me about all the lawsuits filed for i wish i hadn't done them. >> [inaudible] >> i think i have to go along with senator mcconnell. i know he said here a few minutes ago that he wanted to wait and see what the president is going to do. the president is going to address the nation at 9:00 and i talked to the president and told you but when i talk to him he had a number of alternatives he was weighing and in fairness to him and me wait until we hear what he says.

the there be a short-term debt limit rise so that everyone can get to work on entitlements. >> i think what he should do is talk to representative kantor in the house. he said earlier today that short-term extension of the debt limit wouldn't be good for the country so he should talk to his republican friend in the house. >> because i agree. the reason i'm giving the short answers today is i had eighth lesson recently about senator mansfield and one reason he had problems he answered all these questions yes and no. >> one follow-up on matt.

>> do you think the country -- >> i feel during comfortable they are not ready for -- certainly they are not ready for the governor of massachusetts which says in that race - for huntsman over romney but i don't have a choice in that race. i think it's a front runner and the republican stakes now here is a man who doesn't know who he is. she was for a marriage and now he's against it. he was for abortion when he was governor and now he's against it. he was -- what are the other things? healthcare. we modeled our bill to a large degree about what he did in massachusetts and now he's trying to run from that. if someone doesn't know who they are the shouldn't be president of the united states.

>> i've had conversations with senator mccain and senator kerry. a decision would be made whether to bring something out of committee or to try to move to it on the floor. i support what they've done. it's bipartisan. i think it is well done and i will do everything i can to support a wide range of support in the committee and told that most of democrats in the committee supports what they're doing in the foreign relations committee. you have even likelier at marco rubio supporters at savitt space wide-ranging support. >> are you going to reconcile with everybody?

teleconference today for chief financial officers from some of the world's largest corporations. we will hear from a panel on the u.s. jobs and global economy. it's 35 minutes. >> i'm thrilled to announce the next panel. i feel it is one of the most timely exploring it the moment and certainly at the dinner last

night and just in general to realize now you can't ignore macromatters and that probably matters more than you would like. i have a column of the journal and host our video show de today as well. let me briefly introduced these guys. we've got justin wan, chief economist at the world bank. the first defending world economist by the way at the world bank and certainly to explore that in a minute, john taylor of economics at stanford university undersecretary of the treasury, and the past decade for being someone who's willing to criticize policies i guess so we will talk about that. today its meeting in washington and lawrence meijer who served much of the late nineties and co-founded macroeconomic advisers attracting firms that

does a good job of giving a sense of a sudden in the economy right now and i would like to start with you. last night i think play christians and summed up when he set for the first time in my life i'm really worried about america. i think there's been a lot of pessimism both from companies in the general isn't warranted to be estimate absolutely. it has absolutely nothing to do with the current state of the economy. it really has to do with two things. it's not the budget deficit, it's the education deficit. you can't be 20 of the world in every field and be competitive economy so we are a declining economic power and you should be worried about and it's getting better as opposed to worse is limited by the dysfunctional

government and ugly political dynamics. there are things we definitely need to do taking care of the budget deficit in the short run is very important obviously working to put the economy back on a path of self sustaining recovery and low on the unemployment rate but it's a long road back there. >> people tell us it's going to be a long road. if you look at the survey they are going to expect increased by 0.7%. that equates to 100,000 payroll that basically means unemployment might as will be parked at 9%. what does the fed to? >> we have to think about where we are and this is the second anniversary of the beginning of this recovery. when the recession ended, believe it or not, and it hasn't even really been a recovery by most measures. the growth has averaged 2.8% in

that period of time and by comparison coming out of the previous bad recession like this which is started, the recovery started in late 82 we had 7% growth. some 2.8 versus seven and that's why unemployment has remained as high as it is over 9%. a lot of the pessimism is based on this situation we are in and that is related to policy, but i would start with fiscal policy. increase the debt. we have a monetary policy with quantitative easing which i don't see have done any good but they've increased the monetary overhang and in the previous session people asked about regulation. i think the regulation is a drag on this recovery. there's no reason we have to

grow 2.8% but unfortunately we don't make the changes in the policy that are obvious when you look what's happened since the recovery began to years ago. it's pretty obvious we've got to take some strong action on all these i would start with the fiscal policy. >> you point out in the last decade china is the biggest contributor to growth that about 21%. so, all this negativity the u.s. situation in a global context and key be explained now the risk in china for more of a serious slowdown by definition that would affect the global economy. ..

>> that means policy needs to be more mutual, and the growth rate and the global recovery. >> that sounds like they can engineer more of a softer glide past to recovery. i'd like to see a show of hands in the room, who expects interest rates will be higher in six months? six months, just a show of hands. two-thirds of the room, and what about in a year, higher interest rates?

nearly everybody. we've. hearing for months, i mean, for years now the interest rates can only move higher, and they confounded everyone's expectations, confounded talks about the debt ceiling and the trouble happening right now. i'd like to ask you gentlemen how you explain that, and if, it is, in fact a system of the u.s. economy's ways. >> i think the dominant story is the cyclical one. the smi is -- the economy is in a bad shape. it's not out of the foreclosure that the economy couldn't trend below, and under those circumstances, of course, markets have moved back. their expectation of the timing of monetary policy and rates have fallen. now, i think it's remarkable

that markets are totally complacent about both the debt ceiling at this point and the long run fiscal fix. they absolutely think this is going to take place, and thanks for the confidence i suppose as the secretary would say, and the other aspect is, you know, flights to safety to some extent coming from greece. whenever there's a global crisis, and you can talk all about the u.s.' problems, but there is no other market and treasuries, and no matter where the crisis begins, money ends up in the u.s.. >> john, would you -- would you agree that investors are being complacent? is it possible when they look at the debt ceiling the biggest risk is not necessarily default, but the measures exactly as you're talking about to get our fiscal house in order hurt growth, and you're seeing that in rates? >> i think one of the good

pieces of news in recent months is this proposal to lengthen that limit increase to spending reductions. some say we need a $2.2 trillion debt limit increase to get through next year, and you need $2.5 trillion in spending reductions, growth reduction, and i think that's sticking. that's a huge change, really, and that's changed the dynamic as has actually the 20 11 budget deal. instead of increasing spending by $40 billion from 2010-2011, spending is down by $40 billion. there's some things really going on, but i'd say we're not there yet. i certainly don't think complacent is the word now. it's a huge problem still. i think of it as $6 trillion or not $4 trillion as the secretary

was saying, but i see progress. you had the election back in november. the president's budget submitted in february was basically withdrawn and replaced by something which is talking about cuts, so all of those things make people think we're getting our house together, but it's not there yet, that's for sure. >> we're talking about fiscal policy and the federal reserve is meeting now, and if you were to ask which part of government matters more than to them, it's the fed, not the treasury. that may be changing. we've seen, as a result, easing and monetary hooliganisms and the push back of the brazillian government contributing to global imbalances. are they right? is what the u.s. doing helping our hurting the global economy? >> well, i think that certainly there's reason for the u.s. economy to maintain a monetary

policy and lower interest rate, but at the same time i think fiscal policy is very important because high unemployment rate reflects large capacity in a u.s. economy, and we know that when you have large under unit tillization, the private sectors will not be high, and under the negotiation, and even you have loose monetary policy, but you cannot push the role, and so i think fiscal is important, and my fellow, confident about the fiscal deficit. >> are you not? >> it's yes or no, depends how you spend the money. if you spend the money in areas which can enhance the capacity. in the short run, you create jobs, fit the demand, but in the

long run, you promote growth. i'm not so worried about the deficit. >> if we pull back on fiscal spending, do we risk a japan event where we think the economy can handle it, and turns out that really it couldn't? >> i don't think there's much chance of that at all. it's the last of my worries. l biggest worry is we postpone the promises to the future to reduce spending and don't take action now. that's the worse in terms of credibility. i want to see something getting started. so far it's been very small, and i think it's positive for the country. the best stimulus for me now is a return to sound fiscal policy, not another stimulus package people talking about, but to return to sound fiscal policy to help tremendously with the recovery. >> larry? >> well, john and i just absolutely disagree on that, as we know. we've had long standing disputes

on this. one, i think the fiscal stimulus policies were effective to a degree, but temporary fiscal policies just shift the man around. you should never have high expectations. it was a bridge to allow time to heal the economy. you can't do better than that. now, i also disagree that a major deficit reduction beginning immediately would be a boost to growth. that is just totally unrealistic, and you can call me or cainsian, and i'm proud of the fact i am. [laughter] you cut back on government spending by hundreds of billions of dollars or whatever you say, look, you're cutting the income that goes to consumers. you're cutting direct expenditures. of course, the economy is going to slow at a time when the recovery is fragile. as chairman beer --

bernanke said, the task is to produce a program that protects the recovery as a time when its fragile, and puts in place a credible long term program. now, i would say this, back loaded and credible are oxy mormons. okay, clearly, it's a challenge. >> that's the point. you got to get started. >> so we haven't mentioned inflation that much, and i think if you'd ask people in surveys 36 months ago what the biggest concern was, it was probably inflation, and gas prices have done a lot to undermind consumer confidence and hurt business profits and companies have been pulling back as a result so do we then get a bit of a break in the months haze as the inflation goes away, and do you think we've seen this round or this move in inflation peak?

>> i think you probably will see easing off of -- we've seen that already on some of the headline measures with gasoline prices, but i think it's sort of a down, and then you're sort of going back to these concerns about higher inflation later. i don't -- unfortunately, i think if we don't change the policies, we're going to have a sluggish growth, 2%-3% unemployment will come down, but then we'll begin to see the impacts of these policies on inflation, but there's the oil. >> would you say there's a material concern to say if inflation's not the worry, the worry we've been worried about inflation in a weak economy, do you put the odds of a double-dip event and anything like 50/50 or higher? >> a double-dip recession incredibly low, but there's so many risks to the economy.

you know, you can't just say that's impossible. implosion in europe, an imprudent front loaded deficit reduction program. you know, sharper declines in home prices which is a real risk so we're not out of the woods yet. we're growing at trend during this expansion. that's terrible, so we vice president demonstrated the -- haven't demonstrated the ability to move at a level consistent with declining unemployment so i think growth will be better. it will be disappointed. the unemployment rate will be elevated, decline slowly, the worst macroeconomic performance we've had in the post-war period, and they call our forecast optimistic. >> at what, 3%? >> well, -- >> 3.5%? >>3.5 percent and three a quart

next year. >> do you think the earthquake hurt the economy and we'll rebound in the months to come? >> i think the impact with the earthquake in japan was larger than expected, and we are expected to recover, and other high income countries can also free in the gap that japanese economy, the slack in the japanese economy. i think the impact on the japanese economy and global economy should be manageable. >> last thing before we open it to questions because i'm sure there's many, but we talked about information overload last night in the sense that now we have so much economic data points, and not just the u.s. anymore. we have no know about greece's confidence vote, and, you know, what's happening with, you know, with brazillian food prices to make business decisions. to help separate the signal from the noise, which to each of you

is the signal most important thing that cfo's need to watch or follow to have a clear sense, top level of what the trend in u.s. growth or global is doing. larry, you can start. >> there's too big a gap between data overload and oversimplification so to think that you can look at one piece of data, i could talk about data that would be worth looking at, but to encourage you in that direction would be very bad advice. >> you're saying, listen, you just want to pay for your service, your macroeconomic adviser. >> you got it. you got it. that would help. >> okay. he takes a pass, john? >> i think you should be looking at the moves of monetary policy in the next six months to a year. i think if there's an imbalance to the world economy now with respect to monetary policy, we

talk about imbalances on currenting thes all the time, but right now, if you just look at expectations of what's going to -- virtually every central bank around the world is already started or beginning to raise interest rates except for the fed and the bank of japan which is in a pickle, and that really causes this imbalance, and you're hearing about some of that complaining, some of it political for sure, but some of it gene knew win, and it makes it harder for other countries to do what they need to do to tackle inflation, so globally, there's an inflation problem right now, no question about that, and there's a tightening, but unless the balance between the fed and almost the rest of the world now gets fixed, and i think you could have some problems related to the financial markets which you're so interested in. >> i get the sense you want a quick rebuttal here. >> yeah, well, it's the question of who should adjust to what.

let me take china while we're here, and justin is unbelievably reasonable, and i don't want to get into an argument about him, but china complains we're manipulating our currency. do you want to laugh? okay, now look, you can argue, and john and i can argue whether u.s. monetary policy is right for the u.s., but who would say it's right for china? well, it's insane for china and asia. of course they're facing up flyings and asset bubbles. whose responsibility is that? okay, we're not going to carry out monetary policy with the interest of the u.s. of the central bank of the world and carry out one that's better for asia and china. take it to the bank, not going to happen, and if i were on the board, i would dramatically oppose it, okay? so we're going to ease further if we need to, okay? and the fact that european --

>> you're leaving the door open to a qe3 then? >> i don't think it it happen then. the forecast says it won't happen. qe3, the hurdle is incredibly high, but the other things that the fomc can do short of qe3 to provide further stimulus to the economy. >> okay, justin p >> well, for me, the most important information i'd like to look a the food prices in the world. >> food prices? >> yeah, because every 10% increase in the food price causes 10 million people to drop back to poverty, and we know now a stock of grain is small, and the wager in the world, you know, there's a lot of, you know, flood and drought, and so if any kind of situation causes a food price increase, it will be damaging to the poor and it

may cause social tension. >> okay, great. allen? >> yeah, kelly, i want to turn the tables a little bit on the group here because i think the disagreement between john taylor and larry meyer of what the effect of fiscal tightening now would be depends on actions of the people in this room. there's some assumption that the private sector would take comfort from strong signs of fiscal discipline and might be more willing to spend some of that cash you're sitting on, make other investment decisions and so forth, so i want to know if there's somebody in the room to comment on that, on how the fiscal situation in washington affects your -- the way you view company decisions. come on, somebody take it on. joe, can i put you on the spot? >> [inaudible] >> yeah, yeah, sure, your view

of this. >> i'm not sure the u.s. government gets all good advice from gentlemen like we have on the panel. i believe we need to be very aware about the fact that companies which agent on a global scale, most of the u.s. companies are global companies, and they're very successful, more successful than average in the world, so they are now tied to one economy, while the government in the united states, and they are one notch above and move and reallocate their resources based on the demand. this is something the government should never forget. >> sounds like a threat. >> no, it's encouragement. [laughter] >> that's why i believe tight ping or not tightening of the monetary policy in the united states is not the safest strategy of global acting

companies. >> it would not affect the strategy of -- >> not necessarily. >> anyone else? anyone else want to comment on this? i do think this is an important part of the calculation. >> actually, can i say something? >> go ahead. >> it's related to your question because it's very clear for those of us who hope that our fiscal policy will improve the economy, the idea is there's a lot of uncertainty out there. uncertainty about taxes increase or uncertainty about inflation picking up, and as we hear you or your colleagues as frequently as that uncertainty is holding you back, and if it could be some clarification, all this cash sitting around we hear about all the time would start to move, and maybe you don't have to worry about managing so

much. it would be going out to investment. that's the nature of the question. i think there is that uncertainty just from a lot of antedotals. just a little background there. >> can i follow-up and ask you if that uncertainty is holding you back from investments or just a slow economy, and would you be better off, would you say that's great, take away my subsidies immediately. i think that's a good idea, that will make me spend more, and raise taxes which is inevitable as part of the deficit reduction and cut the spending on aircraft, cut the subsidies to technology and the economy will be better off, so how many agree with that? >> let's put it this way. policy uncertainty versus --

[inaudible] how many of you would say policy urn certainty holds you back? how many say sales uncertainty is the bigger factor? >> joe, you wanted to add something? >> larry, that would be to your point. >> yeah, i knew the response. if i may come back what i said earlier without putting my american's company hat on because the united states are the single biggest country we have in our company with $25 billion in revenues and 70,000 people here. what we need from the government here to invest more and more and more is to have the right people which we can hire. we have about 3,000 open jobs in the country. we just opened another factory in north carolina, 1,000 people, director of 2,000.

good luck to get them. i'm not sure whether the debate about unemployment is a debate about strengthening the economy by losing fiscal policy or whether we have a structural challenge to get the right people with the right knowledge. >> are you having trouble filling those in >> yeah, absolutely. we have 3,000 open jobs, just opened a new factory, and that's another thousand, and we can't get them. >> let's hang on a second and see if there's other comments about the nature of the un certainty affecting business decisions. any one else want to jump into this? anyone who raised your hands about -- yeah, go ahead, robin. >> what i was going to say is that two things are obviously very connected particularly at the moment as, you know, the world's been through this big crisis, the governments around the world have actually stepped

this so i do thing the uncertainty of what they're going to do is affecting the sales environment as well. you can't say it's one a bigger impact than the other because i think at this point in time, particularly in the u.s., but also globally, what they're going to do country by country from a fiscal perspective to get the budgets back in order whether it's short term or long term, is going to have some impact on whether the, you know, the underlying fundamentals of any economy is going to get back on track so i think the two are interrelated, and then it affects the interest rates and the currency, and so that whole thing, that level of uncertainty does affect not just us as businesses, but consumers, and consumers affect how and when the overall economy will get going i think is the way i put it. i think those two things are

very important, and just actually knowing what the strategies are in making sure that they are articulated well, i agree no one's going to do it, you know, globally and interconnected so that everybody's doing the right thing for the whole world to keep going. it's going to be each country on its own merits, but i think that level of uncertainty is affecting the consumer as much as it is businesses so i think if that level of government policy was addressed, i think that would help. >> sure. i think it boils down to the austerity argument playing out for a couple years now, and i'm curious whether you guys see it settled one way or the other yet in terms of which is the more supportive way to handle these problems in the u.s. and in other economies. >> can i just respond to what this gentleman said because i think it's just one of the most

important points, and i'm really curious whether others in the audience believe this too. this goes back to the education deficit. you can't find workers with enough skills to work in your factory. your factory's demand higher skills, more technology skills so we are oversupplied in unskilled workers whose wages goes towards china, and china's wages are increasing, the best news for an unskilled work force, but we're underproducing the skilled workers our businesses need to be successful, and so we can produce more in the u.s.. >> i'd like to respond to that question also. i agree that there is the issue there as larry explained, but at the same time, i think -- >> [inaudible] >> because we know that half of the under unitlyization of

factories is in the factories. if you have demand for housing infrastructure, those workers can be employed. there has to be a variable. i think the demand management is also very important. >> uh-huh. >> if i may again, the question is the capacities in areas that we do not need the capacities in anymore, and do we have overutilized capacities also to fill the demand. we have tones of underutilized capacities in areas where we don't need it because people can't afford to pay for it. we start at the root cause and get the country up to where it belongs to one the most powerful economies in the world which that industrializes and deindustrialize, and then you

get those capacities filled again which are currently not needed because the capacities are access capacities in the consumer environment, and it's not needed because no one buys anything so that's, i guess, what you need to look at from 5,000 miles away. you know, it seems that the country this mass need for technology, for infrastructure. they are very powerful companies in the country which would actually want to expand, but they can't expand, you know, to create jobs because they don't get those people. >> i think we have time for one more question, maybe back there. >> we've talked about the companies perspective, we talked about the consumer perspective, but one relevant per specttive is the market in the investor perspective, and certainly what we experienced are slower volumes of trading activity i

think reflecting as a dropple turf market -- barometer of market anxiety and market is 5 part of that, but i was surprised that the overall policy decision in making a progress on the deficit, on taxing issues, i think is one of the key factors that is holding back institutional and even retail demand for investment, and that certainly has a sentiment and a perception issue on overall confidence within the economy so i would certainly suggest from an overall market perspective that some of those steps will have a, certainly a bolstering impact on broader up vester confidence which in turn should drive more capital flow into these businesses and thus encouraging more companies to take more of those risks. >> so we don't need a qe3 as much as an august 2 decision

that everyone can feel good about? >> i think from want market's perspective, that's actually a very accurate comparison. i think we've had everyone that has factored in the qe easings and the potential economic impact, i think the wall that the market needs to climb is that policy uncertainty, and if there's progress on that front, that's more likely to have a positive market impact than the next qe3. >> larry, quick. >> you know, i don't work with firms that produce widgets, but these guys do. it's not uncertainty about what's done, but what's done. do we get crediblecepsble programs? i ask you if we got a program you thought was terrible, but eliminated uncertainty, would you be happy? [laughter] >> well, of course, you know,

predictability which i hear you refer to is very important. it's not only important for the markets, but it's important for consumers, and when you say, some of you say is more uncertain about demand or policy, i think they are connected. policy leads to difficulty making decisions or holding back, and it just -- it's common sense and basic economics tell you that. you have to go with your gut feeling, but if we would return to predictable policies. it's hard to figure out what's going on and fiscal policy, good old sound fiscal policy, understand what's going on, and we vice president talked about regulatory policy, but i can't imagine uncertainty about health care, financial services regulations are another element of uncertainty which would be -- if it was reduced, i think a lot

was removed, but if it was reduced, it would increase demand. >> i can ounce the caution showing up in the cfo surveys and certainly the outlook speaking of uncertainty it's mixed, but thank you for sharing your view, and maybe next time we'll have a more optimistic review state of affairs. >> negotiating with house and senate law lawmakers on raising the debt ceiling and spending cuts, how are those discussions going? >> they are still going which most participants is some sign of progress. they keep signing that as long as no one's left the table, things are in good shape. on the other hand, they are facing a self-imposed deadline of around july 1 to get ideas to reach a broad agreement or whether they will be unable to

do so. >> you talked to the members after the meeting, what are the serious ideas that are still on the table that they're talking about? >> caller: the main issue on display today is still to do with revenues. democrats believe coping man hoyer, one of the top ranking democrats on the caucus has a hard time believes democrats will vote for a package without some revenue increases, and the republicans say they're not opposed to increased revenues, but are opposed to increased taxes, and today house majority leader cantore, and republican from virginia made the point people talked about, things like oil and gas industry, tax subsidies, that those are relatively small in terms of their deficit impact compared to the trillions of dollars of spending cuts the republicans are seeking out of this.

>> republican leader, mitch mccon kneel opened the door to raise the debt ceiling. what are other leader saying about that? is that a possible path? >> caller: it certainly seems that is possible and almost even probably i think unless there seems to be some sort of major breakthrough in the next two weeks. cantor was dismissive of that though today because there's no use in voting on it more than once. hoyer who believes democrats will have some say in it if republicans are unable to negotiate it and pass it by themselves, prefers a long-term solution, but he said a short term increase was better than nothing so i think the longer that -- the longer there's -- the longer the lack of any sort of major sort of people coming

out of the room and saying, okay, we're down to the last little bits here, the more likely that some sort of short term solution comes to the floor. >> well, especially if they want to hit the july 1st target date that you just mentioned. >> caller: yeah, they got the july 1, and the reason apparently for that is to leave time for the agreement, assuming there's one, to put the agreement into legislative detail that can take time and shepherd it through the houses. one of the ratings agencies wanted to see progress by mid-july or else they're put the credit rating on the u.s. government on credit watch, and then finally august 2 the treasury says they can't stay below or cannot meet its obligations under the current debt ceiling limit. now, there's a weird little aspect there that basically it says treasurer content issue new debt, but that doesn't mean that they could not roll over

existing debts basically sell new issues as long as they were not borrowing more to retire those funds. >> keeping track of the biden institutions on capitol hill this week, john nick nicole lurieson. thank you for that update. >> thank you.

[inaudible conversations] >> house and human services secretary and food and drug administration commissioner marg great hamberg announced new warning labels for cigarettes. they include images of the side effects of tobacco. they spoke with reporters at the white house briefing today for 25 minutes. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here. i have with me today two special guests. only meft, the secretary of the department of health and human

services. on my right, the commissioner of food and drugs, margaret ham berg. they are going to talk to you this afternoon at the top of the briefing about a new ruling on labels for cigarettes and tobacco products. what i'd like to do as we have done in the past have them make remarks at the top, take questions from you, and all the questions you have for them ring we can do at the top. i'll excuse them after 10-15 minutes, and then we can start again and take your questions on other matters. with that, secretary of health and human services. >> well, thank you, jay, and good afternoon, everybody. today we're here to announce a major new step we're taking to reduce the death and disease caused by tobacco use. new graphic warning labels to go on all cigarette packs and

advertisements for tobacco products. tobacco use is the foremost preventable cause of death in america, and cost the u.s. economy about $200 billion annually in medical cost and lost productivity. every day approximately 4,000 american kids between the ages of 12-18 try their first cigarettes. a a thousand of the children become daily smokers. for years we watched in the country as tobacco rates fell. in 1965, over 42% of americans smoked. by 2004, it had fall p to just under 21%, and that's good news. despite the well-known risks, youth and adult smoking rates that had been dropping for decades stalled. when president obama took office, we decidedded these numbers were not changes, and our actions had to change. we're committed to taking steps that will help prevent chirp from smoking, so over the last

two years, we've gone towards making it harder for tobacco companies to market to kids. we've restricted companies from using terms like light and mild on products and in marketing. we're supporting local programs to help people quit smoking and to stop children and doesn'ts from starting. as part of last year's health care law, we gave americans better access to counseling to help them quit smoking before they get sick so today we're announcing a measure that will forever change the look and message of cigarette packs and ads. the new graphic warning labels will be the toughest and most effective tobacco health warnings in the country's history, and they tell the truth. we'll replace the phrase with pictures of negative effects of smoking proven to be effective. with these warnings, every person who picks up cigarettes is going to know exactly what

risk they're taking. over the last two weeks, we've made giant strides in our fight against tobacco, and our efforts are paying off. i'm here with a renewed sense of hope and momentum to make tobacco death and disease a part of our past and not a continuous part of our future. i'd like to now to turn over the podium to our talented and dedicated fda commissioner, dr. peggy hamberg. >> thank you very much, madam secretariment first, let me say how proud i am that fda has played in this initiative champed by the secretary and president obama. we share a vision for healthier nation free of the dangerous consequences of tobacco. the sad truth is that tobacco is the leading cause of premature preventable death in the united states as was said, and an enormous source of avoidable disease and disability.

the public health consequences are enormous. with an estimated 443,000 americans dying each year, most of whom began smoking before the age of 18. combating this national tramming di must be at the fore front of our public health goals, and that is why congress and the president were committed when they enacted the family smoking prevention and tobacco control act. since then, fda has worked hard to implement that vision. we've taken important steps like banning the sale of fruit and candy flavored candy cigarettes especially appealing to children and youth, and for the first time requiring tobacco companies to say what ingredients are in their products. last november, the fda unvailed the 36 images to be considered for inclusion on every cigarette pack in the country for graphic health warning labels, and today

we're publishing the nine selected. these graphic warning labels represent the first major change to cigarette labels in 25 years. the final nine images were selected on important criteria. we took into account public comment from 1700 stake holders including exterritories and -- experts and industry. we conduct the a national study of our own to gauge people's response to graphic cigarette health warnings. the largest study ever conducted involving some 18,000 participants. we examined how effective the proposed warnings were at communicating the health risks as well as the warning in terms of its ability to encourage smokers to quit, and if they discouraged nonsmokers, particularly kids from ever wanting to smoke. consider this -- a pack a day smoker will see these labels

more than 7,000 times a year, and kids who are under the impression that smoking is cool or glamorous will be confronted by a very different reality when they are tempted to pick up a -- cigarette pack 15 months from now. these and 1-800-quitnow which will be on every label, will go a long way towards a time where we can and will make tobacco-related death and disease part of america's past and now its future. thank you so very much. >> i'll go ahead and call on people who have questions. april? >> secretary sebelius, the pictures are graphic. >> they are. >> do you think that the public would criticize at some point that after awhile the consumers think they are not feeling the

initial thrust? >> well, actually the law contemplates sort of users getting used to them if you will, and gives fda not only the authority, but the direction to change them on an ongoing basis, so immediately after the launch of the first set of nine, we'll gip the studies to be sure we are keeping people sensitized and have the authority then to move to a new set of labels. we see this as continuous. you're absolutely right. any time you have a frozen image what seems shocking at the gipping, people get -- beginning, people get used to fairly quickly. >> will they be more graphic in nature or along the same lines? >> i think the plan is, and i'm looking at peggy if i give out incorrect information, she'll help me, but we'll continue to test to see if they are making a difference. one of the things done with this

18,000-person sur survey was look at different quadrants. what are the ads that hit kids? what appeals or disstresses pregnant women? what men respond to differently? we're trying to be very market sensitive, and i think that survey will go on on a regular basis. >> dan? >> i wonder what the reaction was from the tobacco industry to this campaign's effort? >> well, we did engage the industry as we were developing the selections for these nine graphic health warning labels. they were part of our public comment period, and, of course, we've had meetings with them. this will be a dramatic change in what a cigarette package looks like. no doubt about it. they are graphic, large,

actually, the law even specifies that they take up 50% of the cigarette package front and back with color pictures, printed health warning statement, and also the 1-800-quitsnow line. it changes the consumer's response to a package, but frankly, that's what we want, are striving for, and will make a difference on health. >> i believe you said earlier that at one point the use was going down, and then it stalled. why did it stall? did you look at what happened there? >> well, i think we didn't have the law that is now in place that president obama encouraged to be passed and then signed which was the tobacco regulation law, so we've been ail to really ramp up efforts since then, and i think, you know, we hadn't made progress on changes of labels as dr. hamberg said. it was 25 years since we changed

labels. a lot of the aggressive work done early on had become common place, so we were not doing much as all to focus on what is now killing about 443,000 americans every year prematurely. the number one cause of preventable death, and certainly for kids, although some states have gotten aggressive, i think at the federal level, there really wasn't a national focus on this, and i think what the president made clear, and we are certainly very much engaged in this is now a renewed national focus on smoking and one that we think can pay off in dividends in lives and health care costs. we know it can because it's been successful in other parts of the world. >> petter? >> which of these images, specific nine images, do you think will target teenagers, especially teenage girls who seem to be so attracted to

smoking, picking up the habit? >> well, i think that some of the powerful images certainly are a reminder of the health risks. some of the images like the one of the mouth, the sort of rotting dirty teeth and lesions on the lip are also reminders that smokes causes disfigurement, and i think those are very powerful messages for potential teen smokers, and we hope each time they pick up the cigarette package, they'll deepen the understanding that there's really serious consequences of smoking. >> anything in the campaign that would detour them from picking up a package to begin with? >> of course the images are part of print advertisements for cigarettes, but when we think about having a real ongoing, sustained impact on public health and really bringing the smoking levels down, this is a very, very important activity, but it has to be part of a broader comprehensive set of public health activities, and

secretary sebelius has been, of course, spearheading a national tobacco control strategy that looks at how different components of government working with partners at the state and local level and with partners in other sectors can work together to make a difference for public health. >> let me just in the taming thing, i think there's a couple things also want somebody said when they said when they saw the warnings these are really gross, and they are. we want kids to understand smoking is gross, not cool, and there's really nothing pretty about having mouth cancer or, you know, making your baby sick if you smoke so some of these are very driven to dispelling the notion that somehow this is cool and makes you cool. the other thing is though that we've done a very ramped up effort already on the second tier advertising so it was not okay for cigarette companies to

directly advertise to kids, but they were using lots of techniques about logos at concerts appealing to younger generation with cool mottos, developing products clearly for a teen audience, not for an adult audience, and those are now also being banned. we're not just looking at the packs, but all sorts of strategies to try and keep cigarettes away from our children. >> chris, anne, and the gentleman behind anne. >> a question for you on a different topic. as you know, the absence of nationwide data helps the disperties and you want to address the -- [inaudible] the public knowledge is advocating to address the data collection issue for things like

concluding questions on the national health interview survey and the behavior risk factors system. the president is an add advocate for decision making, what's the goal up there? >> we fully intend to collect lgtb data. the problem is it's never been collected, and what our folks came back to us with and what we have to figure out and working with those to market test the questions, how to ask questions in a way they illicit accurate responses because collecting data that doesn't give an accurate picture is not helpful in the first place. there's little attempt directly to consumers or parents or anybody else to ask questions about lgbc health issues that we don't know how to ask them so it is definitely a commitment. we will be adding data questions to the national health surveys, and right now ring we are looking at developing a slew of questions, market testing them,

coming back and making sure that we have the right way to so solicit the information that we need. >> secretary, on the cigarettes -- if any other product, if any other cat dpoir killed 443,000 people a year, i can't imagine it remaining on the market. do you see a day will cigarette smoking will ever be illegal? >> you know, i think that's up to the lawmakers to decide. this is clearly, as you know, if you looked at the history of passing the tobacco control act took a number of years and fits and starts. there's people in our office working on this for 20 years so to say this step was not a major hurdle to go over underplays, i think, the efforts of the past, and i think we'll continue to collect the data and look at the information. i think the more people understand the health risk,

hopefully we'll be in a situation where not ?oaking will be -- smoking will be the by far not only preferable norm, but there's a lot of consumer pressure which there already is. people are you insisting they don't want to live in housing projects where there's smokers and knowing it's not just the smoker smoking effects. there's a growing awareness about this and tobacco is unique. >> a former surgeon general foresaw a smokeless united states, and that's never going to happen, is it? >> i really can't tell you. i think we're making some great strides. i think the lawmakers have to take a look at the data and take a look at what they're willing to do. i think if you had ever told me that more than the half the states in the country would have passed smoke-free laws, and that a majority of cities passed them that we would be taking these

kinds of steps against advertising and, you know, rebranding our cigarette packs, i would have said that's not going to happen any time soon, but i think people are becoming very aware of the unique power of nicotine, the addictive quality, and also the fact that as you say, $200 billion a year in health costs that we clearly could spend better elsewhere, and the loss of 443,000 lives a year, that's a huge toll to take on a country. >> yes, sir, and then one more. >> thank you, jay. madam secretary, and dr. hamberger, i wanted to segue over to the proposed warnings and retooling of the recipes in cereals and desserts that have come out written primarily by dr. hamberger's office as well as the federal trade commission,

and the center for disease and controls. many in the food industry say this is a case of change of recipe or else, and do you see it that way, and will these eventually be enforced? these are the restrictions of course on cereal and other things. >> well, i'll -- i'll let peggy also comment on this because dr. hamberg's office has a particular set of these issues. there is a lot of effort underway in the area of nutrition and certainly aimed at the obesity epidemic that is affecting one out of every three children and adults in this country so whether it's the let's move initiative which is doing a lot of work voluntarily to get companies to begin to look at both sodium and sugar

content and transfat or conversations going on in the industry itself to look at reformatting their products or wal-mart who is now saying that as a major purchaser they only want suppliers who meet certain standards or the cbc which is looking at sodium and the fda which is convening conversations around nutrition equalities #, the reformatting of the new food plate announced by the department of agriculture, getting rid of the pyramid and looking at what healthy eating is, i think this is some space that is going to continue to have a robust conversation because, again, it has a lot to do with underlying health costs and overall health of our nation. peggy can talk a little about the foreclosure da's -- fda's involvement in the area. >> and these are just suggestions now, not enforce l. >> what you're referring to is a request from congress several

years ago, i think, to the fpc to look at issues of food advertising to children knowing that, of course, how we eat, what we eat does really matter for health. the ftc put together a working group including the fda and other componentings of government to look at some of the issues, and voluntary recommendations to industry have been put forward for further discussion, and it's an important discuss to have because we need to work with industry to be able to provide consumers, parents, and children, all of us with the best possible information about nutrition and health health so that we can all make good choices in terms of promoting and protecting health. >> i'm saying the groasher manufacturers this is a case of make these changes or else? >> these are voluntary recommendations, and we work

closely in many domains with the grocery manufacturers and other industry representatives. because how food is formulated, you know whether it's sodium, sugar, fat, you know, it really does matter for issues like obesity and heart disease and diabetes and other things. the food industry recognizes that there's ways they can improve and make more astraightive the food products that they are -- attractive the food products they are developing. we have invested interest in that as a public health agency, and, you know, we want to work with them on that. >> following up on that question really, there's tremendously unhealthy foods out there. people have regulations say the next step is to put pictures on really bad foods. is that the direction you'd go in a perfect world? >> well, again, i think tobacco is unique. it is a product that is the

number one cause of preventable death. we know that there are strategies that can be very effective because they've been in place. we also know we've installed in this country, and i think this effort about tobacco regulation, efforts around tobacco accept cigs has been decades old and something that is a unique situation. having said that, i do think that there are going to be ongoing discussions as you look at the underlying health care costs where we spend 75 cents of every health care dollar treating chronic disease, what are the areas if you want to lower health costs and have a healthier country, that you can focus on, certainly tobacco and obesity become two of the major underlying causes so the work around obesity and healthier, more nutritious eating, more exercise will continue to be, i