>> i would second that. i think what there is to be encouraged on this topic that we are talking about it. there is consensus that data matters. it wasn't long ago that you couldn't have that conversation. physicians are fiercely protective of their medical

records. we have seen a see change in the last three years working with our physicians on this topic. they are coming to understand that medicine is really complicated now. it takes a team. it is not an individual walking to his office in the morning and back out at night and all by himself and taking care of the patient. those days are past. they have to interact with other physicians and understand the importance of sharing data. patients have access to their records and why wouldn't other physicians involved in care of the patient not have access as well. we are at the advent of this but it will move quickly. >> why not bring the other three valuable witnesses into the second topic? want to ask if you would like to elaborate on the question of the medicare database. we can do that in writing or as you respond to this but the second question i want to ask all of you you come from the

private sector and watch the federal government and the federal government sometimes looks like it is moving very slow. slow to change and slow to adopt and slow to evolve and traditional medicare even as we talk today, sort of a demonstration project kind of stage. what would your recommendation for speeding all of this up particularly the chairman and ranking minority member here were in a position to look at ways to speed up and accelerate these changes and get out of the demonstration project area and be sped up. why don't we take our other three witnesses who didn't get a crack at that one man your counsel how to speed up changes and reforms for the second one.

dr. safran, what don't you start? >> we have seen is impressive speed with respect to the uptick of accountable care. i would leverage that because as we were talking about before, the key is going to be for medicare to move away from a model of payment dealing with individual actors. and accountable for the behavior of every doctor across the country, and rates are down next year. to a model with a group of peers that have excepted accountability with and to manage quality and out comes. that you have stood up 32, and medicare shared savings program getting underway sets out the beginning of a continuum that

reminds me that you waited in to the model i talked about today. when we launched it in 2009 we hoped by the end of that year, and accepting the brought accountability for total medical expense quality and out come. we had a quarter of a network contract that way. close to 80% of the network across the state, and the past uptake there are lessons to be learned from the federal government and part of it was it was voluntary. we were not forcing anybody in. if you believe this is a better way and you can see that you can earn well under this model by making care better, and affordability over the long term, come in to this contract.

and the rapid acceleration, organizations started to see that the initial high and years, no pun intended, in our model were succeeding at improving quality and managing their budget. second, they saw the feet for service system was looking unattractive. was looking like low or no payment increases. no real opportunity to advance. and the kind of support as payers, the federal government would have to work out similar models to help them as they transition from a volume based system. >> i think that is the ball game.

and almost three decades ago in our part of the world. seattle or provenance or other kinds of plans in our area. what does the federal government do to accelerate beyond the for service? >> it goes back to the earlier question about the data sector. from washington d.c. or baltimore it would be hard to partner with the provider organizations that have the courage to say in up -- sign up for these models in ways that it critical to the success of their market. but imagine those who sign up for it are able to partner with their private payers who are paying that model. if the providers who come in have the data to work with if we could do the same rich analytic

for the providers in our markets and medicare pioneers, this is enormous assistance to them. if we take as analytics and help with the performance improvement guidance on the commercial side giving them the same guidance on the medicare side, more rapid uptake across the country because fear is a rate limit her. i wouldn't know the first thing about how to transition from a system that pays me for every unit i produce, overall spending and quality. >> when a witness says they support the effort along the lines that senator grassley and i are talking about or they promote transition beyond the for service i think i ought to quit while i am ahead. >> you are doing just great.

>> thank you for the time. >> earlier physician resistance to access to data, some physicians -- proud of their billing practices wondering whether their billing practices would be questioned. maybe there is some medical liability issues. just wondering if you could help us figure out how to bridge that gap because i think it makes sense for the data to be available but we should do it in a way that is legitimate. >> it is a journey. in our setting we have been doing this 25 years and our 3,000 physicians are and accountable structure and they know they are being watched. in areas of the country where there's no transparency at all

and they walked into the silo in the morning and at night, there is trepidation. that somebody else is going to be looking but you have to go there. in response to the question, how do we accelerate, put the money where you want the system to go and it will go there. payment reform has to proceed delivery system reform and enable delivery system reforms so the more we can create population management, population base reverse methodologies along the lines espouse in massachusetts the faster we will get there. >> do you suggest modified requirement of medicare? what would it be? >> you went above my pay grade. i am much more eloquent describing the problem. i do think the underlying principles as we have all been talking about are to put in place policies that give

physicians a reason to group up, get connected to organizations because i am telling you the physicians on their own can't do this. is not what they were trained to do. not what they signed up for. the expectations are very different from what they thought they were signing up for. they are ok with it and willing to sign up because they understand it is the right way to go. they just like the skills and the wherewithal to do it. organizations like ours, the kind of a organization in massachusetts are enabling structures for them to do what they would like to do if they could. get the granular level they have no chance. >> adjust suggest we make the data question to the incentive questions? if we had access to these data and the purpose was to say you are a bad guy and you are a good guy that physicians are -- we shift the incentive and talk about managing populations and there's a population and

adjacent county where the number of coronary angiograms is not half as many as you do and the incidents of coronary obstructive coronary disease is three times hire suggesting you're doing angiograms on people who don't need them and ascertain that as well. if we went to that community and said we are changing the payment structure from the for service notwithstanding the s.g. are issues so you received a global rate for your community and by the way by looking at the cms data we assure you by looking at utilization and the more thoughtful about your use of and geography and 25 other tests you in fact put yourself in a position where you could responsibly assume risk, financial risk without compromising the care of your population. for a lot of these issues you have to think about companion solutions that combine the issues we are talking about. >> don't underestimate the power

of peer pressure. if we can profile this practices and make the data available to people we have two large cardiology groups in adjacent counties and the utilization practices of one of those counties was agreed does. we went to those cardiologists and showed them their data compared to the next county and if we had sent that out and not engaged them they would have thought we are doing a better job. instead we were able to engage them, hold their feet to the fire and two years later their utilization practices are what the other counties are. driving toward the means. >> is it working in the context? >> i don't know. >> the incentives aren't there. it has got to be peer pressure between -- [talking over each other] >> it is going to -- >> my understanding is there is some movement since they have been exposed.

>> we're finding peer pressure to the point i agree with the point among the three hundred lbs. we formed groupings of primaries. the peer pressure within the panel and the peer pressure across panels how am i doing relative to others you could have two physicians in a panel of ten, the other eight have their incentives based on how the total panel does and a police themselves. >> they just hate -- they like making money. i suggest peer pressure plus financial created an absolute relationship. >> any modification to the policy has to make sure it is flexible among practiced variations because it exists today. >> what is the role of medical schools? >> there is a considerable role. based on my experience these issues aren't being addressed particularly at all. a little focus on primary care there's a need to further

acknowledge the contribution other types of practitioners can make. a lot of things about compensation around primary-care but we're not doing nearly enough to introduce these issues to the curriculum. >> i am going to go back to a point we made earlier. we are not training physicians to enter into a health care delivery system. we are training them to the medical rescuers. we are training high-tech giving them lots of tools and that is where the money is and that is where the glamour is. medical schools are not doing what is needed today but so is a lot of the system. not going to demonize them but if we set that out and challenge them they could move in this direction but they are not there now. training medical rescue. >> between specialists and primary-care it is my

understanding that a lot of the medicare reimbursement schedules as contract out. weighted towards asbestos, advantage of primary-care physicians and i don't know if that description is accurate. just your thoughts on how we can deal with this difference in reimbursement? i don't want to take anything away from the specialist but you're point triggered my thought. hy glamour stocks and technology is where the money is. i don't know. try to figure out how we get more focus on primary care physicians here. >> the models you heard as discussed today we haven't explicitly said it but each of them is primary care center. i will speak for our model.

the only requirement we have from the perspective of what the organization has to look like is it must have primary care at the center. beyond that if they want specialists in their contract, the want of a hospital in the contract they may but don't have to. they have to be accountable for opel care across the continuing. that coupled with the fact that quality incentives are so largely primary care based has really changed the dynamic of power and resources within these organizations because these organizations understand they cannot succeed at managing total medical expenses and improving quality and outcomes if they aren't investing in primary care at the core so we are seeing them looking to hire more primary-care clinicians, physicians and practitioners and medical assistants, investing in

infrastructure in primary-care practices, rewarding practices 46 sp organization is having at managing to their budget and improving quality and change the dynamic with specialists in a very important way. specialists are saying a couple things. talk and we be helpful at managing total medical expense? aren't there any measures for us? aren't there good quality measures? that is a good or question because the available measures that are nationally endorsed really are -- the specialty environment is important. >> i agree. [talking over each other] >> the pcp is the quarterback of the team and they need to bundle the care to the addition

specialists they have. the most efficient model we have is where the specialists are capitated and the pcp is driving the care to the most efficient specialist in the network. >> to focus on this orientation, suppose i am a specialist in bariatric surgery. the view are the surgeon, might ignore the role of the primary-care physician with a follow-up to the patient with bariatric surgery but i am at risk and the patient is admitted with an infection with metabolic problems, lack of adherence to the drugs and suddenly the primary care physician is my best friend to the extent i don't want to have the patient again. as we realign incentives and create dependencies for the specialist on the primary-care physician in much the same way there's a tendency the other way with a primary care physician refers to the specialist, we can restructure those relationships

and restructure the reimbursement to a primary-care physician more generously reimbursed. >> we are going to -- i will not ask you to do this, earlier panel consisted of former cms directors and the subject was sgr and at the end i said why not? i can asked them to come back to us with recommendations of how to perform sgr. those recommendations are due tomorrow. too that we were all together -- anyway -- so what should we be looking for when they give their recommendations? what are the key points you think are most important in order to help us advance -- to get a form of sgr in a way that

you think makes sense given your experience and how you compensate physicians looking forward toward patients centered approaches and delivery system reforms? what should we be looking at when we give those recommendations? >> where is the value based component to the physicians? if we are going to continue to just pay fees for service they provide they will keep providing services so i would look for that. has one thing along with other things you are talking about. >> i would echo that. global measure of the outcome for the population of patients and structure of accountability for the primary care physicians. not the price movement you are looking for but overall cost of care.

>> a measure of quality and out come. how to measure outcome? >> we look at it principally as the fragmentation of the health care system. having fewer e.u. business and fewer drug interaction. we are looking at outcome measures that show the patient has been stabilized with risks mitigated. >> things that are most fearful with regard to particular disease. the bad thing about being a diabetic is to have a heart attack or stroke or dialysis so the outcome is not to test this or that. people in fact end up having strokes or blind or other credit complications. it depends on follow-up. >> you need this wanted to blow record to see how things have

turned down with questions senator wyden was asking. with regard to the sgr? kofi annan tears more expansive and immediate reaction to sgr i hope there are companions solutions that are suggested and to the extent those companion's solutions leverage will realistic assessment whether many practices have the technological capabilities given the financial wherewithal to manage this new approach? >> we need to transition from piecework to one that more appropriately rewards their

ability to coordinate care >> i hope they give you a model that focuses on individual actors to one that focuses on organizations. i look to them to give you a model that moves from focus on individual service and fees for those services to the global view of total medical expenses and quality and outcomes for population by those organizations. i look for them to have a model that involve data and ongoing support to those organizations as they venture into this new world of moving from volume to value. i look for them to have a model that raises substantial financial incentives on quality and outcomes to act as a backstop against any incentive that a global budget constraints might oppose and left the of would look for them to help with further development of better and richer outcome measures.

we have good outcome measures today. measures of making sure the important product diseases are under control and avoiding complications for hospital care. those measures are not good enough. we need further development of good outcome measures to reward outcomes. >> if they are watching. >> ask for an extension. >> i thought the point you raised about primary-care was particularly important. we had mr. burrell here and he got into this primary care area in an interesting way. and patients together on

prevention. and most of the health care bill, chronic disease. they extended, picking up part stroke cancer and diabetes and bring the provider, and reward patients and it is particularly good. we got together with the cleveland clinic, and financial reforms. to lower their blood pressure. cholesterol, body mass and the like. and in context to the chairman's question about primary care, tell us a little bit about what you are doing to bring together your provider's and patients to start giving prevention and

behavioral change and powering patients. >> it starts with awareness and a health risk appraisal which we offer for free. and the awareness is a big behavior. we ask to share with primary-care doctors and transfer that consent to the primary. bent effect on primary thinking sometimes. we start with financial incentives to participate and move from financial incentives for outcome. you see that you are overweight and the risks that you have. one thing to see it and another to act on. stronger outcomes produce financial rewards to the member. if you are the only one that your doctor doesn't do much good, our small panels, is seen by the panel and we identify

patients at high risk. and we target interventions together with those primaries for the patients at higher risk. incentive for the member to participate and be aware and take action and incentive on the part of the primary because global population based incentive model. if they get a better outcome they have a financial reward. the member does and the physician does and they dovetail together and working together they cause the best results. >> at risk of being a wet blanket and i completely agree. >> very contrary. >> thanks. i don't know if we want to mention this. at harvard and collaborated -- we publish the piece in the new england journal of medicine a couple months ago where we gave patients who experienced heart attacks their drugs for free so they in fact have been risk

factors they already experienced the outcome and despite getting their drugs for free less than 50% of them were compliant. there is the ability for the doctored to do the right thing and the ability to convey information about risk but the reality of human behavior is we need to grapple with -- is very discouraging and we have a long way to go and need to understand. >> there is no question there are a variety of factors. what release one me to this was the work of dr. rosen from the cleveland clinic. the program they have put together which essentially is what the model our approach to medicare really does seem to be working and they do try to spent time talking with patients and incorporating in some judgments that you are talking about that

they are very clear. toby cosgrove and others are very clear in their view the financial rewards, these are not enormous sums of money but the idea of a few hundred dollars in conjunction with these other kinds of approaches have been successful and sins chairman baucus gave us a chance to beat around the kitchen table and hopefully -- >> our social network and sense of community which we are pursuing -- >> patient responsibility. >> one of those things -- >> patient responsibility. big issue. your thoughts. how do we encourage it? is kind of scary. [talking over each other] >> how do we get out and

encourage more responsibility? part of it might be social pressure or social awareness or taking advantage of newer behavioral health and psychology and economics to induce the sort of behavior we are interested in but the simple-minded notion that a doctor tells you what you need to do and go farther and say you can do it for free is not the point i want to make and invoked under consideration. >> i would agree with that. that is a wonderful thought. it starts with incentives but can't end with incentives. go back to what i said earlier. we find the breakdowns occur at home. you don't comply partly because you are depressed, partly because of the way you live your life. there that psychosocial aspect to it. we found incentives and awareness are combined with follow on not by the doctor who prescribes one of the medication is often a nurse following it

up. to connect with the nurse has an affect on compliance. can't do this on every patient but looking at the 5% to 10% of patients that run up two thirds of the cost and can't do it for them. it is a combination of all of the above. the physician paying attention and the nurse follow-up to the home where the breakdown occurs it is so important to getting compliance. compliance is low. >> you can't do a lot of fee-for-service system. there's no money in that. would you are describing is the essential. it is expensive to create structure for it so unless you have a global money to deal with a friend, it is difficult to do in feet for service. >> medicare does not cover it. >> both have global money upfront and an incentive based on the outcomes of care because up until this point of creating accountability for outcomes adherence has been the don't ask don't tell phenomenon in health

care. doctors give a patient prescription or advice and just assume or hope the advice gets followed. as mr. burrell said the financial is only one piece of it and starting to address the barriers to adherence as part of what health care means, starting to address the patient understand cognitive issues that are going to get in the way of adherence. motivational issues or practical issues in terms of their neighborhood and what they can do and worked life and what they're able to imagine. it is part of what health care means. >> the low income and underserved neighborhoods, they bring them in so they don't miss their appointments, they need to be there.

>> there are nine people working over here. the supreme court. how is their decision going to affect this? >> i have been asked that question a lot and i don't profess to be an expert but my comments is it only affects pace, not direction. we are on a burning platform. we can't stay where we are. the affordable care act, i am not an expert in it. i assume that it is flawed but it is necessary. it gets us to the starting gate and we will spend the rest of my career perfecting it. we can't say on this platform. it is on fire. >> i agree with that. the changes that are under way are unstoppable regardless what the court decides.

>> economic comparative remain regardless that we were working and this. testimony since 2005 at least will continue. >> we have been through a lot of changes and just looking for some more sustainable programs. >> we can stop. >> it has been a good session. thank you very much. it has given us a lot of very good ideas. thanks a lot. [inaudible conversations] >> un c-span2 today treasury secretary tim geithner discusses the global economy at the g 20 summit.

at hillary clinton followed by a discussion of how well the are treated by the u.s. tax code and later senate minority leader michel, talks about free speech at the american enterprise institute. >> one of the quotes that i thought was really exceptional the inspiring was once you realize the magnitude of the difference you can make in public life everything else will pale in comparison. >> someone from the white house said a quote that those who think they're crazy enough to change the world are ones who actually do. the same man christopher was talking about said choose carefully and execute relentlessly and that meant a lot to me because too many times we find ourselves taking too many things on and not focusing on one thing that should be a top priority. >> the u.s. senate youth program gives students to washington for government and the leadership

education. this year brian made an impact. he is a senior director on the white house national security staff. >> i started with the mindset of what is it like? now that i'm in this role what could i share with them that either i wish i had known all along the way or they will remember when they leave washington which as you mentioned is a very intense rapid-fire experience. if you leave a few encouraging messages at a time that you know it is easy to be cynical about politics it is a good thing to encourage young people to pursue public service. >> more sunday at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span. it has been 40 years since the watergate scandal began and this weekend c-span radio will air recorded conversations between president nixon and members of his staff concerning the break in.

>> we have a cancer cloaked in the presidency that is growing. it is growing daily. it is, pounding geometrically. it compounds itself. let me explain some of the details of why it is. we are being blackmailed, people are going to perjure and suffer but not have to perjure themselves. >> more nixon tapes at 6:00 eastern in washington d.c.. listen and 90.1 f m. we are on channel 119 and streaming and c-spanradio.org. >> treasury secretary tim geithner was at the council of foreign relations to talk about the economy. head of the dirksen senate office building 0 summit. topics include european debt crisis and j. p. morgan's

trading losses. mr. geithner is interviewed by andrea mitchell of abc news. this is about 40 minutes. [inaudible] >> you know kim geithner. the want remind everyone to turn off your devices. we are delighted to have secretary geithner here and could not be more timely moment. the headlines today spread across europe and the wall

street journal. financial times of the-we wanted to give you the opportunity to talk about the crisis in the euro zone and rates rising dramatically today in italy which signals there is some fear in the markets about contagions spreading darryl -- from greece to spain. italy is the big concern. they are going to the g 20 meeting. many players will be there. is an unavoidable fact. your perspective on the european crisis and the possibility of contagion and halt well capitalized our system is. even the best bankers don't know about risks in their bank. and the u.s. -- are we really?

>> the global economy and the world, you are seeing growth slow in most major -- many challenges here. europe is in the next stage of another escalation making it work and contain this crisis and build a stronger europe. what they're talking about are three important sets of policy changes. the first is what they call banking union which is a commitment to a more integrated framework for supervision and backstop of the financial system and this is important because no economies can function without a functioning financial system because of the pressure you are

seeing from greece and elsewhere. to commit to a more dramatic recapitalization of the banking system is a good concrete signal. an illustration of their commitment to move towards broader banking union and the second thing they are talking about is a set of measures the familiar to all of you to make sure they have a framework to support the countries that are undertaking these reforms. what this is trying to do is make sure interest rates in spain and italy and the rest of those countries are modern enough levels they can grow. so it is important the second piece of this is there is a credible financial backstop in place supporting countries that are reforming. the reforms are going to take time and they will not work without the ability of countries to borrow at affordable rates

and the third thing they are talking about is a little bit of a shift towards growth on the basic framework of economic strategies. talking about large infrastructure bank in europe and infrastructure funds and mobilizing larger scale of resources to support infrastructure and allocating those the countries in europe where growth is weakest and the calibrating their path to fiscal consolidation to give countries that are reforming more time to get there and more consistent with weaker growth outlook in europe. looking at those things, financial union for the financial system, stronger backstop to reforming countries so they can borrow affordable interest rates and these modest steps towards growth and importance would be good next step in terms of escalation.

and recognize restoring a bit of calm and convince people it is good to make this work and a chance this monday or tuesday in mexico. where they planned to go next. >> the euro zone staying together or one or more countries will drop out? >> talking to them over the last two years might view is they consider this carefully and they have decided it is in their interests to hold it together and what they say is they will do whatever is necessary to hold it together. among the many concerns people have looking at europe, these are misperceptions, and financially make it work? i think they do.

do they have the will to make it work? a few months ago -- never that generous. never underestimate political commitment of european majors to make european integration work and a project decades in the making, huge strategic and political imperative for members of the union and what they say is we will do what is necessary to double together. another misperception that people worry about. are they actually deferring problem for confronting them? doing things that make economics more viable? some people fear the range of actions they done are buying time in order to enable not doing anything. that is not fair and not true. they are doing very difficult things economically to improve prospects for long-term growth

making it easier to start a company. lower-cost and be more competitive to reduce long-term fiscal deficits and restructure the financial system and they will do that no matter what. this is something they could manage. they make the choice that they will do what it takes to make it work. they will do tough reforms across europe that are absolutely essential for this to be more viable over time. >> we are already feeling the psychological impact here and there are five more jobs reports between now and election day. the last to go before november 6th. what is your outlook for any improvement buying from european and otherwise that could change it? given the current situation, how much improvement can we expect?

>> most forecasters look at the american economy and still say they think the economy is going to grow at roughly 2% rate over the next 18 months or so. some people say it should be two or three. some are 1.5 to 2.5. that is recognizing the pressures we see ahead from europe and elsewhere and that growth is not strong enough to make a lot more progress getting more americans back to work. that is why it is so important that we do what we can do uniquely in the united states which is to put in place more things now that will make roads stronger. we have a unique capacity because we are judged a relatively safe place for the savings of the world. in a unique capacity now to

combine growth improving investment infrastructure, more teachers and things like that combined with long-term fiscal reforms that will start to restore the fiscal situation and we could do those things now in a stronger place to withstand the uncertainty faced from europe over projected period. >> 42 senators who have signed up so they're prepared to revisit bowls simpson. is it time even you can not between now and election day but time for the president to readdress that? and give some signal that he would be willing to embrace those tough choices to give the markets a better chance of competence going forward? >> it would be helpful right now. the most helpful thing you could see from washington in the

near-term is willingness to legislate and strengthen growth right now. commitment to extend middle-class tax cuts that affect 98% of american taxpayers. no reason those should be put in jeopardy as we face the challenge at the end of the year. take the risk of serial threats of default off the table. the the damaging to confidence, no value, note role in getting to a better position on these things and both sides should commit to negotiating a balanced framework faa's to tax reforms and better spending that will help bring the deficit down over time at a pace consistent with the recovery. ..

>> i think that's where it's going to in the. what that requires is tax reforms that raise a modest amount of revenue, tied to spending savings across the government, but still preserving someone to invest in things. and i think it would be, it would be helpful to conference to both sides say, and we've done it, that we are willing to negotiate a framework that moves in that direction. this is where the test goes. there's no, i think plausible way to get there economically and politically without that type of balanced framework.

it marries tax reform with broader spending reforms, reduce the rate of growth and long-term commitment on health care. >> should there be a temporary -- as bill clinton and larry summers have suggested? >> i don't think that's quite fair. i know you've talked about that. but our view right now is, i think this is right, is that we need to take advantage of the incentives created by the sequester. these expiring tax cuts to force this town to confront and take on the things that divide us know in the fiscal reforms so that we can go ahead and govern and start to address the other many problems the country faces. and for people to say we're going to put that off, i think would be damaging to confidence. again, this is a place where people spend a lot of time

worrying about whether washington can work again. and for washington's to say we're going to defer i don't see how that will help confidence. >> the data the fed reported on monday indicated that the recession -- >> we would not support that. >> understood. >> is that clear? >> got it. the fed reported that as of 2010 the recession was so much deeper than anyone had expected, or reported, that the median middle income americans lost 39-40% of their wealth. this is a devastating loss of a generation of wealth for middle income americans. how do you as a policymaker take have been and translate the effect on average american families? >> i think tells us what we already know. and, of course, what americans understand, which is the crisis was much deeper and the damage

to confidence and wealth, much greater even than people can sort see in the numbers at the time. the economy was shrinking at an annual rate of 9% in the fourth quarter of a weight. and the stock market and house prices all in very dramatic at the time to those measures of wealth and income started to move up really quite early in the first half of '09. so the valley of peoples pension savings started to go up again beginning in the second quarter of '09. and income growth started to recover again beginning their over that period of time. but it was a deep, dramatic whole, scars across the economy steel and we've got a long way to go to grow out of that, to dig out of that, repair the damage, absolutely. but most of that damage was done, that damaged in that report, you can see what happened equity prices, home

prices, and that damage, those things started to improve and reverse, starting to stabilize when the presidents policy of the -- got traction. if you look back over that period of time really remarkable. he went from an economy falling in an area of 9% a year, and we positive growth in the summer of '09. so in the six-month period you went from an economy that was really falling off the cliff to an economy growing. now, growth has not been a strong as any of us would like part because of your been partly because hasn't been fiscal contraction level, and partly because of the digging out of excessive debt that helped create the crisis. but i think some ways that story is a story of how effective and how quickly you saw the economy start to stabilize and recover because we were, we did move very forcefully, we went in very

hard in a very fast and we did a hard, very difficult things very, very quickly, and that made huge difference. doesn't solve all our problems, still a lot of challenges ahead but it that was important if you look everything over your plus two and half years as a justification of the basic lesson of crisis management. >> given that the average american does not understand private equity, does not understand wall street, doesn't understand the banking systems very well, except to worry about it a lot now, what is your response after the testimony today from jamie dimon that, in fact, the best banker, the best known, certainly the banker with the best record on wall street friendly risk did not know the size of these bets and did not know all the risks entailed, and that federal reserve and office of comptroller of the currency regulators embedded in new york and london at jpmorgan chase were unaware?

what does that tell us about the regulatory system and the inherent risks? >> i think it's a good reminder of three really important things. one is this task of risk management is inherently uncertain because nobody knows the future. one makes -- what makes this a challenge is you can't predict how imposition will behave on the basis of the last three weeks or the last three years, the last three months. that is what causes financial crises and that's what makes everything about managing risk complicated in this context but it's good to know because you need to have a lot of humility about the basic uncertainty we live with about our capacity to predict those things. second thing related to that is the best defense against that particular inherent unavoidable problem is to make sure these firms run with less leverage, more capital, more conservative funding against risks they take. and there is no rule and there is no reform and there is no supervisor that can define their

objective as preventing these firms am taking risk or making mistakes. the only test and the most important test of reform is whether you make the system strong enough that those mistakes don't matter, and the best way to do that is to make sure firms hold, which we are done from hold much more capital against risks so the losses they make are small relative to absorb those losses, and the rest of the system has certainly stronger shock absorbers. this was a pretty good test, that central premise of reforms, because these losses, this risk management failure was, was manageable, given the basic capital of that institution. but it's another example why we all have a big stake in these reforms that are still being designed and implemented. we need to let them get contraction and in place because if we preemptively allow them to be weekend, relaxed, they will

be much more vulnerable to these mistakes, and causing broader damage. so i completely agree that it's a good reminder of the inherent uncertainty we live with and that's again related to the reality that we cannot constantly predict the future. and the best way to deal with that reality is to recognize that to force these firms to hold much greater cushions to protect them from their ignorance and hours. >> the argument being on the hill by jamie dimon was that there has to be inherent risk in thanking. that's what the business is, but that said, do you think looking at from the outside that they did anything wrong? >> oh, no. coming, i would say that one strength of what it said in response to this is they were direct and clear and crisp in admitting the scale of the error. and in trying to get very quickly to what produced that, and to be very quick and trying to figure out to put it was a

framework that would make it less likely in the future. and that's a good thing. but again, the job of, the job of reform, the job of oversight is to force them to hold more capital against this, doing much as we can to make sure they understand those are so again when they make mistakes they can't cause damage to the rest of us. you begin with a related question which is how comfortable should we feel about the strength of the u.s. and is more uncertain world now, and i think this is a good test in many ways. we got several test like this over the last three years. the core of the u.s. financial system, we forced to raise $300, equity since the peak of our crisis. they have much less risk than they did bigger than the much more conservatively. they have reduced their exposures to the most obvious risks in the world dramatically

over that period of time. so i believe we're in a much stronger position than we were anytime over the last three to six months, eight months, nine months, two years, three years, to withstand the effects of what is happening in your. but europe is a large part of the world economy, and its challenges are hurting growth here and elsewhere around the world, and so we have a big stake in helping them deal with this more effectively. we will spend a lot of time next week trying to do that. >> why do you think wall street is putting its money in mitt romney's camp by 37 million plus the 4 million so far -- so far reported, and 21 they can drew bidders to president obama's election campaign in '08 have now switched sides of? >> well, i think, i can respect it on their motives but i suspect it's because they believe that they are more likely to get a more favorable hearing in terms of relaxing these reforms if the republicans

have the stronger hand in washington. i think it's straightforward. >> just remind you -- >> is that fair? [laughter] >> mitt romney was asked during a debate back in october, october 11 -- [inaudible] i think the core reforms, we're going to fight to preserve them, and we're going to fight to keep them. there's an overwhelming and compelling case to do so. just because we are again, we are still living with the scars, the damage caused by those basic errors. >> your analysis you just contribute more money to the mitt romney campaign. what romney said in october of 2011 when asked what he would do if there were another financial crisis -- >> anybody responsible governing the country would have a huge stake in preserving these core reforms. why would we want to leave the country vulnerable to another crisis? [laughter] >> point taken. and just to finish up with how

he would handle a financial crisis, i can do this, the i'm not going to have to call up timothy geithner and say, how's the economy work because i spent my whole life in the economy. >> who is that? >> mitt romney. [laughter] spent you want me to respond to that? [laughter] >> what about the messaging in this campaign? spent are not the right person to ask about messaging. [laughter] >> in terms of the presidents, we know what he meant in response to the job support a week earlier, but when he said the private the sector is doing just fine, how do you explain to the american people, you know, what he meant, what's at stake? we are in the middle of a very closely fought campaign. >> i think he tried to say this but from the beginning. it's a very tough economy still, huge amount of damage left over,

long way to go to repair that damage, growth not as strong as we would like. and what we try to do is put out as clearly as we can, as powerful and creative set of proposals for helping resolve those as possible, and to legislate as many as we can. and we've tried to choose ones that it had a tradition of broad bipartisan support in the hopes that use the prospect of legislation. and that's what we're going to keep them. of course, we cannot just focus on growth now and worry about growth longer-term so we believe as i think many people believe that those things would be best combined with a bounce long-term plan to restore fiscal stability. that's we have to think about these two things together. that we are having -- but we are having a debate about, and important debate of about not just how to solve the long-term fiscal problem, but what's the right way to help growth now, rock face growth right now?

will return to do is make the test what is needed for reform. >> you just disproved your own point because you are right on the message. >> that wasn't a message. >> given about what you said in the past but wanted to just serve the first term and it's a very tough job, have you we thought whether if the president is reelected he would stay in some role in the administration? >> no. i have not. i haven't thought that. thanks for asking though. [laughter] >> well, you've had so much time in the first three years. now we come to the time when the audience joins in. just to remind everyone, you know the drill. please stand, station income your affiliation, keep questions concise, wait for the mic phone to reach you. right here in the front row. thank you very much.

>> hi, and at gw law school. thanks are coming back to the council. you said that if we needed a balanced plan for fiscal sustainability as well as room to invest, so i want to ask you as treasury secretary, how do you tell the difference between government spending that is investment and spending that is not investment? >> good question, ask a question. people would disagree on the. when we say it, and this is really the only place where we are proposing meaningful changes in what we spend, we say, we want to limit it to areas where we think there's a pretty high economic return where the private sector under this and that we won't see it happen without the government playing some role. and examples i like to cite about that our public infrastructure, overwhelming compelling case for doing the. obviously, private markets are investing at the levels you

need, straightforward. education in all its dimensions, very high returns to education. we've seen a significant erosion in the -- relative to the rest of the world. unacceptable. there's a pretty good case for investments in basic scientific research as we done for decades and decades. and maybe going beyond areas like clean energy, where again you are likely to see the market underinvest in what makes sense longer-term. that is a relatively limited list of things. of course, a huge part of what matters is what you do in private investment. so the president has proposed a broad framework for corporate tax reform that we think would improve the incentives for private investment here, not just things like permanent advantage for research and development in the united states, but to cleanup all the muck in the corporate tax, lower rates, to a more competitive level. so those are some the things we think it but you're right, if

you put, if you look outside of medicare, medicaid and social security, what's happening, or when we propose happened to the role of government and because we expect you'll see significant restraint across the rest of the government to preserve room for those three areas of where we think our best for come pretty good economic returns. >> i'm ms. hayworth with the naval postgraduate school. i had the opportunity or a dare turn or talk a few months ago, and i actually don't know what his title is but my understanding is five days before he took over the job, everything collapsed year, and he had a combined responsibility of oversight for all the british financial systems, plush the climate -- plus of the climate. he said when he got there he couldn't begin to understand how

the system works. and he pulled together a team and it took them six months to identify how our system in this worked and who were all the players and to talk to one another and who didn't talk to one another. and he sort of said if you don't understand that, how do you know what to fix? so my question is, if we understand it, why isn't it made public? why can't we -- i mean speak to talk about the complexity of the oversight structure? >> no, he was taught about the complexity of the system, what went on in all the banks. he was looking and all financial system at how all of that worked. and mighty is that process really matters, and you got to be educating us on these unbelievable processes so we can see when you make a decision it actually makes sense. >> let me pick up on that and just say, there is so little education really about how our financial system works and how the oversight works so that when

something like a $2 billion number with jpmorgan chase and happen, the sky is falling, and maybe it is, that the average person does not have to deal with it. >> i think it's true a lot of things, not just in the recent crisis, because these numbers are unfathomable for most people. even in the discussions about the fiscal trajectory, we talk about tenure numbers leading to three or $4 trillion in savings. i agree about the state would have a much more public financial and oversight structure than is typical in many countries. what makes our system unique and different is in our system, banks provide about half the credit the economy needs. and the rest of the credit comes from the broader capital market. outside of banks directly. that creates a whole, that is an advantage to us in many ways

because if you see some parts are we, others can comments it. we also have left in place a very complicated oversight structure, so we have banks regulated -- [inaudible] >> if it's long sentences -- >> i would love to spend more time talking about this. you're right, is a competent system and you're right, people do not have a lot of confidence because they just lived through the worst financial crisis since the great depression. completely understand the reforms themselves are simple in terms of capital limiting risk-taking and leverage. in their design, they are competent for a lot of reasons. that makes it much harder to help people understand and believe the system were putting in place today will be better at protecting them than it was in the past. and i think you're right, we have a substantial decline and

tried to make a case to explain that because it's complicated. we can do a better job. >> and the rule writing has taken so long. >> in part because we're too many people writing rules, frankly. >> alan webb. mr. secretary, what is the u.s. interest as regards the euro? doesn't matter to the u.s. whether or not europe continues with monetary integration, or whether one or more countries dropped out of the euro? >> i think it does matter because we have a long interest, as you know, in supporting the european project. they have chosen this path. we didn't choose it for them, and we have an interest in networking and helping make it work, but we can't choose for them have to do that. but yes, i think we do have an interest in seeing them to do what they need to do to make this more viable. >> what role do we play?

some have suggested that we're not playing a strong enough role. >> well, you know, there's a phrase we use, it's unfair to state this way is we can't want this more than them. we can't make these choices for them. it's 17 countries, incredibly difficult politics. the economics and financial is very tough, and so they're going to to figure out what works for them, and what we're doing is what i think we can do, and actually what we can do is he is hopeful as possible, as persuasive as possible. they come to us all the time to ask us for ideas on what might work. they look at lessons from our experience. and where we have the capacity to help them financially we are doing that. the federal reserve is doing what we can do uniquely, which is giving them access to dollar swap lines which are very, very important to what they're facing now, which we have done, we've

done quickly and on a very substantial scale. and, of course, we are supporting what the imf is doing in that context. angina, to people who say we should be louder, and telling them what to do, that would be more helpful, i don't think so. and there are people who say we should go write them a check so they don't have to write a larger check to help underpin -- kosi how that's defensible. they are a very rich continent. this is within their capacity to manage, and if we the world try to limit the burden then to fix it, then their commitment to the endeavor will look weaker and that won't help. [inaudible] >> what matters is we need a strong europe, better for us that they are strong and growing over time. we do not benefit from a long period of european weakness for occupation which what is what we're seeing. it has huge implications for us.

>> star guiding, last october the council in new york ask you this question, does the europeans have the financial power to solve this issue. my question to you today, are you satisfied with the german position on this crisis? have the germans made up their minds be? i know there's a lot of focus on germany but i think it's unfair to look to germany as the sole source of the problem now. you know, what germany is saying is to make monetary union work we are prepared to put a substantial resources behind this broader endeavor. but for that to work there needs to be brought reforms and changes to the institutions. can't erode overtime. that is a very reasonable position. you can differ with lots of elements of the strategy and how

it's evolved, how quickly it's evolving, but on that basic premise, -- that's perfectly reasonable acceptable. and recognize you need both for this to work. simple. you need reforms that will endure with institutional changes that look like you can't go back, and you need a substantial commitment for financial resources to give them the time, both those two things. that means it's not just about germany. it requires other countries to be willing to move towards them. >> there's a question in the back. >> thank you. i'm with the dow jones. thank you, mr. secretary, for doing this. so the g20 is going to review europe's progress next week. i assume that the g20 is not going to do much other than that on europe.

i'm wondering, do we have time for 11th hour action by europe once again next, later in the month? spain's yields are beyond sustainable, et cetera, et cetera. do we have that i'm? >> i think it right, and many people of service, that if you wait to move in these things and you let the market get ahead of you, then you increase the costs of the solution and you make it harder to get there. you get too much momentum. it's very costly. so there's no argument for once you decide, there's no argument for doing it slowly together as quickly as you can. now, they are having a summit at the end of this month and what they're trying to do is negotiate a new set of reforms so that they can lay them out to the world at that summit. and you're asking a question, will the world wait for them. they have a pretty strong incentive, not just because they

come from the g20 early next week but because the greek election, because the world is waiting for them. they have a big incentive to add as much clarity to those plans as early as they can. and they can help with confidence that the major players in europe state what their intentions are, even if will take all time to negotiate the details of the. that in itself would be reassuring. will you will see them into the g20 and after, even ahead of the summit you see the world will still to germany, and for them to lay out more clarity on banking union, on a firewall for the reform countries and on the gross stuff but i think more clarity would be better sooner. >> ted truman, peter institute for financial economics. so following up on the list

question, mr. secretary, you name three, listed three things, banking union, growth, i can remember what the third one is, firewall, support mechanism, and essentially said that's what has to come out of the summit. out of their summit. >> using their words, their plans, their elements. >> are you confident that you will get all three? and -- >> let me finish the question, mr. secretary. [laughter] spent we worked together. [laughter] >> but this time i'm going to give you the last word. are you confident? and what, the general request and -- agenda question is what is the risk that if they are falling short? and i think this goes to the consequences including for the broader financial system and cling our own. thank you spent i think the

stakes are very high for them and for the rest of us. i mean, they have the interest, again, we can't, their interest is more powerful than anyone in trying to avoid that risk. so how confident am i? you know, i tried to emphasize the positive. they have laid out pretty clearly what you want to go in these dimensions. they have put some pretty capable people in charge of trying to design the details of that framework, and based on what they say to us directly, they are serious about it. i think they recognize the importance of moving out. this is not like it's been, i think this is the fourth major escalation, not just in the crisis but their response. this is different from the way it's felt before in the sense that they are not minimizing the risks and they are not telling us that they feel they have a whole bunch of time to wait. so hopefully that is

encouraging. >> with that, i'm told by our colleagues here at the council that we have no more time. and that ted truman has had the last word. >> ted deserves the last word. >> we want to thank secretary geithner and your team for making this possible. [applause] >> and i should point i was always came to its very obvious, but just make sure anyone knows, this was entirely on the record. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> here's some of what we're covering on c-span2 this one. at 9 a.m. eastern time, attacks and less organization will host a discussion about the u.s. tax

code and the wealthy. secretary of state hillary clinton said wednesday that the obama administration has repeatedly urged russia to cut military ties completely and suspend all for the support and deliveries to syria. russia's foreign minister has denied allegations by secretary clinton that they are sending attack helicopters and has accused the u.s. of selling arms to the opposition. sector clinton's remarks are from a joint news conference with india's minister of external affairs. following their third annual session of the u.s.-india strategic dialogue. this is 40 minutes. >> we have had an excellent

meeting of the strategic dialogue between our two nations, covering a wide range of bilateral regional and global issues. and i will just touch on a few to highlight. first, i want to put the third strategic dialogue into a broader context. india and the united states have a strong foundation of friendship and cooperation. that today we are seeing something new. the strategic fundamentals of our relationship are pushing our two countries interests into closer convergence. by strategic fundamentals, i mean not just our shared democratic values, but also our economic imperative and a diplomatic and security priorities. for example, in order to grow and prosper in today's world, both united states and india need an open, free, fair and

transparent global economic system. we both seek security and stability in south asia and the asia-pacific. and we both see the importance of a coordinated international response to violent extremism and other shared global challenges. what does this mean for our partnership? well, today there is less need for dramatic breakthroughs that marked earlier phases in our relationship, but more need for steady focus cooperation aimed at working through our differences and advancing the interests and values we share. is kind of daily, weekly, monthly collaboration may not always be glamorous, but it is strategically significant. and that is, after all, what this dialogue is all about. on the economic front, we reviewed the progress that we

made together and acknowledged there is still more room for growth, investment and business ties. we need to advance negotiations on a bilateral investment treaty, further reduce barriers to trade and investment in our two countries, to create more hospitable environments, more companies to do business. and i was pleased that just yesterday westinghouse and the nuclear power corporation of india signed an agreement that will see construction of new power plants in india and help india meet its energy needs. i -- involving other leading american companies, including general electric. and we will work together to ensure these projects are implemented to produce real benefits for citizens and businesses alike. we also covered a number of serious concern such as counterterrorism, cybersecurity

and sustainable development. we discussed cooperation in afghanistan and the importance of working together with other partners to help build a peaceful and prosperous salvation. both the united states and india have signed strategic partnership agreements with afghanistan to demonstrate our enduring commitment, and today we agreed to move forward with a formal trilateral consultation among our three nations. i told minister krishna how much we appreciate in these efforts in afghanistan and the region, and how much we are looking forward to the investment conference that india will post later this month in new delhi. we also discuss the governments of india and pakistan are taking to open up avenues for trade, investment and movement of people. and i applaud the leadership

that prime minister singh and prime minister gilani have demonstrated. we pay particular attention to the future of the asia-pacific region and our strong support for india's look east policy. we will work together to key multilateral institutions such as the east asia summit and the asean regional forum. and the united states really welcomes india's support for our participation as a dialogue partner in the indian ocean rim association for regional cooperation. and finally we worked through some of the issues that we have fielded in common because of the concerns about iran's continuing search for a nuclear weapon, and india has made it clear that, no, i ran like all countries

must live up to their international obligations. and as i report to congress this week, india has taken steps to diversify its sources of imported crude by reducing purchases of iranian oil. we recognize the important energy need that india has, and we are working with india, not only to ensure stable oil market, not to do more to open up other sources of energy for india. now, on all these and other key issues, we are working to convert common interests into common action. and we have to follow through. but i was very encouraged by what we heard today. you know, things that don't make the headlines but are so critical, such as yesterday's first ever higher education dialogue, making it easier for u.s. and indian researcher students and faculty to take

advantage of the educational resources and opportunities in both countries, and we announced the first age of grant recipients of the obama sing 21st century knowledge initiative to our joint commission are working on improving our linkages in science and engineering and data sharing. we have a new agreement signed in the health area to boost research on diabetes come and for the first time we agreed to share the u.s.-india open government platform software that promotes transparency and accountability with a third country partner, rwanda. the list is very long. the minister and i will be making a comprehensive report. he to the prime minister, i to the president, of everything that has been happening in all of the fairies aspects of this incredibly important dialogue.

but i want to thank my partner and colleague in this work for his leadership and his attention that has translated this idea into a very important reality for both our countries. >> thank you, sector clinton's -- secretary clinton. it is always a pleasure for me to come back to washington, d.c. because it is in this city that i've spent a couple of years of my very interesting interaction into a american politics. and i had the pleasure of meeting some of the great americans who have led this country subsequently in subsequent years.

and it is always an added pleasure for me personally to meet with secretary clinton. i always derive so much comfort and so much expectation, if i may say so, sector clinton's -- secretary clinton. three years back we started on this journey of starting a relationship. and this is the third year in succession that we are representing our two great countries. and let me convey that we had a very productive dialogue. i want to thank all my ministry of colleagues and senior officials for their participation.

our presence here speaks to the extraordinary depth and diversity of what engagement, which is evidenced. the relationship between our two countries, to vibrant democracies, one of the oldest, and the other one the largest. secretary clinton and i express confidence about realizing the enormous potentials of forward economic dialogue, and addressing the concern on both sides which i had outlined and -- yesterday. we welcomed the progress on nuclear cooperation, as was mentioned by secretary clinton,

with the signing between npca oh and westinghouse. i think this should put out rest some of the interpretations and some of the confusions that was prevailing in the spirit the immediate aftermath act we signed the nuclear accord. but i am glad that things are now nuclear conference is now beginning to expand itself. and we hope more indian and american companies will be involved in the coming months. week, secretary and i, support the growing on different tech delta transfers, and all development and corporate action in our expanding differing relationship.

i have informed secretary clinton of our willingness to receive a team of officials to visit india for the third consecutive year, from world war ii. stronger and more effective cooperation encountered tourism -- in after terrorism, and intelligence in recent years is an important aspect of our strategic partnership. india's interest in further access, in accordance with our legal procedures, for the investigations into the mumbai terror attack of november 2008 was raised. we recommend the broad portfolio of cooperation in clean energy.

i also saw a liberal -- avec to india which would be in our mutual economic interest. we agreed to strengthen the a rate of our programs in higher education, health, science and technology, agriculture and women's importance. we have made progress in these areas. as secretary clinton has pointed out, our discussions demonstrated yet again our shared interest in convergent fuels and regional and global issues. we are committed to build up that capacity for governance,

development, and -- [inaudible] through regional integration. we again stressed the importance of elimination of -- [inaudible] and the region's stability. we discussed the gulf region, including our concern about the growing violence in syria. secretary clinton updated me on the p5+1 talks with iran. i conveyed india's list, and settlement of the iranian nuclear issue through dialogue. there are 6 million indians who live in this region, which is

also particularly -- to our economy. we share the performance changes taking place, and also on prime ministers -- recent visit to myanmar. [inaudible] in terms of our dialogue on asia-pacific and indian ocean region. as also associated with regional architectures, we affirm our mutual interest. secretary clinton will come to india -- [inaudible] in the asia-pacific. i welcome the u.s. interest in becoming our partner. i am told that as the current

change, we will take it forward with other members. our meeting today, yet again, underscored the global dimensions of our relationship, and added new momentum to our partnership. thank you. [inaudible] madam secretary, you and minister lavrov of russia appeared to be calling each other liars. in essence, you are saying that russia is providing helicopters? in fact, the word was used en route today, en route to syria. minister lavrov completely denies that. he says they are providing air defense systems, but everything that they're providing does not violate international law.

then he threw back to you and said the u.s. indeed is providing arms and weapons. so, you can't both be right. [laughter] >> well, i was very clear yesterday about our concerns regarding the continuing military relationship between moscow and the assad regime. we have repeatedly urged the russian government to cut these military ties completely, and to suspend all for the support and delivery. obviously we know, because they confirmed that they continue to deliver. and we believe that the situation is spiraling towards civil war, and it's now time for everyone in the international community, including russia, and all security council members, to speak to assad a unified voice

and insist that the violence stop, and come together with kofi on an plant a transition to go forward. it is something that we believe is in everyone's interest, most particularly the syrian people. and russia says it wants peace and stability restored. it says it has no particular love loss for assad, and it also claims to have a vital interest in the region and relationships that it wants to continue to keep. they put all of that at risk if we do not move more constructively right now. and i would emphasize that the united states has provided no military support to the syrian opposition, none.

all of our support has been medical and humanitarian, to help relieve the suffering of the syrian people. a total of $52 million so far. we have also provided non-lethal support to the opposition, including things like communications gear. so, rather than having a long distance debate with my colleague, with whom i've worked on some issues on a regular basis, i would urge that we follow the lead and request of kofi annan and come together to try to intimate the pillars of his plan, including a framework for a political transition. and that is what we have been advocating for, and that is what i stand ready to do.

[inaudible] >> thank you, mr. administrator. after three rounds of dialogue, where is the relationship between the two countries, strong relationship between, what is -- what is the signal your synagogues and madam secretary, three years ago you address first station india, you have said this is -- after your opening remarks today, is it to zero and what doesn't look like? do you agree with recent remarks that india needs to do more in afghanistan? mr. prime minister, is -- [laughter] [inaudible] >> does any have red light in afghanistan would you say to you is no, we can do this? and finally -- [laughter]

india has made a request for giving access -- [inaudible] involved in moving. is india ready to give access again? thank you. >> do you want to start? [laughter] >> well, where do you start? [laughter] >> i will take a stab at it. because, you know, it's one of those multi-part questions that is, let me try. first of all, as to the strategic dialogue, we go from strength to strength. i'm actually according to minister today, because we believe strongly that we have evidence to prove it that our relationship is deepening and broadening. the extraordinary work that has been done between the last

strategic dialogue and today, on so many issues, which we will memorialize in our report, and certainly make public, demonstrates the depth of cooperation between our two countries. and it's not only government to government. we are bringing in civil society. we are bringing in academia. we're bringing in the private sector. so i, for one, believe that we may be surpassing 3.0. we may be onto something that is quite unique and very important, and i appreciate your asking. secondly, on afghanistan, i was briefed on the work that india is doing with afghanistan. we very much appreciate india's commitment to help build a better future for the afghan people, helping them with more

than $2 billion or development, supporting the new silk road initiative, hosting the investment conference at the end of the month. providing security training and support. i am very pleased that afghanistan is getting this kind of encouragement and tangible support. because it's in everyone's interest that afghanistan be a secure and stable as possible. with respect to information sharing, you know, it is our policy and practice to share information. and we do that, but i'm not going to go into details because we think that -- our cooperation on intelligence sharing, on homeland security issues, on counterterrorism has gotten to a new level.

it is very important to both of our countries. but it's also important that, you know, we support the work that is done by our professionals and our experts in protecting both of our countries, and i think we are satisfied that that is occurring. >> well, the strategic dialogue that has taken place with united states in the last three years has been extremely beneficial to india. the tangible outcomes of the broad-based discussions, we have a vast array of issues -- the joint statement that has been issued. if i had to list some of the

most important areas where we have moved, i had at the through strategic dialogue, i heard a mistakingly single out higher education, science and technology, innovation, and clean energy. i was very interest with the way the dialogue on higher education, which was presented, not only the government, but -- [inaudible] i think this is an important moment in the most positive direction that not only the two governments involved in this strategic dialogue, but the whole society, as was put by

secretary clinton. the civil society is also involved. that academia is also involved. the people are also involved. so hands, i think this dialogue derives basic strength from this, and we will certainly continue to take this forward. there have been some useful outcomes that i mentioned about the agreement between westinghouse and npcil. the shared interest and convergent views on a range of global issues -- [inaudible] it added a new momentum for us, global strategy cooperation. with reference to afghanistan,

in these roles has always been -- india's roles as those been very constructive outcome. in the larger neighborhood of india. and we have civilization, historic and cultural ties with that country, and with the people of afghanistan. and president karzai, when he came last october to delhi, he signed a strategic partnership with afghanistan. and the whole purpose behind that is to convey to the people of afghanistan that the afghan problem has to be solved and the afghan leadership, yes, they need excellent support. to the extent that is possible,

and the support will not be able to afghanistan indefinitely. and that is the reason why we have impressed upon afghanistan, and other countries who are remaining friends of afghanistan, that we need to -- [inaudible] which is strange -- trained by others but politically -- [inaudible] and so i think we will continue to do that, and i'm sure that afghanistan will be able to find a solution within their constitution. we wish them well. >> thank you. madam secretary, if we could go back to syria for just a second.

i'm wondering, how bad are relations between the u.s. and russia gotten over this? there's some might argue it's almost become as much about the u.s. and russia poking each other than it is about the real issue here, and how is that taken away in your opinion from what the real goal is? you always say diplomacy is key in this area. secondly, if syria is spiraling toward civil war, what does that say about the u.n. observer mission? are you concerned about her safety? with they remained there in safe capacity if and when you are willing to say it is a full-blown civil war? >> look, i think everyone knows we have a very comprehensive relationship with russia. we have worked well together on a range of important issues. and the last three and a half years, the so-called reset the president obama and president medvedev led at the beginning of this administration, has, you

know, been quite constructive and positive for certainly the united states and russia, and the larger world. we disagree on syria. that's not the only issue we disagree on, but it is one where people are being killed every single day, where violence is escalating, where the government has engaged in these brutal assault against its unarmed civilians, including children. we disagree. and we were encouraged when russia, along with the other members of the security council, supported kofi annan and his plan. we have been working very hard with many nations to translate that plan into tangible steps that can be taken. and it's clear that the voices

of the entire international community need to be clear in the message to assad that it is time for him to participate in saving his own country from a downward spiral into even greater violence. and as part of special envoy kofi annan's plan, that includes a political transition. so we've had numerous discussions, and we are remaining hopeful that kofi will be able to bring a relevant group of nations and multinational organizations together to find a way forward. so we will, we will state our position very clearly, and support kofi annan.

and we do so in part because we are worried about the u.n. mission. we think that the events of the last week where you in on servers have been put at risk -- we're u.n. observers have been put at risk, even in positions where they were attacked, either intentionally or unintentional unintentionally, in the midst of the conflict, are worrisome. and i've talked about this last week with kofi. he does not want to put these brave men and women who are trying to do, help protect civilians, into situations that are absolutely untenable and dangers to them. so, all of these, all of these concerns have to be addressed. and i think it's time for the international community, including russia, to come to the

table and deconstructed in trying to find a way forward. >> thank you. and i have only one question for each of you. my friend, mr. administrator, my question is on the economic linkages between andy and the u.s., a key pillar of strategic dialogue. where there appears to be pressure on india to open up access to some of its markets more rapidly, and also some disappointments with india's decision in the nuclear sector, at least until recently, and defense sectors. how would you explain and ease-of-use on these matters? and on the flipside, did you query the u.s. side on concerns that india may have regarding u.s. policies that affect its economic interest? and madam secretary, to you, -- >> one each. flashback. >> when you and minister krishna stood at the same podium at 2010, you described your

relationship as a matter of the hard. since then however there's been various ups and downs, for example, again until recently slow progress on nukes and india's concerns may be about protectionism, and iran question. so given as a strong stand that both these countries have on issues of mutual interest, do you see any changes that you might propose to the model, so to speak, the u.s. has for this relationship? >> well, with respect to affairs of the heart, they usually have ups and downs. [laughter] but that does not make them any less heartfelt, or any less of a commitment. and so, i feel as strongly today as i did two years ago. i think that it's always a temptation to zero in on, you

know, what the differences are. that's understandable, and it certainly is to be expected by the press as part of your job. whether it's one country or another or in particular india, i always look at the totality of the relationship. and i would be never in a position to say we don't have differences. how could two great nations with our histories and our political systems, these rockets, incredibly pluralistic democracies not have differences? that would be quite odd if that were the case. but there's no doubt that our values and our interests are converging, that we have a view of this relationship that is in

keeping with the perspectives and histories that bring us together in the 21st century. why we are finding so much more common ground that we are working on together. so i am very positive about our relationship, and we will continue to work through the differences as they arrive. >> well, i am conscious of the fact that there is a degree of skepticism regarding the prevailing sentiment of business and economic content of relationship. i have listed some of our pressing concerns in my speech yesterday. i have also been sensitized to

the concerns related by u.s. business. in times of stability and certainty for the global economy, expression of such views are not unusual. however, as i said yesterday, the indian economy will restore investors confidence, and reaching growth momentum. i have great confidence in the future for economic partnership, advertise, trade, investment and innovation, growing in both directions our difference in high-technology trade is ever

expanding. india plans to invest more than a trillion dollars on development in the coming five years, will provide business opportunities which the u.s. companies can consider exploiting. openness and growth in the u.s. economy will also support stronger economic ties. and we have issued, everyone will be interested in making investment in india, that there is going to be a level playing field, and there will be total transparency. and with these two parameters,

i'm sure that a number of companies from outside india would be willing to participate in this great developmental journey that india is setting on. and i am sure that the united states and india strategic relationship is going to be helpful in this journaling -- and is a journey. >> thank you all. [inaudible conversations] >> this weekend on booktv.

a video record of his travels, then live at 730, he takes your calls and questions. also this weekend on afterwards, conservative commentator jonah goldberg blames liberals for an ongoing war on ideas using the tyranny of clichés. >> american politics have been distorted the last century or so by this idea that the further we move away from the left the closer you get it i think. one of the -- under this races, another one is success. so in some ways the best working definition of a fastest is simply conservative who's winning an argument. >> that sunday night on booktv this weekend on c-span2. >> the story behind the star-spangled banner, the invasion and burning of washington, d.c. this weekend on american history tv marks the bicentennial of the start of the war