make calls from your work phone? .. as these candidates no endeavor reddi-wip here knows -- up here

knows this discussion is not about that. they are qualified. they should be voted out. they should take their position any viet fleet. what this debate is about is republican obstructionism. as soon as i leave this meeting i am going to the environmental committee meeting on which i sit on the environmental committee to see if we can get one gina mccarthy appointed. republicans didn't show up at that meeting. they boycotted it. mr. chairman, let me just quote from an article written by james in in the atlantic website this is what he said, since the democrats gain the majority control of the senate, the republicans under mitch mcconnell have applied filibuster threats under a variety of names and the frequency not seen before in american history. filibusters' used to be

exceptional and are now used as tactics for any significant legislation or nomination. the goal of the strategy that maximizes the power in a way not foreseen in the constitution has been to make the 60 vote requirement seen routine, that is what he said. senate republicans have been intent to obstruct every order of senate to business as a dedicated political strategy. in fact since democrats took control of the upper chamber in 2007 the senate of the 110th, 11th and 12th conagra's witnessed the three highest filibusters' ever recorded. so what we are seeing is nothing new. you just happen to be in the way right now. it has nothing to do with you personally. we are seeing an effort now in almost every single level to make the government dysfunctional.

this was difficult arctic and i'm not here to criticize that tactic. you are here using your position to advance your ideas and the best way that you can. i think it is a great disservice to the american people but you are doing what you can in using the rules. the question is what does the majority do? that to me is the question. the minority is doing everything they can in this case to make it impossible for the people who are on the job to have their rights protected so that tomorrow if some fellow out there trying to organize the union that worker will have no recourse if an employer abuses and employee against law that worker will have no recourse. the function is to protect the rights of the workers and in terms of labor negotiations said the right to form a union if there is notsnd i think

that is a terrible, terrible thing that's very clear about what the republicans want. we shouldn't be around the bush. these are qualified candidates. they should be allowed to do the job that the nlrb provides for them to do. now, the question, mr. chairman, is what happens. my guess is they will in fact get a majority vote out of the committee probably with everybody on this side voting for them. everybody on that side voting against them. the nominations will go to the floor of the united states senate. everything he called the republican friends will once again filibuster and demand 60 votes. we will not get 60 votes. the nlrb come august i believe will not become dysfunctional and millions of workers will lose the protections that have been enshrined by the law for decades. what happens then? i'm not here to criticize the republicans. they are doing what they believe

is best. it is part of a long-term strategy to make it impossible for the president or any of us to do what we think is right in terms of protecting american workers. mr. chairman let me suggest to you what i think we should do. if once again the effort is obstructed if the goal is to prevent them from functioning in terms of protecting the rights of american workers we should take a vote to not only see that the people were seated so that they can do their job but that other nominees have been clearly obstructed also have a chance to do their job. i think the american people see this institution as dysfunctional and one of the main reasons is the minority that has the right to make that case it senator alexander wants to go on the floor for 15 hours i will support his right to do that. but at the end of the day in america of the ledger ravee is

supposed to rule. that is what elections are about. we want with majority rule the president won with a majority. the majority doesn't rule anymore and millions of working people are suffering as a result. mr. chairman, here is my suggestion. if these nominees in fact get the votes that they need, which i suspect they will, they go to the floor and i will be very distraught if we do not see them because of another filibuster. and i would hope that we would use the rules of the senate so that the majority rules if we need 51 votes to seat them, let's do it. thank you mr. chairman. >> senator alexandre's name is recognized. >> thank you mr. chair i respect the senator from vermont. he has a different view than i do. i was reading john www.mechem's book about thomas jefferson the other night and there was an

evening when jefferson and adams sat down after dinner, and i am paraphrasing very carefully from memory, but he said to jefferson, jefferson wrote that without a said we would lose the public. the idea that the majority votes could protect our liberties is a shimmer of the imagination. so, our founders have always envisioned the senate as different than the majority ruled body. you go over to the house of representatives, they have a rules committee and if you win the house of representatives by one vote, you have nine democrats in the majority and four republicans on the side. that is the majority body and it runs like a fast train through. if we had a majority party here, then he would have the tea party express running through the

senate one year and a liberal group the next so that's just a different view. as far as filibusters', i introduced into the record earlier the information from the "washington post" that on march 18th, president obama's come event nominations have been treated more rapidly than the last three presidents in the second term. by now i upse that it would be even. and i remind the senator that the number of supreme court justices in the history of the senate that have been defeated by a filibuster and had been seized by the filibuster is ciro, the number of district judge you've been defeated on either side by the filibuster is a zero, the number of cabinet members who've been denied their seat by a field cloture vote is zero and the number of circuit judges who've been in either side by cloture votes is five republicans all started by the democrats in the 90's will for five republicans and two democrats. i favor a band down votes in this dispute and it's about

respect for article 1 and i won't repeat that since earlier. i respect the senators different view of the senate but i disagree with it. >> when one party chooses to use the rules and an unprecedented way to make this institution dysfunctional, then i think we have to look at new ways. >> the president has made a recess appointments in an unprecedented ways when there wasn't a recess. senator byrd were here he would be talking about that. >> mr. chairman, i actually have to start out. with an apology to charlie

griffin. when i welcomed mr. griffin i welcome his wife and his daughter. very pleased that you are here. i hope that you are enjoying this will. when senators use procedural chnicalities or file toany nomie nlrb. this is not based on any substantive problem with the nominees, but on a fundamental hostilities to the work of the board. the environmental protection agency and the department of labor the nlrb is an agency of the federal government that was created by congress. its existence is part of our federal law and yet the nlrb face the same problems that richard cory has faced the consumer agency arafat gina faces of the environmental protection agency and that tom

perez fees' is at the department of labour. this is about complete because ofa minority of senatot like the agency's and they don't like the work that these agencies do. in my view this kind of obstructionism is a violation of the senate's fundamental constitutional role to advise and consent and nomination. senators can vote against nominees with whom they disagree that they deserve a vote, and i hope that they get a vote. these individuals will be voted on as a package. i don't agree with the views of all five individuals. i find it very troubling for example, of the nominees was hired by the chamber of commerce specifically to curb the nlrb's

regulatory authority. it's not about whether i agree or we disagree on the individual views of the ideology of each nominee. this isn't about whether the nlrb can function at all. it is about giving both workers and employers a fair chance to have their voices heard and their disputes resolved. that is what we are here today to move forward and i will support a package of five nominees. malae have a couple of questions, but one of them comes from what senator scott raised. he seemed to imply that the nlrb is working hard to ensure that all employees of america are not courteous. i tried to find out what i can about the case of the particular case that he talked about and there are two parts to it that interested me. the first is that i understand

that the motors cases the one we're talking about is the case for the employee used social media that affected the employer and complained about his or her job and in that case the nlrb ruled that the company to terminate the employee for derogatory comments about the company. is that correct? if i can see a little bit about that role we don't have an issue with courtesy. we had an issue with the sentence that said prohibiting one saying anything unfavorable about the employer was the problem that had to be dealt with because of that. now, with respect to the social media piece, you had to postings, one posting was by the

salesman would of a video for the son of a customer, 13-year-old son of a customer jumping into the car that the customer had just test doe, itvehis father's foot and crashed the car into a pon at the dealership will and the posting was whoops. the other was a bmw dealership and they were having a promotional celebration and they were offering water and hot dogs and that posting was what kind of food is this? we are trying to sell fancy cars and this is what they are offering to the customers? now the first posting involving the accident was the posting that was the basis for which the employer terminated the and we

even. we concluded that that wasn't protected activity. that was done on an individual basis and as it was kind of snarky and it had nothing to do with terms and conditions of employment but consequential the, we found that there was no violation. with respect -- too let me make sure for all of us who. they could fire the employee for that posting. >> mr. chairman, i see that i'm out of time that i will submit questions for the record. thank you very much and i do want to say again i know that this is tough to take on public service like this particularly now and particularly when there are much larger debates that go on that are not having to do with you specifically and i am grateful to all of you for your willingness to serve.

i have no doubt that he will serve the nlrb and this country well. >> thank you. senator franken. >> i have to get back to the judiciary i'm sorry that i missed the rest of the hearing. how is it going? [laughter] for serving on the national labor relations board this would place the important role of protecting the rights of both employers and workers however the lack of the full board and the circuits and the will noel canning decision to protect these rights. susie is one of the workers waiting for her rights to be vindicated and suzy is a school bus driver from the river in minnesota. her employer wanted to get rid of the employees to just get rid of the employees who previously

tried to organize the union. they ordered the company to rehire and provide back pay. her employer appealed the nlrb decision to the d.c. circuit because of the noel canning decision and the court will not rule on the matters of the case and it is now eight months after the nlrb decision. she is still waiting for $40,000 of back pay. if the senate confirmed a full five member board, would that mean for the workers like ms. stettler waiting for their cases to be resolved and will keep workers from being put in that same horrible situation of leading? >> thank you, senator. i remember ms. stettler's caisse. if they were to be confirmed as a board, we would have to figure

out what to do about the pending cases, but i think that your second point is absolutely right and is crucial that there wouldn't be any more souci stettler's because we would be able to move forward, make our decisions and then seek enforcement in the courts of appeals and get essentially an up or down vote from the court as to whether we made the right decision under the labor law or not. >> i agree. the answer to the uncertainty that is caused by the constitutional challenge under noel canning is to have a confirmed board. >> i'm sorry i have to go back because i have an amendment i have to introduce on the judiciary but thank you all. questions for you, too. it's nice to meet new. i'm sorry i didn't get a chance to meet you. good luck. it seems like everything is falling into place.

[laughter] >> thank you, senator. >> thank you everyone for your estionance and for thqu and i think the nominees for being here and again for their willingness to serve. i am almost tempted to engage in a little bit of give and take on the constitutional background of the united states senate but i will reserve that for some other time on the floor or something. i've just been involved in trying to get rid of the filibuster for 20 some years. so, i do have the views on the senate rules and on the ability of the minority to block legislation. i would just say very succinctly that i have long felt that there should be a role for the senate to be able to slow things down

and not to rush to judgment to be able to have deliberations so that the rights of the minorities are not run over but at some point the majority must be able to act. it should be the right of the minority to be able to amend, to offer amendments to be able to slow things down to get the public aware of the majority is trying to do but not to in the end be able to absolutely stop something with a minority of the vote, but that is one peson's opinion. again, thank you. i am hopeful that we can move these nominations very rapidly with a conference with the ranking member. i hope to be able to move them sometime very soon. the record will remain open. the record will remain open for ten days.

written questions must be submitted by the close of business this friday, and then we will keep the record open for the responses to those written questions, but after ten days then we will do our duty and move the nominees. so again, thank you very much. if -- doesanyone have anything else that they wanted to add before we adjourn? >> thank you for your time, senators. >> i'm sorry mr. johnson. >> i just said thank you for the time. >> it was senator leahy that first said this and maybe it's been around longer than that but he said that senators are a constitutional impediment to the smooth functioning of staff. [laughter] i have just learned that we are

moving the nominees next wednesday. [laughter] next wednesday morning. scumbuchank you. the committee will stand adjourned. thank you. >> [inaudible conversations] so the question is why do we do it? why take the risks?

is it for fun, for adventure? no. is it for the money? there are certainly easier ways of making a living and doing this. we do it to understand the world and how it changes. the world tends to move like the earth's plate, tensions building, and then suddenly they snap with violent political change and we go to where the cracks are to see how all the plates are fitting together. we do this of the innocents have a voice and we do it to show tv pundits the studio jockeys that they are usually wrong. we do it because we decide this is what we want to do with our slice of time on this planet.

♪ >> how do you describe science in 30 seconds? >> imagine you have a yardstick if you cut it into ten equal pieces you go from something this big to that big. take that and cut it in pieces and throw away 19, you go to the size of life in the real. if you do this ten times you get to the size of the atom. suppose you did that 35 times what is left of the universe? we have no instruments to measure that and so people like me happen to be working on a piece of mathematics called string theory or superstring theory to answer that question. we think there are four elements there. i tried.

my wife is often asked by people who find out why in a theoretical physicist what does your husband actually do. her answer is he makes up stuff for a living. now that is sort of right away that i prefer it is to tell my story as the following. most people know what novelists do. they take words and sentences and makes characters and tell stories. a theoretical physicist does the same thing at x that we use mathematics to tell our stories. and then if we are really good at what we do, our stories correspond with something that happens in nature, so that little bit that you saw a few moments ago was my intent to sort of baliles down to a very 32nd sound byte mode describing what it is that i and people in my community do to try to understand the world. >> more with the science recipient the pentagon is considering ways to combat sexual assault in the

military. this comes after a report showing a 37% increase in sexual assault at the pentagon today, the defense secretary chuck hagel spoke about the issue. >> alcohol does play a very big factor in sexual assault. not in every case but in many cases. i don't have all the demographics and the metrics but there is no question that it does. that is a part of this. but it can't be used as an excuse, but it is part of the larger context of what is this happening. to your bigger question of what are the best ones? as the president said yesterday and i have said certainly our leadership both at the enlisted

and the officer corps have said that this is coming and you heard it, this is cultural, this is an accountability issue, it is sometimes a structural issue. are we going far enough up and down the chain of command? there are so many dimensions to this that i don't think that you can come at it in one simple way. i get a lot of advice on this. why don't you fire some people? >> we can do this but who are you going to fire? the people that have been charged, they as you all know are moved out of the responsibility until they have a due process. where we can find people who have actually perpetrated these crimes and to prosecute and so on, yes, we get rid of them, but

there is no simple way to come at this. and so, you have to come at it and i think from the entire framework of starting with why is this happening? and i am trying to understand that. there are a lot of dimensions to that and he got into that with the president yesterday. then you get into the reporting process. when you look at those numbers that are in essentially spiking, and i suspect they are going to continue to rise on the reporting as the vice president joe biden reminded us yesterday there is a glimmer of hope. there is no good news in this but there is a glimmer of hope because in many cases we are going back in and trying to understand this to ask a lot of questions, you know, is at least there is new confidence being built out there and developed that when people come forward and report something, they have some assurance that first of all the victim will be treated

fairly and there will be something done about that. then you have the victim's rights. the protections of those victims. but as a victim think about? and expect before they come forward will they be treated fairly? that is a part of it. then you have to look at the prosecutorial side and the penalty side. you look at all of those pieces and you cannot just take one or two or three of them and fix just one or two. it's everything. that's why the panel, the outside independent review panel is so important here because as you all know, i think the last count the light of this morning, there were ten pieces of legislation in the house and the senate that change components of all of the reporting on the structure and who was accountable and some of that

taking a vote of the military command structure. we are going to have to do something. we will do something. whenever we do we want to make sure that it's right. it is congressional the mandated coming and we need to see what they come up with and we are listening to everybody and talking to everybody. we are talking to other military is by the way from around the world to see what they think. the president noted that yesterday and i told him that we were talking to the different military is around the world. how are they dealing with it and what kind of command structure have they changed in what works. it isn't just one or two things. >> you can see this entire news briefing with secretary chuck hagel and martin dempsey tonight at 11:35 p.m. eastern on the companion network c-span or anytime on line.

politics and public affairs weekdays

from this morning's program california congresswoman louis capps. >> host: joining us now representative louis capps, a democrat from california. she served the 24th district of santa barbara st. louis and santa maria. hello. >> guest: nice to be here. >> host: what does it say that a 37 to vote on the affordable characteristic and yesterday about the affordable care act itself? >> guest: well, the health care is working now with this new law in place. that is happening. but in the meantime the leadership in the house of representatives is stuck on whether they approve it or not. the american people partaking the parts that work for them and we are moving it forward. >> host: as far as the effort itself? >> guest: it is the 473 appeal as the speaker said, and the speakers we were talking about, but it's going to die in the senate as the of the previous

ones have. >> host: how would you grade or at least the administration's effort on the affordable care act? to dave >> host: i worked very hard for a year on one of the committees to get this out of the committee and onto the floor for a vote. that was a very tough year, a good year because we produce a product. what we didn't do is have a format with a net for providing education to the american people. and so there has been a gap of time where people have not -- the watch the contingency debate and they saw what was coming out of it and they didn't realize how it impacted their lives. and a lot of people still don't. >> host: was the the congress or the white house itself together? >> guest: there is blame to go round but the challenge is, and i am a public health nurse to the i came to congress knowing we had a broken health care system in this country, and i was determined to try to do something about it. and i was very pleased to be a

part come a big milestone. you also know that you need medicaid. for the vast majority of people that are healthy, they don't think about having health care benefits. >> host: on the rollout aspects of the affordable care there's been criticisms by some democrats on how it is rolled out and part of it is education and part of is the condition of where the individual pieces are. do you share those concerns? >> guest: i share the concerns because i want people to see the good parts of the bill. and so for me maybe it is a background as a public health nurse again. but it is the ability to have prevented healthcare. when i was a school nurse for many years in my community, it was very clear to me which kids had regular checkups and had a family that if you had a

conference about not just an emergency accident because you can always go to a clinic. although that is very stressful if you don't have health insurance, but for the problems that arise, how is this going to be addressed long term? it was clear which families have access to health care and which did not. and i just knew that we needed to provide access for all people, and this is a big step in that direction. >> host: lois capps with us to talk about the vote that took place yesterday and about the rollout of the affordable care act. you can ask her questions on both here are the numbers 202-58-5388 ciro for democrats, (202)585-3881 for republicans, (202)585-3882 for independent and you can send a tweet and e-mail as well. the house is in today, so ms. capps will be staying with us until that time and the representative will take your questions. we start with the brawny and in

salem pennsylvania independent line. >> caller: its. first i wanted to know if you read the entire law before you voted for it. >> guest: thank you for calling. yes it was before my committee for an entire year to a i didn't read it, but we struggled over it and we debated over it in a very bipartisan way every line pretty much pity it and it is a complicated bill, orval -- or law. but we do not turn it over to the government as in a single page program. we know we need some government assistance in certain parts of it. the question is where and how. >> host: the next is in jonesboro arkansas. sorry. he is gone to the use of the speaker in the house yesterday sitting by the 7-foot stack of regulation referred to several times yesterday. are you concerned about the regulatory side that much

paperwork and the law is involved in implementing this. >> guest: we need to streamline it and that is a lot of regulation that there are a lot of requirements put into the bill. in this year debating about it and i think right now what you get when you pass a major piece of legislation is something that needs to be refined and improved over time. i think we saw this with medicare when it was passed in this one, too has a lot of pieces. those will be streamlined hopefully into something people can understand because everybody wants access to their own provider. they want a method to have so they can afford it and that is the piece that comes together. >> guest: we don't want it to mean a stack of papers you have to fill out. >> as far as the regulations though -- >> guest: yes that needs to be translated into something that if you or the provider you can understand clearly. you know, for the bulk of the patients and their doctors this is not going to change the

already have health insurance plan, the of a doctor they go to that's going to continue. it's the people for whom this has been outside of their reach. >> host: so the medical community shouldn't worry, is that what you are saying? >> guest: we all need education as it happens. you don't know when you write legislation and touch base. we have providers, patient, consumer groups and the rest and we put it together and then you roll it out and it should be through fairly straight forward and we will see that as it is being delivered. >> guest: one of the things that took place is a conference between the two party and the senator spoke and he talked about the medical i guess medical records as part of his concerns for the future especially when it comes to the irs. and here what he has to say and i want you to respond to it. >> i am a physician. i am quite worried about policy of the medical records and i am quite worried that your medical

records now will be evaluated by the irs that seems to have the ability and seems to have the attention to use political, political persuasion and political opportunity to search all the political opponents. so i'm very concerned about this and someone needs to be held responsible and someone needs to be in prison. someone needs to be prosecuted. the resignation is a step in the right direction but we need to find out who wrote this policy and approved the policy and the need to be held accountable. >> host: representative capps on the idea of the medical records and privacy. >> guest: the center was speaking about a particular situation. we have always had the challenge of making sure patient confidentiality is maintained at all cost read and that really hasn't changed a lot in this legislation. >> host: so the irs is holding down the information and does concern you. >> guest: yes it does but we want to make sure that they don't do it and that they do not overreach that. we have to make sure that if it isn't in this legislation we have to address it.

>> host: kevin, democrats line. >> caller: hello. how are you doing, senator. >> guest: how is it there in sacramento to become a kevin? >> guest: i naturally in wyoming right now. i am a driver. but anyway, i'm listening to everybody speak about an affordable health care act. here i am a husband trying to do the right thing, take care of my family. i get myself in a minor situation where a interim myself. i go to the medical facility there in sacramento, probably there for no longer than an hour and a half. it turns out that my medical situation turned out to be not severe, just a little light pneumonia but it ended up costing me $21,000, which i definitely cannot afford. and as i tell the medical profession look, believe me, i want to pay my bills and i want

to pay it honestly. but when you go from being probably ten to $15,000 a year and your peace deal goes up because of the changing my profession, which i happen to be away from home to make these medical -- you know, now to be a better husband, a better father and a better tax payer. i mean, i don't get the help that everybody speaks of. i'm not getting it and i know that a lot of people in my situation out here on the road and other professions that are not getting that help. but yet, still lying in a hearing republicans, democrats alike. everybody wants the same thing. but instead of blaming people, why don't everybody truly work together and show the public we are here for you. >> host: okay, thank you.

>> guest: i can just picture you driving along the road. as you do worry, everybody does come first and foremost as many families say am i able to provide for them? and you know, you ran into this when you ended up in a medical facility, that the basic protection is to have adequate health insurance. and access to that insurance doesn't come with devotee john and the goal of the affordable health care act is to make that piece of land available for user that you know that since something happened you have access to health care and then for the sake of your children you've referred to the ongoing examination and treatment at preventing programs. >> guest: it would reduce the fundamental cost of health care for everyone but not just premiums. >> guest: health care is too expensive. this bill, the legislation of the affordable care act has its goal to get everybody in the

coverage. hopefully there are ways of the cost will come down as well. >> host: how do you see those coming down? >> guest: bye getting patients to the consumer healthcare more choices, and patient if they are given those kind of trees is, people will tend to pick something that is affordable and that has the best opportunities for them. this health care reform law is based on the capitalistic system that competition works. that you have an array of insurance options. with a subsidy so that you can afford them and you are going to pick the one that is when to help you stay healthy. >> host: is that in the exchange's we are hearing about? >> guest: most people have not had access to any kind of exchange. the kind of got the insurance policy that was handed to them. and most people could not afford it. >> guest: >> host: do you see a uniform application of these drop the 50 states or will it be piecework? >> guest: this is going to happen as the state's role the plans out individually to the and that's what we wanted also, and as much choice

so the states wouldn't like they were handed a cookie cutter, you know, format but could also develop the kind of program that would work for their states. >> host: westport connecticut is next and this is judy on the republican line. >> caller: my question would be if obamacare is so wonderful then why isn't everybody in congress and every that works for the united states government made to take it because you don't want the. >> guest: the members of congress and our staff are all part of the health care reform. we will be part of obamacare as you call it. when the plans are rolled out that we are going to find ourselves in the same plays the role of the american people are, we knew that if we decided something for the american

people we are not exempted any way. >> host: so you ran your staff will be part of it? >> guest: counting my office in the district and here we be there is 22 or so. so this is not going to be a sizable number of people who work in the government as well as others who are going to be entering into the system. most large employers and actually the federal government is one of those people will keep their same policy. if your company has been providing health insurance and you like your doctor and you like your health insurance policy nothing changes for you, but we wanted to experience this as people will experience it for whom this is an opportunity but never had access to health care and now they are going to be able to go on to a market system and choose something. >> host: what about the people that hit that 50 number or below to comply with it and that affects them? >> guest: it is an arbitrary

number i know that all business owners, one of the things i visit them often in my district because it is the backbone of my economy of the biggest frustration is whether they would like to offer it as a benefit. now they will be able to either as a benefit or they will say to there and we used you can choose as an individual participant. independent line. >> caller: good morning. my question is concerning the universal coverage that everybody has to be covered or have some type of insurance. i don't feel comfortable with the irs voice on that especially that they are in a scandal right now. i live in north carolina and we

were the biggest state to drop and i believe that the state has opened one of the exchanges and i wonder how you're going to cover that for people that cannot afford to buy it. >> guest: that is something particular to the state that you live. north carolina will have the way that it's going to happen for the state in the states that didn't participate i live in california and our state reached out and has made this a plan we call it covered california. as of the federal government comes in and will be the place where the exchanges are offered, whether that is through -- there will be a way to do that within your community. >> guest: >> host: st petersburg. >> caller: good morning. i'm very grateful to see a woman like you helping all the women like me in the age group that we

are not working and some of us are in the medicare and medicaid age we struggle to pay for our tax. i have a high risk for cancer. my mother had ovarian and breast cancer so when i lost my job i could not pay. i used to make $15 an hour or and i was working. so i started going to the free clinics and i tried to find affordable tests. to keep myself healthy i believe in intervention and to save in the medical field. all of these tests that i have our medical bills even though i was working with insurance coverage all of my dad is medical because i could not afford every time i went to the hospital i always ended up in

so the american people should be giving these like you and me don't be afraid of change. we work the system, fix it and you know what, the only tax by would be delighted to pay is for the obamacare. >> guest: thank you. i enjoyed listening to your story. it is stories like yours, and you are certainly not alone in what you we count. you are the reason that we knew we needed to address health care reform. you know that you need a health assistance and you can't afford to be built. so hopefully now health care will be affordable for you and you will have that piece of mind of knowing that if you need to get assistance from the doctor or the clinic that there won't be the barrier of cost and the way. >> host: in the health industry how do you keep affordable especially from your experiences on the other side how do you maintain that?

>> guest: the goal was to provide access and enough people participating and the cost will begin to come down. there are affordable clinics now. they have waiting lists. there is going to be an adjustment period. we know as we get into this because we want to bring a lot of people into the system, and we need more community clinics, primary clinics, primary providers. but that is the access to care, that is the most inexpensive care if she can get her preventive care covered in a high-cost care can be avoided or minimized. >> host: there is a story saying that the administration's hired a public-relations firm to help educate health care. it is an 8 million-dollar contract specifically designed to kind of a ticket people about the insurance exchanges. >> host: we put it into the legislation because we knew -- who knows what an exchange is

and in fact there was a debate about what to call this panoply of traces of the shopping cart if you want to call it that to say to people we want you to have traces. we want you to be able to take the choice. some people want to put a lot into health care. there has to be a basic minimum because we know there are certain things and that is good, too. not just catastrophic health care but things that come along way we want there to be coverage for that but let people choose from a market basket. >> host: do you have a sense of how the education will go and how there will be commercials, what does it look like? >> guest: california will be one of the first states to rule out, so the states have developing a plan of education and outreach and it's called the navigator. there is an office in the state come in the governor's office.

it's being described in california and that is all ready now being implemented because there are these deadlines and benchmarks if you will and we want to make sure we meet them. secretaries sebelius says it is on track but as the caller from another state it's very different in different states. some have not embraced so it is going to be handled differently in different states. >> host: is your state a test case? >> guest: it is a big state and there is a lot of enthusiasm about if not universal, but about doing this and figuring out how we can. there is a lot of choice for the state, too to see how much education as required. again on my back providing formal education that happens ahead and a long list of the people understand what they really are involved in, most people have not even taken advantage of the opportunities to stay healthy and that's what we want to have in front of people so that healthier lives, that is the goal.

>> host: california the next call this is the republican line. >> guest: i watched one of the two local heart surgeons talk about obamacare last weekend, and he stated that we have in the federal guidelines, we have 21 heart surgeons to serve our area. we have two of them and the interesting part is the active surgeons we have here or not listed in the directory. so the government work is wrong. all of the information is wrong to be we hardly have any doctors appear that medicare now. they are scrambling to find doctors to the community health center. they will be going to the

community health center, they are struggling to get doctors there because a lot of these guys believe it or not they don't want to go to school for ten or more years and get out and make a minimum amount of money for all of the work and debt that they've gone into and i don't expect these doctors to either but can't they do anything right? we have to cardiologists -- heart surgeons and neither of them are listed in the directory, but we have 21 that are listed and they do not live anywhere near our area. you cannot get it right. so why don't you leave it to the private sector. >> guest: don't you point out some of the big challenges. health care reform talks on. for the mob more rural area there is a shortage of doctors

as a an acute need and this is the case across the country. others access to physicians in some parts and others and this has to be worked out over time. we have enough doctors we want to make the opportunity there available and we have to make medical school, education more affordable so more people can go into that kind of work. there is a number of challenges that we have before us that only get highlighted when people start talking about health care reform. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i've been listening to c-span all morning and the congressman said something about all these exchanges and the you do have a choice. what happens when the government says it dictates what your insurance has to cover that is just like me. i don't need to pay for birth

control pills or a whole lot of things and so you are going to get into this exchange is. it makes insurance go up. i don't see how you can add millions of people to program and it goes down. another thing that scares me is the irs taking all of this in. i don't know why you have to make it so complicated that you have to go out here and teach people what this is about. thank you. >> guest: thank you for calling. there is a lot that seems new in the health care law. but if you have had access to hearehen you will

consider just as you are. and if you now have not been able to go to the clinic because you couldn't afford it or your doctor wasn't there, actually for most people nothing is going to change. but >> host: a story that broke about the health and human services secretary sebelius says that she's going hand-in-hand with the officials with the effort to implement the president's landmark health care law to the people familiar with the outrage. the push comes after people rejected the president's request for additional funds to set up the affordable care act first of all what you think about our actions? >> guest: actually when i was part of the committee there was drafting health care reform, we knew there would have to be outreach and education because people have been calling today my heart goes out because there is a lot that is on known. that is the occasion for a lot of the rumors and stories to the

outreach and education is a political part of getting the sun will properly. and yet, you know, the legislation was passed but it was funded afterwards and some of that funding didn't happen from the government where i think education is part of our role. so now the secretary has gone out and this happens in many other aspects of government as well so we will see. >> host: so as a practice you are okay with it? >> guest: i would like to watch to see how it unfolds to make sure she doesn't step over in the lines, ethical once or breaching any confidence as, you know, going where she shouldn't go. but i do know that -- and i think that this discussion this morning is just a little inkling of how much work we have to do still as this gets rolled out in different ways and in different states, but how much a part of it is just understanding what's there. >> host: i'm sorry what you mean by that? >> guest: we don't want

favoritism being shown anywhere. but the engagement of people involved in health care and helping to explain what it is seems to be a good idea. >> host: just to let you know that at 9:00 this morning it's the house ways and means committee to look at the practices there when it comes to conservative groups. you can watch that life on c-span2. in fact as people are going about the room is starting to fill up when it comes to preparations for the hearing. see it live on c-span2 at 9:00 and listen to it on c-span radio. i invite you to also go to the web site for more information not only about this hearing, but testimony and other documents that are available on that. our guest will stay with us until 9:00 when the house of representatives comes in, hassan, dearborn michigan. ..

health care just decide it is something like that. 229195 in this country. those search roots and a country of 329 and. >> host: it was kaiser family foundation pointed out 50% don't understand the affordable care act. that number jumps to 56% on low-income households, 65% of hispanic households and younger americans demonstrate a lack of awareness unable to say whether the affordable care act is in place. >> guest: this is demonstrating you n ve

huge nice offering, i believe it is a good day, colleagues thought it was good, too. so education outreach and access have to be clearly understood. >> host: a better way of educating folks is a currently understands. >> guest: we need a better way. we need to do every media including the media, but average for the local community as the easiest way. is it or is to be implemented here at they can grow and how you do it in ways that are personal. >> host: i'm a republican line here and thinks are holding on, go ahead. >> caller: good morning, both of you.

almost 8:00 in mississippi. add that to ask the question, what did you tell these employers better for us to furnish this health care to their employees? and what do you tell employees who are going to lose their jobs or have to go part-time because the employer has found out that it cheaper to pay the tax or the sign i should say, which in my opinion is extremely unconstitutional, but they have to pay this fine in the figure is cheaper to to do that and keep the employees on full-time. what are you going to tell these employees that these jobs will be cut back? what are you going to tell these employers? >> guest: i don't know about the employers in your area, but the ones i speak to on almost a daily basis, small-business owners is because despair and frustration has been because of

the cost of health insurance they can afford to offer it to their employees. five, 10, 15 and not those who have more employees offer the most part, 95% have heard a bad offering health insurance. that not going to change for a sequel. >> host: just a few minutes before the start of the house. we'll take as many phone calls as we can. aaron, burlington, iowa, independent line. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. my sister has been searching all over the internet for this obamacare plan, cheapest one she could find is $20,000 a year. who can afford not? not only back, i don't believe all of congress is going to drop their plan and go onto obamacare. they have a too good where they

are at. postcode not much for me to respond to, but there is no one obamacare plan. the way we wanted to embrace what authority in place in this country is we have a range of insurance companies offering a variety of plants. not all of them are $20,000 a year, so people can if they have access ending subsidies because they can afford the premiums that people can enroll and hopefully some of the costs will come down and insurance companies will see there in competition with each other. >> host: our guest is lois capps can assert the 24th district. before we let you go, sir skirmishes at the white house, what does that mean for the president's agenda moving forward to things that the irs and then seeing things like that? >> guest: she knows walking

and chewing gum at the same time as we should have to do. these are distraction and issues that need to be addressed. he also knows he's got how many marmont an officer must make best use of that time. >> host: lois capps from california. san luis obispo. and it's beautiful. >> host: thanks for your time this morning.

>> so the question is, why do we do a? why take the race? is there for fun, for adventure? now, for the money? are certainly easier ways of making a living in doing this. we do it to understand the world and how it changes. wrote tons to this. tensions build an snap of violent political change and we go to where the cracks are to see how the plates are fitting together. we do this so innocents have a voice. we took to show tv pundits and studio jockeys are usually wrong. we do it because they decided this is what we want to do with our slice of time on this

planet. >> i do you feel about describing your scientists? >> i'm going to make the attempt. imaginative yardstick i go from something this big to that date, take remaining to cut into 10 pieces and throw away nine. if you do this 10 times come you get the size of the item.

suppose you did that 35 times. what is left in our universe? we have no instruments to measure that appeared so people like me have been working on a piece of mathematics called string theory to answer that question. we think are filaments they are i tried. my wife is often asked by people who take on trading on the theoretical scientists. the way i prefer to tell my stories the following. most people know what novelists do. a novelist takes words and sentences and makes care is until stories. a theoretical physicist is the same thing, except these mathematics and for really good at what we do have our stories correspond to something that happens in nature. so the clip he saw a few moments ago was my attempt to boil down to a 32nd sound weight describing what it is i and

people in my community to to understand the world. it's the mac maleeha lodhi was select good pakistan between civilian governments and the country gained independence in 1947. the atlantic council today hosted a discussion of the pakistani election. lawyer from former diplomats from pakistan in the u.s. >> good morning, everyone. director of the south asia council on behalf of my colleagues, i'd like to welcome all of you. rebated roughly a week to talk about a very important event in

south asia, the elections in pakistan and we are going to be focusing on pakistan for the next few weeks because there is so much happening this year in the region that affects pakistan and what happens in pakistan affects the region. i just wanted to let you know that on monday afternoon, we'll be having another session on pakistan, looking at economics and development and how the usaid sees the change in circumstances in pakistan as opportunities to move things forward. and then, on the third of june, we are delighted we will be hosting a well-known indian member of parliament, who in his prior existence as a diplomat that served in pakistan and he will be talking about the search for regionals ability to view to what happens to train in india

and pakistan postelection. so this is a recurring team and i am delighted today we have three excellent persons who are willing to help us understand where we go now. particularly given the amount of charges pakistan faces internally and externally, let me quickly introduce them and then i'm going to make each one of them to speak wreathlaying along the discussion and bring morvillo to that discussion. if all goes well, will end at 11:30. first of all, ambassador maleeha lodhi mr. mustard packets and via skype. welcome. ambassador lodhi is well known. she is there to race as ambassador at very critical junctures in u.s.-pakistan relationship. she's also been an active observer of the pakistan

political and economic scene and participates in a number of dialogs and writes regularly on events in saint pakistan so you can see her commentary. and then we have ambassador whose detailed biography is that theo, but it is important to note he has been ambassador to china, pakistan of course foreign secretary and he was foreign secretary under the government of general musharraf and continued under the pakistan daily decided that they would advise against taking the case to the u.n. and there was the parting of ways. maybe he has a different explanation for it then the public discourse on him. he has been very well so a

number of dialogs, including the ones that are center is involved in, military to military dialogue. so we are delighted he is in washington and he would be with that. a number have a room senior fellow at the middle east center. boston was director of the middle east central asia department at the imf and has worked very close late with pakistan, particularly the previous government on a number of issues come advising them on specific issues. but now his circuit at the atlantic council. we thought it would be critical to take a look at the economic challenges in pakistan and to get a season on the board. so let me just say a lot has been said about the elections. a lot of the conventional wisdom

that this is a watershed election, that is going to change everything. and my personal view, it is very important. the turnout was historic proportions, approaching the turnout of the 1970 elections, which was last called free and fair and competitive elections in pakistan. the end result of that election was not very good for pakistan. i lost half the country. this time things are different and so there's an opportunity perhaps to build on this. however, some interesting things come to light immediately. one, the punjab and center will be in the control of the same party and this is not happen in a very long time. so it offers a great opportunity to work together because punjab can be an economic growth for pakistan. the other of choruses in pakistan's people surprisingly

voted very badly in the punjab so it now largely confined to a parody. not the pakistan managed to surprise everyone by taking a large number of seats and forge a very good fight in the punjab in areas so there is some how the nicene of the youthful inventions into pakistani politics, which is likely to have an effect as we go forward. the shape of the new government is still being decided. relationships with neighbors are obviously on the agenda and we look forward to covering all of these. one interesting point of the islamization of pakistan if you look at the numbers, the islamic

parties have not gone about the 5%. they are still hovering 4.5, 4.8% and that probably says some thing for the main parties for the urban class in pakistan. and the opportunities of having poverty in pakistan going forward. i'm not going to take the place of our experts. so let me go immediately to maleeha. tell us how things appear and how do you read these results after you spoken, will invite the others to join us. thank you. >> it's a great pleasure to have joined this morning. for us i presume you see me?

>> yes. >> already, okay. i was in islamabad to join the election coverage of pakistan's largest organizing from karachi. i managed to see two open cities and i can't tell you what excitement i saw obviously in the female station side-by-side entered together. this is a very exciting election. as he said, 60% like 1970 testifies people were galvanized by the fitting station. they did that and define the trips from militants, clearly showing they were not going to be scared of this station by the

violence we saw in the pakistan's bloodiest addiction. it is by enlarge. pakistan moved it for continuity and for a change. they came out for experienced hands and i think they saw the country attracted unprecedented challenges and will stick to the familiar experience and hand. what is also voted for change. the entire political landscape. we have to see how enduring that change will be, but they changed it i reject all the incumbent

parties. so the ruling party actually saw his world crumble from 30% in the last election to have, 15%. the party was actually in second place by pti in terms of seats because pakistan is the first system. as you said it has its vision, so they were able to get marginally moors the. also about it in a particular problem with the national party. they just crumbled. so did another faction of the muslim league, which was the rival faction. they saw the world crumble from 53% in 2008 to 3% in this

election. clearly succeeded in a vigorous election campaign and also most importantly consolidating the elections had disintegrated or at least in a way distributed among several factions rather than one faction. so the question many people ask a surprising than the answer to that is yes it will. it's not surprising because the general expert nation will prevent. people expect to do better, but nobody expect at a party do great. but the surprise that i buying the scale of the jury. i was in touch as many members of his party. even they do not expect such a claim sweep and he is now close

to getting not just a majority that the defendant said many people who have the within three days of joining the part but he could actually end up with a two thirds majority in pakistan's national parliament. so this victory is rightly based and predicated on a landslide in punjab, where he won 116 out of 140 seats, and the provincial legislature, he or he has a thirds majority in the legislature. so the question is, why this is so strong? it was clearly punjab in favor of mazar-e-sharif. why this is so strong? what i said before, people knew because they think it's plain message that i know how to

whiskey. so the appeal of personality is better, but his mssage was unveiled in one who constantly get sane come you don't want him straight now. then of course you also had a situation where it's always had strong candidate, which are rural, whatever you want to call them. said they had a bunch of strong candidates in pakistan elections are as much about candidates locally as any other canned cherry. so really the election is as much about local candidates as it is about the party line into the personality. the other question that raises

is why did the parody disappoint his supporters could set themselves on an entrenched of mr. sharif, which he had galvanized by a campaign righty was undeserved that everyone receives the main and i say punch out the project can gain was largely violent flood. so he presented himself as the only credible alternative to the previous ruling party. but we also have to recognize what he did whisper in the political process a whole bunch of people in pakistan's urban centers would previously shot

politics. this is the educated middle-class women. there's no question it also meant to never sharif who is quick and adapt in his campaign strategy that he was also making to young voters. so his approach of saying i have the experience, but also promising voters he would take pakistan on its economic challenge because if there is one issue that dominated the election, it was the economy and the fact that in the last five years pakistanis have thought through unprecedented economic hardship, particularly the energy crisis and shortages. we managed to in your introduction in next 10 days

from unelected government to another elected government, something we never achieved. i have to say this is not the first time a civilian government completed. every time it's the people asperity because in 1971, he did complete his term. but we never saw a peaceful transfer. this is the first of pakistan and is an achievement that i was sitting in the media and i can't tell you the best in terms of how pakistani expect, but they really had crossed and everybody felt good about themselves. but then here are the challenges. first is that we've seen a sharply regionalized outcome. some of our sharif's essay job

with support and at least two of the other three provinces. but the fact that two of the provinces to constitute pakistan be run by political parties different than the one at the center means that sharif will have to adopt and accommodated and flexible approach in handling pakistan's fundamental federal reality. thus he also has to contend with the senate, which the senate is still controlled by the people's party so sharif is doing what the sentiments he governs pakistan. but i i think the advantage she has received in the pakistan to get on and get the country moving again and get on with government. voters realize that the challenges are imposing our complex than they are saying

they are giving you the political means now to take the tough decisions on security and economic challenges, which is much better equipped to tos. but this is where we are. the challenges ahead are tough decisions because there is no shortcut to dealing with pakistan complex challenges. but sharif has this enormous majority. he comes in the largest province that also gives him the political confidence to be able to take some of these have positions about the economy economy and security front. his earlier statements after his election victory have been along the lines that when asked what are your priorities? he said the economy, the economy and the economy. he also said counterterrorism and dealing with militancy also

is very important. it's the foundation. if the necessary condition to achieve the economic revival and on foreign policy, which have been reciprocated by india, for example, when he talked about wanting to continue the process that if anyone started, he was the architect of mobilization with india in 1999. in fact, in the mid-1990s. plus i think he's also sent a strong signal to the united states he wants to work with the united states, that is worked in the past and he knew bill clinton very well. he's made out the statements, which indicate we may be seeing novaya sharif moved from the

past, but also a very different pakistan in a very different world. so there is so that he would have to do for him was 15, 16 years is a long time. that has changed. so it's pakistan. where he is positioned as who's got the political mandate. he's got the political strength. he doesn't have to be blackmailed by political groups within parliament and this is something you start about a monday interview said he does not want the blackmailing part of the parties. so he's got what he wished for. by the end of this common an and expression in the united states, be careful what you wish for. >> thank you very much, maleeha for setting the scene. the economy, economy, economy. the security, security, security

may be another mantra closely tied into regional relationships and that's the loop altogether. i request the ambassador to comment perhaps shed some light on some of the foreign policy challenges that he thinks emerged after the election. >> thank you very much, shuja, for inviting me. i think you have 30 presented a very good analysis and a quite comprehensive analysis of these elections, which are very important milestone. the turnout around 60% is quite encouraging in terms of people's participation in politics and

the excitement these elections have generated. she also emphasized the economy, which people thought you were sharif and his party was more experienced and gave him the advantage. maybe several other elections in the past, pakistan, these elections also present at the other experiences such we cannot be overoptimistic, but nonetheless the point is these elections and the results offer hope. i would begin by underscoring some of what i would say are the silver lining, the advantages. the first thing as perhaps it is for the first time that public

perception of performance has found that these and water streets if one were to look at the advertisements at the pti in pml and was focused in punjab. pti focus for the future because they did not have that experience. ppp was basically invoking the legacy, the sacrifices. so here, this was for the first time that it was the performance which figured quite prominently in the order's choice. in fact, punjab has finished for his performance, also corruption for two prime ministers lost their seats.

then, maleeha would know better, but the general impression is pti couched in two ppp and the punjab, not the old bank of pmln party. will it be repeated? will the parties now pay more attention to the need to show performance and be sensitive to the needs, like for example the less government was not in one of the glaring example is if they did not been on that front. but we have yet to see what this is perhaps in my view the most positive aspect of the 2013

tifact that pmln on by a comfortable margin will allow the were sharif to convert the demands of coalition parties. and has been pakistani politics and is unavoidable when you have a situation of a hung parliament. this is not a home parliament. but not the as maleeha said lacked not by smaller parties to retain his majority. nawar sharif it's a center against the provinces other than punjab and will continue to rule. he has an opportunity to focus in earnest in the very start on addressing problems present in the country and this probably is the expectation as he said of

the public that he is going to address the enormous problems in the economic field. if he fails, the risk is his party would also suffer the fate of ppp next time and perhaps this time, next time if he fails to resolve will be pti, which would displace, especially if it is expected to have provincial comments. third, nawar sharif's personality and political culture resonates with the conservative, religious constituencies in pakistan, religious constituencies. with the extremistge in

groups and again especially in the punjab. but in dealing with these elements, he must remain clear with regard to acceptance of the rest of the government in the presence of special in the tribal areas. if the extremists are end, those are creating the areas to find the drying up of an important source of support for them in the shape of what usually is not as punjab. the next point i would make is these elections have taken place at a time -- [inaudible] has accumulated considerable

experience and perhaps a reevaluation of military rule under president thayer and president musharraf. there is a clear sense of pakistan's problems are quite and track will, complex and not to be left to perhaps as we look at the devious corrupt, but soft and accommodating ways of the politicians. they cannot be addressed frontally through military officials, which i think musharraf has tried to do. on the other hand, nawar sharif himself has been chastised based on experience in the last 20, 30 years and understands the risk or temptation.

pakistan's problems are enormous. they are obvious mountains of challenges as the topic suggests, but they are not impossible. before i comment, i have one other observation. nawar sharif must be very cautious against politics against exacerbating sectarian and the country, religious provincial symptoms, alienating ppp and mqm, provincial politics where there is a potential to do so. as in the past come to such politics be counterproductive. one can hope that instead of

alarming this kind of manipulation, which in pakistan we call the political alliances, et cetera. this third time in powder, prime minister nawar sharif will be disposed to act to virgins, carefulness amble focus on the practical agent is a problem solver, as a man who can mend the economy. the problems can be divided in four categories in ipo. first, security, law and order, virtual rebellion by the taliban and fata and insurgency and ethnic conflict area sanctions. the wise strength that of his

soft attitude and assign it to negotiate give him a chance to restrain them. but he must remain firm on their accepting the government and presence of the army. it must be obvious elements, even in the face of drawn attacks, because this is something that is a great challenge and he will have to work it out in the united states. if pti forms the posture and call, it will have an interest in containing the taliban for its own success so you can bank on that.

but lucas and dust lucius stan is again politics, not as nawar sharif himself has said. then as a concern he will have to deal with his political adversities, ppp and mqm, who boasts with karachi. karachi is in the grip of violence and also incense. as regard, the second major basket of problems is provincial disaffection in the stress and institutional frictions. here again the acid test will be center's handling of religion because in the punjab will be having their own comment.

pti as i said may be amenable to cooperation to ensure some success, but ppp and mqm will have no such conventions in karachi. one negative factor for this election as these two major parties that is ppp and the nawar sharif have become provincial eyes. ppp reduced to support across the country. it now has the ruling and is limited to its own province. as far as pmln is concerned, again, if transferring from job

job -- [inaudible] baluchistan is a mixed situation. as for institutional dust settles, there is to be no image crisis unless one is precipitated by no was to himself. the circumspect type of politics and also we have to -- we know that those in the army and judiciary will be by the end of the year. the third problem is of course the economy and of course mr. motson is going to focus on that. there are no quick fixes, but the important thing is a serious weakening has to be made. and energy, systemic outcomes to dwell on.

but it can be better managed than we have to come up with a credible projects like the schemes launched by the ppp, which was a waste of time and resources. nawar sharif has the advantage of better experience of projects which lead to employment. finally, the fourth area is in foreign relations. he asserted made the right desire to normalize up in the and importantly made a statement that we will not allow mobile a coincidence. this is an important signal to india. the military sensitivity on account of india are often much exaggerated. they are not at.

in fact, nawaz is better to work for improvement of with india than the earlier leaders and to address issues with india, which have so far eluded to progress. again with the united states, he has stated his willingness to work. he's also underscored the fact his work with the united states earlier our issues they did to afghanistan and use of drones. i think they need to be worked out. there has to be some coordination between the united states and pakistan. on afghanistan, he'll have to resist temptation of an

ambitious peacemaking role. pakistan in my view is little by being very proactive in afghanistan. it should do what it can for reconciliation. taliban leadership has to be discouraged into the bays. there would also be some challenges to hand in its relationship. finally, let me say empyrean an analogy back in pakistan's history of politics has had quite a masterfile e., which hopefully this time will be also. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, riaz. i hope you are correct in your

assessment, but speaking of fall leaves, now we are waiting for discussion of the issue put front and center. i'm going to request ambassador to come talk about economic challenges. >> thank you for inviting me. it is great to be here. so basically, it's the economy, the economy, the campaign slogan , but also borrowed from governor romney said he was the man who can fix it. he knew the economy, he could fix it. so that's a big issue. the economy is the top priority

for the pmln and for the entire country irrespective of who won the election. what the pmln is in poor shape relatively speaking with growth down to between 3% and 4% a year, inflation in double digits, bleeding international reserves, day by day come back to these issues. rising unemployment, et cetera as a litany of economic problems. so the new government has inherited an economy in worse shape. the argument is they have experienced people on their team that economics of the country and very early on people put two and two together. that is still up in the air as

to whether he would be or not. he may well turn out to be the foreign minister. this issue is going on. so during the campaign, pml-n and his economic team, particularly identified the long-term structural issues and those are well known. our long-term structural economic programs of the country. how to get investment going in the country to raise the potential growth rate is essential. is the problem with infrastructure at infrastructure development is needed. education. you have to have the labor force at the right set of skills in demand by the terrier, by modern industry and so on. that is a problem. new industries moving away from

the standard industries of textiles is another issue. let me say -- i characterize them as long-term structural issues. they existed before the ppp and will have continued. so they will have to be addressed. what are the immediate issue is? i would like to focus my comments here this morning in the brief time i have on the immediate short-term issues that the government -- the new government on day one will have to start worrying about. one, fiscal public finances. secondly, somewhat related and not bring out the relationship in a while. energy. everyone talks about energy. and the third is external balances, the fact the country is losing reserves and people

talk about imminent default. not very likely, the people talk about that. so they save the first issue, the fiscal issue. the fiscal problems have continued to grow in pakistan's over the last few years and under this government, the budget deficit this year was expected to be 4.7% of gdp. actually 4.7% of gdp last year in the year before. it seems to be a fixed number that the minister of finance at that time like to work with. the budget deficit this year will be 9%. so virtually twice what they had that's not the fiscal deficit is so large. worse still is how it's, how it's financed and

essentially financed by borrowing from the banks. in the central bank welcomed such a bank itself cannot finance the government beyond the quarter. at the end of every quarter, it has to have a zero balance. so what the central bank was very innovative in doing with the central bank promised liquidity into the system and thinks go ahead and buy the government treasury bills. this is the lake for an economist is a form of printing money and therefore reducing inflation rising, it is no surprise inflation is rising. the fact they are losing reserves is no surprise. if you print money, you lose reserves and have inflation. that's what happened. they have to get a handle on the public finances. now, how are they going to get a

handle on the public finances? structure of public finance and pakistan is really bad. for example, government revenues are about 13% of gdp. this is roughly half, if you like of its neighbors in the region. they have very little revenues coming in. their expenditures aren't that high either naturally. they are nine percentage points higher. but there've revenues of serious issues. on the revenue side, what's going to happen? what do they need to do? basically everyone says taxes, taxes, tax reform, pay taxes, get the tax rates up -- tax revenues up. i think kerry would've said what this government, there is going to be this sort of possible going on with the new

government. on one hand, there are people who understand this issue of taxes and i think the problem is with a stable, strong majority government is that the value-added tax, which was considered a proposed by the people and could not push it through due to the opposition of the mqm, which threatened if in fact the stances the top day. but even so, at that time unfortunately the senator was in the senate, maybe it is. some form of it. the other problem is if you're very pro-business and your company are very reluctant to raise taxes, income taxes and corporate taxes.

the question that i would ask us where these revenues going to come from? they really have to be raised and they will be measures taken i'm sure. but on the expenditure side, there's another problem. the most serious problem is not frivolous expenditures that don't want. the government doesn't spend that much money in 21%, 22% of gdp is not a big number. the trouble in fact is suspending that goes on through subsidies and particularly through financing state-owned enterprises that are really going down the drain completely. here i think one can be pretty optimistic that this government will try and take action on the state enterprises -- state-owned enterprises. right now, roughly 2% of gdp arr

international airlines, railways and so on. there are two advantages. the government can do something about state-owned enterprises. they are not opposed to privatization and they will turn on a privatized these companies. they are philosophically privatization and the state-owned enterprises have been used in the past five years by the government as a vehicle patronage of employment. so many of the people had been employed in these enterprises, so pml-n can say you are not our people. the problem they would be the judiciary. the judiciary is a serious can strain on the privatization.

so that's basically on the fiscal side they have to do something. energy of the forms. it's a serious issue. people often say, this is a governance problem or a financial problem. there is a capacity problem. the fact of the matter is and not actual working capacity, if 15,000 megawatts. pete manus 20,000. certain amount of shutting has to take place, even when you're operating at full capacity. there is a capacity problem, which will have to be addressed. we can't say it's governance and get away with it. the biggestproblem that creates

why in fact -- okay, why are not producing 15,000 megawatts? you only producing 10. why is that? well, all that then becomes governance. that then becomes financial. why archie producing at the level you could produce? not to be peak demand, but the level you could be producing. here we come into nice turn when i've talked about it is circular damage. circular debt is companies running with each other. it's a bad word. the cb 800 elion. that is close to 5% of gdp and that's what the companies are

paying. and it just goes on and on. .. >> the purpose in pakistan and by everyone in the community, it seems like, the energy crisis has been impact on low shedding of households. you know, shedding for 12