we just add the icing on the cake and these are coming from overseas. and that's great, but if you or i had a company that produced a product for 20 years and never made it better but just refrosted it. then we would go out of business eventually. and why should g.m. and people like you and i pay for their mistakes? guest: first, innovation, this is not constrained to the u.s. borders. this say global industry. and all of these companies provide innovation. it may be more evolutionary than some think, about whether it's in the view of safety, and they are more safe than they

villain. -- have been. a lot are introduced through the higher-end models. and in many cases, yes the luxury brands may introduce them. but they make it into the marketplace. i think that both introduce to the marketplace. and i am not here to represent general motors, and they have admitted to makes mistakes. and i think they will be competitive on those. host: will you speak of where state governments will come into play, in giving tax incentives? guest: i think that a number of states have, you see some

transplants going to states tennessee, alabama and others. i know that toyota has a proposed plant in mississippi. and michigan and ohio are stepping up to look at suppliers. and looking at new technology and innovation and battery technology. there is an announcement that g.m. will build battery facility with conjunction with korea firm. and states do have a role to play. and they also have a role to play in working with the industry on some infrastructure issues. california has always been interested in hydrogen. again another leading-edge technology, that requires infrastructure and support. and they is to provide incentives, just not mandates. although we ask for clarity of

the rules, but we have to be careful not to see cascading the rules because it's an easy way out. we need the fuel and consumers and technology. host: one more caller, john. caller: i was wondering with the gas prices going back up that started the recession. and with g.m. talking about a brand of the saturn? guest: one of the core brands is the largest seller in china. and china will surpass the u.s. in total sales. so there are market opportunities. and roger pensky is in line for

the saturn. i believe there are a number of models. this is a highly competitive industry, i came here because there is where the technology is flowing. host: are you more or less positive of the industry? guest: my glass is always half full. if this is the historic low, and i think it is. i think you will see revitalinizing industries, and i think that consumers learn about the importance of the industries. and once consumers have more confidence that this economy is turning around, i think they will go back to the show room,

and they'll be amazed. host: thank you for being with us. >> scheduled in the house, is for cash rebates for americans to turn in older cars for newer models. and plus a peace keeping and military and non-military aides to pakistan. negotiators are trying to agree on a bill for additional $100 billion for iraq in year. live coverage will continue at 6:30 here on c-span. the senate continues work on tobacco regulations at 5:30. and like the house, the senate is awaiting for agreement on that bill. live coverage on c-span 2.

>> with a federally mandated digital conversion next week. we will get an update on this change. we will have speakers on this subject tonight on 8 eastern, the communicators on c-span two. >> there is topic of last month killing scores of civilians, we have update by jeff corel for 40 minutes. >> good afternoon. good to see you all, especially

after being away. tomorrow morning secretary gate replies on the update on defense. the hearing is scheduled to begin at 10:30. and tomorrow evening the secretary departs for the netherlands that he will spend tomorrow and part of wednesday as he speaks on troops of afghanistan. and then on thursday he will fly to brussels to discuss a range of security issues of the alliance. and the nato operations in afghanistan will likely dominate those discussions. thirdly and finally the secretary returns to washington, d.c. on friday

evening. and then early on saturday morning heads to washington state. where he will deliver the commencement address at the university of washington. which i believe is an open press event although i won't head there myself. >> what can you tell us about the investigation into the nato force incident in afghanistan. where does the investigation stand and to what degree has the inquiry of the u.s. force [inaudible]? >> the inquiry stand i believe is wrapped up and being briefed to a number of people in this building. i believe that the chairman was briefed on it last week and the secretary this morning by the investigative officer in charge.

i think, cen-com, who has commissioned the findings and i can tell you sitting in the brief, that this incident was exhaustively investigated. this briefing, in fact the secretary took today, i think it was scheduled for half an hour. it went for one hour and had to be rushed to conclusion. because they had many, many details to share with him. what it appeared to me as though, that the personnel involved took extraordinary care in tracking the militants that they had come underattack from. as you know this is originally an afghan unit that came in contact with taliban and required back-up from a marine

unit. that unit came in and over the next several hours beat back this attack. killing several dozen taliban in the process. and required some close-air support to ultimately prevail. so i think as was noted in the reports that have come out preliminary about the investigation, that there were some problems with some tactics, techniques and procedures, or the way in which close-air support was supposed to have executed in this case. such that at least with one of the aircraft involved, the b-1 bomber, that plane because of how it takes its bombing routes. had to break away from the target to make its elongated

approach. that is sort of the fundamental complaint that was rendered by this investigation. but i think they found in numbers of the taliban killed and civilians that perished in this attack, is similar to some afghan defense officials believe are accurate. but i will leave it to c-com and their team of how they ultimately present this final report. although i can tell you it's exhaustive and it looks as that the guys involved in this incident took great plans to limit casualties. and they had to break away from the target for a period. and no way to determine that

that had to do with the fact that civilian casualties occurred. but they noted that with a problem that took place. >> what about the early reports on taliban had killed? >> i don't want to get in the findings, this is prompted by afghanistan officials had been beheaded by the taliban. the afghan wanted to take processings against taliban, and asked for assistance from us. and we wanted to be able if they got in trouble. and they did. and the marines responded to back them up and the events

evolved from there. you are talking about the allegations that the taliban forced people into their homes. i will let them release that. >> what were the total civilian casualties? >> i will let them speak to those numbers, but they were greatly outnumbered by the taliban. >> after the briefing, did the secretary comment on tightening the ttp's or looking at that? >> again, it ran rather long. and he had to head to another meeting. i think that general mcchrystal who is taking over and spoke at length about this in his confirmation hearing last week. talked about his desire to make sure that we get a better hold of the civilian casualty problem in afghanistan. and i think that the secretary

has every confidence that general mcchrystal is precisely the guy to put this in a better place. we have taken a number of measures as you know, to greatly restrict our use of closed-air support as it is. and general mcchrystal is interested in finding a way to further reduce the number of civilian casualties. and i can only point to the numbers that the secretary has, and since the beginning of the year, civilian casualties in afghanistan are down by 40%. and security forces has shot up 75%. we are taking extraordinary care. and we are still finding ourselves involved in incidents where there are civilian casualties.

we are trying to find ways to limit and ultimately not have them. we are involved in a war that's difficult and oftentimes confusing. i would be foolish to stand up here and say we will eliminate them, but we will do everything we can to reduce them. >> what if in a b-1 bomber, what size of bomb were they dropping? >> again we use an array of aircraft, and afa teams were involved and this is an incident that went over several hours and required a number of aircraft to come in. and not one aircraft could be involved in the time. and i have to speak from a

tactical perspective of why they involved which aircrafta -- aircraft at which time. and this one required calling on the support of the troops on the ground. >> could you specify if there were any other incident or part of an incident where the investigator found foult? or all about the b-1's action? >> i think i have spoken more than is fair to the investigator in cit-com of how they will role this out. i will leave it there, andrew, i am sorry about that. but i am sure they will share in greater dealing their findings. >> is general mcchrystal a part of the briefings? >> yes, general mcchrystal is part of the briefings.

>> did b-1 hit the house or did this change in the interim? >> as i said, there is no indication that the b-1 breaking off from positive i.d. on its target, resulted in civilian casualties. that was not a part of the briefing, it was noted as a problem of these events, but not the cause. >> did they determine the cause? >> again, i will let them speak to the incident. >> what about the video, is that going to be released as well? >> i don't know what they will be on that front, but i can tell you the video is part of the investigation. >> i have one on the subject, by virtue you said that the crew took, i think your words are "great care." you foreclosing any possibility of charges or further

investigation of these people? is that off the table? >> i don't preclude that. that's a chain of command issue. i got no sense of anything i heard today that charges are imminent or warranted in this case. >> is the matter considered closed or goes to the next step? >> i will let cit-com speak on this. beyond general mcchrystal taking additional measures once he hits the ground. to determine how we can do a better job with regards to the civilian casualties. is that it on this? >> what is the pentagon's assessment of the success that pakistan armies have had? >> i think it's been three,

four weeks now or longer, and i think i spoke about that three weeks ago and we were a week into it then. it's been five weeks since this operation is underway. i think we are greatly heartened by the fact it's gone on as long as it. one key thing we were looking for in terms of pakistan military operations is sustainability. clearly this operation is sustained. and in doing so i think they have enjoyed great success. so we are pleased. we are encouraged. and we are hoping that the offense continues to the point that the militants in this region are defeated. and we are working with the pakistanis to provide them with whatever they need, wherein reason, to ultimately prevail.

>> do you approve for the pac army to move into al-qaeda. do you think they are willing to do that? >> i won't get into those threats, where they exist, i would be encouraging of the pakistan military to take it to them, head on, and defeating them. but i won't go through a strategy, they are an independent, sovereign nation that make decisions on their own on self-defense. but we are encouraged on this encroachment on the taliban and associated other militant groups, that we see an aggressive and sustained military and response. >> is there the [inaudible] to

open the second front? >> i am not going to be an armed chair person to make that determination. there are others you can talk from a military-point picture. -- perspective. we are encouraged that they have continued these operations and have showed no signs ofleting up. -- of letting up. >> last week president obama spoke of stronger measures of those by korea. [inaudible] any military options than diplomatic? >> our focus is now and has been and continue to be on coming up with diplomatic and economic pressures that will pervade the north from

abandoning its pursuit of nuclear weapons and the platforms to deliver them. that's what we are focused on. obviously we don't take anything off the table, should the north not be dissuaded from pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. but that's not where our focus is on. it's on working with the u.n. and trying to presume the six-party talks. and you heard from the president in singapore, he liked the president, and all those involved are sick of buying the same horse multiple times. sick of north korea -- while we

are pursuing diplomacy and economic sanctions, we are working with the allies and others who may be minimal on this on trying to devise additional defense measures. prudent planning in the event that the north continues down this wreckless path. >> in this regard, is the pentagon exploring ways to forbid north korea of air shipments? >> i saw the secretary made that point, all i will say to that, we are looking at a number of options. i won't speak to any in particular. you were with us last week, daphne, you heard the question come up after the tri-lateral. and we were asked what

specifically is the secretary talking about when he says, additional measures. and the truth is that he did not have any specific in mind. we are in the process of thinking of possibilities. i have not heard him to date speak of interation to be a part of that, he's working with his team to prove prudent ways to bolster that the north continues down that route. >> what is that between the japanese? >> we are talking on trilateral and if it comes to that, unilaterally. what we have found with our

representatives and admiral littenfield that traveled to the regions, they came back very encouraged particularly from seoul and tokyo to pursue this on a trilateral basis. they came back and feeling this is a historic opportunity to work with the koreans and japanese on trilateral basis of national security. >> it's not increasing the forces? >> has never talked about adding additional personnel. we have a lot of personnel, i think 28,000 in south korea and also more in japan. and we have significance in those countrys and not to mention the rock forces and japanese forces. that as now is not a part of

discussion. anything else on north korea? >> to what degree is the u.s. policy for north korea being held hostage to the fact that these two journalists are there and sentenced in hard labor? >> i don't get any sense that the policy is being held hostage by that unfortunate decision by the north koreans of the but -- koreans. but i haven't heard it enter into these calculations to proceed to the north. the state department his issued strong remarks of the government's disapproval of that handling, but not entered into our discussions. >> how do you see that of the north koreans asking for the waters to be cleared to the east coast.

are you concerned? >> do you mean in terms of a potential missile launch? the secretary acknowledged in manila, that they are preparing for another missile launch. what kind or range is not clear at this point. so that, you know, that would yet be another sign that the north is going to undertake another provocative action, that would of course, not help diffuse or de-escalate an already intense situation. >> is the goal of these talks that the defense officials were involved in, is that absolutely to prevent north korea to get

nuclear weapons and not to deliver. or planning to respond if they do get nuclear weapons. >> are you talking about the steinberg? i think that effort and you should talk to the state department for more specifics, it was their trip that we are participants in. and that effort was primarily focused at a high level delegation visiting capitals in the region trying to work out the way ahead, first and foremost, economically and diplomatically multi-lateral sanctions. second -- second there was a discussion to be prudent about

planning for defensive measures much so if we cannot multilaterally figure out a way to defer of north to pursue this path. it's only prudent for us to try to figure out to a bilateral and unilateral basis for defenses and protect against that threat. >> different subject? >> anyone else on north korea? .