i am from nbc news. i am sorry. i did not understand some of the statistics you gave in your opening statements. did you say that there have been 48 attacks per day for the last four days? that is an average for the entire country? and also, can you say again how many total police stations there are approved. within the last three or four days, this has increased daily to the height 40's. when we put this in perspective, the number of potential bulli pl

ling sights, if you take into ling sights, if you take into account 6500, 1% of that is 65. re when you are looking at the numbers, they are not going to be able to attack even 1% of the entire polling sites in this country. >> good morning. we have been working on behalf of the commander here in kabul to assist in the coronation of the activities with the elections. it is the commanders highest authority. we wish to do everything we can to support our afghan forces in the security for the upcoming election. in particular, in relation to the number of polling centers across the country, the

independent electoral commission, the afghan body, which is charged with the actual conduct of the election, has stated that they intend to open approximately 6500 polling centers. that number is not yet firm, because an interest of allowing many people across the country a suitable access to polling centers as possible, we have been working very hard with afghan security partners to conduct area security operations to reduce the effect of the insurgents in those areas where some members of the population had not had access to a particular polling center. our polling center numbers across the country are still in the state of slight flux because the intention is to try to insure that as many polling centers as possible are able to be accessed by as many people as possible. >> can you also give us the most

up-to-date numbers on other election security? how many afghan security forces will be directly involved in securing the pulling places. the rundown of the facts around the security. >> certainly. if i can describe the arrangement which has been agreed to by both my staff and the afghan security partners and also i would like to stress that our afghan security partners are the lead agency organization for the planning and execution of security across the country. it is important that we are able to facilitate and enable their activities wherever possible, but they are the lead agency. the afghan ministry of defence has the lead amongst the other agencies to execute security for the elections. with respect to specific

numbers, rather than speak to any particular operation or details, what i will say is that the afghan security forces have committed themselves fully across the country with the intent to provide all they can within the resource limitations and the manpower to ensure that the security picture is able to be presented to the community, to reassure the afghan people that it is safe to move from their homes to where the polling sites are located. are in the execution of the critical process as safely as can be under circumstances and know that the security forces are working hard for them to ensure their security and safety. there is a very important role with regard to each particular polling center, we will be prepared to provide ground

forces if we need to move to wear any security incidents may arise. we have a fully committed afghan national army. we have a fully committed afghan police. and we have our resources, which are fully committed to ensuring that they have the support they need to execute their very important mission on behalf of their people. >> i am from bloomberg news. can you talk about why it is so important considering the increase in violence in recent years in afghanistan? why is it so important that the afghan security forces take so much of the profile, so much of the lead in this operation? and how confident are you that they can really do the job that needs to be done? >> ok.

i think it is very important for the afghan national security forces to be seen by the afghan people as the lead agency in execution of security for their elections. isaf is a security assistance force. we are here to facilitate and an able our assistance wherever possible. also, it reflects the will of the people. as you can imagine, the sense of confidence that will be generated to see, other than foreign troops on the ground nearby, they will see and interact with members of their own security force, in particular, in the first responders, the afghan national police, people they used to see moving a monk's their communities, ready to be

prepared to deport the afghan national police and execution of their responsibilities. i think it is important that they are now able to step up to the task that is before them. there are is no doubt that there are many challenges. we are aware that there is an active insurgency. but the reason i think it is critical that the afghan security forces are seen by their people as a critical response and pro-active circumstances put in place by their own agency to reassure them that they are a security -- that they are doing the best they can within their resource limitations. we recognize that that they have some way to secure -- develop. we have been involved from the very beginning through a series

of national and regional rehearsal activities to ensure that each of the agency's are in play. so that they are all aware of the challenges that would rise on the ground as we lead up to the elections and to have coordinated joint plans in place. i think it is a critical step in the development of both the afghan security forces, but also the country as a whole for the people to see and develop trust and confidence in their own security agency. >> what is your actual threat projection for election day? or what at this point do you anticipate for that day? my fault what is it now that you have had two suicide car bombs

in the past couple of days, what is your assessment of that? do you believe there is new capability on the part of the insurgent to manufacture and deployed the suicide car bombs? what do you think is going on? >> it has been a little bit difficult to take apart the threads of the threat. it is difficult to say what they are looking at doing, other than what might be in place as part of the overall insurgency campaign, but the indications are that the leadership has expressed a desire to interrupt and to discredit this process. the sorts of tactics we're seeing on the ground are typical of those which we have seen in other parts of the country running up to the elections, but

not necessarily related to them. this involves the use of information to intimidate, the use of propaganda, too much more murderous acts such as we have seen and as you describe that have occurred here in the last couple of days. i would like to point out that the source of threats are not unexpected. that is that we always look very carefully, along with the afghan partners, the source of threats which might materialize on the ground. the insurgents are often taken to offering up threats which are never followed through, but we're very careful to realize that on occasion they are able to demonstrate obscene acts of violence against not just the afghan security forces, but critically against the own people. this is a measurement of the

sort of character and ideology we're dealing with. there is no doubt a very difficult enemy. one that is prepared to inflict numerous injuries and deaths to promote his own political goals. if you take that to the next level of analysis, every vote cast, regardless of who they know it both for, is a personal statement against the taliban. so i think it is a very honorable and critical mission that we are undertaking in support of our afgani partners. we are seeking to assist the afghan security partners to defeat the threat. we hope to build upon the successes and carry forth those sorts of ideas beyond the elections.

the threat materializes in various ways and dynamic ways across the area, and those have been taken into account. we are never fully assured of what anyone will do. all that we can do is to do our very best working with afghan partners to provide the very best possible security posture in support of the afghan people and give them the confidence to take part in their political future. >> hope this is kevin theron from stars and stripes. -- this is kevin theron from stars and stripes. can you describe more the specifics of what does the rules amine? especially for the ground troops that have to be ready in case something happens. are they down the streets waiting in the vehicle's? how close are they? how will this affect locals?

on the same factor, there are reports of the taliban threatening to kill anyone with a purple thing there. -- with a purple finger. what is their reaction to this? do you have any indicators of what they might be doing on election day? >> certainly the source of threats that you have suggested along the lines of threatening to carry out actions against those clearly by showing the mark on his finger, the afghan people are probably becoming brasilia to this. the people have been subject to enormous hardships over a number of years. having said that, the threat

often materializes and brutal ways. we're doing everything we can to assist the people to gain a sense of community confidence so they can take part in this process. with regard to the arrangements i described earlier, what i will say is that afghan partners as the lead agency have a a big responsibility. this will be the afghan national police. they will be in close proximity to the polling locations themselves. within a reasonably short distance from the polling center it is intended that the afghan national army units will be there prominently. they will be in a position to not only provide a sense of

security in strength in the outer tier, but@@@@ importantly, we are working all said that in distances away from a polling center. we will be using the capabilities that the afghans did not necessarily have access to suggest a state of ground forces that are prepared from physicians to be able to move to either by air or ground quickly and responsibly to respond and assist the afghans in any incident that might occur. we have rehearsed this on the number of levels. it is interesting to see that as the have can have gone about their business, to carry out th. about their

business how enthusiastic they are. it has been very encouraging. it is very important to realize thathey are very aggressive once on the ground to ensure they're doing the best mission they can. that is a good thing as well. with respect to our operations, of we will be monitoring what is going on from command centers and coronation control points throughout the country. -- in coordination control points throughout the country. iwe will have operation coordination centers. there is one in each reason -- region and one in each provinc they are supported by a number of staff and isaf staff to

ensure that communications are in place and working well. if they are linked to the headquarters of the afghan military police here in kabul and also we have established communications to our command post here. i am confident that the operations we have worked through and the controls are in place are suitable to the task. also, we have done a number are regional and national according to the -- nationally coordinated rehearsals. the afghan ministers and the afghan leadership from the independent commission and other organizations are able to present their plans to raise series of fictitious and areas which might represent the sorts of threats which might materialize on the day. not only was this a sign of the state of maturing security agencies, but it was also an

opportunity for them to take part in a discussion with the ministers. the ministers of the department for who they work ultimately. and it is thought to reassure the ministers that there is a good deal of work under way. i would like to stress that we're never quite sure what will happen, but we do have a series of plans in place to be able to be pro-active in support of afghan partners and to allow them to present the security picture, which is imported for the community to work with them as they go forward and take part. it is an encouraging sign altogether. >> ha it is mike miller with cnn. -- it is mike miller with cnn. what is the percentage of the country you think is going to be able to vote? and maybe i should rephrase it.

how much of the country is in taliban hands where you do not think will be able to vote? and with the recent operations down south, in order to open up more sectors to voting, can you quantify it all? how much of that. do you think you have opened up to vote? and maybe total population or percentage of the country? >> ok. it is a great question because of course a number of polling centers that the iec that have declared that they intend to open is probably not the best measure. having said that, the advice we receive from the regional court commanders, the afghan security corps commanders on the ground, and our own commanders suggest that we're probably going to be given reasonable access -- they

will have reasonable access to about 85% to 90% of those that are registered to vote. most of the registered voters, we think about 15% -- 15 million to 17 million voters should be able to take part. we think we should be able to provide reasonable access to the 85% to 90% of the total number. this will be shaped by the attempts and committed the confidence that is built and held by the committee members themselves. in respect of that, in particular, as you indicated, operations in the south have gone a considerable way to enhance one of the key issues which we sought to address, that is to improve access to the polling sites. police report that the operations in the seven districts, in particular, have in close coordination been able

to open up a number of areas that would otherwise not have been able to take part in this process. this has allowed them to escape the insurgent threats and also with the officials able to register themselves as voters in the upcoming election, and be able to take part. that is a great news story. that is a direct result of the security operations which have been under way down south. they are also aimed at the insurgent threat so the population can become more normal and feel free from those threats which have existed for some time. the importance spinoff, when we are very interested to see, is that they are now able to take part in a process that without the operations they would not

have been able to be able to take part in. that is a very encouraging thing. >> i have two quick things. are you able to tell us what the number of afghan forces to include the police, how many of them are assigned to polling places and to election security? i heard 47,000 police. does that sound right? how many army? as your forces come across afghans who say they want to vote but i am afraid of the reprisal or anything against me, what do you tell them? >> i was struck by the response by president cars are to that

question -- president karzhar, and his response was it is up to the courageous afghan citizens to move forward in the face of the threat as they always have and take part in shaping the country. i think that is a pretty powerful statement. i think it would take residence with the local communities. i think it is important that you look at it from their perspective. the country has endured hardships that many of us would find hard to relate to or understand. they are wrote a brazilian people. -- they are a resilient people. we have been able to take part

in providing that kind of security environment for them. >> can you speak to the numbers quickly? how many afghan forces are dedicated to the election? >> i think the numbers you quoted will be about right. i would say they are fully committed to the task that is before them. that is the members of our across the inp are engaged fully in the task this year. as well as it is important to realize that not just the election security operations, which are the forefront of our planning at the moment, are the ongoing framework operations as we call them, those are the operations going on day and night to defeat the insurgency threats and to restore a sense of community confidence among the communities in separate this groups from the threats of the insurgents as they go about

their business. and there are different levels of operations under way. election security operation specific to targeting the threats along the lines of improving boater access to polling centers into reducing the effects of the intimidation tactics that we have described earlier among the insurgents and to encourage the afghan themselves to support and take part in the critical process. important also, we have worked very hard with afghan forces to bring forward the graduation of a number of the people from the graduation program that was planned for 2010 so that they can graduate early, trained, and

equipped and in locations to provide important elements of the security apparatus that is at play here. that is important that is being brought forward. they have done that very successfully. it is a measure of how keen the afghan security forces they are. to go before i start my question. -- >> before i start my question. we're still looking for qnumber specifically. what are the isaf's numberg? s? is there a more specific number on that? then i will get to my real question. >> ok.

i would reiterate the size -- we cannot give specific numbers and locations because it might be used by the enemies. they are fully committed to the task that is before them. an>> the afghan national securiy forces realize the importance of election day so they have pushed the number of to 92,000 soldiers throughout afghanistan in order to bring tighter security. when you add all the numbers, it is just sort of 300,000 troops on the ground to maintain the security of the election day. >> this is the real question.

my question. first, could you describe in a little bit more detail how the security will work for the afghans as they go to bill? will they be search? -- call will the security work for the afghans as they go to vote? will there be no movement on the roads almost that all? can you give us a picture so we have some idea, because at the moment it is abstract farrah's? >> ok, if you were to picture yourself as a member of the afghan community, then they would have already been aware and apprised of the polling center locations. they are spread across the

populated groups, populated areas, to ensure that everyone has a quite reasonable and easy access to the polling centers. access to the polling centers. they will be aware of where they will move through a series of checkpoints as they get closer to the actual location. as they get to the location, there will be a further checkpoint and procedures to reduce the risk of insurgents getting too close proximity. they are looking for evidence of suicide bombers or any hidden and covered weapons they might be carrying with them. once they have gone three series of checks, there are particular arrangements they will be allowed to move into the polling

center at established by its and take part it and make their way out that should be regarded as a serious of an ongoing framework operation. they will be moving within a security area, particularly in kabul. a suicide bombing tragically tepid today. it will cause some citizens to have some concerns of moving forward and taking part of the election. oleg remind you all that this is a very hearty -- i would like to remind you all that this is a very hearty and resilient people. having said that, there are opportunities for them to move . resilient

people. it is all understood to be part of the effort by debt afghan security partners to is published -- to establish a sense of community confidence. i should also bring your attention to the point that the ministry of defence announced a couple of days ago an initiative which we fully support, and that was the election state initiative. the lead agency for security for the elections stated that there would be no offensive operations conducted on the day of the elections, other than that which are required to ensure protection of the population as they go about voting. they have been voted the isaf security forces to support them

in that regard, and we supported them willingly. we will maintain a low profile, but agile posture in support of the sentiments expressed by the ministry of defence to allow the people to move forward with an increased or enhanced sense of community property. the ball is now in the insurgents court. i think the response is on the part because of his track record. but the opportunity is there for the taliban and other insurgent groups to take up the sentiment expressed in the ministry of defence statement in supporting initiatives and let the people who take part in the democratic life. we look forward to seeing positive results from the initiative, and we support the government of afghanistan and the ministry of defence and that initiative, and we hope it will bring good results for the

people. of course, once the people have taken part in that process, then they will be joined by others who will be competent in the knowledge that they have taken part in the process that they are entitled to, free from intimidation, and moved the country forward in the right direction toward a developing democratic nation. >> last weely, can you give us a picture of where you face the biggest security challenges? and where are they under the most pressure, given the fact that in some of these places they have only recently seen international troops, literally only for the first time in a matter of weeks and there are still areas where there is no international presence? i guess what i am asking is, can you give us a little bit of picture of where you see the real challenges?

a commitment is one thing, actually providing security is another. at what point can you see the election is credible? what port predict what portion of the population can vote and safety -- what portion of the population can vote in safety? >> i think we should be guarded in seeking to further the enemies propaganda techniques. and the willingness to cause a civilian casualties'. there are certainly some areas in the country which will not be

able to take part in the process, because of the insurgent action. we have been working hard with the afghan partners to reduce the number and size of those sorts of locations. these are the areas that have been subject to taliban and other insurgent intimidation for some time. i think under the circumstances, they have to open up more polling centers, at and in cooperation with afghan partners, opened up areas particularly in the south where the taliban occupied is a great success story. there is a -- there was a suicide bomb and a murderous attack causing many injuries and some deaths. that sort of thing is

reprehensible by any standards. we need to be guarded by those sorts of actions. we demonstrated the capacity of that in some of the areas in kabul. we're doing everything we can to support afghan partners to present those rigid prevent those sorts of things from happening -- we are doing everything we can to support afghan partners to prevent these things from happening. although he can use the population to hide in disguise himself from easy detection, once he tries to coincide the attacker, the resources that he needs to have in place or rejects such as a suicide bomber, the appropriate opportunity and the target that he might be seeking to attack directly, if he tries to put those things in place it exposes himself.

they know everyone in these areas. if they see groups of people that do not belong there, they are very quickly to identify that as a likely threats. when he gets about activities he will in does expose himself to the sources of observation and intelligence that we have in place with our afghan partners to pick the threat of very early. -- the threat up very early. again, in any military operation or security operation, the enemy always gets a vote. we always worked hard to determine what sort of actions they might carry out on the ground. we look to try to be proactive

and prevent these things from occurring. tragically, despite best efforts, sometimes he is able to carry out those things we have seen in the last couple of days. >> thank you. this is for both of you. i understand you both went to war colleges and to discuss the tactics to have involved, but what i was curious about is how do you weigh where the actual -- you would have been advantageous bought it there was to be any violence. he would obviously want to keep them away from any roads, i would assume. >> i am sorry, i have missed the question. he was talking about particular

and the actions. i just miss of -- i just misunderstood the question. >> the polling sites. the polling sites themselves are picked by the independent election commission. this is their election. it is actually set up and run by the iec industry partners are responsible for the execution of the security. they added to the polling sites used in 2004 to get as many people a chance as possible to take part in the election. this is afghan decision. -- this is an afghan decision. they have issued a list to afghan security forces. we have worked with them to

improve information that relates to various sorts of details that they need to know, we have gone out and conducted reconnaissance on the ground to look at where the locations are. some of those we have had to add just because of enemy locations and the threat that the insurgents have against these places. some have been moved. it has been very much of a process that has been led by the afghan independent election committee and the afghan security forces have worked out security plans in order to support the security in each of those locations. the other thing that has been at play here is the number of people that live around those locations. other things we have done to support them is to advise them as to areas where we conduct specific security operations where we could get new security.

we work very hard to integrate the efforts of planning insecurity across the board, and as i said, even as the last couple of days, the final number of the polling centers will be determined by the security on the ground. as the iec becomes content with that advice, they will finalize the number and the last detail will be put in place to deliver the materials to the intended polling locations and also to conserve the afghan security force are arrangements on this front as to where they need to be at. we will be in position to support them in that activity. >> you said you are advisers,

but you also have the longest history and reverse knowledge, so how comfortable are they taking your advice, even though you are basically a third party? >> my personal experience is that they have been very willing and keen to take advice and assistance. certainly we have capabilities from the range of true -- contributing nations that they do not have yet, and probably are some time away from developing, but in terms of advice, it covers a spectrum of planning, short, medium, and long-term planning, coordination of activities on the ground, in particular those related to the security of the election, and also sharing of information and

intelligence. i think they are pretty keen to doing their best for the people and they seem to be doing a good job, but also to learn as much as they can. i was very impressed with their desire to talk and then having talked with the issues, settled on a plan and bring it to action very quickly. they are very keen to get about the job once the plan has been decided. we also have partners within every level. also, at the operational and that the technical level, we have troops with the appropriate experience to assist them in the considerations of the sorts of issues that may be at play, whether it be strategic or operational levels.

we're very careful to ensure that they are seen as the lead agency. after all, this is their country. country. this is their the only be here for as long as they want this to be here. we are keen to support them. we are also keen that they are learning and developing as they go. if the rate of development of the security forces not is for the elections, but overall, has been pretty impressive given the circumstances. the always seemed to take part in the training. they were noting about their local communities. they will be able to react in them -- with them in a way that is good. it is important that they take the lead and are positioned to support them. we are learning just as much

from them as they are learning from us. it is an important and very fruitful relationship. >> you have been very generous with your time. what do you feel about one year to more questions? >-- one or two more questions? >> shore. >> this is michael from the press. you talked about how some regions of india and will have higher percentage of voting. to give us some more perspective, specifically in those two provinces, what do you expect the voter turnout to become to give us a perspective on the south and east? > is difficult to predict exactly on the day and measure

the number of people who have the confidence you can come forward -- who will have the confidence to come forward. certainly it stands to reason that those people living in areas that have been subject to the most recent security operations will probably fall in one camp or the other pretty readily. they will either relish the opportunity to take part in normal activities, or they might fear that the presence of troops to remove the threat of the insurgents is such that maybe they do not feel secure given that there has been a sense of engagement and activities involving troops and

aircraft near the vicinity. i think it is important for them to take part in the activities and move out of their communities and take part in this process. i would think we're looking at and reports from our commanders down south would indicate that a good percentage are likely to turn out. i know you're looking for a specific figure, but it's hard to lay a finger on it. we will have access for about 85% of the registered voters. given the numbers people have taken part in registration, it is a pretty good sign that they're going to move up in mid -- and take part in the voting itself. it will be hard to judge from

this position, and the threats at each location can be viewed differently. the coordination that is in place is a big step forward to try to reassure them that is safe to come out and vote, but is up to the local population to get out and do the job. we will provide the security as best as we can to the afghan partners, but we are seeking to provide encouragement to the communities. the security is there. it is evident. take part in the electoral process. and also that you will be safe as you do so. >> thank you.

>> i will ask my question. and damian cantwell where are the 10% to 15% that will not be able to participate? what is your biggest security concern for election day, considering the nationally limited capability of the insurgents as outlined at the beginning of the briefing? finally, are you worried that the presence of the afghan national security forces in such numbers could be as much of an intimidating factor to some voters as you will help it be -- as you hope it will be a reassuring factor? >> those are good questions. what i will say is that those areas that we are not likely to see a strong turnout from the voters probably are in the areas that have been held by the

taliban for some time. in that regard, we're probably talking within hellman provinces. some areas east of the country and north and west. the truth is that it is difficult to predict exactly how much it -- how many will turn out on the day. i encouraged by the sense of community confidence that i have seen as we have moved through the country and taken part in some of the election security rehearsals. the report in the local media is pretty encouraging, despite the insurgents to do otherwise. the biggest threat is in the minds of the people themselves. they have to be convinced that this is their chance to shape their critical future. if you are looking for a sense of where the difficult predict most difficult challenge is, --

if you are looking for a sense of where the most difficult challenge is, it is in the minds of the people. that battle has to be rethought every day -- refought every day. . . has demonstrated tactics were he helped the afghan people to pursue his goal. it offers a simple tape of the thought of barbaric alternatives

that the taliban has to offer to the people of afghanistan and elsewhere. i think it might be manifest it and this dangers for the detectives who had seen in suicide bombings in populated areas. we are doing everything we can to mitigate against that very serious of physical check points and hardened infrastructure to protect the population and a whole range of other activities that are not encouraging people to take part in this process. of a larger community. we can bring the range of intelligence gathering and other activities that the afghan partners cannot necessarily do, at least at this point. that is where we're at right now. >> with the afghan security forces could be an intimidating

presence rather than a reassuring presence? >> thank you. it is true it could be seen as a intimidating parliament. -- intimidating element. there is no doubt that those operations are all about providing content that may indeed be brought to a question as to have indicated. these are people who are used to seeing military forces and military operations and probably view those sorts of things in a way that we would struggle to identify with. they're quite used to seeing the nature of violence and war and conflict in this country, regrettably. that have gotten used to see the presence of the unsecured forces.

we're working very hard to measure the afghan security forces are those who are the most in the day-to-day visibility of the community groups we're talking about. they should seek some confidence from knowing it is their security agency that are primarily responsible for security in a general sense, but in particular, for election day itself. we are making sure we have our forces ready where appropriate and necessary. the afghan security forces are what the afghans was to retreat on a day-to-day basis and they should be quite comfortable with those arrangements they see every day. >> thank you again for your time. we're closing in on the one hour mark, so we will close its appearance in the back tyranny closing remarks you would like to make. appearance. we're closing in on the one or

more, so we would send it back to you for your closing remarks. >> to keep. i think the government national security forces [unintelligible] security is effective. most of the rest has been throughout the country in order to give a chance for the afghans to vote on election day. >> the closing remark i would like to make is along the lines of a strategy. they're seeking to defeat the insurgents. we are seeking to remove the threat of the insurgents from the population. this afghan election is an

opportunity for the next evolution of that tactic. that is, an opportunity for the population to remove themselves from the threat of the afghans -- i should say, of the insurgents. we're doing everything we can to support them in that endeavor and a working hard with the afghan partners is a leap forward in the security arrangements we have in place for the elections and beyond. and as a separate themselves from the insurgent risk, we're doing everything we can within -- to assist them in that goal. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> in a few moments, caffeine

sibelius of combating minute car -- kathleen civilians on combat a medicare fraud. -- kathleen sibelius on combating medicare fraud. later, a look at the relationship between the iraqi government and the courage to live in the northern part of the country. on "washington journal" tomorrow, we will focus on health care debate. our series with authors continues with judge injuring the pilot on no -- judge napolitano. we will talk about how the recession is affecting a delta of not graduated high school. that is with david harvey, the ceo of pro-literacy. we will take your calls on the public auction in the health-

care debate with david goldstein with the american prospect. washington journal is live on c- span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. on c-span2 tomorrow morning, a conference with public health and hospital officials emergency responders, and industry leaders live at 9:00 ieastern. >> this fall, into the home to america's highest court, from the grand public places to those only accessible by the nine justices. the supreme court coming the first sunday in october on c- span. >> now health and human services secretary, kathleen sebelius, on efforts to combat medicare fraud. she also says the administration continues to support the so- called public corruption and health-care legislation being considered on a catholic bishop

capitol hill. -- being considered on capitol hill. >> we would ask that you put your cell phones on silent. it is my honor and privilege this morning to welcome the secretary of the department of health and human services, kathleen sibelius, and cathy green need to our 2009 national conference. [applause] for me personally, it is exciting to be sharing the stage with two fellow kansas people. that is not happen every day in washington.

i like to share a few brief introductions for our newest secretary. she was appointed by president obama as the fourth assistant secretary for aging at the department of health and human n june. health and services in june. prior to coming to washington, she served as secretary of the kansas department on aging where she was responsible for overseeing the state's older americans act programs for the distribution of medicare payments and regulation of nursing-home life insurance. she served the state of kansas as the assistant secretary for aging and randy state's long- term care program. -- ran the state's long-term care program. she also served as secretary --

the chief of staff and chief of operations for the governor. she brings to the administration on aging a strong commitment to impairing and protecting older consumers. -- to end poweringe endmpowering and protecting older consumers. she is the front line of defense in this effort. these are the values that also underlie our program, empowering seniors to prevent health care fraud. now i am proud and excited to have kathy here leading our office on aging. i am thrilled she is here today to introduce as to secretary sebelius. [applause] >> good morning.

this will probably fall over. it is good to be with you this morning and it is wonderful to have the opportunity to introduce kathleen sebelius to you. i have had the privilege of introducing her before. this is the first time since we came to washington, so this is a new venue. i am new to d.c. but the secretary is not. she received her bachelor's degree from trinity college and there she met her future husband. we have gary to thank for kathleen moving to kansas. after that she went to the university of kansas and received a master's degree. in 1986 she ran for public office and was elected to serve at the kansas house of representatives. she served in the house for eight years and in 1994 she was

elected insurance commissioner for kansas. that election was remarkable because she beat an incumbent and was the first democrat to hold that office and 100 years. she is to say -- she used to say they have always done it this way. when she was commissioner, she focused quite quickly on consumer issues and gravitated immediately to issues of health. healthcare has been a passion of hers. she served as the chair of the health committee for the national association of health commissioners. during her second term, she took a move that was first in the nation in terms of denying the acquisition of kansas's bluecross blueshield. the reason she denied that was because of the increase of rates

would have been a significant on individuals. in 2002 she was elected governor. she focused a lot of energy on education as well as the environment and health care. in 2006 she was elected to her second term and had recently been named by "time" magazine as one of the top five governors. we were happy she was our governor. the majority of us had reelected her, and then the president called. on april 29 she was sworn in to be the 21st secretary of the department of health and human services. the night she was sworn in i was in the rotunda of listening to the chief justice of the kansas supreme court read your letter of resignation. i must admit this was bittersweet.

we were sad to see her go as governor because what we know is what the nation is learning. the president cannot have chosen a better leader, and we are proud of her and thrilled she is the new secretary of health and human services. secretary sebelius. [applause] >> good morning. thank you. i did not want to come to washington alone, so i had to bring kathy with me. but i am totally delighted that she was willing to accept the challenges as assistant secretary of aging. i can tell you from my experience she will be fabulous. she has an enormous passion for issues confronting seniors in this country, and has done some

creative and important work in kansas in terms of not only helping to fight for consumer issues but rebalancing our portfolio in terms of community care, providing a continuum of care, working on behalf of seniors in the heartland. i know that same passion and energy will be brought with her here to d.c. and she works on behalf of seniors across the country. i know of barbara's could work with fraud, but i did that know she was from kansas. i am delighted to be with two fellow jayjawks.

kathy and i go back along way and have a long history together, so i know you have a real champion in her as the leader of the agency on aging. i want to also acknowledged the senior medical patrol volunteers who are here today. i know that there are 10 of you who will be honored tomorrow, and except my congratulations in the advance. i have to tell you, with each approaching year i find that protection of medicare more imports and on a personal basis. i am getting up close to qualifying age, and i want to make sure we are solvent well into the future, so i personally thank you for the good work you are doing on behalf of citizens across the country. we have some terrific partners

in agencies across government in fighting medicare fraud. i know those agencies are represented here today, and will be part of this conference for the next couple of days. no single department could tackle this challenge on our own. it is definitely a team effort. as any good team, we recognize that everybody has a part to play, so in addition to the employees at the administration on aging, if we have both partners at cms, the office of the inspector general and the department of justice. they are all actively working on this. my father was a member of congress in 1965 when president johnson signed the medicare bill into law just over 40 years ago.

it was one of the most important steps on behalf of seniors that was ever taken, certainly the biggest advance after social security in the truman days. back then, and it is hard to imagine, but seniors were among the poorest and most of the normal populations because of health care costs and rising bills -- they were one of the most vulnerable populations because of health care costs. now they have some of the best care in america and have security about the health care that they have. unlike private insurance, when you turn 65 or when you qualify as a disabled american, you cannot be dropped because of health coverage. you cannot be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

your rates don't change depending on your specific health situation. it is what insurance is all about, balancing that risk. we have made clear over the years that that safety net is critical. that is what medicare is so popular. providing care for seniors in this country is not cheap. the federal government this year, at tax payers in america, will spend about $425 billion on medicare and another $200 billion on medicaid. any time that amount of money, $625 billion, is changing hands, you know there will be people around to want to get their hands on some of that cash. there is the old story about the

bank robber where they asked him why it was that he robbed banks. his answer was pretty simple, that is where the money is. unfortunately, that is the same situation with this major government program. every day we pay more than 3 million claims to 1.5 million different providers every day. we need to pay the claims quickly so doctors can get reimbursed. pharmaceutical managers can get reimbursed, and the seniors get the care they need. the tension is how to make sure that the claims payment goes on efficiently, but also making sure that those claims are legitimate. there are several enforcement programs to do just that.

but over the years the amount of claims payment and financing has grown far faster than our response. in the five years since 2003, medicare spending went up 10% per year, but spending on the health care fraud program went up just barely over 1%. in spite of the fact that we know that investment yields huge returns. medicare added a new prescription drug program witte medicare part d, but efforts to make sure that claims payments are legitimate have barely increased. since taking office in january, president obama s recognized this is a real and important tension. he not only provided some additional resources but ask for some additional cross agency

cooperation, not so in may, attorney general eric holder and i created a new health-care fraud enforcement action team that is known as heat. it is made up of senior staff from both of our departments headed by the deputy secretary of both the department of justice and department of hhs, the first time ever that cabinet and subcabinet officials have participated in this kind of effort. the goal is to find improved ways to attack fraud. those efforts are already paying off. by july, an initiative in houston led to the arrest of 32 doctors in four cities who were charged with cheating medicare out of a minimum of $16 million. a similar effort in miami brought charges against 42 people for a scam involving

expensive infusion treatments for hiv/aids patients. those initiatives are led by strike force teams. in addition to the teams in houston and miami, there are teams in los angeles and detroit. we are prepared to expand those teams wherever the fraud may take us. because the efforts have been successful, we are trying to get ahead of fraudulent activity. it used to be that claims were monitored after the fact, and often took months or years to track down. but then the perpetrators would have been on to a new scam. we are trying to send a signal that we are very eager to stop people from stealing from this vital program, and we are willing to spend resources to do it. if you want to-heard that activity, we do have a new web site -- if you want to monitor that activity, we have a new web

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes. for every dollar we spend, the minimum of $1.50 comes back to the tax payers. that is just on the people we catch. we cannot tell you how much is

prevented by sending a signal that we are serious about this. we will still be after these criminals and still, even with unforced -- enhanced efforts, be able to review less than 3% of the claims. that brings me to the point of the conference today. that is why these senior medicare patrol program is so important. the strongest defense against crime is not law enforcement, it is informed citizens. patrol officers help prevent break-ins, but the biggest reason there are not more home burglaries is we all lock our doors and windows at night, we report suspicious activity. the best defense against crime is when people can protect themselves. that is where the senior

medicare patrol program comes in. we have a simple motivation, american seniors don't like it when people steal from medicare. since 1997, we have educated more than 20 million seniors about medicare fraud. we have taught them how to recognize it, prevent it and how to educate neighbors and friends. the advice can be as simple as teaching folks how to read their medicare summary noticed or explaining to them their medicare number is like a credit card number, they should never give it away. the results are impressive. since 1997, we have saved taxpayers over $100 million. that is $100 million of additional medical care that can be delivered to citizens. volunteers are also great crime

deterrence. members scattered across the country are like having undercover cops on the street. if a criminal things he might get reported, he is much less likely to try to cheat someone. i want to share one story with you about one of the volunteers who i heard about the other day as i was preparing for this presentation. mario sanchez from texas. he is 72 and has diabetes. earlier this year he got a work order as he usually does from his medical supplies company for the test strips he uses to test his blood sugar. that work order was one of 3 million claims that medicare pays every day. it easily could have been one of the ones that went through without any scrutiny, but it was not. a few months earlier he had

heard a presentation at his adult day care center. he knew that as a valuable as medicare was to him, it was just as valuable to crooks who could use it to steal money. he made sure to read the work order very carefully. it turned out his order was actually for 200 boxes and $7,000. although he was only supposed to get two boxes of supplies, so he contacted the senior medicare patrol and they helped him get the work order changed to the correct amount. here is the most important part of the story, mario not only review that one claim but now reviews every one of his claims. he has worked with the folks at the day care center to help them review their claims and goes over medical forms with friends

and neighbors. that is the biggest benefit of what the volunteers do, recruit other people to the calls. slowly -- recruit other people to the cause. building a community that scarce of criminals before they can even come up with a scam. earlier this year i was at an event with attorney general h older. he mentioned a news piece about a man who had switched from selling drugs on the street to medicare fraud because it was more profitable. i am not advocating that we want people to go back to the street to sell drugs, but we also want to tell them that cheating seniors is not a good way to make an easy buck. thanks to you we are starting to make that change. i know you are hearing a lot about fraud over the next few days, but before i close this morning i want to also say a few

words about another hot topic, health reform which is dominating the airwaves. if you weren't watching the news over the weekend, you probably have seen reports about the obama administration and the public option portion of the health reform plan. all i can tell you is that sunday must have been a very slow news day because here is the bottom line, absolutely nothing has changed. we continue to support the public option, that will help lower costs, it give consumers more choice and keep in private -- keep private insurers honest. if people have other ideas to accomplish these goals come up we will look at these, to the --

to accomplish these goals, we will look at these as well. i have seen this work in kansas where a public option is side- by-side with private insurers. it is what it does when it provides a choice in markets that are often dominated by one insurance company, a monopoly that can charge what it wants because it has no competition. that is what we want to do in health reform. more choices, more competition, that is the bottom-line goal. i also know that lots of information has been circulated causing fear among some seniors about cutting valuable medicare services or rationing care. i want to tell you nothing could be further from the truth. we know that your efforts to reduce fraud will save medicare dollars for a essential services. as part of health reform, there

are also some other critically important health savings. saving dollars for seniors on prescription drug costs, cutting the hole in half is a huge help. saving doctors for medicare services from the proposed 21% cost, a leftover legacy from the primary administration that has never been fixed but is part of the health reform. absent health reform, but doctors providing medicare services are scheduled to be cut 21%. talk that of losing your doctor , -- talk about losing your doctor, that will happen unless we just costs. cutting down on people who are readmitted to the hospital following a hospital stay not only saves lives but saves

dollars. my father who was in the congress when medicare was passed is now 88-years old. my aunt turns 90-years old on sunday, so i know personally held valuable in our family medicare services are. i see it each day. i know how valuable medicare services are to families across this country, so we want to make sure we actually provide the services needed by seniors, but also make sure medicare is solvent well into the future, that we are not overpaying for drugs and equipment, that we are not lining the pockets of insurance companies in terms of overpayment, but delivering those dollars to provide for medical services. but we know now about medicare is that it is universally

beloved. if you took a vote in the house and senate on medicare services, it is hard to believe anyone would stand up and upno. -- and vote no. it would probably pass overwhelmingly in a landslide, but back in 1965 when there was the first votes and a whopping democratic majority in both the house and senate, medicare only passed by 45 votes. the point is change is never easy, but if we can achieve reform this fall, we might have a chance to look back 40 years from now and say we were there when our country made another important step to ensuring high- quality health care for all americans. thank you for your service, thank you for what you do to keep medicare solvent, and thank

you for having me here today. [applause] [applause] [applause]

guest: i represented in number of the firearm companies. i left them and then i wrote a book a few years ago about my experiences and how i feel both the issue and the groups and some of the people involved in issue. host: why did you decide to write this book? guest: it is a story that never has been told before about how power is wielded behind the scenes and how the players really operate and think, and what some of the motivations behind the policy is and what is really going on with the players and the groups and the controversies. host: you write about the national rifle association. you refer to it has "a senecal mercenary political cult." explain why you wrote that. guest: a lot of what the

national rifle association does these days is not about the policy of protecting gun owners or their members. it is much simpler than that. it is about fund raising and membership recruitment and development. perhaps a good example would be for the past year, we have heard how president obama is the most anti-gun president in american history. going back to the 1980's, the national rifle association endorsed and supported george carper walker bush and within a few months of his taking office, by executive order, he signed a bill that outlaw the importation of tens of thousands of semiautomatic rifles into this country. president obama so far has only signed a bill allowing people to carry guns in federal park lands if they are legal to carry and the state.

so, it makes one wonder, what does the term really mean? so much of this debate is about the polemics and the words that we use. when some people say they are for gun-control, what we hear in the pro-gun side is quite different than what individuals really mean. there is former agreement in this country than there is disagreement. we are all against convicted predatory felons from obtaining guns. we're all against unsupervised juvenile is having or obtaining guns. we're against mental incompetence or having guns. everybody on capitol hill says they are all in favor of legitimate citizens having in using guns for any and all legitimate purposes. one has to ask themselves, what are we arguing about?

host: you write that the nra would rather fight than win. guest: fighting is very good for fund-raising and membership development. when you win, what are you going to say in the fund raising letter? our opponents have closed their shops around the country. they have gone away. 25 cents dollars by friday afternoon? it does not work that way. there is nothing unique about the gun issue in this town. every group does that. environmental groups tend to do much better when republicans are in control. business groups do better when democrats are in control. perhaps that is part of our problem in america today. this is a very centrist nation that we have an. enthusiasm for so many of the issues really comes from the extremes. i like to think of myself as an enthusiastic moderate, but that is almost a contradiction in terms.

host: what has the nra's reaction been to you? guest: their first reaction was that they would not comment on works of fiction, to which i quipped, i wonder if the internal revenue service or the federal election commission would be interested in learning that their returns are works of fiction. i do not think they are, but the leadership of nra cannot have it both ways. host: c-span did contact the nra. they did not return a request for comment. let's go to our first call. caller: good morning. i wanted to mention -- i'm 64 years old. in idaho, where i grew up, we went to the nra for safety

training and all of that. i remember in those days that people who were involved in guns were not the same as they are now. the people who are interested in these things now are covered in fatigues and i have to say that they are scary. the way that they talk about guns is not the way that they used to talk about guns. it is somewhat frightening. when you take a look at a fellow who had his gun slapped to -- strapped to his leg during a presidential meeting, the gun itself does not scare me. it was the look on his face. it is not the gun and it is not the human. it is the combination. that is all i have to say. thank you very much. guest: i think he is correct. in many ways in this country, if we focus on the gun, we have missed the whole opportunity to focus on the problem. the problem is never the gun.

the issue is, in whose hands are the guns? if we focus on that issue, we avoid so much of the senseless debate that has gone on over the last 25 years prevented us as a nation from resolving this issue and moving forward. host: the president was in phoenix, arizona. it was the third time in a week when there was an incident involving a firearm where he has been appearing. there was a man walking outside the event carrying a rifle on his shoulder. from your position, how would the gun lobby react to those kinds of offense? guest: it is a couple of things that we're saying. many times, people have gone. no one is misusing the guns. it probably is not a very wise moment to be showing your second

amendment right to have that done in the presence of the president of the united states. we are all focused on someone who is not a problem, but they cannot know that exactly in advance. while it certainly was his right, as i understand it and arizona and new hampshire, it probably was not the most sensible thing to be doing under the circumstances. host: the next call is from new haven. caller: good morning to you. the caller was talking about how these people are scary and they are dressed up in malaysia fatigues or whenever they are called. i think those people that you see at these meetings are plants. barack obama and all of them are against guns. that is what they want to do, take the guns away from the american people. in our bill of rights, -- it is

in there that the american people should have and be able to have their guns to protect themselves and their families and protect them against the government. with the agenda of the obama administration, they want to take the guns away from the people. the people you see going to these meetings, i think they are plants that you store up a big ordeal. guest: i have not been to any of the meetings myself. i have had some meetings with this administration, senior officials of the white house. it has become increasingly clear to me that the obama administration means what it set last year during the campaign. it has no interest in taking on the gun issue. it is not against legitimate ownership of guns for any and all legitimate purposes. i think the thing that we have

to focus on in this country are those many areas of agreement. i've never met anyone who is against firearm safety. we have spent the last 25 years in this country promoting sex education, drug education -- why don't we do anything about firearm safety education from a non political perspective? it is something that everyone can get behind. what i have found increasingly as i met and talked with people since leaving the gun movement, if you will, it is that what people say they are for gun- control -- most gun controls think that is code language that means, i am against guns, i want to ban them, i want to highly regulate them. some people certainly do mean that. most people mean by that statement that they want to keep guns away from the wrong individuals.

i do not know anyone in the gun movement who wants violent predatory criminals to lawfully be able to obtain guns. i do not know anyone who wants mental incompetence to be able to access guns. if we spent some time focusing on the things we agree on, maybe we could come to some resolution on some of the more difficult issues within this whole cluster. host: he said the administration had no interest in gun legislation. is there anything in the congress? guest: there are members of congress who have put in bills, but i do not see them going anywhere at the moment. perhaps the most current issue that might potentially come before the congress and then only if a certain fact pattern what occurred is the issue involving gun shows in this country. i do not see it on the media

juror -- the immediate agenda. if there were guns that were purchased from a gun show from a civilian seller and a tragedy could have been prevented if they had gone through the background check system that a dealer is obligated to put people through, that issue could be back on the table. it is not so complicated if you really figure it out and get down to it. a lot of it is the polemics. the anti-gun community says that we have to close the loophole. there is no loophole. as a civilian, i can take any of the guns that i own and sell them lawfully at a gun show in my state. the issue is, how do i prevent those very individuals, the convicted violent felons, mental incompetent people from getting a gun from me? if i sell them to someone, i do not know who i am selling them to. i did we are smart enough people to devise a system -- what i

would recommend is if there were a bill, it would be the gun show preservation and protection act of 2009. behind the scenes would be to protect this american tradition of gun shows. even the national rifle association said they thought it was reasonable and responsible for background checks at gun shows. the problem was the waiting time and the implications of, would you lose a sale? that was 10 years ago the smart people in this country can resolve this issue. host: good morning. caller: i am a democrat. i happened to get on your program today. i have a comment and a request. my comment is this. america is a great nation.

we hold our destiny in our own hands. i remember when charlton heston used to get on tv and defend the nra. [unintelligible] you have to stand up and take responsibility for it and make sure that we put safeguards -- we have the internet, so why not [unintelligible] you could get the information on anybody that you want to. it is worth $10 to find out if this guy is legitimate. guest: there is really a fairly simple methodology by which we could resolve this issue and move on.

if the gun show promoter was in the position to run the background checks for individuals attempting to buy guns from civilians, it would be a minimal impact on my ability to sell guns and have no impact whatsoever on a potential legitimate buyer of those guns. the transaction could go on as it has in a gun shop today. we could avoid any problems. host: we have peaked on the republican line. caller: when you talk about these town halls, i guess if you are a plant, you are still somebody with a grievance. as far as guns and gun shows go, i was at one over here in virginia recently. i have own guns. i believe any honest citizen has

a right to buy the second amendment. i think a gun show has got to be eliminated. that we're in -- even conversing that it is an)a about what is going on and, people can

bear arms. the biggest issue of guns is, they need to be licensed more effectively. you want to get a new gun, you need to sign this thing and let us know about your gun situation. thank you. guest: first of all, you do not have a right as an american to own an automobile or drive that automobile. after last year's decision in the supreme court, that argument is over. you have a right to own a handgun for self protection in this country. it is not an absolute right. we can deny those convicted felons from owning a gun, but the average american citizen has a right as recognized not just in the second amendment, but by the supreme court, and of story. right then and there, it is very different from an automobile. if we talk about concealed

carrying licenses, that is a different situation. it is not unlike having an automobile. as the caller just said, you have to be licensed, you have to register the car. that is not exactly true. if you have a farm, you could put your six year-old lawfully behind the wheel of a vehicle that has no license plate on it. when you take a gun out of your home and you carry it on the streets, in most states, you need a concealed carry license. in virginia, you need that license to do so lawfully. in order to obtain a license, you need to go through some training. you need to go through additional background checks. that license is issued. owning a gun and being able to carry a concealed of the streets is a bit of a different fact pattern and situation.

host: we have a pat on the democratic line from illinois. caller: this is my first time calling. i'm kind of excited, but i want to thank you for bringing up the issue about president bush's data. a lot of people forget the fact that he eliminated a lot of guns that were being imported. i get calls from the nra all the time. i got a call yesterday, as a matter of fact. i think it was about the united nations wanted to take our guns. i live in illinois. we have a restrictive system here. you cannot be caught without your card if you have a gun in your truck. i live in a rural setting. it is kind of nerve wracking, especially when you think you

have lost your card or misplaced it. i tend to agree with ted nugent that the bill of rights gives you the right to protect yourself. in illinois, we have never had a concealed carry permit and we probably never will because of chicago. thank you for taking my call. guest: greetings to illinois. before a the supreme court decision and when people would ask about your right of self- defense, whenever the second amendment met prior to heller, i could always respond that you have a right to life and liberty. whatever the second amendment may have met before heller, it seems to me that you had an absolute right of self-defense

regardless of the second amendment. now the supreme court has stated as a matter of constitutional law, you have that right to own a handgun for self protection. i think in many ways, the debate in this country has moved far forward and it was back in the 1970's and the 1980's when we were debating whether handguns should be outlawed. that is an ancient debate now. we have moved on from that. there are over 100 million gun owners in this country. when you look at the demographics of that group, there are over 10 million self identified liberals to own guns in this country. it is not exactly a left and right issue. i think it is becoming even less of a roles in urban issue. -- rural/urban issue.

they say, like you do, if my government basically trust me, with the guns that i have own and never misused, in general terms, perhaps they're move -- perhaps they are worthy of my trust. if they want to take away those guns that i never miss use, perhaps this government is no longer worthy of my trust. therein lies the tremendous power and emotional influence that the firearm issue has an american politics today. host: we have linda on the republican line. caller: i understand about the different sides. it is all a moot point. the reason i say this is in reference to with the previous caller said, there is a treaty

that is in the united nations. it is to control guns all over. it is under the guise of illegal trafficking. the only way to combat it is if you are an individual state with specific laws. obama was in mexico. he was going to urge the senators to ratify a treaty. of course he can say, i am not against guns. once the united nations takes over and decide all of this, the only people in this country were going to have guns are going to be the crazies, the crooks, and the government. however rocket that collusion is beyond me -- everything else is a move point. do not sign onto this treaty. guest: she does have a very good point. when it comes to treat these

countries have the force of law when enacted. we have to be very careful what we're enacting treaties -- with those treaty say about our firearms and civil liberties in this country. host: next call is from troy, wisconsin. caller: i am a politicians worst nightmare. i not only healthwatch "the washington journal," but i watched the house and the senate. there was recently a bill that was about the concealed carry laws that they should apply across state borders. in wisconsin, we have what is called an open carry law. believe me, if you are walking around downtown with a pistol on your hip, you will be arrested for disorderly conduct. i saw on the discovery channel

special, the had packs of wild dogs running around and all they did was put a radio collar on them to see where they were going. there have been cases of people being attacked and killed by these packs of wild dogs. you have california releasing so many people from prison for budget cuts. wisconsin is doing the same thing. i am not really up on other states budgetary priorities, but they are releasing people from prison early in order to save space and everything like that. then you have congress who tells you, i have no rights. there is no concealed carry law in wisconsin. if i wanted to protect my family on a camping trip or something like that, there is no protection for may.

as far as you going to the white house and discussing these issues in being assured by president obama, let me just tick off a few of his campaign promises that have gone by the wayside. the note tax on the $250,000 -- smokers all know that was the first big promise broken. his bipartisanship and transparency has all gone by the wayside. he is going to close guantanamo bay, we will say. we are still in iraq. i expect everything to be done in months. he will not have any lobbyists and is it ministration. that is another one. for you to go there, i hope that you listen to what his administration says with a mind to his track record.

guest: well, i was in the reagan and ministration. there was a line that ronald reagan always said about the soviets. trust, but verify. it is important to hear what people say, but it is more important to see what they do. we have already seen the first thing that president obama did when it came to his desk on guns. compare and contrast that to what george herbert walker bush did what he told everyone that he was pro-gun and he signed that executive order under his signature so far, you could keep score as well as i can. we have seen the results every time. i'm far from an expert on all the other issues. this is the one issue that i watched very carefully very closely all the time. host: if you were asked, could you comment on maryland's gun

law and why we lost the state chapter of the nra? guest: i'm not familiar with the state chapter. i never covered maryland when i was at the nra. i'm not terribly familiar. i know that you have some pretty onerous gun laws in the state of maryland. i think there needs to be a lot of work to be done. one of the problems that i know the nra has always faced and does not like to work in 50 different states. it much prefers to have one national issue to work on. as you go from new york to new jersey or california and idaho, wisconsin, we have 50 different states out there with 50 different sets of laws. what would be a step in the right direction in a state like new york would be a step backwards in a state like texas or idaho.

you have to have 50 different programs with moving the agenda forward. host: from washington, d.c., we have chris on the republican line. caller: you were doing an excellent job. thank you for being here as well. to go on top of what we have heard from the republicans and independents, we are quite worried about what we see -- president obama does not have the best track record. remember back in 1996 where he answered yes to a question about whether he would ban the possession of handguns. i believe that in 2003, he voted to support legislation that would ban targeting reich calls -- targeting rifles. i am sure many people across the country find this troubling. like ronald reagan said, we have to wait to see what will come of

this. with that, i thank you both for your time. guest: there was a very interesting vote. it was on the vitter amendment which was a authorizing disaster relief funds post-katrina. i was looking at that vote. what did involve was saying, if you come from a county or jurisdiction and your law enforcement has disarmed legitimate citizens during that time of unrest or disaster, you get no federal funds in that disaster relief. i looked and i saw that senator clinton voted against it. it passed. i was pretty certain that president obama would vote against it as well. to my surprise, he supported the amendment. to me, that was a very important

moment because it really went to the heart of basically, do you trust the citizens or would you error on the side of the government? what he was saying in that vote to me was, i basically trust the citizens over the government. @@@@ juvenile delinquents who carry a gun to the town hall meetings are

absolute idiots. it never occurred to them that they could have that gun taken away like somebody else -- by somebody else who is there and shoot up the whole place even if they will not do it? that is about it for me. by the way, i am for the public option. guest: i do not know what to say. i suppose anything anyone takes with them could be used against them. when you are playing the odds, if you wear a seatbelt and you were actually in an impact with another vehicle and you were hit on the driver's side, you are often better off not having your seat belt on. that is hardly an argument not to wear seat belts. you are playing the odds. if you are hit from the rear or the front, you are far better off with the seat belt on. yes, it could happen. yes, a gun could be taken away

from somebody, but the odds are much higher than if you have a gun and god forbid the need arises for you to use that gun, you then have the means to protect yourself. i always wondered, when we were having this debate in the 1970's and the 1980's, why was it that the government could -- that could not protect its citizens deny them the means to protect themselves? i never did get an answer from any politician on that. the same politicians that are -- that walk around with our security guards. they just do not want you to have that same ability to protect yourself. host: kevin on the republican line. first, to the lady that was just on the phone talking about the juvenile delinquent. for all she knows, these guys could be veterans who are trained in firearms.

it says that we have a right to do it. nobody is sending them there but the government. they're not doing what the people of hired them to do. i just think that if they take our guns, it will be the day that they start not listening to the american people ever again. with these imports -- these proposed tax increases on gunpowder and stuff will make it harder for people to do their own reload. i like to hunt. the gun shops are already anticipating tax increases.

guest: there is a lot of talk on the internet about these proposed taxes on ammunition. actually, that goes back to some loss from several congresses ago. to my knowledge, there is certainly nothing viable on capitol hill talking about taxing ammunition. frankly, that kind of a bill would be so dead on arrival in this congress, it would not be funny. i certainly support your right to hunt. most of my hunting has been of elected officials in the electoral process. host: next call is from indiana. are you there? caller: i want to think the cable companies for c-span. i want to talk about -- it has been explained to me that there are restrictions on home protection if you have a gun in your home. i had a police officer tell me that someone has to break into

your house before you have the price to shoot -- before you have the right to shoot them. if you shoot someone in your doorway, you make sure that they fall in the house and not out of the house. i would like you to explain more on mentally disabled people and how they can be restricted. again, there is no bigger organized crime unit than our own government. thank you. guest: c-span would probably have to have me back to explain the whole issue involving the mental issue. the current law is, if you have been adjudicated and put in a mental institution by the force of law, you lose your right, pretty much, to have a gun. the most difficult issue is, one can be perfectly sane today, go

out and purchase a firearm and five or 10 years from now, things happen and you lose it. that is a very difficult issue. i do not know if i have many answers. i think it requires a lot more thought. i do not have any good answers to give you about that one. we can only deal with what has existed up until the moment in time someone is purchasing a firearm. we have done a very good job so far in that field. does their need to be more that can be done? i suppose so. it is a tough question. i do not know the answer. host: we have an e-mail from one of our viewers. guest: i do not know that is exactly true. i think they have the same right to carry a gun if it is lawful

to carry a gun in a town meeting. it goes from state to state whether that is legal. it depends on where the meeting is being held. is it on town property? it really depends from place to place. i do not think the law has changed dramatically, certainly not in the last 12 months. host: next call is from new york. we have jim on the democratic line. caller: you made a couple of interesting points. let me touch on three of them, please. they all relate to mental health. the first thing is, you are talking about mental health, being able to check on someone, whether or not they're mentally competent. is it just as logical that you would want to make sure that with regard to every sale that there was a background check for some amount of time before you went ahead and sold them the

gun? the other question is, just the mental health of individuals -- i have clients who own guns. i have plans to shoot guns. i have no problem with guns. the question is whether or not that is something that is a casual thing. if you wake up in the morning worried about whether or not you were allowed to walk around with an assault rifle and you are willing to contribute to the nra to make sure that you and your neighbor and everyone else can walk around with an automatic machine gun, -- it is not as a surly the rank-and-file, but the leadership of the nra would fight for. guest: you certainly through a whole slew of questions out

there. to my fellow towner, let me say that in this country, we have to follow what tell us says and not what prospectively someone may do. if we followed that approach, we would say that anyone can own a gun that lived a good, perfect life and issue them a license posthumously. that is patently ridiculous. if you have not been incarcerated, if you have not been in a mental institution against your will by court order, you are a legal person to own guns that changes as your situation changes. just because you enjoy firearms -- i certainly do. i think about guns quite a bit. i do not know that that makes me on balance because i think about it. when you pick up a gun and you have that gun in your hand, it is almost impossible not to recognize that you have an extremely dangerous instrument.

what we all get behind the wheel of a car every single day -- i dare say that very few of us ever say, i have a potential weapon of death in my hands. we do not think of an automobile that way. every day in this country, more people died behind the wheel of a car. caller: thank you very much for c-span. i would really like to implore every listener to go onto google and look at the brady group. find out how many people who have carry concealed licenses have committed violent acts with a gun. more importantly, i think how many times i hear the term law- abiding citizens should not be denied the right to own and carry a gun.

i implore people to see "pulling for columbine -- bowling for columbine." more people own guns in canada than they do in the united states, but they have fewer deaths as a result of them. maybe we should do more education. i do not own a gun. i was going to buy one some years ago. my wife and i were traveling the country doing seminars and we had money in the news -- in the motor home. my best friend said, could you fire without warning? if someone did not announce your presence, could you fire your gun without warning? i thought about it and said, i could not. he said, you have removed the

option of the person who comes into your motorhome to assail you, if they have begun. they would immediately start firing. i thought, that is a really good point. over my lifetime, i think, the times i have -- i'm a pacifist. there are times when i lost control of myself and i thought, had a gun in hand, i might have actually considered a violent act with that gun. i think that lab -- law-abiding citizens thing is so prevalent. many people are law abiding citizens and look at how many have actually committed a violent act with a gun. guest: you're exactly the kind of individual that has made a rational decision not to own a gun. i think that is great in your situation. do not deny the rest of us who have made a decision that we not

only want to own one, but we are all it -- we're going to own them for so protection and god forbid we have to use them, we are prepared to do so. host: another viewer says, your premise is biased and flawed. as if that is the only reason to own one. guest: i am not suggesting that we should not always be vigilant to actions against legitimate rights of a firearm community. as your viewers suggests, there

are a number of legislative proposals involving these different issues. whether a firearm fires because it is a semi-automatic or a bold action or a lover action is completely irrelevant to whether it is being used for hunting or self protection. the question is not, what is its reloading action. the really important issue is, how is it being used, which goes to the basic question of, in whose hands are the guns? if i were to give out to 10,000 firearms, to honest citizens here in the district of columbia tonight, the crime rate in the district of columbia would not go up. if i passed out 100 handguns to the criminal element in this town, i think there would be a spike this evening in violent crime.

it was not the gun. the question is, in whose hands are the guns. if we focus on that as the problem, we stand some sand -- some chance of doing something. if we focus on the guns that there are good guns in bad guns because of the mechanism by which you can reload the gun, we have missed any@@@@@⌞@>@>@>m>s>>

capable of fully automatic fire. these guns are not those. we're not talking about the same thing. we go back to the polemics. one side meeting one thing, the other side thinking there's something else, but if we are not on the same table and talking about the same thing, we really miss any opportunity to communicate effectively with one another host. host: are you there? caller: i am calling to find out, how is it that we can educate the public? it seems every time there is an issue, people point the finger at our president. the senate and the representatives write the bill. how can we educate the public

about who is really writing the bills in congress? guest: well, you could pay attention in school. the fact that you are viewing c- span, you're educating yourself about who is doing what. you can go on the congressional website and take a look. you could find out who is doing what. you could do it on google. if you look at some of the issues on the internet, you will find the bill by congressman bobby rush that has gotten a lot of attention in the gun community. it is a single member bill. any member of congress can put a bill in. if it does not have any support from anyone else, it is not even getting a hearing, let alone go to a vote in committee or to any house. there are thousands of bills

that are put in for every session of congress that never received any action at all. that is one of them host: what powers does the patriot act grant the federal government over firearms? guest: that is a pretty interesting question i am not really up on the ins and outs of what the patriot act does. i recall very much and your viewers may remember former congressmen bob barr who was a leader on the firearms issue. i think his finest moment as a united states congressmen was a month after 9/11, when he stood up as a republican and opposed the patriot act on the floor of the house of representatives. i think that was his finest moment in congress. caller: i want to commend you on

your book. i'm going to buy it. my question is this. during the election, i came up with a theory after hearing a democrat for obama. he was an nra member. i got to thinking about it. john mccain was the war president. obama was the anti-war president. maybe the major shareholders in the nra were for john mccain because they could make more money through war. maybe it was all about the money that they could generate off of more war. guest: i am not too sure about the war issue there, but i am certain that the worst thing that happened to the nra's fund- raising and membership recruitment occurred back in

2000 when george w. bush ended up in the white house. their membership dropped from close to 5 million to much closer to 2 million. of course, the best thing that has happened in the past eight years was president obama being elected. senator john mccain was the new great enemy of the national rifle association. they supported him in the 2008 election cycle. these things in politics change, certainly from year to year, if not from month-to-month. host: is that typical for the nra to fluctuate depending on what party is in the white house? guest: it is not as much related to the party as it is to the perceived threat levels -- threat level to gun ownership in the country. after last summer's leadership

to the election, there was a great deal of fear amongst the gun community about what would be coming down from the congress and who would sign that kind of a bill i go back to 1994, which was the year the republicans took control of the house of representatives. people remember that as dead here of the angry white man. i was doing a lot of work that year for democratic congressmen and chairman of the house judiciary committee, jack brooks down in texas. i recall very distinctly that the day the republicans took control that election day, that is the day that the buying frenzy ended at gun shops around america because the perceived fear of what would be next was over. that did not release start up again -- it started a bit after 9/11. the buying frenzy of the gun

shops is pretty well over now. prices have come back down to suggested manufacturing prices. there is quite a backlog on ammunition in the pipeline. host: next call from columbia, missouri on the republican mind. are you there? caller: i was wondering if your guest to talk about how law- enforcement will seek out people that have guns and how the violence with youth -- we have a lot of that violence. we have blacks against blacks with guns a lot. and our law enforcement here is -- i do not know what you would call them. they are kind of naive.

i had a situation where i had someone call law enforcement and tell them that i was going to commit suicide. the police came out and they took me in and everything. guest: i do not know what the fact patterns might have been in your situation. you certainly no better than i if it was a righteous or ridiculous event. when it comes to law enforcement, particularly the bureau of all tobacco and firearms, the agency tasked with going after gone running in this country, when somebody buys two handguns at one time from a dealer, that dealer has to fill out a multiple sales form on that purchase. when a state like new jersey

where you are only allowed to buy one handgun, they think they are doing something about crime. what they have done is destroyed atf's single most important investigative lead. even if it was well-intentioned, that is questionable in its own right. even if it was not, what they're doing and what they think they are doing are sometimes very different things. they do not know what they're doing in the first place. it might be nice if some of these politicians in some of these states actually asked those law enforcement officers who have been involved in this issue for a long time if what they want to do makes any sense. often, it does not. host: tulsa, okla., we have kirk on the republican line. caller: [unintelligible]

you talked about the amendment going on in the united nations. they're talking about illegal trafficking of guns. i am from jamaica where a lot of illegal guns come into the united states. a lot of people can see how many people got killed in jamaica from gun violence. that is what the u.n. really wants to work on. it is not really about gun ownership in america. it is about illegal trafficking of firearms. guest: that may be true. if it is true and it is all about the illegal trafficking in guns, then every american should be supportive. i think as many of the prior callers who have talked about, we have to be very careful when

we are looking at a treaty or a lot. it is not just what is intended by that law or treaty. it is what the treaty actually says and what it does that is just as important as what the proponents meant it to do because it has the effect of law after it is enacted. we have to be very careful what we're doing before we do it. it is a little late after the fact. host: dale on the republican line. caller: i would like to make a comment on guns. one of the things -- if it is your job, you should be able to carry a gun without judgment. it seems like if a situation came up and the person who had

that gun could forces will on the other people around him and you would have to be under their will. as far as hunting, if you do not have any food in your refrigerator and no money in your pocket -- if you just got a gun and you want to go out and kill little animals just for fun, i kind of lose respect for that. i do not think that is morally correct. as far as people carrying guns, i was raised to believe that if you live by the gun, you die by the gun. have more faith in the good lord is what i say. host: let's go to our next call from louisiana. caller: i am wondering about b wondering aboutlackwater -- like blackwater.

they had orders to shoot to kill. they were sent there by a lot of wealthy people who lived in the st. charles area. i am more afraid of them. we should be armed as well as they are. the guy who is in charge of them and we find out is a real nut case. how were they allowed to have all of these weapons? guest: i do not think i can 7s it. this isçó the first time i am hearing that blackwater was involved after katrina down in louisiana. i do not know anything about it. i am not in a position to comment. host: we will go to our last call on the republican line. caller: i live in georgia. if you watch the news every night, we have a lot of crying. i am not being a racial issue.

the criminals are the ones carrying the guns. if we were allowed to carry our guns in public when we wanted to, we would be able to protect ourselves, not just in our home. they're happening when we go out. we need to protect ourselves against the criminal element. the good people to register our guns, we have registered permits, should be able to scrap our guns to our thighs and be able to protect ourselves. guest:)jptñiqçó÷váçóññ3 i live 3 huáj. i always had a concealed carry licenej55uutñijhj unless there is some reasonçh#g you have done something wrong, there is no reason why you could nott(x7lú obtbtain a concealeduñ

.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> these highlight the challenges to the fiscal picture. the government has highlighted across the board, to the end of last year that they're wanting to address these issues. i want to address the midterm elections. we are looking at how these things will play out. and we also began to see fiscal challenges in the concept of what we see as the low medium term growth. this is underperforming compared to the triple that is here, compared to the emerging markets in general and the outlook for the u.s. economy.

we have the public sector and the security. there is a very important strong policy commitment that will yield a long-term benefit, and there is a question in the near term what this may be and this is a question that we put on the table. we have the outlook for oil production, which will provide another stress. before concluding, we have a fiscal picture of the major elements as to why this goes to the downside. another element is financing the needs of the corporate sector. we see deterioration in the debt profile, but if you look at the financing pressure in the market, the mexican financing --

the mexico financing plays well with the peer group and they are not as strong as brazil, and they are lower grade. but they have another witness that we can talk about. despite the pressure, stressing -- the international reserves, not rolling over some of the corporate sector payments, we still come out with the way that we look at financing, this is better than a triple medium, and stronger than other credits. there is an important element, in the corporate sector. we have had a number of defaults, and we have financing going on. we have seen people issuing the top names, in the capital markets but continuing in august

they have been speculatively issuing this globally. there is stabilizing their, -- there. >> you hit clean up something. >> let me begin by thanking peter for the invitation, and it is a pleasure to be here with my old friends, to try to get some insight on this. let me not talk about the crisis first. in june 2008, if you were looking at this before -- there is a long-term perspective because the story is a story that, after the crisis in 1995,

there was an economy with stabilization and after 1996, things began to change. if you look at the long term, what you see is a substantial issue of medium-term growth. in 2002 through 2007, there was a spectacular time with the latin american standards. there was an unusual combination of unfavorable circumstances, where latin america performed the best in three decades. mexico was below the average. the problem has been the perspective of the economy that has achieved macroeconomics stability, but they're not able to achieve growth and they are not answering these questions. central to the story, as this

effort is taking place, the question is -- the country is having a major transition to democracy and for the purpose of this discussion, there are three notations. the first is a society consensus for stability. this is not an issue of the executive anymore, or an issue of the people and their political party. they have been internalized by mexican society as reflected by the political parties. even the political parties on the left knew that mexicans were angry about the everyday crisis. the transition to democracy is accompanied by the stability, but the transition to democracy is also accompanied by the absence of any consensus

anywhere else. and what you see is an economy that after 1997, basically was stalled with the reforms to keep mexico competitive, not only in latin america but the rest of the world. china entered in 2000 and the rest of the world is moving along. there is no consensus as to where they should go, with the competitiveness. on top of that, some of the prior reforms are implemented, and they are exposed as a fairly naively view of the state, and the ability to carry out the reform by the executive himself. in the way that these are reverted, they go through the various sectors of the economy.

this is not producing the efficiency that you were expecting. they have the concentration that you were fighting. the reforms did not go as deeply as they should have, and this presents a very complex period and they are driven by the complex stability. that is kind of the scenario in 2008 -- this occurs in an unfortunate situation. i think that by and large, the authorities have done what they do. the response for the financial ministry has been very competent and responsible and there is little room for maneuvering, it is fundamental to understand what happens in mexico.

there is a major fiscal problem that has been able to continue because they are keeping the expenditures below this, and the use of oil rates is not used for credit expenditures and the medium investment. this is the lowest tax base in america. this is just the taxes with less than 10% of the gdp. the authorities must announce a change in policy, but by and large, it is clear that you cannot command much. these forces are being cyclical. i think that there is very little else that can be done. this creates a short run problem.

they have produced a seminar this morning, and this is complicated by the fact that the midterm election is a more complex scenario for the congress. that said, i am not really worried. i am not really worried about this because there will be a noisy discussion between now and november. they will have this between now and november. at the end of the day, the consensus that will prevail -- by some combination of the expenditure cuts that are here and there, i think that they will pass the budget and the stability will come through. the central issue when i come back assumes that this is now 2010 or 2011.

and they have somehow managed this with the tight cost. are you going to gain a context in which you can grow again. are you going to grow back again with the united states, or is mexico going to find this? there are so many sources of growth. this comes to the discussion about why mexico has not been growing for the past 20 years, after 1995 with the crisis. they have the macro stability, and the society is credible, with the central bank, then the budget, by and large. they have been unable to grow. if you look at the factor, the labor force and the growth and all of that, and you compare that to the united states, the growth story of mexico is not

the absence of the accumulation. it is not that mexicans work less hard than americans in the world or that the working hours are lower. this is not the case that years of education are less. years of communication. and the capital accumulation has been slowing down, but the growth story of mexico is an issue that was absolute growth. that is a deep, central issue. this is an answer to his question as i look over the meeting. this is really driven by the incentive structure that produces this and what mexico has not been able to put together in the reform or the reform -- or with the president

calderon is have an incentive for the workers. this is working in the opposite. this underlies various sectors, public and private, and the underlying issues are with the trade unions and in the public sector, and this has increased with the transition to democracy in the way that we deal with the executives. this is not a question of personality. they had a link to all of the groups, and a change would allow you to escape from this, and then you realize that you are escaping from this, and may be the case of the personality has -- maybe this will change and now you have a president with a

different personality. and this is a deeper issue about what you may want to call the entrenched political equilibrium, in the public sector and the labor union, in a particular sectors of the economy. this is a very concentrated situation that does not allow for the intense efforts, to do things, and the actions. i asked them a little bit of what we do, this situation is a little bit complicated because some of the social policies from this country are actually in my view, further distorting the incentive structures, with more and more social programs for this sector. what you see is a growth of informal firms and the growth from unemployment, in which

there is very little innovation and growth, and what you see is a large amount of subsidies going into the budget to actually subsidize the informal sector. this is the nature of equilibrium. well mexico recover with the united states in a short time? this is in the united states and there is the automobile recovery in the united states. if you put this before congress -- mexico has the manufacturing growth in the united states. will this be enough? if you look at the crisis in 1995 that we already had in 1996, the united states saw a large amount of growth in the 1990's. if that did not happen, there is

no reason to think that they would be over three or three and a half percent. we have sources of growth internally, yes. but to raise the productivity, you have to change the political equilibrium in the major economy that is holding this together. >> thank you very much. let me start off with a question. and i will think of your questions with more of a conceptual question. i think that your presentation was exceptional, but brazil had also very slow growth in the early 2000. and maybe i am wrong, but i did not think that there was any major jump in productivity or anything that would look like

this, but suddenly around 2004 or 2005, the growth curve began to go up, and they began to exceed mexico. what was the distinction between brazil and mexico? and looking forward, the analysts suggest that brazil has the inconvenience of the global financial crisis, but they have been weathering this very well, and mexico has fallen down. and brazil seems to be ready to take back their growth and i do not see the same kind of impediment to the productivity, at least from what i know of brazil. i did not think that these are present as they are in mexico. >> i am happy to say this. >> you were trying --

>> this is very interesting. part of this is important to keep in mind that mexico has a long track record. i think that brazil benefits vary much from the transition of the administration, and the consolidation of the macro stability. this has been happening more recently, from the feeling of stable rule, and this is a very important role, against mexico. they may have gained this during the crisis. they grew faster, comparatively speaking. and brazil gains more recently from consolidation against the waning in mexico. this is interesting, the productivity issue.

just thinking, if you look at the investment of the gdp, this is higher in mexico than in brazil. this is in the teens. this has gone up and the climate is going back down, but this was 90% of gdp, mexico is 20 but they have grown less. i think that the discussion that santiago put on, where brazil is benefiting from the last several years, from the normal employment. this has played a key role. they are helping in terms of the consumer demand but you also have real formal employment with the macro stability, with a decline in the formality, coming from the sequence of the capital markets which, in terms of fixed

income, are more than in mexico. if they do not pursue more reforms, when they recruit from brazil, lowering the tax base that has held up their growth rate so low -- is only a matter of timing. >> it is better to be laid. >> they are benefiting from something now that mexico may have benefited from before. >> and that is why the per- capita income is higher in mexico than brazil. >> we do not fully understand the price volatility. the economists have been struggling with this for many years. in the market, this is what they say about the growth in five years.

at the margins, the informality has been growing in mexico and this is highly related with the growth, with the opposition. >> i will open this up for questions. i will only take two or three from the panel. please go ahead. >> felipe calderon had a new plan for 2010. he put this forward for 2010. i was wondering if you have spoken about this policy, and the three of you mentioned the political side of this, will this be easier or harder to reach a political consensus on mexico? >> the question -- i have spoken

about this. >> we spoke about the political equilibrium, what would it take them out of the equilibrium and what would need to be done? this is in the trading sector, and this may increase for the producers, with the market share as they get away from the united states. is it possible that they will have this when the productivity is ready, and they will be designing this? and is it possible that they have a lot of experience with brazil. how do you deal with the debt ratio, of the gdp and the other sectors? >> how far as the stagnation in

the market gone to influence the growth of mexico? >> much of this has drifted away to china, and the integration of america is not stalled by this, this is not what all of us expected. >> we take these questions and then we go from there. >> the question is on the plan, that will illustrate what santiago and lisa have said, that mexico, because of the small margins that they have, they have no choice but to have the pro safety volume, and

here, mexico -- i will say that they are not alone. there are very few countries with margins of operations in latin america, it is brazil to some extent, but mexico has no opportunity in this regard. they have a very significant loan, that they can use. and there is a question of signals, in terms of these resources. they can use them without preconditions, but if they use them, there may be a signal that this is not so good. this may be a very important one that they want to maintain macroeconomics stability. they have no choice with this

coming down, and this is well below the $67 that they have made today -- and mexico has to maintain a fiscal discipline, and unfortunately they are having to repeat the story of the past, whenever they had a crisis. they have the macro party and without the cataclysmic consequence, that you saw in 1995, -- >> on the question, in terms of the outlook that they have made, we put the negative outlook on before the election,

and we assumed that they would have some gains. the margin may have been a little bit wider, than we were expecting. we were assuming that dance, but the basic picture of meeting across the party coalition, and building the negotiations for the budget for any kind of reform -- this is a little that wider, but we have seen the reforms that have not been passing the budget, across the party. that is why we have the negative outlook. they are improving the fiscal flexibility, and perhaps looking at the oil sector. these are politically challenging topics in mexico. this is some of the perspective that is there.

>> there is a sekhmet of the plan, with the manufacturing that they say is half of the country of the united states that has benefited from productivity with nafta, across a range of durable consumers, and these are the large, exporting sides of the economy. but they are not all of the charitable sectors. we'll have the domestic consumption that will benefit from the transportation costs. that is a low productivity sector, with a small plant, along with a large segment. if you look at the situation in mexico, you will find it very

few firms are large and competitive in a very large number of firms, many of them are informal. and that is a big story. part of this is the gains of nafta, and part of this is the slightly undervalued excitement that gives you a big push. part of this is in 2002 and with the recession of that year. mexico lost their competitiveness along the way. >> mexico is getting a lot of extra no comparisons. is there or brazil, the governing debt and the gdp is higher. we have this going up, the way that we counted with the government. this is 50% of the gdp this year.

mexico, for the general government, if you look at the broad public sector, you are talking in the mid 40's. we will blend with some of these issues that we have highlighted, for some of the off budget decisions in the public sector. the bottom line is that that are higher, and the way that this is introverted is heavier because they are coming down with these sectors, but interest revenue -- this is higher in brazil, and the composition of the debt, you are talking a 30 yield curve in mexico, with the history that is moving into the macro facilities with the long track record in mexico.

we are looking at the overall external debt from the private sector, with the national reserves for the creditor. mexico is a debtor nation. this is in the order of moving to 40% of gdp. they are moving up over the next 40 years. mexico is a little bit weaker, than the medium that is there. externally, they have the financing needed as i highlighted in mexico. this is better than average. there are some comparisons. >> one thing about the political situation, although i believe that mexico has always shown, contrary to my country, the capacity to make an opportunity

out of a crisis, there is argentina where they say that they will converge every opportunity into a crisis. we have a stalemate, in the case of mexico. i think that they can come closer to the government position, and the moment that they have to, they can flex their muscles as part of the heartbeat in congress, and they can take over the job of the government. they are presenting the wright proposal, and at the moment -- and are not yet certain whether they should play the true opposition, -- right proposal.

and at the moment, they are not certain whether they should play the true opposition. [unintelligible] >> this has been a couple of years now, since mexico adopted this, and one of them was the alternative minimum tax rating, and the other was a tax on the banks, and this was aimed at the hidden economy. i have not read his statement, but this can mean either cutting out the waste or increasing revenue or a combination of both. i am wondering, i would be interested in any comment about this, so far in enforcing these tax forms, and whether or not you think that these are enforceable, and -- i am and

energy analyst and i am more concerned about the outlook than most people. i believe that oil prices will go higher, and i have a lot of faith in oil. >> i was wondering if in the future insights for the mexican economy, if you will take into account the economic conditions of the individual people in mexico. although mexico has said that they have wonderful cultural rights reckoned -- recognition, there are still economic problems for the indigenous people in mexico and many other latin american countries. the question that i have to say about the high poverty rate and the half million indigenous people that are here from

mexico, they are called latinos but they are indigenous people from mexico, and the free-trade association did not really help the indigenous people. >> let me ask you this if i can. the political debate, when they talk about the gdp in mexico, and the uncertainty in the criticism that mexico gets from the international organizations, and the managers in some of these issues, how does that enter into the political debate, and is there any kind of debate about economics where this is a serious debate, or is this sort of a populist story that is here?

what is the nature of the political debate for the economy? >> do you want to open this? >> this can come out when you talk about productivity, and this is kind of the overhanging black cloud, basically for mexico. in your view, what is the final consensus? will this come around this kind of topic? >> this is the competitiveness. >> so, i will ask you, clearly the competition issues were what

i was talking about with the economy. this is private with the serious competition issues. there is the increasing recognition with these issues, and they are associated public or private with very strong interest groups, and it is not easy to tackle them. i would say the debate on the economic policy, i would say that there is the recognition for the sector, this is a drag on productivity, and this is desirable. from this consensus, to the actual legislation, and the very complex process that follows the legislation because of the system, to the actual implementation is a long road to go. and i would say that -- people

are extremely concerned about a decade or more, and it is clear that the process of reform are with the expectations set everybody had. they had been posting records, with the executive and one thing that has been difficult is to translate this. people are aware of these issues, and we may emphasize one or the other one. this is the difficulty of translating this into concrete legislative actions. that is the crux of the matter. >> the government and their new plan, there is the recently

announced plan from calderon. with the tax enforcement, i would say that if i knew this well enough, then this would be an approach on both sides. both with the revenue and the expenditure, in order to deal with this process. there is one serious issue in mexico, and this is that the tax system is fairly inefficient, in terms of taxing the higher level of income. mexico and brazil are the strong indicators, and you have high levels of work. if you look at the average worth of the rich individuals in mexico, and latin america as

compared to the other areas of the world, the tax system is not capable of dealing with this. i would not say that this is tax avoidance, this is not tax evasion. the interest groups are so powerful. i would say that these taxes that have been taken at the time, when mexico introduced a tax on the bank transactions, i would remain very opposed to this. i do not know if we gave enough money. there are all kinds of discussions, where you have a tax like the sales tax, and this

may be more regressive or more effective. i think that the mexicans have studied a lot of this. this is not something that they do not know. they may be working to implement these policies. there is a lot of hard work in the implementation of these policies. i do not know if anyone -- if there is the issue of the indigenous population, -- >> [unintelligible] to follow up on this tax, i believe that, this is a difficult question. if you look at the trajectory of the tax revenue, and the reform in 2007, and the deposit that came in 2008, these are phasing

in after that. you continue to have a decline from the gdp, from 10% in 2002 and this went up. they were close to the 2008 level. this was the tax by the federal government. it is not clear how much this is peaking. how much of this is the economic dynamic? this is a valid question in terms of the local. -- local -- a loophole. this is a challenging area and this is not a clear-cut answer. it is not clear what they intended to do. >> to the indigenous people, at the margins i think that there

are good news. -- there is good news. the growth in these programs for the poor have been for the indigenous groups, because many of these are in the indigenous groups. this is not a specifically declined program, but there is an effectively declined program against the poor. they have benefited and if you look at some basic indicators about the health and the communication for the policy, and the present consumption, there is a huge amount of migration, because of the lack of proximity in mexico, for the indigenous and not indigenous groups. >> we have time for a few more questions. >> the investment in mexico --

and the united states and germany, south korea and japan. the technology is really important. with the improved productivity, you have the number of people employed with the manufacturers. in is logical that there will be a decrease in the manufacturing. how are we going to increase mexico -- these issues in mexico if we have a decline in manufacturing? >> two questions. he spoke about the issue of the tax reforms, but what kind of reform which you see being proposed in the coming year, with a new congress, and what kind of support is there in all

of the sectors to support some new kind of tax reform. the second question is about what happened in brazil, recently. and the free-trade agreement. would you see this as something that can increase the exports in mexico that are applied, with the economy in the united states? >> this is a hot-button issue in the united states. this comes back to the undocumented migrants workers, and my question from the economics them. s -- and my questions from the economic standpoint is, you have the skilled workers who are leaving mexico for the united states.

>> [unintelligible] there could be a fiscal reform that comes out of the negative outlook. >> do you want to start off? >> the issue of the productivity gains, they may reduce employment. this is not a mexican issue. this is global and state employment has been growing. you had a major increase in employment, and there has been an enormous increase in productivity. the fact that manufacturing employment does not grow that much -- they are stronger in

terms of the mexican growth. mexico will have to increase this productivity, and this is really the issue. the question is not so much that they report the technology, and there is the productivity increase. i do not have a good answer for this. this would be in an area of serious growth. and in terms of what the tax reform would be supported by the different groups, nobody will support openly the tax reform that increases the tax burden on their own group. there will have to be a combination of pay more efficient tax system, together

with the income tax system, that is more effective. and this is more effective with closing the loophole, with some kind of a system. if this is difficult in the united states, it is difficult in mexico. and the other latin american countries will come up with a different tax reform. i will say one thing about calderon. it is time for mexico and brazil to get together. there is a very unprofitable competition between mexico and brazil, because they see mexico as the only country that may

constrain the sense of being the important country, in latin america. they are starting to cooperate with a positive piece of news. this certainly will be good for both countries and the region. >> the blend of these, these two questions is not clear, what kind of reform the government is planning to put on this. there are discussions in the press, and the political parties, and i think that this is a signal that has been sent so far. this will be a mixture on the revenue side, and when you are talking about addressing these issues with gasoline and diesel

subsidies, hackling that is certainly going to put this publicly on the table and the question of how you deal with closing a loophole, with the syntax and what have you, but also the government is considering addressing the issue of competition. they are dealing with the medium term growth. destabilization funding, and the rules governing those. it is not clear what will be put on the table, then the question is given, what is on the table, what is actually politically feasible. what is economically and -- implemented.

and what will gain the efficient increase from the tax collection. if we do not make the recommendation, what is the reform that we are looking for. we have to see what the government will put on the table and makes the measures and then make an assessment of what we think that this will do to enhance the fiscal flexibility, to address these issues on the board and the outlook. >> on the tax issue, -- >> the most distorting tax that they have today, is on formal labor. through the whole range of regulatory aspects, that will create a wedge of about 35%,

working informally. if this is about 35% of the wage, to hire someone in the formal sector, it is no surprise that you have a large informal sector. the deepest issue that has to be tackled by any tax reform, is to limit that here, and this has to do with job creation and the quality of jobs and productivity. there may also be the revenue enhancement measures. the issue is not a revenue issue, only. if you only focus on the revenue and you do not think about productivity, this may be about 50 years. you have to deal with the higher productivity jobs. there is some literature that

says that this is correct. there are people with somewhat more risk grown at -- attitudes, -- risk prone attitudes, this is more costly to mexico because you are losing a lot of talent as you go into the labor. i am one of the people who thinks that emigration has a loss to mexico, and this will not be fixed until they have better opportunities and they go back to the tax of 35% and the intention will be to hire those people in mexico and they will be put back with the debate, more than the issues of the income tax. >> thank you, santiago. thank you for the excellent session and we should do more.

i thank you very much. [applause] >> this is the second half of all of us. [unintelligible] >> see what you provoked. >> [unintelligible] >> in a few moments, a look at the relationship between the iraqi government and the kurds. and "washington journal," with health care debates and how the recession is effecting adults

without a high school education. >>9 o on c-span 2, a swine flu conference with responders and industry leaders at 9:00am. >> how is c-span funded? >> the united states government? >> some of this is government raised? >> private donations? >> i want to say that this is my tax dollars? >> america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiatives. no government mandate, no government money. >> now i discussion kurdish troops in northern iraq.

the middle eastern institute hosted this one hour event. >> good morning, and thank all of you for coming out on a hot august day when others are off, vacationing. but this has been such a great turnout, at the international crisis group -- there are many experts who are out there, this is one of the best and certainly, he has spent more time in the field than most researchers in iraq, from jordan

where he was working for many years. when i met him three years ago, he was working to highlight the crisis of the displaced in iraq, and to highlight the responsibility that the u.s. government has to deal with the refugee crisis. we are looking at the government and the problems that are rising between these two sides, and in a report that he offered this past july -- he said this was iraq and the kurds, trouble on trigger lines. he is here to discuss this with us today. he is the program director for icg, an independent organization

dedicated to stopping conflicts, and he coordinates research throughout the middle east in lebanon and syria and israel. as the executive director of the arms -- and the director of the iraq document project. he also works with the group in ramallah. he has attended dozens of articles, and is the writer of two books. america, iraq and the gassing of [unintelligible] and labor and women in the occupied territories. we have a couple of things i want to tell you about. the pakistan a study center is talking about developments in pakistan, with the former

president, and you can join us for that. on next thursday we will have the american ambassador to kuwait, deborah jones. i hope that you can join us for that. please join me in welcoming our guest. [applause] >> thank you, and thank you for coming today. time is awfully good, as good as it can be when we talk about conflict. what we have with the trigger line, they are very much in the news, there was the general yesterday, that made the statement that they are going to deploy the american soldiers

along these lines, and have them partner with the army troops, in order to reduce the tensions, along the trigger line. this is a term that is moved by it -- used by the american military. this is not, for example, the green line that existed from 1991 until 2003. i do not know if we can pull off the map that is there, but if you look there, in northern iraq, there is a line that is there to the north and east -- and to the north and east is kurdistan, and to the south and west is the rest of iraq. the green line was actually the cease-fire line, that came about

unilaterally when the soldiers in iraq withdrew from the north, in october of 1991. you remember the gulf war, and the nation of kuwait. they saw the forces there and the uprising that took place in the north and south. the northern and the southern uprising were crushed, as they went into this region. but again, they were not really succeeding in pacifying the area. in the line that they drew themselves, this was the green line. kurdish forces went into these areas that were a majority kurdish and they said were part of historic kurdistan.