140,000 now, i think that they have reduced them. i believe that one congressman is working on legislation to develop a program so that they can they send an of vehicles with enough testing they canpahse >-- so that p cathey can phase in enough vehicles with enough testing so that they can study this. >> we may be part of the problem. with respect to what chairwoman goldway is talking about, we were willing to put billions of dollars into cash for clunkers. are we willing to invest in our own postal service to get at that cutting edge innovative

delivery of services, to help make it more competitive, the capital that it lacks right now, and do a good thing for the environment and the auto industry? >> i think all of us at this table would support that effort. we would support that. >> thank you so much. >> i think that this panel has suffered enough. we actually have votes on the floor but i thank you for your willingness to come before the subcommittee and offer your thoughts and suggestions. we appreciate that. .

. [indistinct chatter] >> for an update on the latest options the post office is considering to cut costs, there

was a talk for about half an hour. continues. host: ruth goldway, postal regulatory commission chair. how likely is that to happen? guest: if the postal service wants to cut saturday service, they will have to come to the postal regulatory commission. we will determine the cost and benefits and report back to them. in addition, they have to get permission from the congress. the law under which the postal service operates is fairly vague, they do have to deliver six days a week. host: what is behind this consideration of dropping saturday service? guest: the postal service has lost approximately 13% of its

volume of mail. is facing billions of dollars in deficits each year. the postal service is looking for ways to save money. one of the proposals is to reduce delivery. they have already undertaken activities to reduce services. some of them proveimprove the delivery. they have reduced employees that have better delivery service standard times. some of them are hurting people. they have produced 1/3 of the collection boxes -- they have reduced 1/3 of the collection boxes. host: if they are running at a loss in the post office does not get government funding, how do they fund the debt?

guest: in the old days, they would raise prices because of the monopoly. given the internet and the pressure from the downturn in the economy, it's difficult for them to do that. now they're looking for different sources of revenue. you may have seen advertisements for click and ship. they are exploring ways to expand some of the services that they provide at post offices. for the most part, and perhaps too much, they have focused on just cutting back. host: ruth goldway is with us until 8:30 for your calls.

we will take your tweets ane e-mails. 56% would favor doing that. you are the regulatory commission. when you see polls like this, how do you taken to consider public opinion on the postal service? guest: we are tasked with the straassuring that the postal service sufficient into the future. polls are useful, but you have to see what is the most effective for everyone. polling can indicate a moment in time for a particular bias. i do not know if you have seen

the stories about the postal service wanting to cut back on santa claus mail. if you were to ask about that in polls, you did a very different response. host: the postal service reacted to some negative press on that. guest: i hope so. one of my earliest memories is watching a movie called "miracle on 34th street." the postal service dumps tons of mail in front of the judge addressed to santa claus. i think they made a big mistake on trying to cut back on sat acronta claus.

host: might you have a whole new generation who might send santa an e-mail? guest: it is one of those things that you cannot substitute for. host: i have a suggestion. i thought for the longest time you could cut a lot of the cost by delivering to odd numbered addresses monday, wednesday, and friday, and even numbers on tuesday, thursday, and saturday. i do not need to get the mail every day. guest: there's a lot of interest in reducing delivery. that is why they are proposing five-day rather than six. a lot of the issue is the drive

time and the truck and the sorting of the mail. it is probably just as efficient to go to everybody's home if you're going to be on the street. it does seem that many people would be just as happy getting mail five days a week. there are some people who want their mail on saturday morning. package delivery might be one of those areas. figure in of the write-downs will not be easy. host: how has the recession affected the postal service's bottom-line? guest: the recession has been hard on the postal service. the postal service's big growth has been financial millions and millions related to the housing industry. -- housing mailings and

mailings related to the housing industry. the question for the postal service is, when the recession is over, will mail volume go back to previous levels? it is a question nobody quite knows the answer to. i am sure mail is still powerful, but it may not reach the volumes that it did in the past. caller: good morning. host: welcome. caller: thank you. i have a quick question. over the past several years, have come to realize -- actually, it was years ago when my friend told me about her son who had an internet business. he was ordering free postal service boxes to be delivered to his house, and then he used those to ship his supplies.

if you are looking for ways to reduce the cost, what are you giving away boxes and other free supplies that have to cost a pretty penny in this economy? guest: those businesses should be using those boxes to use the u.s. mail for delivering their products. the boxes are what we call the competitive side of the postal service business. they said rates to make a profit. the cost of the boxes are included in what the postal service estimates will be its profits. they think by giving them away, they will encourage more people to use them. those kind of small businesses, the ebay kind of businesses are just the businesses that are growing because of the postal

service. host: orlando, fla., democrats line. caller: i think the problem with the post office is the management structure and the latest set up. in the late 1990's, they started bonuses for supervision and a gave out over $1 billion in the first four years. the way the employees are treated -- the best resources you have are the employees. they do not want to hear anything. it is a pyramid structure and it is run like a communist country. why not use your employees for the benefit of its service? guest: the law requires the postal service to negotiate with

its unions. there's no ability pour the unions to go on strike. the labor relations is less than flexible. that leads to problems on either side. i would say that in the last several years with the postmaster general jack partner in charge, labor relations have been pretty good. he comes from the background. he is sensitive to it. there are problems when you have these kind of cutbacks. host: how big is the post office in terms of the police? many are union employees? guest: 90% are unionized. it is about 650,000 strong. there has been a big decrease in workforce.

host: an article earlier this year co-- the postmaster general got a raise and several perks. the changes were approved by the postal board of governors. does that a salary -- does the salary have to be competitive for related industries? guest: in 2006, the congress enacted an amendment which created the postal accountability and the nets but act. it said that the salaries for the top administrators of the postal service could go up too much higher levels than they have been before, precisely so

they could compete with the private sector. and the board of governors could compensate the postmaster general, who is the ceo of a huge enterprise. there were hearings. some of that deals with retiree benefits that are factored in a way to make it look like it is more of a salary increase than it is. i think that the postal service employees are not overpaid. this is a remarkable industry that is very efficient. wages are not the problem. the problem may be whether they are sensitive to consumers, whether they are innovative enough, whether they are flexible enough. these are hard-working people. caller: thank you. i want to make a four-point

comment. there was a report on cnn that some firm that relocates postal people, buys them million-dollar homes. there was another report that they spend $1 million per week not to work. if you have been there 6 years, you cannot be laid off. they took the vending machines out of the lobbies because they said they were getting old. cray is subject to this morning. if they reduce the saturday delivery, i hope they will mandate that to deliver five days those weeks there are a holiday.

guest: it is one of the complications with dealing with this six-day delivery. what do we do with the long weekends? mail is a big driver in the economy. all those people that expect to get paid or give you a financial notices -- if you cut back too much, you will really harm the economy. this is a $68 billion a year company. there are bound to be expenditures that look bad. i am with you that the postal service has been lax with its relocation benefits. i understand they're beginning to look at that much more carefully now. stand by rooms is a result of declining mail volume.

they are trying to encourage employees to leave. then the machines -- my biggest concern with the postal service ifs they have not figured out how to use these offices to the greatest extent. then the machines were only taking coins. they did not seem to be the optimal service configuration. how you can develop a network that is as customer friendly as the postal service needs to be for the average citizen is one of the questions i'm putting to them. host: how much has the postal

service reduced their work force? guest: in the mid-90s, it was eight hundred 50,000. it is now sixth hundred 50,000 -- it is now 650,000. there's a certain infrastructure. you have to deliver mail whether you have one piece of mail or three pieces of mail. the volumes have gone down much faster than they have been able to cut, given the infrastructure. the postal service is enshrined in the constitution of the united states. we have a law that says the postal service should produce universal service. we have to maintain a basic

service. host: joseph, independent caller. caller: one of the previous callers mentioned at the topic -- the vending machines. i look forward to going to the post office now with dread. one local post office has a giant hole in the wall covered with plywood where the vending machines used to be. when i asked one of the minister why they were gone. she said it was cost control. there's no way it can be more efficient to have all those people waiting in line.

it makes no sense to me. there's something seriously wrong with the reasoning behind this kind of decision. i have seen it across the board. they're using space in the post offices for selling packages that have teddy bears and balloons on them. they should be sticking to basics, common-sense service. if i can avoid going to the post office, i will do it. they might as well -- it is just a nightmare. it is a baffling ordeal. guest: i am sorry to your use say that. you are not alone in complaining. waiting in line time is one of the most insisted complaints that we here at the postal regulatory commission. i think the postal service can do a much better job at making

the post office's customer friendly. with regard to the vending machines, they were down so much of the time, and provided so little revenue that they did not seem worthwhile to maintain. they are trying to get people to buy stamps online. you can buy them at wal-mart and causeostco. if you find out more convenient, by all means do it. you can also order the commemorative stamps online. i will take to, quite seriously. -- will take your comment quite seriously. host: how long have you been with the regulatory commission? how often do you to were

postal offices? guest: i have been on the commission for 11 years. the commissioners go on field trips two or three times per year. we visit some of the facilities so we get a sense of both sides of the industry. we've had public community hearings. we did that for a study we did on the universal service obligation. have done that quite recently for an opinion we are developing on whether or not the postal service can close a certain number of what it calls stations and branches. host: houston on our democrats line. caller: yes, she has to

understand that the levels of different management is the problem with the postal service. when you start taking out what keeps the employees gainfully employed -- that is the problem with the money being distributed wrongly. that is because you up too many levels of management. host: thank you. guest: i think it is fair to say that in the last 10 years, as employees have been cut, a lot more have been cut online than management. that has not always been the case in the last few years. the commission is not the agency

that manages the postal service. we are the regulator. we'll get the results, policies, and we can make comments. it is up to the postal service self. host: in your testimony, there have been a number of postal experiments that have not performed well. give us an example of some of the experiments and have not lived up to expectations? guest: they had a stored value card for telephones. they lost money on it. they had a retail store that they tried to open in the mall of america. they were thinking of expanding

into leather jackets and various other things. what you ahve is a have is a hue agency that has not spent as much time as it ought to on relating directly to the consumer. when they try some of the products, they have tried it in the context of we will do it ourselves, not bring in other people to help. the postal service has begun partnering with effects on priority mail. they are partnering with hallmark cards. i think they may have more success. if the postal service can

develop partnerships, perhaps they can develop more innovative products. caller: in was calling about the postal service's two-tour initiative, where more employees are separated into two tours per day. that just gets people paid more that work at night when there is no delivery end when the mail does not move, especially on sundays. i was wondering how that is working across the country. it does not seem to be working well in her effoartford. guest: the new law requires performance measurements. if there are real problems in a region, we should be able to see

them. the service performance measurements that the postal service have submitted to us have indicated improved service. one of the benefits of lower volumes is there are not as many bottlenecks. we are not the managers. we cannot tell the postal service which way to deploy its employees.. >> the prime minister of india is visiting washington d.c. this week. he met with members of the council on foreign relations. manmohan singh discuss foreign policy.

tomorrow, president obama will host his first state dinner for manmohan singh. guest arrivals and toes will be covered at 9:00 p.m. eastern. tonight, that neutrality, the wireless spectrum and improving broadband service in the u.s.. julius genachowski on c-span2. the new york times is changing its policy on players concussions, requiring neurologists to review those policies. you can see that during tonight at 9:15 p.m. eastern here on c- span. thanksgiving week, on c-span, a look at politics in america. a look ahead to 2012.

what is fair in politics? the will of the media. also, tuesday night, the first state dinner as president obama welcomes indian prime minister manmohan singh. the indian prime minister is in the nation's capital this week for talks with president obama. right now, he is at the council of foreign relations to talk about the agenda, including climate change, the global economy, afghanistan and nuclear technology. we will have live coverage when it gets under way, right here on c-span.

[indistinct chatter]

[in distant chatter [indistinct chatter]

[indistinct chatter] >> once again, we are live at

the council on foreign relations. indian prime minister manmohan singh in washington for talks with president obama. some of the issues include climate change, the global economy, afghanistan and nuclear technology. we are watching this live on c- span. tomorrow night, president obama will be hosting his first state dinner with the indian prime minister. we will look at michelle obama's preview. that will be at 9:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. [indistinct chatter]

[indistinct chatter]

[indistinct chatter] [applause]

>> please sit down. i am richard haas, president of the council on foreign relations. i would like to welcome you all to today's event. i apologize for one or two pieces of housekeeping. if people would please completely turned off your soul phones and wireless devices so that it does not interfere with our sound system. it just a friendly warning to the prime minister. at today's meeting is on the record. -- today's meeting is on the

record. there will be council on foreign relations members around the world that will be listening and we have some cameras here today. let me say a few things in a way of introduction. i believe it was july 24th, 1991 that the finance minister presented a budget to india's parliament. when he concluded his remarks, he quoted victor hugo. no power on earth can stop an idea whose time has come. he went on to say, "i suggest that the emergence of india as a major economic power in the world happens to be such an idea." 18 years later, it is obvious manmohan singh was correct. thanks in no small part to his leadership. those of us associated with the

council along with woodrow wilson international center could not be more pleased than to welcome him here as he visits and attends the first state dinner of the obama administration. relations between the united states and india have not always been one. during the cold war, many saw india as unfriendly, which it might have been. during -- at the end of the cold war, there were opportunities to securitized. in the past several years, there has been a lifting of sanctions culminating in the historic civil nuclear accord. now, there exists the basis for a broader and deeper relationship between the united states and india. relations began to improve under the clinton administration,

continued under the bush administration. i do not think it is any exaggeration to say that the west india relations are something of an oasis of bipartisanship. today, india is a member of the g-20 and an essential factor on a full range of issues. the goal should be to fashion a strategic partnership. there is a need for wide ranging consultation to in grain habits of consultation -- to ingrain habits of consultation. i want to thank the prime minister for being here. i want to welcome his entire delegation, including his most

able ambassador and want to thank the gentleman standing here, lee hamilton, who is president and director of the woodrow wilson international center. i could not be more pleased to introduce the prime minister. lee hamilton resented the ninth district in the u.s. house of representatives and he is a model of what a legislator of to be. -- ought to be. congressman hamilton? [applause] >> good evening to you all and thank you for coming. i told the prime minister a moment ago that he was appearing before an extraordinary washington audience. we are delighted that you are here. i am delighted to work with richard haas, the president of

the council. i expect every person in this room is indebted to the excellent work done by the council on foreign relations under richard haas' ship. -- leadership. may i say hello to our ambassador to india from the united states. he served in congress with great distinction and i have not the slightest doubt that he will serve with great distinction in new delhi. just over one year ago, manmohan singh, the 14th prime minister of india visited washington and spoke the following words these last four and a half years, there has been a massive transformation of india/united states relations. we now have a strategic partnership with the united states. then president bush said, "it is

a relationship that is based on our common values that every person matters, and that everybody belongs and that everybody should worship as freely as they want to. the common values of the right of people to express themselves in a peaceful way of." -- in a peaceful way." there will be a dinner in honor of manmohan singh tomorrow evening. the broad support that the relationship in george's in the united states in india, we are honored to have the prime minister here this evening. he was born in a village, completed his matriculation upon at a university.

he received his doctorate of philosophy in 1962. he spent several years on the faculties of the delhi school of economics. he was economic adviser in the commerce ministry. in 1972, he became chief economic advisor in the ministry of finance. he became finance minister in 1991, during a time of crisis and in part on an economic reform program that put india on the path to record growth and unleashed the entrepreneurial and economic potential of the indian nation. today, the united states is the largest investor in india. and the strong economic ties that our countries shared together would simply be unimaginable. that would be without his leadership.

appointed prime minister in 2004, he became the first prime minister to be reelected after serving a complete turerm. he is the recipient of countless awards, the second highest civilian honor, the indian science congress, the asian money award for finance minister of the year and many, many others. dr. manmohan singh and his wife have three daughters. it is my distinct pleasure to introduce to you, prime minister singh, without doubt, one of the world's most accomplished leaders.

[applause] dr richard haas, congressman hamilton, distinguished ladies and gentleman, i am truly honored by the invitation to address such a distinguished gathering and to be able to meet many friends in the season of things giving. i am barre -- of thanksgiving.

many of you have spent long years in the study of india. you have provided intellectual sustenance to the idea of a strong india/u.s. partnership. and what it means for our to democracies and the world at large. ladies and gentleman, i see the future of india/u.s. partnership with confidence and optimism. there is a growing convergence in our national interests, both in the bilateral framework and regional and global issues. the changes in the global

economic and political structures and the growing interdependence among nations today offer us a unique opportunity to look beyond bilateral engagement to establish a strategic partnership of a global dimension. if we are to take the challenge, in indian and the united states must work together. -- india and the united states must work together. the challenge before us is to bring the world to full recovery from the global economic and financial crisis. i have no doubt that the

creative entrepreneurial genius of the american people will ensure that the u.s. economy emerges from this crisis stronger and well-placed contribute to global economic growth. india is playing its own part in global recovery. despite the slowdown, our economy grew by 6.7% last year and is expected to grow by 6.5% in the current fiscal year. india and the united states have strong compulsions to work towards an open and liberal regime for the transfer of goods, services, investment and

technology. this will stimulate the country and create jobs and spur growth in our own economies. ladies and gentleman, our generation has an opportunity given to few. to create a new global equilibrium after irreversible changes brought about by the rapid geopolitical and economic shifts of the recent past. no where are the changes more visible -- no where are the changes more visible than in asia. -- know wher>>the india/u.s. pan

contribute to an orderly transition to the new order and be an important factor for global peace and stability. both india and the united states have common values of respect for cultural diversity, democracy, freedom of expression, ruled law. -- rule of law. our two nations have been shaped by the ideals of two apostles of peace of the 20th century, mahatma gandhi and the rev. martin luther king jr..

we should advance of these ideas as fundamental rights of all human beings. we have made some progress in moving towards a more representative mechanism to manage global economic and financial issues. the same cannot be said about governance and security. there is a need to reform the united nations and its security council. ladies and gentlemen, i have found shared thinking on the moral imperative of putting the poor at the forefront of the global agenda. in africa, asia and elsewhere, they must have access to

education and give them bankable skills and access to health care. this partnership can promote global cooperation in dealing with issues that the world has to face together, whether it is hunter, global security, terrorism, nuclear disarmament, climate change or pandemic. ladies and gentleman, history has taught us that peace, security and prosperity are indivisible. that is why the evolution of afghanistan as a stable and moderate nation states is so vital for the region in the

world at large. the road to peace in afghanistan will be long and hard. but given the high stakes involved, the commitment of the international community must be sustained by firm resolve and unity of purpose. india has been during civilization all links with afghanistan. we do not see afghanistan -- we need peace and stability. india will assist afghanistan in building its institution and its human resources. democracy in an ancient land

like afghanistan will take time to take root and to come to terms with the country's history and its tribal traditions. it is vitally important that all major regional and international players put their weight behind the government of afghanistan. this is the only way afghanistan can meet the daunting challenges it faces. ladies and gentleman, we have invested heavily over the past few years in normalizing relations with our neighbor, pakistan. we made considerable progress on the road to a durable and permanent settlement of all outstanding issues.

i have said that we are ready to pick up the dialogue, including on issues relating to kashmir. i see a south asia of peace, friendship and prosperity. where its borders will see the flow of people, goods and ideas. for this to happen, pakistan must make a break with the past. they must forgive terrorism and it is my salemme hope that india and pakistan come together -- can move forward together to write a new chapter in the history of our subcontinent.

we are three days away from the first anniversary of the barbaric terrorist attacks on bombay. the trauma of the attack continues to haunt us. terrorism poses an existential threat to the civilized world and it must be defeated. we should not harbor any illusions tackling terrorism in one place while ignoring it in others will work. we welcome the fact that president obama has committed the united states to the goal of

the world free of nuclear weapons. india has been committed to this goal since their independence. we believe that india's security will be enhanced, not diminished by the complete elimination of nuclear weapons the world over. there is much that india and the united states can do together to reduce the global risks of nuclear proliferation, including building a global consensus on the way ahead. the association of a verifiable material in the conference on disarmament will be a significant contribution in this regard. we welcome president obama's

initiative to host a summit on nuclear security in april next year. our countries can play a vital role in strengthening global resolve to prevent terrorists from getting materials and technologies related to weapons of mass destruction. ladies and gentleman, the negotiations heading towards copenhagen are proving more difficult than we would have liked. there is a segment among industrialized countries and between the industrialized and developing countries. it is important for all countries to make every effort to contribute to a successful

outcome at copenhagen. india was a late comer to industrialization, and as such, we have contributed very little to the accumulation of greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. but we are determined to be part of the solution to the problem. we are willing to work towards any solution that does not compromise the right of developing countries to develop and lived the population of poverty. . .

we are committed to outcomes that will release the energy efficiency of our economy, including nuclear power in our energy mix, and our forest power. all of this will require considerable resources. we have undertaken to do what we can with our own resources. we will do more if there is global support in terms of financial resources and technology transfer. ladies and gentleman, india house economic contribution is

gathering pace. it will be faster in the years ahead as we harness the expanding economic productivity of our young population. the and shackling of our markets, particularly of our economy, and the effect that our domestic savings rate is now as high as 35% of our gdp, it all suggests that we can achieve a sustained growth of 9% per annum over the next couple of decades. this will create the resources to make the development process more inclusive as well as more sustainable. the social agenda of has come to dominate the domestic political

discourse, both in india and the united states. this was the verdict of our general election held in may 2009, and i believed it was also a force. the time is now opportune for us to substantially enhance our cooperation in critical areas of education, health, energy, science, and technology, and agriculture. collaboration between our software industries has powered the global knowledge economy. we can and we must look at new frontiers of collaboration. american agricultural science

and technology can help india ussher and a second green revolution. india's competitive advantages and the pharmaceutical and medical services industries can support health care reforms in the united states. india has embarked on its largest education expansion program since independence. there are plans to set up more than 40 new universities and institutions. we would like to benefit from the great american university system which attracts a large number of indian students every year. we can cooperate in the development, production, and deployment of green technologies.

in this context, we should fully harness our cooperation to shape the nuclear renaissance. ladies and gentlemen, we deeply appreciate the cooperation that we have received from the united states. in the area of counter-terrorism and the recent past. i am convinced that we can do much more to gather on a sustained basis to combat increasingly sophisticated terror network's, transnational criminal groups, and cyber terrorism. our defense and strategic dialogues have it added important dimensions to our relationship. many times security, including

countering piracy and protecting sea lanes of communication in the indian ocean and beyond, is another important area where we should expand our cooperation. ladies and gentlemen, the edifice of the india-u.s. partnership is bounded on many pillars. it is the relationship based on pragmatism and principle, and strengthen by shared values and common interests. our ties draw heavily on the strength and vitality of the indian and the american people. the 2.7 million strong indian- american community has made good the enormous opportunities

provided to them in your adopted home. they are a powerful factor in drawing our two countries together. president obama's inclusive approach to problem-solving and dialogue as an instrument of policy creates many more opportunities for our two democracies to work together in realizing our shared destiny for all humankind. collaboration and cooperation between our two countries may be indispensable for shaping a global society that is responsive to the deeds and aspirations of the 21st century

, and where countries can pursue their interests in a secure and just environment. ladies and gentleman, i thank you for listening to me. god bless you. [applause] >> i want to thank the prime minister for presenting such a comprehensive tall. i would just ask a few questions and then we will open up. i do the easy ones, they do the hard ones. that is the division of labor here. several times he talked about the united states and india, using the phrase "strategic partnership," of phrase that resonates very well here. but the question i would ask is

whether there is sufficient overlap of viewpoints in order to allow one to go all ward, and some of the pressing issues coming before us are iran and afghanistan. let me begin with iran. the united states believes that it would be unacceptable for iran to develop or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons. is that a view shared by india, and with india be prepared to support a robust sanctions against iran in order to discourage it from going down that path? you can go there or you can sit here. >> i forgot. well, as for our runs nuclear weapons ambitions are concerned, i will state ambiguously -- unambiguously, we do not support the nuclear ambitions of iran.

iran is a signatory and has all the rights they go with this membership of the npt, the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. at the same time it has obligations that go with its membership. this rules out the nuclear weapon part. there is no ambiguity in our position. we're quite clear in our thinking that iran should not go to the nuclear weapon part. that is inconsistent with its obligation as a member of the npt. now with regards to the sanctions question, let me say that if the security council in

its wisdom passes any resolution, we have in the past abided by the decisions of the security council. and as i see president obama this approach opening up a new pathway of engagement without preconditions, our hope is it will yield results. a few days ago i left new delhi and had the privilege of meeting the iranian foreign minister, who is an old student who studied in our country for many years. he was there. while talking, he mentioned explicitly to me that iran is encouraged by the messages it is

receiving from the new obama administration. he was hopeful that they would lead to constructive, productive results. ÷i hope that part, s yield productive results, that would be for the good of humanity at large. >> another question about afghanistan. he said that the world should put its weight behind a country and government of afghanistan. you bought leslie r. arrive in washington in the midst of a public debate as well as the internal deliberations of the obama administration which is trying to define what putting its weight or putting our way into afghanistan might mean. do you believe that a large increase or significant increase in troop levels or international troop levels should be an

element of the policy? >> i am not an expert on military affairs. it would be much too presumptuous on my part to claim that i know what is the right size of troops that ought to be deployed into afghanistan. but i am quite clear in my mind that pakistan requires the sustained support of the global community it is to return to the path of peace, freedom, and an environment in which terrorist elements do not have the sway of the type that they had some years ago before 9/11. >> to follow up, do you believe that what happens in afghanistan will be decisive for pakistan's future? >> there is no doubt in my mind that if the taliban and the al

qaeda group of people succeed in afghanistan, that group will have a bad results for the stability and security, not just for pakistan, but for all of south asia. please do not forget we are talking of nearly 1.8 billion people living in south asia. also, i believe it will also affect the course of evolution in the middle east and central asia, and may be beyond these regions as well. >> to build what you just said, when you look at your neighbor, pakistan, and elected its difficulties with maintaining order and governance and economically, to you harbor concerns that pakistan could fail? if that were to happen -- if

pakistan were to fail in certain ways, could india succeed? >> we do not want pakistan the face -- to fail. the emergence of democracy in pakistan is something we look for. at the same time, we have to recognize that there are forces at work in pakistan. the terrorist groups that are active, until now only active in the areas along the border of pakistan. now i think they are -- they have a grip over several parts of pakistan. if that is not controlled, i think it has a nominal consequences for the security and stability of pakistan as well as our own security. >> speaking of which, you mentioned the anniversary of the terrible events in mumbai a year

ago. ndf exercised what most observers would say it was remarkable restraint. -- india exercise what most observers would say it was remarkable restraint. do you believe it was the right decision, and if the word happen that there were future terrorist acts against india, do you think that restraint may have come at a cost? >> there was enormous pressure on me at that time. i resisted that pressure and took the decision that i and the government took, which was on balance the right decision. as regards the future, i hate to speculate. i sincerely hope that that sort of eventuality does not arise. that is why we need to work and we have an obligation to invest in pakistan, that it must use

all of its influence to curb the power of the terrorist groups. pakistan has done something to control the activities of the taliban terrorist groups in the administered areas. but it is our sincere belief that it has not acted as it should have acted in dealing with terrorist elements, using their energies to target our country. nor has pakistan used all this machinery to bring all of those murderous gangs who perpetrated the horrible crime and mumbai -- in mumbai. innocent citizens lost their life. several nationals of foreign

countries, including six from the united states, and two from canada, that lost their lives. pakistan should be pressured by the international community could do much more to bring all of those people who are responsible for this horrible crime. there is now impeccable evidence that the conspiracy was planned in pakistan. it was executed with the active connivance of peoples who are still roaming around freely in pakistan. and therefore i respectfully request the world community to use all of its influence on the powers that be in pakistan to desist from that sort of behavior. >> two last questions. china -- anthony -- at the

recent meeting between president obama and president hu, there was a reference to the chinese role in your part of the world. is that something that india would welcome? >> let me tell you what happens between president obama and president hu, it is not our direct concern. what the world to prepare -- we want the world to prepare for the peaceful rights of china as a major power. so engagement is the right strategy, both for india as well as the united states. we've tried very hard to engage china and the last five years. and today, china is one of our major trading partners. but we also recognize that we have a longstanding border problem with china.

we're trying to resolve it through dialogue. in the meanwhile, both of our countries have agreed that pending the resolution of the border problem, peace and tranquillity should be maintained in the borderlands. having said that, i would like to say that i have received these assurances from the chinese leadership at the highest level. but there is a certain amount of reserve on the part of the chinese. i do not fully understand the reasons for it. that has to be taken note of. >> last question about china. there has been a lot of talk in the literature about the comparison of the indian and chinese approaches to development. a question -- widely believed india's is preferable? given that china has grown at a higher rate for more years?

>> the chinese growths of -- the chinese growth performance is superior, but there are other values which are important than the growth of the gross domestic product. i think the respect for fundamental human rights, the respect for the rules of law, the respect for multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, those rights -- they had values also. there are values of human freedom which are not always helpful for the gross national product. the gnp -- the gdp might not be as good as the chinese, but

certainly i would not like to choose the chinese part. i would prefer to stick with the indian path. also, i believe that india may appear as an indecisive democracy at times. many democracies are not able to take a long-term view. but i am also in believe that once a democracy decides on the basis of a consensus, any problems that are undertaken will be par more durable and effective than the forms introduced by a ruling group and a non-democratic country. >> ladies and gentlemen, you've just been treated to an economist saying there is more to life in the gdp.

this is an important moment. -- there's more to life than the gdp. this is an important moment. [laughter] [applause] that was an important moment. speak directly and let us know who you are and whom you are affiliated -- the shorter, the better. >> beverly lindsay, penn state university. my question in terms of your being a former press fester as well as prime minister, as you mentioned the idea of partnerships particularly in higher education. are there new areas that we should be including? do they include public engagement? because you have such a burst populations like the united states, can we learn from each other? >> because of our diversity, i believe that our enormous --

there are enormous opportunities for us to enter into dialogue. we have many costs. we had great regional disparities. we certainly can learn a great deal from each other's experience of the type that you have mentioned. >> i see fred bergsten. dollars mr. prime minister>> mr >> i do not think i will be held answer your question. >> the things i will convert into the economist mode. in his speech, at the else that you talk about the economics being the foundation of relations between countries.

your government has negotiated free-trade agreements with a number of your trading partners. you are now talking with the european union, japan, canada, and others. my question is, what about the united states? would you be interested in a free trade negotiation with the united states, but to kill lee cents, in the absence thereof, if you complete trade agreements with all your major partners, you will be discriminating against the united states and it might make it more difficult to carry out the type of relationship we all want? >> there is no easy answer to your question. i do recognize the great affects of free trade agreements. to your question, would we like to have a free trade agreement with the united states?

let me say, my first preference is that the multilateral trading system itself should evolve in the direction where there is a reduced role portrayed distortion represented by terra barriers. is it jerez -- tariff barriers. we cannot have arrangements like the european union has. for historic reasons we are not able to have a union of the type that exists in some other parts of the world. our first preference would be that the multilateral trading system should evolve in the direction in which there is reduced amounts of tariff distortion, which distorts the

flow of trade in goods and services. i also have to recognize more than 50% of world trade takes place behind these walls and agreements. i have not studied this question, but they were telling me this morning that the united states is talking about a free trade agreement. i don't mind exploring a free- trade agreement with united states. >> prime minister singh, i'm with georgetown law school. in 20 years, almost 20 years since you introduced some very significant reforms we've seen a

dramatic change in the relationship between the indian government and the indian economy. as you look down the road, do you think in the next 20 years we will say has dramatic a set of changes in that room additions to -- in the relationship? >> when i looked out on that, i said in my speech that our ambition is to ensure that the indian economy grows at the average annual rate of about 9% per annum. that was the growth rates proceeding the current year's and in the previous years, the last five years. and if our economy grows at the rate of 9% -- 72/9 -- eight years, of we will double the national wealth of our country.

by 2020, we shouldn't match at the american economy if we succeed a growing at the rate of 9% per annum. -- we should match the american economy for succeed at growing at the rate of 9% per annum. our growth is largely fuelled by domestic demand. our savings rate is as high as 35% per annum. our investment rate in recent years has been as high as 37% per annum. if you save 35% of your gdp, you should be able to reach a growth rate of 9% per annum. that is our ambition and i am

confident that we can get an economy where we move in that direction and then next two or three decades. >> what is the biggest impediment? >> the concern that i have is the quality of our physical infrastructure. we need a lot more investment in infrastructure. we need a lot more investment in human resource development, and education, and skill formation -- these are the critical constraints which we are trying to address. i am confidant overtime that we will be able to address them. and i would like the united states investors and the members of the academic communities and university systems to work with us so that we overcome these disabilities. >> is it ok if we run a few minutes over?

yes, sir. >> david partner with the brookings institute. my question is, given india's leadership now within the g-20 as well as the bilateral relationship, do you see the g- 20 as a form that could take on these issues of development? it might be issues like education for all, something that could be a first development issue of the g-20. >> the g-20 is a very helpful evolution. i compliment president obama for having taken the initiative at pittsburgh to bring about. but it is in the state of infancy. it is grappling with the macro economic bubbles.

the idea of a peer review of the macro economic performance of the 20 countries can take root, but if it evolves, i doubt that it will. but in which direction, i think it is too early to predict at this stage. >> it may be awhile before india can get a seat on the u.n. security council. would you favor an idea of the g-20 taking on a political as well as economic growth? >> i am sorry. i have not thought that through. as of now, the g-24 rahm is at the early economic forum. -- the g-20 forum is a thoroughly economic forum. i was with another prime

minister and i raise this issue with him. he said, no, as far as it is concerned, we want to maintain it because we want to discuss political issues. >> canada has a special reason to keep the g-8 going. it is one eighth of it. >> i'm with the energy policy center. it is an honor to address this question to you. mr. prime minister, when i think about the tensions and pakistan, india, afghanistan, bangladesh, i see the common industry -- a common enemy of these countries being water. i have a feeling that the south

asian association for regional cooperation could be a focal point for bringing all the himalayan nation's together to talk about their common enemy, that is, melting glaciers. i am wondering there might be a way to expand the portfolio to include some very aggressive adaptation. south asian nations are victims. they are not perpetrators of climate change. >> i entirely agree with you that water is going to be probably the most critical problem for growth in the 21st century. therefore a common himalayan system which provides water resources both for india, bangladesh, and pakistan, i think we have to take a holistic view. politics is the art of the possible.

the way these regions have doubled, it has not grown to the extent to which one can say that we are ready to take on this additional burden of water management. but i sincerely hope that in due course of time that water is one area where our nations in southeast asia will have to think collectively to find effective but practical solutions to the problem of water management in our region. >> i'm getting the proverbial signals. we have time for one last question. after the prime minister answers, please remain seated while the prime minister and his delegation to part. you have a question there. let me apologize for having alienated so many of you who i was unable to call upon. >> i am privileged to have the

last question. thank you for your remarks. i worked as an independent consultant for gender equality. it was encouraging indeed to hear your emphasis on factors other than hard-core economy and finance. in this regard, you talk about human-rights. one sees any of playing a leadership role in that region on so many fronts, and i just wondered if you could tell us a little bit of the kind of role that you envision for india in terms of promotion of human rights, in particular women's rights, minority rights, and some bold steps for property alleviation -- poverty alleviation. >> human rights are enshrined in the constitution of india, and we're very proud of the fact that our courts are very generous in protecting the human

rights of our citizens. with regard to women's rights, i think our constitution gives men and women equal rights at the age of 18. all men and women can vote in all elections in our country. it is our ambition as a party to bring about constitutional changes where at least 33% of all seats in our parliament would be reserved for women. we have not been able to evolve a broad base consensus, but that is the commitment that we made an art election manifesto. we will make every effort to fulfill that. today we have a situation where the president of our ruling coalition is a woman of extraordinary qualities.

the president of india is a woman. the speaker of the lower house of our parliament is a woman. so when men are playing an increasingly important role -- so women are playing an increasingly important role, but i agree with you that more can be done, should be done, will be done and that will be our commitment. we owe it to our women to improve their lot a lot more than we have done in the past. >> all wise comment from the gentleman. mr. prime minister, on behalf of both the council on foreign relations as well as the wardrobe wilson international center for scholars, we want to both thank you all are on resent -- honoring us with your presence, we appreciate your candor, and we wish you every success both in this state visit

to the united states and perhaps even more importantly, and the work that lies ahead of you when you return to the wonderful country of india. thank you very much, and again, all best. >> thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> tomorrow night, president

obama hostess for state dinner with the prime minister. we will look get the preview of the dinner. that is tomorrow night at 9:00 eastern here on c-span. tonight and wednesday, house judiciary committees on the long-term effect of head injuries in football. witnesses include the nfl commissioner, nfl players' union leaders, and doctors. see it tonight and wednesday at 9:15 here on c-span. >> tonight, the wireless factor. the federal communications chairman on all but the communicator's." >> that is given week on c- span, a look at politicians -- politics in america. topics include next year's midterm elections and a look ahead to 2012. what is fair in politics? the role of media.

and assessing the obama presidency. also, tuesday night, the first state dinner, as president obama welcomes prime minister singh later, american icons, pre c- span documentary's believing with -- beginning with the supreme court thursday night. >> a federal task force recently recommended against mammographies for women under 50. the founding chairman of the prime minister singsusan g. kom. this is about 45 minutes. >> welcome to our speakers event. i am president of the national press club. we are the world's leading professional organization for journalist and we're committed to a future of journalism by providing informative programming and journalism

education and fostering a prepress worldwide. for more information about the national press club, please visit our web site at www.press.gov. i like to welcome those of you who are watching us on c-span. we're looking for it to today's speech, and afterwards i will ask as many questions from the audience as time permits. please hold your applause so that we had time for a as many questions as possible. for our broadcast audience, if you hear applause, it could be from the members -- from the guests and not necessarily the working press. a highly charged report on press -- breast cancer screening is inciting and out range, anchor, and confusion as women try to sort some of the

mixed messages. in a reversal of its previous position, based partly contradicted the advice of many doctors including the american cancer society. it is also going head-to-head with the world's largest breast cancer charity, prime minister susan g. komen for the cure, the largest grass-roots organization, and one of the co- founders is with us today. she pounded the group in 1982 after her sister's death from breast cancer. she is the driving force behind the world renown breast cancer fund raiser, the race for the cure. and for years she has championed more press cancer screenings for women. by contrast, the task force guidelines apparently recommend last, i guess the teaching of

self breast exams, routine mammograms for women in their 40's, an annual mammograms for women over 50, suggesting one screening every two years is enough. what is the rationale? supporters say too little evidence exists that self breast exams are effective in reducing breast cancer deaths. they say early screenings calls one and more -- cause women more anxiety, leading to the removal of tumors that would not be troublesome if not -- to ignore. they cite cases of women under age 50 who were diagnosed with breast cancer. numerous instances where women have discovered their on cancers during self breast exams. other critics say that the guidelines or a sneaky form of health care rationing.

a slippery slope that could allow bureaucrats to enter the exam room. here to address these charges and more is a breast cancer activists who receive the presidential medal of freedom by president barack obama. she was named goodwill ambassador cancer controlled by the u.n. world health organization. she has been on time magazine's list of 100 most influential people. she served as u.s. ambassador to hungary, and most recently was the chief of protocol under george bush. george w. bush. please help me welcome the founder of susan g. komen for the cure, ambassador nancy brinker. [applause] >> thank you so much for that kind introduction. it is great to be with you all here today. i would like to take a moment to introduce three important people

of our organization that came to be here. clement jackson, our chairman of the board. live thompson, vice president of global health, and jennifer larae, president of advocacy here in washington. i'm proud to be here with everybody from the organization. i think all of us wish that we were here to announce susan g. komen for the cure has found a cure for breast cancer and we are out of business. i think we look for to that day when we can make that announcement. i'm confident that we will find it but it takes a great deal of work and we have to focus on what we know. and what works is what we know. early detection, awareness, research, and treatment -- and, i guess, screening, mammography,

and self awareness. the five-year survival rate for breast cancer is down 98% in the u.s., contrasted the 74% when i started this organization in 1982. 98%. there are more than 2.5 million breast cancer survivors alive in the united states today, the largest group of cancer survivors living. i want to reminded that these 2.5 million survivors are real women, mothers, daughters, sisters, friends, employees, and man. and last summer, i met a breast cancer survivor and california and had our affiliate in the arts county to told me something release stunning and keep people like me going. she told me she was an 18-year stay iv breast cancer survivor. on heard of until now.

i was amazed that this woman identified her disease. high after the walk me through her treatment. she said, it has not been easy but i am here, i am alive, i'm having a good life. i said,? she walked through that there be and i am proud to tell you that every their feet she had received had been funded very early buying prime minister singh -- by an susan g. komen for the cure grant. it is an infallible benefit to our nation, and to our strength and values. that is why these reports and the controversy says the report was officially released last monday -- it seems like it was 40 years ago. it is taken a tremendous toll. i believe that it set us back.

first it resulted in mass confusion and lack of clarity. and justifiable outrage. the women i have heard from, thousands and thousands and thousands, are justifiably outraged and worried and angry. they believe that the mammogram they had, which detected their cancer, save their lives. they thought they had done all the right things. all the things that we have told them to do. and they believe that they are alive today because of these recommendations and iran practices and iran engagement. i do not blame them for being concerned -- their own practices and their own engagements. we have asked them to take a very active approach to their health care. now the report comes out and raises questions we have worked so hard to build a public trust and clarity is absolutely critical. let me say this as clearly as i can. as a breast cancer survivor,

whose breast cancer was found with a mammogram at the age of 37, and as a leader of the world's largest breast cancer organization, let me say clearly to anyone watching, mammography saves lives. even this report says so. keep doing what you're doing. speak with your doctor. an act susan g. komen for the cure -- and at susan g. komen for the cure, we are not changing our guidelines. we cannot afford to. breast cancer is still the leading killer of women. one in eight will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime. in the u.s., nearly 200,000 women and men will be diagnosed with breast cancer and more than 40,000 will die this year alone. which brings me to my second point, access. access to care.

we can develop the greatest science and develop the greatest treatment and the greatest screening, but if people do not have access, we have to question what is all for. one-third of american women, 23 million, indeed the most basic screening are not getting it today. that is right, no disagreement about this. and after all we have done to get people to screen, they hear that they should not bother. that is dangerous. we have been trying to get people to be curious and active participants in their care. we have been bringing fragile people into the health care world coming into treatment, into diagnosis, in the screening, people with very low dollar insurance policies, depended on medicaid and medicare, people depended on many of the private organizations and public organizations we have funded. we have 120 affiliate's in the

united states alone, people who would never have had the opportunity to have the care. we spent over $2.20 trillion on health care in the united states. surely we can cover 23 million women. it is a tiny fraction dewpoint $2 trillion, and we should. any insurance company who is thinking right now that this report could be used as a way to reduce coverage for my got -- for mammography, we will be watching them very carefully. we will be watching. access, clarity, and public trust are critical, but so too is perhaps the centerpiece of what it is we're having the most trouble with, and that is technology. in a strange way, all the dust up from the past week ashley may do some good may be as a clarion call finally.

we know mammography words but we all know that it is imperfect. we need better screening technology. the technology we're using today, though it has been improved andñw regenerated, is still almost 50 years old. what other business or feel that we know when the united states or around the world would use 50-year-old technology? there is a huge technology gap. in breast cancer and cancer screening, we are funding cutting edge research but we cannot do it alone. we need technology that is more productive, more available, more accessible. personal. less expensive and less aggressive. and it is not rocket science. we know it exists somewhere. it is political will -- marshaling the political will to transform the next generation of technology so that it is really

useful for people, and people who will be diagnosed with breast cancer. i've spoken with the nih director this week and secretary sebelius. susan g. komen for the cure, and calendar year 2010, we will hosted technology summit where we will end by the top leaders in the fields to work together to identify ways for us to close the technology gap. we want you all to come back and question this the way that we are -- why do we not have it? we already know one way to help close the gap, screening, research, and development. we're doing a lot of that. so is the nih. so are others. that is why i'm calling today on the president's, on the congress to report to the american people on investments that have been made in screening technology and to commit to us that what ever

it is it will be doubled. we need to create the technology that really is doubled. in effort, in science, in every way that we needed to be. if we make it less expensive and more available, we can avoid the same screening discussion that we have every 10 years. i have been long enough -- or around long enough to weather this. it is always about the same thing at the end of the day. better technology, more access, and continuing to speak clearly. it begins by doing with what we know words, and the stakes in the united states are not only high, but around the world. literally millions of lives are at stake. it seems like is forever, but two weeks ago i returned from a tour that took me from vienna

to budapest and jerusalem before ending up in zurich. it was my first extended travel, but as you him ambassador for cancer control and the founder of susan g. komen for the cure, and it was but encouraging and discouraging. there is great progress being made in the fight against cancer. there is enthusiasm from leaders everywhere. they know that they have to do something. that is encouraging. they know that cancer is universally deadly and our response must be equally universal. but we cannot afford to slow down in our race against this disease. we cannot be distracted. we have to run to the finish line. and the reason is that the number of cancer cases in the world is exploding -- are exploding. people are aging, governments do not use the words cancer allied -- out loud. they do not have cancer registries. at the un, it is not even mentioned in the millennium

development goals. why would you expect countries to be talking about it? my fight began nearly 30 years ago. it was a promise i made to my sister, susan, to do everything i could to find a cure for breast cancer. i remember those early days when she was diagnosed without the benefit of a mammogram. the world was very different. there was no text messaging, no young groups of people organized around this disease, people cross the street in our hometown when i saw her because they were afraid her disease was contagious. but as i said earlier, i met the press cancer survivor with a stage iv disease. she was living testament to what we could accomplish. i had to believe that on that day my sister was watching and happy and believing that we would get to the end of this race. so what more early detection, not less, better screening, more

research translating to longer life and work survivors -- it shows what is possible. today we're talking about breast cancer in the u.s., but i hope you'll invite me back to talk about the global cantor prices are referred to. there is a lot that we need to do and write about an awareness to create. a story involving a deadly enemy that takes more lives every used in tv, malaria, and aids combined -- cancer now kills more people than those three diseases. so why is the zero leading world killer marginalized and in many countries ignored? something is wrong when one of the most lethal diseases on earth is neither mentioned by name in the public reports of many countries and his head away and categories of other diseases. it consumes almost 8 million lives every year, those of the

ones that are counted. it would be like the state of virginia being wiped out every year. it is projected to get much worse and that is why i need your help. the plain fact is that new cancer cases are projected to rise from 13 million to nearly 27 million by 2030, and by then cancer could easily consume 17 million to 20 million lives every year. whether reported accurately or not, there are too many people in the u.s. who are dying from cancer of all kinds. i know that we can do this. i know that we can do this because we know enough and we have enough resources to make it happen. not just in america, but around the world. we can always use more but let's recommit ourselves to what we have now. return -- if we turn more of our resources on this crisis, we can move faster. the other day someone asked me

why i keep doing this work and why we act susan g. komen for the cure work so hard each state to complete our mission. it is only lead us to be more confident and feeling more charged into victory. i remember are terrific disease, feared by generations, victim's hidden away in shadows and halt what does that a treatment would never be found. ordinary citizens and scientist took action, raised money, organize research, he founded new institutions. people exhibited extraordinary amounts of leadership. i am not talking about cancer. and talking about polio. on a day in 1955 when i was a low count -- a little girl and jonas salk posset vaccine was announced in my hometown, the church bell rang and the factories closed.

the schools closed and our parents and teachers wept as if the war had ended, and indeed it had. . t had. years later, they said very publicly, if we are to solve the disease and collaborate, we must cooperate, and we must lean. the diseases are different. but the lessons are the same. and we believe that susan g. komen that we forge an approach that is prevention oriented, evidence-based oriented. evidence-based oriented. we too can imagine a day another scientific breakthrough changes the world. where coverage health works as an outreach of scientific exploration. when the miss secmy like the error and artifacts of history, and when church bells ring because the world of cancer is coming to an end. thank you very much for being here today. thank you for participating in

the aftermath of this report. and thank you for asking so many good and valuable questions. keep asking questions. and let's get some questions? [applause] >> first of all, can you talk about the past, and if you think there's anything valuable, and what you think of their yes enables and who they are. >> that's very, very valuable. it's very accomplished people. our only concern was two years. it was total surprise about the way it was announced. and frankly, my personal feeling is, you know, again the culture is deep enough, so many years and the health care. of course, my personal thought is so much about the divisions.

but frankly, we're frightened. and they ability to show up to take the mammogram or screening of the health care is fragile. i feel like the behavior science is that it was focused on perhaps as much as it should have been. in other words, there are ways to deliver, and convene, and deliver the messages. no one supposed to agree more significantly on many areas. so this is my first about that. >> just to follow up, you face the distribution of the guidelines differently. can you tell me a little bit about that? >> it's not the distribution. it would have helpful to treat cancer every day. again public health. we'll deal with the message. and this alone would have comfort to hear this sooner. and to hear it in a way that perhaps there's been a shape and

position it. so that people do understand. >> our actions on how screening science will turn out four to five years in the subject that can be looking for. we look very, very carefully including staying issue and prevention. anything that we can find the study to look at, and really find science to be chairing from harvard and world scientists look at this for example.

our advocacy care. we want to make sure we measure it specifically for the two years for the -- we want time. >> is this the timing of this announcement subs than? >> i choose not to -- people in the state are panels every day. so i would not think that way. >> are you just being nice? >> no. [laughter] >> what's komen's position on health care reform? >> we're going to take on -- we're making sure the priorities are included in the final legislation and evident -- evaluate it. we're very focused on education,

survivors, and the public. as all organization funds from the breast cancer screening to watching it very carefully. and we're going to look very carefully. we are working with them to make sure the key positions are including coverage of screening, banning insurance discrimination with people with preexisting conditions, lowering out out-of-pocket expenses, and this is an important key part of cancer therapy today. making sure we have lower cost for energies to ensure that people who are more recently able to november gait their way through cancer therapy and treatment. it's a very important part again. again on the behavioral side. but extremely important to be able to commit to accept their therapy, and walk through the very confident system. >> across the board for skin and

colon cancer. are you concern this will discourage people that are benefit from screening from seeking it? >> yes. >> what do you guidelines mean for real women? it opposed to unreal women? [laughter] >> we want to encourage every single women and man to encourage what you are doing. be interactive and proactive with the your health care professional. we need to deal, to study, to go to well versed and cancer center. it's very credible cancer center. whenever to learn as much as you can, and to be as educated as you can. to question your provider.

what we are doing, i mean people, screening mammography saves lives. we want people to continue to do what they are doing. >> you seem to have some allies on capital hill. representative comes to mind. how are you working with these folks? and what would be your a number one priority legislation? >> i think our a number one priority legislation would have to be i guess the four areas. i think you can't weigh one against the other. these are the four credible issue that we believe. not only work with members on the hill to have a very large group of people who have is supported us over the years in many ways. we do seek to say out the partisan. it simply is not what we want to do. staying in the politics and partisan politics are cancer are very different.

>> are te health and laura seemans working with your group on getting more funds for research on technology? >> they are going to. >> can you explain that further? [laughter] >> we need to have a new technology summit. we need to have industry come to the table. we need to have government come to the table. we need to have add have cat groups, private insurers. when you see cell phones, when you walk through screening at the airport, i just can't be convinced that there's not a better generation of breast and probability prostate, and every other kind of screening, lung cancer. there has to be a better way. we need market incentives, we know to make it happen.

that's what companies are largely interested in. the companies are also interested in detecting early disease. that's what they do. we will be urging them as much as we can to participate in the solutions to close the technology gap. >> how much of komen money is going towards research and new detection technology now? >> i can't -- i'm going to ask perhaps liz thomas. p liz, correct me if i'm wrong. we just committed $20 million to prevention research. we have to wand if i. we have invested a lot of money again. and the issue that impacts the breast cancer patient from screening to end of life, we have made terrific contributions. and we will continue to do so. >> let me remind our audience, if you have questions please write them on the card and pass them up. we are going to have time for

more questions. what about advice to get a mammography every two years instead of annually. aren't there cases where breast cancer can spread more quickly before that next mammogram. >> when i was talking about better, efficient, cheaper screening, that's what we are talking about. when we when we started -- we know when we started screening, we need better technology. which tumor in which person has very aggressive features? and will likely grow more quickly. and which are not. that's really the issue. and so that's exactly. it's going to year or two years to be decided in hopefully in the conversation with one health care's providers. therefore, we can watch it in two years. we don't know. but one thing we do know, is we have to close the technology gap. >> would you acknowledge that there are instances in which

mammography or self-examine has a downside? >> sure. i can do that personally. once with you're a breast cancer survivor, and i think we all are always a little nervous talking about how many disease free years. mine is well over 20 years. you still have anxious moments. you are a survivor. and most educated women and who have access to health care, choose to have more than less screenings. they want to feel the security. there's always high anxiety when you go for the cancer screening. and if you have a false positive, we're not arguing with that. i think -- largely the women and men that we've heard from last week are very much on the side that they are grownups. they can face the anxiety. they'd rather know than not know. again, i'm sorry the rather boring about that. but again it's closing the technology gap.

with more information, people can make better decisions, and it will create a whole lot less anxiety. >> how can we stop economics from blocking patient care like breast cancer screening? >> well, that's -- i'm not sure i understand the question other than to say that -- you mean the cost of screening? i don't know or just be careful to save our economy today? >> i think the idea of health care rationally. >> well, our world, susan g. komen is to continue to ensure access. you know, to get the cost of screening so that we can -- it can be afforded in a very public health setting. so very much public health setting. this is the to lower cost. again more efficient, quicker, easier were low power source tools. go try to do a mammogram in

africa in some the places that we work. it wouldn't be effective. you couldn't do it. we need better tools. >> what roll, if any, do you think the ongoing health care debate had on the newly released guidelines? >> i don't know that it did. the panel two years ago were trying to look at the science-based evidence and the primary care setting. these were not cancer positions. they were trying to react to a set of circumstances. i will say that apparently, i was told by the director of nih that some the things based on mammography is still mammography. which is an older version than digital. so that we don't yet have the data for digital. and if it's more effective, less effective. i think we do have some questions and want to find out more about that. >> as secretary se peel yows

done enough? what should do next? >> i think secretary sebeilus has been responsible. we've spoken to her more than a few times. there was would was the second part of the question? i am sorry. sorry. >> what should hhs do next? >> we are going to try to do some things together. we're going to encourage them to do some things that we cannot do and focus on the technology issues and the research and bringing it up sooner. getting answers faster, making

people aware of where we need to go. requires versus what we are spending on health care overall. >> so there has been so much controversy and most of the outrage falling on your side of the argument. is there a possibility that this report will just go away. is that it will be ignored? >> i think there will be a distinctive. no, i don't think things get ignored. i think will have to be translated into a public health understanding. i think you can't take recommendation like this, and just assume they sit by themselves and the world changes. you have to look at things as to how they can be translated into a care. and how not to break a fragile system. and people's trust. and so no, i don't think so.

i think there will be more reports from panels. i think you can look to more scientists, releasing more data. every 10 years we have the screening debate. this year we'll have another one. that will be interesting. i hope this one will produce a lot more progress than the last one. >> is there any possibility that the task force might reverse it's opinion on their recommendation. >> i don't think so. i think they've made the recommendation. i don't know. i haven't spoken to the chairman. i would assume they will keep the recommendation. they will engage perhaps in communicating. i think the rage has been furious. and i'm glad i'm not a member of the panel. >> can you give us an estimate of how many outraged people have contacted you? >> thousands. thousands. we have 25 maybe 30,000 people who signed up to join our actions on advocacy alliance.

and we are -- our lines are going off hook, and the e-mails we expect a giant respond. >> what are they telling you? >> nay are tells us that they want to, the same things. there's fear, there's lack of trust, there's concern, they feel gad in the habits they've already established. many of them are comfortable with the health care provider and what they are doing. there are sometimes fragile people, fragile because they've have diagnosis, and they want to keep up with care that will give them some sense of peace of mind. it maybe the perfect world. but it's one the only tools we have. also it's a real understanding of just the rage that people feel. because it's so personal. breast cancer is very personal. all disease is personal. that breast cancer is very personal to women, and very sense i. and people aren't yet

comfortable saying words out loud. that's the kind -- those are the -- that's the kind of level of sensitivity we deal with. >> if the medical experts and a government officials can't agree on what is right, how can women decide what to do themselves when they work with their own doctor? >> i believe some of the -- i believe that some of the great advances of science has been made with dispute, with discussion, with advocacy, i'm going to remain optimistic that the same thing will happen. i'm going to remain optimistic that when we convene technology, that real forward process will come out. we will able be able to turn around in a few years and say, there's a good thing that happened. >> what treatments are showing the most promise? >> you know, we have such a number of different strategies now. i think the anti-bodies, i think

the inhibitors that you just heard about. i think all the great advances that you've heard about, by the way, i'm proud to tell you that we have funded every single one of them. they are exciting. and they are leading to an era of personalized diagnosis in care. in one way good, one way a little scary. they are expensive. and they are first generation. so it's going to take a while. what we are praying for the in the short term is seeing breast cancer become a chronic disease. so that the lady i met in california is sort of standard, rather than someone who's highly unusual. and i think to keep the focus going and people going. i have to go back to the number of years i've served in this effort. i can remember very well, it's a young women when they signed the national cancer act, it seems like light years away.

we've made progress. we've had lots of right turns and left turns. but i do believe now that we are in the most exciting time of cancer therapy that we have ever known. >> can you talk about the difference between detection and prevention? >> yeah. big difference. protection is looking at the disease before it's spread and grown. prevention is what we are looking at is some day being able to extract am knee yachtic fluid to see what the baby may have. can we do something in prenatal stages that women and children don't develop these diseases. it's going to be years until that happens. we're also hoping to find some blood marker in the short term. that's going to be difficult. yeah, it's difficult right now. we need some kind of blood work to determine whether the women might develop and be able to

intervene in the growth as soon as we can. that would be the most cost effective way to deal with it. >> if women are denied mammography, what would be your advice to them by the insurance company. >> get in touch with jenni at the susan g. komen, komen advocacy.org. we have ways to explain, and make sure we protect people. this is why we are focused on access, and why we want to make it a piece of whatever reform goes forward. we understand it's taken years and years and years to top the access programs that work and banning insurance from denying women care because of a preexisting condition. and lowering out-of-pocket expenses. again, being a breast cancer survivor. i can tell you what it feels like when you are denied care or

coverage. it's scary. it just can't happen. so call us. >> do you agree with berndine that this is a precursor for health care rationing? >> she's a fine physician. that is her opinion. we focus our efforts at looking at reform and what we can do for the cancer patient. you know, we're not going to characterize what anybody else says, or get into partisan politics, we're going to say where we are in the politics of what we are dealing with, advancing the interest and the protection of breast cancer and cancer patients. >> what can we expect to see during the next couple of weeks as this discussion continues? >> well, a lot more e-mails to our office. what i think you'll see is the beginnings much a very healthy engagement in debate, particularly cancer leaders.

we will be in serious discussion with hhs, and nih, and other organizations, we'll be working on convening. i think you will see a lot of discussions behind the scenes. and you'll continue to here a lot of advocacy going forward from people. >> what would be the single most important get for you in health care reform? >> single most important get? i think it's hard to say, but the sort of package of what we're asking for. because we've, among ourself and watching the data, we don't do things, honestly, as we look very closely at what we are doing, and what we think the most important get is the areas, four of them, that we've taken on because we believe and know at the end of the day, that's the most important things in the near term for ben cancer patient. >> okay.

that does it for our questions. unless there's any reporters here that have something answered. everybody okay? well. let me remind our members of our future speakers, november 30th we have prince albert the second of monaco who will address the national press club luncheon. on november 4, joy, co-founder of studio theater. december 8th, ceo of the sesame street characters. the early report was grover. second, i would like to present our guest with the npc mug. [applause] >> i'd like to thank you all for coming today. i'd also like to thank national press club staff members ma lend da and pat.

special thanks to melissa for organizing today's speaker. the video archive is provided by national press club operation center. our events are available for free down load on itunes as well as on ours,. nonmembers may purchase transcripts, audio and video tapes by e-mails us as archive archives@press.org. for more information go to our web site at www.press.org. thank you very much. we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> tonight and wednesday, there is the health committee

hearings. witnesses include the nfl commissioner, the players' union president, and the doctors that treat the players. tomorrow night, president obama hosts his first state dinner for indian prime minister. there will be guests arrivals and a toast by the president and the prime minister. president obama spoke with reporters about the state of the u.s. economy today, following a meeting with his cabinet. he talked about goals for an upcoming summit to be held in december. >> allred, hello, everybody in. i met with my cabinet today.

secretary gates and secretary clinton talked about international security. i updated the cabinet on the progress we're making on the health insurance reform legislation that is moving its way through the senate. i reiterated the region say to get it done and provide relief -- i reiterated the urgency to get it done and provide relief. the topic of our discussion today had to do with the same thing that americans said across the kitchen tables and focus on, the economy. if you look at back at where we sit, in the first months of my administration, because of the steps taken by secretary geithner and others in our economic team, we were able to

stabilize the financial system. we were able to ensure that the economy did not slip back into a depression. we take for granted now, but it is something that all the members of the cabinet who participated are extremely proud of. since that time, we passed a new recovery and that put a middle- class tax cut into people's pockets, invested in infrastructure across the country and put people back to work, and something that is not noted in f which is to help stabilize state budgets at a time when we could have seen hundreds of thousands of layoffs among teachers and police officers and firefighters. our economy is growing for the first time in more than a year. we know that economic growth is a prerequisite for job growth. having said that, we cannot sit

back and be satisfied given the extraordinarily high unemployment levels that we have seen. we have only taken the first step in securing our economy and making sure that it is moving on the right track. and i will not rest until businesses are investing again and businesses are hiring again. this is going to be a challenging task. it is challenging because of the extraordinary below that the -- the extraordinary below that the financial industry delivered to the economy as a whole. it is particularly difficult because both the financial sector and the housing sector were the biggest drivers of economic growth prior to the financial crisis. so the severity of the pullback makes its lower than i would like things to move.

businesses across sectors are making profits again, but their primary way of making profit is to cut costs as opposed to seeing increased demand. unfortunately, the huge rise in productivity, in this circumstance, means that they have learned to produce the same amount of this with fewer people. all of these prevent -- all of these present significant challenges in terms of us creating new jobs in this economy. but, having said that, the core strength to the american economy will put us in good stead over the long term. having gone through this very wrenching adjustment, we continue to have the best universities in the world, the best innovation technology is in the world, the best workers in the world, the most productive workers in the world, a

dynamism and entrepreneurship in our economy that will serve as well in the long term. the key is to bridge where we are now to that more prosperous future. so we lot of a discussion in a whole range of issues [unintelligible] in the export area, i just came back from a trip to asia where one of my highest priorities was discussing how we can increase exports into that region. if we could just increase exports by 5%, that would mean hundreds of thousands of well paying jobs. there is no reason that we cannot do it. they want their products and their technology. partly because of regulatory restrictions, partly because of currency issues, partly because we have not been as aggressive as we need to be, we have not gone it. that is something that we're going to be focused on, on infrastructure.

investing now in a revamping your existing infrastructure and starting to lay the foundation for things like high-speed rail will make all the difference in the world. green technology, we are seeing terrific ideas that could immediately put people back to work and save consumers money and help with climate crisis. as many of you know, we will have a job summit on december 3. part of the task of the cabinet was generating good ideas in anticipation of the jobs summit. we will be bringing together people from all across the country, business, labour, academics, non-board-profits, entrepreneurs, small and large businesses -- non-for-profits,

entrepreneurs, small and large businesses. we want to see if we can celebrate. i am confident that we will be able to do it because i have gotten as good of a cabinet as any president has ever had. let me just close by saying this. this is a week to give thank you. and i advised this hard-working cabinet to get a little bit of rest this week, particularly folks who have been around the globe day in and day out and do not know what times and therein. it is important to remember that this has been a difficult year and people out there having a tough time. i indicated to my cabinet, as hard as they are working and as difficult as the political averment can be sometimes, we

are extraordinarily blessed to be in a position where we can make a potential difference in the lives of millions of people. we need to take advantage of that opportunity and redouble our efforts in the months and years to come. thank you very much, everybody. >> now an interview with austan do spagoolsbee in. he spoke about the president's economic policies and the current health care debate. he was interviewed by margaret carlson at a conference hosted by bloomberg news. this is about 20 minutes.

>> what that biography did not include was that austan is also officially the finest celebrity in washington. we have a contest each year. austan managed to win it. we do not expected to be funny, but we do expected to be extremely revealing today. i do not know which causes more pressure. [laughter] see? that is why he won. you may not have been at 1:00 a.m. when c-span rape broadcast

president bush's first on the the record speech in the white house. one was that his actions in the fall say the economy. the second was that the current administration might mess everything he did it up by getting out of balance risk and reward which has made this country great. do you have any comments? >> he believes that he saved the economy from the event that they created to put the economy in. when i look back at the eight years of the bush administration, i hope that we would learn from the lessons that opened up the rules of the road in trying to

deregulating everything. it may emphasize risk and reward, but it can be undermining of the market system. the financial system fell apart because we lost public trust deriving from the fact that there was not to the regulatory oversight that we needed to have for people to trust to the capital markets. the banks did not even trust each other. my view, looking at the totality of the eight years of economic policy, it reminds me of this old story. there was a nobel laureate. he was a crusty old guy. hasted and came after the exam and said to still live, i was very upset with my grade. is there not any way you can change this. and he looks at it and he said, no, i am afraid that death is

the lowest grade i can give -- i am afraid that f is the lowest grade i can give. i am suggesting that history is not going to be kind to the collective actions of the last eight years of the previous administration. >> some say that obama's's administration is a continuation in some ways. some banks continue to take the very risks the goddess into the financial crisis and financial regulations are not really going to deal with that. >> whoever is saying that we are a continuation of the bush administration, i need to find that person. >> some of that sounds familiar. >> the situation in the financial sector, i have to say,

everybody is a little agitated at some of the ways this has played aout. we take a series of rescue actions. we try a bunch of things. and we save them from the brink, not because they were nice people or we wanted to give them money, but because it looked like everything was about to melt down. after saving them to the extent that there are people on wall street who are thinking, yes, well, the depression did not ocher, so let's go back to the state that we were in before and let's start paying ourselves and just reestablishing the financial system that we had before, because that was very lucrative for, i don't think any serious analyst thinks that that is a good idea.

>> no bun -- no one thinks it is a good idea. >> but it might still happen. >> right. >> ok. you raise a further point, which is that we have to be mindful on the issue of financial regulatory reform. the president is trying to keep that on the front burner agenda. for the brief moment where my parents who retired in abilene, texas, and my mother is calling me and say, when there you going to fix the tax credit default system? >> only the mother of in economists would call him and said that. >> that is not her all -- that is not her normal world. but people who are pissed off at the banks and wants to reestablish some order in the

financial system, any moments were even in abilene, texas, people are concerned about that issue, we can get something done. all american people seem to care about that. we're not interested in tier one capital ratios. now we are in the danger of having this come down again and the rules get rewritten as they were for the last eight years and before that by the people gain regulated themselves. there's a risk of that. but i think the president feels pretty strongly that we cannot allow that to happen. >> senator chris dodd has introduced a huge bill that will create one gigantic agency. i think it takes responsibility away from the fed. what do you think of the chris dodd bill as opposed to the other financial regulations that have been working their way

through the system? >> if you have not seen the chris dodd bill, i would characterize it as a pattern that they have in the u.k. there is a regulatory agency that is separate from the monitory policy. i would say, first, as a general statement, they had a lot of problems in the u.k. as well. i do not think the vision of what box goes where is the central thing. there has always been an issue that, in a moment of crisis where the fed is out trying to figure out what to do, if they are not integrally involved with the the actual regulation and oversight of the institutions, if you do with ron, you can -- if you do it wrong, you can get

into a left hand does not know what the right hand is doing problem. but we do systemic risk functions that are kind of getting conflated. one is systemically-important institutions that everybody knows we have to be on them. we have to have higher capital requirements on them. we have to make sure that somebody like a id is not able to manage the entire system -- like aig is not able to m enace the entire system. they pose the threat to the system that is different from any one institution. the administration's view is that the systemic institutions

ought to be governed by the fed. the dodd version is let's combine both of those and create a new agency. i m little worried that to create to that agency would take a long time. >> when we treated homeland security, it took a long time to get that agency going. bringing up england raises points. there it too-big-to-fail banks are being broken up. why not ours? >> we will have to see how this plays out in england. it looks like they're moving to break up some of their biggest banks. there are different ways that banks are combined now. one is just how big they are coming terms of size of assets or size of liabilities. another is water all of the big banks allowed to do?

no investment banks are part of commercial banks and the stand- alone investment bank model kind of fell apart in this crisis. so there are very few -- there are only two left and they converted to bank holding companies so that they could get rescued. i think we will have to see how this plays out. certainly, the argument of the two big to fail, that we cannot have big, menacing, too-big-to- fail institutions that are unregulated or lightly regulated and squeezing themselves between the cracks and turning the whole system, everybody agrees on that. i think that, if you go through the white paper on financial regulatory reform, it clearly lays out that at the very

least, we need to have the resolution authorities so that, when someone starts to get in trouble, we can break them up and won them down. >> unfortunately, we lost the audio in this program for about two minutes. we will pick up here for the audio resumed. >> is not the white house worried? i hear some concern about ordinary americans, that you look like, the white house, that you have no control over these people. you are guaranteeing what they are doing. >> we are trying to get out of the business as quickly as possible. you had ken feinberg in places where the government does have

direct involvement. the views on executive compensation that he has expressed her extremely sensible. boleyn is a public company. if i were a short of -- goldman is a public company. if i were a shareholder, i would wonder what they were doing. when i see guys that say that we are making big profits and those profits are coming about because the government is guaranteeing their liabilities, these guys are patting themselves on the back when they are actually just lip-synching. >> air guitar. we are at the template to unemployment -- we are at 10.2% unemployment. cash for clunkers seen a little bit like a gimmick. is the jobs summit in response

to the 10.2% unemployment a little gimmicky? >> they always leave of the second part, that without the stimulus, it would go to 9%. the impact of the stimulus was predicted to be some amount. what we and everyone else missed in the private sector, people who make their living, the baseline with so much worse than anybody thought at the moment that they were making a prediction, that the whole thing has shifted upward. the stimulus, as a package, was not a gimmick. . it has -- hawas not a gimmick at all.

we were not the only ones making that mistake. and just plucking one thing out of the stimulus cash for clunkers, that can be misleading. it was designed to be spaced out over time. so you will say that cash for clunkers ended and now we are in trouble. there was some to go out right away, attacks briquettes, fiscal relief, some in the middle designed -- tax cuts, fiscal relief, some in the middle. programs were designed to be spaced out over two years. now we feel pretty good that they are instead of in two weeks. >> will you take a bet that ford will not have the kind of year it had been this year with cash

for clunkers being over? >> as you know, federal rules prohibit bidding activity by federal employees. >> just launch. >> less than $20 lunch. >> stewart. >> i want to go back to the banking thing. i am fascinated by the fact that [unintelligible] it was repealed. shortly after that, all the stuff happened with investment banks and commercial banks' combined with each other. i know a leather -- a lot of other stuff has happened as well. bank of america use only be in california and now it is global. why not go back to separating investment and commercial banks? >> glass-steagall was a very specific rule that said you could not underwrite securities and be a commercial bank.

i do not think most people looking at this -- i think it is hard to actually in this crisis to the combining of investment banks and commercial banks. that was roughly the source of the problem. there is a broader question that people have been debating about. should we try to separate out trading for the bank's own account, running -- owning their own hedge fund, from banking both investment and commercial banking. that is different from glass- steagall, but that has been the context that people have described. glass-steagall itself, i do not think it was central to this crisis. >> i ended stand that you were against saving chrysler. -- i understand that you were against saving chrysler. if that is right, can you tell me about your thinking in the

strategy in detroit and why it came out like that? >> i am not going to get into who was for what and what was the ticktock on everything. as you know, we were in an environment where chrysler and gm were in different situations. i do not think anybody -- i think most people did not expect that we would be able to successfully worked them into and out of a bankruptcy as quickly as we were able to do so. we were trying to trade off a whole bunch of issues. it was not like the president or the administration, generally, has with the bank, nobody wants to be in a bailout situation. the administration acted because the collective judgment was to not act at that time would have had evean even worse

spill over into the economy. that is where we were. i am glad with cash for clunkers. >> budget that ruling to the demolition industry with cash for clunkers. >> since you brought up history, it seems that we do not hear what happened before that and only what has happened since then. at the end of the crisis, it was the investment banks and the securitization. this is my observation. how efficient in the 1990's that home ownership was a very good thing? i thought that was a good thing. tax policy consenting mortgages and home-equity loans and may be in some not-so-honest mortgage

brokers, this crisis was not about the last year. this inflation of household debt in the u.s., we hear about fixing the financial system, but what about the aside, thinking about policy, as far as tax, and the behavior was to in cent people to over-leverage. this did not happen in a year. >> there is no question that excess debt on the consumer side was a contributing factor and was a powder keg waiting to go off. i do not agree with the analysis that there is no question that everybody seemed to be encouraging a lot of home ownership. but to blame -- some critics say that this was not the bank's fault. it does not the financial institutions fall. this is the government's fault

because of the community reinvestment act, etc. those things were in place for decades. this never happened before. with community reinvestment act, for example, it only applies to banks and two-thirds of the subprime mortgages, including most of the worst parts of it that were made by non-banks. it is money and apply. i think we should be little more careful in trying to target what it is. your broader point is super- important. the leveraging of the consumer balance sheet had to happen. -- the leveragdeleveraging of tr balance sheet had to happen.

consumption growgrowth got to be equal to income. >> your question, sir. >> thank you for your remarks. i am a little concerned about the use and misuse of " economic forecasts into the future by the administration. the self-fulfilling prophecy aspect of it, if you say that it is a long, hard road to recovery, perhaps you're worth and make that a reality. what businessman is when to rush out and hire workers when you see the 8% unemployment rate eight years from now? >> if the alternative is let's make of things that sound nice to make people feel better, i do not agree with that. i think the history has not been kind to those who do not own up

to the problems. what you saw with the stress test was that, previous to that, there was not transparency. there was the argument to not spooked everybody. let's not tell them what the actual situation is. i think people are smarter than that. that is when things started to melt down. only when you open it up and say this is what we actually think the situation is do you start getting some clarity. >> that is a valid point. >> is there a point that where the health care bill gets so marked up that it is not worth passing? >> as a theoretical matter, yes, i suppose. >> theoretical or is getting close? >> that part, i don't know that i agree with that. >> they will be delivering 30

million customers to insurance companies and they will raise rates. >> i am confident that we are going to get a substantial health care bill. >> are you thrilled by it to? >> i am thrilled by the thought that we can pass a substantial health care bill that will reduce cost for americans, changed the growth rate of health care inflation, and cover millions of millions more people. if you step back -- i am not a legislative strategist, but, if anybody -- if we are able to pass such a bill and to take a step back, that is a major accomplishment. we are farther in the process than anybody has been able to get for health care reform in decades upon decades. i am pretty optimistic. >> i have some many more questions, but we have to go.