through that now but those who have already been through it, what are the other innovations we need now? should i say the word? genetically modified food? is that a good thing? bad thing? innovation? we need another big jump in productivity. >> the main place where the benefits of the green revolution haven't been felt yet, it is partly they have a variety of crops. partly the weather conditions and partly this issue of getting the education and inputs including fertilizer and those are big challenges and so there has been a new group, the green revolution organization headed by kofi annan gathering up money and bringing up expertise, working with the dealers, working with the seed makers to

get those things out there. . .

and then, you know, on their own they'll be able to make that decision. the likelihood that the safety profile will be ok and that that will be beneficial, i hope that works out because it is a tool, particularly for disease resistance where you can put in a new gene for a particular crop problem. it would be a real help. and you're right on the verge of starvation all the time. so every tool that's safe and appropriate you at least want to look into. >> dupont does produce genetically modified food as well as many other things, high-yielding varieties. are you facing a lot of

resistance through a little knowledge of the danger of same kind of approach? are you confident that g.m. is the future? >> i think that if you're going to resolve problems like drought resistance, you're going to have to use genetic modification to get there. i can't think of a product in terms of genetically modified seeds that has been more tested and more thoroughly vetted in many of the country that currently allow it to grow. i think in 2008, we surpassed two billion acres globally where bio-tech crops are grown. there is a lot of data out there, a lot of information, and a lot of benefits to it. but i think bill is right. each country, if they set a science-based, transparent regulatory framework, then the industry can work with those countries in order to bridge that gap in the productivity that is needed to fill that food gap.

>> and vietnam what is your approach to increasing productivity and yields with genetically modified food? actually, there's gentlemen nedically modified food and genetically modified other crops. >> ladies and gentlemen, i'd like to touch a little on how to ensure global food security. ladies and gentlemen, the food security is not merely an economic or humanitarian issue but also plays a key role in keeping political and social stability of each country and the entire world. it is now time for us to work

out new measures or ways to ensure food security across the globe in a faster and more sustainable manner. with that i would like to share with you my thoughts on the following. first, it's important to guarantee three major factors including the availability, sustainability and accessibility. it is essential that each country be successful in increasing productivity. in vietnam you've been very successful in increasing productivity. how did you do that without using any sort of genetically modified foods? >> i think that to ensure food security, first we need to

ensure -- h enhance productivity to ensure availability and to have a good distribution channel. and then we must ensure the accessibility of the people to the food resources. and each country must make its own efforts with international -- combined with international assistance. with that we could ensure food security for the community. second, productivity -- to increase the output, science and technology is very important. to help us enhance productivity and output. >> you're not against genetically modified food. i don't know why i'm carrying on.

>> we do not oppose the application of g.m. food. but in vietnam it is not yet necessary for us because rice, we have productivity of 10 to 15 tons. so we have four million of great, cultural land. we could provide sufficient. so we do not yet need g.m. food and we are still self-sufficient in production. >> can i just ask the audience here, the approaches to necessity netically modified -- genetically modified food, those against it, those in favor, and those who say as long as i know it i don't mind if i have the choice. how many people are against genetically modified foods? that's only about 5%. so how many of you are in favor? who would actually eat

genetically modified foods? that's about 40%. and those who say i'd like to at least know, have full information. that's the other 45%. ok. great. thank you very much. patricia, there are other things besides genetically modified foods, different ways of increasing productivity and yields which we see as the big problem. what would they be? >> well, maybe i'll comment on that with sharing that there has been a community here at davos that spent some time in the last seven months working on what we call the future vision of agriculture. part of that discussion this morning, we had a very lively discussion that included president angozi. increasing proghtist is very necessary but not sufficient.

we also talked about investment in the entire value chain or the entire agricultural chain, particularly infrastructure, transportation, storage, getting even the basics of roads and trucks and getting crops to market or getting them to the people that need to eat them. so the idea of not just productivity but things beyond increasing yields such as even reducing post harvest waste, which is something we could take on today -- as we've heard in several sessions, the crops that are grown and are wasted or are left to spoil because there's not an investment in restructure, because they don't have an ability to get to market, is as much as 20% in some areas. in your country you talked about that. so investment to actually make more efficient use of the crops we have today as well as not to waste what is grown i think is

an important part of, again, closing that gap between what is needed. >> i think that's a very important point. full harvest wastage. we have pictures of children in india suffering of malnutrition and we have this 50 million tons of food stock, far more than we need for security, with rats eating 10 million of them. we have malnutrition and fat rats. takes bit of a stark picture. >> maybe one more point, too. the investment in innovation related to production of crops is about 95%. only 5% is going to this post harvest innovation idea. so again, more work to be done there. we're working with the university of california at davis, who has an institution associated with this. so again, more emphasis in that area. >> right.

looking at increasing yields, which stage of the agricultural cycle are you right now? >> we have lots of interventions. one of the things that you are looking at is changing the technology. predominantly, 65% is the hand hoe. we're trying to see how to mechanize that. as i said, it's typical of africa. only 10% of africa's agriculture, 10% is by tractor. thailand has more tractors than the whole of south africa put together. so one of the things is how to mechanize agriculture. that's one. the second thing that we are engaged with is tanzania and

almost the whole of africa is increase the proportion of agriculture. right now it's only 4% of agriculture in africa is irrigated. in asia, 20%. so we need to get there. it's another challenge. the other is the use of high-yielding seeds. we are not talking about the g.m. actually getting to the seeds that in vietnam they use and get 15 tons. we are using the traditional seeds. so here is a greater question of investing in agricultural research, which we are aware now of doing. and then besides that is building capacities for seed modification so that as many farmers as possible would get high-yielding seeds. >> so you're saying mechanic

nizzation, irrigation, and high-yield seeds. >> and then fertilize. >> and fertilizer. >> for tanzania, nine kilos her hecter. so these and other combinations, lack of pesticides, challenge of post harvest losses. it's a set of combinations. looking at systems. the farmers produce -- markets are not assured. the prices are, again, not favorable. so for us to increase productivity is, again a combination of mechanization, irrigation, certificate fertilizers, pesticide, organizing. but, again, the biggest challenge we have is -- how do

you get the extension? it's a question of training the agriculture, to impose skill and knowledge to the farmers. it's a combination. then, of course, to look at the infrastructure. >> but a lot of countries have been through this. so you have a path you can follow. we talked about yield increasing. we talked about food stocks being wasted around the world. before i go to the audience, another big issue, another solution which we need -- another problem we need to solve, besides these two? >> well, there's one problem i want to talk about in terms of production. and that is addressing what people produce. studies find that often women are not the ones. women do the bulk of the production. we must pu that on the table.

but very often the extension advice and the targeting of new ideas don't go to them. if you make sure that those who are actually growing and working the crops are the ones who are receiving these. you can get up to 20% more yield in some cases by working with them. so we have to put that on the table. women must be at the center of this as far as the african countries are concerned. >> more studies show the highest return of investment is in human capital of women. >> but in addition to that, i don't think we should get fixated on the production alone. i want to come back to something that was said in terms of distribution. what we talked about this morning. you can find in the same country that there is enough food but you can't get it from one part of the country to another. so we must -- you know, most of the time we talk of increasing output. but many finds you have farmers who have produced but the country can't get it from one part.

and then worldwide. sometimes it's not fact that there's a shortage but trade barriers and protectionism and, you know, just the feeling of insecurity about feeding your own population. also stop one country from sending food. look at what happened during the food crisis. we found that food markets were very thin. you just couldn't get food -- some countries -- ukraine had five million tons of wheat. and in the end it was able to send some out to the market and prices began to come down. so we must look at those as factors as well. >> any other questions from the audience? one at the back on the left there, and one here. if we can get the mikes there, please. introduce yourself and a quick question. >> thank you very much. andrew, director of the risk science center at the university of michigan. we hear a lot of talk about challenges requiring solutions and a lot of talk bin yo

racings. -- about innovations. what we don't hear about is how to get from point a to point b. so how do you get those innovations to the people in the field that really need to use them? >> let me give an example where the pieces came together. there's a lot of these institutes, the cjir institutes, that do basic crop research. and the green revolution worked -- largely came out of the fact that they got fund and worked with the in country organizations. recently one of those, based in the philippines -- it's the rice organization. it found a gene that if the rice was flooded allowed the rice to stay there and whether the flood would go away, it would keep growing where as normally if you get flooding, the rice just

dies. they were able to take this gene and put it into the different variety very rapidly. and now the poorest rice farmers where the rain fed, nonirrigation rice farmers, are getting huge benefits from that. it used the latest technology that is the sequencing in order to understand that they were taking just this one characterristic from this one rice that could withstand submerge yens and putting it into these very high-yielding varieties that people liked. so you were just getting the good coming from that. so it's a great model for how whether it's disease resistance or drought resistance or salt tolerance, almost a dozen things we need to go after. how you can move quickly, get it into the research, get it through the national organizations and promote it to the farmers, which is this extension service government excellence.

this one, did a great job and it's now being done in africa as well. >> i think it's very important that these examples, success examples, everybody gets to know them and they are disseminated well. there's a question here on the left. yes, sir? >> a large percentage, perhaps a majority, of the world's farmers don't have secure legal rights at the time land that they farm. and without that don't have the appropriate incentives and can't also access credit easily. this is especially true for women farmers. what role does getting land rights have in feeding the world? >> anybody particularly want to take that? >> there's people that we funded a couple of organizations that are completely focused on that issue. there's some reasonable progress being made on it. it varies country by country. i don't know, tanzania and

vietnam, is that an issue for you? >> in vietnam, is it an issue? land rights, that people don't have rights to their land and therefore they're insecure and don't invest as much as they would otherwise or produce as much? >> in vietnam every farmer in vietnam produces on their own land. they have the right to use the land. it is the driving force to develop agriculture production. >> it is true that if people don't have land rights it becomes impossible for them to get bank loans. what we try to do is when you

use the normal system of the land surveys, it's very expensive to take the surveyor to the farms. so what we've been trying to do, of course, this is through the model developed. in the villages -- in the villages we have the land registry. so we have now been training people in the villages, those who have gone to secondary school, how to use the g.p.s. so if somebody would come to my farm, stands in this corner, he writes the coordinants, gets to the next corner, the other one and the other one so through this process, we are doing nothing. and it is done by the villages themselves. and then through that they have a complete map of the

allocation. the other thing that we have done, the ability that have been empowered to issue land certificates, and the certificates issued by the villages are recognized by the government, transferred to the national -- >> are you computerizing a lot of this? >> yes? >> is a lot of it being computerized? >> now we ever said to the state that we have no movement of the computerization so that at the village level when they computerize -- of course it's a question of building the capacities. but it's one of the areas that we have given its priority. we have now almost about 3,000. so we are doing this. in some of the villages, in some of the districts where pez yachts have their land certificate, they use it toñrq loans from banks.ñi

and then i was told already the farmers there have accessible $5 million in bank loans for their agricultural activity. it is helped to do it much easier at the village level. >> can i ask you, we move on to prices. that's the second big issue which we find that farmers really don't get rewarding prices. it's not a very profitable area to be in. there's less investment. one of the factors we see in developing countries is that urban -- for the urban middle class so vocal and so politically strong that food prices are kept low to keep them happy. and the farmers lose out. of course, in india, since we have elections so often and farms, they do have to consider those as well. but the other issue is what the

west is doing on prices. huge subsidies in europe and in america to formers who are keeping world prices down which means developing countries farmers can't get a decent price for their produce. and if those sub as subsidies e removed, prices went up, farmers got a good return to their investment. wouldn't that help productivity? prices, how do we ensure farmers get better prices? >> one thing that i think someone said earlier is that when it comes to food productivity and supporting one's rural communities and economies associated with food production, countries tend to look inward. that sometimes flies in the face of world trade issues and one who believes in global trade. it doesn't mean you always find open trade even though you may believe in it. one thing about pricing that may help in this perspective is that

even when you see high prices, the correction for high prices is generally the high price because it drives more supply. what we saw with the recent high prices and maybe the answer is we are in a period of volatility which will be with us forever so that means high and low, highs and dips. but high prices drove farmers in the most productive regions of the world to plant more. so supply is increasing. and one thing about agriculture is it renews it self every harvest, every cycle. >> do you think the west should stop subsidizing their farmers? >> i think there will be continued discussion with open trade. [laughing] >> you believe in open trade in everything else but this is? >> i still believe in it. i believe in it. i believe that countries, though, will continue -- >> patricia just raised the issue of volatility. it's not just prices. it's the risk of farming. the risk of weather, risk of prices. both out of the control of the

farmer. how do you combat that double problem of low prices and high risk? in farming. >> well, i think that we have to be thinking of agriculture differently. bill gates said we should think innovation, innovation. and i think i agree. innovation is not only in the area of production but also innovation is in the area of financial instruments. that could be used to help farmers and countries manage volatility. and i think we need to think about that. we have been working at the world bank with swiss re and we did a small thing in malaui to manage the risk of drought and floods and so on. where by, you know, if there's an occurrence, you know, they

can get some payment back which they can then use to help the farmers. we must think of those kinds of instruments. even in haiti today. >> some kind of insurance. >> insurance-based products that can be used to help farmers. >> but vietnam, how do you compensate farmers for this high-risk of a bad monsoon or particularly a drought? >> vietnam, the farmers are given the certificate of land. and they can use that certificate of land to secure bank loans. and when we suffer from losses such as the loss in the crop, they will then be fed the subsidies from the government.

assistance from the government. i would like to mention that to increase the yield of the food in this world, one very important issue is that we need the community, international community, to be committed to eliminate the maximum, the tariff barriers. especially developed countries used to elements with no conditions. the sub as i had whys -- subsidies for the domestic agriculture. and only then can we encourage countries to produce agriculture and to enhance agriculture productivity. and i will call on developing countries, developed countries, importing and exporting countries, to show the good wills to put aside differences so that they work together to finalize within this year. and as we finalize, that is a very good condition for us to promote the agriculture yield in

the world. >> can you stop your subsidies and open up trade in agriculture products? do you see that happening? can there be a targ senate five -- a target? five years, 10 years? >> these issues have been with us quite a while. i fear there is no easy answer, that it's going to take a while to work it out. that's where i go back to productivity and technology. because i think part of the issue is getting more equalization and output around the world in certain crops. we have a huge disparity now. in africa an acre produces 17% of what an acre in the united states produces. when you have that kind of disparity, you get those protectionist tendencies. so i think working on equalizing that is one of the areas that can really help in terms of stabilizing from the standpoint of countries turning inward and

looking to protect themselves. >> and bill gates, looking at this end of the telescope, we look at the west, these huge subsidies. it's like the west say,ing, ok, we're giving these huge subsidies, we're ruining the markets, they're reducing prices. give us some other solution on how to help agriculture. how we will undo this mess? >> the subsidies of the west, there's some of that that distorts prices and reduces developing opportunities. mostly it's just a waste of money. >> right. >> and some small percentage of that if it went to donor aid to help bootstrap the investments the farmers need make that would pay off in terms of nutrition and livelyhoods and getting rid of starvation. one group that we've reached out to is the private sector. i think almost all the companies

involved in food in any way, at the world economic forum, we have some type of partnership with. we're working with cocoa farmers. what they were making couldn't be put on to the international market. the quality, the storage wasn't right. we're working on coffee which africa can make very good coffee but it's not sorted in the right way. rice, nigeria imports rice even though it should be growing its own rice. with coca-cola, we have a fruit effort where it's in kenya and tanzania to take passion fruit, mango fruit, and get them to store it in the right way where they can access the market. so getting them further up the value chain and making sure that the price gets down to them is a much higher percentage. there's going to have to be some funding. but the returns on this funding is really quite phenomenal. >> any questions on pricing,

gentlemen at the back there? on pricing? >> well, to the extend that in the short-term the likelihood of withdrawal of subsidies is not something on which we can expect very quick answers. and considering the fact that the present -- [inaudible] will remain for a while, what other steps can be considered to get countries out of the mindset in terms of self-reliance which can allow for the global forces, the present spike in prices which we see? >> bill gates, you wanted to answer that? >> one of the big food buyers in the world is the world food program. they do a great job.

donors have often forced them to take the food from the rich countries instead of donating money and allowing the crops in nearby african countries to be purchased and increased in the capacity there and having lower transport costs. there's been some progress in reforming this so the countries give more money. and there's been some evert. we've given a lot of money to world food programs so they're working with the local farmers so they can qualify for those purchase programs. so africa needs to open up trade within africa. there's still quite a few barriers, whether it's policies or infrastructure, that prevent that from working well. >> i think in addition to all of that, we have to look beyond aid. i don't think, you know, aid can solve these problems. we have to really encouragement investment. ok? so if the private sector, if we

can't get the subsidies down, it's going to take time -- as the prime minister of vietnam pleaded, to get the tariffs down, get the subsidies down. at least the private sector could come to those countries. when they create the right environment to invest. and when you invest, you can have many -- many countries have enough space and room that can you have good commercial agriculture and small agriculture side by side. in fact, they can work in such a way that benefits the small farmers, benefit from the private sector fund that sets us and serves as, you know, an -- develops to provide, you know, sort of a market and a distribution channel for the small farmers. it can work. you know? so all i say is we need that investment. you know? so enough talk already. those who want to help, come and invest. [applause]

>> right. vietnam, a question. with all the increase in production, efficiency and innovation. but i don't see by 2050 we have enough food. do you see there's more conflict if there's not enough? if there's not enough in food production, would that create conflict? >> there's technologies today that we and others in the industry are working on that, for instance, can increase the yield in soy40% over the next eight to 10 years. that's just what we know today. and there's research program that continue in many of these areas. and not only on just the general yield but the conditions in which they operate, being able to grow in drought conditions, being able to use less nitrogen and to really create some efficiency. so what we know today can get us at least half the way there. and i think the investments that the industry is making will continue to produce results.

the question then is, first one that came, how do you get it to the market? because, you know, as we go into countries in africa, and we're working on a local basis, you can create real progress. but how do you leverage that across a larger area faster? you know? we've been working in west africa, with africa harvest, west african seed association. we've worked to create four local seed companies. they're locally owned. they've trained right now close to 2,000 farmers. but how you do that a take that, one small area, and leverage it? that's the issue that we're coming up against. how do you get up that curve very quickly? >> patricia, mr. gates also talked about this, going up the value chain. apart from normal tariffs, the other barriers like standards. what kind of standards do you use? now we're seeing a lot of private standards.

you have wal-mart standard, you have somebody -- it kind ever prevents economies of scale. if you have a lot of private parties setting their own standards, is it time for more of a global body that sets the basic standards at least and across that you can export? >> well, perhaps a quick description, a.d.m. as a company is neither a retailer -- a retail food manufacturer nor a producer. we're kind of working in that space between taking the global harvest to the food producers. and, frankly, the not only standards by particular retailers which you comment on but even standards by countries. we talked earlier about g.m.o. to have so segregate or the need to segregate crops and different aspects to get them to market because of the differences across countries or regions is probably the first process to solve. >> some unification on standards is needed.

>> but then you think through the consumer side. probably that's where you want choice. you want some differences. you want people to have the opportunity to choose different types of foods. >> a lot of the innovations and standards have come from the private sectors. >> they have. >> can you have a global basic standard and innovate privately about that? or something. because at the moment it's chaos. >> well, i wouldn't go with chaos. i would say there's a lot more problems that we've been talking about solving before the standards of that. >> for an exporter, it's a big issue. they say, oh, well you didn't meet this particular standard, we can't import you. the gentleman there. >> jeff from canada. the opening question seemed to be how will we feed the population. the entire focus has been on production. it seems to me what we've missed in the conversation is the issue of obesity and the fact that there are more people obese in the world today than there are malnutritioned so if you combine the fact that we produce enough food globally right now to feed

the world if we deal with our waste problems and with the issue of obesity, we may solve the problem very quickly. >> eat the right kind of food. that's not food, it's nutrition. that's a point. gentlemen? >> thank you very much. steve schneider, climate scientist from stanford university. so how could i not ask a climate question which has to do with price? one of the things we expect as climate changes since we can't predict the details, only the general trends, is there could be a further increase in volatility. not just year-to-year but also in the distribution of where it's produced from especially north south. the south being more disadvantaged. one way that can you ensure against that volatility is through food reserves. we've learned that a long time ago. i wrote a book in 1976 called "the genesis strategy." remember joseph in egypt saved the green. it was violently opposed by the

midwest because they thought that green reserves were going to drive down prices, yet it also provide a measure of security. so the question i have then is, how do you want to deal with the tradeoff between production incentives and having a safe set of storage and who should have the storage and what should the rules be for its release? >> good question. everybody seems to be thinking about it. would you like to take that? >> i'm just trying to think, you know, of how -- you could think of various ways of dealing with this. we actually have an expert on this issue in this audience. and i think we should call on him to answer it. he's sitting right there. he's done a lot of work thinking about the issue of grain reserves. so instead of quoting him, let

him speak for himself. [laughing] >> thank you, ngozi. remember the situation in 2008? production problems led to nervousness in markets. prices increased. speculation set in. borders were closed. markets failed. the countries tried to build their own stocks country by country. that's very inefficient so what we have been arranging for is a system of shared global reserves combined with a virtual reserve. so not a pile of grain but a pot of money which can be mobilized through appropriately regulated commodity exchanges to engage in

preventing price spikes. not general stabilization schemes. we had those in the past. price spikes, prevention schemes which prevents spikes. >> what about if there's a drought? you could draw on those reserves as well? >> if the drought is large and international or regional price goes through the roof, yes, of course. >> let's get to the final stage. we've only got a few minutes left. ask each one of the panelists to talk about goals that should be set. this morning we talked about setting big goals. one suggested that there should be no child with malnutrition by 2025. or some particular year. is that a feasible? or any other big goals that each one ever you could set as an agenda? >> actually, i wasn't the one.

the head of the world programs and said -- maybe if we said ourselves -- set ourselves some big goals and then we can work towards that. i agree with that. >> give us one goal that we should have. >> that's a good one. why not? you know, by 2020, we shouldn't have any child who is hungry or malnourished. and then we can go from the obese children and obese people. you know, to those who are skinny -- well, they may be skinny, healthy, but those who don't have enough to eat. that means we have to solve this problem of distribution of food. not just production. >> if you have a goal, then a whole lot of things fall into place. >> fall into place. so that's a good one. no children should be hungry. >> i think you have to break it down. so i would suggest a goal, you know -- talk sub suharant

africa, production in a reasonable amount of time, in 10 years. >> bill gates, a goal that you'd like to see? >> yeah. one way to look at this is from the point of view of the small holder farmer. the majority of the truly impoverished are smaller farmers. so if you have a goal of doubling their income so that they have enough to feed themselves, enough to sell some to make some money and therefore break the cycle where they can't afford the fertilize sore they don't buy the fert sizer, so they -- the fertilizer, so they don't have the money in the future. there's a real bootstrp -- i'm a broken record on this. this is very effective aid helping these small holders get out of this. it's got to start. i'd say doubling those incomes should be a goal. >> doubling the incomes of small farmers in the next 10 years or 15 years? >> exactly. >> excellent.

>> well, let me say that let the world have a goal of looking at africa as the place or the continent that can feed the world. right now, as i said, land is there, climate is conducive, water is available. so what is required is technology available, make football resources available to farmers in africa so that they can increase their productivity and their production, they'll be able to feed themselves, and they'll be able to feed the world. if at the moment a family in

africa produces for two people, food to feed two people, or the family in europe produced to feed 150 people, just imagine if could you also augment that capacity to feed 150 people this world would have no problem of hunger and malnutrition. [applause] >> the greatest potential for change. >> the potential is there. that's why i'm saying, feed ourselves now and in the many years in the future. >> patricia? >> well, i'm also optimistic. i believe that the bigger goals are the great ones. but breaking it down to build on a point. we've talked about productivity. we've talked about the small holder farmer. i'd like to see a doubling of investment in agricultural infrastructure and not just in the developing countries but also the developed ones which

we've sometimes ignored. and on the other side i'd like to see a halving or a cut in half the amount of post agricultural waste. so if the average is 10% to 20%, we should be able to take that down by half. >> so bring down post harvest waste from 20% to 10%. that will release a huge amount of food. >> and increase -- >> and double the investment two goals for the price of one. >> i believe that the decrease in post harvest by half in the next 10 years is very feasible. in vietnam, 20 years earlier, the post harvest image is 20%. now the post harvest damage is only 10%.

so that means it's totally feasible. i would like to repeat that to ensure enough food for the world there are many solutions that many of you have offered. but i would like to emphasize that only when we can eliminate trade barriers, eliminate protectionism, eliminate subsi subsidies on no conditions, only then can we ensure food for the world. thank you. >> i think the panel deserves a round of applause. thank you all very much. and thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> in a few moments democratic senator evan bayh of indiana announceses that he won't run for re-election this year. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 eastern with your calls and segments on highway spending, the use of predator drones, and how unemployment affects american life. >> a couple of live events to tell you about this morning. the peterson pew commission looks at government debt and fiscal policy. that's on c-span2 at 9:00 eastern. here on c-span at 10:30 eastern, the funeral service for pennsylvania congressman john murtha who died last week. and members of congress and military leaders.

democratic senator evan bayh of indiana announced yesterday that he won't run for re-election this year. the two-term incumbent spoke with reporters in indianapolis for 10 minutes. [applause] >> thank you very much. and thank you all for joining us today. i know how busy you are. i'm very grateful to you for taking the time to be with us. i'd like to begin by acknowledge something people to whom i owe a great debt of gratitude. first my wife susan. for 25 years she's stood by myself and without whose love and support, so much i've been privileged to accomplish would never have been possible. as my father told me on the day we were married, "son, you definitely married up." i love you, sweetheart.

[applause] second, my wonderful boys, bo and nick, who i love so much and of whom i am so proud. being their father is the most important job i will ever have. next, my staff members, many of whom are assembled in the room here today, both past and present who have worked so hard and sacrificed so much for the people of our state. there is not one that couldn't have made more money or worked fewer hours doing something else. they have always managed to make me look much better than i deserve. most importantly i am grateful to the people of indiana who for almost a quarter century placed their trust and welfare in my hands. no one could ask for a better boss or a greater honor. i was raised in a family that believes that public service is the highest calling in the church. so what matders is not what you take from life but what you give

back. i believe that still. for almost all of my adult life i've been privileged to serve the people of indiana in elective office. as secretary of state i worked to reform our election laws to ensure that every vote counts. i cast the deciding vote in the closest congressional race in the nation for a member of the other political party because i believed that he had legitimately won the election. as governor, i worked with an outstanding team to balance the budget, cut taxes, leave the largest surplus in state history, create the most new jobs during any eight-year period, increase funding for schools every year, make college more affordable, and reform welfare to emphasize work. we raised water quality standards, create moored state parks than -- created more state parks, and raise th -- raised te penalties for violent crime. i have worked with hoosier workers and businesses large and small in the defense sector, the

life sciences, the medical device industry, autos, steel, recreational vehicle manufacturing, and many, many more to save and create new jobs. since 9/11 i fought to make our nation safe with a national security policy that is both tough and smart. i champion the cause of our soldiers to make sure they have the equipment they need in battle and the health care they deserve when they return home. i have often been a lonely voice for balancing the budget and restraining spending. i work with democrats, republicans, and independents alike to do the nation's business in a way that is civil and constructive. i'm fortunate to have good friends on both sides of the aisle, something that's much too rare in washington today. after all of these years my passion for service to our fellow citizens is undiminished but my desire to do so by serving in congress has waned. for sometime i've had a growing conviction that congress is not

operating as it should. there is much too much partisanship and not enough progress, too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem solving. even at a time of enormous national challenge, the people's business is not getting done. examples of this are legion but two recent ones will suffice. the senate voted down a bipartisan commission to deal with one of the greatest threats facing our nation, our exploding deaf sits and debt. the measure would have passed, but seven members who endorsed the idea actually co-sponsored the legislation, instead vote nod for short-term political reasons. just last week a major piece of legislation to create new jobs, our nation's top priority today, fell apart amidst complaints from both the left and the right. all of this and much more has led me to believe that there are better ways to serve my fellow citizens, my beloved state, and our nation than continued service in congress. to put it in words i think most

people can understand, i love working for the people of indiana. i love helping our citizens make the most of their lives. but i do not love congress. i will not, therefore, be a candidate for re-election to the united states senate this november. my decision should not be interpreted for more than it is, a very difficult, deeply personal one. i am an executive at heart. i value my independence. i am not motivated by strident partisanship or ideology. these trades may be useful in many walks of life. but unfortunately they are not highly valued in congress. my decision should not reflect adversely upon my colleagues who continue to serve in the senate. while the institution is in need of significant reform, there are many wonderful people there. the public would be surprised and pleased to know that those who served them in the senate, despite their policy and political differences, are unfailingly hard-working and

devoted to the public good as they see it. i will miss them. i particularly value my relationship with senator dick luger, and i have often felt that if all senators could have the cooperative relationship we enjoy, the institution would be a better place. my decision should not reflect adversely upon our president. i look forward to working with him during the next 11 months to get our deficit under control, get the economy moving once again, regulate wall street, and reform our education so that all of our children can fulfill their god-given potential. this is the right agenda for america. my decision was not motivated by political concern. even in the current challenging political environment i am confident in my prospects for re-election. five times over the last 24 years i have been honored by the people of indiana with electoral success. but running for the sake of

winning an election just to remain in public office is not good enough and has never been what hasñr motivated me. at this time i simply believe that i can best contribute to society in another way, creating jobs by helping to glow a business -- grow a business, helping guide an institution to better educate our children, or helping run a philanthropic endeavor. in closing let me say this. words cannot convey nor can i adequately express my gratitude to the great people of indiana. i will never forget those i have been pric proif ledged to served those -- privileged to serve and those who have so kindly support me. i have always remembered that my job is to work for hoosiers, not the other way around. i am constantly reminded that if washington, d.c. could be more like indiana, washington would be a better place. lastly, let me reiterate my deep

and abiding love for our country and my optimism for our future. these are difficult times for america. it is true. but we have seen difficult days before. and we will see better days to come. with all of our faults we are an exceptional nation. i look forward to continuing to do my part to meet the challenges we face as a private citizen to work for solutions not slogans, progress not politics so that our generation can do what americans have always done, convey to our children an america that is stronger, more prosperous, more decent and more just. thank you all again. may god bless you all. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> "washington journal" is next with the day's news and your phone calls and we'll have live coverage of the funeral service for pennsylvania congressman john murtha at 10:30 eastern. .