multipliers, which means that the banks with these huge amounts of asset also start to make loans, this is going to create an increase. ultimately, it's going to be able to move the system away from this environment. it is in that type of environment, which we have to be very much concerned about all of a sudden, the psychology turning quickly we don't realize how fast that can happen. you remember. . .

>> i think that is the right thing to do for the average but in my experience, and i think the experience of all those who put these transfers together, our ability to forecast is very poor. we do not have a reasonable set of notions of what the cost of medicare is going to be.

10 or 15 years from now. we make the estimates but they are based on small samples of various tests. the extraordinary change that is going on and innovation in the medical system -- and remember, innovation by definition is not a forecastable. the quality of medical care is improving trade very dramatically. what do you do with the number of transplants that will start to occur? but will become a routine operation but they are very expensive. we have the potential here of having a very small capability of forecasting within a narrow range. if we are in the current position where the federal debt is rapidly closing in on the level of our capacity to borrow

, for the first time since 1791, we are beginning to see a real serious questions as to whether we will run into serious problems in that area. i find that very worrisome if at the same time, there is a very major question about the rage, forget the statistics, look at public policy in this area. what happens if your forecast is wrong? in this particular instance, with the buffer gradually moving closer to us, rapid or slow, it is gradual, we have to be in a position where if we make a mistake and we underestimate any significant manner with the

upside is, that is extremely dangerous. if we're wrong the down side, we can adjust to that. we are not confronting the issue of how we take the current services budget, but on programs and make adjustments. we have to keep in mind that there is a cost benefit analysis and policy -- on policy which requires that we focus on the notion of trying to make certain that the catastrophic event is not happening. that means, to me, we have to not always curtail expenditures or reduce the budget deficit that we are projecting but estimated much lower deficit than we are likely -- then that is likely to happen. >> how long would you guess

that we have before there is truly a significant interest in crease in long-term rates? if you have always been an expert in constructive ambiguity. you make up this question but i think people are interested in knowing how long we have before something major happens. >> this is clearly something more than a guess. i will tell you what i look at every morning. i look at the yield the 10-year note which has been under 10% for quite awhile. that is extraordinarily low in this environment. the canary in the coal mine, so to speak, is the 10-year note

and the 30-year bond. if they start to move up in a significant manner, that is suggested that we are in trouble. -- suggested that we are in trouble. once that starts to happen, we will not be able to head that off. i think we have one year. this deflationary is not yet turned around. we have deflationary pressures. the rest of the world is beginning to move. east asia is doing exceptionally well. even latin america -- brazil is doing well and the remainder of latin america is doing well. we are doing okay. the american and economy is accelerating faster / -- the american economy is accelerating faster. europe will have a major problem with the exchange rate and other problems.

japan is coming back and everybody is coming back, but there are laggards. the problem is getting closer and closer to where the deflationary will be behind us and that the real issue of inflation begins to rise which, paul volcker said, you cannot have a system where you have large deficits, but very large expansion in the monetary base, and not altogether inflation. it has never happened. >> what can the fed to do about some of these long-range problems? >> it is mainly out of the hands of the federal reserve in the sense that these are very deep- seated, political, cultural problems. what bothers me specifically is that in recent months we are

exhibiting an absolute inability to cut anything. the c-17 which is a great cargo plane, we have too many of them according to the air force. they are trying to cut back and they are running into difficulties. the other day the space program had some cuts and everyone started to grumble. the thing which bothers me the most in this game playing is the issue of financing the consumer protection agency with federal reserve funds. the reason they are doing that is it appears to be unappropriated funds and it does not affect the budget deficit. that is not like getting pay-go which was not required for that operation. if2u you funded the consumer protection agency with federal

reserve revenues, those revenues are also available to be paid to the treasury and therefore, you have a reduction in receipts and it doesn't appear to be attributable to the consumer protection agency. we have so many of these gimmicks we are using which we just refused to cut back on anything. i think i am beginning to hear that there is a recognition of this. the startling fact is though willingness to put a cut back on the table. >> given my greek descent, have been reluctant to bring up greece in this session. is there anything in the greek situation that in any way

suggest parallels between us? what do you take out of what is happening there? >> they are all parallels and there are significant differences. let me tell you the different as quickly. the greeks situation is one in which there has been profligate deficits for years. when they went to the euro, the presumption was and it happened that exchanging the drop, for the euro would lower their interest rates and it did. what it also did which is the other side of the balance sheet is essentially to raise the basic exchange rate to wake non- competitive level because as inflation is more rampant in greece and germany, they will get -- increased than germany,

they will get a non-competitive level. this is creating a major problem. clearly, we are not in that position where we have a fixed exchange rate. we have a variable exchange rate. we do it with extraordinary access to the rest of the world's savings because we are the reserve currency. but what the greek situation suggests is that major civilized country can get itself into the types of things we are beginning to see in the united states. i cannot conceive of anything you can recommend at this particular point which would cut spending. there's even a problem in the unemployment insurance benefits. i can't get through a longer- term protection because they cannot find the funds under pay-

go to meet the demands. it strikes me that the reason they cannot get funds is they use those funds for something else. we had originally agreed upon that. we are coming essentially to a bankrupt process which has to give. i am fearful because, as everybody has noted, medical care is the 800-pound gorilla in the system. we have to shrink that in some form or another. i must admit that i cannot come out and say other than we are committed for more resources than we physically have and that means we have to ration. maybe we need to change the word

so it becomes politically acceptable but we do this in lots of different ways. you cannot have a fee for service subsidized third party system. people will find it is important to be in a position where if you get the medical care they want, there is a value. it is part of gdp and it should be. there is no question that there are very large parts of the gdp going to medical care. capital resources are in medical services. they are not simultaneously available for other aspects of the economic growth. since our growth is limited to, we have to recognize that demand

a number of things that are important to us, if you add them up, we don't have the resources to do them all. we have to make choices. >> i heard that something like 5/6 of our health care expenditures, the consumer has no particular knowledge of what the costs are and no particular incentive to reduce them. does that fit into your concept of the culture we have? >> the question enters itself in the sense that essentially what the nature of what's wrong with the system is that there is no effective russian mechanism -- effective ration mechanism in our system. we know we cannot get growth in our economy from productivity of more than 3% per year for any period.

if you go back, back to 1870, we have never had a. in the united states, very few periods where output per hour grew more than 3% over a 15- year period or less than 1% over a 15-year period. that tells us something about our out economy and culture and technology works. we are at the cutting edge of technology and therefore we cannot borrow productivity and technology like the chinese can do from us and go much faster than we do. we do not have the capability, considering the fact that we know within a reasonably narrow level what the working population will be in two dozen 30 and therefore what the labour force will be.

there is a much larger requirement and would be consistent with stability in that limited overall real gdp concept. that is what our problem is. medical care is an extraordinarily high valued product as ever was demonstrating. so is food. so as clothing, so are other things. we have to make choices. our political system does not seem to be able to make choices. that is the reason why the commission works and if they can put everything on the table and the president will support what they do, i grant you that the odds are still small because it

will be very tough. i wish them well. >> speaking of the commission, you have a successful experience. what are the parallels you see between your commission and this one? you have alan simpson and erskine were here, what advice would you give them? >> there is an important reason with a commissioned work and others don't. if you have a commission which starts off and deliberate right point and gives it to congress, you get immediate reaction from the congress about all things. when you explain it to them, it doesn't make sense but they take a position. what has evolved is that we recognize this is a

controversial issue and unless we have a bipartisan agreement, it would not work. what happened was bob ball who was an important analyst and social security commissioner many years ago -- he was tip o'neill's man on the commission. k)ñi was president reagan and jm baker's man on the commission. the two of us worked together exceptionally well. we kept our superiors fully informed as to what was going on. as the commission made progress and was coming to agreement, we brought the key political

people involved to make certain that we could get support. at the end of the day, we can together with dissenting votes. bob ball and didecideand i decid that we would stipulate this is not amendable recommendation. take-it-or-leave-it. i would answer questions to bob from the republicans and he would answer questions from the democrats. eventually, the bill went through the congress very closely in line with what the commission stipulated. if there is a lesson to learn it is that there is no such thing as an independent commission. that doesn't link itself of bad real time to the political mechanism. i would very much suggest to

the go-ahead to know more about this than i could ever know -- co-heads who know more about this that i ever could know, make sure that the president and the senior people are on board. if they are not in agreement, the commission will write an interesting report and every one may read it, it will get good press, and that it will go on the shelf for posterity. >> my final questionu -- you hae been involved with social security for 30 years or more. we heard some people say that the trust fund will keep the system solvent for 30 years or more. and that it has $2.50 trillion

assets in it. what would you say about the statements and more generally, what is the economic significance of the trust fund? if the american people believe we do not have a problem for 30 years, it would seem to me they are unlikely to support reform. if there is no problem, why do you need a solution? >> that is a valid question. >> why don't you help straighten this out. >> let's remember that unlike trust funds which are off budget. we have seen them in the public and private sector. that is not what the social security trust fund is. start with the promise that what the law stipulates is that in the event that the trust fund goes to zewro, the social security administration can only

take benefits to the extent of dedicated payroll taxes come in. that means a significant cut in deficits. the probability of this political context, the difficulties of cutting, the possibility of that actually happening zero and a by rebutted i would say the zero is too high. what to start with the princess, -- was to tour with that premise, -- when you start with that premise, when you have bill level of -- when the benefits are below the tax, there is no problem. it is when benefits begin to rise above the taxes that you get a reduction in the trust

fund. if you get down to zero and in fact general revenues are put back into the fund, you are doing exactly what the fiscal situation would do if the social security trust fund never existed. what you are doing is the congress votes a level of benefits and a effectively guarantee it. whether they are using taxes or general revenues is difficult to tell because they are intermixed. effectively, the issue of the trust fund does not change any action that anybody is taking. if there is a trust fund and is

guaranteed so when it runs out, it gets replenished, what is happening is that the shortfall is meant by marketable securities being sold for cash to get the money to pay the benefits. that is what happens with or without the trust funds. since it makes no difference, the trust fund has no economic vúñsignificance from accounting point of view. if you wanted a trust fund which was off budget, it has to have non-federal assets senate, mainly municipal securities or more generally, private securities because if you have receipts of the dedicated taxes falling below the benefits, you can draw on those assets. that action does not affect the unified budget. >> in other words, for it to

have economic significance, to make sure i understand you, you would need assets that were really independent of some sort. >> yes, they cannot be merely obligations or guaranteed obligations of the united states government. it is the same thing as a corporation which has a company transfer. a consolidated basis it washes out. on the consolidated unified basis, the trust fund washes out. >> mr. chairman, i am grateful to you that i am giving you 20 strokes. [laughter] >> 21 fa? >> you would normally as paper, the halls and the answer is 21,000. thank you very much. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> much has been said today about seeking a consensus on the fiscal challenge. we have at least one model to provide partial agreement to tell you about. the roles -- the results are in a survey of the most senior economic officials from the lastw?] eight administrations ad congressional leaders from the last 30 years. the respondents were asked about the challenges posed by our long-term structural deficits as well as possible solutions and the outcome was something we have not expiries in washington in a long time, a consensus. here to tell us more is jeff pollack of the opinion research firm that carry out the survey, global strategy group.

♪ [applause] >> thank you very much and thank you for having me here. i will show you the results of the survey that we conducted. there we go. let me begin by talking about what we did. sorry, could you go back please? we conducted a survey whereby we talked to some of the nation's foremost economic thinkers. we compiled a list of folks in the last decade who were still alive and who were not currently serving in office in any way.

all the titles you can see there in terms of the kind of folks we talked to, secretaries of the treasury, people from the legislative and executive branches. we are talking about folks who were directors of omd, the council of economic advisers. when you look at that list of titles, is an impressive list of people. if you take column, it is over 100 people over the last number of decades. we sent to survey out to them and got a response back from 58 people perry the response we got -- the response we got -- one high level official forgot to send one page and that we got a frantic phone call and they want to fax it to us. people care about results. let's go through some of them.

first and foremost, we have divided them up by republicans and democrats. we wanted to show what people who were part of republican or democratic administrations believe. we found that there is absolutely bipartisan consensus on everything, every metric we measured. for example, we ask the question if you agree or disagree that if we do not address the long-term fiscal situation, we are heading for another economic crisis. republican was 63 percent strongly agree and democrats 71%. overwhelmingly, over 90% of both agreed. there is unanimous 100% of both republicans and democrats said that the federal government is currently on an unsustainable fiscal path. in addition, they all feel that the long-term structural

deficits that we face are far more the crisis than we need to focus on a short-term crisis. next, what you see is we asked people a couple of different things about timing. people think that the economic crisis we are facing will happen sometime in the next 3-10 years. more impressively, 92% of republicans and 82% of democrats say we must take action in the next one-two years. even though they know it's coming and the crisis is coming later, they believe we have to take action now. both sides of the aisle agree. we also asked people what they thought if we failed to enact meaningful measures in order to address the structural deficit, what is likely to encounter? bipartisan agreement, 80% of

republicans and 71% of democrats say we could see rapid growth in federal spending, a rise in interest rates, a decline in the u.s. standard of living. it is an impressively high number of people who say this is very likely, not just likely, but very likely. that intensity is important. there is a creek bed across the board that so many things are problems that are coming if we do not address the shortly. in one of the most important findings, so many times in washington we find somebody thinks about different things like tax cuts and spending cuts. we can see that the answer is that both are absolutely necessary. among democrats, 88% but even among republicans, more than

2/3, 68%. some other things that people agree with, 100% agree we need to seriously consider overall spending cuts. we need to consider entitlement reforms like social security and medicare and medicaid reforms. we also have to reform our tax code. one under% of republicans and 94% of democrats agree. -- 100% of republicans and 94% of democrats agree. they also agree we need to consider tax increases as a part of things. all options have to be on the table. the economic leaders who have been a part of our nation and watched where we are going and have been a part of what we're doing and see where we're going, the universally agree we have to address these things now and we

need bipartisan agreement and all sides of the table and that fits in perfectly with what the commission is doing today. i would like to thank you for giving me this time. [applause] >> it is now my pleasure to not only introduce but backed david walker, our president and ceo, who i call an energizer bunny. he has made hundreds of speeches around the country. he has done all kinds of op-ed articles and tv interviews and so forth.

this is a testimony to the death of his -- the depth that his marriage has survived a desperate we want to express our deep appreciation to you for all you have done on behalf of the country. i know your previous experience as comptroller general is more evidence that you are an american patriot. is my pleasure to introduce david walker [applause] >> thank you very much and let me thank you for your generosity in putting your money where your mouth is and your time or your heart lies with regard to federal fiscal responsibility, trying to make sure it is not an oxymoron. we are approaching the end of this conference at the want to thank everybody who participated

throughout the day. we have heard many perspectives and opinions from a variety of players across the political spectrum. that is exactly as it should be. as americans, we not only speak our minds about governance and policy challenges facing this country, we also understand that freedom of speech is an essential part of our democracy. as has been discussed, part of this conference, the peterson foundation solicited views on a range of timely fiscal issues. the results were revealing than the critical importance these bipartisan top officials from the past several decades reached unanimous agreement that our federal government is on an unsustainable fiscal path. these top economic officials believe that the united states will ultimately face a major economic crisis if we fail to

address our structural deficit, mounting debt burdens, and imprudent reliance on foreign lenders. there was also strong bipartisan agreement that everything must be on the table. this includes but the controls, the social insurance reform, defense and other spending constraints, and additional revenues. during the summit, we heard a number of people reinforce these important survey findings. this includes the fact that the real problem is our structural deficit and not the short-term deficit. we heard from former president clinton about how he made fiscal responsibility a top priority and achieved real results. president clinton also reminded us that while the federal challenge is great, many states face their own fiscal imbalances that need to be addressed and we may well have to reorganize government in order to get the

job done. we heard that the health-care cost remains, the single largest challenge to our nation's fiscal future. importantly, there are -- there is strong agreement that there are no easy solutions and a range of tough choices will be required if we want our collective future to be better than our past. this includes taking a hard look at the approximately $1 trillion in tax preferences that represent a back door spending and started to make sure that the government is focusing more on the future rather than the past. it also includes reorganizing -- recognizing the significant differences in cost of living in different geographic areas around the united states. finally, the two cochairs of the president's financial reform commission discussed what they plan to do to discharge their responsibilities and help our

rolling fiscal challenge. and now, as we prepare to leave here, the real work begins. we did not come together to hear ourselves talk. what brought us to this summit is a shared sense of urgency. ever since our founding, america has offered each generation the opportunity for a better life. now we have to put that long standing tradition at risk. serious structural deficits and mounting debt burdens from the future prosperity of our country, its position in the world, and the quality of life for our children and grandchildren. this is the challenge. this will exist after the economy has fully recovered, after unemployment levels are down, after the wars are over, and long after the financial and housing crises have passed.

our actions in the months and years ahead will either preserve the american dream for generations to come or for their mortgage their future. we are facing not only an economic challenge, but an ethical and moral challenge as well. all those gathered here are committed to meeting those challenges and i am convinced that we will. after all, this is america. the only way this will happen, short of a crippling crisis, is if the first three words of the constitution, live -- we, the people. many americans complain about politicians in washington but we, the people are ultimately accountable for what does or does not happen in our nation's capital. the fact is, we cannot afford a toxic mix of public ignorance and apathy. all our citizens need to become more informed and involved if we want to accelerate the

transformational reform is a necessary to put us on a more prudent and stable path. to make that happen, we need to lay out the facts to the american people, speak the truth, talk about the tough choices we need to make, and explain the absolute necessity of acting sooner rather than later and the potential adverse consequences to our country and our families if we fail to do so. it will take cable and credible people engaging with representative groups of americans across the country but i am confident that it can be done. at the same time, those in positions of power and influence must listen to the american people and learn from them. washington experts do not have all the answers, not by a long stretch. our policy makers need to benefit from the ideas, experiences, and perspectives of citizens across the country. that is how we will fashion

policies that truly address the concerns and priorities of those who actually pay the nation's bills. this says an education effort should be conducted in selected cities around the country and share from coast to coast via the latest technologies and it needs to take place soon given the lessons from the recent mortgage some prime crisis, recent fiscal warning signs from europe, which are on pages a-1 of the major newspapers around the world, and the growing concern discussed publicly by americans, our foreign lenders, and others. in this regard, i am pleased to announce that the pedersen foundation, macarthur foundation, and the kellogg foundation are partnering to make this need a reality this summer. we are very appreciative verystegman, the director of

policy at the macarthur foundation and the director at the kellogg foundation have joined us here today to demonstrate our shared commitment to this important effort. by pooling our resources, on saturday, june 26, an unprecedented citizen education exercise will be conducted that will focus on our federal fiscal challenge. this national effort will involve representative groups of americans in 20 cities around the country, all of which will be linked via satellite and the web. they will be provided facts and asked to prove -- to express their views very importantly, they will also be asked how to prepare a proposed reform packages that will achieve certain longer-term fiscal objectives. after all, failing to effectively address our structural deficit is simply not

an option. this historic exercise will be conducted by america speaks, a nonpartisan organization with considerable experience and a proven track record in conducting similar forums. rest assured, the information provided in this exercise will be accurate, reasonable, and comprehensive. help ensure this, america speaks has engaged several advisory groups, each comprised of individuals that span the political and ideological spectrum. i am pleased that dr. carolyn lukensmeyer has also joined us today. we feel this will prove extremely of valuable to elected officials, the president reform commission, the bipartisan policy center debt reduction task force, the general public and others.

it is critical to understand that this effort should not be a substitute for a range of service and education effort -- engagement efforts that the two commissions and individual members of congress should conduct on their own initiative. only through substantial and sustained out reach beyond washington's beltway will would be able to bring the kinds of reforms that can put this nation back on the path to fiscal sanity. you will hear more about our related efforts in the coming weeks. before i conclude, i would like to ask mike, and, and carolyn to make a few brief remarks. thank you. >> thank you, dave. [applause] bring together thousands of diverse americans from across

the country simultaneously to discuss the nation's fiscal challenges hold the promise of spring and even broader national dialogue. this would help build the urgency and political will necessary to tackle our deficit and debt. macarthur's supported the recent non-partisan report by the national research council and the national academy of public debt ministration that argued under continuation of the current trajectory of the federal budget, the nation faces the risk of a fiscal crisis. it includes people mentioned must be used to alter the nation's course, the report contains a range of tax and spending options that should be adopted to stabilize the debt within a decade. every day possibility of fixing our puzzle policies implies necessary spending cuts and revenue increases have to be larger and more abrupt, it is urgent that we get about the task at hand.

it is in that spirit that we are pleased to support this creative new effort with america speaks among several others to inform and engage the american public and find common ground. anne? [applause] >> before i get started, i would like to thank the pedersen foundation and especially secretary peter said for leadership on a difficult subject. i come here from battle creek, michigan. the kellogg foundation was founded in 1929 by a man who sold broughams door to door. it was many years before he traded the kellogg co. that has resulted in seven. billion dollars in assets for this foundation. this is all the outside air will house. we spent $3.3 million per year

thinking about how we can improve the lives of kids each day, next year, five years from now. the issues that we have been talking about today will define this generation, the next generation, and beyond. collaborating with their colleagues at the macarthur foundation who have a distinguished track record and that -- at the committee level, we want to bring our passion and folks around kids, a vulnerability, equity, and civil engagement. the american public can do two things at one time. i can think about their daily crisis and they can think about the years ahead i think we have to honor that wisdom. a couple of months ago, i worked with stanford university's center for collaborative democracy. i spent three full days with 300 residents of michigan. they were co's, a janitress,

young people, and everybody in between. we talked about the tough times and tough choices. they were willing to make the tough choices but they have to have credible things to respond to. you cannot under estimate the willingness and will the people. when we engage the public, you have to remember to listen. we had the opportunity at the kellogg foundation to support america speaks in the crisis of katrina. they went from door to door to engage citizens of new orleans in defining their future. those of voices resulted in a lot of great policies and solutions and there is more to do. america's biggest is great engaging the public, thank you. [applause] >> almost every speaker here today has emphasized the absolute necessity of educating the public and engaging the

public in the fiscal challenges facing our nation. thanks to peterson, macarthur, and kellogg, america speaks is privileged to bring together on june 26, every walk of life will be represented simultaneously in 20 cities across the country and in many other communities and congressional districts in community conversations to look at the facts about the situation the country is facing and to look of the options in terms of changing the curve of health- care costs, in terms of social security, and on revenue options. this will include all the other non-discretionary domestic items and defense. what we have learned over a decade and a half in the privilege of doing this work is four things.

leslie stahl said this morning and we used the tapes of that "to the minutes" --" 60 minutes "segment every time we have done what of these projects, no matter what the process or where in the country, the public really wants to be at the table. they are really willing to give up their personal time and to listen open mind in an open hearted plea to each other. number two, they want to come to solutions. it is one of the most extraordinary pieces of social capitalism in this country. they want to solve problems and they want to do it by discovering common ground. the last piece of conventional wisdom that is at a peak now in the country is that people inside the beltway will listen

to people outside the beltway. it is easy to understand why we think that given what is available to us. as has been our experience in every case, when the public is brought together in representative samples, it is the whole public together. lawmakers and decision makers are more than happy to listen. in this case, the president's commission, the bipartisan policy center's debt reduction task force, the senate budget committee, the house budget committee's have already agreed to listen to these outcomes. it is exactly like alan greenspan said at the end of his talk, "the lesson that he would pass on to the commission is that it has to be connected to the real politics. "

this national discussion is connected to the realpolitik. this gives me hope and optimism that something will really come out of this work. thank you very much [applause] >> thank you all for those words. we are looking forward to june 26, saturday coming up. at the summit comes to a conclusion, there is one more critical ingredient for success that we must acknowledge. we must find ways to bridge the current partisan and ideological divide that has reached epidemic proportions in washington. in the end, the only way to turn ideas into action is to offer non-partisan policy options and non-ideological proposals that can achieve broad based bipartisan support. doing so will require special processes as well as courage and extraordinary leadership from

the president of united states and key congressional leaders. we must not give up hope. all this can happen. yes, we can still ensure that our collective future is better than our past and yes, we can achieve fiscal responsibility in ways that ensure social justice. these two key concepts are not mutually exclusive. we at the pedersen foundation will do our part. this includes bringing attention to possible solutions, ranging from comprehensive tax and social insurance program reforms, statutory budget controls re-prioritizing spending and health care costs. we will also promote efforts to ensure that elected officials either make the required decisions or are held accountable if they fail to do so. after all, our fiscal clock is

ticking and time is not working in our favor. in closing, the peterson foundation is eager to work with all of you as we face up to our nation's fiscal challenge. please review the information in today's participant package and encourage others to do so by going to our foundation's website,www.pgpf.org. if all of us do our part, we can keep america great and preserve the american dream for preacher generations. -- for future generations. let's do it together. thank you and say travels. [applause] -- bank you and safe travels. -- thank you and safe travels. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> this morning, the panels are was forcible rights leader dorothy height who died last week at the age of 98. live coverage begins at 10:00 eastern on c-span 2. later in the day on c-span 3, the third and final british political debate between prime minister gordon brown, conservative party leader david cameron and nick clegg, the leader of the liberal democrats. that election is next week. prime minister brown apologized earlier for calling a woman he met on a campaign stop a racist. the remark was caught with a wireless microphone that the prime minister was wearing. >> and the education system, i will congratulate it. >> it is very nice to see you,

take care. >> thank you, gordon. >> thank you very much. >> good to see you all. thank you very much. [unintelligible] >> what did she said? she >> she was a bigoted woman. >> the microphone picked up the saying that was a bigoted woman. is that what you set? >> i apologize for saying anything like that. i think she was raising an issue about immigration and saying there were too many people from eastern europe in the country. i do apologize if i said anything that is hurtful and i

will apologize to our personal. >> somebody just handed me the tape. let's see if we can hear it. >> [unintelligible] i'm not sure about that one. >> we will go back. she was a bigoted woman. >> that is what you said. it is she not allowed to express her view to you? >> she is allowed per the problem was that i was dealing with a question she raised about immigration. i was not given a chance to enter it because we have a lot of press around. i apologize for saying anything that was offensive. i would never have put myself in a position that i would want to say anything like that about a woman i met it was a question about emigration that was annoying.

i have just been talking to jillian. i am horrified by what happened and i have given her my sincere apologies. i misunderstood what she said she has except that there was a misunderstanding and she excepted my apologies. i am a repentant sinner. sometimes you say things you don't need to say. sometimes you say things by mistake and sometimes when you say things, you want to corrected quickly. i want to come here and say to gillian but i was sorry and made a mistake. i understood the concern she was bringing and i simply misunderstood some of the words she used. i have made my apologies. i have come here and talked to gillian about her family and history and what she has done. most of all, is a chance for me to apologize and say sari and sometimes you use strong words

and wants to use that word and you made a mistake, you should withdraw it and give profound apologies and that is what i have done. >> what's the last british leaders debate at 3:30 p.m. eastern. that is live on c-span 3, courtesy of the bbc. >> our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and online and you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube and sign up for our scheduled alert e- mails @ c-span.org. >> "washington journal" is next where we take your calls. the houses in this morning and they will debate porter rico's political and legal status. live house coverage at 10:00 eastern. . .