daschle, thank you gentlemen. the house is coming in just for a pro forma session. they will not actually do any work today. you can see that the door has not opened yet. they will be coming in for a pro forma session. a couple of things are happening. in a half-hour or so, david cameron, the leader of the conservative party in great britain will be speaking about his situation. gordon brown has now said he is not stepping down right away. that will be on c-span3 at 9:30 a.m. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., may 7, 2010. i hereby appoint the honorable steve driehaus to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker

of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, faith and politics institute, washington, d.c. the chaplain: father in heaven, bless us as we gather today for this meeting of the house of representatives. guide our minds and hearts so that we will work for the common good of our nation and for the benefit of our people. teach us to be generous in our outlook and patient with each other. strengthen us to be courageous in face of the challenges we face as a nation and to be wise in our decision. may you who begin this good work here this morning bring it to fulfillment according to your plan. we thank and praise you for you, our god, forever and ever. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the chair will lead the house

in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the house

>> two days ago we had the assistant treasury secretary who presented findings based on artificial bos data indicating a rising trend of job openings by

large employers but not by small and medium-sized employers. they're often called the engine of growth. i am troubled by the thought that main street verses of wall street companies are not hiring, are not creating a job openings. why is that? why aren't small and medium- sized businesses confident enough yet to hire? >> i don't know. i don't have a good theory for that. s@ an increase and -- in on the

unemployment up to 9.9%? >> that is a calculation of the people unemployed who are actively looking for work. this particular month, we had a big increase in the number of people actively looking for work. >> so before they were not even looking? >> that is correct th. >> and you told me that changes in temporary employment are signs of good things to come. what are those numbers looking like now? >> the temporary help, we grew another 26,000 jobs. they are somewhere over 360,000 jobs in that industry. >> how about the people who are underemployed, they are employed full time but working less hours. i was always struck by that statistic. maybe they have part-time work but they are not where they used to the end are not where they

want to be. >> we have 9.1 million people in that category them how has that changed over time. can you measure if they have one -- if they want to change or? >> that was hard for us to measure on a month by month basis. that is not a large sample. i can tell you that our brothers measure of labor on utilization, u6, which are people who are actively looking but people who are underemployed by either being part-time or people who are discouraged. that ticked up as well. , about 2/10 of 1%. that is affected by the number of people who are looking in the labour force. >> one of the things i have heard from recent graduates. got a letter from woman from st. paul, minn., a 24-year-old

woman, a graduate, stock under a low-paying desk job and she has no more dreams. what is happening with young workers who are recent college graduates? do you have any numbers on those? >> we can get it for you. generally, those numbers have not been very good. the recent graduates, young folks, have borne more of their share of the recession. we can get you more precise numbers. >> as we look at these numbers, working with small businesses, and we are defense of doing more with exports to work as partners with private industry, the recent graduate issue, you and i have talked about the difference between someone with a college degree, advanced degree, high school degree, do you have those numbers and have they changed as we have added more manufacturing jobs? we have always been struck by the great difference between the

great unemployment rates between someone with no high school degree and someone with a college degree. >> those numbers are like they always are. >> can you go through that again? >> the unemployment rate for those with less than a high- school diploma is 14.7%. for those with a bachelor's degree and higher, it is 4.9%. that is almost a 10% difference in the unemployment rate between those two groups. >> as manufacturing went up or some other types of jobs increase, you have not been seeing a change? a college degree is one path to a job? >> yes, it is hard to track the impact fr manufacturing. on something like this. >> what about the veterans

numbers? soldiers that have come back from the iraq-afghanistan war is how we have traced them. >> the gulf war 2 era veterans, the unemployment rate is 13.1%. as compared to 9.3% to non- veterans. that is significantly higher. >> we have been working on a bill to work on this more and provide more opportunities. that seems outrageous to me that those who have been serving our country have an unemployment rate that is higher. you talk about the improvement in the diffusion rate and how this has been a recession that is not just the midwest or not just the east coast parade what are we seeing in terms of individual states. that will be my last question. who is still at the top and

bottom and are there any trends by region? >> the states with the highest unemployment rates continue to the states that have had the highest rates for most of the recession. michigan tops the list of 14.1%. nevada, california, rhode island, florida, south carolina, the district of columbia, illinois are all states that have double-digit unemployment rates. there are a few more than that but those are the highest ones. there is not a real regional pattern there. it seems like particular states have been harder hit than others. it is hard to see a simple regional pattern or even an industry pattern. >> one last thing -- i had up the tourism subcommittee and you said there has been some

increase in travel and leisure? >> yes. >> thank you. appreciated. it. >> of the leisure and hospitality industry has significant interests -- increase of 45,000 jobs. >> thank you. >> mr. hall, i want to talk about something you were just talking about. i watched the press and i can imagine that putting forth a headline that the unemployment rate has gone up 0.2%. when the drill down a little bit, there were some people who came back into the system, is that right? but they had not been looking for jobs? >> that is corrrct. >> to you call them read- entrance?

>> yes, reid-entrance is one way to look at it. i was taught me about the increase in the labor force which was new entrants and re- entrance. >> how many of those were there? >> 800,000 over the month which is a large number. >> that is a huge number. 800,000? >if we did not have these, you probably would have a great, i guess, that would be lower than 9.7%? >> i don't want to speculate on that. >> i am not asking you to speculate but doolittle matt. >> that is correct -- but do a little math. >> that is correct. i was listening to mr. brady who was talking about the government jobs. then i look and say that manufacturing added 44,000 which

are private jobs. >> they are. >> factory employment was up 100,000? >> that is correct them would those be private jobs. >> >> they would. >> what are federal? >> those will be private. >> 14,000 jobs is a lot of jobs. non residential and building construction, 9000, mining 7000, those are private? >> yes, they are. >> it is my understanding that the gdp, about 70% is about spending. in other words, speak -- people are not spending money. is that accurate? >> yes, that is correct. >> when i looked at something like manufacturing, 44,000 jobs, factory employment 100,000 jobs, construction, somebody must be buying something.

is that a logical conclusion? >> yes, it is. >> one thing we were trying to do and the president was trying to do was to try to get people to spend more so that we could get more people employed, is that right? >> yes. >> let's go back to the census jobs. how many of these jobs are census jobs? how many did we pick up this month? >> we picked up 66,000. >> and the total jobs that were picked up or how many? >> 290,000. >> so, approximately 1/3 -- no, about 1/4 were census? >> yes. >> basically, you're talking about other types of jobs coming into play. when the headlines are written, you have to take all of those things into consideration, would

you not? >> yes. >> one thing that was interesting is that my good friend mr. brady talked about mr. krueger the other day talking about that many times our small businesses are not doing as much hiring as we would like to see. one thing that mr. krueger also said and it really makes these numbers even more interesting is that many of the small businesses are not able to get loans. therefore, while the bigger businesses may have the capita that they need to do the things they need to do, the small businesses like businesses in my own district cannot get a line of credit and they would be able to do a contract if they could get a lot of credit and they are not able to get it and therefore, they cannot do contracts they would normally do and are unable to employ people like they would normally employ them. i think that is a very

significant factor when there is no -- when credit is a problem. would you agree? >> yes. >> i agree witneith ms. klobucar that everything is not rosy but we're still marching in a positive direction. when you consider the things we talked about, is that an accurate statement? >> it is. >> thank you. >> i would like to go back to a point that was raised by mr. cummings and mr. brady and dr. alan krueger's testimony, the chief economist at treasury. he said the rebound is on even between the size of companies between the large and small. from the bls data you have, are the hiring patterns among large

and small firms different than what you have seen in prior recessions? >> sure, i can talk about the last two recessions. the 2001 recession particularly, large firms experienced more net job loss and large firms had a job loss well into 2003, as a matter of fact. the last recession was very much centered in large firms for the 1990 recession was actually the reverse furthermore net job losses in small firms rather than big firms. it varies but the most recent recession was centered in large firms. this recession, at least for the beginning of the recession, the job loss was very much in both large and small firms. >> many people believe the reason the small firms are not rebounding is lack of access to capital. in your opinion, what are the reasons why small firms are not

hiring? >> i do not think i know enough about it to offer an opinion on that. i can tell you that if small businesses have trouble getting loans, that would be a problem adding jobs. i do not know about -- and about the financial markets. >> have you seen any change between small and mid-sized firms and an eight months during this recovery? are they picking up some what now? >> certainly, the data that dr. krueger discussed was our data and showed a little bit of a pickup in large firms but not so much in small and medium-sized firms. >> with mother's day a few days away, it seems like the right time to ask you about working mothers. at the beginning of this recession, men were particularly hard hit as traditionally male sectors like manufacturing and

construction suffered significant job losses. in recent months, as the sectors begin to recover and ed workers, are women gaining jobs in those male-dominated sectors? >> not so much. they are underrepresented in those particular sectors. >> what has happened to employment in female-dominated sectors in recent months such as education and working for local and federal and state governments? >> we education sector did not experience nearly the job loss but the job growth is certainly slowed -- has certainly slowed a bit in local education. there has stopped in a job growth in government employment. >> what is the working rate for working mothers? how have they done this recession compared with other women? >> the unemployment rate for working mothers is 8.3%. that is an increase of 3.7%

during the recession. that is actually fairly comparable to women who are not mothers for the unemployment rate is about 8%. probably, the more shocking number is to look at the actual job loss. we have issues with labor force participation. working mothers have lost about 6.1% of their jobs during this recession. that is compared to women who are not mothers who lost 0.1% since they had no job loss. >> the overall unemployment rate for working mothers, is it different for working mothers who are sold breadwinners for their families? >> yes, that is much higher. that the unemployment rate is 13.6%. >> out minority working mothers feared? >> again, that has been much higher.

african american working mothers have a 13.4% rate and hispanic working mothers, it is 11.8%. >> given the economic challenges facing families during the recession, have more mothers entered the workforce and search for work? >> actually the answer is yes. the labor force as a whole, participation has gone down during the recession but it has gone up for women with children. >> how has the experience of working mothers during the great recession compared to prior recessions? >> in prior recessions, working mothers have had a higher than average increase in unemployment. in the 1990 recession, the unemployment rate went up by 1.6% compared to 1.3% for women

without children, for example. this recession, the unemployment rate for working mothers went up a lot more, almost double that, 3.4%. >> my time has expired. mr. brady -- >> thank you. normally, the more severe recession, the quicker america bounces back for that is not happening this time. we don't have a v-shaped recovery. it seems to be a u-shaped recovery, 1/3 as low as the 1982 recovery. i am convinced that part of that has to do with business is not having confidence to make those key investments. they are anxious to, in my view, to get back on the field. with small businesses -- in washington, we like to be our chest and complaint -- and proclaim all our economies -- all our programs spur the economy. in southeast texas, they say the

gimmicks won't work. they say the small inducements, they will not bring on new workers until they see the customers and clients. retail is moving a little but not much. i think they added about 12,000 jobs last month per it was 15 million people unemployed. there is a blip on the screen. i am convinced that many people are genuinely concerned not just about their own jobs but by the financial crisis here in america with their budget, very concerned. every poll shows that americans are increasingly concerned that this runaway spending is dangerous levels of debt will pull back, hold back economic growth. i was looking at the numbers. greece was foremost yesterday and the news. it continues to be today. you can see people gathered

around the tv set to watch what was going on. if you look at europe and the five countries that are most troubled, if you look at their datasets, the most -- their deficits, the most troubled countries have deficits between 4.1%, the lowest which is in italy, 60% in greece. america this year -- 16% increase. america will be at 10% this year. if you look at the gross central government debt of the five pig countries, the ones that are most in danger of there, what they owe as a government range from 41% in spain to 125% increase. we are already into the middle of that at 60%. the cbo says that we adopt president obama's budget, we

will be at 60% of gdp. we will be at the high end of the suspect countries in europe that are causing trading panics and riots in the streets which will not happen here, by the way. it is a real concern everywhere i go back home. average people are not just for about their checkbook. they are worried about america's checkbook. in your household survey, saying that retail which is the best sign of what they are doing is again painfully slow on the uptick, do you measure the consumer confidence? are there other indicators within your numbers that tell us what people are doing? it seems to me they are holding tight. they are spending what they need to pare their word about the jobs. we don't see that bounceback

that we normally would after a severe recession. >> our data is a step removed from actual consumer spending and consumer confidence because we are looking at employment levels and if the firm reaction to things. >> what do you see on the auto side? >> we had modnexq+ñ prgrowth. it has been not strong but modest. >> and the other retail indicators? >> pretty much the retail trade. is the most directly linked to something like consumer spending.

>> in past recoveries from recession is, what have you seen on retail? what types of growth month over month? would we be expected to see? >> i don't know with respect to employment. i don't know what that will look like. i can tell you all little about what i know about other data. consumer spending and gdp over the long run will sort of track together. they don't necessarily do that all the time but gdp does rely very much on consumer spending. >> about 2/3 of it? >> yes, sir. >> will let shift overtime? will we be less consumer dependent when we reach full recovery? >> that is an interesting question about this recession consumer spending was not always that large a percentage of gdp.

>> thanks. >> mr. cummings? >> thank you. mr. hall, we have the summer months coming up and young people, a lot of people graduating from college and high school. tell me what the unemployed grade -- unemployment rate is four hour teens? --for our teens? i want to know what it is for african-americans, white, and hispanics. >> the unemployment rate for teenagers is very high, 25%. >> do you have a breakdown for african-americans and whites and

hispanics? would you have that? >> not teenagers but i have those groups over all. we can get to the teenager numbers. the unemployment rate for african-americans is 16.5%. >> is that what was last time? >> yes, it is and changed over the month. >> for hispanics it is little changed as well. >> you can go ahead. keep your voice up. >> for african-american teenagers, 16-19-year-old, the rate was 37.3%. that was all lower than recent months but that is a small group and that jumps around from month to month. the white rate is 23.5%. that is been fairly stable for recent months.

>> even when you are not in a recession, you will have probably quite a few teenagers not employed. i guess that is pretty high compared to what you might consider a pretty stable economic situation? >> that is correct. >> i want to go back to these entrance. one factor that will temper any dent we can make and the unemployment rate is the fact that people who have stopped looking poor work will re-joined the labour force and when they see the economy improving. once they re-joined the labour force until they find work, they are again counted as unemployed is that correct? in other words, how do you know they are looking? >> they are counted as

unemployed when they re-enter and start looking. >> have you know they are looking? >> we do a phone survey of households. we asked people, essentially. >> what kind of increases in the unemployment rate -- what kind of increase should we expect of people re-join me? ing? this is a tough situation. as the economy gets better, i would imagine people look out there and have been unemployed for a while but they will now get back out there because they might have a chance of finding a job. the re-antwrentrants continue to

increase and i am not counting the people out of high school. you have a steady increase if the economy gets better. is that a reasonable assumption? >> the increase in the unemployment rate? >> right, you have more people to deal with because of more people looking. >> yes, that is not at all uncommon in the early stages of a recovery to add jobs and have the unemployment rate go up because people are re-3 the labor force. >> --re-entering the labour force. >> so you can anticipate what you said? >> yes. >> is it easier for you to calculate the number of people who have left the labour force? can you estimate how many you expect to return? >does the historic data suggest anything for that?

>> that is one reason why i pointed out the employment population ratio. that kind of cuts through whether people are looking or not. that is how many people are employed verses, the people in the country. that is a nice way of cutting through all that. we have had a significant drop in the unemployment population ratio. it has dropped 3.9% which is pretty significant. so far, that has increased 6/10 of 1%. we are starting to get some recovery in that which is a good sign. >> thank you very much this is good news today. this is the second consecutive month of positive employment gains. after weathering a harsh storms of 20009 and 2008 where we were losing judge, it is good to see some rays of sunshine.

this is not successful as this chart shows, we are trending and moving in the right direction. it is not success but we're making progress. we in congress will continue workingq@rc on policies that wil help to create jobs so that we can continue this progress. we thank you very much, commissioner, for your testimony today. this meeting is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] >> have a nice weekend. [no audio]

>> i am going to shoot back to baltimore. >> i am so sorry. [no audio] >> as this hearing on the april unemployment and employment numbers comes to a close, we will let you know that the president will also talk about the april jobs report. live coverage from the white house starts at 11:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. a look now at the latest developments on world economic markets with the dow jones dropping about 1000 points yesterday. the markets opened today

negatively. here's a segment from this morning's "washington journal." host: inside "the financial times" trading goes wild on wall street. "the new york times" -- the lead story, dow falls 1000. "the wall street journal" -- the market plunge baffles wall street. bob davis, "wall street journal." are we still bfled? guest: it did not seem possible that it was a sell-off of that magnitude. something odd happened. it happened in five minutes. host: have they figured it out?

was it a fat finger? guest: that is one of the possibilities, but i do not know that we will go for days. host: the market ended up going down about 340. that all due to what is happening in greece? guest: you can never psychoanalyze the markets, but a lot of it clearly is. there's concerns about the defaults around a the world. greece and of itself would not be a big deal because it is a small country, but the fear is that greece goes to spain, goes to portugal, goes to italy, and then it is a real mess. host: a couple of associated press ticles just coming over the wire. here's another one. ital approved an initial $7 million loan for greece. greek borrowing costs have hit another record high.

the bank of spain says the country is out of recession. guest: it is funny, four of those were very positive news. spain is out of recession. and yet, the greek debt spread, the amount of interest that greece has to pay on its debt increases. you would think the opposite would happen. it is pretty volatile. host: democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. please go ahead and dial in. if you happen to be watching and overseas, we would love to get your reaction to this also, especially if you are in europe. we will be looking forou to call in also. in your paper this morning, the

euro hits a 14-month low against the dollar on thursday and the yen surged as investors fled riskier assets over concerns th sovereign dt problems could engulf the weaker eurozone members. help us understand this. guest: the euro itsel was supposed to be one of the safe currencies. people were trying to get out of that and into the dollar, where there has been months of concern that the dollar was going to ash. and even more amazing, going to the yen. japan is hardly growing and has hardly been growing for 10 years. i think it is all the characteristics of the panic this morning. host: also in your paper is an editorial the sat says the greek problem could lead us to a

double-dip recession. guest: that is certainly true if you spin it out. if europ goes into recession, we trade a lot with europe and we have a lot of banking relations. u.s. banks are directly tied to european banks. it's not too hard to think that in the same way that the u.s. problems led to a recession in europe that it could work backwards as well. host: let's take it to capitol hill now. former secretary henry paulson, treasury secretary geithner, and some democratic senators are calling for further regulation on the markets. has led to the volatility? guest: i'm sure that has led to it also pre there's no logical relationship between what is happening in greece right at the moment to the discussion about financial regulation. they are two different things.

basically, after a banking crisis, there's often a sovereign debt crisis. in part because country's peso much to get their economies moving. -- countries pay so much to get their economies moving. host: bob davis, how long have you been aware of what is happening in greece? guest: this is what i do for a living, so the past year i suppose. host: should we be surprised by this? guest: yes, i am very surprised. it's a little country. it is 2% of the size of the united states. its trading with the u.s. is 1/10 of 1%. to have this kind of impact on the u.s. is quite surprising. it is not surprising some countries are getting into trouble. that has been brewing for years. we went through a really bad

recession with a really bad fall in the markets. the markets have recovered quite a bit, but it has not been that long. host: the dow futures look up this morning. what does that mean? guest: it has been falling for quite some time. we got down the 700 points from the high or so. there's always a bounce. you can never read too much into one day, especially del futures -- dow futures. host: international economics reporter bob davis, "wall street journal" is our guest. alabama, you are on the air. caller: good morning. thank you foraving me. it is really strange that some sort of work which would cause the whole stock market to fall

-- some sort of a glitch would cause the whole stock market to fall. it would take a major mistake for this to happen. at a time when it is recovering, it is rely strange. this is the case in point for more regulation of the financial institutions, and we have a republican congress members that are totally resistant of the policies that are trying to be put in place. guest: in terms of the glitch, i do not think i says anything about financial regulation. it might say something about what we need to do in terms of fixing the computer systems. these are software systems. god knows what happens.

remember, one year a, toyota was considered one of the most safe cars in the world? that's so sort of thing happens. it is not a democrat or republican issue. nobody is in favor of that software. host: nathan, you are on. caller: go to books.google.com and download "making a currency" written in 1913. go educate yourselves. thank you. host: any reaction? guest: i do not know the book. it's always go to read history. host: bob davis, you seem

unconcerned with what happened yesterday. guest: it is totally bizarre. i do not think this has anything fundamental about the market's. it says there's something odd that happened that should not have happened. dealing with a technical iss is very different than dling with fundamental economic forces that might be taking the economy downward. host: how much of the trading is done electronically? guest: a tremendous amount. part of what by newspaper was reporting it is a possibility that the so-called high- frequency trading, which is people trading on the smallest changes in the market, that once the market started declining 500 points, those systems shut off because they did not want to worsen things. it is posble that by shedding

those of, and possibly deepen the decline. that sort of thing is very different than -- is greece ing to lead to a global recession? host: william on the line for independents. caller: mr. davis, people have theories. it sounds very nebulous, a l of the things that are being said. you said it is your business. you would think it would help when something like even two hundred points, or a 90 minute shutdown instead of a 92nd shut down, what would be a theory that would be more rock-solid? guest: again, is the difference between a problem in the market syst, and the mechanics, in the electronics of t system versus the problems in a more fundamental fashion.

i'm not an expert on how the markets operate. clearly, somebody has to be looking at how the systems weor. one of the rumors is somebody typed in $1 billion instead of $1 million. there are measures you can put in place to make sure the person typing realizes what they are typing. host: greece passes austerity package in the world news section of your paper.

guest: yes, that is the problem. that is the fundamental problem we are talking about. greece cannot pay its debts, so it is getting a gigantic loan from the imf. it is possible that spain, italy, and portugal are in the same bu. oat. if they cannot pay their debts and they get huge bailout, it is possible that one of them will say it is not worth it and we will default. or it is possible that they will put up with the kinds of cuts that would cause huge protests in the u.s. as well. to fight that, you have won a series of austerity measures after another.

there's no demand in the markets, so the economy's tank. host: wesley on the line for republdemocrats. caller: i have beenatching the stock market. we have a two-party system here. for the life of me, i cannot understand how you c have a party that claims they love this country -- everything that this government -- the house was burning down and they tried to put out the fire.

instead of the same gernment that was in power previous- take this country to the tank. you have a president that is so intelligent and smart and put together an administration that is taking this country internationally an internal recognition, and yet the amican people cannot see that? guest: what should i say? this administration inherited a gigantic mass. the efforts to fight the recession in the last administration were pretty bipartisan and also during a period of intense panic. the panic subsided. this administration tried a

variety of different measures to get the economy going. you have a mix of political and policy issues. a political issue, obviously, there are a lot of people who hate bailout in this country, and understandably so. that is the policy issue. on the other hand, you have the normal back-and-forth of politics in this country and republicans see an opportunity there. it has been amazing about how partisan the votes have been on measures of historic in for somimportance.

host: do you see that with that there will be a tightening around those markets and more regulations? guest: yes, there's hardly any doubthat there will be tighter, tougher regulation coming about. democrats and republicans are starting to talk in a serious shion about the compromises that are needed. one would expect something to happen in a few weeks. it will be tougher on the markets. host: g-7 call said ahead of euro summit. this is in "the wall street

journal." guest: this could be a big weekend. we have been talking about greece. for the policy makers, for the managers and leaders of europe, the question now is what they do to demonstrate that they have a handle on the broader problem. that is a tough one. does that mean an imf program for these other countries? i don't think so. it could be but i doubt it.

then, you are back to the questions about how you show your guarantee to the rest of europe? the leaders talked about standing behind greece. they said they would not let cresol. they tried that for a few months and that would not work. the market did not believe it. we may be getting down the road toward more imf programs and european bailouts. we're talking about a huge bailout. greece is one under $45 billion. that is probably -- greece is $145 billion. we spend more than that in this country. one has to keep this in perspective. host: what is in the austerity package? the past but there were protests to the government. guest: i doubt the government

would fall as quickly. they were just elected. it is more of a right-wing government. there are many top things. there are deep cuts, 25% cuts in their version of social security. there are similar cuts since door for people who work for the government and a large amount of cuts for firemen, policeman, social workers, a teachers and others. there is a variety of different measures to open up the greek economy to greater competition. i don't really understand it. many companies that have been protected will have a tougher time, to and maybe go out of business and will cut salaries. they are living way above their means. when the bill comes due, that is hard. mullis host: the, republican,

buffalo, good morning. caller: thank you for answering these questions. this is a serious conversation that we need to have in this country now. for the caller from alabama who said the republicans are fighting regulations on the finance industry, it was the democrats who first spotted back in the 1990's. -- who first were fighting it back in the 1990's. they said there would not be any problems with fannie mae and freddie but mac but now there are problems. i hardly trust an administration that would allow tim geithner to be treasury secretary when he could not get his tax is right in doing them with turbo tax. the reason i called is i am not familiar with the stock market. i have a basic understanding from high school and college economics courses. why is it that yesterday during

these flash crashes, some stocks like the samuel adams beer company stock and procter and gamble went downward while sotheby's had a several thousand dollar increase where they were at $33 per share and they went to $100,000 per share? guest: i honestly don't know and i am not sure anybody knows that the moment. it tends to be what was traded in that five-minute interval where everything was magnified. leon that the thing that approach rational levels. procter and gamble was on its way down. it was like falling off a building. the opposite happened when someone look like they're sitting on a rocket ship. host: will it be sorted out and how long will it play out?

guest: i think it will be sorted out soon. this is a serious glitch. host: second editorial this morning in "the wash -- the wall street journal" rt here entitled "restat . . greece hates business." the u.s. ranks fourth in singapore is first. at 109, egypt, zambia, rwanda, and kazakhstan. this is an editorial in the "wall street journal." john on the line for

independents, you are on with bob davis, "wall street journal." are you with us? we will move on to mike. caller: there was some sort of possible technical difficuy. what is the possibility that there was something more sinister related tthis? we have seen on the news what led up to the crisis was hedging or shorting companies and forcing them lower than they actually were and causing panic. could this have been something that was just the same type of thing, but struck down fro weeks to minutes? guest: i doubt it, but if somedy had some sort of a computer program to start buying

when the market went down 1000 points, i'm sure they made a lot ofoney in a minute. it is possible. host: west han, conn., democrat. caller: good morning. i'm understanding is still trying to check out what was the reason, whether it was manueal r a glitch. no one was there to double check on it, like the various two or three departments or regulators. there was no one there to check . that is why they cannot check if the right way to find out what it is. i do not know. heard.

i'm just curious. there's one other thing. i understand we are giving so much money to help these european countries, primarily like greece and so forth. he has taken evething out on entitlements. my social security check from last year when down almost 25 points. the difference to be transferred into medicare. >> we believe this segment to go live to the white house. president obama is expected to make a statement this morning on the latest unemployment numbers. the letter of -- the labor department announced that april's unemployment rate is up from 9.7% to 9.9%.

this is live coverage on c-span. >> good morning, everybody. it seems like on a daily basis we are brushed with statistics and forecast, reports related to the help of the economy. from the first is of this administration amidst the worst economic crisis since the great depression, i have said the truest measure of progress would be whether or not we are creating jobs. what matters is whether someone who needs a job can find one and whether people can provide for their families. everything we have done has been with this goal in mind. i am habit to reports that we received very encouraging news. in april, the economy added 290,000 jobs, with the vast

majority coming from the private sector. this is the largest monthly increase in four years. we created 121 more thousand jobs -- 121,000 more jobs than estimated. we have now seen job growth for four months in a row. these numbers are particularly heartening when you consider where we worked one year ago, an economy in free fall. at the height that the downturn around the time it took office, were losing an average of 750,000 jobs per month. this news comes on the heels of a report last week that the overall output of our economy, our gdp, is increasing. we now know that the economy has been growing for the better part of the year. this steady growth is starting to get businesses confidence to expand. we should note that the unemployment rate ticked up slightly from 9.7% to 9.9%. given the strength of the job numbers, this may seem contradictory.

this increase is largely a projection of the fact that workers who dropped out of the work force entirely are now seeing jobs again there now seeking jobs again, encouraged by better prospects. i want to emphasize, the economic crisis we face as inflicted a lot of damage on families and businesses across our country. it is going to take time to repair and rebuild. over the course of this recession, more than 8 million jobs were lost. there are a lot of people out there who are still experiencing real hardship. we have to be mindful that today's stock numbers, while welcome, leave us a lot of work to do. it will take time to achieve the strong and sustained job growth that is necessary. and of course, long before this recession hit, for a decade, middle-class families have been experiencing a sense of declining economic security. yes, we have a ways to go. but we also come a very long way. we can see that the difficult and at times unpopular steps

that we have taken over the past year are making a difference. productivity is up. the hours people are working are up. both are signs that the company may be hiring more workers in the months to come. we saw the largest increase in manufacturing employment since 1998, and we can see the benefits of our recovery act in the strong employment reports from construction and other sectors where we have made key invessments in creating and saving jobs. of course, there are limits to what the government can do. the true engine of job growth in this country will always be the private-sector. that is why we're very pleased to see the strong employment growth on the private sector side. what government can do is help the conditions for companies to hire again. it can build the infrastructure and offer incentives that will allow small businesses to add workers and help entrepreneurs take a chance on idea that will lead manufacturers to set up

shop. not overseas but right here in the united states of america. that is what we're doing the right now series of tax incentives and other steps are taking effect. because a bill designed in law a few weeks ago, businesses and not eligible for tax cuts for hiring unemployed workers. companies are also able to write off more of their investments and new equipment. whispering additional investments in school renovation, clean energy projects, and road construction, which will create jobs while laying a new foundation of lasting growth. in addition, as part of health reform, four million small businesses recently received a postcard in their mailbox telling them that they are eligible for a health-care tax cut this year. it is worth perhaps tens of thousands of dollars to each of these companies. it will provide welcome relief to small business owners who too often have to choose between health care and hiring. that is what has already come on line, but we still have more to do. the address called for a $30

billion small-business lending fund, which will help increase the flow of credit to small companies hit hard by the decline in lending that follow the financial crisis. small businesses are a major source of job creation. this morning we sent draft legislation to congress on this. it now includes a new state small business credit. the state initiative, which was designed to help with governors in both the house and senate will help expand lending for small businesses and manufacturers as time and budget shortfalls begetting states to cut back on it important the new programs. in addition, the state and local governments face a huge budget gap. we see layoffs, teachers, police and officers, firefighters, and other essential public servants, which not only harms the economy but also of the community and the economy as a whole. so we're working with congress to find ways to keep our teachers and classrooms and police officers on the beat and

firefighters on call. a few months ago i also proposed giving people rebates to upgrade the energy efficiencies of their home. this will not only save families money, it will create jobs in hard-hit construction and manufacturing sectors since things like windows and installation are overwhelmingly made in the united states of america. i was gratified to see a bipartisan vote to pass this proposal called home start and the house of representatives yesterday. i am calling on the senate to act as well. we want to expand to clean energy tax reform which is helping create jobs across america building when tramlines. as we take these steps to hire in the short and long run, we are also mindful of other economic factors that can emerge. i want to speak to the unusual market activity that took place yesterday on wall street. the regulatory authorities were evaluating this closely. the concern is protecting

investors and preventing this from happening again. the white findings of the republic along with recommendations for appropriate action. i also spoke this morning with i also spoke this morning with the german chancellor regarding economic and financial developments to europe. we agreed on the importance to a strong policy response by the affected countries and the strong financial response from the international community. i made clear that the u.s. supports these efforts and will continue to cooperate with authorities and the imf during this critical time. so this week's job numbers from as a relief to americans who found a job, but it offers no comfort to those who are still a lot of work. to those who are out there still looking, i give you my word that i will keep fighting every single day to create jobs and opportunities to people. everyone on my team standing alongside me right here has the same sense of mission. we're not going to rest until we

put this difficult chapter behind us, and i will not rest until you and millions of your neighbors caught up in these storms are able to find a good job and a brighter day in the future. thank you very much, everybody. >> president, have you made a decision on the supreme court? >> the president this morning joined by the treasury secretary and the commerce secretary among others on the white house

economic advisor team, talking about the unemployment numbers this morning. the president saying the addition of 290,000 last month. because that is very encouraging. the outcome of the british elections is still up in the air. as a 10:30 a.m. this morning, conservatives have won 305 seats in the house of commons. labor, 258. liberal democrats, 57 seats. next, we will show you this morning's statement from the three party leaders first, the liberal democrat leader his the conservatives should be given a chance to form the government. after that, prime minister gordon brown will express a willingness to meet with either party to form a coalition then the conservative leader, saying that he will make a conference of offered to form a collaborative government with the liberal democrats. now those statements from british party leaders. [applause]

>> thank you for coming in such small numbers to county street this morning. last night was a disappointment for the liberal democrats. even the more people voted for us than ever before, even though we had a higher proportion of the vote than ever before, it is a source of great affect to me that we have lost some valued friends and colleagues and have returned to government with fewer mp's than ever before. many people during the election campaign were excited about the prospect of doing something different, but it seems that when they came to vote, many of them, in the end, decided to stick with what they knew best.

and at a time of great economic uncertainty, i totally understand those feelings. but that is not going to stop me from redoubling my efforts and our efforts to show that real change is the best reassurance that things can get better for people and their families, that it should not be something which unsettles people. now we are in a very fluid, a critical situation with no party enjoying an absolute majority. as i have said before, it seems to me that a situation like this is vital that all critical parties, all critical leaders act in the national interest and not about narrow party political advantage. i have also said that whichever party gets the most votes in the most seats, if not an absolute majority, has the first right to seek to govern, either on its

own or by reaching out to other parties. and i stick to that view. it seems this morning that it is the conservative party that has more votes and more seats. they're not an absolute majority. that is why i think it is now for the conservative party to prove that it is capable to govern in the nest -- national interest. at the same time, this election campaign has made it abundantly clear that our electoral system is broken. this is so -- it simply does not reflect the hopes and aspirations of the british people. so i repeat again my assurance that whatever happens in the coming hours and days and weeks, i will continue to argue not only for the greater fairness in british society, not only the greater responsibility in economic policy-making, but also for the extensive real reforms

that we need to face our broken political system. thank you very much. [applause] >> with the outcome of the general election, we find ourselves in a position unknown to this generation of political leaders. with no single party able to have a common majority and therefore have a majority government. i felt that i should give you enter the country my assessment of where we are. i do so as prime minister with the constitutional duty to seek to resolve the situation for the good of the country, not as a leader of the labor party less than a day after the election. what we have seen are no ordinary election results. people have been talking for some time, inside and outside government, but the possibility of a home parliament. that possibility has now become very real and pressing.

the question for all the political parties now is whether the parliamentary majority can be established that six to reflect what you, the british people, have just told us. first, it is well understood the we face immediate economic challenges that must be matched, and a meeting of the euro group is being held tonight to discuss grease and other issues. in advance of this, that g7 finance ministers, including america and britain, are meeting by conference call to discuss the deteriorating situation in the euro area. alison starling is participating for the u.k. our economic -- alison darling is participating for the u.k. as the recovery stabilizes, we need to move swiftly to implement our deficit reduction plan. on the critical question on the formation of a government which can command a parliamentary

majority, i have of course seen the statements of other party leaders. in understanding completely respect the position of mr. clegg in the statement that he wishes first to make contact with the leader of the conservative party. as you know, we already have in place mechanisms and facilities will give the political parties in the civil service support that they may need. mr. cameron and mr. clegg should clearly be entitled to take as much time as they feel necessary. but my part, i should make clear that i would be willing to see any of the party leaders. clearly show the discussions between mr. cameron and mr. clegg come to nothing, then i would of course be prepared to discuss with mr. clegg the areas where there may be some measure of agreement between our two parties. there are two areas in particular where such discussion would be likely to focus. the first is the plan to ensure

continuing economic stability or there is substantial common ground. in the plan to carry through far-reaching political reforms, including changeless -- changes to the voting system. both of us to make clear our commitment to this in our manifestoes, and we were sent a strong message which must be heard. my view is clear. there needs to be immediate legislation on this to begin to restore the public trust in politics. and to improve parliament standing and reputation. a fair voting system is central, and i believe that you, the british people, should be able to decide referendum with the system should be. what all of us need to be mindful of is the imperative for strong and stable government. and for that to be formed with the authority to tackle the challenges and one which can command support in parliament.

it is with this in mind that all of us should be facing the times ahead. i understand, as i know my fellow party leaders do, that people did not like the uncertainty or want it to be prolonged. we live forever in parliamentary democracy. the outcome has been delivered by the electorate. it is our responsibility now to make it work for the national good. i am sure that you will understand that this is all that i have to say at this stage today. thank you all very much. >> david cameron now. seated by members of the cabinet. >> the conservative party gained more seats than at any election for the last 80 years. i am incredibly proud. not only of the strong result

that we achieved but of the strong and positive campaign that we fought. we campaigned for hope, not feared. and people responded to that, giving us two million more votes. we campaigned for change, not all of the same, and people responded to that, giving us a higher share of the vote then labour achieved in the last election when the one of majority. there are many great few conservative members of parliament will be coming to the house of commons, and i am very proud of this will be a new modern conservative party in parliament. i know it will make a huge difference to our politics. to all those conservative party supporters, members, and activists who fought so hard, not just in the last few weeks but in the last few years, i want to say a huge thank you. and to remind you how proud you can be of the result, the bigger increase in its seeds than even

margaret thatcher achieved in 1979. the worst loss for seats in labor than in any general election since 1931 and a share of the vote not ofar off from 1983. however much pride we can take an enormous advance, we have to accept that we fell short on an overall majority. as i said last night, britain need strong, stable, decisive government, and it is in the national interest that we get that on a secure basis. we are at war in afghanistan with our troops putting their lives at risk for us every day. we are facing a financial and economic situation of great seriousness as a result of our dangerous debt and our deficit. we need a government that reassures the international markets. we need policies that will bring economic recovery.

and we need a government that understands the great changes needed in order to restore faith in our political system. britain voted for change yesterday, but it also voted on a new politics. it did not vote for party political bickering, grandstanding, and posturing. our country's problems are too serious. they're too urgent for that. so we must all rise to this occasion. we must show leadership. we must sort things out as quickly as possible for the good of the country. nick clegg has said that because the conservative party won the most votes in the most seats in this election, which it had the chance to form a government, and i thank him for that. we will now begin talks with other parties to see how that can be done. one option would be to give other parties reassurances about certain policy areas and then seek their agreement to allow a

minority conservative government to continue in office about the country constantly facing the threat of its government. this is what is known as the confidence and supply arrangement. it has been done before, and yes, we can try to do it again. but i am prepared to consider alternative options. it may be possible to have stronger, more stable, more collaborative government than that. there is a case we're going further in the region than simply clips the minority conservative government in office. i want to make a big open and comprehensive offer to the liberal democrats. i want us to work together in tackling the country's big and urgent problems, the debt crisis, are deep social problems, and our broken political system. let me explain. first, it is right and reasonable to acknowledge a there are policy disagreements between us. many of which were highlighted

in those television debates. to fellow conservatives who fought and campaigned in worked so far to achieve the massive advance we have made in this campaign, and want to make it clear that i do not believe any government should give more powers to the european union. i do not believe that any government can be weak or soft on the issue of immigration which needs to be controlled properly. and the country's defenses must be kept strong. i also believe that on the basis of the election results were achieved, it is reasonable to expect that the bulk of the policies in our manifesto should be implemented. but across our two manifestos, if there are many areas of common ground. and those are areas i believe that we in the conservative party can give ground, the national interest and in the interest of forging an open and trusting partnership.

i recognize the high proportion do that liberal democrats have given the proposal to the people premium in our schools. we agree. it is in our manifesto, too, and swisher we can develop a common approach that recognizes the urgency that the liberal democrats have attached to this proposal the liberal democrats in their manifesto have made the achievement of the low carpet colony, an absolute priority, and we support this aim. i am sure we can agree on a common plan to achieve that. the liberal democrats also made proposals to reform our taxes. we both agree that labor stoppage tax, as a liberal democrats manifestative, is a damaging tax on jobs, and we would seek to reverse it. it has always been an aspiration for the conservative party to reduce taxes, especially those who earned the least. we're happy to give this a much higher priority and to work

together to determine how it can be afforded. we share a common commitment to civil liberties and to getting rid immediately of labor's id card scheme. on our political system, we believe that reform is urgently needed to help restore trust, and that reform must include the electoral system. if the liberal democrats have their ideas. we have our ideas. for example, all seats should be on equal sides so the boats can have an equal value. the other parties have constructive proposals to put forward as well. i believe we will need an all party committee of inquiry on political and electoral reform. i think we have a strong basis for a strong government. inevitably come to the negotiations we are about to start will involve compromise. that is what working together in the national interest means. but no government will be in the

national interest unless it deals with the biggest threat to our national interest, and that is the deficit. we remain completely convinced that starting to deal with the deficit this year is essential. this has been more than confirmed by recent events in other european countries, recent instability in the markets, and recent conversations that we have had with both the treasury and the bank of england. the national interest is clear. the world is looking to britain for decisive action. the new government must rip this deficit and prevent the economic catastrophe that will result from putting off the difficult and urge it action that needs to be taken. so i have been offered to the democrats that involves helping them to implement the ranks of their election manifesto, providing the country with economic as well as political stability. and finding further ways in

which liberal democrats can be involved in making this happen. the ongoing labor government has left this country with terrible problems. an economic and financial crisis, a deep social problems, a political system in which people, too many people, have lost faith. the new government will face the worst inheritance of any incoming government fort least 60 years. that is exactly why it is so appalling that we have strong stable government that lasts, a strong stable government which has the support of the public to take the difficult decisions needed if we're going to put this country back on the right track for a stronger future. there is one further point to want to make. i believe is not just important for this country to have strong and stable government. it is important that we get the strong and stable government quickly. so i hope we can reach an agreement quickly and the big, open, and comprehensive offer that i have outlined today.

as i argued in this general election campaign, i think this is a great country, but we could be doing so much better. we do not have to settle for that debt, waste, and taxes left to us by labor. we can put behind us the economic pickup and, social breakdown, political division, and the mistrust of 30 years of labor misrule. of course i hope that a conservative majority will be the outcome of this election and that we could have started today making the changes that i believe our country so badly needs. i know how much the conservative party itself, all my colleagues in parliament, all the loyal members and activists around the country wanted that, too, but i also know they wanted something more than that. they want the best of britain. the conservative party has always been a party that puts the national interest first. and the best thing, the national interest, the best thing for

britain now is a new government that works together in the national interest, and i hope with all my heart that is something that we can achieve. that is all i have to say for now. i hope you understand. i will not be taking questions. but this urgent work must begin. thank you. >> statements from party leaders in the british parliamentary elections today with results for six and 48 of the 650 seats, and conservatives have 305. the labor party has 258. liberal democrats have 57. you can follow the results on our website at c-span.org. coming up by about 15 minutes, we'll go live to an event on the internet and privacy laws. it is hosted by the commerce department. it is expected to start at about 11:45 a.m. we will have live coverage here c-span. until then, a conversation about the gulf oil spill from this morning's "washington journal."

ues. host: in usa today this morning is this map showing where the oil spill currently is. this is a forecast location of the oil spill today. you can see its size, as opposed to the gulf coast and how big this is. we are joined from that in ruche by economic -- are joined from baton rouge by james richardson of louisiana revenue estimating conference. how much do you estimate this will cost louisiana in lost revenue? guest: right now, you could almost have to say the impact on the state's budget is relatively small. assuming that they stop the leak fairly quickly pacific continues for a long time, all bets are off. the real impact right now is on certain people along the coast to make their living off the

fishing. that is rwhere the real cost is right now. with respect to the overall state budget, that is not affected badly at this time. host: what is going to cost fishermen? guest: we have estimates of the value of those industries. for example, the strip is storagshrimp issue, about $88 m. that's a relatively small number in terms of value to it if you ok at the oysters, you're looking at about $36 million. if you look at the blue crab, about 30 two million dollars. in total, shrimp is the biggest, $144 million.

it goes up the chain in terms of processinn and into restaurants. that is where you ad value. host: what other industries could potentially be harmed by this oil spill? guest: if you look at louisiana, there are four industries that are very connected to the coast. oil and gas is one. the ports wl be a second. commercial fishing is the third. then you have the overall tourist industry. people going to the saltwater fishing. some people goi down to watch the birds. some people just enjoying the ique environment of south louisiana. the fourth part -- there's no doubt that in terms of magnitude, dollars, the oil and gas industry stands out as the

biggest by far to the ports will be second pick and then you get down to fishing and tourism. host: the oil and gas industry, what is that worth to the gulf coast states right now? guest: looking at louisiana, we have about 90% of the oil that is produced -- about 90% of the oil produced in louisiana will come from those offshore wells. it's a major source of revenue for the state in terms of supporting jobs along the coast. jobs from utility boats to individuals who live there and work offshore -- those are fairly high paying jobs. that becomes a major source of revenue for the state.

income tax, sales tax, and business taxes. host: james richardson of louisiana revenue estimating conference is our guest. we are talking about the economic impact of the good morulf oil spill. we want to get your reactions. democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205. mr. richardson, can you explain at the revenue estimating conference is? guest: yes, this was created in 1987. .

host: what do you teach at lsu? guest: 80 to economics, public finance. this semester, i teach a special colloquium for graduate students in public administration. host: is there going to be an impact on jobs because of this oil spill? guest: again, if you look at it from that perspective, right now there is an impact on certain people to have worked in the fishing industry in certain sections of the state. but obviously have the routine which is destructive. but over the long haul, those problems will come back.

those drugs will come back. it may not be overnight, but they will come back. a few jobs have been affected. it is not an massive number of jobs at this point. it could be if the spill continued for a long time span. host: as the containment box reached the bottom of the ocean yet? guest: i do not know. a should be the focus of bp right now in terms of getting the lead fixed. the oil has already been spilled and is encroaching on the wetlands, and they do the best

they can. everybody has their intention on different things right now. i think that is appropriate because the big deal is to get the spill stopped. that becomes the critical issue. that is where bp should be putting a lot of its effort, and i am sure it is. host: do you have an estimate how much this will cost bp? >> yes, first, you have to appreciate the number of costs. they lost the rig. that rate is probably close to $1 billion to replace it. that is a number right there. you also lost 11 lives. so you have a cost there, a major cost there. every day, they're losing oil. in that case, they're supposed to be losing about 5,000 barrels a day, and at today's prices, that is about half a million

dollars today. that adds up over time. then of course, bp is going to pick up the bill for all the efforts. but it the government's will in terms of reacting to the crisis. in the will pick up the tab for the fishermen that are momentarily disrupted in their business activities. so it will end up costing them some money. and that is one of the reasons why the have a barry big incentives to get the lead fixed as quickly as possible. >> let's take some calls. we're talking about the economic cost of the bp oil spill in the gulf. a democrat from tennessee, you are up first. are you with us? caller: yes, i want to ask, i heard it one time that the state of louisiana really does not

receive revenues from the oil wells set out in the gulf. is it true or not? if so, the state of louisiana can benefit from different things. guest: the well's other in the federal offshore, the state does not their role to revenues, and we cannot tax those. we can only tax the wells that are within the stakes jurisdiction which would be about 3 miles of the shoreline. but we have indirect impacts in terms of obviously that people live in the state. you have many companies that service those platforms out there. so we get indirect effect. there's been discussionbout revenue sharing with the states on the wells nearby.

there is a law that will share some revenues. but no, we don't get money in terms of being able to tax it because it is not in our tax jurisdiction. host: next call is from crescent city, florida, henry, a republican. caller: i'm henry rhodes and i was wondering due to the fact that it is one well in a large number of wells how do we calculate what the direct economic impact is going to be? guest: from th perspective of the state of louisiana and there is a number of different perspectives, this one well is certainly causing some damage.

it was in the employxploratory but it would over time make a contribution to the nation's energy supply. we are now losing some of that, though they are trying t reduce it. in terms of the impact from louisiana's perspective, the number of offlower rigs -- the offshore rigs and platforms is a very large impact on the state economy. this one well doesn't detract from that, it merely causes problems and creates a little disturbance rit now which we are trying to get under control. i think the real element is as yoare looking at the impact of this one wl and particular spell is what damage has that caused because of the oil spill. and you can focus on that issue to get some sense of the extra cost the state is incurring or individuals have incurred because of this one well.

but in terms of the overall economic impact it is one small part of a much large indury. host: jim in rockville, maryland, independent line. please go ahead. caller: yes, i heard that there were something like 1,000 reefs out there. is that right? guest: yes. definitely. if you are looking for offshore activi activity, the gulf of mexico, louisiana, texas, that is where the rigs are. there are a big number of rigs and it is a major industry. if you are looking at production from louisiana, 90% of the oil production is from those rigs offshore, not from the in-shore state rigs. if you look at natural gas

production, about 75% of the natural gas production coming through louisiana will be from those rigs offshore. so that is a major industry and a major source of domestic energy. host: james richardson, the obama administration has put a moratorium on any new offshore licensing. is that correct? guest: they have until they have more information about this. i think the president made a very prudent statement saying that this is not a reason to shut down offshore drilling but was a reason to examine what may have wen wrong and proceed at that point. so from that angle it was a prudent statement and a reasonable statement. host:e have aweet for you. what assumptions could be made of the economic impact of the spill should the leaking continue for a prolonged period? guest: then i think you get into the unknown in terms of the potential impact.

if it leaks forever or a long period of time, this is what we are not sure of. and you are talking to the scntists, you talk to the people who have information about the environment, the ecologists, they have to provide you some impact on what it might cost. in terms of the real economic impact on the country, if it leaks a long period of time it makes people very hesitant to do offshore drilling and that takes away one source of energy. so, i think you will see at that point we have become a little more depende on foreign oil. if the other element from louiana's perspective, the impact, if it creates some problems forhe ships that are coming in to the mississippi river, then that is going to cause problems for the state if they cannot unload their cargo or they have to go to other ports and you have a major

impact that we would have to calcula calculate. also then the commercial fishing industry would be harmed for a more extended period of time and we would have to see the impact there, though again in that situation there are shrimp in other parts of water an oysters in other parts so people will find ways to make that up. it will take time though. but the industryn louisiana would be harmed directly. ho: next call for james richardson, waldorf, maryland, charlie, democrat. caller: this guy sound like he has been bought and paid for by the oil compans. that area is going to be devastated for a long time. what the oil company will try to do is make a couple of attempts to try to stop the oil. they are not really serious because the third largest company in the world would have had a plan a,,b, c and d.

they would have thought out could go wro and made a seu serious -- a serious company with the public's interest at heart would have foreseen this and had alternatives to what they are doing set in place. so, yes, that area will be devastated. thousands of jobs will be lost lives are going to be affected because you are going to have some probls years down the road. this gentleman is acting like it is no big deal and it is going to be ok. everything will be ok in the very long term. let's be real. that area is devastated and lives are going to be lost. host: mr. richardson? guest: well, again, from the perspective of what is happening right now, given wt occurred there are some impacts.

is it a catastrophe at this moment? no, its not. could it be? it could if it continues for a long period of time. that is why the emphasis is on getting the leak stopped at this moment. in terms of activity here, if you are here in the state you know this the state is continuing. indeed, if you look at other parts of the commercial fishing industry, the state, federal government, are stressing the fact that the seafood is safe to seat. right now depending on which way the tides run, which way the spil actually goes, if it goes toward the east of the mississippi river then you are affecting about 0% of the commercial fishing industry. if it goes back to the west, you are affecting a larger part of that industry and we don't know right at this moment, we are not really sure which way it will go. but, no rb there are -- and you

have to say right now, at this moment in time there are several people, a number of people, who have been directly affected. is it a huge number? no. but it is a number of people that have been very much impacted and harmed. it is not at this moment a catastrophe. can it become one? if they don't stop the leak then maybe. we don't really know. >> you said earlier that b.p. will certainly be picking up all the different costs. we have a tweet, should b. pfp.y the state for compensation for their mistake in addition to the cost of clean-up? should there be a revenue neutral situation for the state of louisiana? guest: i'm trying to figure out what they mean if we should get a little bonus payment or something. from this angle, i think that

the state has every right to keep costso keep the extra dollars they have spent for t overtime that mt be paid, the reallocation of theirorkforce to the coast area to take care of this particular spill. that is very reasonable for the state to do that and i think the stateill certainly >> we will leave this to go live to an event on the internet economy and privacy laws, hosted by the commerce department. it looks a commercial use of personal information about online consumers and related privacy issues. later, another group will focus on response to consumer privacy concerns. that is live at 2:00 p.m. eastern. right now, the panel on personal them -- information is under way. >> let me turn over to our speaker to get us started. >> thank you. thank you for the invitation. so when we hear about

personalization, which is the topic of this panel or at least one of the words, we usually think about our online search, purchases, and all the things that are convertible from our clicks and keystrokes. i want to bring it to the discussion our location as well, particularly as we bring on location-based services, personalization includes our physical location and our physical activities and our engagement with the physical world as well. so it term we use is participatory sensing. i will describe some of the uses of that technology as well as some of the privacy concerns that it brings up. what i mean bipartisan per is -- participatory sensing is a engages individuals in automated and partly automated recordings a personal activities. personal activities and observations. it is a powerful driver for internet and social innovation. because of the very telling nature of the traces that we

collect in this way and that we can share in this way, it should be a driver for privacy innovation as well. most of the last panel, privacy and innovation were used as trade-offs against one another. i find privacy innovation as being a very interesting area of pursuit, and one i think you are seeing in the technology area. so participatory sensing systems, leverage, mobile phones, and because of that, they really offer unprecedented observational capacity at the scale of the individual. at the same time that they are remarkably scalable and affordable. because of the proliferation of mobile services and capabilities they have. so the gps, emitters, cravat -- program ability that are increasingly on the phones. and people across the world have adopted these phones, and they are extremely important to them in the way they leave their

daily lives. these phones are more often on and carried than any previous personal technology. and because they are connected to location services and to the web, they can use the wealth of web based data as context for the services they provide people. for example, smart phone captured data streams combined with a powerful in france and visualization can be used to address a broad a way of health and wellness concerns. i will give a couple examples in a moment. it is the desire by individuals to personalize their own experiences that is the driver for innovation. health is an excellent example in this area and it is perhaps the killer application, if you will. however, data collected in this way, through participatory sensing, from people participating in the sensing of their environment in their lives, it is different than the challenges posed by data captured by a mobile carrier or data captured by a third party

about customers, which has been much of the discussion today but there was no mention of phone companies, which i find fascinating. this is about individuals having the opportunity to collect data about themselves, to learn from it, and to share it. and they're not regulated in the same way that you think of some of these large entities as being. the next one is allowed the concrete. as one example, and it is concrete and i am excited about this project happening right now. consider the personal voices and perspectives that are being captured in a community health data gathering activity as part of a project that is being funded by the california endowment. it is literally going on right now in the sense that people have woken up in california by now, and at the break i can show you some data that the community is collecting. they designed a process for residents in the area, but teenagers and adults, are

capturing structured and systematic data about the conditions in which they live, work, study, and so on. it is sort of, if you will, and no offense to anyone so sit with these companies, it is like twitter and flickr with a purpose. because they're collecting along certain systematic data parameters. housing conditions, school conditions, keep in among the questions that they run and capture a snapshot of a couple days of their lives. by surveying 200 residence, you're not sending an asking respect of questions. you're actually seeing snapshots of their lives along particular question that the community wants to know in order to plan and implementation project. in the next slide, the context of personal health and wellness, that one is about community health and wellness, about people talking about things in their environment that are expecting them and that reflect their health and safety.

in the context of personal health and wellness, it is not just the observations of telling. it is also automated activity traces. as well as a classic example of something you might have heard of, its data entry no does -- known as experience sampling. and the phones are programmed to prompt the user for a quick input at appropriate times and places during the course of their everyday lives, where they are and doing what they're doing. and their responses are always automatically time stamp, automatically coded, uploaded, automatically in the database, and there to be analyzed, process, and visualized. so consider somebody who is perhaps a diabetic struggling to stabilize their hypertension. all too common of the situation in this country and globally. so by prescribing frequent probing of the user for their self administered physiological measures, checking their blood

glucose, blood pressure, and their weight, and the timing dosage of evocation as well as for in the mum self report on their physical symptoms and side effects but a 60% of people dropped off their hypertension medication after six months because the side effects of the medication is more palpable than the symptoms of the disease. so if your physician is not just prescribing a new medication but describing niskanen self reporting, republics you can go and look at what is going on with your side effects and symptoms and do the other side of personalize madison which cannot be derived from to gnomic analysis and personalize your care. ok, so this same approach can apply to people dealing with cardiovascular disease or the risk of that, cancer patients undergoing a range of treatments simultaneously, physical therapy, medical information for mental health related conditions. in addition to giving the clinician the information they need to optimize the patient's

care plan, the same systems can be used and might first be used, because we do not work fda, to help patients with desired health behavior change. in the and, you need to be careful that conditions to develop, but we better start helping people not develop those conditions to begin with. .

i m on the next slide. the next approach is a personal data vault. we make it possible for individuals to not directly sharing all of their raw data with their prescribing clinician, who may be need to know that they are disrupted in their sleep, but does not need to know where they are sleeping. for an employer health challenge. they want to see where they are not being active. give them a place where this data can be stored, protected, and is under their control, and do not tell me to leave it on my phone. this is the exact kind of data that you want to be able to come back to one year later to see how you are doing better or worse than before.

while it may not be in the short term interest of the market provider to build their systems with need to know as a fundamental tenet, and does not mean that it is a bad thing for the market to do so. in fact, in the long term, it will lead to more innovation and a more rich market if we choose these privacy innovations and start to explore them to begin with. i just want to summarize, -- personalization of services is an important driver of social, internet, and privacy innovations, all of them together, and open privacy systems can create a level playing field in which public good and the market innovation can flourish together as we saw with the internet in the past several decades. as you know best, in this case,

we also need to match the typical practice with a legal mechanism. since diaries are discoverable, how can we look at this with any sense of self analytics? who will offer and managing these data vaults? we do not know. in closing, there is tremendous power in using second-generation phones. it is extremely usable for a range of issues that are important to all of us and the economy, health care and prevention. there is a tremendous amount that we can learn from it, and as well, a tremendous amount that they can learn from it, whoever they are. >> here is what i think i will do. i'm going to ask you one follow- up question.

with pam, sort of build a critique, a threat model for the kind of data we're talking about. with tim, i want to get to the real world experiences in which you are putting your user's data and the way that you think about privacy. with ed, i want to touch on privacy innovation. i would also like to touch on re identification. your presentation dross line between been gathering data about me and the gathering data about the physical environment in which i am living. what about data that i gather about other people which could have implications for their privacy?

>> yes, you just messed with my lines. >> i would say that this approach is not that first porous issue for the first time. there is so much image-gathering with tweeting and all sorts of things. i am not sure it is uniquely new to this particular framework. interestingly enough, i think i draw that line for the purposes -- it is sort of what is happening in the world. it is being used for talking about the entire world, and talking about myself, but they are so different of where people think about, and we're legally

it is in place, about how people think about privacy. maybe that information that i capture about you is so difficult to track, that i am not quite sure what to do with it, or as these two seem like a much clearer -- whereas these two seem like a much clearer project. i had abandoned certain projects because too much information was being gathered. in general life-blogging, while it is fascinating, individuals whom i find fascinating, that have innovated socially about this kind of blogging, but with this being so it image- inattentive, causes it to become a problem -- intensive, causes

it to become a problem. >> part of why this is particularly interesting to me is because this is one of the places where the privacy debate intersects with internet rules. we are americans, we believe in her reinvention. we believe in the ability to not be what we were at 18. although we try to be a team and we are 50. -- 18 when we are 50. [laughter] what is interesting is that the

data at issue is either a data that you want to withdraw all, more data than other people are writing about you that you do not want out there. so that ability to represent yourself to the world runs up against free speech issues about other people. i do not know if there is a clear moral right issue here. from the design of a privacy from work, i find this issue hard to do with. one issue where we have had to deal with these things is within financial data credit reporting, which is something that you have testified extensively about. that is a case where you have these organizations collecting data that is a form of expression about third parties about you.

anyway, pam? >> a couple of stops, all of this is intriguing. i would basically say that we are in a brave new world, and we need brave, new ideas. awhile back, "the onion" wrote a funny story talking about the google opt-out village. basically, it was all of the privacy advocates living alone on a hill. [laughter] it was so funny. i laughed so hard when i saw that. but i would also say that that is the greatest harm to consumers. that is the worst outcome that we could have with privacies, having that sort of village.

i think people should be able to use facebook, and do whatever they please with the new technology, and have privacy protection. the way you have those privacy protections is you do not create a world in which no becomes the only answer that you have. if it is your only answer, that leads us to the google opt-out village, and that is not an acceptable way to lift. if we accept that for our future generations, we want a world where people can share information but have privacy protection, then what do we do? you asked about threats models. this pot-out village -- opt-out village is meant to protect us.

this information is used to make the judgments, decisions about us, for better or for worse. i think that is a threat that is what we're looking at, how we are treated in life, and what we have based on the available information. but in terms of the solutions, because of the profound disparity in the types of data and that exist about us, the extraordinary technology -- i just bought a new ipod nano. it has a small video camera in it, which is cool. you can be jogging and take a video of anyone who happens to be near you.

it is a david brimm world. so when you have this sort of thing, people taking these videos, you cannot control that. one of the most important consumer solutions, i believe, is then to give consumers affirmative rights of access. for example, in the fair credit reporting model act, we have the ability to look at transactional data, look at what credit bureaus have said about us, who has access to our data. if there is an error, something that we do not like, we can correct. it does not always work, but we can try. there are all sorts of other private rights. private right of action. nevertheless, it was an

important part of the fbra. if you look at some of the important ideas of how to protect consumers, there is little discussion about affirmative consumer rights. there is a lot of discussion about transparency, this tool, that tool. these discussions are good, but it is like looking through a microscope at a meet the. we need to step away and take a look at the bigger picture. -- at amoeba. if we do not have rights associated with that transparency, it is like the emperor's new clothes. we have to have transparency with the consumer rights. >> tim, just to set a baseline, could you give us a non-

marketing description? one thing that i would ask you to touch upon is, you are in a position where you are facilitating transactions for your users. you are learning things about them from the information that they give you in a profile. [inaudible] do you combine with other parties? how do you think about privacy implications? >> we have been one of the larger facebook applications over the past few years. we have a few products getting tens of millions of users, the bookshelf, top five, one year ago, we launched a business

line where we work with local merchants and the aggregate number user base and people can get food and drink for $25. it really pioneered the social commerce space. it is all about sharing the fact that you made a transaction with your friends. there are features that we build into that, three of your friends to go and buy it, it becomes free. we want people to incentivize and share with their friends. because we have been so much in the facebook standpoint, a good number of our users are facebook connected when they make a purchase, so there are not creating an account with us, there are just leveraging their pre-existing facebook account. we have done a lot of leverage in on social platforms. we have lots of users and we

play in the social space, in the mobile space, and in the local space. that is all three of them coming together. i think you will see more innovation around there mainly because there are a lot of facts that you can see up there. one that i like is that 90% of offline commerce uppeoccurs oute of the home. when you look at the pure monetary value of transactions that are occurring, the technology, and then you think that that has not been applied to that space, it is really interesting. we think about two main things but we are innovating our products. one is how we can keep it

separation of church and state, and when we work with big providers, like facebook, how do we keep that separation? the second thing is, which i am sure you have thought about, smart defaults. if we are going to give lots and lots of options, but also from a practical standpoint, 90% of people never change their default settings. you need to be thoughtful and smart about making those decisions. i will give you two quick examples. we have a product called the visual bookshelf. you can keep track of all the books that you have read, write reviews for your friends. we know who your friends are because of facebook. and we can tell who your best friends are because of the

amount that you interact with them. if all 10 of your friends have read a book that you have not, is that data that we should service to you and recommend that you should read this book? it is a benign thing, but it leverages lot of different things. it is not immediately transparent that that is how the recommendation would get to you, but an example of something that people would consider useful functionality that leverage is your friend, their real world habits, making inferences about connections. the second is with our deals and the purchase is that people make. if we send you tend offers from a spa and you never open a single e-mail and we know that

your friends always open e- make those customization to, can we leverage that facebook data? how can we protect that data from going back to facebook? those are the sorts of things where we can make it much more likely that you are going to get an offer that is more interesting to you, if we can do those things. it has tangible benefits to you. you have things that are interesting to you, but getting back into the church and state question, we have to tell facebook that you made a transaction in this genre and the activity needs to go in this direction. there is a lot to think about. we try to do all of these things in an ethical way, but it is not

always clear. >> one of the big lessons to come out of computer science in recent years is the power of the inference from large datasets. the idea that you have sophisticated algorithms and enormous amounts of data that you can do remarkable things in extracting, understanding the underlying connections and patterns in that data. as consumers, we see this all the time in the kinds of personalization that those companies do. by having large amounts of data about our behavior and infer aggressively from that behavior, they can make a lot of acrid predictions on what we may want. as a consumer, that is a great thing. but this inference also works on the other side. if the company is releasing data

that they hope has been on non -, it might be possible that you might be able to we identify the individual who that data is about. so it could work on the other side as well, putting doubt into settings where we did not think that it was. this can become complicated when you talk about products that are personalized based on the other things that people have done. imagine something recommending books to be based on what books i have bought in the past. such systems tend to look at what i have wanted in the past in comparison to what other people wanted and trying to find people whose purposes are like me. if we imagine andrew has a habit of buying garfield books -- hypothetically speaking. otherwise, he buys a lot of the same policy books as me, the

system may begin recommending garfield books to me from that request. so with the behavior that i see depends on what he has done. its behavior is data about what other people have done. large amounts of data means inference is possible. it can be difficult to reason about the implications of this. this re-identification problem, adaptability of systems, is challenging. but in this challenge is also an opportunity. and an opportunity for research, for innovation, to figure out how to offer these rich services without having to gather so much data, and offer them in a way that is protective of the interest of other users.

>> anybody who knows me, knows that i like family circus. [laughter] let me ask you about a computer science question. we will use as our sample data set, information from your mobile phone. it is pinging a tower every couple of minutes, and one of the things that is uniquely problematic about that data, it is in the aggregate, it does a good job of knowing who you are, where you are. they can see that you spend this amount of time here, this amount of time there. given that the data is inherently personal to a human

-- health data -- a certain number of diagnoses [inaudible] from a computer science perspective, what does the world of anonimization look like? procedural vs. substantive? we can do whatever as long as we follow the process. [unintelligible] >> let us suppose we are talking about that kind of location,

data set about a large number of people. and we would like to make that available for socially beneficial uses without totally beaten the information about what everyone does. there are two approaches that we might take. one might try to activate the data together in a way that may try to make it impossible to re- infer data about individuals. as i said, that is a difficult thing to do, but it depends on what kind of questions we want to ask the data. this is the kind of thing that the census tries to do. generally, it does things quite successfully. some statistical information about what is going on while still protecting individuals. also, fundamental to this kind of problem is this is a

reduction of structured -- introduction of structured noise, making it harder to confirm information about individuals. the other approach you could take is that you will not release information, but people can enter queries into which we can investigate and make sure that someone is not executing a pattern of queries that would try to identify someone. that is also difficult because you have a problem of what could be inferred from the answer that they get. the one thing that we cannot do from a purely technical standpoint is release all the data and hope for the best. that would be a disaster. >> the legal system presents a real challenge to the computer science side of things. access to the data, however strong your protections may be,

potentially exposing the data. >> of course, everything you are saying is right, and important as well, but i think something gets overlooked when we focus on these big and gets. -- aggregates. inherently, it takes longer until we have big aggregates of data, and who you get them from our from someone regulated industries. i think, at some level, it is not a solvable problem. a colleague of mine talks about the flow of information. it is not a by mary issue. it has to be the rate at which, the band with of that

information. i do not think that we will ever completely solve the problem. wilit will be a continuing tension of what we put in place to slow it down to make it more comfortable. but i do not want to get lost in these big advocate of data. right now, you have to all of these companies coming up with things where you have the ability to self monitor your location, how you are feeling about these things, and your data is going into their database. that raw data is going into their database. [no audio] a more sensible way. you just do not release all of that run data about yourself.

you do a version of what ed said. you have your raw data, and you bring the query to it. what you release are the result of what they needed to know. i think it is important not to only focus on those big aggregates, but focus on practices that we have about choices available to us. >> just to respond quickly. i am going to say something that i said before. there are theoretical limits to privacy in datasets. you cannot get around that. that is the way it is. if you have a data set with unique elements, you can re-

identify, and we cannot pretend like that is not happening. so can we de-identify data enough? no, that cannot happen. so we're left with a data model which leaves us with a honey pot for law enforcement. so where does that leave us? we are flushed out of bottles -- flush out of models. i see the statement that you are trying to deal with. try to make each system as efficient as possible. that is a challenging task. you have to constantly reinvent your ethos to do so. so we need a theoretical model that covers all of uses. this comes back to the fbra. what substantive limits can we

place on different types of information, informational uses? otherwise, we are trying to de- identify pieces of data that cannot be. it is challenging unless we have some affirmative action going forward. >> talking about the privacy innovation theme. you are running a start up -- among other things, you need to build product, derived revenue, and you are dealing with personal issues. are you encouraged, optimistic, blindsided, by the theory that

privacy innovations may help you to confront these problems? >> a healthy degree of skepticism might be the right way to think about it. there are so many cases with innovation around it that i have a high degree of skepticism that a regulatory policy, innovations along those lines will sabe able to keep up. what we think about, how do you create some freeman that is almost more of the business community framework? many of the technology companies are putting together their consortiums in that sense, and

they may become big, powerful things, but that type of model will be where you get a lot of traction from a privacy innovation standpoint. >> i need to be cleared. i was not thinking of the self- regulatory framework. i was thinking of the ftc making framework. i think they are in a good position to make those regulations. i think the business community can do that, too, but the problem with a self-regulatory framework is there is not enough attention. they need to be joined rulemaking where there is actual tension. just to clarify. >> let me drill down on this point, which is, i take it that

you have no problem with procedural issues. >> 98% of them, you try to be as smart analogical about them, but the more that you put in, the less that they will read, from a practical standpoint. >> and we are not even talking about things like screen size. that can affect things. but for the desktop user, [inaudible] would you be troubled were worried by substantive limitations that would say that you cannot, for example, build profiles of users unless you give them the ability to see [inaudible] and correct and edit those

profiles? >> it is entirely a question of opt-in, opt-out. do we need to get their permission to look at the profiles, correct and that it? can we do that and they have the ability to go in and then correct? that is the key thing. if it is the first, users are just not that proactive enough. then you get a minority of the few that will go in and do that. i just think there is a lot of innovation that gets stifled on that front. >> i guess i agree that if you disclose everything, policy can be problematic.

i do think there are important things that can be done to get consumers ideas on what is happening closer to what is actually happening. companies should strive not to surprise their customers. there is his expectation that customers have based on how the product is presented to them, and the less that you can surprise customers, the better. now that i have the microphone, i wanted to respond to something that pam said. i am more optimistic about our ability to get our hands around what we can develop from a certain data set. we are just starting to build a fundamental theory of what can be inferred from a data set and

what cannot. you can see this starting to take root in the research community. we have not gone to the point where we can apply the theory to anything that we rely on in our everyday lives, but there is hope that we can get there. i do not want to leave the impression that it is completely hopeless to read what is in a verbal about this or that. i would not go quite that far. i actually hope that we would be able to make strong guarantees about things that we care about. >> to come to your defense, she did not really say that. there are data sets -- [unintelligible] they also say, being able to know how much it is, how much it is not. i do not think that there is

much disagreement. the flip side of what you ask for is what i expected you to say -- if you give me complete transparency, i might be learning things about other customers. the question that you started with was what about the things that you learned about others? you cannot give complete transparency because of what you do. that is the very nature of that technical innovation. that being said, another arena where we do not do as much as we can best technologists is to help people visualize what they want to do with their data. everything on the screen is about protecting the company from legal recourse, nothing about actually informing the person. we can do better than that.

all sorts of visualizations that you could do. they might not be perfect, but it is a lot better than what they are now. that is what i mean by privacy innovation. there are things that we can do to help us navigate this world better, by bringing to the forefront these concerns. >> let's begin with you and give everyone a last word before we finish. >> building on that, i want to make a pitch that primacy can be in the area of competitive advantage for companies. companies have gone into these issues. we have had an environment that allows more innovation, some of it bill-advised, but some of it not, a -- ill-advised, but some

of it not, but i think that companies can really take advantage by being proactive about these issues. >> a lot of what is being said is the same thing that has occurred for decades. the medium's have just allow things to move much faster. for example, what your friend is doing lifecasting -- that have been 20 years ago, just in completely different ways. rumors become facts much faster than they used to, and people get freaked out when that happens. there is going to be continued communication changes, and that is what this is all ultimately

about. communication channels and distribution channels being faster than it used to be able to. that will continue to happen, and it will continue to have been in incredibly unique ways that we cannot imagine from now. in no way, is it a runaway freight train, or anything like that, but a lot of what is happening is from a different context. i do not care about 99% of it. i care about the 1% of it where i think there are all of dollars. the majority of the data out there -- i am not running a non- profit. that is where the majority of focus will be. i would encourage where the commission -- communication channels are occurring, high

dollars, that is where the privacy and regulatory focus should be. >> a couple of ideas that i wanted to talk about that we did not have a chance to get in depth in. first, a consensus is important, -- and send it is important, but i do not believe consent is equal to privacy. it is not that simple. the second thing i would say it is an under-utilized. of thinking is data retention. a lot of these problems can be addressed by a renewed look at how data retention is accomplished, length of data retention. if we kept somebody's data for 24 hours, compared to 24 months, how does that change the privacy

equation? i think these are very interesting question that we need to ask and should be exploring much more deeply. i think there are some good solutions out there. >> there are things that we want to do that we will not be able to solve with retention because we need the data. the last thing that i want to add is that there is a role that folks here, certainly folks in the government also can play, as buyers and purchasers. there are roles that we can play as employers, government, individual consumers, in trying to have different options, as well as regulators and analyzers of the law, and that there is an

important interplay of what happens in congress and what we choose to purchase. -- commerce and what we choose to purchase. >> we have the opportunity to do some overtime. first, however, i want to thank the panelists for taking time to be here. [applause] so this over time bonus that we get before lunch -- i have a unique question. peter, could you jump up here? peter is a colleague of mine and his unique take on privacy is -- he used to be on the omb. now you are back 12 years later.

i am sure they were important, interesting things. [laughter] but i respect your privacy. [laughter] so my question for you is very simple. in the last 10 years, a lot has changed, technology, consumer environment. from the regulatory side, what has changed? >> thank you, andrew. andrew has been leading a lot of efforts at the white house to think through these things. one thing that is the same is the role isntia is playing today, reviving a role that it played in the 1990's. one of my first talks had to do about the institutional structure is going forward.

seeing revived attention here incomers is one thing that is the same as before. one thing that is different is the number of people who have had a chance to work on these issues. in 2001, one grouwithin compania group of people who work on expertise. one way to frame the change, i think there are two compelling vision within the obama administration and one is how

useful data is and empowers individuals and businesses to do certain things. data.gov allows you to see how we are forming the future. another thing is, there needs to be dignity and privacy in the personal space going forward. we need to have trust that as we go on-line, scary things will not happen to us. what is different is this sense of trust and controls over data. how to do that is a challenge to you, in the audience, to everyone listening, but i hope people can think through that tension and come up with an answer for this decade that will build upon what we have been talking about for the past

decade. [applause] >> i want to take just a couple of minutes of your time. i think we are going to pay it back at the end of the day by letting you out early. before everyone disperses for lunch and recognizing that some of you will not be able to stay until the end of the day, i just want to acknowledge the people that made this day possible. they come from many different parts of the government, different parts of the private sector. i'll want to thank our colleagues from the other agencies, from the federal trade commission. our ability to work with them has been tremendously valuable to us. we will hear from the state department later on. the chance to work with andrew and peter, and others at the

white house has been a of the light -- inner valuable to us. -- invaluable to us. i also wanted to highlight the work that we have been doing with ita. at ntia, doug taylor, ari, katrina who is upside, jessica, who is probably not here anymore. this whole effort at the commerce department started because of the commerce department general counsel, the head of the secretary policies of this, who recognize that

cyber trust issues were going to be critical. i have had incredible support from my bosses. i arrived here about one year ago without having a clue of how to function in government, and they have been very indulgent about me. one year ago, mark arrived, and that was an incredible surprise. being able to do this together with him has been fantastic. at least as i see it, i think that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. finally, the energy behind this -- they have made this happen, and they deserve a big applause. watch out for these two. some of us were around 10, 15

years ago. you will be seeing them in the future. have a great lunch. come back a quarter to 2:00. thank you so much. our speaker has a short window, and i want you to hear everything he has to say. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> we will continue our coverage of this forum when it resumes between 1:45 and 2:00. that panel will look at the industry response to privacy concerns. again, this is being held by the commerce department. >> this weekend, john paul stevens and general solicitor paul indicated. -- elena kagen. >> the president got on the phone and said to me, judge, i would like to announce your as my selection to be the next associate justice of the united states supreme court. and i said to him, i caught my

breath and started to cry. i said, thank you, mr. president. >> learn more about the nation's highest court through the eyes of those who serve there. "the supreme court." stories and photographs from all the justices. available in paperback or heard of. >> -- hardback. >> you can connect with us online at c-span.org. >> again, more live coverage from the commerce department on consumer privacy. until then, they look at antibiotic resistant bacteria from this morning's "washington journal."

us from the campus of the national institutes of health is dr. anthony fauci,he director of natural diseases. today we are talking about antibiotic resistance. do americans use too many antibiotics? >> unfortunately the answer to that is yes. there certainly is a lot of appropriate use of antibiotics but very often a patient will come in to a doctor's office really with not a bacterial infection or not an infection at all and would really almost demand of the physician to be put on antibiotics. that is what is referred to a inappropriate use of antibiotics. that one that leads to the bacteria ultimately developing resistance to antibiotics so that when you really do need them for a serious infection in some cases you start to develop a certain percentage of those

microbes that are resistant to the antibiotics. we are facing a very challenging situation because this is an increasing problem. host: but it is alsoncreasing worldwide, isn't it? because in traveling around the world i have seen penicillin. you can purchase it over the counter as regular medicine. >> yes, it goes well beyond the patient-physician interaction. it is much more flexible unfortunately more flexible in other countries where you can walk into a pharmacy and ask for anntibiotic and get it without the prescriptionf a physician, which just naturally leads to inappropriate use because patients feel they will take an antibiotic for feeling badly and it may have nothing to do with an infection. that is a big problem. host: in the last year or so this has become a very popular product, hand nitizer. we have it all over the office. everybody has it at home.

everybody uses antibacterial washes and stuff like this. is this also creating a problem? guest: it could potentially. some of the hand sanitizers, the purelcohol ones is not a problem because that is directly toxic to the bacteria. so, when you heard us talk about hand hygiene during periods of time when there were a lot of infections going around we were talking mostly about the alcohol. when you talk about an an antimicrobial substance in a hand sanitizer that potentially could lead to the development of resistance of microbes particarly those that inhabit the skin. some of the organisms that could be spread. host: we will put the numbers up on the screen if you want to talk about antiantibiotic resistance and use of theand us.

host: you can also send us a tweet or e-mail. there was a hearing this week on capitol hill on antibiotic use in animals, in meat products. what is the problem there if there is one? guest: the situation is that in the agriculture industry particularly among livestock, if the livestock are sick with an infectn it is very appropriate to give that herd or individual animal an antibiotic. and sometimes when there is spread of infecti that is clear you want to use tproef lacks cyst meaning gosh prophylaxis. those are well-defined. but what is a practice that goes on widely is to put aibiotics in the feed of animals to help

enhance their growth so that you have animals that are bigger, that have more meat on them, into really have very little to do with them being sick with an infection. there is the potential risk there that if you give antibiotics to those animals the normal bacterial flora that are in every living animal will ultimatelyvolve to have org organisms that could be resistant and be passed on to humans so if you have something that infects somebody that might be a problem getting the right antibiotic. so there is the potential risk. it is very interesting the numbers that a large percentage of all the antibiotics that are manufactured are actually used in the feed of animals so thebl have -- they can have