future, i do not roll -- know what role i may play, if any, but i can tell you this, frankford is still broken and meet a need more good leaders to fix it. we need a governor who actually has an agenda for the next four years. someone who will to get our economy moving again, and who will work with the general assembly to find solutions, and not good luck. we need a full-time attorney general, will focus on weeding out corruption at all levels. we need an attorney general -- ♪ ♪

>> thank you, trey. for all we hear from our two senate candidates, we have selected officials we would like to recognize here. we would ask you to all stand, if you could, to show your appreciation. the county elected officials -- tony smith, as judge. debra crook, district judge. tim sark, circuit judge. howell, pba. arthur byrd, mayor of merv fieayfiled. john cunningham, a county attorney, philip corner,

commonwealth attorney, john davis, randy, jailer. we also have some former officials of the grace county -- carol, former congressman. bob jackson, former state senator. rick johnson, passed a judge on the kentucky court of appeals, and gail robins, county attorney. please welcome all those folks here to fancy farm this afternoon. [applause] all right, we're not going to hear from our two candidates for the u.s. and senate. at this time, and dr. rand paul and jack conway would come up, we will flip a coin. let them decide who goes first, and who goes second.

jack conway won the toss, and he likes to go first. is a former deputy cabinet secretary, and deputy general counsel, the former -- of the former governor, paul patton. receive and -- he received an undergraduate degree from duke university, a law degree from george washington university. he and his wife elizabeth also have a young daughter who just turned one year old. please welcome democrat nominee

for united states senate, jack conway. [applause] >> afternoon. thank you, jeff, and to sing jerome, and to father darrell -- to saint jerome. accountability, accountability is what citizens of kentucky want from their elected officials, to put kentucky first and hold washington and wall street accountable. there's a huge difference between my record of holding pharmaceutical companies and scam artists accountable, and my opponent's record of holding no one accountable, least of all himself. in fact, there seems to be an

emerging theme for rand paul and republicans this year -- they say it simply as "accidents have ppen." you can hear that all of their answers to questions is that "accidents happen >" what did rand paul say to the people of the gulf coast? what did he say to the widows of kentucky coal miners? what did rand paul said to thousands of americans who lost their life savings because of wall street's agreed? accidencts happen. and the morning after the primary, what did he say? accidents happen. but the accidents in kentucky in

the nation cannot be allowed to happen,l would be the election of rand paul. this race presents a clear choice between my proven record and responsibly for proposals of the future in the risky ideas of my opponent. as the chief law-enforcement officer of kentucky we have taken 70,000 child pornography images of the internet, have gone aggressively after drug dealers and those who prey on senior citizens. we helped to shut down a prescription drug pipeline from florida, and struck down on the oil companies that guage. we went after drug companies that lied to us. that is the record of taking a public office, and treating it as a public trust, and that is just what would do as your next u.s. senator.

[applause] the citizens of kentucky are hurting, out of work. that is why i have a detailed jobs plans to create 11,000 jobs here in kentucky. too many small businesses cannot programng, so we have a proble to get small banks lending again. the government spends too much -- that is why i have a deficit reduction plan to save taxpayers nearly $500 billion. you can read it on my website. i understand that citizens of kentucky faced a serious challenge, and have seen it firsthand. i have seen it in the small- business owners who cannot get a loan, or the farmers right here in the western kentucky concerned about this year's crop. but to those families and challenges, my opponent offers only out of touch, radical views that are risky and even scary, those that would hurt kentucky

families. he waffles and backpedals when his risky ideas are exposed. just listen. rand paul is against nearly all federal spending except for that which others his own nest. -- feathers his own nest. he pledged not to take money from those who support a bill is, except when they supported him, and is for term limits, except when they apply to him. he says he will balance the entire federal budget next year, but just wanted you how he will do it this year. why is he waffling? because he knows that both you and you will not buy his risky agenda. he has shown a callous disregard for the poorest among us. he has shown the same disregard for farmers, students, and veterans.

it will eliminate the farm to work program, and prevent students from getting student aid, and even opposes the americans with disabilities act which provides the cigarettes to veterans returning home for more. folks, rand paul place your fears rather than helps. he says america today is like a fallen rome. i say that he is wrong, and that our best days are ahead of us. there is nothing wrong with america that cannot be fixed by what is right with america. this is an important election. it is not about me, and not about a waffling pessimistic just wants to be the prince of cable-tv. it is about the people of kentucky. they need someone to stand up

for them. my roots run deep in western kentucky. i will carry your help and values to the u.s. senate, and humbly ask for your support. thank you, and god bless you. [applause] [chanting] >> our next speaker this afternoon -- some call him not a typical candidate some call him unconventional.

he attended at baylor university and graduated from newton medical school. in 1993 rand paul with his wife of 19 years and moved to bowling green, kentucky, to begin his ophthalmology practice with his wife and three sons. in 1995 he founded the southern kentucky eye clinic. the former president served there for 17 years. in 1993 rand paul funded kentucky taxpayers union to it. it is a non-partisan citizens' watchdog group to inform the voters on key's spending and taxation votes by their legislators. welcome rand paul.

[applause] >> thank you, thank you, thank you. the u.s. tax code is so large and so a lot of control, like the rest of washington, that i could not carry it on stage. as you can see, the u.s. tax code takes eight people to lift, it is a 16,000 pages long. if you stack it vertically, it would be nearly 7 feet tall. it costs nearly $260 billion to

comply with the tax code. the money is flushed down the toilet and wasted, wasted on tedious and complex forms. i think tank recently asked 45 accountants to do a tax return for the average american family. you know how many different answers they got? 45 different answers. it costs over 6 billion working hours to comply with the tax code. washington is broken. government needs reform from top to bottom. [applause] it is not just the tax code. the regulatory code is 79,000 pages long. if we had it here today it would stretch nearly 30 feet long. we have added 10,000 regulations

in the past decade. to comply with these costs us over $1 trillion. whenever a new crisis arises, our politicians call for more regulation. i say to stop and ask, are we obey the regulations that we already have? president obama -- he thinks, like jack does, that we can borrow our way out of this recession. it will not happen. president obama believes that jobs are created by government. we believe that private individuals, businesses create jobs. nancy pelosi -- she's says we

can read the 2500 pages after they passed the bill. obamacare will cost $1.20 touring, but they tell us it is really not going to add anything to the debt. i do not believe it and kentuckians do not believe it. i say to nancy pelosi, come on down to kentucky, campaign with the jack. you can talk about cap and trade and obamacare all you want. good luck on that one, jack. now everybody knows that the jack had to eliminate certain words from his fancy farm dictionary. the seven words that you cannot

say on television. in addition, there are six more words you not hear jack say. president obama, nancy pelosi, harry reid. there are three more words you cannot hear him say -- cap and trade. he was for it before he was against it. who knows where he is at this point? working kentuckians will not vote for a man who will double their electric bill. with every new crisis the left calls for more government. listen to them chanted more government. we are operating a government that drifts from crisis to crisis. rahm emanuel says let no crisis

be wasted. this kind of thinking is destroying america. the bills are thousands of pages long. is it too much to ask them to read the bills? i propose letting them wait 20 days for every page -- that would keep them busy for a while. i think that america's greatest days lie ahead, but only if we, the citizenry, the beleaguered taxpayer, the working backbone of america joins together to take this great country back. to unleash the power, the brilliance, the exponential energy of capitalism.

to once again be the beacon of liberty that shines so brightly that all people in all nations wish to emulate this grand experiment of freedom. thank you, fancy farm, and god bless america. >> regardless of his support for u.s. senator, regardless of who you support, let's show our appreciation for both of these men being willing to serve the people of kentucky.

thank you all. [applause] we have some other elected officials we would like to recognize, the very special guests who are here. first of all, we have with us on the stage former governor, currently the president of pikesville college. bill cunningham, a supreme court justice. judge cunningham, back in the back. also with us today randy dunn, president of murray state university. micky who is the ballard county judge executive, the mayor,

ronnie, the county commissioner, dr. morgan, board of regents at murray state university, jeryl watkins, bill grave, retired justice of the kentucky supreme court, and also our colleague, john, state representative from christian county. our next speakers are candidates for congress, kentucky's first congressional district. they our congressmen ed whitfiled, his challenger, mr. hatchett. we will flip a coin to see who will speak first.

our first speaker, in kentucky's first congressional district, is the democrat nominee. mr. charles hatchett from marshall county, in real estate, also an auctioneer, and as a laborer in construction work. he is the democratic nominee for congress in kentucky's first congressional district. please welcome mr. charles hatchett. [applause] >> thank you, this is a kansas, isn't it? in the democratic candidate for the first district, but want you to pretend for the next few minutes that we are all

americans without a party affiliation. the founding fathers farmed our country by signing documents to establish a new mission, and no one put a party affiliation with that signature. in kentucky there is a billboard with a bible verse on it which says "if my people will humble themselves and pray, i will heal their land200 years ago and the people of this country were taxed by a the king of england, so the service decided to form a new government. later, the government was the servant. government was formed to restrain evil from the kings. alvin was a servant of the people, born a shirshort distane from here. in 1940, he humbled himself and

prayed about a situation that happened quickly. the people of israel were suddenly before the united nations for a vote to become an issue. president truman was studying the bible. alvin went to him and begged him to vote yes for israel to become a nation. barkley said this is from god, and god will bless those to bless this year. president truman said that allies wanted him to vote no. both men were sympathetic to the jewish people because of the awful things done to them during world war ii. president truman said that he would vote yes because of alvin. these two men fulfilled the biblical prophecy and israel became a nation. did god heal our land after that? in 1951 mccracken county, number one for capital income due to

the atomic boom town -- north 1 in the nation -- are now above four richest nations are watching the deep sea. the number one energy source -- kentucky coal. millionaires with lives allocated in these following cities -- home of the governor, steve beshear -- oil was drilled for, our uniforms made in mayfield. fort campbell expanded. just south of here there were 1500 jobs that are now in china. different resources were mined around here. the servant barkley zemeckis

began his final words were "i would rather be a servant in the house of the lord, the end to be in the house of the might y." those of kentucky found favor under their good service. today we still live in the gods could raise because of that love for constituents. he was born and raised in the western kentucky. he bought his home here and was buried here. he was pro chooses kress, pro- israel, perlite, and pro the people in his district. what a man and survive. time has passed, and now the seven has given the king's jobs to severance pay in china. corporate entities have been given contrasting flavors that have taken the wealth, and our

homeland is in mortgage to foreign lands. the servants have voted themselves a raise while the kings struggle to make $30,000 per year. some have lost their jobs to the trade agreements. has the nightmare replace the american dream? the access point for america's wealth has been washington, d.c. it is time that we change that to the district. our congress needs to have the wise counsel of 10 people. even a city mayor has a city council to help balance his action been we can no longer trust the congressman with 30 counties and no oversight. we can at least take one branch of the government back to the people. i'm asking you -- he says that

my time is up. thank you for your attention. [applause] >> our next speaker was first elected to congress in 1994. ed whitfiled is a negative of the city here. he received his bachelor's and the university of kentucky, currently serves on the house committee on energy and commerce, is the ranking member in the house on the subcommittee on commerce, trade, and consumer protection. now serving his eighth term as congressman from kentucky's first congressional district, congressman whitfield. >> thank you very much. i want to thank all of you for giving me the opportunity to represent you in the u.s. congress over the last 16 years. it has been a great honor.

i'm delighted you're here. back in january 2009, president obama, nancy pelosi, and harry reid told the american people that they were going to change america. since they made that promise, there reckless spending has left us with a debt of $3.20 trillion. the interest alone costs us $400 billion per year. is that the kind of change that you want? they are spending the size of government, have taken over the automobile industry, are taking over the banking industry, the insurance industry, healthcare. they have even taken over student loans. is that the kind of change that you want?

they have even tried to put a tax on the burning of coal. in kentucky 92% of our electricity comes from burning coal. is that the kind of change that you want? to allow theoing bush tax cuts to expire. i'm glad you all are happy about that because the income tax rate for every tax bracket will be increased. capital gains will be increased. the dividend income will be increased. capital gains will be increased. even the marriage penalty will be restored. so, if you are married, you will pay more than single people do. is that the kind of change that you want? i do not believe that america can afford barack obama, nancy

pelosi, and harry reid anymore. so, as we gather here on this 130th anniversary of fancy farm , i must tell you we are at risk of becoming a nation where personal freedom, entrepreneurship, and job creation take a backseat to higher taxes, political correctness, government takeovers, and a social agenda that makes us less competitive. and where else could you find a country where the attorney general of the u.s. sues the state of arizona for trying to stop illegal immigrants? is that the kind of change that

you want? well, if you want to continue the policies of barack obama, nancy pelosi, and harry reid, but for jack conway. but if you want to reduce the size of government, bring spending under control, create jobs, less taxes, then i would appreciate your vote. thank you very much. >> this c-span the works. we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, non- fiction books, and american history. find our content any time through c-span's the dealer. on the road with our digital budge, the local content -- it is c-span your way, no available

in over 100 million homes. provided as a public service. >> the two leading candidates in the florida senate democratic primary race participated in debate in st. petersburg earlier this webbing of the primary winner on august 24 will face the likely republican nominee and the independent candidate. this hour-long debate was hosted by two parties. >> this is a special report -- the democratic primary for the u.s. senate. >> hello, everyone. scott harris. you're watching a special -- the race for the u.s. senate.

we're joined by the two leading democratic candidates. >> it is an open secret that was occupied by martinez announced he would be resigning. that set off a domino effect. the one candidate was handpicked until the upcoming election. on primary day democrats around the state will go to the polls to choose their candidate. the two men joining us currently have the most support. we have conducted interviews with the third candidate. you can find those on our channels. the winner of this democratic primary will likely meet up with charlie crist and mark rubio in the november 2 general election. >> this will not be a formal debate. over the next hour we will have a conversation with the two on a variety of topics. we're calling everyone by their

first names. we have asked them to keep their answers concise, and limit them to two minutes. scott and i will make sure to keep the discussion moving ahead so that we can touch on important subjects. throughout the program, we will hear what is on your mind with web polls. immediately following, we'll get some analysis from the reporter for "the st. petersburg times." >> thank you both for having us. i'm running for the u.s. senate because like some money around florida i am fed up with the direction our country is heading. guys like my opponent have been in washington for eight years, and have failed to accomplish what we need. we are in a critical time in history. today i think that we're facing

some of the steepest challenges ever. it is a clear choice. it will be a clear choice between both kendrick meek and me. he means well, but he is a career politician, involved in some corruption scandals after having taken some special interest money. i'm an outsider. i have been in the business world my whole life. i have created jobs and will not special penny either now or after i'm elected. i'm donating my entire salary to charities all over florida. that is why i am running. >> thank you for having me. i'm so glad to be back here again. i'm running for the u.s. senate to make sure that every florid ian has a strong voice in

washington, d.c. i have worked as a state trooper, a public servant, dealing with issues such as class size, protecting against predators, and those who said that every day to make lives order. it is also important to know that the time i have been in the congress of work hard on health care, housing the decision, and making sure we have accountability. it is the reason why i'm running for the u.s. senate. it is to make sure that every citizen of florida who needs a strong representative has one. my track record speaks to it. a number of veteran organizations support my candidacy, as the firefighters, policemen, and teachers. in this business of public service it is a key role -- one we all play, to serve the people of the state of florida. my track record speaks to that.

it is important to clear up today some of the attacks that mr. jeff greene has made on my character. the attacks that i am tied in with some sort of corruption -- that is false. as we look at this issue, it is also important that this is about public service, serving the people of the state. this is not about he says, she said. it is about who will serve the people. >> we will give you the opportunity. >> you have both hit on topics we will return to. >> something that has dominated the news -- the oil spill. do you think that oil drilling should be banned off the coast of florida. >> i do think so, and have stood for that for a long time. >> i am against offshore drilling.

all offshore drilling, until we can show it is safe and have a plan for an accident. the accident off the coast of louisiana was a big danger to our lifeline. >> let me ask you both -- it is a state question. charlie crist called a special session to pass a constitutional amendment. was it the right thing to do? >> it is a good idea. is's face it, charlie crist for offshore drilling. now his running with john mccain and flip-floping about it and is now for offshore drilling. >> i have always called for a constitutional amendment against offshore drilling off florida. years ago citizens decided that

they want a clean water in beaches, and to promote tourism. other states and the gulf like alabama and mississippi, texas, louisiana chose oil. it is important to take this issue off the table for the florida legislature to continue to debated every year, that we move to new energy opportunities to create jobs. >> was the special session a good idea to? >> without leadership it was a bad idea. the governor did not put forth leadership to bring about productive dialogue for the people to have a chance to vote for it. senator bill nelson and i wrote governor days after the oil spill, saying it should be placed on the ballot. i think it was on the political timetable for the governor. he and his republican colleagues rejected the call. >> this oil spill should never

have happened. it was not an act of god. it was a failure of kendrick meek and others to fail to regulate these oil companies. our energy policy has been dictated for a generation by big oil. kendrick meek himself is accepted money from bp. they had 700 violations of our cuts. i call for an additional moratorium, one on contributions to any political politicians for the next 10 years, from any oil companies. >> thank you so very much. it is so obvious that mr. jeff greene is continuing to be negative because he is light on ideas. he is heavily invested in petroleum. his invested in petroleum in venezuela. he talks very little about green

initiatives. i have a 100% voting record with the league of conservation voters. when you talk about special interests, you have one yourself -- you have invested in a number of schemes, and dingell on wall street. you made money. you are used to talking over people, but please allow me to speak. i know that that is hard for you. to be in public service is important that we have people willing to listen to citizens of florida. that is what i have done. >> these allegations are all false. his tv commercial is all false. he says that warren buffett was talking about me. it is false. he said i cost the housing crisis. everything he says in his commercial is false. there are millions o

floridaians out of work. we need to get them back to work. >> you are both democrats. did the president act quickly enough? some say he did not do enough in washington. >> the thing about this whole debate -- you said it will but democrats. i have to smile because mr. jeff greene is a new democrat, just coming to the party. two years ago. president barack obama and a number of democrats such as myself have been cleaning up the mess from jeb bush --i mean george bush -- that was a slow. it is important to understand we're finding out of economic turmoil. we had to strengthen the financial committee because some put their dollars against

homeowners. it is important to know that we are working very hard. is everything working the way that it should? no, the democrats have worked hard to help the recovery, and the stick of florida would be in worse shape if actions such as the stimulus that saved teacher jobs -- >> i have to respond. he says i'm not a democrat. i was raised a democrat in massachusetts. the first presidential election i remember as a child was jfk beating richard nixon. my family were democrats. i made a mistake -- 28 years ago for one year i was a republican. after that i realized quickly that if you care about ordinary people, you have to be a democrat. we are both democrats.

we have to work together to make sure that charlie crist and mark rubio are elected. i came out of miami and said whoever is the nominee i will support. kendrick meek said this week that he will not support me as a nominee. if i am ahead, i like to have him decide who to support. >> give him the chance to answer. that brings us to the end of the first segment. we have more to talk about. you get a chance to answer all the questions. first we heard what both have to say. now we want to know what is on your mind. i live from the web at center. you have been hearing from two democratic candidates for the u.s. senate.

reposed a question to visitors to our website. which characteristics are most important? so far with 47% choose the trustworthiness, followed by a willingness to take a stand with 30%. that is followed thirdly by having a washington outsider. for the vote for the individual running for office -- what will he/she do for us while in office? we want feedback from you throughout the special. our next poll --what issued you feel is most important to address in the washington? cast your vote. more after the break.

>> welcome back to the florida special, and our two democratic candidates for the u.s. senate, kendrick meek and jeff greene. >> we have heard what you said about offshore drilling, and have had some interesting back and forth. we will give kendrick meek a minute to respond to the last thing that jeff greene said. would you endorse mark reveal if he wins? >> i find myself, is winning, not having yet given thought to supporting any nominee -- but it is interesting how jeff greene can talk about his political three history in november that he voted for ronald reagan. maybe you can remember it now?

this is 1980. >> i said i could not remember. i was frustrated that year. the issue is -- one quick thing -- it is very important that you have a democrat-organized senate. i believe in democratic values and will caucus with the democrats and vote for the majority leader. please agree that you what the support me for the nomination. i do not want you to support charlie crist and mark libya. >> time to move on. >> jobs and the economy are what everyone says are the big issues. begin with both the stimulus and thetarp. >> i would have voted for the

stimulus. i had to vote for tarp. i was in the house, and had to go for because we could not allow the financial markets to fall. we did have individuals who participated in uncovered credit default swaps that brought about economic meltdown that we experience. i know that earlier we talked about the warren buffet statement on our ads. it is very important that warren buffett said that his firm would not participate in uncovered credit default swaps because i would bring about a meltdown. he called it financial weapons of mass destruction. jeff greene turnaround and practiced that particular trade. it is important to know it. >> you did make a lot of money on credit default swaps. why did you do that? >> warren buffett, this comment he made -- it was made in 2003

to shareholders. he was telling members of congress that these are weapons of financial distress and that must be regulated. i did not even make those investments until about three or four years later. he did not say it to me. they did not regulate them, and that is why there was i worked my entire life and began with absolutely nothing. i was a winter in palm beach. i wanted to protect my lifetime of hard work. i went up against the biggest banks on wall street. >> let me ask you about the stimulus and tarp. >> we had to support the tarp because the financial market was about to employ. we had no choice.

and the stimulus plan -- i would have supported, but it would have been a different plan. my vision of america is very different than that of the career politicians. we need to invest, not promote consumption. the plan was not strong enough for job creation. here we have 12% unemployment. when i get to the senate, i'm a businessman and will hold people accountable. >> i want to follow up. >> it is interesting that he would have voted for tarp if it were about giving back $800 million for people like jeff greene. i had to because it was a meltdown in the financial market. it is also important to know that nothing is good in the jeff greene well. everything is wrong. the president is a career politician, so is the vice- president. we have to get rid of these career politicians.

that is what he is saying. it is important to understand that teachers would be unemployed in this very county if it were not for the stimulus. the high-speed rail investment here in florida that will create so many jobs between tampa and orlando, and eventually between orlando and miami -- these tools will help this state of florida move toward. -- to move forward. >> i have agreed -- where both democrats and agreed to the stimulus. it was unfortunate that a lot of the money had to be used just to pay for teachers and to keep firemen in the sessions. that entire amount of money was not all available for job creation. it would have been better to use it more aggressively, more quickly. >> we have to talk about debt.

republicans said that you are selling us with that for generation upon generation. our figures been pointed in the wrong direction? how does government create jobs? >> on the deficit -- president clinton when he left office, we had just had three years of surplus. george w. bush had seven years of deficits. he handed president obama over $1 trillion of the deficit. the republicans had given tax cuts, a tax cut to the wealthy. our national debt went from $8 trillion up to $13 trillion in the past five years. this is not a democratic problem -- it is a republican problem. >> government jobs or private- sector jobs at? >> we must have an aggressive jobs plan. my entire life i have been in

the business, creating jobs. you have to give incentives to small businesses. we must create a payroll tax holidays. we have to fight for green technology jobs here in florida. we have to rebuild our infrastructure which is sub- standard all over the state. 17% of our bridges are falling down. >> the american people, 60/40 believe that the big buildup helped big businesses but did nothing for people and small businesses. >> the tarp program was forced on us from the bush administration. the stimulus was to help states and local governments make it through this rough time. here in the bay area, school boards have had to cut, cut

government has had to cut. it has affected quality of life here. the stimulus was to promote work. the 7.1 million citizens of florida are receiving tax cuts from the stimulus, a large one for the middle class. i am a proponent of making sure that the middle class has tax cuts. another important thing is how to deal with the deficit. this is a true issue. i have spent a number of hours on the house floor, not only under the bush administration, but under this one, talking about the issue of the debt. pay-go has been passed by democrats. another tactic to bring home the debt is to bring home men and women from afghanistan. i'm talking about the financial part of the war. we have to protect them and make sure they return home.

it is a big part of the spending we are experiencing right now. >> just a quick answer -- the second stimulus, yes or no? >> we need programs in place to incentivize small businesses to create jobs. i stood up to the biggest banks on mostar. when i get to the senate i will stand up to them again and make sure that they make loans to small businesses. it will be the private sector to get the economy going. i would not say either yes or no. >> a second stimulus must be reviewed on the back of the fourth quarter this year. >> the talk about the deficit -- republicans seem to think it is the most important thing. is it critical for now, for mid-range? everyone agrees it is a problem. is it critical to address it immediately? >> we look at doing things

smarter, richer the we save, but not cut corners when it comes down to things we must provide such as health care for senior citizens. make sure that we provide for veterans. and deal with the infrastructure. it will be the key to job creation. >> is a more important to put more stimulus out there, or to cut the deficit at this moment a? >> the republicans are using the deficit as a talking point. 40% of our budget is medicaid, medicare, social security. we need to grow the economy. americans need to know the deficit is being dealt with. let's face it. our obligation to foreign countries has gone up dramatically. we need a real plan. i'm glad there is a deficit commission coming out in december.

>> it went so fast. we have heard a lot of talk about issues, but there is still more to come. we will break it down and the newspaper. as we go to break, let's look at the web center to see what you have been saying. >> i am live from the center. you have heard where they stand on offshore drilling in the country. but they will touch on subjects including emigration and the war. we ask you what you feel is most important to address in the washington. here is how you voted. overwhelmingly, 64% say unemployment and the economy. that is followed by immigration law and reform with 26%. as you have seen, there has also been a lot of time spent attacking each other. we want to know what your opinion is on those attack

advertisements? leave a comment here on the homepage. while there, check out our new election 2010 web page to find out more about major state and national races on our interactive map. there is more conversation with the democratic senatorial candidates, still to come. >> we now return to a special report. the democratic primary for the u.s. senate. >> thanks for joining us. with scott harris. sitting across from us are the two main democratic candidates, kendrick meek and jeff greene. after the program we will have analysis with the reporter from

"the st. petersburg times." >> immigration -- used the phrase, common sense immigration law. what does it mean. >> comprehensive reform is key for the country, the only thing the business committee has come together on. it is important that we have undocumented individuals be required to pay taxes. i was a state trooper and understand law enforcement. the 11 million up to 14 million undocumented individuals -- it is unfair to say they will all be ejected from the country. we must protect borders and make sure that individuals come out of the shadows. >> the arizona law is not the way to go? >> is not. arizona has expressed not only a boy scout for national groups. it has hurt their economy and will hurt the economy of

florida. i agree with putting on hold on to the parts of the law. >> how you see the immigration jeff greene problem? >> we need a comprehensive policy. it is the failure of elected officials to have an intelligent immigration plan. how did all these immigrants get here? we certainly cannot have 30 separate immigration laws, 50 separate immigration laws in the state. we have to secure our borders no matter what and come up with a humane way to deal with immigrants here. we need an intelligent immigration policy. my grandparents are emigrants. my wife is an immigrant. this country is built on immigrants because we come from all different places from all around the world. 25% of the members of the national institute of science are emigrants. we should not be worried as much

about the brain drain, but we should be thinking about getting gain from people all over the world. >> every time somebody comes up with specifics on vince, which mccain and bush did, on this, which mccain and bush did, everybody goes crazy. >> let's talk about it. i voted for immigration reform when i was in the house and senate. we have people right now that are out of work in the state of florida that can shore up our economy. i think it is important that we require individuals that are undocumented in the state of florida and throughout the country to come forward and pay their fair share. at the same time, protect the borders. it is important for the state of florida to compete with other countries -- not alabama, georgia, mississippi. we must have a workforce that is

documented and also a workforce that is prepared to make us the leaders and attract industry, not solicit individuals from foreign countries. >> you think illegals would voluntarily come forward knowing that they will be sent back? >> i think we have to have a comprehensive immigration policy because -- look, if they are illegal and they are felons, they probably will not. but if they are working and want to pay taxes and become part of the fabric of our society, of course they will come forward and i think there will be a humane way to deal with this. we cannot do anything until we secure our borders. i want to follow up with the kendrick thing. countries like google were founded by immigrants. -- companies like google were founded by immigrants. it is not just keep out all the immigrants. it is seal the borders, offer a humane program for the immigrants who are here, and

have made intelligent policy so somebody gets a ph.d. here and they can be a job creator, do not make him leave because they cannot get a green card. >> the problem is on the lower end of the socio-economic scale. >> well, it is on both ends. we need a comprehensive policy that encourages the best and brightest who create jobs. >> that is what i have already voted for, but it is important to note that those individuals, many of them overstayed their visas. a lot of folks have overstayed their visas and they need a visitor's the sow or what have you. i think it is very important when we look at the issue of creating jobs in florida, we have a number of individuals watching us right now who are unemployed in the high numbers. we're talking 11% here in the bay area, 10% in your area, and hard hit in areas south of

here, 14%, 15%. those individuals that are often undocumented right now are being hired by some employers that are not paying the necessary not only taxes but benefits, undercutting the individual. >> last chance to respond and we'll move on to something else. >> we have to create jobs. we have over 1 million floridians unemployed, and it is a failure of the people in washington who have let this thing happened. the only job creator running in this senate race -- i have a real jobs plan to get people back to work, and i will make that happen. >> obviously, go to their web sites for more details. we will give it out at the end. you have to talk about cuba. what do we do with cuba? are you in favor of easing restrictions to cuba? didn't you just take your yacht down to cuba recently? >> the yacht went to cuba. >> but you did not?

>> the problem we have with cuba is, we cannot send money to cuba. the embargo has to be stopped. we cannot have the embargo with cuba going on. but i am in favor of people traveling to see their families. if for some reason i was told i cannot go visit my grandparents, i would be pretty upset. i support the president's program. it is ok to send to family members, but i am not in favor of doing business with cuba until there is freedom. >> so you want to continue the embargo? >> absolutely. >> let me say this. i do not know if i need to slide my chair over because a bolt of lightning may come over and hit jeff.

you are saying that you were not on your yacht when you went to cuba when i witnesses said that they saw you -- >were you on your yacht? >> not the last time. i was not on my yacht at that time. >> you were not on the yacht, but your yacht was in cuba? >> i was on a humanitarian mission. >> this is very important. we are talking about a country with it is in legal -- >> sir, i understand humanitarian missions. >> your yacht going to cuba on a mission where it was reported in the "st. pete times," that individuals were partying and there was all kinds of stuff going on and you were not on that yacht? >> i was not. >> i want to make it clear that

mr. green has the ability to -- >> i was not on the on the trip you are talking about. i was there another time when i had a visa and i visited the jewish community. it was five years ago. >> the president is doing everything and everything is hunky dory in afghanistan? >> it is not hundred dory, and i have been to afghanistan. we have families who are missing their loved ones, be it a mother or a father. it is important that we a understand the courageous mission these men and women have carried out over the last 10 years. i'm glad the combat troops in iraq are coming back. this is a salient point with families. we have individuals that have served this country longer than any other force that has ever fought before that have missed their children's birthdays,

funerals, family members funerals, and also achievements that their children have made. and grandparents. it is important that as a member of the parliamentary nato committee that the speaker appointed me to, one of 12 in the house of representatives, 86-year member of the armed services committee, it is -- and a six-year member of the armed services committee, it is a port that we go after osama bin laden, but it is important that we bring our men and women back home in a responsible way. >> did you answer the question? -- what was the question? >> policy in afghanistan. >> we were not happy with the way it has gone. but i can say that we want to get an end to their, but we are not having a good result. i'm hoping that general petraeus can get things done and isolate the taliban and give freedom to the people of afghanistan. i was talking to some soldiers

the other day, ones who have been deployed five times between iraq and afghanistan. he has barely seen his newborn child, and i think what is going on there -- the other thing about these two wars, if i'm a businessman, i demand accountability and i get results. what is happening with these wars is unacceptable. we have said $52 billion to iraq for infrastructure. >> the quick question, the only thing you can do as a member of the senate's vote no on appropriations. will you vote no on a supplemental appropriations for iraq and afghanistan? >> i have to look at it. >> it is not a yes-or-no question when it comes down to protecting men and women. you have to look at the situation, get intelligence. you also have to talk to those on the ground, which i do on every vote. >> gentlemen, we will come back. that is the end of another segment. we have more candidates jeff

greene and kendrick meek. >> i am roy dejesus. during their election -- during an election, there is no shortage of campaign ads. we asked you what is your opinion on attack ads. here's what you think. overwhelmingly, 45% of you say they turn you off. speaking about issues, here's what kathleen wrote. now you have heard a lot from these candidates so far, and we want to know which candidate you think is the bigger threat to the two candidates, which will they likely face? either charlie crist our marker reveal in the general election.

-- or marco rubio and the general election. do not go away. >> welcome back to our florida besides special. i am al ruechel here with scott harris. we have been talking with two candidates for the u.s. senate, kendrick meek and jeff greene. we have some sticky topics. kendrick, misconceptions -- everybody knows that your mom did a great job in congress. some people -- and you have heard this before -- say that kendrick got his job in congress because of his mom. straighten me out. >> of course, my mother is an outstanding woman and i stand next to her because not only is

she my mother, she is the reason why i am in public service. i have watched what she has been able to do. she retired and became a consultant for local government issues. she was consultant for dennis stackhouse. i do not know of her consulting agreements, but dennis stackhouse induced an entire community -- miami dade college, everyone -- coming with a vision to be able to build that part. my mother was helping him on the local level. as a federal representative, i have tried to see dollars for the park in the past. bringing home resources. dennis stackhouse was arrested for mortgage fraud. three-plus years ago, my mother did not do anything wrong. i did not do anything wrong. i have voted for every ethics bill coming before the congress. i am endorsed by a number of groups that stand for ethics.

many elected officials are supporting my candidacy. it is controversial because individuals are taking it up as though it is a new situation. >> if you know about that at the time or not? >> i knew that she was consulting, but i did not know the terms. >> did you ever say, "mom, that might not be a good idea"? >> well, i did not know. she was working at the local level, just like jim davis, sam gibbons of this area. >> this whole thing -- this came up. the "st. petersburg times" said he had to be clueless that his mother was getting in escalate. our taxpayer money, $700,000, that could have gone to good programs for stackhouse.

this is the problem i'm having with the election of officials like kendrick. the special interest in the earmarks are corruption. he is the biggest recipient of tobacco money from congress. he got $100,000 to try to stop a program, funding children's health care. he is involved with wackenhut. >> wait one second. if someone is making a charge, that is ridiculous. jeff greene's charges on me are ridiculous. i will tell you why. >> they are not my charges. isi'm just saying my answer this. the facts are that i voted seven times for children's health care. i brought the speaker of the house of representatives to my district to support children's health insurance in the state of florida.

we still have 100,000 kids that are in need. as we talk about tobacco, we are here in tampa where tobacco means so much to this community as it relates to small cigar companies that would have been taxed. there are individuals in congress that want to tax cigarettes at a lesser rate than they would tax the small businesses. i voted to make sure that the cigar tax stays in the schip legislation or in the children's health care legislation. it is ridiculous that jeff would make such a charge. it is ridiculous that he would even question about my ethics. when he has so many issues himself. >> you lobbied against the tax, knew that it was going to be vetoed by the president. let me talk about president bush. on the ethics thing, the "st. petersburg times" said -- will you let me finish, please? >> i am learning from you.

>> the "st. petersburg times" said you had to be closed or worse and they called for house investigation of the staff house matter. i am just quoting what the newspaper is saying. >> what they said, it should be a review, which the miami dade police department has already done. and there has not been a question as it relates to me and what i have done as an elected official. >> one of the things here is that you are an elected official with a record. this is what we are concerned about with your candidacy. when you do not have a record, you can say anything you want, which is why people want to know about your past. are you buying this election? is that the right thing to do? >> absolutely not. people in florida have a choice between a career politician and whatever you want to call these things. it is a very clear choice. if you elect the same people, we

will get the same results. but here we are today. 12% unemployment rate, the third worst foreclosure rate in the country. to you one more of the same from these guys, or do you want someone new? an outsider who is not taking a penny a special interest money, who will fight for the people of florida and earmarks such as this stackhouse thing so that it will never happen again. that is why i am 10% ahead in the quinnipiac poll. >> as a businessman, are you still, i'm going to do it my own political spectrum. are you used to doing that? can you do that? >> you cannot be in business without working with people and consensus building. i have been in business inside his 18 years old. you have to work with people and get them on your side.

in business since i was 18 years old. i'm hoping to go there and i will fight for the people of florida. >> you have the word "incumbent behind your name, and you didn't have a target on your back. and now the word "incumbent" means that you have a target on your back. >> i was serving in the house of representatives, serving in it now. if this is about career, i will be running for reelection with no problem. have a limited desire to step -- i have a desire to step out for florida is because i have seen what veterans are going through right now. i can see the situation as it relates to jobs, and it is not about me. >> is there anything you would change with president obama? because right now his numbers are horrible. >> let me just say this. he is working hard. i do not think that john mccain to do a better job than what the

president is doing now. i think it is important that we will our sleeves up, work with local communities. i have met with the mayor here in st. petersburg. i have got to get my question in for the viewers the space program -- what would you do about it, jeff greene? >> i understand the shuttle was coming to an end because the space station was built. i was at the shuttle on the coast a couple of weeks ago and i did a tour. the problem i think it's i am disappointed that the people representing florida and washington did not fight harder to get these new rockets that were going to be launching from around the country, none of the developed companies -- countries competing to get the astronauts back to the space station are from here in florida. i will be fighting to get jobs

back on the space coast. >> we have about 30 seconds before we get to closing statements. >> i think it is important that senator bill nelson and i are working hard to make sure that we have green private-sector jobs that will protect the benefits of those working there. sitting down with the mayor of i think it is important that we look at the drain taking place economically in that area. human space travel is important to the state of florida. the obama administration, we have stood up to get more to the space coast and create jobs here in the state of florida. i was thinking about this last week in congress. i love it, too, and i have been there. >> time for closing statements. >> i want to just say this.

we have all heard this conversation we have had with each other and i want to thank you for having us. when i get into this race on famed -- when i got into this race on april 30, i said i want to keep this on friendly terms we are very different candidates. you are the career politician who knows his way around washington, i'm the self- starting businessman who is a job creator. the next day his campaign started launching personal, vicious attacks against me and i have had to respond. we are at a very difficult crossroads at this country. we're in an economic world war, and the only way we will succeed in that war is to make our kids the best educated kids in the world who know our infrastructure. our infrastructure is competitive. it is not just kids in india and china that are going after our jobs, it is kids in brazil and korea and everywhere in the world. i want to be your senator so i can be a businessman who will

put the people of florida first with the special interests whatsoever. >> kendrick, you have about a minute. >> thank you for allowing me to be on the show today. it is important for every 40 into know that i am here to fight for you. mr. greene speaks about the fact that he is a businessman. as you learn from the newspaper, he does not speak well of his employees. it is important to understand how to talk to the senior citizen, how to talk to a veteran in need. how to help children at and single parents in two-parent households. i have worked those values. that is the reason why president barack obama has supported my campaign, by former president bill clinton is supporting my campaign. that is the reason why bill nelson is supporting my campaign, the senior senator of this state. i want to make my children very proud of the fact that i am their father. i want to make sure that you're

proud that i am your united states senator. this is the democratic nomination. i have stood with democrats and the people of the state of florida my entire elected service, and as a state trooper, a public servant, that is where i started. i want to thank you, and i need your vote starting august 9 and early voting starts. >> go to the web sites for more information because we cannot possibly get it all in here. thank you to the candidates, and scott harris, thank you for joining us. last night's conversation with republican candidates for attorney general, you can find that on your on-demand channel ampa. go out and vote in the primary on august 24. tune into news 13 for complete election results, and we will have analysis with aaron sharockman. before we go, we will send it back to the web center to wrap up one more time. >> thank you for staying with us.

i'm roy dejesus. you have been watching a florida decides special featuring the democratic candidate for u.s. .enate it is evident that they don't really like each other, and in the next few weeks the attacks could get even nastier. the winner will face a republican and an independent. we wanted to know between kendrick and jeff greene, which candidate is their more likely opponent? the polls before itself. using jeff greene with 62% of the vote is a bigger challenge to charlie crist and marco rubio. we have all the latest campaign news on our florida decides page and our -- this is a new feature that we have on baynews9.com.

we'll have a recap of today's's conversation with writer aaron sharockman. at bay news 9. that ba thank you for watching. >> the 10-page statement, who says the chief of staff for maxine waters, also hurt branson, -- also her grandson, -- says that they stopped pursuing efforts on the bank paused after the committee says she should have instructed her chief of staff to do the same thing. you can read the charges online at c-span.org. >> we cannot go around suspecting and expecting double dealing and crockery.

you cannot run a democracy like this. with any kind of satisfaction without the base of honor and justice. >> wants this candid 1982 interview with new jersey candidate milicent fenway. the outspoken congresswoman, and inspiration millicent ofte fenwick. online at the c-span library. it is washington your way. president obama is spending the afternoon in texas, where he will attend democratic party fund raisers and austin and dallas. he will discuss higher education and the economy at the university of texas at austin. we'll have live coverage at about 3:00 eastern here on c- span. house speaker nancy pelosi is calling members into session tomorrow to vote on a jobs bill that the senate passed last

week. the $26 billion bill is designed to prevent teacher reductions and layoffs state workers. live coverage when the house gavels in tomorrow at 9:00 eastern here on c-span. and "washington journal" is looking into energy issues this week. tomorrow, the electric car industry and obama administration plans to develop electric cars. energy issues all this week on "washington journal" at 9:15 eastern. >> tonight, what to watch for in emerging tech trans. industry insiders from the gov 0 expo. >> c-span programming -- politics, books, history -- is available anytime on c-span radio in the washington/baltimore area on 94.1 fm, nationwide on sirius

xm channel 132. on-line around the world at c- span.org. and now listen to c-span on your phone. c-span radio is available any time. just call 202-626-8888. it is free, but check with your phone provider for additional charges. c-span radio -- even more available on your phone. >> now a discussion on the relationship between u.s. foreign policy and efforts to stop the spread of hiv aids. we'll hear from a speaker who says aids assistance is undermining u.s. foreign policy goals and the countries that receive assistance. the center for strategic and international studies posted this event. it is about one hour and 20 minutes. >> everybody ready?

good morning. i'm susan dentzer, from the center for to take health affairs. thank you for joining us. the resolution we will be debating today is this -- resolve that the u.s. commitment to universal hiv aids treatment is unsustainable and decreases the u.s. leverage in the nation 's foreign policy. let us begin by stating the obvious. this is a painful topic. because lives are at stake. essentially, millions of them. and understandably, the debate can get quite emotional. we will all agree that the group of aids announcement in 2005, then member -- that member countries agreed to have access to life-saving antiviral treatment was the most noble

actions. what that meant, whether it was fully understood at the time or not, was keeping some 30 million people worldwide on arv treatment for three or four decades, if not beyond. that was very noble, but five years later that picture of stability looks quite different. we all know that donor assistance with hiv aids is flat to falling. in 2009, the g8 countries disbursements for hiv aids were $7.6 billion. a year earlier they had been $7.7 billion. we also note that given the global economic situation, this trend is not likely to change any time soon. although the obama administration is working very hard to meet its other global health goals, such as maternal and child health and neglected tropical diseases, it intends to keep its commitment to increase the number of patients to

receiving treatment to 4 million by 2014. it is unclear if the u.s. congress is going to go along with that. it is also clear that even if the u.s. is somehow able and willing to deliver increasing sums to global health and hiv aids, it is not at all clear the rest of the world will go along. everybody can agree that these circumstances are unfortunate everybody does not agree, however, that backing away from universal access is or should be inevitable or desirable. particularly desirable even from the standpoint of u.s. foreign policy. this is where our debate today begins. our debate is going to take place here under csis auspices in a way that recognizes that it is important to have open, civil, reasonable debate on

health issues and controversies. let me introduce them now. first of all, to my right, you're left, princeton lyman, an adjunct senior fellow and the former ambassador to nigeria and south africa. he also served as assistant secretary of state to the international organization affairs, deputy assistant secretary for africa, and is executive director of the global into dependence initiative at the aspen institute. todd summers here to my left, you're right, recently joined the one campaign from his position at the bill and melinda gates foundation. a board member of the -- and the black aids institute. he is the founder and formal he was theident of -- deputy director of the white house office of national aids policy. right here to my immediate left

, your immediate right, is j. stephen morrison. before coming to csis, he served for seven years in the clinton a ministration, four years on the house of representatives, and he taught for 12 years at the johns hopkins school for international studies. let me give you a brief description of our format. we are going to have opening statements for our debaters to lay out their arguments. we'll have questions and answers from me and then from you in the audience. then we will have closing thoughts for both sides and from me. so, stephen morrison will be also offering comments on implications for u.s. foreign policy. ambassador lyman will respond to those. so we are going to begin now with opening statements. we're going to hear seven

minutes from princeton lyman, arguing in the affirmative for this solution. todd will then ask questions about sir lyman for several minutes. then we will switch to the other side. so, to you. >> thank you very much, and thanks to csis for holding this discussion and for all the work it is doing on global health. i'm glad you made the point at the beginning how sensitive an issue this is. we are talking about people's lives, and it is not easy to look at limitations to meet that commitment was made in 2005. but i think when people made that commitment, few were looking forward to what the implications of that were. i am not a ploy to spend a lot of time on numbers -- i am not going to spend a lot of time on numbers. -- basically, the bigger there are 34 million people in

the world affected by hiv or full-blown aids, and more than 20 million of those are in sub- sahara africa. all we can assume that other regions of the world can assume the cost of treatment and care in those regions, it is very unlikely that that will be the case in sub-saharan africa. universal access is that people put in a 85% of those in need, we're talking eventually 13 million, 14 million, 15, maybe 16 million people in africa under treatment for decades to come. that is what makes it a difficult commitment to make new york in its present form is not sustainable. let me indicate four reasons why i do not think it is sustainable. for every person -- for every two people placed under treatment now, there are five new infections in the world. that means the pandemic is

growing and is growing far into the future. as bill gates said at the recent international conference in vienna, even with everything being talked about and the new innovation, we can only look forward to cutting the number of people getting new infections in half. he says it will be impossible to find the people to treat all those who need it. under these circumstances, there will inevitably be some reconsideration, some backlash taking place. among the owners and even in recipient countries. second, the politics of this is becoming unpleasant rather than pleasant. the commitment did a great deal to enhance the image of the united states and africa. but now when you take on that kind of commitment, it turns sour.

there was a lot of criticism of the united states for flat lining our commitments this year, even though together with the private sector in the united states provides 85% of programs for hiv aids. we can expect that in the recipient countries as well, you are -- uganda, headlines the united states as a murder capital. it is not always politically sustainable or even positive. the third reason is that the rising cost of aids programs, particularly the rising cost of achievements and his commitment, is going to bring us increasingly into competition with other developing needs. we see that happening already. congress is proposing to cut the president of foreign aid request by $150 million come and get increase the amount for --

so the president of proposals for food security, global warming, education, other new initiatives, let alone infrastructure and other things, are undoubtedly going to suffer. we'll see sharp debates in the development community as to where our resources are and where they ought to go. the other aspect of this, which is unusual, is that by pepfar taking on the responsibility for half the number of people under treatment, the united states has consumed extraordinary -- has assumed extraordinary commitment, and that is that millions of people's lives will become directly dependent on foreign aid appropriations. it creates international entitlement as we have never seen before. it is going to have as much resentment as gravity whenever the appropriation still meet expectations.

i can see in the future, backlash on this, not only in the recipient countries but also in the conference, which finds its hands tied in terms of its foreign aid appropriations, because millions of people are directly related to our program. i think the way we do this has to be changed. problem living in the recipient countries as well as far as their resources or donor resources move in this direction. take south africa. 5.5 million people affected by hiv, a huge number. but it is only 11% of the population. the vast majority there are unemployed, pork, suffering other health problems, etc. sooner or later, the amount of resources will go to one part of the population and it could create serious backlash. let me take a minute to talk about the foreign policy implications. an interesting thing has happened in the united states

foreign assistance. in the increase of a very substantial increase of the united states aid to africa over the last decade, a more than threefold increase in aid, much of it now through pepfar and others through emergency food, we have gone from 40% to 80% of our aid to africa being in humanitarian and life-saving efforts. it means you cannot cut that adolf. and when we face -- and it means you cannot cut that aid off. when we are in the eastern condo, rwanda, mugabe, actions in zimbabwe -- even those countries get $400 million or $500 million a year in aids, we have no leverage in terms of rights and human democracy and those leaders know it. it is interesting in this other issues, looking at the structure of our aids program, i think

there will also be some serious questions raised. what this means is, as painful as it is, we have to look at this commitment realistically and candidly. it does not mean abandoning our commitments to the pandemic of hiv aids. but it does mean we have to look very carefully at these implications and what it means. what it means for how we balance, for what we say about what our real commitment is and what is possible, and how we continue to mobilize support for a commitment that is increasingly becoming unsustainable. we have to look at the foreign policy implications of how we are going to conduct a range of foreign-policy issues when so much of our assistance has now moved into this immutable category. >> we will have time for further discussion about the implications. >> thank you and good morning. i wanted to start by thanking

susan for hosting, and steve, ambassador lyman for joining us. he brought his granddaughter, so i guess i cannot attack him for his credibility. steve will take on letter on some of the discussions about foreign policy aspects. i will stick to the public health side. i wanted to come back to a few quick questions. one is, if there were adequate resources, if we live in a world where there was actually a far greater allocation toward florida assistance related to health and development, how would your argument change? >> i think it would change in two ways. first of all, at a resources ought to be combined with attic resources for other foreign policy and foreign aid needs. otherwise, you will continue to have this conversation -- this competition of hiv aids driving all foreign aid or

initiatives. i still would suggest that this direct relationship between our program and people receiving treatment ought to be changed. i would suggest we move toward making the frequent redeem an international one under the global fund or some other structure -- the frequent regime an international one under the global fund or some other structure. so that we can see exactly how many people will stay alive in next year. >> that it's my second question. you mentioned a couple of times that you think the united states should change the approach that it has toward its support break. maybe you could spend more on how you think the u.s. government could change its approach. >> i think we ought to start now building the capacity in the global fund. that is the natural one. that we can have a single international treatment regime that provides for the drugs and

the other things directly so that people's link is to end international entity. if our money goes down one year and england's goes up, the program continues. an hour goes up -- if hours goes up, fine. the other is that we have to look at the science that is telling us what works for prevention. there is a lot of argument about that. but i think the emphasis on cutting new infection has to be a central part of it. otherwise the pandemics extends out almost forever. the third thing, it seems to me, is to continue heavy work on a vaccine or a cure because really without that it is hard to see where this ends. >> and the last question, if there is not enough funding and somehow we need to ration access to aids treatment, who should get it and who should not? >> i tell you what i think is

going to happen, what i fear will happen. congress at some point is going to start looking at individual countries and saying, look, this country is not putting enough money, it is not doing enough to cut in new infections, so we are going to flat line treatment until you get your act together. that is the kind of cruel way of going about it, so i think in terms of rationing, i do think in effect what is going to have to look for countries making major commitments and programs, bringing down new infections. commitments and programs on bringing down new infections. without that, i can't see politically susining, expanding treatment in countries that don't undertake those efforts. that's going to be tough, but i think that's the rationing that will start to happen, whether we think that's right or not.

>> ry good. les move now to the reverse. we're going to have an opening statement from todd arguing the negative to the resolution followed by questions from the ambassador. go ahead, todd. >> thanks, and good morning, everybody. i wanted to start with basically the sepsitiupposition that in tf what you put out, it's more of a prognostication than a prescription. i think the sense that i have is that this is a little more about what do we do when we don't have enough resources. so i'm going to cus on ways that i think that we can look at this from a different angle and then towards the end talk about some steps that we could take to actually make this achievable. i have five different statements i'd like to make. one is that i don't think there is actually a morally defensible

option. i don't know how it is tha we allow 29 million people who are living with hiv and who are at some point in their lives going to need treatment to go without. second, i think the u.s. has the resources to maintain and expand its support for hiv, in particular for treatment i don't think it's a question of capacity. i think it's a question of priority. third, is been a tremendous success. it has been probably one of the most successful foreign development assistance programs ever and certainly one that resonates with many people in the developing world in ways that few other u.s. programs have. and we should be learning from that success and building on that success rather than tearing it down or moving off to

something else. fourth, le untreated, aids is not going to sit around and wait for something else to happen. it will continue to spiral forward and we'll see, again, the days when health clinics and hospitals are overwhelmed with patients coming i with quite acute needs, which are substantially more time consuming, expensive, to address than providing the aids treatment that is currently available. those of us who are a witness to the early days of hiv both here and in the developing world have seen how drastic and acute those crises are and how overwhelming they are for the systems that we rely on to take care of many of the other health needs that you mentionedearlier. and fifth, i'd say that we are beginning to understand the strong interconnections between treatment and prevention.

that, in fact, people who are infected often don't know. the majority of people in the world who are living with hiv don't know that they're infected. and the desire to go and get tested is linked to the ability to get treatment if, in fact, they are infected. and if we take away the opportunity to get treated, the number of people who seek to learn their status is certainly going to go down. and that unfortunately is going to lead to an exacerbation of the already high rates of new infections. so i -- i think that i can go into these in some great detail, but i am hoping that the audience will pitch in here a little bit. i do think that there is -- at the bottom of this a really fundamental question for the uned states as to whether or not it's going to allow the winds of change of political

interest to be the one has drives our efforts on global health. and that's a problem that we're going to have not only with hiv t for a range of other issues that are not going get solved in the time frame that makes people in the political world happy. so i think some way or another we're going to have to come up with a model for addressing public health issues that isn't subject to the annual appropriation, political winds of change that hiv has become. we're not going to radicate polio, but we're not going to eradicate many of the other diseases o there. we're not going to find an hiv vaccine if we allow ourselves to be constantly buffered by his political winds. i would hope that what we could come forward with is an approach to hiv that recognizes the long-term nature of the commitment, the long-term nature of the obligation of the u.s. government and the opportunity that we have not only to address the health needs of people that would otherwise perish but to

build health systems that are involved in providing those services on hiv. >> very good. >> thank you. by the y, let me acknowledge by co-author on that article, steve, who is here today. todd, when you say the -- it's not morally defensible to see 10, 20,0 million people die, thers no question about that. but a -- at the other side of it, don't you think making a commitment that really is not sustainable is -- is morally defensible? that we build -- is it right to build a set of expectations that we can't meet? is that morally defensible? >> it's a great question. i think that your -- your sense that we ought to be relying more on a multilateral approach rather than a bilateral approach in some ways adesse that. because the challenge that any

government has is the -- the effectiveness of reaching out on its own as opposed to in partnership with other countries. the global fund is really providing the united states with a great opportunity to support hiv and tb and malaria programs in over 120 countries. far greater reach than the priority countries reached. itoffers an opportunity for us to build on our money. we get $2 for every dollar that the united states puts in. one of the benefits that we have, a lot of that money goes directly to the country for programs they design, rather than go to programs that are more hatched in donor capitals and more often supported through international organizations. so i think that one of the avenues here for the united states government is to follow this multilateral approach. i think that actually allows for a little bit of the balancing of support that you talked about,

in some ways kind of atten waiting against the change mat many capitals face year to year. >> let me ask you more about this question of treatment and preventi. i know there's a lot of studies and arguments about it. and it's a strong argument for continuing heavy emphasis on treatment. but in the reality of the global health initiative and a lot of other studies, look -- how would you see the balance really in the future between increasing the level of people brought under treatment and attacking the whole range of things which impact on prevention. treatment is one of them, but there's gender issues, there's access, there's discrimination, there's all kinds of issues there. >> think your article certainly called out for a greater emphasis on prevention.

certainly, absolutely support that. i think the commitment to treatment is not sustainable if we don't slow substantially the rate of new infections. so there absolutely has to be a greater emphasis on prevention. that includes actually a lot better use of the tools and technologies that we have already at our disposal. i think that during the vienna conferen conference, bill gates and bill clinton calledut the need for us to do a much better job of adapting strategies to the particular epidemics faced by countries, which is a way of saying that if you have an injection drug user driven epidemic, you don't do general community mobilization. you do syringe exchange and drug treatment. and we are so far doing horribly at that. second, i think the u.s. government and the global health commission has really highlighted this, the u.s. government could do a lot more than just write a check.

the u.s. government has tremendous influence in many countries and could b using that to change the policies that help make hiv worse. certainly the inferior legal position of women is one. the lack of access to education, particularly for girls and young women. simple economic development opportunities. all of those are part and parcel of hiv prevention. we have done a pretty poor job making the full armament of tools available to the government. >> very good. we're now going to have some comments on the foreign policy dimensions of all of this from steve morrison. he'll speak for the next five minutes. >> thank you very much. good morning. one just quick remark about the nature of this bate. i thinkrinceton and stephen

have done a big service in trying to introduce a careful and reasonable discussion around these terribly difficult issues with a level of sensitivity and realism in a moment in which we really are in a major transition. we have moved out of the high growth phase of the last decade. we are now in a period of great uncertainty and slowed growth. aids exceptionalism and the aids threat have changed, have shifted, have diminished. there are other factors coming into this. most notably the recession. and the u.s. finds itself in a very conspicuous position. we have been more bust in preserving our leadership as opposed to other g-8 member states and african governments themselves who have both slackened significantly in their commitments, which has put a

higher burden and expectation on u.s. policy. i think we do need a new lens and a new form of assessment and a new way forward that is constructive and honest and forward-looking. i think, princeton, you and stephen have helped us a great deal. i've been asked to speak on the foreign policy implications. the core thesis is that our influence has been weakened on other important issues. i take it to mean democracy, human rights, governance issues, in key states where we've made the biggest concentrated commitment. you cite in your argument ethiopia, uganda and zimbabwe. u could include rwanda and i'll say something about south africa in a moment. you're suggestg that when you go from a 40% to 80% concentration or higher of humanitarian relief plus health investments that that leaves you

overwhelmingly committed over the long haul with very limited leverage. that is highly problematic. a couple of points around that. first, when you look at rwanda and you look at uganda, this is a problem that has been with us well before now. our ability to get leverage over these governments has been compromised by several factors going back at least 15 years. one is the identification with their leaders at the end of their internal conflicts when they had new leaders come to power. that was a mistake of foreign policy, put us into an embrace that it was veryard to walk back from. then we hit a decade of grave security concerns. 9/11, et cetera. i'll remind everyone that it was 12 years ago tomorrow that the nairobi bombings happened. those were well above 9/11.

that was in august of '98. those were profound events. and they profoundly drove our -- our bilateral relationships. and those security dimensions remain very fundamental. i'll just remind you of the bombings just a few weeks ago, of al qaeda extending its reach, our concern about sudan, our concern about somalia, our concern about al qaeda within the region. that is the central factor that limits our ability to influence these governments on the governance side. i don't-- i think what -- it has added a new dimension that makes it more conspicuous, how difficult it is in the horn of africaor us to have a -- a relationship in which we can use our engagement to bring about governance changes. south africa, i believe, is a goodounter example. because there we've seen a dramatic in the last year, a dramatic turn-around ofapproach on health and the -- and the commitments health.

we should perhaps talk a bit about the degree to which that shift was reflective of an accumulation of american and other pressures and criticisms along with internal criticisms around the positions taken. i think you could make the case that the $620 million a year assistance that we provide on health in uth africa did give us some leverage with them in arguing that they really need to depart from the policies that were so difficult and so problematic. we could talk a bit more about the fact that the investments bring significant benefits in terms of popular opinion of the united states in these countries. they are a very powerful powe tool, and we've seen that reflected in the studies. they've also proven to be a very powerful tooat convincing american opinion of the value of

staying with these commitments. and that factor has cnged the outlook domestically around foreign aid. that's -- m digressing a little bit from the argument that you're making. >> so w come back to the question on foreign policy, ultimately the so-what question, which is how -- if we admit to ourself this problematic situation we find ourselves in, does that change our strategi? does it -- or do we justave to keep lumbering along and be smarter in the way we engage with these governments? i agree that it does n add additional leverage on governance issues, but i don't think we should be surprised if that is the case. i think we should be looking at the ethiopias and rwandas, aware that this is a long-rm problem that we grapple with and we will continue to grapple with in a highly insecure region. thank you. >> great. well, it is now my turn to do

some inquisition of these three fine folks. let me start with the notion that we ought to shift our support from the bilateral struure to more multilateral frameture, getting most of our assistance for hiv/aids through the global fund. one of the reasons why we didn't do that in the first place was, of course, we were horribly distrustful of multilateral institutions and the new global fund. and there was a great concern that without tight u.s. control over potential distribution issues that would arise by corruption, et cetera, et cetera, that we would not be able to make a case adequately to american taxpayers that this was a sound program. what's different about now that suggests that we should push this all through a multilateral structure? >> what i think is changed now

is the realization that the -- if the u.s. tries to carry this obligation of its own, to carry half of it directly, as i've suggested, it's not going to happen. it's going to be unsustainable and there's going to b backlash against the u.s. but it's going to take years to do this. the global fund isn't capable of doing it w. you also run the risk of losing that direct support of the american people that steve mentioned. so it's not an easy proposition to do. but i think that if we start now building that capacity, building the structures of accountability, in three, four years, we should be able to have a single entity like the global fund managing much of the treatment, at least the logistics and output so it isn't directly from us to those people. but i think it's going to take some time. but i think we're not going to be able to carry this responsibility directly ourselves.

we have to start building that capacity now. >> todd? >> two things. one, i think that in some ways, it's not accurate to describe the global fund and the u.s. program as somehow completely distinct. the global fund contribution technically comes through the allocation giving to the united states, and in many places, the united states government has been working closely to help countries manage the resources made available through the global fund. second, the global fund is really just a financing instrument. it's a check-writing, fund-raising effort based in geneva with no staff outside of geneva. whereas, not only a u.s. resource in terms of money but it's u.s. resources in terms of incredible technical capacity. i think that the -- the shifting of balance could really be a way to graduate countries that have

been able to develop and begin implementation of sound hiv strategies that combine prevention and treatment in an effective way and then to move them off so that primary resources are coming to the global fund and the u.s. technical support and bilateral resources come down some level to more of a maintenance effort. and that could mean then the u. could turn its efforts and its technical assistance support to other countries that may be more in need. the last thing i'd say, i think there's a -- the benefit of providing support through an institution like the global fund is the matching resources. it's the ability to be in partnership with other donor countries. but the most important to me is that the strategies that are developed there are country strategies. the global fund provides obviously a good, strong, technical review of those to make sure that they follow good science, but the reality is that those are strategies developed and implemented by the countries

themselves. and for sustainability, having the countries do for themselves is a much more sustainable pattern than having the u.s. government do for those countries. >> steve? >> i think it's going to be very difficult to imagine this administration working with this congress in this next phase to push an expanded multilateral approach through the global fund or through the world bank or through other instutions. if only because the debt and deficit pressures and the scrutiny over those foreign aid budgets. there's going to be a -- i think there will be a natural tendency towards ever-greater emphasis on a ki of bilateral approa. so the question is what would the -- what might the motivation and argument be that could pull that -- pull that forward?

and one argument might be that we've seen the g-8 weaken. you know, the g-8 was the -- the g-8 donor countries were the driver of the last decade. that's done. and it's going to it remain in that status. for the next period of the euro crisis working itself through. you cannot rely on the g-8 to be the driver when the uk and the u.s. are the only -- and the canadians to come degree -- the only ones standing robust and the uk are heading towas a 25% reduction in their overall budget. so perhaps there's an argument that u.s. leadership coulde used as a way of trying to operate in a g-20 world, in a way to get other wealthy parties behind an approach that brings benefits to the developin countries, the poorest developing countries as well as to other places that have large

poor populations. perhaps this is a way that you could leverage a renewed commitment -- a renewed set of commitments in the midst of an austerity era. but i think it's still going to be a very difficult diplomatic task, but it's one that will require essential u.s. leadership. we haven't seen that turn yet. but i do take your point that if you -- if there's an unsustainability and you don't want to walk away from the commitment, you have to look at the multilateral track as an alternative track. it doesn't abandon the bilateral, but you could enhance it as a way of trying to deal with the new realities in front of us. >> can i jump in o this one second? i think that during the election cycle, candidate obama was very strong about the importance of multilateralism. i think president obama has been less engaged in multilateral

efforts. it falls back in some ways to the old adage that you get more leverage and control when you manage your money bilaterally. i think this connects to a very important discussion and debate that's happening around the ghi as well as the president's security directive and the development review. around the degree to which our development assistance should be connected to our foreign policy interests. in fact, one of the things you -- the reverse of what you highlighted is that when you're providing humanitarian aid, it's hard to use people as pawns in your foreign policy efforts. and i think in this case, hopefully you're right. that we don't have a -- a good ability. one of t challenges of multilateralism, you have to focus on the development needs rather than other aspects of our foreign policy interests. i think that what we could certainly is to balance this desire to fund and support multilateral efforts with a continued commitment to

bilateral engagement, that the two are not necessarily intention and could be working together. the global fund has to succeed in countries and the global fund's success is still going to be largely dependent on partners in those countries helping countries develop and implement good strategies. so there isn't this kind of -- if we give them money over at the geneva and it goes to the countries, we've lost all control. i think the u.s. still has and must maintain a strong connection to what happens in cotry. the last thing i'd say is that i think you make an argument that we've lost some of our connection and our influence with the governments of these countries. that may be so. i'll let you foreign policy experts debate that. but i think that's certainly true tt people in those countries have a far greater respect for the united states becausof what we've done for them, in many cases saving their lives. i think the awareness on the ground with people who are living in africa and in asia who have benefited is far greater.

whether or not that's translated to the government feeling that kind of connection remains to be seen. >> let me ask a question that puts this into the larger global health context. it is very much the case that there are many, many more deaths around the world from non-communicable diseases, particularly cancer, than even hiv/aids. one of you made the points that the year of aids exceptionalism is over. is it really? if one assumes that more and more attention will be focused on non-communicable disease burden, the u.n. will have a major conference on this next year, why is it not the case that the u.s. will increasingly be urged to make greater contributions there? why should aids remain unique when there is so much greater global disease coming from other conditions? >> well, you already hear this. i think the president's global health initiative started to try to address this by taking a

broader approach to health systems. i think it's an argument we're going to hear a lot. now, what the -- there are several things unique about the aids pandemic that has made it so prominent. one is that we have treatment medicine. you can see the life and death difference right up front whereas when you're talking about cancer, you're talking about environment, nutrition and a range of other things which are harder to put your fingers on. and second, because it hits people in the prime of their life an therefore, it has an effect that's different in lot of ways. so several things have made aids a highly salient part of it. but i think that health is just one area where other needs are going to come into play. other diseases, other health. but also food security. i mean, this is a big issue of hunger. the preside's new feed the future initiative with jui just the paper today, wheat prices

are going to soar, hunger is going to increase. then we talk about climate change. so i think we have a real problem here inhat sustaining an aids program, which takes up billions and billions of dollars and we don't address some of the others is going to be hard. now, dealing with congress in this regard is -- congress likes bilateral programs. but i think congress itself has to see in the future that carrying this kind of responsibility, seeing headlines in uganda that the united states is a murderer because we flatlined, this isn't what congre wants to see. and that, it seems to me, is going to be the incentive, i hope, for congress to say, well, maybe we need to strengthen this multilateral framework so it isn't all falling on us and then begin to deal with these other issues. let me comment a little on the foreign policy, if i can. because i think what we need to do in this regard is not to walk away so much from humanitarian aid, is for our diplomacy to

recognize and for congress and human rights activists to recognize that there isn't a connect -- it isn't diplomacy and development are twin pillars in a narrow sense. and if we want to have influence on human rights, we have to mobilize other means of doing that. i won't go into that, but it's -- but take education. when congress sees terrible human rights and says, how come we're giving this country $500 million a year? one has to say, well, we have to have a different approach to that. i don't think that's widely appreciated. you often see in the press, such and such a government has done something terrible, and yet we're giving them $500 million a year, not realizing that we've tied ourselves in on that 500 million. >> todd? >> i actually think there's great stories there where the u.s. goverent has been able to look beyond difficult governments to the needs of the

people in those countries and find mechanisms to address the needs of the pple without necessarily supporting the governments that are so troublesome. i think global fund support goes to a number of countries that are otherwise ineligible for u.s. foreign assistance. i know food aid has done some of the same things. i think there are good stories to tell about understanding that the people in those countries are not the problem. it's the governments of those countries that really need to get some attention. the other thing i'd say is that this competition that you talked about, susan, between non-communicable diseases and infectious diseases, particularly hiv, is certainly real. but the -- the dichotomies or the tensions that are often drawn between these things seem to be largely specious. there's been a lot of discussion around whether we should support aids or put the money into

maternal health programs or put the money into health system strengthening as opposed to aids program. those arguments make sense in capitals. they don't make sense in the real world. the reality is that aids is a leading cause of death for women, of child-bearing age. i don't think it really makes that much difference to the parents of that child. though i think that we have to in some ways stop playing one disease off the other and recognize that the only way we'll be able to meet the needs of people botfor infectious and non-infectious diseases is to increase the amount of support we provide and do a better jobf using that effectively. >> all right. we're now going to move to questions from those of you in the audience. we're going to take two or three questions at a time, so i'm going to basically combine a couple of questions into one in the interest of time. i would ask you to ask one brief

question. be provocative, be brief, be seated. please identify yourself by name and affiliation. please indicate if the question is directed to a particular person or persons on the panel. and we have two microphones available in the audience to amify your voice as you ask questions. let's start back in the rear. let's take this one, this one, and this one here for the first three. >> thank you. good morning. i'm tom liars. i'm from aids health care foundation. the qution is to everybody, i question. my question is what's the proof orhe evidence that these programs are, in fact, unsustainable? it seems to be taken as a article of faith. the w.h.o. estimates currently there are 14 million people with hiv who need treatment right now as opposed to 30 million people who have it. there's a difference. in much there is a difference. the cost of these drugs for a year is under $100.

drugs for everybody who need et now under 500 million. the u.s. commit is currently about $7 billion. why is the not possible to provide care for all who need it for that amount of money? >> thank you. question in the front here. >> david bryden with infectious disease. a comment being about the political argument that's being made. i think it's an interesting argument, but i think it needs some evidence. without that evidence, it sounds like sheer speculation. we need polling data, questions posed to political leaders in africa. i think it's a mistake to draw conclusions from a headline in uganda or criticism we heard in vienna of the obama approach to funding to somehow come tohe conclusion we can expect a major

backlash in the future. that doesn't logically follow. you need more evidence for this for projecting that. the question is actually for todd. when it comes to some of the economic descriptions steve wa saying, how is it the one campaign or u.s. globe leadership campaign somehow didn'tet the memo or did didn't get this message yet you persevere trying to double foreign assistance and trying to go further. are there some political data or some political sense you have? we do have 100 members in the u.s. congress signed a letter around the global fd asking the u.s. to double its contribution. perhaps that's evidence, but why is it? how is it the one campaign in usglc still have that confidenc

to push forward? >> great. we had a question in the front. >> i was reading your article. when you started the sharp increase in aids related assistance worldwide how did the g-8 in 2005 come to its conclusion it is possible to treat all people ineffected with hiv by retro viral treatments? >> les start with that first question. what is the proof that the u.s. commitment to universal coverage is, in fact, unsustainable? >> i think the evidence is out there. people argue about how much it costs for treem, et cetera. you take the u.n. aids estimate of what we should be doing this year. it's about twice as much as the world can sustain. if you look at the projection of

increased numbers coming on to treatment and you look at the estimates pele have made, you're talking at least of $20 billion, $25 billion a year in costs. that money isn't there it's just not there to assume that somehow it will be there is, i think, unrealistic. and even somee like bill gates saying it's unsustainable. it's unsustainable at this point because the cost isn't just the cost. it's all the logistics that go into it, all the other aspects of the program. that go into the totality of the hiv aids program. we can see what projections of costs are to the money available. >> why did the g-8 make this commitment in the first place? >> i think it made the commitment as the reality of the degree of the pandemic.

the moral argument, the overwhelming moral argument pressed by people deeply concerned with this issue that you had medicine here, saving people's lives and poor people couldn't access it was just morally indefensible. and it was a time when people were projecting doling aids aid levels et cetera. i don't think anybody sat down and did the calculation of what this meant. i frankly have been arguing for years that people needed to do that. if you did that then, they may not have made the commitment. they made the commitment. it was the right thing. et had a lot of political gains to doing so. i don't think they ever sat down to say what is this going to mean ten years from now? >> may i answer that? >> please. >> when you look back at '05, the economies were robust. budgets wereretty good. you had a core, a nucleus of

global leaders in the g-8 willing to push this. you had the bush, blair, chirac. you had a combination. neither of those is present today. so there was this momentous push and this moment of high expectations and commitment. those, i think it was a pretty sour moment in june when those commitments were quietly retired. in an official way. marking that sort of shift to this new era. >> i thi what we had in the glenn eagles was leadership and what we've seen so far is a lack of leadership. the evidence around sustainability really is a little bit more around are we

going to get the resources we need or acquiesce. when i started doing aids work a long, long time ago. i came to washington, d.c., to argue the ryan white care act. congress just passed this as an emergency relief act for the united states to provide domestic support. unlike any other emergency lief act, it appropriated no money. the ryan white care act started with zero dollars. i went around to my members of congress and said we would like money. they said that's a very difficult, very tough year. we are under a lot of budget pressure here. i'm like, wow, i didn't know. nobody told me in boston we are out of money. i go around this meeting room. all the people filing in the halls and cameras. they say this is a hearings on the savings and loan bailout. what's going on? they are giving them another $70 million to the savings and loan bailout.

they just told me we're out of money. fast forward a couple of decades, i was thinking about this question. i was listening to pri. there is a guy there who is the chief lodgistation for the army for general petraeus. he said we spend $20 billion a year air conditioning the tents for our troops. if we put spray foam insulation on those we could save a couple of billion dollars. he doesn't know why they haven't done that. we are going to thrash ourselves to death figuring out how to prioritize heart disease, car accidents, hiv or health. we need to go to the bank and get the money. it money is the being spend on other things. >> that is the answer to the question why you persevere. >> i didn't get the memo because i've only been at one five days. >> you want me to deal with the political evidence? >> sure.

>> there's a number of things about the political fallout of this. what we are seeing is the beginning of something i think we are going to see more of. in which the world with the united states, when you make a promise and find you can't commit it, is there a backlash. we are beginning to see it. i think the bigger foreign policy aspect of it is the one that steve discussed, which we can already see. during the run up to the ethiopian election,there was a lot of talk about why don't we do more to stop what's happening in ethiopia? johnny carson the assistant secretary said, i can't cut off humanitarian aid to ethiopia and i won't do it. it was an admission, look, we might have $500 llion of aid going to ethiopia, but when it comes to votes, human rights, democratization, i can't use

that level. that's a reality. we cut off aid to the ivory coast some yes ago because of the political situation. that's a powerful thing. we are cutting off aid because there is a coup or something like that. when we did that, aid went down to $2 million a year. well year by year by year we are now giving $120 million a year to the area where we cut off aid. it no longer says something to say we are cutting off aid if it means, well, that doesn't include the $100 million, $200 million, $300 million. that means you've got to change the way you approach other issues. i think just facing that reality, that your aid program is not going to give that you leverage and ability a whole range of issues. it's an important thing forhe secretary of state, for congress and others in terms of what we think we are getting for tripling aid to africa on a whole range of issues.

that seems to me is a reality. it's already evident. >> let's take our next group of questions and we'll tke these three, start here and then we'll come over and pick up that last one. yes, please go ahead. >> thanks for having the event. it seems like the conversation about unsustainability is only if we understand our political interest to be so narrow as the immediate responses we can get in particular dollars. i'm pretty shocked actually by the disconnect between the argument as you said you've been making for quite some time. this is not a new argument, and the science and new and exciting evidence that two key things i would love for you to address. one is the reality treatment as prevention isot just the important piece todd was saying about testing. it's also we are seeing 50% reductions when arvs are scaled

up. 93% reduction. huge science we should take advantage of. second, there are models out there asking the question, how do we win? how do we use the technology we've got with treatment as prevention but with circumcision and condoms to create a model where we win. isn't it the definition of political cowardice to be so worried about being criticized you refuse to take the step out and take responsibility for what might win, and instead isn't it hugely positive for the united states to be o front crafting a strategy to win, investing the reurces to do so. >> thank you. >> one quick other question which is similarly, isn't it true in uganda and ethiopia, military aid isn't close to being cut off. we want to talk about strategies to influence. >> let me remind you and ask that you please keep your

questions short and succinct. with as few parts to them as poible. next question, please. >> here? >> yes. >> my name is chris collins with amfar. thank you for the presentations. maybe there is some overlap with the question we just heard. my question was going to be why are we having, framing the conversation around the ways in which petfar is a liability rather than having the conversation about how pepfar is a huge opportunity going forward? i'll give a couple of examples. as todd said, pepfar has been enormously successful. on a diplomatic as well as humanitarian level. it's an incredible foundation for what the president wants to don the global health initiative. i would argue that you can't acmplish goals if you're going to flatline the fndational program of that response.

maternal and child health a key focus for ghi. hiv is a cause of death among women and the knock-on effects in child treatnt. the science is allowing us to change the conversation. we are going to have a microbicide in a couple of years. there is a new movement to make treatment more efficient. finally, leverage. the investments inpepfar give us many opportunities to increase our diplomatic leverage. our partnership agreements which we negotiate with countries. i would argue that would just happen in uganda and the msm law and death sentence that was going to be imposed, that our state department was able to engage very effectively in order to turn that around there. i've seen a lot of diplomatic opportunitiein pepfar. i think one of the questions we

ought to ask again is now how does it limit us diplomatically, but how do we have more opportunities we are not taking diplomatically because we are imposing partnership agreements every few years. >> i seem to be completely ineffective asking to you ke your questions shorter to get more of them in. let's make another global effort in that. >> thank you for the excellent discussion. academy for educational development. i work more for the development side than the diplomatic side. what i'm not hearing much of at all is what are we doing within either the pepfar program or d&g to increase, if you will, the hiv governance in the countries? what are the countries doi? what are we promoting so that the countries can do more within their, albeit limited, budgets to work particularly on the

prevention side to get down to that bill gates sort of maybe we'll only have half as many new infections? >> let me synsthesize these questions. given all things we've seen and isn't it diplomatic cowardice on our part not to be seizinghose opportunities? >> i certainly don't want to suggest and wouldn't advocate we are turning away from the battle on hiv aids nor from pepfar. i think to define that battle is universal, in terms of universal access is what i think is unsustainable and will eventually undermine some of the support. we won't get there.

there are new treatments and new opportunities that are coming up and they will take years to implement, and meanwhile the infection rate continues. as people like gates said, yes, that will cut the infection rate in half, but that's still over a million new infections every year. we've got a long-term problem here. if we only define it in terms of universal access, we are going to lose support over time as that goal does become unsustainable. we need to redefine the objectives. so far pepfar has been a great success and someing we can be proud of. it will be a mistake not to face up to some of its limitations now and begin to reshape it. in terms of its political value and its ability to give us issues related on hiv, certainly it doe we get a lot of benefits from it. it does mean there are other

uses of foreign aid we have now given up to for that purpose. that's okay as long as the rest of the foreign policy community understands that and says we've got to find other instruments to value. military aid is important, but a very minor part of our aid to africa, about 7%. it doesn't give you that much leverage. >> todd, same question to you. what about seizing all these opportunities? >> yes. can i jump on the second question or the third question which we didn't hit about which is this question around supporting better governance in country? i think ambassador gusby deserves a lot of credit for his recent commitment to having the u.s. play a more active role with countries in helping them develop a good, sound, effective

strategy. in fact, in more ways than has been the case in the past making u.s. a more contingent upon developing goods on strategies. he's also talked around the importance of sustainability and investing more resources for helping countries do for themselves than having the approach in the early years which is providing emergency response which was often around or on the side of a country program. his willingness to step out and say we'll put more money in programs that work well and put more money in country capacity is a long-term solution. the la st thing i would say is the global fund in particular de a strong commitment to local governance and beyond that, beyond just governance by the governments to, in fact, require that proposal submitted to the global fund come through

coordinating groups that are multisectoral. you're bringing in civil society as part of the solution rather than just having this be a government-to-government response which is more the case with pepfar. >> in response to matt and chris' intervention, i think we all agree it's fundamental there needs to be forward momentum and seizing upon the positive gains and the lessons we've seen as the way of sustaining the commitment and the engagement. i also agree that prevention has to be taken up in a much more strategic way as part of that strategy in convincing people that the arc of the epidemic can be altered. getting back to some of the points about the unsustainability and the

mathematics around treatment versus new infections. if we show that that is a strategic goal and that we believe that these innovations and these gains move us closer to that, that becomes the kind of vision that can win. >> there is a way to show there is an endgame on hiv. it is a long-term strategy where we begin to build on tools available now with tools available tomorrow and tools available farther into the future. together tho things begin to show a drop where we start to see the rate of new infections dropping below the number of people that were added on to treatment. >> the difficult part is how do those goals match up against available dollars? we are now in a world which the african finance ministers have gone on record as walking back from the abuga and said they are

not going to hit that 15% target and scarce dollars they acquire are going to go to other objectives. we are in a post g-8, certainly a post glenn eagles' era which the majority of the g-8 finance ministers are saying we are not going to be there in this next period and anywhere near what was projected before. you can say, okay, let's turn multilateral, let's make sure the u.s. position remains robust. those are all sensible ways. let's put prevention front and forward. it still leaves you with a big gap on the material requirements to get there. it leaves a big uncertainty as to what is the goal. what is the w, what are the new goals? in '05 we had universal access. we had commitments, 15% budgetary, we had projections on donor resources.

those are not ere now. it's not clear to me what are the realistic projections of the resour sources and the goals. that's why i think there is so much angst and uncertainty now. >> we are going to move now to closing statements. first by the affirmative side princeton lyman and negative side. >> thanks. steve put it very well. it's not to walk away from a commitment that is for all the reasons we talked about, extraordinarily important and morally important. we have to redefine the goals in ways that will sustain the commitment. what worries me most about this is that these various pressures we talked about will lead to a walking away from the commitment on hiv aids unless we redefine the goals and ways that show people that it is sustainable. that there is an arc. that there is a way.

yes, it will last a long time, but we aren't chasing an ever more distant goal of universal access which we don't seem to be able to get at. i think there are a lot of ways to do that. it takes coming up with a roamistic set. facing the reality that we'll face hard budget times particularly in the next few years. on the foreign policy front, really do think it's important for people in congress and the state department and elsewhere to think a lot about what it means when our foreign aid is so heavily structured in this direction, when we are working with trade ministers on agoa and our trade capacity programs may be zeroed out this yea and en we talk about democratization and other issues. looking at that and say what other instruments do we need to

bear? i won't go into detail. multilateral efforts, trade, et cetera, to get at our other goals recognizing that if our aid program continues as it is now, it's not a vehicle for these other things. coress and the public has to be educated on that as well. i think when we talk about development and diplomacy as twin fillers, we have to authentic carefully about what that really means in terms of soft power, in terms ofther objectives, as well as the good things that this brings. i think all of those issues need to be faced. i think the more candid we are about them, the less backlash we are going to get and the more support we can build for a more sustainable program. >> i don't think there is a moral alternative to providing full access to people with treatment. lowering the bar and lowering

our expectations as way to succeed is not a pat of success for people whose lives depend on this. we have to figure this out. i recognize and i think you've done a great job of raising some of the major challenges ahead. even though i'm the negative,em's going to be positive. i think we need to be affirmative and aggressive in ourffort to increase, pull resources available not only for hiv and aids, but also for the broader range of health and development issues that need support. i would like to offer three steps that are a way forward on this. they are not going to solve the problem but get us some of the way there. one which came out again is the need for efficiency. it's very clear we are not getting the value we should be getting from the resources. in prevention, there is a lot of evidence there that programs are often mistargeted and ill

advised. in treatment, there is a lot we could do to lower the costs of treatment to provide clinically effective treatment with reduced drug prices and with reduced cost of the care. i think if we are able to achieve a 30% savings in treatment, that's 30% more people that can be treated with the money we have available. second, i think we need to be expecting more from implementing countries. while they do already provide substantial amount of the resources in totality that provided hiv, it's not enough. steve, you mentioned the wk away of the abuja targets. that is unacceptable. countries, governments are the ones that have the primary obligation to address the health needs of their citizens. it is not the suds government's primary responsibility. is the government of those people. we should push harder for them to accept that responsibility and put more on the tae including resources and

political learship. that means we need to look at some of the countries that have been beneficiaries of resources and may now no longer need those to the same extent. countries like china and india that have done well with resources from the global fund and others may now need to look differently at their approach to those institutions and perhaps become donors rather than grantees. third, i think we have to do more to get money from existing donors. laurie garrett has done an excellent job pointing out the u.s. has to do more. a lot of the other governments have done a lot to step back from commitments. italy ishe only government i know that's completely reneged on a commitment to the global fund. they have not paid their 2009 pledge. i don't think they made a 2010 pledge. that's shameful. what is also shameful the other g-8 countries aren't holding italy accountable. we have to find alternative sources of funding recognizing innovative financing is a

complement to, not a replacement for straight-up aid. debt-to-health, the millennium foundation, massive good, those are opportunities that should be exploited. we could do more to harness the skil of the private sector. of course the fourth one you need to join the one campaign by going to one.org. >> steve, last word to you. >> on the foreign policy piece, there is no getting around the reality that the horn of africa is a tough place. we have to continue to work it. we have governments that have low legitimacy and are highly autocratic. this was a good week with the constitutional referendum. this was an outcome.

this is a place where we are making massive health investments and massive humanitarian and other developmental investments. we also made the political investment. we hadecretary of state, the vice president, johnny carson and michelle gavin. this became a top priority on the top echelon of our government. you can make the case when that level of investment is made over a sustained basis of 18 months, you can move the dial to the degree we can to get the outcome we saw this week, which is a very positive outcome. and a terribly profound outcome. we should keep that in mind. we do get results. in cases where we could argue we have limited leverage, but when we carry the leadership to that level, we can see help.

>> just to bring this wonderful discussion to a close, i think we can observe that looking back, the u.s. commitment made in 2003 to create the pepfar program was amazingly important, and i think no one here would regret the u.s. made that very important commitment. similarly, the commitment of the g-8 in 2005 to universal access was in many respects a tremendously important and noble commitment. it's also fair to say no one fully understood the implications of those commitments when they were made in '03 or '08. we did not foresee the future. we did not fores a global check down turn, the straightened resources many countries face. that said, these programs have

had enormous success. we heard the glass is half empty with respect to foreign policy. we created perhaps an entitlement culture around the rest of the world with much of the rest of the world expecting on u.s continuing to step up to the plate potentially we created the seeds of a backlash if the u.s. fails to rise to the expectations. on the side of the glass being half full, we heard the perspective first of all there is no moral alternative anyway to this. what is the alternative? we heard to a large degree pepfar has been in diplomatic success for the united states

and cemented more support for u.s. foreign policy than might have been the case otherwise. we also heard that there is potentially a lot to be gained now from employing the recent science of the advances in the science to make further inroads to the hiv aids epidemic. it is time to make a new commitment on that score. we also heard from todd's perspective that the world has plenty of money, not with standing t fact resources seem strained and the case should continue to be made to attacking the hiv aids issues in the context of continuing to address more global health at issues broadly. i think what we are left with is one area of agreement between these two which is that we should certainly begin to move more of our interests to the multilateral perspective. that would be a positive going

forward. also that we should obviously make a commitment to making the resources that we do expend on hiv aids to have them used as efficiently as possible, to make, to bring down the cost of drugs, to make the distribution as efficient as it could possibly be to get the maximum bang for the buck because when we put it all together, perhaps there is indeed a case to be made that there is an endgame with hiv aids. if we can just get through this period and employ the new scientific discoveries and do it all as efficiency as possible, we could ultimate l i turn the epidemic around. i don't know i'm empowered as af today's debate. i would say the winner has been rational discourse. join me in thanking all these three for a terrific discussion.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] guest: >> president obama has been in the afternoon in texas where he will attend the democratic party fund raisers in austin and dallas and discuss higher education and the economy at the university of texas in austin. we will have live coverage at 3:00 here on c-span. house speaker nancy pelosi is calling members into session to mark to vote and a jobs bill that the senate passed last week. the $26 billion bill is designed to prevent teacher reductions and layoffs of state workers. that debate is expected to start at 10:00 a.m. eastern for on c- span. >> tonight, what to watch for in merging technology transfer insiders from the expo in washington on cyber security,

web accessibility for disabled, and how gun people use the web on "the communicators" on c-span 2. >> 0 the next few weeks, follow book-tv. book-tv on prime time this week on c-span 2. >> "washington journal" this week is looking into energy issues. tomorrow the electric car industry and the development of electric cars. you can see tomorrow's conversation at 9:15 a.m. eastern. we will show you a bit of today's session until president

obama begins his comments a few minutes and -- a few minutes from now at 3:00 p.m. eastern. is the international economics affairs vice-president of the national association of manufacturers. increasing exports. it is an initiative that the president laid out, dublin exports in the next five years. how is he doing -- a doubling of exports in the next five years. how is he doing? guest: he is doing ok. it is important that the president actually said a goal. in order to do so, we have to do a lot. the general public need to get stronger export-orientation. for some many decades, the u.s. has not been that strong and exporter. historically, we were fortunate to grow up as a continental the economy.

our companies began to sell across the united states. so many of them did not feel like they had to sell across the world. you take a german, japanese companies, and they have always done their domestic market was too small and they had to export. so we need to do domestic exports. the national association of manufacturers, representing about 90% of manufacturing, went out and asked their members, what would it take to double your export? when we came up with was a program with a lot of different steps, fixing things that the u.s. has not done that well, and we believe we can double exports. one of the most important things, and many of your viewers will be surprised to hear this -- we need more about what trade

agreements. we face so many trade barriers around the world while we are an open market. another thing we need to do is fix export controls. do not let so many high-tech products be exported because we did not want the soviet union to get them. well, the soviet union is gone, but export controls remain. there are other threats, but you would totally change what and how you control. we agree, there are sensitive technologies that must be controlled, stealth technologies, nine visions, -- night vision -- but there are so many different types of technologies that are restricted that should not be. if i know someone in los

angeles and that makes -- los angeles that makes equipment for riot control. we had a customer fill in an order in china, and we could not provide it. no security equipment could be exported to china. well, they had lost the contract to a chinese company. just one of hundreds of examples of obsolete controls. host: can you give us an economic figure of how much it hurts the company's bottom line not to have bilateral trade agreements? guest: if we did not have bilateral trade agreement with some of these large markets

around the world, it could make a $100 billion difference, take us one-third of the way to double exports. host: what would that mean for jobs in the united states? guest: we think it is worth about 2 million jobs. host: on the front page of "the washington post" last week, democrats would be focusing on manufacturing. part of that would be to include a tax on multinational companies that go overseas that avoid taxes. what do you make of that? guest: first of all, the question is imposed properly. it is a tragedy to have this happen. it will impose a tax of $120 billion on american companies. people do not understand, the

united states is the only company that profit corporate -- taxes corporate profits around the world. a french company would have to pay the american and french tax. so the americans have had something called a tax deferral. you defer paying them off until you are repatriated from the united states. this could make it more difficult for companies to operate. this is not at all doors and jobs. -- outsourcing jobs. with heavy marketing, distribution facilities over there, that is what pulls our exports. by making it more difficult to compete, we are going to lose jobs. host: in the "wall street

journal" this morning -- guest: this is a serious problem. when we ta companies,

especially smaller companies, this is the most serious problem they face. they cannot find the skilled workers. the work force is getting older and older. as they retired, companies are having great difficulty finding younger workers with the skills people do not really have an accurate view of what manufacturing is like today. it is a lot of computer- controlled, machine-controlled tools. in need skilled computer machinist, operators. despite the fact that there are 5 million fewer jobs in manufacturing than in 2000, companies have a hard time finding their skills. that is why in the national association of manufacturing has begun working with community colleges and other organizations to bring about programs to fund the markers that need. host: vermont.

ron on the democratic line. caller: i think the pendulum has swung a little too far. intellectual property is only half owned by the intellectual officers of the company. i know it is true most people have a confidential disclosure agreements. anything you come up with will be owned by the corporation. i would like to see laws changed where intellectual property is really a joint tenet between the employee and employer. that would give the american

worker in manufacturing more say at the table to where manufacturing would take place, or if it goes to china, you would get royalties, and they would be shared among the corporation and employees. guest: all employees benefit from a company's intellectual property. it is patents, copyrights, intellectual property design. the united states >> live now to president obama, speaking today at the university of texas in austin. his remarks are expected to focus on education and the economy. president obama is attending fund-raisers today in texas. you are watching live coverage on the c-span.

>> thank you. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, everybody. hello, austin. hello, longhorns. it is good to be back. i love you back. [applause] i remember -- anyone who has a seat, feel free to take a seat. i remember during the campaign -- i got a tour of the stadium

along with a couple other guys and i got a photo with the heisman. i rubbed the locker room's longhorn for good luck. it might have something to do with how the election turned out. there might be a connection there. i also remember the first time i came to austin on the campaign. there are a number of friends who are here who have been great supporters. i want to make mention of them. rep lloyd dogged is here. a great friend. [applause] congressman she led jackson lee is here.

your own president is in the house. [applause] but this was back in 2007. just two weeks after i had announced my candidacy. i know it is hard to believe, by air was not grayback then. [laughter] not many people thought i had much of a shot at the white house. a lot of people in washington didn't think i had a shot at the white house. a lot of people could not pronounce my name.

they were still calling me alabama or yo mama. but then i came back to austin in february of 2007. it was drizzling and that usually tamps down the turnout. but when i got to the rally, there was a crowd of over 20,000 people. 20,000 people. people of all ages and all races and all walks of life. i said that day that all of these people have now gathered just for me. you were there because you were hungry to see some fundamental change in america. you believe in an america where all of us, not just some of us, no matter what we look like, and

a matter where we come from, all of us can reach for our dreams. all of us can make of our lives but we will. we can determine our own destiny. that is what we have been fighting for over the past 18 months. i said it then that we would end of the iraq war as swiftly and responsibly as possible. that is a promise we're keeping this month. we will and combat operations in iraq. [applause] i said we would make health care more affordable and give you more control over your health care. that is a promise we're keeping. young people are going to be able to say -- to stay on their parents' health insurance until they're 26 because of the law we passed. [applause]

i said we would build an economy that can compete in the 21st century. the economy we had even before the recession, even before the financial crisis was not working for too many americans. to many americans had seen their wages and incomes flat line. we were unable to compete internationally. i said we need an economy that puts americans back to work, an economy built around three simple words, made in america -- we are not playing for second place. we are the united states of america and like the texas longhorns, you play for first, we play for first. [applause] one comes to the economy, i said in today's world, we are

being pushed as never before. from beijing to bang galore, from seoul, south korea, to sell paulo, brazil, new industries and innovations are flourishing. our competition is growing more fierce. while our ultimate success has and always will be dependent upon the incredible industriousness of the incredible worker and the ingenuity of american business and the power of our free market system, we also know that as a nation, we have to pull together and do some fundamental shifts in how we have been operating to make sure america remains no. 1. that is why i have set some ambitions -- some ambitious goals for the country. i have called for doubling our exports in the next five years so we're not just buying from

other countries, i want to sell to other countries. [applause] we talked about doubling our nation's capacity to generate renewable energy by 2012 because i'm convinced if we control the clean energy future, our economic future will be bright, building the solar panels, wind turbines and by a diesel. [applause] i want us to produce 8 million more college graduates by 2020. [applause] america has to have the highest share of graduates compared to every other nation. but, texas, i want you to know, we have been slipping. in a single generation, we have fallen from first place to 12th

place in college graduation rates for young adults. think about that. in one generation, we went from no. 1 to no. 12. that is unacceptable, but it is not irreversible. we can retake the lead. if we are serious about making sure america's workers and america itself succeeds in the 21st century, the single most important step we can take is to make sure everyone of our young people here in austin, here in texas, here in the united states of america has the best education world has to offer. that is the number one thing we can do. [applause] when i talk about education, people say right now we're going

through a tough time. we have emerged from the worst recession since the great depression. mr. president, you should only focus on jobs. on economic issues. what i have tried to explain to people and i said this at the national urban league via the week, education is an economic issue. education is the and economic issue of our time. [applause] it's an economic issue when the unemployment rate for folks who have never gone to college is almost double for those who have gone to college. education is an economic issue went eight in 10 new jobs will require work force training for a higher education by the end of this decade.

education is an economic issue when we know beyond a shadow of the doubt, the country's educating people of today will out compete us tomorrow. the single most important thing we can do is make sure we have a world-class education system for everybody. that is a prerequisite for prosperity. it is an obligation we have to the next generation. [applause] here is the interesting thing, austin, we know what to do to offer our children the best education. we know what works. we are just not doing it. what i have said is let's get busy. let's get started. we cannot wait another generation.

we cannot let people waste their most formative years. we have to make sure our young children, our children are entering kindergarten ready for success. that is something we have got to do. we cannot accept any thing the best -- anything but the best, as we launch an initiative called race to the top, where we are challenging states to strengthen their commitment to excellence of higher upstanding teachers and train wonderful principles and create superior schools with higher standards and better assessments. we are seeing powerful results across the country. but we also know in the coming decades, a high-school diploma is not going to be enough. folks need a college degree. they need work force training, and higher education. so today, i want to talk about

the higher education strategy we are pursuing, not only to lead the world once more in college graduation rates, but to make sure our graduates are ready for a career, ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century economy. part one of our strategy is to make college more affordable. i suspect that is something you are all interested in. [applause] i don't have to tell you why this is so important. many of you are living each day with worries about how you are going to pay off your student loans. we all know why. even as family incomes have been essentially flat over the past 30 years, college costs have grown higher and higher and higher and higher. they have gone up faster than

housing, faster than transportation, even faster than health-care costs, and that is saying something. [laughter] so it is no wonder that the amount student borrowers owe have risen almost 25% just over the last five years. think about that. just in the last five years, the debt of students has gone up 25%. this is not some abstract policy for me. i understand it personally because michele and i had big loans to pay off when we graduated. i remember what that felt like, especially early in your career where you don't make much money and you are sending all of those checks to all of those companies. that is why i am absolutely committed to making sure that here in america, nobody is denied a college education, nobody is denied a chance to pursue their dream, nobody is

denied a chance to make the most of their lives just because they cannot afford it. we are a better country than that and we need to act like we are a better country than that. [applause] there are couple of components to this. part of the responsibility for controlling these costs all go to colleges and universities. some of them are stepping up. public institutions like the university of maryland, university of north carolina, and private institutions like cornell are finding ways to combat rising tuitions without compromising quality. i know that your president is looking at some of the same approach is to make sure the actual cost of college is going down. i want to challenge every university and college president to get a handle on spiraling costs. university administrators need

to do more to make college more affordable. but we as a nation have to do more as well. that is why we fought so hard to win a battle that had been going on in washington for years. it had to do with the federal student loan program. under the old system, we paid banks and financial companies billions of dollars in subsidies to act as middlemen. these loans were guaranteed by the federal government, but there were still pass through the banks and cut billions of dollars in profit. it was a good deal for them, but not a good deal for you. because these special-interest were so powerful, the boondoggle survive year after year, congress after congress. this year, we said enough is enough. [applause]

we said we could not afford to continue subsidizing special interest to the tune of billions of dollars a year at the expense of taxpayers and students, so we went to bat against lobbyists and a minority party united in their support of this hour read this -- this outrageous status quo. texas, i'm here to report that we won. [applause] as a result, instead of handing over $60 billion in subsidies to big banks and financial institutions over the next decade, we are redirecting that money to you to make college more affordable for nearly 8 million students and families across this country. 8 million students will get more help from financial aid because of these changes. [applause]

we are tripling how much we are investing in the largest college tax credit for are middle-class families. thanks to austin's own a lloyd doggett, that tax credit is worth $2,500 a year for two years of college, and we want to make it permanent so it's worth $10,000 over four years of college. [applause] because the value has fallen as the cost of college keeps going up, the cost of how much programs are worth, we have decided to offer more support for the future so the value of pell grants keep up with inflation. we are making loan repayments more manageable for over 1 million more students in the coming years so students that

you t austin and across the country don't graduate with massive loan payments each month. -- students at ut austin. we are also making information more widely available out college costs and completion rates so you can make good decisions. you can comparison shop. we are simplifying financial aid forms by eliminating dozens of unnecessary questions. you should not have to have a ph.d. to apply for financial aid. [applause] you should not have to do it. [applause] i want a bunch of you to get a ph.d., don't get me wrong. i just don't want to have to do it for your financial aid forms. if you are married, for example, you don't need to answer questions about how much money

you're parents make. if you have lived in the same place for the last five years, you don't need to answer questions about your place of residence. soon, you will no longer need to submit information you provided on your taxes. that is why we have seen a 20% jump in financial aid applications, because we're going to make it easier and make the system more accessible. [applause] so college affordability is the first part of the strategy we are pursuing. the second part is making sure the education being offered to our college students, especially our students at community colleges -- [applause] that it is preparing them and getting them ready for a career. institutions like ut are essential for our future, but community colleges are also. there are great, under

appreciated assets that we have to value and support. [applause] that is why we are upgrading community colleges, by tying the skills taught in classrooms to the needs of local businesses in the growth sectors of our economy. we're giving companies an assurance the workers they hire will be up to the job. we're giving students the best chance to succeed. we are also giving america the best chance to thrive and prosper. that is why we are reinvesting in our hispanic serving institutions. [applause] the third part of our strategy is making sure every student's

completes their course of studies. i want everybody to think about this. over one-third of america's college students and over half of our minority students do not earn a degree. even after six years. we don't just need to open the doors of college to more americans, we need to make sure they stick with it through graduation. [applause] that is critical. [applause] that means looking for some of the best models out there. there are community colleges like tennessee and cleveland state redesigning remedial math courses, boosting graduation rates. we have to lift graduation

rates, prepare graduates to succeed in this economy, make college more affordable. that is how we will put a higher education within reach of anybody who is willing to work for it. that is how we are willing to reach our goal again of leading the world and college graduation rates by the end of this decade. that is how we will lead the global economy in this century just like we did in the last century. [applause] when i looked out at all the young people here today, i think about the fact you are entering the workforce at a difficult time in this country's history. the economy took a body blow from this financial crisis and this great recession we are going through. but i want everyone here to remember that each and every juncture throughout our history, we have always recognized that is central truths that the way to move forward in our own lives

and as a nation is to put education first. it is what led thomas jefferson to leave as his legacy and not just the declaration of independence, but a university in virginia. it is what led a nation that was being torn apart by civil war to set aside acreage as a consequence of president lincoln's vision for the land grant institutions to prepare farmers and factory workers to seize the problems -- to seize the problems of an industrial wage. it is what our parents and grandparents to put a generation of returning gis through college. and open the door of our schools and universities to people of all races and broaden opportunity and produce half a century of prosperity. that recognition that here in

this great country of ours, education and opportunity always go hand in hand. that is what led the first president of the university of texas to say, as he dedicated the corners of -- the cornerstone of the original main building, smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge and fountains of the instant wealth will gush forth. that is the promise at the heart of ut austin, but that is also the promise -- a promise at the heart of our colleges and universities and they promise at the heart of our country, a promise of a better life, the problems our children will climb higher than we did. that promise is why so many of you are seeking a college degree in the first place. that is why your family's scrimped and saved to pay for your education. i know as we make our way through this economic storm, some of you may be worried about what your college degree will be

worth when you graduate and how you will fare in this economy and what the future holds. but when i looked out at you, when i looked into the faces of america's young men and women, i see america's future and it reaffirms my sense of hope, it reaffirms my sense of possibility, it reaffirms my belief we will emerge from this storm and we will find brighter days ahead because i am absolutely confident if you keep pouring yourself into your own education and we as a nation offer our children the best education possible from cradle to career, not only will american workers compete and succeed, america will compete and succeed. we will complete this improbable journey that so many of you took up over three years ago. we will build an america where each of us, no matter what we look like for where we come from can reach for our dreams and

make up our lives what we will. thank you, austin. thank you, texas. god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. [applause] thank you. [applause] could let. -- good luck. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ >> and president obama trying a connection between education and job growth at university of texas, austin trade next, the president heads to dallas for a fund-raiser before coming back to washington tonight. u.s. house members are cutting their summer break short. house speaker is calling

members into session tomorrow to vote on a jobs bill passed by the senate last week. the $26 billion bill is designed to reduce teacher protection. live coverage of that debate at 10:00 eastern here on c-span. "washington journal" this week is looking at energy issues. tomorrow, the electric car industry and obama administration pa's plans to promote the development of electric cars. that's all this week and "washington journal" at 9:15 eastern. >> tonight, what to watch for in emergency -- emerging technology trends. cyber security, web accessibility for the disabled, and how young people use the web onspan2. >> book tv has been finding out about the new books coming out this fall.

>> it's an interesting memoir. how did this young girl become the first black secretary of state. he's a health-care expert and very politically savvy, he's telling us about a major event that came together to get this health care reform. this is an account of what it was like to be on the road with her dad. it is going to be hot, hot, hot. >> for the latest in non-fiction authors and books, watch "but tv" every weekend. >> the problem of stimulating the economy and stimulating jobs was discussed at the aspen idea festival. the labor secretary, the afl-cio president, and the chamber of

commerce president were on the panel. this is about one hour and 15 minutes. i'm going to stick with the south american drug lord look. but you should not read into that any meeting. it's just a joke. but i'm going to make the preliminary marks super brief and i can interject questions and remarks as we go. it is clear enough that we have a jobs problem. you hardly need me to remind you of all the details. just to bring you up to date, at the moment, the latest unemployment statistics in this

country -- the official rate year is 9.5%, it went down from 9.7% to 9.5%. i've done a lot of work on this and the most inclusive official unemployment number is u6 -- what you hear in u3. it is now a 16.5%. that includes everybody who has not look for work in the last week when they were surveyed, but did at some point in the last year. and people who are looking for part-time. that is 16.5%. last month, 842,000 people according to the bureau of labor and statistics -- and these

numbers should be taken with a grain of salt -- the official member is 842,000 people left the work force. in that u6, they do not count people who have stopped looking for work in the past year. in other words for a year, they have not looked for work in a year. those people are not counted in the labor force at all. 16.5%, plus those people is what we're talking about. when i was in spain, unemployment was 20% and people were saying it's not that high because there is a lot of underground economy. 20% in spain would be unbelievable. this is spain which is going through all kinds of wrack and ruin at the moment. one more datapoint -- almost

half of the unemployed have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. if you look at a chart of how that is historically, its bikes in a way you cannot avoid. that's where we are at the moment. -- it spikes in a way you cannot avoid. i will read from their biographies -- economic people have read the booklet, but these are very well done. this is what people like themselves to be represented s. tom donahue is the president and ceo of the chamber of commerce since 1997. he built chamber into a lobbying powerhouse with influence across the globe. that is what it says. and it's true. he has advanced a competitive this agenda which includes doubling u.s. exports in 10 years, strengthening capital markets, forging a national energy strategy and protecting

intellectual property rights. he spearheaded the american free enterprise campaign to protect and advance the free enterprise system. under his leadership, they have become a major player in politics, helping to elect pro- business congressional candidates through voter act revision. he serves on the board of union pacific, senior living, previously president and ceo of the american trucking association. next is the professor from stanford business school where he also went to school. he has been teaching there is a full professor since 1979. he says he has not died, but he has gone to heaven. he has authored or co-authored 13 books and he has lectured in

34 countries, a visiting professor at london business school, harvard business school, singapore management university and served aboard and directors of several human capital software companies as well as other profit and non-profit boards. if you think that's not impressive enough, we have the secretary of labor. welcome. you were a congressman for the 32nd district in california for eight years. a recognized leader in the clean energy jobs and co offered the green -- the green job back. she received the profile in courage award for her work on environmental justice issues. she was appointed to the helsinki commission, the mexico- u.s. enter parliamentary group, elected vice chair of the helsinki commission on human rights and humanitarian questions. the only u.s. elected official

to serve on the committee throughout her career in public service which includes being in the california house. she has offered 17 state laws aimed at combating domestic violence. the only person here i think have interviewed on "newshour" is the president of the afl-cio. he previously served as secretary treasurer for 15 years and -- a love this -- as a boy in a small coal mining community in the southwestern pennsylvania, used to complain about how badly miners were treated. what do you plan to do about it, his grandfather would ask. i could be a politician, he replied. his grandfather said -- he smacked him across the head, he

said offered a second opinion, could be a lawyer and stand up for workers' rights. his grandfather said that's a better idea, but if you want to help workers, the first need to help people. unions must uplift everybody in their pursuit of fair treatment for workers as they did in building the world's strongest middle-class and as they must once again by restoring job growth and prosperity for working people. that is who is here. we're going to cross -- go across in alphabetical order so you get a chance of where we are with respect to the issue at hand. where are the jobs in america's future? >> we have agreed we're going to go back and forth here. let me start with what i think our three or four factoids we all agree with. you laid out the numbers that we

have an unemployment number that is quite a bit higher than the 9% for all of the reasons you indicated. think we could in a quick moment all agree that over the next 10 years that we need 20 million jobs. we need 20 million jobs to replace the 8 million or 9 million people who are unemployed, and then just looking at the people that will be coming into the workforce, expanding population, a growing workforce, we need another 12 million -- so you need about 20 million jobs. without getting into who does what, that's a fairly rational number people could rally around. the third thing i would suggest from history and from basic economics, 3% economic growth --

we're not going to be quite there. we have adjusted back in the last quarter. but let's say for the year, we can get 3% or a little bit over. 3% economic growth will not create jobs. you will get a few jobs here and there. over the course of the year, you might get 300,000 net jobs. how do we know that? we've seen at a lot of times. when we have come out of recessions over the years, he popped up to 4%, 5%, 6% growth a quarter or two and everybody went back and invested in the jobs. we have to figure out how to get economic growth number to a place where we create jobs. i would sum up my quick look at these numbers by saying i think we're going to have a very modest recovery. but for now, and i will give a

lot of suggestions as to why later, we are having a recovery without very many jobs and the problem with that is it is going to drive up deficits, is going to cause -- require more federal spending, this is going to keep more people in an uncomfortable and unfair position from all our perspectives, and so my suggestion is if we can't agree on some of these fundamental numbers, -- if we can agree on some of these the middle numbers, what we do to get up to 6% because that's the only thing we're going to do to create jobs. reality stings, but that's it. >> as a slight add on, i remember doing a series for the "newshour" in 2003 called the " jobless recovery." that's when i started looking at the broader numbers. >> the interesting thing about that 2003 recovery, that was the

first time in many, many years -- in all of the recoveries before that, there's bring recoveries. in 2003, it took many years to get those jobs to come back because they did not get accelerated growth. >> what was so striking is the notion that the jobless recovery is not just a phrase you used at one point in time. it now seems to be a generalization. >> i would make three points. first, everybody in this room, if you have not done so, you should read the article in the most recent issue of "bloomberg business week." mr. grove points out the job creation problem in this country is decades old. this is not just an issue of the current economy and recession. the recession has obviously made

things much worse and taken people lot of existing jobs. our problem of job growth has existed for decades. he points out something people would think shocking -- to take an industry that is a quintessential u.s. industry -- the computer industry. with the charts and data to back it up, the united states employs fewer people in the computer industry today than we did in 1975. it's not just an issue of we're going to find new industries and create new jobs out of the industry, this is a longstanding problem. it is not just a problem in old industries like iron, steel and coal. it is a problem throughout the economy. that's the first thing i would point out. second, i have had the privilege of working with the ministry of manpower in singapore and a variety of other countries around the world.

i would say there is a fundamental difference in the risk of oversimplifying, between the u.s. and many other countries in which at the of -- had the privilege of working and spending time. for the most part, the other countries, public policy and business people actually care about working people and human beings. in this country, we care about the stock market. if the market is up and the numbers are up, but there are people on the street or people working in jobs that are bad jobs or not well paying jobs, we think we're still doing fine. this is a real contrast, certainly a contrast from some of that. the third and final point i would make is that i am not sure the business leaders in this country, many of them we're training at stanford and i may have trained over my 30 years at stanford, i'm not sure they have

the right values or even the right political view of what makes companies or countries successful. i was at a conference recently were a very prominent and well- known ceo of an enormous money management firm made the following comment -- the economy is moving in the right direction. think about what we have been able to accomplish in the auto industry. at the end of all of this restructuring of general motors and chrysler who went through bankruptcy, we have autoworkers making $14 an hour, less than they make in mexico. he took this as a sign of progress. i was quite stunned by this. that we would think progress is getting our wage levels down. there is no evidence -- if you let that the list of the most competitive economies or the world economic forum list of the world most competitive economies, the labor rates and

profitability is -- that have to beat low wage to be successful -- in denmark, switzerland, germany, they have a positive balance in trade even though it is a high wage co. -- a high- wage country. but we have this view that competitive this requires us to be like bangladesh. i was also quite struck by this idea we have made progress by restructuring wages so that people are now more at risk and have more bad working conditions. >> a another upbeat person on the panel. i'm sure it's only going to get more encouraging as we move left. [laughter] i'm frightened to hear what you have to say. >> i'm happy to be here and this

is a great location. if you look around the surroundings here, somebody had the know-how and technology and work ethic to preserve what we have here. it takes money, research, dollars and policy. and people to places like this together. this is something that is intertwined with where our future is going to rest -- renewable energy. while we have lost our manufacturing base and we are a service industry and consumption-oriented, we have to push back and say what kinds of policies are going to work for middle-class families and putting people back to work in a meaningful way, not just for a job, but for a career. traveling around the country this last year and half the ingenuity, tenacity and fortitude of our american workers. i spent time in the northeast watching what happens to the devastation in flint, michigan. to see we have new sources of technology going them like

hybrid plants and lithium batteries, different resources coming together because the government said we're going to listen up research credits and incentivize businesses to go that extra mile. while job growth may not be as rapid, we are starting to see movement. just yesterday, i was at pueblo community college visiting with folks there and looking at what opportunities are going to be available for job training. without a doubt, we have to have people with more than a high- school education. you cannot just go out and have a job and be competitive. for our future in the united states, we have to think about that. the president has done that the major investment in higher education, the community college system, and making it more affordable by allowing aryan people to be able to afford to go to college. -- by allowing some of our young people to be afford to go to college.

seeing siblings that people to complete their college degrees -- i think one of the things i would say to you is we need to focus on america's work force. we have many, many individuals who lost their jobs who are over 45 or 50 years old, the baby boomer population, that is ill-prepared to come back into the work force. we have to spend the money. that's the deficit side people don't want to talk about, making investments in new technology or retraining people for other skills. incentivizing business and manufacturers to take advantage of the programs we had issued. we will subsidize training and education for an employer if they want to somehow bring up the skill sets of their employees. i saw this yesterday visiting one of our community colleges to is a recipient of a $2 million grant working with a corporation who is building windmills.

i am wearing one of their displays here because that is where the future is going to be. it requires someone to have skills in math and science. they still lead welders. we need people to create products and to assemble it. i would like to see more cooperation with business and labor, working to see we put american workers first and make them the priorities of have a good paying jobs and save jobs as well. we pulled out a lot to say it's not enough to just have a job. it has to be better than that. it has to be a good paying job, not a race to the bottom and lower wages. we can keep those jobs here. let's send our products out. let's have fair trade practices. not free, fair. so we don't disadvantage manufacturers here in the united

states. >> how do we do that? that's all great and we would all like that to happen. i think everybody on the panel and everybody in the room. does this mean spending money? what does a mean? >> i want to pick up on a point jeffrey made. for the last almost four years, our countries pursued a low- wage, high-consumption strategy. if you start backed in 1946, from 1946 to 1973, productivity -- and so did wages. at that time, the interesting thing, the people in the bottom to quartiles, their wages were increasing faster than the people of the top and the wage gap in this country was being shrunk at that time. we had about 37.5% collective bargaining density. >> what is collective

bargaining density? >> they were represented by unions that could bargain. they could share profits and it was being shared pretty evenly back them. from 73 today, productivity has picked up a wages have stagnated. to compensate for that, workers have gone through four or five different strategies. first, we started working more overtime. that did not keep pace. then we sent a second person into the work force so with individual wages cannot stand up, family wages would stay at a level. the third thing we did when that did not keep up was start getting a second or third job. all of those things did not work, but we got sort of lucky in the early '90s and had the high-tech bubble. so people felt richer, they had wherewithal and resources and could borrow. so they did. the high-tech bubble busted.

then you had the housing bubble come up. my $100,000 house is worth $200,000, so i could borrow. and we borrowed and kept consumption up. our economy is 72% driven by consumption right now. if you are going to start demand, you have to put money in people's pockets to get them to be able to spend. not barrault, that does not work. you cannot at -- not barrault, that does not work. the result of those policies are we have about 15 million people unemployed today. we have 25 million who are -- you can call a underemployed. that does not include the people have stopped looking for work and it is a skewed figure from what we used to have. now they include military people so the figure is actually less than what it used to be.

so you have 6.5 million people have been unemployed for longer than six months. five people looking for every job out there. that is it the policy, the result of a low-wage, high- consumption strategy. we have to change that. i would disagree about one thing -- you said the first recession we had, in 2003 -- the first one actually happened in 1991. the 1991 recession was the first one where unemployment and not go like this. it went like this. the 2003 recession was like this.

>> it turns vicious back into a recession or depression. we have points short term that we think should happen. first, we ought to invest in long-term infrastructure long- term infrastructure can make the country far more efficient and can develop competing in the world. a can create a massive number of jobs. we'd to extend health-care benefits. we cannot afford to have 6.5 million workers stop spending. if they stop spending the economy goes back again. there needs to be an expansion of unemployment benefits. the third thing we recommend is aid to state and local government. state and local spending has dropped.

we are at the corner in a word is neutral. when this is neutralized, you start to see the economy sputtered. >> and you're talking about layoffs there. >> correct. about 900,000 of estimate. 300,000 teachers which will cripple the education at a time when we should be building education. that is the third thing. the fourth thing is for direct job creation. targeted areas where we have high employment, go in and create direct jobs. i will give you an example. go into a school district where you are having trouble with scores and education. create tutors. it creates jobs and it helps solve a problem. we cannot substitute because that does nothing. the last thing we need to happen is we need to take the tarp money that has not been

spent, give it to regional banks to loan it out to small land midsize businesses so they can actually start creating jobs. that is a short-term solution. we have a short-term job crisis. we do not have a short-term deficit crisis. the hysteria for the short-term deficit crisis really does threaten the entire recovery worldwide. it is dangerous to the economy. it is dangerous to the future of competitiveness. we desperately need to invest in infrastructure to make ourselves competitive. >> i had anticipated -- i am coming to you fourth went, but i have been dissipated before this session that this would, this potential of more fein into what is presumably the key economic debate of the moment which is

austerity vs stimulus. it is bailouts verses budget cutting. that is true everywhere in the world, greece and france. it is the central question being asked here. the point in this discussion, ok we on how terrible things are. you were nodding your head in agreement the whole time. when this is in favor of, so she said you were in favor of long- term infrastructure. but what about the others? >> said think you'd be very useful for the purpose of having this discussion if i could make just two comments about what has been said. i give my five ideas and then we can look at them. there are some similar and some different. for the record, the chairman of commerce supported the tarp of money, vigorously supported the stimulus package even lanugo it

was a turkey in terms of what was in the package. to go over the edge into a global recession. contrary to what most of our members wanted, we went out and got into that. [laughter] hey. it worked, did it not? as many of you know, we were aggressive in the gm, chrysler, and the cash for clunkers deal. we understand everyone cares about the people in this country. i will deal with our disagreements in a minute, but let me make two points and then i will put the five points.

we will have in some shape or form we will try to find the 20 million jobs. we of 20 million people looking for them. the point i think you were making, we will not have 20 million people prepared to do them. when 30 percent cited these people do not graduate from russell in four or five years, and as you indicated madam secretary they need more education than what they can get in the eyes go which is a big issue, i think. another thing i want to comment on is that america has not lost in manufacturing business. america is the first or second, depending on what we do look get from the largest manufacturer in the world. we are doing far more a high- tech manufacturing. yes remove the jobs around, we are a huge manufacturer. the big thing is, because as

richard indicated, we have productivity increases. i do not know where to go on this. we're doing so much more work with fewer people. why, we use information technology, supply chain management, a new manufacturing techniques. we have done it so much better. how will the cover these people going forward. wifi things, and i will show you where i think we are together and where we are not. if 95% of the people have the ability to consume this and live somewhere else, it is a good deal to get into the trading business and to do it in a more vigorous way. the president of the united states ran for office saying that is a bad idea.

he gave the state of the union saying it was a good idea. he did not do anything on the trade agreement of this has become a hot topic. in the last week, we can have he has been -- if we ever zero someone for the support of their country, it is columbia. if we do not do korea, canada and the eu have made agreements with them and we will lose 350,000 jobs. we will let danny. if we could, all of us together, we could create trillions of dollars in new opportunity for everyone. i think the trade issue, you can double your experts in five years, you can create a lot of jobs. the second thing where i think

we are in absolute agreement is in infrastructure. everyone thinks about this in the sense of roads and bridges. we are working together on that. the people of on the hill are playing deals on that. we have not increased the net national fuel tax in 16 years. we put twice the wear and tear on the roads because he gets so many more mpg. there is about $300 billion worth of private money waiting to invest in infrastructure, broadband, electrical transmission, electrical generation, nuclear power. we need to go do that with huge

amounts of private money because that would create real jobs. i think the next thing we would also agree with and that is that there are some green jobs that will create jobs and green projects. some will not. most of the green energy issues carlson -- subsidized. if you look at france, they get 70% of their nuclear power from that. we need to get back into the business. if you want to clean the air, the water, and the land, if you want to find a new ways to use coal technology, we can cut a lot of money into that from the public and private sector. we will call them green jobs.

i would agree that we can go out and get public and private money. i am all for that. for clarification, when you go and get private money, does this mean provide public incentive? imagine? >> some of that in the green jobs, yes. >> that is how you induce private money to come in? tax incentives for something? >> there is a massive deficit going on over the world where people who have capital see investing in the geographic areas is one of the long-term best investments they can make. >> to answer your question, if they make a long-term commitment, i am talking about a

10, 15, 20 year commitment, it would begin begin to cry in private investors. >> year's increase example. if you want to build a nuclear power plant, you get halfway there and then the environmentalists su one after the other. you do not have to put up the money. just say here are the rules, all of them, and build the plant, meet the standards. and because of the lawsuits you cannot open the plant, the government will write you a check for interest in dome guess what? the government will not support those lawsuits. it will be the government opening the plant. two last things and then i will stop. we have got to get capital to small and medium-sized companies. they're sitting on a lot of cash. i will tell you why. when we have just been through with this regulation of the capital markets, which by the

way in addition to everything you read about, and brings you 355 role makings -- rulemakings, 74 reports, that will take about 10 years. if we're lucky. >> job creation? [laughter] >> yes, probably. it will be paid for a taxes. maybe jobs creation in the private sector, too, because many people to deal with the rules. we need to the that the system and figure out how to give capital back there because, as rich said, he wanted to use the chart money. i would rather have the tarp money and clear that as a success. then if we need to get more money, let's go get it. otherwise, all of the tarp money goes away. it was not a bust.

the banks have paid the money back. the final thing, let's just assume for a minute that you are running a company, a midsize, large, small. but the largest problem the have right now was uncertainty. there is always uncertainty and risk in running anything. what will this cost? it has now been around for a couple of weeks, but the cost of the much higher than we thought. >> stuff meaning the regulation? >> yes. what will it cost us? what is this tax bill everyone is talking about that we will do at the end of the election? what will that cost? if anyone, two, or three of

those things would come down, i am keeping my cash. i will wait and see what is going on because i have got to sustain this company. i have got to keep my stock of. if i do not keep my stuff up, they will get rid of me. the bottom line is, if we can get rid of some of that uncertainty that we could do better. we're probably in the same place on 50% of the stuff. >> it sounds like more than 50%. i cannot figure work the problem is. >> i can tell you to the problems. as we're talking about the importance of education, which you agree with, which you agree with, which i agree with and i am in the education business from sort of. the state of california is laying off public schoolteachers. the state of california with a master plan made by evan braun

which promised a certain level of high school degrees. you need to get every junior college, at this level you need to go to the state college system, at another level is the upper 125% in the the dakota the california university system -- you need to go to the california university system. it was a great system and we are now dismantling it. as i sit here and talk about this, the opposite is going on. and we're talking, rome is burning. we can all agree on the importance of education. the realities on the ground are is that this is very good for stanford. we have been able to hire a lot of talented people out of the university of california has the support for the state has continued to erode. they have had wage givebacks and all kinds of things. that is one issue. while we're talking about

spending on infrastructure including educational infrastructure, we're moving in the wrong direction. it is getting harder to repair a problem than it is to be prevented in the first place. it will take california down. let me say one other thing. with all due respect to my dear colleague here on line right -- on my right, i heard the stories about the regulatory costs, the regulatory burdens, the regulatory overhead, and i and a stand. i hear this from my friends in business, as well. when you go look at which countries are running the largest surpluses in trade, which countries are doing the best in terms of competitiveness according to "economist" magazine which is not a left- wing magazine. if you look at the world economic forum list of competitive countries, many of them have more of the things

that you do not like. such a land, finland, germany -- >> before you said germany that added up to massachusetts. [laughter] >> i am from massachusetts and it is considerably larger than that. [laughter] >> i am talking about economics. >> sweden? it is larger than that. >> were you done? >> i was going to give you some good news about education. >> i thought you were going to give him good news about california. the aroma may be burning for a lot of education, but the labor movement is moving ahead with educating workers. we're training people for the green drums of the future.

we're starting to go out into minority communities and others and giving free for furnace -- free apprentice training is. we're bringing them in a to our apprenticeship programs. we're teaching them not just a trade that they'll be able to have a career in environmentally sound things. we're pretty happy about that. >> i applaud that. i'm glad you're doing that. american businessmen spend on an annual basis for a long time on training. much of that was remedial. i think we would agree we should do the training but i do did we should have to come in the most sophisticated country in the world, have to do of the remedial training to teach those that come out of our school system how to read, write, and count. >> we worked as a junior

colleges run the country to do just that. get math and science skills up to a financially prepare them for jobs we see coming. if you look at what our competitive -- our competitors are doing, but get low carbon technology. china is investing two times as much as the united states. they have decided they will capture the green market. after wind,g plannedal, and we've 500 miles of high-speed rail in this country. china has 5,000 miles already in progress that they will have completed this year. it is a matter of us as a nation deciding that it becomes a priority. i could go through the four drivers of the economy with few, and maybe i should, but we see

four drivers in the economy. the first is private consumption, personal consumption. if we do now reestablished the link between productivity and wages in this country, we will not have the solid foundation to build on. business investment is not occurring because we have an average demand. we have an aggregate demand problem. why is the corporation going to build something new when they're not using the current capacity that the have or if they do not know an increase. the third is not just exports, tom, but the real driver of the economy our net exports. a net export gives you a drag on g.d.p.. we have not had a net export in

this country for years. if you want to do that, you need to go to the chinese currency manipulation and a number of other things. tom does not think we should do some of those things and we disagree on that issue. we know there is a currency manipulation problem. he thinks we ought to like it -- the the for the market. since 2003, we have been trying that. we have a $1.50 trillion trade deficit. it is a massive drive. -- drag on the g.d.p. in this country. the fourth driver is government spending. we agree. government spending cannot go on forever. when we may disagree on is the naumann of the time to cut it off. the recovery is nascent. it is sputtering. if we had a world wide fiscal

austerity it will put us back into recession and possibly a depression. there is no economist in their right mind who will say differently. >> i want to take these and get a little nearer were -- get a little narrower. on this point about austerity, i thought i heard you say that you were for spending more now. is that correct? did i miss something? >> two things. we support, in a critical time, the stimulus program. >> you did support? >> yes, we did. >> what about now? >> that is the second point. [laughter] from a personal this further.

we would support the continuation of the unemployment insurance. >> bravo. >> timeout. >> on the health care side which is tied into unemployment, we do not want anyone in this country denied health care. while we have all of our arguments about health care, the losses that if somebody shows up at an emergency room that you have to take care of them. we ought to do better than that. we get to the next set of issues, and remember this is election time. all the guys in the house and the senate, so you are not there anymore. >> thank god. >> everybody here has every kind of i did you can practically think about where they want to throw money at this problem.

my issue is let's get national. let's take care of unemployment and let's figure out what part of that government money is really going to create jobs, really serious, and we can come to some agreement on that. let's take all those political suggestions and let's be very careful. the point we do agree on is that there's a limit on how long we can push this government spending. if we will do this, let's spend more so we keep getting in return. >> we should be about to agree on two things that are not gimmicky. the first is unemployment benefits. we know that can spend immediately in the spurs the economy. one other thing. we get to be born to a green that we need aid to state and local governments so that contraction of the state and

local government does not negate the increase in federal spending and create a situation where there is no region >> stop. what you said about unemployment insurance is right. i agree with you. the argument that nancy pelosi is making, this is the greatest job creator in the world, it is bald. unemployment insurance -- is bunk. how much of this will stimulate the economy come i'm not ready to stipulate. the next issue you raised about the states, obviously, there's something we will have to do with the states. rome is going belly up eventually. that is california. it is. it has a $62 billion deficit. >> is the government going to bailout california? >> maybe. i do not know when they're going to do. we have not had to decide that yet.

i think we would agree that what the states that over the last 20 years is try to duplicate the federal system. they build all the same kinds of every department. they're spending more money than they have spent in history. i do not to pay for that. i am willing to help the states, but they have to make some accommodations and was going on in their own expenditures. >> secretary seoul least, they need to make their next -- secretary solis, to the need to make their own exceptions? >> there needs to be more rational spending. and the california, you have to remove formulas that do not make sense. the minority will also control the effort. that is why there is a compromise on the budget and by the government is trying to lay out a plan for they would like to pay workers' state minimum wage. i think that those in the wrong direction. i would hope that there could be some really good compromises

that could be made but not at the expense at quality of life or what citizens from that state one. if you want local law enforcement, fire protection, clean water, good schools, someone will have to pay for that. it should not all just fall on one segment of our society. it should be spread around. i think that is where you need to close the loopholes. why allow for these big loopholes for people to get away with not paying for with everyone else has to pay for. and that is a discussion we have not had here. >> just as an aside, as someone from california, when you hear that california is going down for -- >> i am concerned. i'm a product of the public and education system there. i know how great the universities are. the have helped to lift up some many people in some ways. to see that you cannot afford to go through a four year education and take seven years because you

cannot have an effect of the available and all of these things that are a compilation, higher education sends a bad signal and gives another signal to our foreign competitors. they will mass-produced engineers and physicists, doctors at a higher rate and the have been, then we have. that is really surprising. i think about the demographic changes. we continue to avoid putting in the investments in education, we are setting ourselves up to be really far behind in the coming in a society that i just really do not want to think about. >> graduate about 27% of americans after a certain age we are ranked -- >> 15th. >> 15th in the world. that number for the first time is possibly going down now.

>> it probably did during the session -- the recession. >> but also because of the nature of the immigrants coming in and whether or not they get degrees as the others. and is a very controversial issue but it seems to be the case. >> the the debt california as a microcosm of the country, what is going on in california? three or four things. first of all, it is the highest taxed into the, one of the highest come in the world. -- it is the highest taxed entity. companies and individuals are moving out of california when it is going out of style because of the tax base, the regulatory base. it is the access to asia, has tremendous climate. in the central valley of california there is 40% unemployment. you know why? that is the to build. there's a big fight going on between water and fish, between

people and fish. because of some little fish, we are not running water into the valley that has 40% unemployment and the farmers take their stuff to mexico. it is fundamentally true. >> tom, let's not go there. >> 40% unemployment in the central valley of california. it is about water. >> i have heard enough. i will quote you on that, tom. >> you probably will. [laughter] >> that is the kind of statement we do not allow to go unchallenged, but we do not have time for it here. >> it is about not being able to run the water for that reason. >> it is decidedly someone more

complicated than that. >> we're coming closer than not at all. [laughter] >> you are making tremendous progress. we are in lots of different areas. i asked lots of things that on a good for europe -- follow on. i would just assume that people from the audience to come in and maybe i can focus this. there are microphones right there. please, just come to the microphone. give a brief identification. just a question to the point as possible, as specific as possible. >> into the same ewells. -- judy samuels. you given an important speech on

saying company to stop providing quarterly earnings guidance, the longer term. you connected this piece about the lack of research and development, perhaps. the lack of research and development in business because of the companies who are worrying about the stock price going down. is there a solution in the tax base, something, to encourage a longer be based outlook? >> right now, under the extender plan in the senate, there is a provision to help expand tax credits for research and development. people from both sides of the aisle, i believe, have supported that. it is getting caught up in the rhetoric -- the rhetoric and politics of midterm election much i think it's unreasonable. i can see the value that we provide incentive for more research, people to be able to patent their inventions, all of the things that have made us great in the past. >> let's have the answers be short, too. >> research and development

follows manufacturing. as manufacturing shut down and moves offshore, research and development follows a. we have less money being spent now. we really need to bring back manufacturing. the a part of it is is the space program. a lot of research and development and product areas from cell phones and computers to everything goes, we are losing the technological edge to everything from green drums with a solar panels and everything else, we're losing the fight because we as a nation are not committed. >> they make that argument in great detail in bloomberg "businessweek." what is the answer? >> sadr and the of one unfortunately. it is really an issue of values and how we think about what our

responsibilities are as business people. 40 or 50 years ago the idea of stakeholders in some of shareholders was much more broad in the land and people thought they had an obligation to balance the interests of employees, customers, shareholders, and the community. they sat in this position to try and negotiate among the competing demands. those days are gone in terms of many of the business people who i talk to. >> john, you are nodding? >> i support the research and developing thing falling. i pushed to get rid of for the pressure. you cannot manage a huge business and expects a head to buy a penny every quarter. it is ridiculous. remember who is driving a lot of this stuff. it is the investors, the people in the u.s., the individual investors. the professional investors take

a long-term look. some of the hedge funds driving tremendous pressure against these companies, we will have to find some way to do this because we are in a global system and if they do not do it here they will do it somewhere else. >> i genuinely look forward to working with you on trying to figure runaway to end the short term-ism that we agree is driving the decisions and hauling of companies. i would enjoy working on that with you. [applause] >> is not afl-cio-u.s. chamber of commerce initiative fine -- fighting short-term-ism, this is useful if nothing else. >> coming from washington, there seems to be a lot more agreement than when people come to aspin. it must be the mountains. one of the company's right now

are sitting on reserves. there is a lack of confidence. i would like to hear your panel say what is that the base of the lack of confidence? fear of lack of demand, business decisions, political decisions, for fear of another downturn or another unanticipated risk? >> why are these businesses sitting on reserves? >> they sit on some amount of it anyway because you have to have capital base in the company. they are sitting now because the on the shore nature of decisions are what will happen in this -- there unsure nature, these deficits will be unbelievable. there are huge. what are the requirements on me?

how well i deal with that? these issues are significant. what about markets? what about what is going on globally? they do the same thing we do. the the debt the newspaper. you guys write it. [laughter] >> it is all your fault, as a drug. -- all your fault, ezra. >> eve keeping people on edge because you write these stories. -- you keep people on edge. >> is it because there's not enough ever did the man? >> i do not think in the middle of the second most serious recession we have ever been in that aggregate demand would be where we wanted. >> therefore if you are running a company, you say you are not sure. >> if i am protecting my assets, my capital, and i wait to see why some of this moves out and then i will move. by the way, an interesting thing

going on. with all that money, what will leave by? they are thinking, maybe i will buy that chinese company. there is a great suggestion in one of the previous sessions today that the mexicans on to go out and buy these drilling companies whose values are way, way down. it will solve their problem in the gulf. this is a global system. is that simply look at what is going on in the u.s.. >> they're sitting on the money because they are afraid. people tend to follow the crowd. other people will begin to spend and invest. >> i think that is correct. i think there is a major restructuring going on in our economy and with relationships.

all of these things have impacted the way than we administer our programs and services. i think we are trying to level the playing field for consumers and working families for the first time. we get lost and that when we talk about profits and people making tremendous amounts of money and sitting on and what other people are sitting on thinking about if they will lose their homes. we have major foreclosures going on in california and other parts of the country. we need this capital. we need this movement. that is the first thing i hear. why are we not seeing more capital, more lending, more favorable positions for small and medium-sized businesses and minority businesses? >> is it not also the case that people are scared to listen to people because they are afraid of the very same things that keep companies from investing?

>> i am from bethesda, maryland. i think everyone agrees that education is a primary issue in getting these problems solved. a key issue is teachers. addressing that problem has a lot -- has a lot of of the demands because of labor unions, seniority lockstep paid tenure. i wonder with the panel thinks about that. asserting that u.s. is a number two in manufacturing, does that include correcting for offshore jobs? or is it based on revenues or employment? >> let's quickly redressed that one. >> domestic manufacturing. >> so you are talking about manufacturing in the u.s.. >> is shrinking and shrinking. >> insurance in the number of people that are employed. this is in part because of high

growth. that is just not -- >> that is just not true. >> when you close down a plant here in the move into china, you are seeing much of that. >> there is a lot of offshore that is cutting in. >> i was just asking if it was included. as at's leave that disagreement. >> we agree on the concept. the devil is in the details. >> both of these are factors clearly. productivity increases as well. your first question was? >> education, teachers. >> is not that directed towards richard trumka? >> our union's part of the problem?

>> there are instances where you can find out where a union is an impediment. by and large it is on the case. the teachers' unions right now really do want to find a solution. the me give you four or five examples. if we do not have jobs, it is the immigrants fault. i lost my job it is feminism. one of the other issues is education is not good? it is the teacher's fault. >> can i respond? >> having unfortunately watch a number of school boards, a lot on dvd, everybody believes that unions which of their seniority rights and job protection on impedimenta flexibility in terms of hiring great teachers.

the opposite is not in people like yourself hiring teachers. it is oftentimes jobs that are sold as they were in new york city. you could have their principal shipping -- you can have a principalship for $40,000. you hired a relative. this is prior to this prerogative -- bureaucratic h.r. prerogative. jobs were given away and sold. the idea that he would replace this with some kind of enlightened hiring is possible, but it is not guaranteed. >> the question is whether you

can fire the bottom 5%. most of the schools in the country are not unionized. there is no impediment there. there is still a problem. >> how do you answer that one? >> school boards. >> moving on. >> state department. i have two quick points and a question. the point has been made that we are in a very competitive global economy and we are short-term oriented and one is an education. it is quite clear from the wave of the world and the educational efforts of other countries that we will not have this kind of economy 20 years from now unless we have a world-class education system now. this is critical to the future, not just a higher education levels but throughout the educational level. that is one of those short-term elements we need to deal with if we're going to have a

competitive future. in infrastructure, with the budget deficit problem and a job problem. tom and rich have both made the point that if we could leverage private sector but money, we could create jobs and we should be devoting this to what other countries are. this is my question. structural unemployment, long- term unemployment which i think is a profoundly disturbing issue. "the atlantic magazine"edited piece on this. if they cannot get jobs now, good jobs, no training, then they will be disadvantaged the rest of their lives. this is a huge long-term social and economic problem. the question i have is whether other countries who are experiencing similar things have programs we can learn from. is there an ongoing efforts or can there be an ongoing effort with other countries like germany which deals with these

problems to learn. we could see if there are a number of these which we could incorporate into our thinking to develop programs now for the future. >> are we doing that, madam secretary? >> i know germany has some fantastic programs. we know the automobile industry, for example, we are looking at trying to expand on the job training programs to keep people on board. they can train, and they can stay at the place of employment so you do not lose that talent. you are going to make it harder for the company to come back after losing that braintrust. >> i would suggest that the state department and the department of labour can work together to find out what they are doing. >> we are. we just had a major labor minister meeting. we had the g-28 labor minister there for the first time in history because at of

president's tenacity to talk about protection for workers in the scaling of training programs across the globe. >> that is terrific. >> you guys can get together. you will be one of the most successful them working sessions we have ever had. [laughter] i have another panel to moderate, but you go right ahead. >> i am a student at uc- berkeley. this is a question and comment about president trumka and secretary solis. >> is not as than -- is it as bad as for trade at berkeley? >> no, but a long term it will be. the, i have is that it seems to mean that this is the nafta and wto recession. the reason the recovery is

jobless is because we are creating jobs in china and in mexico, but we sold out because of our trade policies. it seems to me we are not going to get long-term recoveries in wages until we renegotiate our trade policies and that begins with renegotiating nafta and the wto. >> you are the one that said, "what the hell is that"? >> what would secretary trumka or -- >> specifically? the question again? >> it is nafta part of it? absolutely. the trade laws are absolutely part of this. the lack of labor laws in this country are part of this. collective bargaining so

profits conducted share like they were before. we ought to do like in the -- in columbia. we ought to do career. there are impediments. trade barriers for automobiles yet they wanted a trade agreement. that is part of it. this does not help us in this country. and helps companies. the biggest thing, and let me leave you with this, our biggest will have to realign the interests with other countries. even if it is to the detriment of this country. our biggest plunge -- our biggest job is to realign the interests. >> secretary solis? >> now is the time for us to revisit and visit -- revisit and work with our trade partners and how we do not disadvantage

american manufacturers. the president said he wants to beef up exportation of our products. underserved -- some circumstances, there are barriers that have to be loved that. i agree with some of the things you are saying. we cannot pull lot of trade agree with that have been put into place. we need to work with our partners, given technical training, and that was the beginning that is what the department of labor is doing. we are working with al salvador, jordan, cambodia where we have agreements to help lot -- help level the playing field. we went to teach people social responsibility to protect workers in other countries. >> thank you all for coming and participating. thank you very much [applause] ] >> u.s. house members are cutting their summer break short. speaker policy is calling

members back into session tomorrow to vote -- speaker nancy pelosi is calling members back into session. the jobs bill is to help prevent the layoffs of state workers. live coverage of that debate at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c- span. on "washington journal" this week, we look at energy issues. the obama administration plans to promote the building of electric cars. energy issues all this week on "washington's"journal at 9:15 a.m. eastern. >> tonight, what to watch for in emerging technology trends. from the expo in washington on cyber security, web accessibility for the disabled, and how young people use the internet on "the communicators" on c-span2. but tv has been finding out about the new books coming up this fall. >> it is a really interesting and more. >> how did this detailed --

pigtail the young wrote become the first young black secretary of state? he is a health-care expert. he has been very politically savvy. he tells us about a major event. this is an account of what it was like to be on the road with her dead. from what we are hearing, it will be hot, hot, hot. >> learn more about these and other books in our 2010 fall of a preview this weekend. for the latest in the nonfiction authors and books, watch the tv every weekend. get the entire schedule at booktv.org. our coverage of the aspen institute covers now with supreme court justice ruth bader ginsberg. she talks about in the kagan, roe v wade, and the relationships with the justices. the second woman to serve on the court was sworn in august 1993. she is introduced by sandra day

o'connor, the first woman to serve on the court. this was held at the aspen institute idea's festival and is about 45 minutes. [applause] >> she was appointed in 1993 to fill a seat that was vacated by justice byron white of colorado. president clinton appointed her and exercised very good judgment in doing that, i have to say. [applause] justice ginsberg grew up, much as i did, in an era when women had trouble getting employment and were not expected to hold any kind of significant job. we both had trouble getting our first jobs as lawyers. we both married men we met in law school who were fabulous.

they were very happy to see their wives compete in the legal profession. justice ginsberg has been a model member of the court deciding cases with her inimitable flair for decision making and excellent writing skills. she has been a great member. i know that she is looking forward to now getting another woman on the court to serve with her. [no audio] [applause] -- 2 [applause] justice ginsburg will carry on a conversation with a man who has made himself very familiar with everything the court does. i will turn the stage over to them. [applause]

>> thank you, justice o'connor, for that introduction, your service to the country. thank you, justice ginsburg, for being in aspen. [applause] >> it has been it simply grand. it was an afternoon of a lot of talk. it is good to be with you. >> you have just lost your beloved martti, our dear friend, and it went to express my condolences. i met you both first about 20 years ago. i didn't know if you know what an inspiration he was to me and everyone who knew him as a model of the perfect husband in a truly equal partnership. he had daunting skills. first of all, he could cook like

a dream. he would make these incredible desserts. he was incredibly funny and what a laugh out loud whenever you were with him. you were both so crazy about each other. you were so visibly in love that just being near you was always a joy. you said you would not mind saying a few words, what people want to know the secret to your remarkably happy marriage. why do you share some? >> we lived happily together for 56 years. [applause] as far as the division of labor in our household, the mother of my grandson, who is here with me, was asked by reporters soon after my nomination, "tell me

what it is like in your house." she said, "well, my father does the cooking and my mother does the cleaning." it is not true at all. marty was the smartest man in new. -- i knew. about a happy marriage, well, i had a remarkable mother-in-law. marty a treated his skill in the kitchen to two women, his mother and his wife. marty's mother on our wedding day, we were married in her home. she said, "dear, i would like to tell you the secret of a happy marriage.

it helps sometimes to be in little deaf." [laughter] i can tell you that the device has kept me in such good stead not only with marty with my current colleagues on the court. [laughter] [applause] sandra talk about the age when we were growing up. marty was most unusual in this way. he was the first boy i ever met who cared that i had a brain. helw