is largely ideological competition or over specific personalities and whis the better person for the job? >> i think some of it is just practical politics. normally when a party loses, you know, this is the majority, the speaker tends to resign. i mean, denny hastert did dick gephardt it. i think a lot of democrats were surprised that nancy pelosi decided to go ahead and seek reelection. but i think again this reflects, the people who got beat, the democrats who got beat one of the strongest nancy pelosi pported the democrats who remain, the liberal democrats, she is sort of the leader of the liberal democratdemocrats. so i think in that sense, that part is not surprising. >> if it was a total s . . to nancy pelosi and know we have to take a stand,

just totally what they want privately, do you think that the democrats would make her their minority leader? >> i think they would be less likely to. >> she's such a powerful inside player in terms of raising money and how she operates internally, but i don't think anybody wants to have it all right of what could be done to them, you know, in a race. and i think the division like bob said, it's practical politics. but i also think the division right now, perhaps the biggest danger for the president is somebody moving on the left because of war policy and the like. >> go ahead, mark. >> how does foreign criticism this week, there was criticism, germany, china, on the federal reserve policy. >> we've got a debt comission to make recommendations in the center. we just had an election that was, you know, voters made their

opinions known on the deficit. what is it going to take to address this deficit? and how does, how does domestic policy play into foreign criticism of our fiscal policies to? well, i mean, i don't know how domestic policy will play into that, but certainly extraordinary things happen just in the last two days. the chinese openly questioning whether america is the leading economic power in the world. that's extraordinary. the germans called the u.s. clueless about its fiscal policy. it's extraordinary language. and it's not incidental. and it's very, very worrying. and people do want to see a u.s. the. and i do think that would be a big, big challenge, and something certainly i want to keep and i on over the next months and years while i do this. because you cannot underestimate, even though globalization is a dirty word at the moment, and people here, feel that allow the economic woe

is because of the globalization, outsourcing and rise of the rest so to speak. it is his day, and i think when america's challenge like that, in huge andimportant international forum, it doesn't bode well for the strength in the leadership in the united states. >> i thought it was remarkable hearing that foreign criticism. i'm wondering if it matters in a domestic context. does it bother anbody if the united states or president obama seems back on his you on the world stage? mitt romney, wrote a book saying that president obama's is sacrificing the idea of american exceptionalism. is that going to be one of the themes of 2012? >> may be. i think we see how it plays out. i think in terms of the american people, if it's personal in terms of when president bush was president, and people just hated americans. i mean, you've didn't get this feeling -- im not talking about leaders necessary. i'm just talking about in europe

there will were all those wild protest and eerything. i think americans don't like that. i think another country criticizes u.s. policy, you kind of get amerins goig, who are you? and i thinkpeople don't like that, but i also have to say, that remember that right now, president obama went over there, d i think they see them as they. let's remember, his first summit, economic summit people were questioning whether america -- whether even free markets was the way to go. i think that questioning has gone on as the american economy has been terrible. it will be interesting to me to watch how we watch in britain and france atthis point. because they went after the cuts in spending, kids out in the street in london, et cetera, et cetera. so they really have taken the approach. alan simpson would like to ta. >> we've only got a couple -- i think we might be rather get a

couple quick questions and. make your point in the context. you're a good politician if you can answer what you say regardless of what the question was. [laughter] >> there's been a lot of attention paid to the amount of money that was been in this years election, especially by outside groups, particularly on the republican side. as people have covered many elections, how do you see this changing how campaigns are shaped images coming forward speak with greatuestion. thank you. >> this was the most expensive $3 million just for television commercials alone. one of the interesting parts, and there was a lot of money coming in on the democratic side, too, lso from outside groups. so we shouldn't overlook that. but one of the interesting things is these groups that were put together by karl rove and the less be, they're going to stay in operation. and they plan to keep going right on up until the 2012 presidential election.

>> interesting point here. think the audience might find interesting, of course karl rove, they always say no, we assure we are supportive of these groups. you guys are described as rogue groups. karl says i gave money to the texas game association or something like that. you don't say i run that. that was at the beginning cycle. the more and more cycle along, the more these groups seem to be doing well. lso that complaint i got. at the end he was referring to the groups as we. [laughter] >> you know, money -- >> this was an effort by the washington establishment of a big effect outside the parties. >> it's almost always about money now. money doesn't always been the candidate wins that you have examples of that in california. i mean, but money is such an important part. it's just, you know --

>> time. >> you can't do everything else expect quick question. we'll make this the last one because i've got a fal question for our panel. >> thanks. politico had a pretty good piece is point about the narrowing of a number of states that will be in play 2012. curious of those of you, do you agree with that premise i do think that the 20 elections are t misrepresent what will happen in 2012 insurance or the democrats and republicans will do will? >> for the c-span obviously didn't see that story, made the point that the 2008 map that president obama had went in states where democrats particularly don't win, virginia, north carolina, that expanded and results in 2010 look more like a traditional map where republicans had their part of the country, democrats have their part of the country. the playing field is relatively small, ohio, florida.

>> i think it is an important story, and ithink we keep talking about this notion of relying and karl rove talked about it, and then thought about democratic rely. we didn't see that. our politics is too volatile right now, and voters, independent voters are willing to move en masse back and forth, swing back and forth. win a tumultuous time. and yes, i think this is about the independent voter. you know, in states like virginia or florida, or the rocky mount west, that wer with obama. they will be with him and tell that against him. and i think it does narrow it and makes the country more political look at wisconsin with republican party just did in wisconsin. it was obviously in the obama colu. so yeah, i think, i think the map does revert a bit. he will have to playdefense to. >> just quickly, john, one thing we haven't talked about, that you had all of these governorships that turned over to republicans this time, and

state legistures. you're going to redistricting. it's going to be harder for democrats in 2012 because of the redistricting. it will be doe mostly by these republicans controlled legislatures. >> every week on politico i talk with these folks for turnhe table. i was finished up i give us a quick preview of their sunday shows that and that's how i would like to end this session. if you could give us a preview of what you will be serving up for your views this weekend. >> this weekend we'll be dong at debate between senator lindsey graham and madeleine albright, former secretary of state. will also be doing economic debate. with business aders and also member of the deputy commissioner and do have our roundtable, and we have a couple of supporters as well as. >> we have rand paul who will give us the perspective from the tea party republican side, and then chuck schumer, democratic senator from new yk who has a bit on sunday television in

about six months. [laughter] >> no kidding? >> very unusual. >> that's the scoop. >> i haven't the vaguest idea what could happen sunday morning because i'm not judicial. my colleague is going to do it, and i have paid very little attention. >> you had a very big speakers it's all about you expect that's right, exactly. i'm doing an interview with george and jeb bush that will air at night, at 8 p.m. eastern. so i'm doing that. >> the two brothers together. one interview? >> yes, yes. >> very interesting. >> sunday at eight. [laughter] >> my former college. >> i will be talking to david axelrod and presidential advisers, first interview since the election. also i will talk to senator mccain when he gets back from afghanistan and will do an economic discussion as well, about that commiion and the president overseas and turning on the roundtable one of the guests will be greenspan and newt gingrich. >> that's a pretty good lineup

this weekend. we will be watching a lot of tv. block out my day because we will all be very newsworthy session. thank you very much both for this session but for joining us every week on politico. we really, really appreciate it. and i know the audience here really appreciates your insights. thank you all to our sunday hosts. [applause] >>nd thank you -- thanks to all of you for coming, or for listening in on c-span. thanks once again to our sponsor at the national cable and telecommunications association. please if you're not inhabit, started, every week politico.com/turn the table. it's a great show. these guys start in it every week. thank you. [applause]

>> next, details of a report examining u.s. strategy in iraq and afghanistan. after that, a state-by-state look at the financial health of the west. then a conversation with deborah -- with the chairman of the national transportation safety board. congress returns on monday. work is expected on the bush era tax cuts as well as federal spending for the next budget year. watch the house on c-span.

when the senate reconvenes for business on monday, a possible legislative work includes bills on natural gas and electric vehicles as well as wage equality and modernization of the food and drugs administration. watch the senate live on c- span2. january will bring the opening of the 112 congress with republicans assuming the majority of the house. before that, party leadership elections. in the house, republicans will elect a new speaker on november 17 and democrats will choose a minority leader the next day. in the senate, both republicans and democrats will vote for members on december 16 -- november 16. stay tuned for continuing coverage. >> in an ideal world, the fact that there were people in the mortgage market sent a signal that everybody said that there should be smart investors that think this thing is going to crash and burn. the market was opaque enough that nobody could see that the

way that you can see it in the stock market. you were basically not betting on real mortgages, but rather you were inventing the casino version of a mortgage. >> in 2003, she brought about enron. this week, she will talk about the current financial crisis. sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span is " q&a." >> the council on foreign relations largely backed the obama administration plan for military operations against the taliban. it also started a withdrawal and afghanistan. however, the task force headed by it richard armitage and richard berger said that if it is not working, and more to the drawdown is necessary. greater emphasis should be placed on counter-terrorism.

the council on foreign relations hosted this of and in washington d.c.. copies and can read it soon enough. we have richard armitage on my far left, who was the former deputy secretary of state, now president of our litigis national, and daniel markey, who is the council's senior fellow and was the project director for this report. we hope to have sandy berger with us, but he was not able to be with us this morning. my hope is that in the first half hour, wecan give you an idea of the report and then ask you to pose your own questions

to mr. armitage and mr. markey. let me begin with the usual injunction that you turn off your cell phones. the isi has been asked to pay attention to this. journalists in the audience and others, feel free to take notes and report let me begin b asking mr. arm attached a baseline qution. what is that read like -- mr. armitage the baseline question. what is the big thing you would like us to start with? >> president obama got a bad lie from the bush administration regarding afghanistan. we do salute his attempt to rectify the situation. we support him conditionally. we feel that the president and

administration should take the time from december through july, 2011, if necessary, to have a very deep review of the situation. if real progress has not been made, we suggest that we changed the mission to a much different mission, one of sport counter- terrorism and continued training. our report has significant dissent in it. it is something that made sandy berger and i quite proud. we had a debate that congress shouldhave and the american public should have on a matter that is so important and involves the lives of our men and women in service. >> let me begin with the pakistan sections of the report.

you talk about the need to help pakistan, a devastated by the flood, in addition to weather problems, through greater humanitarian assistance. you talk about the need for greater economic engagement and economic and development of pakistan. you have talked about a shift in pakistan's own strategic calculations. the question i was left with, these are things we are trying to do today. they are elements of american policy as it currently stands. what leverage do we have to achieve more? how would you get more out of the policy machine in these ways? >> the question is, how effective are ? for instance, the excellent bill that votes $750 billion over five years is good if we follow through on it and develop

the infrastructure projects to help a lot of people. what we're suggesting is the shift in our approach. that is instd of focusing on appropriated monies to the u.s. government. the most efficient and we could do is to give them greater access in the textile industry, which is their largest single industry. it can be done with limited expense to us and no harm to our own texle producers. second, i don't believe it is possible to get pakistan on-side unless they understand what our and status. without understanding that, it will be difficult to get them to go the distance we want them to go. >> go ahead. >> i would add on that mr armitage has it right. we want to accentuate the positive of partnership with the u.s., including its opening of greater trade opportunities.

the report makes it clear that we need to take a pretty hard line on the negative side. it makes comments about the use of our intelligence apparatus, and sending a clear message about pakistan's continued relations with some groups in particular that don't get enough attention, we believe. we believe two networks are extremely coming increasingly dangerous. on less pakistan understand they are out of bounds, we are unlikely to see shifts. it is not so much negative leverage in terms of sticks or carrots. the report suggest we can do better on bothnds of that spectrum. >> let me ask you in this regard, what would be the evidence on these security issues that pakistan was on- side. what would it take for them to be on the right side?

what would they be doing differently with the lat? >> i would hope they would see the network in the same way they see the pakistani taliban. this is a threat to them. they have to see this as something that could be something that causes war in a single stroke between india and pakistan, something that would be late al qaeda to no end. we are dealing with a very dangerous situation. >> if that effort to encourage, prod pakistan toward a different strategic approach should fail, you say in the report that we should move away from long- term, bilateral cooperation, and

undertake increasingly aggressive unilateral u.s. military strikes against precisely that list of adversaries. that sounds almost like going to war against pakistan. i want to to explain to us what it would be and what the risks would be. >> we don't want to go to war with pakistan. it is difficult for me to see much difference between the attacks we are having right now and what we are suggesting. the difference is we include lat in this target list. but the pakistani do not see this as a threat and an existential threat to them, we see it that way. we will prosecute. >> i will d the report does not advocate a shift in this direction. i think it recognizes the fundamental potential for instability in the u.s.-pakistan relationship, that there is a question of how sustainable such

a relationship can be if the united states either seize over a period of time and effort that it is not getting progress with pakistan, or it is in one fell swoop, if we were to suffer an attack from pakistan, we would be forced to take a different line. it is recognition of that reality, political reality, that leads us to look at what those alternatives would have to be. it is not a desire to go there. it is not an inherent threat or anything we are trying to level against pakistan. it is a recognition of the reality. >> there is one subsidiary issue that is justutside the discussion about afghanistan and pakistan over the last three years. that is kashmir and whether, in some kind of ambitious regional diplomacy, the u.s. could more actively encourage the kind o

dialogue in india and pakistan over kashmir that seems to have taken place during the musharraf years. i would ask whether you think that is realistic, whether you think india's ambition with our support to join the united nations security council gis us any particular leverage on the question. that is a free cushion shot that gets the political military people excited. >> i am starting to sweat already. >> talk us through whether that is possible. >> i will be glad to. i think my colleagues may have some thoughts of their own. they have participated in this endeavor. there is no question that we need to be more regionally focused, to bring in the central asian states. you have influence on the situation. we have not done that as wellas

we should. the specific question of kashmir, during the time of president musharraf, the reason i think the u.s. was not seen publicly as pushing one way or the other, thewe not pushing either side of the equation. i know because i was doing it. that is the best way. preston musharraf showed it is responsible. i think the public pressure on kashmir would have negative repercsions. i defer to those who are much closer. >> if you would be willing to address this -- this is something you have thought about in detail. >> i would be happy to. i agree with what ms. spermatid just said. the key thing, -- mr armitag

just said. there is the principal ingredient that was missing during the otherwise quite successful back-channel talks, which narrowed the gap, but did not eliminate it. let's not assume the job is essentially all done. the other issue that was alluded to deluxe -- alluded to delicately, if the u.s. will have a diplomatic role encouraging india and pakistan to talk, they both have to be prepared to play along. it effectively means that it has to be an invisible diplomatic role. otherwise, you lose india. india has to be part of it. since then, the situation has gotten more complicated with the summer of riots in kashmir.

that opens up a different issue. >> ambassador, as you read indian behavior, they have had a rougher time dealing with cashmere -- cakashmir. does that worry them engh that they would be more amenable to broader diplomatic options and perhaps u.s. assistance? >> india has had talks with kashmiri separatists and th pakistan, and they have never happened at the same time. that is what is going on now. the summer of trouble has galvanized on indian decisn makers. it has been towards reopening channels to the separatists. that is not going terribly well, but there is no inclination to bring these two processes together. >> let me turn our discussion to

the afghanistan recommendations of this report, which are pretty stark. you focus properly on the dember review of policyand you go into some detail. i will read briefly from what the report says are the issues that the president is going to need to resolve in this review process. if you cannot finish it in december, you should keep going with it. you say "it should mark the start of a clear eyed assessment of whether there is sufficient overall progress to conclude that the strategy is working. it should address some fundamental questions including, has there been a significant improvement in the capabilities of the afghan national security forces? is momentum shifting against the

insurgency in contested areas? once nato operations have taken place, is normal life starting to return? is progress being made in building local security? has the government taken serious steps to combat corruption?" those are the issues the review will focus on. i think we would all be interested in your sense of -- bad on what you know -- oof initial judgment. >> on the training, bill caldwell and his colleagues have done a magnificent job. they have encouraged greater recruitment. they have got people trained at a higher level. you have more people trained. what are they going to do with training? will they stand and do their job or will they walk away? that is a judgment relief to people in the field. the question of our e erratic partnership with the karzai government is a real one. does the president and his colleagues feel we can get a

commitment from the government to be more helpf in this endeavor? the development of human capital, this is the biggest single act that we face in afghanistan. it is fine to have an operation in my job. our troops can hold and do all of that. can anyone government? to make an assessment that would be based on something like, we can turn profits over to the afghan security forces, is insufficient in my view. the basic question of whether after we have turned it over, the taliban can be kept out and the government can step in, or will people prefer the swift justice of the taliban? there is one thing we always seem to overlook. we mention it in our report. this is what i would call sustainability. we estimate -- it was estimated by our administration, $320 million annually are contributed to the government of mr. karzai

and to the training of the ansf. we estimate the annual money needed for that is about $7 billion. where will it come from? it will not come from international pockets forever. economy, and this is something i think ought to be part of a judgment the president and his colleagues make as they look toward the july, 2011, date. >> in the run up to this december, we have had report thing out of afghanistan -- reporting out of afghanistan "in general petraeus, saying that siificant progress is being made in one area as a result of our new offensive. what is your own judgment about

these positive reports, based on your contact with people an your visits to the region? >> i suspect we're going to get an nie on the question of afghanistan. i woul be surprised if one was not in preparation right now. that would be unlike our government. i suspect it will be a lile more negative than some of the comments we have seen. on the question of that particular area, i am delighted we have not had greater loss of life. i hope it is the case. i fear it is the case that they're becoming more robust in another part of the country where we are not so active. i don't have the answers. i have the questions. i am sure these are the questions that will be answered by an nie. >> the timeline is critical. the task force concluded its final vsion of this report

about a month ago. a lot of the questions we are asking now about the state of progress -- the answers depend a lot on how well we are deploying forces and resources that have just completed their flow into the country by the end of the summer. for the group to judge, it seems too early. it is not enough to make incremental progress. we have to see incremental progress that turned the tide and can be set in place for the longer term. if we don't see that, if the review does not identify that, that is where we have serious questions about the very basics of the strategy. >> you also, in your afghanistan recommendations, urged that the united states sees the political initiative in ahanistan, the implication, sees it from karzai if he is not

prepared to take the initiatives himself. this is one of the toughest nuts to crack in the full story. we have a very difficult partner in president karzai. could you address this question of how we go about easing the political initiatives in a country where the government pears to be so unpopular? >> yes, sir. clearly, thereare several routes. one is doable. one is to work with minority politicians. we met with minority politicians when we made our trip to afghanistan. one is to continue to worat a higher level with local, tribal elders. i am not willing to totally forget the role of thecentral government, but less in it. finally, we ought to be more involved inhe discussion of

reconciliation. we found reconciliation to be a very loaded word when we went to kabul. it depends what you mean by reconciliation. if the taliban will reconcile to a functiong central government, that is something i would give at least some confidence to women's group and ngo's and minority politicians. on the of the hand, if the central government is going to reconcile to the taliban, that is a different issue. it is one that scares the pants off most people in the minority and ngo's, etc.. we need to be more definitive about what we mean by reconciliation and be more involved. >> on the point of reconciliation, what we have heard repeatedly is that the process of reconciliation as it stands is a karzai-centric process. he has selected those who will be involved on the afghan side. he has left many out, many of

whom would be natural partners to the u.s. they're concerned about what the prospects for that process might be. you see reconciliation without a firmer u.s. and potentially veering toward something that will be more divive in the broader afghan context than more inclusive. the report suggests that is very disconcerting. >> finally, on this question of broad recommendations, most important, in some ways, what if we judge, the president judges for the nation that the strategy is not working effectively enough by the metrics that we have discussed? you recommend an alternative approach that could be chosen in afghanistan if tt judgment is made. perhaps you could lay that out for usin a little bit of detail. >> as we offer up a strategy, an

alternative strategy, which has risks, and we acknowledge that it has risks, you are concentrating on concord terror, there are risks associated with it. there are also to benefit. for instance, we will have a somewhat smaller footprint. of the president judges the strategy is working, he can begin in july to withdraw based on the situation as suggested. if he judges it is not working, i would hope he would make a more significant change and change our presence to one of counter-terrorism. .

>> he thought that pakistan, if they did not come to an understanding of the situation and they need to be on site, from their own self-interest, we could force them into -- the first and leading descent was one on prejudging what the president should do in july.

we should not be in it the business of prejudging what the president does or does not do. that is fair up two. , but we are watching this, and there is a question as to how sustainable this is. >> former senior officer in that part of the world, i gather that you have fundamental questions about the viability of what we are doing in afghanistan. perhaps you could lay those out. >> i do have very serious reservations particularly about the sustainability of what we are doing. it comes down to a point that mr. arledge made very eloquently, and that has to do with sustainability both on the

u.s. and the afghan side. focusing on the karzai government, particularly the afghan national army, for the reasons that mr. arledge pointed out, i don't think that is sustainable. the afghan government does not have and will not have the resources to sustain such progress as we make in building up a huge national army. similarly, the u.s. effort, which i think needs to continue, cannot continue on at this level of material and human resources. it is clear that the current approach is not going to be able to succeed on the timeline that we have given it. i think we have seen enough and we need to shift to plan b period. >> do you want to say more about what plan b is and if it is doable? >> many of ese judgements

really need to be made by people in the field. it is very difficult for us to come to the tell conclusions from this removed. that said, we need to be focused on continuing to train and afghan national army, but hopefully a much smaller afghan army, one which can actually be sustained by an afghan economy that we could conceivably see in the out years. i think that our effort therefore needs to be shifted much more to a bottom up approach. we need to focus on tribal leaders who have real weight in their districts and their provinces. that is primarily a special forces mission, not conventional forces. i think we can make slow, incremental progress overime with a smaller -- lower

investment in u.s. human and material resources. it will take many, many years. therefore the u.s. effort needs to be resources at a level that we can actually maintain for many years. if we are not willing to do that, it is better for us to fold our tents and leave now. >> thanks to all four of you for that introduction to the repor it is a very thoughtful, careful, and i must say, painful report to read, because these are really tough choices. i want to turn now to the audience for your questions. please wait for the microphone, identify yourself and any affiliation, and we will lo for hence. >> that gentleman there. >> in the morning.

in your presentation and a quick perusal of your report, i don't see much mention of human rights and how the u.s. can be promoting this effectively as part of our strategy in both countries. another question, considering the dynamics of religion a how it animates many of the actors we are confronting, has the task force considered ways to engage em to promote our long-term goals? >> we certainly knowledge the role of ngo's. i think have already mentioned the fear of sacrificing the small gains already made in that reconciliation brought -- process. my point of view is, this is very much part of our report. i did not catch the second half. >> the extent to which religion plays into the broader dynamic in the region. >> that was not a ntral

element of the report. i think we all come into this with an understanding of the context in which we are playing in this environment, but i don't think that since the report is primarily based on a question of what can the u.s. government to, that is the fundamental question that we ask. what should our strategy be? the u.s. government is not well positioned to play on religious issues. i think that was driving a lot of this. it might not be the right tool, and it was not something that was central to the argument that we had. but this debate will continue. >> countries to the north have expressed concern about narcotics flowing to the north. what do you think is the right balance in terms of countering

narcotics strategy in afghanistan, and what would you like to see to the north in terms of counter narcotics cooperation facilitated by the eu and nato and others? >> i think he fully knows the answer, having served in asia and having some strong views. i don't know what the balance is in terms of how much effort, but we have to have an effort directed against narcotics. we did see a bit of low back when w had the russian participation because i think the new car explode -- that narcotics flow -- how much ever we should put into it are defer to general petraeus and his colleagues to see how much that distracts from other areas of endeavor. >> i would say the report may be interesting on the counter narcotics ankle to thextent

that it holds that into the question of counterinsurgency. the fundamental thrust of the report is that narcotics is a flow of corruption, a flow of money, and something has to be treated within the larger question of how to address this raging insurgency in afghanista not something that could be addressed apart from that. i think you have identified great opportunities for cooperation in the region to the north, but also potentially iran. this is an area of convergence in our interest, and certainly with respect to pakistan. we should not lose sight of how narcotics begich counter nartics needs to be fitted into our broader counterinsurncy effort. >> i am from the woodrow wilson

center. what if pakistan does not get on side? i take itour responses we ought to unilaterally start [unintelligible] against thelet. you did not mention the afghan taliban. should that be included so? what do we do every cross a red line and they shut down the transit route across pakistan? >> if they shut down the transit route again? just to make a point, it is not totally unnecessary that those are the only weapons you have against let. my view is we ought to use all

means necessary to root them out. in afghanistan, they are killing us. i take it personally. >> i have not had a chance to scam this, so i don't know if it is covered in here. one of the problems i see or one of the challenge is to dramatically changing the strategy is how it plays at home. we have already spent nine years there. there are thousands of lives lost. did you consider how you introduce this big introduce this to a domestic audience and how the administration would be able to get people to backthis

without feeling like the last time it -- the last nine years have been for naught? >> we started with a and wwere dealt. if you had asked us individually whether we like a ly 2011 date, i would say no, we don't want to give that the enemy any more information than they need. we did not have that luxury to second-guess that. that was already given to us. it has led to a perception of perhaps some shortness of breath on the part of the united states in the region. this is one of the things we need to discuss the we have done it in the last couple of strategic dialogue. we should not be in the business of winning domestic support. we in acknowledge the importance of it and we acknowledge the and sustainability of the present urse. that is just common sense.

there is a backdrop to all this. thank god we have been successful in the international community, somewhat successful in stopping about a dozen attempted terrorist attacks. we have de it through law enforcement and we have done it with intelligence. we certainly have disrupted it with our military. we think there is the ability to fashion something that will meet the approval of the congress and the people. >> to draw your attention to the conclusion of the report, i think it addresses the question of the need for public support. the acknowledgment that this has been a long war and a long struggle, and instead of cutting into it as we would need to reshape public opinion, it is working in a democratic society. we need to be responsive to public opinion and recognize

what the constraints are on u.s. foreign policy and defense policy and respond to those. it also calls for a certain amount of leadership. a demonstration that if we can succeed, we need to keep at this. i think report -- we should not shortchange the fact that the report suggests that it supports an approach, if it shows signs of progress. >> in recent days, senior u.s. officials, military and civilian, have been speaking about the the but 2014 time frame for deployment of u.s. forc in afghanistan, in part, one assumes, to deal with this perception of shortness of breath in the region and the corresponding actions that people have taken. do you think that is why is an

appropriate? 2014 obviously is the time frame that karzai himself has established for transition and the departure of foreign bourses. is inappropriate for us to be endorsing th in saying we will be on the ground until 2014? >> our nato allies are involved. we had discussions with them, and th is more of a consensus. it does key of the president of afghanistan is own comments that the security situation should be in such states that afghan forces would take that over. i think it is the better part of wisdom to just embrace it. it does get to that shortness of breath question. >> we understand the council on foreign relations to be recommending in its report that u.s. forces, in whatever configuration, should remain until 2014. >> we did not address that.

we have discussed the need to continue training, so i guess implicitly we do. i don't remember explicitly putting it in. >> when you are holding a tiger by the tail, one thing you might try to do rather than strengthen the tiger is give it something else to do. in the case of pakistan in particular, we have a situation where yesterday's in karachi, 18 people were killed in the latest bomb attack. 18 million people were not. there is no country in the world that is developed with aid and military assistance as a pathway to democracy.

what has worked its privat sector development. i am wondering why u.s. strategy for development in pakistan does not reflect what has worked in the u.s. and what has worked elsewhere in the world, which is the sort of thing we are doing with opec and why that is not a 0.1, too, and free in our strategy in pakistan. >> people arerying to kill us in pakista but it certainly is a point well worth including. we need you that -- developed as more and more. faugh you have a nation of 177 million people who are extraordinarily on. 20 or 21 is the average or median age. whether under martial law or democracy they haveot gotten the governance they need, and

those in karachi who have succeeded have done it in spite of the government. they are starting from way behind. you are pushing on an open door. >> the report does make a case for emphasis on supporting and driving private sector activity as being fundamental to development there both political and econom development. i think there is a line about how u.s. assistance could be better used but it will never be enough to finally turn the tide unless they turn it to the private side. we had a robust disssion of the following. if they enjoyed 2% growth rate,

it would be a death sentence for pakistan. that is the enormity of the problem. >> the report as a very good job of summarizing the state centric challenges we faceoth here in the u.s. in terms of our policy with respect to pakistan and with respect to afghanistan. the thing i have not seen in the report is a deep dive into the non state actors, specifically the taliban. i am wondering, given the emphasis on counterinsurgency and a proposed alternative, which taliban are we talking about? how can we tell the difference between them, and what criteria should the united states and its allies be using in distinguishing limed spoilers

from the total spoilers? >> i think what general petraeus's strate is to get the rented taliban out of the business. i think it is pretty hard -- most americans would acknowledge notwithstanding how much experience we might have had in south asia that we did not understand entirely what was going on. i was involved in the beginning of this, and we did approach the taliban and we did talk to them about us just getting out of the way, and we were totally rebuffed. that is when they came into our target zone. to my knowledge, no significant

taliban has wanted to remove themselves from the target set. >> the report notes -- it sounds a significant alarm with respect to the increasing coming together of various groups in ways that are more internationally threatening that they might have been five or 10 years ago. that is a shift that i think should be emphasized in the context of this report. >> it has taken a squad while to finally realize we are fighting a flat enemy, not a hierarchy. flat emmys take a different approach. general petraeus and others have got it. we get it, but it took us a lot of time to get to that point.

>> it seems that general musharraf is back again. any comments? [laughter] i am having lunch with him today at 12. he is back. he has been speaking out on larry king and other things. i look forward to seeing what he has to say. >> i was struck by a couple of things that ridgch armitage sai. i nder what could persuade him to double little more deeply. there is a clear difference priorities and perhaps

objectives between ourselves and pakistan. their objective is to have what they refer to as a friendly state, which looks suspiciously like a client state. that have shown the will to go after that, among other things, by picking up one of the relatively few senior taliban figures whlooks like he was freelancing in discussions with esident karzai. how do we mesh our concept of a happy ending in afghanistan with pakistan's? is there a version that will be acceptable to both? it seems that both face fairly severe direpancies from what they would like to see, and this is probably the most fundamental political problem that we face. >> i could be corrected by those who are smarter than i on these matters, but i thought we were in relatively good place with

pakistan in 2000. one reason is i think we had a pretty clear dialogue with pakistan about exactly wt we were doing and why we are doing it. the 2005 timeframe, i thought maybe the coalition was not going to prevail. they went back to more traditional approach against india. lately, the u.s. has been pressung pakistan to try to do something about the hakani network. we will not be pressuring them until we know what they are in a state is. if it is one that is going to leave them open for civil war in

the future, for five years from now, you are right. they know that others are born to involve themselves in that civil war. i think it starts with making sure they know how far we are going to go in our pressuring of the network and what we can reasonably expect them -- if we can get by into our end state. i d't and we have got that yet. i think we talk past each other a good bit. that is myiew. >> let me commend the report. it is a year ago that many of us were coming to the end of a process, an insir review of our own, looking at these things. some of that is recorded in mr. woodward's book.

that leads me to a follow-on that was very pregnant last year when this was all being reviewed. i think it is still not really been resolved in the report in a manner that is clear. when you talk about that pakistan need to understand the u.s. in the state, having to go to counter terrorist less heavy footprint, a positive approach of the two countries, how does that give pakistan any comfort that we are not going to again abandon them to afghanistan's civil war? we would have less exposure in that type of internment, potentially. can you rationalize that against saying we would make it difficult for anybody associated are like footprint in afghanistan to continue in that vein if they are wrong to put

us in that position of not being on their side. >> we do suggest that if we go to a somewhat smaller footprint and we concentrate on counter- terrorism, tt includes everywhere. at one time pakistan was whistling in the graveyard about the pakistan the taliban. in our view it represents an ultimate threat to the state, and it is not beyond the ken of our military and diplomats to brin this home to the pakista thesis. the key to it all is to let them

know we are not looking at another 10-year divorce. if they cannot be brought to understand, you cannot coerce them io doing something. >> of the way in the back, please. >> and from the congressial research service. let me congratulate the task force on a great report and the provocative discussion this morning. from my perspective, the discussion this morning has been very rich in terms of ways and means. current approaches and potential alternatives. can be difficult to think about what progress really means unless you are measuring against a very clear in that state. my question for the palace this morning is about the ends

specifically for afghanistan. how good a job has the government done of defining a clear and state? what are the minimum conditions we would have to see on the ground in order for afghanistan with some international support to be able to sustain stability? >> the president at least twice has been very clear about what he considers our mission, the mission of dismantling and destroying and disrupting al qaeda. unfortunately, because we feel that taliban is still more inclined to be hospitable to al eda, we cannot be sure that absent our endeavors, they will not again welcome al qaeda. we find the disarray there is still a threat to the united states. that leads me to something short

of nation building as an end state. i cannot define it any better yet, without knowing what the facts on the ground actually are. i am personally looking forward to an nie, given some of the bad history in the past. i happen to know jim clapper pretty well and i can guarantee he will pay a lot of attention and he will call it whatever is in st. g.i. language. >> the report does have a section on u.s. objectives. notes that in both pakistan and afghanistan, our objectives appear to have waxed and waned over the last decade. i think that is useful, because it basically lays out the spectrum of potential objectives we might have at the maximum and

minimum. the report concludes specifically on the afghanistan sidet a relatively low bar. as suggested, it is a situation where afghans with relatively low level of outside assistance can fend off the prospect of international terrorism. this is not the expansive view of democracy building and ste building, although we would of course like that. we would all like to see that, but what is the realistic prospect of that in the near term? it is open and sets the bar at a lower level. >> my question is related to the future. if there was a successful tra that emanated from this region, w would you see that being a game changer for current strategy?

>> if it came from afghanistan, i think we would be it -- continuing our efforts in afghanistan. the near miss in the times square bombing is what precipitated the comments that pakistan's government would be held to account. what the u.s. government then does, i n't know. i think there is no fooling around on this matter of terrorism from mr. gates, ms. clinton, and the president. >> it is not a question of whether the attack comes from pakist, but what does pakistan do in response? if we have confidence that they are not doing what they need to do, then there is no fooling around. >> the secretary of state said there will be consequences. i took her at her word. i thought she was serious. >> we have time for jusa

couple more questions. we will get both questions and then let our speakers conclude. >> i have three of my company on the ground inarachi and yesterday there were three blocks from the explosion the gentleman referenced. we are moving them around to get them some provision of safety. i want to identify with his marks -- his remarks. throughout the middle east, where i have been in palestine or jordan or now pakistan and iraq and other places, the business sector is complely left out of the dialogue. therefore they have to operate on a totally different track. they work around the government's, and the governments ignore them in return. i would like to just urge you to contemplate an actual strategy about business.

it is big business, existing business, and american business. you really need a full strategy. >> we fully agree with you and you have articulated very well. one point the report makes in the pakistan context, it identifies working with pakistan partners. it concludes that they are a central component there, recognizing that our u.s. government out reached to those groups is far less than it ought to be. >> as a point of information, to my mind is a scandal that a simple piece of legislation aimed at encouraging investment in the tribal areas has been hung up for more than two years in what are the petty is of political differences. you could argue that there is something broader, but it is

astonishing given our national security risks that this simple piece of legislation is being caught in the gridlock. >> thank you for that last comment. the exports in pakistan to the u.s. are things we do not even make any more. it is not as if we would be disrupting jobs. has been criticized, but the reason i raised my hand was to speak to the other gentleman. could you clarify, we will hold pakistan accountable? if there is a mes where type of thing happening. how do you draw a line between that and the government? how do we hold them accountable? >> of course it is the government to hold accountable. i am simply repeating the words

of the senior members of our administration, trying to make the point to the governor of pakistan that they have scant in this game. i certainly did not mean to hold individual citizens of pakistan to account. what that accounting is and how deep it goes and what it consists of would be something i would imagine the administration would address at the time. >> that brings us to the end of our hour. i think we got a good preview of the report. now you can all go home and read it. thank you very much to our speakers. [applause]

here" sunday night on c-span's q&a. host: let me introduce you to two guests here in washington.

one is joining me by phone in orlando. mike schneider is on the phone. good morning to you. guest: good morning. host: i want to start with showing you have lines and around the country. there is the hartford current which has an index of its own. there is some good news for people who live in hartford. you all have a statistical

analysis that looks at the companies -- the country's the stress level. we invited you here in april. let's listen to what you had to say then. guest: you can only look at the real numbers and what the world had to say then. it peaked in october and has come down a little bit to 9.7%. in march, we created 160,000 payroll jobs. that was the best performance in three years. people are definitely encouraged. if you look at march 1 year ago, we were losing 107,000 jobs in one -- in that month alone. i think things have stabilized, at least. the problem is when you have an unemployment rate of 9.7%, that is still a very high unemployment rates. martin host: crutsinger, we still have a high unemployment

rate -- host: martin crutsinger, we still have a high unemployment rate, in the 9.7 range, but what are your latest readings? guest: the latest readings show that the stress ramallah counties did drop to an eight- month low -- from all of the counties, did drop to an eight month low. but we are seeing signs of improvement. i used the word "stabilized" six months ago, and i think that is probably still where we are. the difficulty is that we are coming out of a recession, so we are bumping along the bottom. host: mike schneider, i'm going to ask our colleagues, elise, to put the map on the screen. countys how we're doing by county across the nation. caller: this was developed -- guest: this was a love with

about one dozen people with a peak -- with ap. those variables are the unemployment rate, the foreclosure rate in the bankruptcy rate and we chose those three variables because they work in different stages of a person's economic decline. we created an index score for every county and every state based on those variables and the scores on a scale of 100 -- of one to 100 based on experience. basically, it showed the probability of walking down some street and running into someone who was either unemployed, bases for closure, or has filed for bankruptcy. for instance, the state of nevada, which is the worst off in the country, had the score of about 21. if he were to walk down any

street in nevada, the chances of running into someone who was unemployed, facing foreclosure, or bankrupt would be one of five. host: darkest areas on the map indicating what? -- indicate what? guest: those indicate the most distressed areas. as you can see, it is concentrated on lot in nevada, california, michigan, and parts of florida. host: we would like our viewers to join in the discussion. we will help you understand what you see happening in your state, but we would like to hear from you what you think is happening in your state. are you starting to hear that things are leveling out, or starting to experience optimism? or are things getting worse. tell us why. here is how you reach us. the numbers are on the screen.

ipod we also have the twitter address and e-mail account -- but we also have the twitchell address d e-mail account. places that are -- we have the twitter address and e-mail account. places that are doing poorly, in relationship to realistic, what are you finding that might be -- to real estate, what are you finding that might be a turnaround? guest: real-estate has had a bumpy year. it got a boost from the home buyer tax credit, but that expired at the end of april. what we saw was kind of a lot of sales were pushed forward as people tried to get a close before they lost the tax credit. then we saw a slump. that filter into the whole economy. we had a slowdown for the whole overall economy.

part of that was from the home buyer tax credit going away. part of it was what was going on in europe with the debt crisis in greece and what that did to the financial markets are on the world. we really had a slowdown in the economy that almost went into a stall speed over the summer. it seems we have been picking up in the last couple of months some better figures, but again, these have to the contras against a very deep recession. -- contrast against a very deep recession. host: mike, have you ever had ies?push back from the county' guest: no, i think the knowledge they are facing very difficult times. in seeing live around the

country, just to have on to what marty was saying, there are places that are doing large numbers of information technology, professional jobs -- those counties are doing the best from the country. whereas counties with large numbers of workers in a real- estate or retail are tending to the worst abomination. host: our first comment is by twitter, and this is a person who thinks we are being spun. here is what they write. gues i do not think we are spending huge. -- spinning you. based on what was reported, we had 151,000 jobs created in october. our stress matt was in september.

-- our stress matt was in september. but if you look at october, the job increase was the best in five months. if we have had as -- we have had 874,000 jobs created this year on net. how does that compare? we had 8.4 million jobs lost over the two years from december 2007 through december 2009. while we have gained jobs, we still have not gained back anywhere near the number of jobs we lost during the recession. things are still bad out there. i think the election results showed that. voters were voting their anger at the polls. host: the highest stressed spots are nevada, california, florida, michigan and arizona. the lowest stressed places are north dakota, south dakota,

nebraska, vt., and wyoming. what factors contribute to the low stress scores in those states, mike? guest: a lot of those states have industries and jobs that are based on recession-proof industries, such as farming and mining. that is a big reason. also, these areas did not go through the housing boom that some of the worst hit areas did. they did not have the resulting foreclosure crisis. host: are also some of the lowest populated places in the country. guest: that is true. it is remarkable, the unemployment rate for a state like north dakota. it is under 3.5%. if you look at what is going on in a state where i am in florida, it is about 12%.

mr. host: crutsinger, how can people find -- host: mr. crutsinger are, how can people find this map? guest: the good places to go to your local newspaper side. a lot of newspapers linked to this map,, have it on their web sites. mike, is there another way to do it? just host: google "economic stress map" and it will pop up. host: and a good number of statistics will pop up to show you how the press analyze the numbers to get them to their overall stress levels. how did this partnership come between the two of you? . .

host: what is its crux of the problems with the california state? >> one of the leaders of the foreclosure crisis. that is going to take probably a year or more. still got a very high unemployment rate.

>> all tleeft indicators we use to measure are at the more stressful end of the spek trum. host: are there any pockets of good news in california. guest: there are. technology and professional jobs are a big area for growth >> california has a highly educated labor force. i imagine there is more.

host: a call from ohio. guest: ohio is probably among the states over the past three years that saw one of the biggest declines. a lot was from the manufacturing base. over the past year, it has showed some slight improvement. it is down to 12.5%. it suffered a lot and is making some bit of improvement. are you there? >> we lost her. going next to florida. greg on the republican line.

caller: saratoga is reporting that currently 50% of the mortgages here are under the water. and what you all thought of this. you mentioned fanny and freddie. the bill requires administration to report by january on a plan of what to do with fanny

freddie. they are the big corporations that make that plan. >> mike, are you there? >> you are back now. thanks for waiting. >> have you looked into why all these jobs are lost and why the unemployment rate are so high.

but the people in ohio is decimated because they are closing plants and moving people away. i would like you to put a map on the screen that shows the number of ceos and how much money they are making at the expense of how many people they are putting out of work. thank you. >> president obama has wrapped up the g-20 summit where he tried to make jobs the center of

his tour. he tried to emphasize the u.s. exporters and jobs and renegotiate the trade deal with south korea. they had announced he would try to get this agreement done. they say they are going to keep talking about it. china was at the table for this meeting. the administration has toughened the line the currency with

advantages. the chinese have pushed back in that area. what the federal reserve is doing now with increasing of the 600 billion more to boost the economy hearsaying this is just a backdoor way to weaken the doll dollar. when you have a global recession, you have a lieutenant of trade coming out. host: we'll look back at what happened with that trip.

new jersey's stress level, i think is it's on a steady decline. unemployment has declined over the past month. . the foreclosure rate has declined slight ly >> and this message comes by twitter. in nebraska, we help each other with emergencies.

most save and don'tover spend. nebraska was on the list of states with low stress scores. back to phone calls. this is a cal from kansas on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning i don't want to get into debt but i want to talk about the president. people are upset and that's why they voted like they voted here we will let it go there and

we'll add the dimension about the state of the economy. guest: economist generally favor immigration across the spectrum, it increases the outcome and is a benefit to the economic growth. pooling to increase the output both parties will expire at the end of this month the

republicans have been arguing that to extend this, they need to find cuts elsewhere that while this session will have the same make up, the change won't happen until january we'll listen to a caller from high rock north carolina i want to know how many federal workers they are go to cut from their staff if they are a congressman or senator ab the next thing,

local economy. local. local. you got the right word. we have to start picking ourselves up by the boot straps local locally we have to think outside of the box. we need to start thinking about shoes and corn from nebraska. quit looking to the federal government thinking they are going to cure everything. we have to cure things ourselves. that's it.

host: thank you north carolina. the state has been the capital of the financial community. a lot of big banks there. the western part of the state has traditionally been the home of furniture manufacturing, a lot of which has been shipped overseas. guest: north carolina also has a pretty diversified economy with research education it's doing

better than its neighbor to the south. south carolina. host: coming up next -- they hung up. we'll go to maryland. this is a call from david on the democrat line. caller: how are you? host: good morning. fine. you can see factedries and stuff and putting people back to work.

the thing i'd really like to say. you cannot depend on the government to cure these things you have to take care of yourself. that's all i have to say. thank you i'm guessing a part of that might be a pretty decent size of the part of the work force i would venture to say

maryland is in as good a state. if you see a dark orange or dark red, that means the stress levels as numbers are crunched this morning, the stress level is higher. the net was 151,000 in october,

which was the best in five months. >> they were mrief at sector jobs. the public sector lost 8,000 jobs. what is happening, you mentioned california. a lot of states are being forced to layoff work rers they have bn hit hard and they are having to find ways to balance their state budgets. >> the next call from pittsburgh, the caller is mark. host: mark, are you from pittsburgh? caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: i'm concerned at my area also we used to have the

biggest steel mills in all of ohio and all the area. them are all gone now. he's right. if you take in a city like pittsburgh, it has undergone transformation. it's heavy into research and healthcare and universities and medicine. it is true, jobs have been replaced byes higher education workers that have transformed the economy.

writing this amazed program. is your data subjective. we get our realty data from realty track and bankruptcy dat from the courts

>> what information or companies are operating in those as far as who is hiring and who haslett jobs go and moved on. that would be educational for the public. guest: we would love to do that. it might be a little too complex to do something like that for every county in the nation if it could be something like that, it would be a great tool. >> we have lost manufacturing jobs. this year, manufacturing has been growing again. part of that has been because u.s. companies are benefitting by a rebound in the global economy. globalization cuts both ways.

we have lost a number of jobs. part of that is foreign competition. part is higher productivity. u.s. companies learning to make more with fewer workers. a lot of people feel stressed because the "all the

devils are here."the >> "washington journal" continues. host: on your screen is deborah hersman, the chairman of the national transportation safety board. we will be looking at the safety of older dvers. we actually divided our phone lines for people under 70, and 70 or older. it is a very common dividing line when you start talking about older drivers. if you are under 70, you might have parents or other relatives that you face this issue with. the numbers are on the screen. for those 70 and olr, those having questions about driving safety, they have a line as well.

let's startith some statistics. first of all, the number of drivers that is the baby boomers age sadistically will go up exponentially over the next 20 years -- statistically will go up exponentiallyver the next 20 years. by 2013, the no. 6 -- by 2030, the number is expected to be 57 million. and the other no. i wanted to show is how they crashes that people are involved in. if there crash numbe are coming down, why are you concerned about this population group? guest: that is a great question. the good news is that we know that older drivers are the most experienced drivers we have. they tend to be saved and where

their seat belts. they do not drive after they have been drinking. they tend not to speak. one of the concerns that we hav is that the experts do not really know why the numbers have come down the way they have. they have outpaced gains that we have seen in other age groups, but when you look at the numbers of older drivers have in an accident, it is a u-shaped curved. you see a lot of young drivers involved in accidents, but that tends to go down as you age. but then as you get on the older side, especially around numbers. we are very concerned with the number of fatalities that involve older drivers. one of the key point is that they tend to be more frail or more fragile, so if they're involved in an accident where you or i might walk away, and those injuries might be very serious for them or involved hospitalization.

host: we're learning that now 25 states have older driver provisions of some sort. those can include having vision tests for older drivers, shorter renewal of the time frames for their licenses, not allowing them to renewy mail and behind the wheel testing for some drivers. are you looking f federal standards for drivers? guest: what the board is focusing on is trying to understand what is happening out there. i think we found that there is a patchwork system across the country with respect to screening or assessment of older drivers. states, as you mentioned are doing in person renewals after a certain age. others are doing vision test. we want to understand what the ability is of doing these tests and we want to reduce the number of fatal accidents that those drivers might be involved in. and are there other lessons that we can learn from those systems that could be propagated throughout the country?

host: could you explain how your agency has a mandate in this area? guest: the national transportation safety board has to investigate accidents in all modes of transportatn. we're looking to in -- to reduce injury and fatality in transportation. just as we look at things for younger drivers -- passenger restrictions, nighttime restrictions, and also limiting cell phone use or things like that for young drivers -- we wanted to look on the other end of the spectrum to see what we can do for older drivers. how do we make crashes.net may be minor crashes and -- how do we make cshes that may be minor crashes not so serious for older drivers? host: take note of how we are doing the phone lines, under 70 or older than 70.

we are taking a look at whether your state has provisions for older drivers and whether or not u think that is appropriate. but we would le to know what you think. one interesting point, italy is looking at taking drivers licenses away from all drivers over 80. any reaction to that? guest: i do not think we heard any data or science from the medica community, the licensing community, or the aging experts to support something like that. just as no two7-year-old or two 42-year-old to have the same driving skill set, we do not want to make a blanket statement on the most

experienced drivers on the road. but therere medical conditions, such as dementia and other things, that do not begin to degrade -- that do begin to degrade and we want to be sure tossess those things properly. host: first up is from new york. you are on the air. caller: i want to thank you for what you have been doing. i have been watching your hearings on c-span this week. they are very informative. this is somewhat of a separate issue, but it is nice to see women discussing and negotiating and taking a look at something in a very rarified way. i am in my early 60's. my mom is in her late 80's. she just took up residency in florida. voluntarily, and iight add, very painfully, she got her license and her car. it took all her independence away, but two things that are

very important. her comment when she moved down was if you could read the big "e"they were going to give people licenses. her doctor said she should not be driving, but as long as she was familiar with where she was going, that would be ok. that a doctor could be able to take her license, i think that is not a bad place. and a couple of places, aventura specifically, they have put a huge amount of buses to cycle through the neighborhoods. it is very expensive. -- it is very inexpensive. i find that this enabling my mother to do things independently.

host: this was something your mother did voluntarily or did you have to have a family convertion? caller: a little biof both. and ultimately, we talked to my mom about it. we protested about her doctors and responses to her eye exams. my dad is now passed away from alzheimer's and that was also tricky. ultimately, she did it herself. we did have conversations. she would push back and when we finally gave our opinions, gave the data that we understood and backed off, she responded well and truly and on her own. host: thank you, then. the role of city planners and providing alternatives for older drivers in particular? guest: something that is a huge problem nationwide, particularly

in rural areas. if you are incdibly dependent on being able to drive and you give up the keys, you give up your mobility in many cases. this is a reaproblem that society has to address. you have got to have options for older drivers you cannot just -- options for older drivers. you cannot just say you cannot drive anymore. one of our panel members said that it is like an them under house arrest. older americans and baby boomers, they our planne. they plan for what is coming next. if anything, this debate should foster people thinking about what are their options as they age. for h mother in her community, that there is still a lot of mobility and a provision for that, that is what people need.

the caller raised some great point. at one othe things that i thought was really important was, i do not know if he is still on the line -- host: he is not. guest: the issue with alzheimer's and dementia, that is verymportant. i w curious how that might have felt about giving up mobility. his mom actually volunteered to give up her license. one very interesting thing we heard from our panel is that women are much more likely to prematurely cease driving than men. it was really hard to get the men to voluntarily give up their license. but we found that many women were giving up their licenses soon than they needed to. they still had some writing years left, but they might have been told they are not a good drer -- they still had some good writing years left, but they might have been told they are not a good driver.

host: melrose, mass., jim is 70 +. you are on. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. you provide a terrific forum. host: thank you, sir. caller: my comments are based on my experience as a volunteer driver. not long ago, c-span had a panel on this subject and the ntsb did a beautiful job of and lightning me on these aspects. they touched on volunteerism, but perhaps i can have my own experience. i am a volunteer driver. i think a lot of people should know that many of these tasks are not compensated. the social security is an important part of my income. i might save a parking received at a hospital, typically, and i might put it in at the end of the month if needed.

it is a great job, so does become law because i need fascinating people. -- so to speak, because i need fascinating people. -- i meet fascinating people. receptionist are the key. there the first people you need. they are very kinto the patients and they are very helpful to me when i say, can you give me an estimate as to how long the visit will take, and always they give me good informatn. host: let me ask you a question so we can stay with the subject of driving. what organization do you volunteer with? is it a hospital? caller: it is "friendship works ," and interdenominational group. all soone has to do is call

and they have a driver. and let me thank jacqueline, the coordinator. she makes it easy for me. host: thanks for sharing your experience. what did you learn about volunteer groups in communities and the role they ay? guest: 1 tremendous aspect is groups like this that provide these services because whether it is due to a medical condition or a lack of an ability to drive, they are providing a service for people to get around. we know that there are a lot of senior organizations, senior centers, aaa, aarp, and they are helping people drive longer. they're doing assessment, making sure the car fixed them well, making for the seats are adjusted properly andhe mirrors are working well, making sure the seat belt is comfortable. it is small things, but sometimes it makes it easier for people to continue driving longer. certainly, volunteerism and the

that driversrifices lik like the caller is making, they are helping the community. we are concerned with helping more drivers to our meeting these services, as a society, we have to figure out how to handle them. host: right now there are 32 million drivers over 70 and by 2030, 57 million. that might strike some as a business opportunity. i'm wondering aut perovo of private business and developing products that can be retrofitted -- i'm wondering about private business and developing products that can be retrofitted to make driving safer. guest: as people have challenges with mobility, whether it is getting in and out of the car comfortably, being able to adjust the seat as well, there will be cars that help people to do that. making sure that you fit in your car well or that if it's you.

but the good news is that we have had great advances with respect to survivability in regards to air bags, crash cages with more for give ability. one of the things we have not seen is being transferred to all drivers. the car is designed for the average male. when we look at the design mechanisms for older drivers, we see the younger drivers have largely fatal head injuries. but for older drivers is a drastic injuries, injuries in the chest area -- thoracic injuries, injuries in the chest area. those injuries are not always fatal, but they can sometimes be. we saw an inftable seat belt but actually spread the crash forced over more services of the body. those can help older drivers, but they can also help all

drivers. host: we are talking with deborah hersman, the chairman of the national transportation safety board. robin, go ahead. caller: i have to make this quick because i have to drive to work. this really bothers me -- host: robin, are you still there? oh, it just disconnected. i apologiz robyn. here is a tweet. i'm wondering with all the reading we are doing on fiscal stress over states and counties and localities, what is being cut back? guest: of the things that the panelists have been able to share with us during our forms that the majority of the drivers, only about 1% take advantage of the services

offered. and the cost of the services is very high for the minister of these providing them. in one case in a florida municipality, it was about 12% of their entire budget. it can be a very expensive. we want to be sure that these services are provided and they are provided effectively and that people who need them, get them. host: john, you are on the air. caller: there is a divide between us and who have cars and those who do not. they have these caged airport vance that come and take two or three people here or there. i commend the volunteer driver, but that was contributed by a religious group. the other option is cabs.

i think having a cal ared vehicle, having a small, accessible the electric vehicle, there are plty of drivers that would be willing to volunteer drivedrivg people here or there. one problem with senior drivers is that they do not realize other people may be in a hurry and they may stay in the left lane and caused traffic tieups because they do not dry fast enough. thank you. host: thank you very much. guest: that is one of the issues that we talked about, the way older drivers drive compared to younger drivers. guest: going back to your comment about a business opportunity, i think there are

actually things called as a cars and there are bicycles around washington where people can buy access to them. i think your caller is right, there are people that will still want access to a car and are still good drivers, but they do not need one all the time. and it can be a financial challenge for them. there is an opera -- a business opportunity as far as that goes. host: here is pamela, under 70. caller:y mother has been driving a car for a long time. she is 91 years old and she has ha no wrecks in her life. she still drives every day. and she still drives to see me every day in lexington, ky. i happen to know some statistics and i have watched a

lot of the c-span coverage. in my experience, has been 30 to 35 to 40 year-old women who have not en paying attention when they are driving. because of the wrecks that i have been involved in setting is still -- sitting still at a red light, and i get rear ended by a woman multitasking on her cellphone. i think older drivers do not have a problem with multitasking and they are much more courteous people. i think people are wting to get them off the road and hide them in a cave somewhere. i think public transportation is not dependable. either you have to give a week's notice to go somewhere and then you have to pay for it and give all your private information or for them to establish how much it costs.

and when i watched the ntsb on c-span, i was shocked that there were so many people. and after watching several hours of it i thought, gosh, and my busy body like that, too? -- m i a busy body like that, too? this is not very professional. you get to an age where people should be this is -- should be respecting you, do not let them take your wheels on fm under you. ... it had a very creepy aspect to it -- i thought it had a very creepy aspect to it. i a not supposed to use a sea of oil because of my highest because it'll probably kill me. -- a seat belt because of my height because it'll probably kill me. host: let me ask you about your mother.

derouchie drive -- we are not willing to learn because she hung up -- does she drive -- we are not going to learn because she hung up. would you like to comment about older drivers? guest: i think it is a concern for all of us because we're all going to be older drivers if we are looking to learn -- to live long enough. -- if we are lucky to live long enough. the really important thing is for you to know your limits and for you to work with your doctor, your family, and the licensing community to be sure that you know when the best time to start writing is. it is an iividual decision. her mom may be a fine driver and 90, but there may be other drivers, as you mentioned. it is really not a dependent. they may not be doing -- it is really not caged-dependent.

they may not be doing a good job. people may be focusing on other things while they have the task of driving right in front of them. we lost 33,000 people on our highways last year. we had these centers for disease control at our hearing this week because ts is almost le an epidemic. we lose more people on our roadways then we do almost anything else. and we need to figure out how to do better in this area. host: and with the statistic that accidents are declining, help me understand. guest: the good news is that accidents are declining, but the bad news is that the numbers are so high that even when they declined they are still very high. lastear we lost over 33,000 people on the highways. if we lost the number of people

in the airplane accidents, we would be losing an airplane every day. the american public would simply not tolerate that. but somehow we accept these deaths on the highway because they occur 1 and 2 at a time. host: this of you were on twitter is looking to the future. you have probably seen the things on google where they're working on a self driving cars. guest: one of the things that we do know in all modes of transportation is that technology can help us. it many years ago we thought that by the year 2000 we would be in driver-less cars like the jets in or something. but that has not happened. ons ore the jets something. but that has not happened. but the ability for a car to

sense that you are in an accident and deploy the air bag, that has saved thousands of lives. when we look at intelligent transportation systems, we actually have systems available right now that can detect stop traffic at view, collision avoidance systems that can give the driver a warning. this is the kind of technology that can give older drivers more time to make a decision, react, and then give all drivers a better chance of surviving an accident. host: the next telephone call from georgia. this is jeff. jeff is under 70? caller: yesi am. host: you are on the air. caller: i am concerned -- i'm calling condering age drivers. my mother happens to be one. we lived south of the atlanta in a suburb that does not have much public transportation availability. the solutions that might could

be considered in t area that the lady is speaking about, as we have lain for multiple people to drive on the highway as opposed to a single driver in an automobile. there is anoer issue. they do not look at the concept that many older drivers, some are on heavy narcotics medications and some are not. those are the ones we see writing down the road for 30 miles with their left hand and koran. -- with their left hand blinker on. we may need to look at the idea in the public as far as heavy community traffic in atlanta of creating lanes that can help the elderly manipulate themselves without being hazard. host: thanks very much.

have you had a talk about older drivers and prescription medicine? guest: polley pharma has had multiple -- multiple prescriptions has a heavy impact on drivers. we need the medical community and promises to be able to help people understand what affects their medication might have on them, not just for older drivers. this is for all drivers. but we do have people with age- related conditions and that increases the likelihood thathey beyond additional medication. but with respecto navigating a contestant -- congested area, the ntsb invested in an accident of a baseball team that was traveling down to a tournament in atlanta and they have an accident. at one of the reasons i had the accident is that theson edge on the road where was not good. the driver of the bus thought he

was putting off on a left-hand thru lanand it turns out to be an exit lane. as he approached the intersection heas not able to stop. he went over the overpass onto the highway below. one of the things that we looked at in the investigation was the signage on the roadway. i know all must live in the washington area, sometimes there can be real challenges on the beltway and with signage. i think every community is like this. if you are familiar with the area, then you know which way to go, but if you are not then you need good signage. as a society, we've got to do better. host: california, are you 70 +? caller: low 70, thank you very much.

-- below 70, thank you very much. debora said that the crash rate for seniors has gone down and they did not quite know why. in my case, i do not get on the major highways anymore. i have lost my nerve. i asked one of my family members to take me. and i say of the road at night. i go to the store and buy, to the post office and back. i'm not doing as much driving. before i recorded -- before i had a tour bus company and about 25% of my clientele were seniors. some of these people had nice new cars, but they went on the bus. i knew there was some stigma, especially among the men that were getting on the bus. i took that stigma out of them. i told them, look how much money

you are saving. i made it a lot of fun on the s for them to go on. i think, probably, that is one reason the crash rate has gone down. they are finding other ways to travel, especially to distant places. e volunteer driver, that worked for the church, i believe, or something, he has to be a little bit cautious because if he would tell his insurance that he is picking up people and taking them to and fro, his insurance rates could most likely go up. thank you for taking my call. guest: the caller raised some great point. these are a lot of things that came out in our disssions. older drivers are the most experienced drivers. they tend to be safer drivers.

t what the caller talked abo is something not unfamiliar. the self select. they determine where they feel comfortable driving and they actually do to limit their own driving. but there are some things that can improve their ability to drive. for example, when the driver talked about not driving at night because she had difficulty seeing, or limiting the driving that she did, we know that older drivers may have cataracts. you can get cataract surgery that can greatly improve your vision and visibility. i speak a little bit from personal experience because my mother just had cataract surgery and she said it was a tremendous change. she can actually see the leaves on the trees once again. perhaps an important thing for drivers is to get medical assistance in what they're challenges are. -- in what their challenges are.

when we see those numbers going down, it may be because beforthe making other decisions or they have other options available to them. but the good news is that it is goin down. the one statistic that they shared with us that i thought was particularly interesting is that people who tend to drive more have fewer accidents. do not like you're driving skls get rusty is the thing to take away from this -- do not let your driving skills get rusty, is the thing to take away from this. this is kind of a message to our older female drivers. be careful about always being the passenger in any car that you are writing in. -- riding in. if you have good writing skills, you need to keep those up. they are not sure why 3,000 miles is the right number, but

they did see the accident rate go down when you drove at least 3,000 miles per year. be sure you do not let yourself toouch and keep those driving skills up. -- be sure you do not limit yourself too much and keep the writing skills up. host: where are the best driving standards based on best practices and some of these different provisions? guest: safety board is not have any regulatory authority. we just make recommendations. the potenti outcome of our form is that we can make recommendations. host: and that goes to the department of transportation? guest: we can make them to anyone that we think might actually benefit. when we look at an accident, whether it is an airplane or a train or involving a personal vehicle, we look at the human, the machine and the environment.

there could be changes made to the assessments on medical issues. there could be changes made to the design of vehicles to make those crashes more survivable. how it could be changes to the environment, the roadways, signage. we know that older drivers have challenges making left turns, estimating how quickly the oncoming cars approaching, etc. if there could be design issues, may be putting at some roundabouts in communities so that people are always moving to the right and traffic is slowing down. there are a lot of possibilities. and i ink an important thing is the rising tide with all of those. what is good for older drivers is probably going to help all of us. host: they raise the issue of how -- using gps always making returns?

guest: there is the issue of how technology can affect things. someone suggested a safest route to help people stay off roadways that might be more challenging for them. host: john, you're on the air. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: certainly. caller: i wanted to relate an experience that happened to me. i'm only 58. the gentleman that call from georgia brought up the idea of people on medication who drive and how that is handled. but what happened to me -- i spent 20 years in the army and i was diagnosed with ptsd, still on active duty. and they treated me with medication. i could still drive.

it did not affect my riding. -- my driving. two years ago i moved back here to maryland to take care of my father. once he went into assisted living. i did not drive that much, but one day i was driving and i blacked out. and i ran into the bk of a parked car, luckily. both my psychiatrist and a regular doctor that prcribed me medication did not say anything before that, that i should not drive. but i knew enough because i was on pain medication. when i took the pain medication i would not drive. host: john, what is the lesson of the story?

caller: did they have any type of -- when you go to new a licee or whatever, are the questions or a form that asks you if your on a particular medication, and how does it affect you? host: klutzy -- klutzy. guest: that is a good question and it raises the question of how the licensing agencies handle medical conditions regardless of age. and have the veterans day belatedly to you. -- how deep veterans day belatedly to you. hawes i think it goes to how the medil industry -- i think it goes to how the medical industry

reports this. i suspect that when you clocked out it cross your caregivers some concerned and that may cause these of a licensing agency to be involved because they will know about that accident. but in many cases it is not about locking out, but making sure that doctors -- blacking out. but it is making sure that doctors and patients have the conversation about medications. one thing that has been brought up is whether there should be a list the so that people know that they could be impaired ile driving, just as people can be impaired on illegal drugs oor on alcohol. ho: here is a tweet. call.take our last

manchester, new hampshire. and this is donald on the under 70 line. caller: just a couple of comments. about five years ago i had an aunt and a couple of years ago everyone made it about how he could not see driving. he was writing off to the grocery store and he crossed e median and he killed someone. obviously, he did not see any direct -- any jail time, but they took his license. i try to be patient because i know they are elderly, but how many times do you have impatient drivers who try to pass and that causes of accidents, too? in my opinion, it is just as bad as a dui for some of these

people. guest: i think the caller raises a very tragic point. we do not want anyone to be in a situation when they are driving where they should not be and when they are not comfortable. just as we do not want anyone driving while they are drawn or texting or on their cell phone while driving. -- drunks or texting or on their cell phone while driving. people should be driving safely on theoad. but also, we need to address if there are conditions that are unsafe, how to work through those. they have to be iividual decisions made by the individual drivers, their physicians, and families. and the state licensing agencies working together. there is no silver bullet to resolve this issue. it is going to be on a case by case basis and it will probably be very difficult in some situations, decisions that

drivers have to make with their families and doctors. host: you have heard a number of callers make reference to the ntsb forum on older drivers. if your interested, you can find it at the c-span library at c- span.org. i want to say thank you to deborah hersman, the chairman of the ntsb. guest: happy to be here.

copies and can read it soon enough. we have richard armitage on my far left, who was the former deputy secretary of state, now president of our litigious national, and daniel markey, who is the council's senior fellow and was the project director for this report. we hopto have sandy berger with us, t he was not able to be with us this morning. my hope is that in the first half hour, we can give you an idea of the report and then ask you to pose your own questions to mr. armitage and mr. markey. let me begin with the usual injunction that you turn off your cell phones. the isi has been asked to

pay attention to this. journalists in the audience and others, feel free to take notes and report. let me begin by asking mr. arm attached a baseline question. what is that read like -- mr. armitage the baseline question. what is the big thing you would like us to start with? >>president obama got a bad lie from the bush administration regarding ghanistan. we do salute his attempt to rectify the situation. we support him conditionally. we feel that the president and administration should take the time frodecember through july, 2011, if necessary, to have a very deep review of the situation. if real progress has not been

made, we suggest that we changed the mission to a much different mission, one of sport counter- terrorism and continued training. our report has significant dissent in it. it is something that made sandy berger and i quite proud. we had a debate that congress should have d the american public should have on a matter that is so important and involves the lives of our men and women in service. >> let me begin with the pakistan sections of the report. you talk about the need to help pakistan, a devastated by the flood, in addition to weather problems, through greater humanitarian assistance. you talk about the need for greater economic engagement and

economic and development of kistan. you have talked about a shift in pakistan's own strategic calculations. e question i was left with, these are things we are trying to do today. they are elements of american policy as it currently stands. hat leverage do we have to achieve more? how would you get more out of the policy machine in these ways? >> the questi is, how effective are we? for instance, the excellent bill that votes $750 billion over five years is good if we follow through on it and develop the infrastructure projects to help a lot of people. what we're suggesting is the shift in our approach. that is instead of focusing on appropriated monies to the u.s. government.

the most efficient and we could do is to give them greater access in the textile industry, which is their largest single industry. it can be done with limited expense to us and no harm to our own textile producers. second, i don't believet is possible to get pakistan on-side unless they understand what our and status. without understanding that,t will be difficult to get them to go the distance we want them to go. >> go ahead. >> i would add on that mr armitage has it right. we want to accentuate the positive of partnership th the u.s., including its opening of grtertrade opportunities. the report makes it clear that we need to take a pretty hard line on the negative side. it makes comments about the use of our intelligence apparatus, and sending a clear message

about pakistan's continued relations with some groups in particular that don't get enough attention, we believe. we believe two networks are extremely coming increasingly dangerous. on less pakistan understand they are out of bounds, we are unlikely to see shifts. it is not so much negative leverage in terms of sticks or carrots. the report suggest we can do better on both ends of that spectrum. >> let me ask you in this regard, what would be the evidence on these security issues that pakistan was on- side. what wld it take for them to be on the right side? what would they be doing differently with the lat? >> i would hope they would see the network in the same way they see the pakistani taliban.

this is a threat to them. they have to see this as something that could be somethi that causes war in a single stroke between india and pakistan, something that would be late al qaeda to no end. we are dealing with a very dangeus situation. >> if that effort to encourage, prod pakistan toward a different strategic approach should fail, you say in the report that we should move away from lo- term, bilateral cooperation, and undertake increasingly aggressive unilaral u.s. military sikes against precisely that list of adversaries. that sounds almost like going to war against pakistan.

i want to to explain to us what it would be and what the risks would be. >> we don't want to go to war with pakistan. it is difficult for me to see much difference between the attacks we are having right now and what we are suggesting. the difference is we include lat in this target list. but the pakistani do not see this as a threat and an existential threat to them, we see it that way. we will prosecute. >> i will add the report does not advocate a shift in this direction. i think it recognizes the fundamental pottial for instability in the u.s.-pakist relationship, that there is a question of how sustainable such a relationship can be if the united states either seize over a period of timand effort that it is not getting progress with pakistan, or it is in one fell swoop, if we were to suffer an

attack from pakistan, we would be forced to take a different line. it is recognition of that reality, political reality, that leads us to look at what those alternatives would have to be. it is not a desire to go there. it is not an inherent threat or anything we are trying to level against pakistan. it is a recognition of the reality. >> there is one subsidiary issue that is just outside the discussion about afghanistan and pakistan over the last three years. that is kashmir and whether, in some kind of ambitious regional diplomacy, the u.s. could more actively encourage the kind of dialogue in india and pakistan over kashmir that seems to have taken place during the musharraf years. i would ask whether you think that is realistic, whether you

think india's ambition with our support to join the united nations security council gives us any particular leverage on the question. that is a free cushion shot that gets the political military people excited. >> i am starting to sat already. >> talk us through whether that is possible. >> i will be glad to. i think my colleagues may have some thoughts of their own. they have participated in this endeavor. there is no question that we need to be more regionally focused, to bring in the central asian states. you have influence on the situation. we have not done that as well as we should. the specific question of kashmir, during the time of president musharraf, the reason i think the u.s. was not seen publicly as pushing one way or

the other, they were not pushing either side of the equation. i know because i was doing it. that is the best way. preston musharraf showed it is responsible. i think the public pressure on kashmir would have negative repercussions. i defer to those who are much closer. >> if you would be willing to address this -- this is something you have thought about in detail. >> i would be happy to. i agree wi what ms. spermatid just said. the key thing, -- mr armitage just said. there is the principal ingredient that was missing during the otherwise quite successful back-channel talks,

which narrowed the gap, but did not eliminate it. let's not assume the job is essentially all done. the other issue that was alluded to deluxe -- alluded to delicately, if the u.s. will have a diplomatic role encouraging india and pakisn to talk, they both have to be prepared to play along. it effectively means that it has to be an invisible diplomatic role. otherwise, you lose india. india has to be part of it. since then, the situation has gotten more complicated with the summer of riots in kashmir. that opens up a different sue. >> ambassador, as you read indian behavior, they have had a rougher time dealing with cashmere -- cakashmir.

do that worry them enough that they would be more amenable to broader diplomatic options and perhaps u.s. assistance? >> india has had talks with kashmiri separatists and with pakistan, and they have never happened at the same time. that is what is going on now. the summer of trouble has galvanized on indian decision makers. it has been towards reopening channels to the separatists. that is not going terribly well, but there is no inclination to bring these two processes together. >> let me turn our discussion to the afghanistan recommendations of this report, which are pretty stark.

you focus properly on the december review of policy, and you go into some detail. i will read briefly from what the report says are the issues that the president is going to need to resolve in this review process. if you cannot finish it in december, you should keep going with it. you say "it should mark the start of a clear eyed assessment of whether there is sufficient overall progress to conclude that the strategy is working. it should addre some fundamental questions including, has there been a significant improvement in the capabilities of the afghan national security forces? is momentum shifting against the insurgency in contested areas? once nato operations have taken place, is normal life starting to return? is progress being made in building local security? has the government taken serious steps to combat corruption?"

those are the issues the review will focus on. i think we would all be interested in your sen of -- based on what you know -- oof initial judgment. >> on the traing, bill caldwell and his colleagues have done a magnificent job. they have encouraged greater recruitment. they have got people trained at a higher level. you have more people trained. what are they going to do with training? will they stand and do their job or will they walk away? that is a judgment relief to people in the field. the question of our e erratic partnership with the karzai government is a real one. does the president and his colleagues feel we can get a commitment from the government to be more helpful in this endeavor? the development of human capital, this is the biggest single act that we face in afghanistan. it is fine to have an operation

in my job. our troops can hold and do all of that. can anyone government? to make an assessment that would be based on something like, we can turn profits over to the afghan security forces, is insufficient in my view. the basic question of whether after we have turned it over, the taliban can be kept out and the government can step in, or will people prefer the swift justice of the taliban? there one thing we always seem to overlook. we mention it in our report. this is what i would call sustainability. we estimate -- it was estimated by our administration, $320 million annually are contributed to the government of mr. karzai and to the training of the ansf. we estimate thennual money needed for that about $7 billion. where will it come from?

it will not come from international pockets forever. we need to develop the internal economy, and this is something i think ought to be part of a judgment the president and his colleagues make as they look toward the july, 2011, date. >> in the run up to this december, we have had report thing out of afghanistan -- reporting out of afghanistan "in general petraeus, saying that significant progress is being made in one area as a result of our new offensive. what is your own judgment about these positive reports, based on your contact with people and your visits to the region? >> i suspect we're going to get an nie on the question of afghanistan. i would be surprised if one was

not in preparation right now. that would be unlike our government. i suspect it will be a little more negative than some of the comments we have seen. on the question of that particular area, i am delighted we have not had greater loss of life. i hope it is the case. i fear it is the case that they're becoming more robust in another part of the country where we are not so active. i don't have the answers. i have the questions. i am sure these are the questions that will be answered by an nie. >> the timeline is critical. the task force concluded its final version of this report about a month ago. a lot of the questions we are asking now about the state of progress -- the answers depend a lot on how well we are deploying forces and resources that have just completed their flow into

the country by the end of the summer. for the group to judge, it seems too early. it is not enough to make incremental progress. we have to see incremental progress that turned the tide and can be set in place for the longer term. if we don't see that, if the review does not identify that, that is where we have serious questions about the very basics of the strategy >> you also, in your afghanistan recommendations, urged that the united states sees the political initiative in afghanistan, the implication, sees it from karzai if he is not prepared to take the initiatives himself. this is one of the toughest nuts to crack in the full story. we have a very difficult partner

in president karzai. could you address this question of how we go about easing the political initiatives in a country where the government appears to be so unpopular? >> yes, sir. clearly, there are severa routes. one is doable. one is to work with minority politicians. we met with minority politicians when we made our trip to afghanistan. one is to continue to work at a higher level with local, tribal elders. i am not willing to totally forget the role of the central government, but less in it. finally, we ought to be more involved the discussion of reconciliation. we found reconciliation to be a ry loaded word when we went to kabul. it depends what you mean by reconciliation. if the taliban will reconcile to

a functioning central government, that is something i would give at least some confidence to women's group and ngo's and minority politicians. on the of the hand, if the central government is going to reconcile to the taliban, that is a different issue. it is one that scares the pants off most people in the minority and ngo's, etc.. we need to be more definitive about what we mean by reconciliation and be more involved. >> on theoint of reconciliation, what we have heard repeatedly is that the process of reconciliation as it stands is a karzai-centric process. he has selected those who will be involved on the ahan side. he has left many out, many of whom would be natural partners to the u.s. they're concerned about what the prospects for that process might be. you see reconciliation without a firmer u.s. and potentially veering toward something that

will be more divisive in the broader afghan context than more inclusive. the report suggests that is very disconcerting. >> finally, on this question of broad recommendations, most important, in some ways, what if we judge, the president judges for the nation that the strategy is not working effectively enough by the metrics that we have discussed? you recommend an alternative approach that could be chosen in afghanistan if that judgmt is made perhaps you could lay that out for us in a little bit of detail. >> as we offer up a strategy, an alternative strategy, which has risks, and we acknowledge that it has risks, you are concentrating on concord terror,

there are risks associated with it. there are also toenefit. fornstance, we will have a somewhat smaller footprint. of the president judges the strategy is working, he can begin in july to withdraw based on the situation as suggested. if he judges it is not working, i would hope he would make a more significant change and change our presence to one of counter-terrorism. .

>> he thought that pakistan, if they did not come to an understanding of the situation and they need to be on site, from their own self-interest, we could force them into -- the first and leading descent was one on prejudging what the president should do in july. we should not be in it the business of prejudging what the

president does or does not do. that is fair up two. , but we are watching this, and there is a question as to how sustainable this is. former senior officer in that part of the world, i gather that you have fundamental questions about the viability of what we are doing in afghanistan. perhaps you could lay those out. >> i do have very serious reservations particularly about the sustainability of what we are doing. comes down to a point that mr.rledge made very eloquently, and that has to do with sustainability both on the u.s. and the afghan side. focusing on the karzai government, particularly the afghan national army, for the reasons that mr. arledge pointed out, i don't think that is

sustainable. the afghan government does not have and will not have the resources to sustain such progress as we make in building up a huge national army. similarly, the u.s. effort, which i think needs to continue, cannot continue on at this level of material and human resources. it is clear that the current approach is not going to be able to succeed on the timeline that we have given it. i think we have seen enough and we need tohift to plan b period. >> do you want to say more about what plan b is and if it is doable? >> many of these judgements really need to be made by people in the field. it is very difficult for us to come to the tell conclusions

from this removed. that said, we need to be focused on continuing to train and afghan national army, but hopefully a ch smaer afghan army, one which can actually be sustained by an afghan economy that we could conceivably see in the out years. i think that our effort therefore needs to be shifted much more to a bottom up approach. we need to focus on tribal leaders who have real weight in their districts and their provinces. that is primarily a special forces mission, not conventional forces. i think we can make slow, incremental progress over time with a smaller -- lower investment in u.s. human and material resources. it will take many, many years. therefore the u.s. effort needs to be resources at a level that we can actually maintain for many years. if we are not willing to do

that, it is better for us to fold our tents and leave now. >> thanks to all four of you for that introduction to the report. it is a very thoughtful, careful, and i must say, painful report to read, because these are really tough choices. i want to turn now to the audience for your questions. please wait for the microphone, identify yourself and any affiliation, and we will look for hence. >> that gentleman there. >> in the morning. in your presentation and a quick perusal of your report, i don't see much mention of human rights and how the u.s. can be promoting this effectively as part of our strategy in both countries. another question, considering the dynamics of religion and how

it animates many of the actors we are confronting, has the task force considered ways to engage them to promote our long-term goals? >> we certainly knowledge the role of ngo's. i think have already mentioned the fear of sacrificing the small gains already made in that reconciliation brought -- process. my point of view is, this is very much part of our report. i did not catch the second half. >> the extent to which relion plays into the broader dynamic in the region. >> that was not a central element of the report. i think we all come into this with an understanding of the context in which we are playing

in this environment, but i don't think that since the report is primarily based on a question of what can the u.s. government to, that is the fundamental question that we ask. what should our strategy be? the u.s. government is not well positioned to play on religious issues. i think that was driving a lot of this. it might not be the right tool, and it was not something that was central to the argument that we had. but this debate will continue. >> countries to the north have expressed concern about narcotics flowing to the north. what do you think is the right balance in terms of countering narcotics strategy in afghanistan, and what would you like to see to the north in terms of counter narcotics cooperation facilitated by the eu and nato and others?

>> i think he fully knows the answer, having served in asia and having some strong views. i don't know what the balance is in terms of how much effort, but we have to have an effort directed against narcotics. we did see a bit olow back when we had the russian participation because i think the new car explode -- that narcotics flow -- how much ever we should put into it are defer to general petraeus and his colleagues to see how much that distracts from other areas of endeavor. >> i would say the report may be interesting on the counter narcotics ankle to the extt that it holds that into the question of counterinsurgency. th fundamental thrust of the report is that narcotics is a flow of corruption, a flow of money, and something has to be

treated within the larger question of how to address this raging insurgency in afghanistan, not something that could be addressed apart from that. i think you have identified great opportunities for cooperation in the region to the north, but also potentially iran. this is an area of convergence in our interest, and certainly with respect to pakistan. we should not lose sight of how narcotics begich counter narcotics needs to be fitted into our broader counterinsurgency effort. >> i am from the woodrow wilson center. what if pakistan does not get on side? i take it your responses we ought to unilaterally start

[unintelligible] against thelet. you did not mention the afghan taliban. should that be included also? whato we do every cross a red line and they shut down the transit route across pakistan? >> if they shut down the transit route again? just to make a point, it is not totally unnecessary that those are the only weapons you have against let. my view is we ought to use all means necessary to root them

out. in afghanistan, they are killing us. i take it personally. >> i have not had a chance to scam this, so i don't know if it is covered in here. one of the problems i see or one of the challenge is to dramatically changing the strategy is how it plays at home. we have already spent nine years there. there are thousands of lives lost. did you consider how you introduce this big introduce this to a domestic audience d how the administration would be able t get people to back this without feeling like the last time it -- the last nine years have been for naught? >> we started with a and we were dealt. if you had asked us individually whether we like a

july 2011 date, i wou say no, we don't want to give that the enemy any more information than they need. we did not have that luxury to second-guess that. that was already given to us. it has led to a perception of perhaps some shortness of breath on the part of the united states in the regn. this is one of the things we need to discuss the we have done it in the last couple of strategic dialogue. we should not be in the business of winning domestic support. we in acknowledge the importance of it and we acknowledge the and sustainability of the present course. that is just common sense. there is a backdrop to all this. thank god we have been successful in the international community, somewhat successful in stopping about a dozen

attempted terrorist attacks. we have done it through law enforcement and we have done it with intelligence. we certainly have disrupted it with our military. we think there is the ability to fashion something that will meet the approval of the congress and the people. >> to draw your attention to the conclusion the report, i think it addresses the question of the need for publ support. the acknowledgment that this has been a long war and a long struggle, and instead of cutting into it as we would need to reshape public opinion, it is working in a democratic society. we need to be responsive to public opinion and recognize what the constraints are on u.s. foreignpolicy and defense policy and respond to those. it also calls for a certain amount of leadership. a demonstration that if we can succeed, we need to keep at

this. i think report -- we should not shortchange the fact that the report suggests that it supports an approach, if it shows signs of progress. >> in recent days, senior u.s. officials, military and civilian, have been speaking about the the but 2014 time frame for deoyment of u.s. forces in afghanistan, in part, one assumes, to deal with this perception of shortness of breath in the region and the corresponding actions that people have taken. do you think that is why is an appropriate? 2014 obviously is the time frame that karzai himself has established for transition and the departure of foreign bourses.

is inappropriate for us to be endorsing that in saying we will be on the ground until 2014? >> our nato allies are involved. we had discussions with them, and this is more of a consensus. it does key of the president of afghanistan is own comments that the security situation should be in such states that afghan forces would take that over. i tnk it is the better part of wisdom to just embrace it. it does get to that shortness of breath question. >> we understand the council on foreign relations to be recommending in its report that u.s. forces, in whatever configuration, should remain until 2014. >> we did not address that. we have discussed the need to continue training, so i guess implicitly we do. i don't remember explicitly

putting it in. >> when you are holding a tiger by the tail, one thing you might try to do rather than strengthen the tiger is give it something else to do. in the case of pakistan in particular, we have a situation where yesterday's in karachi, 18 people were killed in the latest bomb attack. 18 million people were not. there is no country in the world that is developed with aid and military assistance as a pathway to democracy. what has worked its private- sector development. i am wondering why u.s. strategy for development in pakistan does not reflect what has worked in the u.s. and what has worked elsewhere in the world, which is the sort of thing we a doing

with opec and why that is not a 0.1, too, and free in our strategy in pakistan. >> people are trying to kill us in pakistan, but it certainly is a point well worth incding. we need you that -- developed as more and more. faugh you have a nation of 177 million people who are extraordinarily on. 20 or 21 is the average or median age. whether under martial law or democracy they have not gotten the governance they need, and those in karachi who have succeeded have done it in spite of the government. they are starting fm way behind.

you are pushing on an open door. >> the report does make a case for emphasis on supporting and ivingrivate sector activity as being fundamental to development there both political and economic development. i think there is a line about how u.s. assistance could be better used but it will never be enough to finally turn the tide unless they turn it to the private side. we had a robust discussion of the following. if they enjoyed 2% growth rate, it would be a death sentence for pakistan. that is the enormity of the problem.

>> the report as a very good job of summarizing the state centric challenges we face both here in the u.s. in terms of our policy with respect to paktan and with respect to afghanistan. the thing i have not seen in e report is a deep dive into the non state actors, specifically the taliban. i am wondering, given the emphasis on counterinsurgency and a proposed alternative, which taliban are we talking about? how can we tell the difference between them, and what criteria should the united states and its allies be using in distinguishing limited spoilers from the total spoilers? >> i think what general petraeus's stragy is to get

the rented taliban out of the business. i think it is pretty hard -- most americans would acknowledge notwithstanding how much experience we might have had in south asia that we did not understand entirely what wa going on. i was involved in the beginning of this, and we did approach the taliban and we did talk to them about us just getting ouof the way, and we were totally rebuffed. that is when they came into our target zone. to my knowledge, no significant taliban has wanted to remove themselves from the target set. >> the report notes -- it sounds

a significant alarm with respect to the increasing coming together of various groups in ways that are more internationally threatening that they might have been fiver 10 years ago. that is a shift that i thk should be emphasized in the context of this report. >> it has taken a squad while to finally realize we are fighting a flat enemy, not a hierarchy. flat emmys take a different approach. general petraeus and others have t it. we get it, but it took us a lot of time to get to that point. >> it seems that general musharraf isack again. any comments? [laughter] i am having lunch with him today at 12.

he is back. he has been speaking out on larry king and other things. i look forward to seeing what he has to say. >> i was struck by a couple of things that ridgch armitage sai. i wonder what could persuade him to double little more deeply. ere is a clear difference in priorities and perhaps objectives between ourselves and pakistan. their objective is to have what they refer to as a friendly state, which looks suspiciously like a client state. that have shown the will to go

after that, among other things, by picking up one of the relatively few senior taliban figures who looks like he was freelancing in discussions with president karzai. how do we mesh our concept of a happy ending in afghanistan with pakistan's? is there a version that will be acceptable to both? it seems thatoth face fairly severe discrepancs from what they would like to see, and this is probably the most fundamental political problem that we face. >> i could be corrected by those who are smarter than i on these matters, but i thought we were in relatively good place with pakistan in 2000. one reason is i think we had a pretty clear dialogue with

pakistan about exactly what we were doing and why we are doing it. the 2005 timeframe, i thought maybe the coalition was not going to prevail. they went back to more traditional approach against india. lately, the.s. has been pressuring pakistan to try to do something about the hakani network. we will not be pressuring them until we know what they are in a state is. if it is one that is going to leave them open for civil war in the futur for five years from now, you are right. they know that others are born to involve themselves in that civil war.

i think it starts with making sure they know how far we are going to go in our pressuring of the network and what we can reasonably expect them -- if we can get by into our end state. i don't and we have got that yet. i think we talk past each other a good bit. that is my view. >> let me commend the report. it is a year ago that many of us were coming to the endf a process, an insider review of our own, looking at these things. some of that is recorded in mr. woodward's book. that leads me to a follow-on that was very pregnant last year when this was all being reviewed. i think it is still not really been resolved in the report in a manner that is clear.

when you talk about that pakistan need to understand the u.s. in the state, having to go to counter terrorist less heavy footprint, a positive approach of the two countries, how does that give pakistan any comfort that we are not going to again abandon them to afghanistan's civil war? we would have less exposure in that type of internment, potentially. can you rationalize that against saying we would make it difficult for anybody associated are like footprint in afghanistan to continue in that vein if they are wrong to put us in that positio of not being on their side. >> we do suggest that if we go

to a somewhat smaller footprint and we concentrate on counter- terrorism, that includes everywhere. at one time pakistan was whistling in the graveyard about the pakistan the taliban. in our view it represents ultimate threat to the state, and it is not beyond the ken of our military and diplomats to bring this home to the pakistan thesis. the key to it all is to let them know we are not looking at other 10-year divorce. if they cannot be brought to understand, you cannot coerce them into doing something.

>> of the way in the back, please. >> and from the congressional research service. let me congratulate the task force on a great report and the provocative discussion this morning. from my perspective, the discussion this morning has been very rich in terms of ways and means. current approaches and potential alternatives. can be difficult to think about what progress really means unless you are measuring against a very clear in that state. my question for the palace this morning is about the ends specifically for afghanistan. how good a job has the government done of defining a clear and ste? what are the minimum conditions we would have to see on the ground in order for afghanistan

with some international support to be able to sustain stability? >> the president at least twice has been very clear about what he considers our mission, the mission of dismantling and destroying and disrupting al qaeda. unfortunately, because we feel at taliban is still more inclined to be hospitable to al qaeda, we cannot be sure that absent our endeavors, they will not again welcome al qaeda. we find the disarray there is still a threat to the united states. that leads me to something short of nation building as an end state. i cannot defe it any better yet, without knowing what the facts on the ground actually

are. i am personally looking forward to an nie, given some of the bad history in the past. i happen to know jim clapper pretty well and i can guarantee he will pay a lot of attention and he will call it whatever is in st. g.i. language. >> the report does have a section on u.s. objectives. notes that in both pakistan and afghanistan, our objectives appear to have waxed and waned over the last decade. i think that is usefu, because it basically lays out the spectrum of potential objectives we might have at the maximum and minimum. the report concludes specifically on the afghanistan side at a relatively low bar. asuggested, is a situation where afghans with relatively

low level of outsidassistance can fend off the prospect of international terrorism. this is not the expansive view of democracy building and state building, although we would of course like that. we would all like to see that, but what is the realistic prospect of that in the near term? it is open and sets the bar at a lower level. >> my question is related to the future. if there was a successful track that emanated from this region, how would you see that being a game changer for current strategy? >> if it came from afghanistan, i think we would be it -- continuing our efforts in afghanistan.

the near miss in the times square bombing is what precipitated the comments that pakistan's government would be held to account. wh the u.s. government then does, i don't know. i think there is no fooling around on this matter of terrorism from mr. gates, ms. clinton, and the president. >> it is not a question of whether the attack comes from pakistan, but what does pakistan do in response? if we have confidence that they are not doing what they need to do, then there is no fooling around. >> the secretary of state said there will be consequences. i took her at her word. i thought she was serious. >> we have time for just a couple more questions. we will get both questions and then let our speakers conclude. >> i have three of my company on the ground in karachi and

yesterday there were three blocks from the explosion the gentleman referenced. we are moving them around to get them some provision of safety. i want to identify with his marks -- his remarks. throughout the middle east, where i have been in palestine or jordan or now pakistan and iraq and other places, the business sector is completely left out of the dialogue. therefore they have to operate on a totally different track. they work around the government's, and the governments ignore them in return. i would like to just urge you to contemplate an actual strategy about business. it is big business, existing business, and american business. you really need a full strategy. >> we fully agree with you and you have articulated very well.

one point the report makes in the pakistan context, it identifies working with pakistan partners. it concludes that they are a central component there, recognizing that our u.s. government out reached to those groups is far less than it ought to be. >> as a point of information, to my mind is a scandal that a simple piece of legislation aimed at encouraging investment in the tribal areas has been hung up for more than two years in what are the petty is of political differences. you coulargue that there is something broader, but it is astonishing given our national security risks that this simple piece of legislation is being caught in the gridlock. >> thank you for that last

comment. the exports in pakisn to the u.s. are things we do not even make any more. it is not as if we would be disrupting jobs. has been criticized, but the reason i raised my hand was to speak to the other gentleman. could you clarify, we will hold pakistan accountable? if there is a times where type of thing happening. how do you draw a line between that and the government? how do we hold them accountable? >> of course it is the government to hold accountable. i am simply repeating the words of the senior members of our administration, trying to make the point to the governor of pakistan that they have scant in this game. i certainly did not mean to hold

individual citizens of pakistan to account. what that accounting is and how deep it goes and what it consists of would be something i would imagine the administration would address at the time. >> that brings us to the end of our hour. i think we got a good preview of the report. now you can all go home and read it. thank you very much to our speakers. [applause]

>> next, a discussion on the future of health care in the united states. then, "washington journal." congress returns on monday. work is expected on the bush era tax cuts as well as federal spending for the next budget year. which the house on c-span. and the senate reconvenes on monday, possible legislative work includes bills on wage equality and modernization of the food and drug administration. what the senate live on c-span2. january will bring the opening of the 112 congress. before that, party leadership elections. in the house, republicans will

elect a new speaker on november 16. democrats which is a minority leader in the next day. in the senate, but republicans and democrats will vote on leaders on the bibber 16. state into the c-span network for continuing coverage. >> this year's student cam video competition is in full swing. make 8528 minute video on this year's thing. the grand prize is $5,000. for all the rules and how to live your videos go online to studentcam.org. >> many republicans campaigned against the new health care law. now, a panel posted by the johnson foundation looks at how the new republican majority might change health care policy

going forward. speakers include an official with aarp as well as the top health care adviser to bill frist. this is one hour 20 minutes. on everybody up here. the opportunity for everybody to have gotten lunch. so why don't we get started? i'm ed howard with the alliance for health reform. on behalf of senator rockefeller, senator collins, and our board of directors, i want to welcome tow -- welcome you to this session about how last week's session might affect the new health care reform law and oher health care issues. i also want to acknowledge the co-sponsorship of the robert wood johnson foundation. unless you are brand new to

health care, you know that rwj is the argest philanthropy in america doe -- devoted to health and health care they want americans to lead healthier lives and get the care they need. brian quinn was planning to be with us, but had a late conflict. i know he would be happy to try to steer youto what you need for many of the programs that the foundation has in both health and health care. and if you don't know him, i want to point out bill ervin, the communications director of the alliance, former charlotte observers reporter, he would be happy to help you identify sources, track down contact information, suggest story ideas. he's the go-to guy. i should tell you the briefing is being broadcast by c-span. so please when you are asking a

question if you would wait for a microphone to arrive at your place, and identify yourself and try to keep the question as keep as you can, so we can get to as many as possible. we will have a transcript of this briefing available a few days on our web site at allhealth.org. that's all of the overhead that you need to get us into this discussion. we have a high powered panel here to respond to your questions today. i'm going to introduce them very briefly. there's more extensive information in your package. then the show belongs you to. he's a resident scholar at the american enterprise institute. he knows more about congress than members of congress know about congress. >> that's not way of -- not

sayi much. >> low bar. >> low bar. yes. he writes a weekly column for "roll call" that a lot of senators read. he's a student of, and expert on how government works. at the far end is dean rosen. he's a partner in the public affairs firm of meman, vogel, castaneti. he was the advisor to senator majority leader bill frist, at a time when he was the vice chairman for the alliance and health care reform. next to dean is john rothe the executive vice president of policy, strategy, and international affairs for aarp. he has also spent a number of

years on the hill wrking for jacob jabit and john hines. i should say john the new board of directors. he's sort of my boss. whatever you say, i agree with. let me get started with an international question. as i say, as soon as we get some responses from our panelist, we'lopen it up to you. and it's pretty general. and we've had a lot of successful republican and house and senate candidates saying during the campaign that they wanted to repeal or maybe repeal or replace the new hlth reform law. some others said, well, that's not going to be possible. pointing to the democratic-held senate and he possibility of an obama presidential veto of any repeal bill. they focus on -- depending on

who you listen to, defund and delay among other littertive suggestions. what's your best guess,john, how the coness is going to deal with the new reform? strike it, or try to do something else many >> let me say in the interest of time, i'll dispense any usual comic monologue. those of us who writes jokes out politics and politicians, just to step back for a second within -- second, we've had the three waive elections in a row with the status quo and all of the actors in washington. brace yourself for a wave sometime, probably in two years, who gets caught in the under wa remains to be seen.

that means a brittle and difficult environment for almost everybody out there. and in the short run, meaning the next two years, one the real sets of tensions for president obama, now facing a very different and combative congress is also the challenge from his own base from the left. i was particularly struck election eve when russ feingold, one of the incumbent losers said, it's on to the next battle in 2012. which could be many things. the obvious one would be a allenge from the left to the president. that means that every issue that comes up, the most recent being how to handle the buh tax cuts, as watch with close scrutiny by his base. he has to be careful on that front. at the same time, as we talk about the health care issue, the really interesting set of dynamics to watch is within

republican ranks. john boehner has basically called the health reform package an abomination. he's called for repeal and replace in a speech that he gave at my institution before the election. he talked mostly in cautious and prudent terms in how he wanted to change the dynamic and atmosphere of the house. the second question was health reform. he got very animated. he sai we're going to cut it off at the knees. we're going to cut the funding. the first thing that we're going to try to do is cut out and eliminate the $550 billion in medicare. i remember the great debate in the reagan years where republicans went ballistic every time that democrats talked about cuts. he said these aren't cuts. they are a slow down in the rate of increase. now they are cuts. also, because it put republicans in a way, because they were in

the health care debate, in the funny position of defending every dollar of medicare into perpetuity that's going to come into conflict with the new mbers coming in, balancing the budget, cutting spend, and fiscal discipline. at the same time, the initial talk of repeal was replaced by repeal and replace. but i think there's a real dilemma here. when you start to parse out the individual provisions, most of them are quite popular. the one hat isn't popular at all is the invidual mandate. but if you take out the individual mandate and do as most republican candidates out there, and as the leaders have said and make sure that, of course, you are going to keep the ban on preexisting conditions, you are left with an possible situation. it was striking hat when karen mcanni, the head of the american association of health insurance plans made her first

overture, she said it required universal coverage. how we get around that is interesting. it's going to leave some people disaointed. you can't defund the program. to do so, you have to give bills that still pass and cut out the funding. and since most of it doesn't take affect for a while and get the bills through the senate and signed by the president. that won't hppen. you can retard the progress. you can end up with a show down over the labor hhs appropriations bill. and we may see a umber of shut downs, one the shutdowns must be the selective one. if you shut down hhs, you shut down all of hhs, you shut down

cms, nih, a lot of things that people may not find very comforting. and republicans leaders who remember the last shutdown, and the disaster saying they don't want to have that happen, they may not be able to control it and a new members who expect them to take a meat ax to it. they are going to try to mix up the information is to call kathleen sebeilus, secretary of hhs, in to testify ever day. the committee chairman says he wanted to do 280 hearings this year. we're going to see requests, subpoenas, not requests but demands for documents and more documents. let me just mention one final thing. i believe one the first acts that we'll see in the new congress, they are going to stop extending unemployment benefits. that's going to have real implications and repercussions

for health in the states. i suspect it's going to increase. you are going to get more people going to the emergency rooms back, end you are going to have the states which are already strapped for funds coming to washington and says hey, if you are going to do this, you got to help us out. that includes a waive of new republican governors. they are not going to find much help from their compatriots on e hill who are focused on ashing the budget who are providing welfare for their riends in the states. >> pretty good of calendar of things to attack and look for. now we'll turn to dean rosen who is going to tell us why all of ts can be worked out. >> well, thank you very much. and thank you for inviting me. i'm not sure i'm going to tell you how it can be worked out. i'm happy that i don't have to follow any of norm's jokes. that's the main thing. let me, i guess, first say something broad about how in

fact reform played out in the elections. a i'm sure we'll get into some of the biger dynamics. and i'll try to respond to what i -- to your question, what i think -- how republicans, i think, are going to grapple with the repeal, replace debate. leadship elections will be next week. all of this should be taken with a little bit of a grain of salt. but i think the first thing, if you look at the election, i think this is how the new leadership in the house and returning republican leadership in the senate will look at it as, you know, you can look at the polls and take different lessons from them. for me, i think the clear message of the selection was about jobs. and the economy. but i don't completely buy the white house explanation that if it weren't for the poor economy an unemployment, we wouldn't be in the situation. i think there was also some very strong message about voter concern about government over reach, and the size and scope of

government, and deficit spending that if you look at some of the polls and you look at some of the outcomes, it was more significant than at any other time, even back in 1992. if you look at the deficit as a percentage of gdp, and also in real dollars, you can see why people are concerned about it. i think in terms of health care though, you know, you can -- depending on how you ask the question, you get sort of an even split when you ask voters do they want to repeal the law or something else. when you ask people whether they were sending a message about health care pro and con and you look at the tremendous vote among independents and others who voted were people we concerned about it. i read the election results in general. i think republicans will look at folks who voted for them and sent them to washington as a repudiation of the health care law or at a minimum significant concern about the direction. yes, there are voters who want

to grow it, add a public option. i think the overwhelming message from indepennt voters and others is that way want to scale back, if not completely repeal. but i think in context, where does that fit in, and for me, health care reform and again, i think the election results translate into how folks will interpret those and how they might governor, really were two things. one, i think they were symbolic of the overallmessage of govnment that has grown too fast, spending too much, trying to do too much. while people are probably not voting over the particulars of health care reform, clearly, and john will talk about this. some senis were concerned about medicare cuts or reductions in growth or spending. whatever you want to call them. for most voters, i think it furthered a narrative, this is a big spending bill. $1 trillion bill. even if it's offset by tax

increases or cuts, it's still a bill for government. it furthered the narrative. i think the second thing for me, i got outside of washington and talked to real people, it also became a symbol of an administration and a congress that wasn't paying attention to what the american people felt were job one. which is to deal with jobs. and the president for however articulate that he was during the campaign, never rally seems to hit on a message that connected health care in a meaningful way to the american people and to voters as addressing their concerns about the economy and about jobs. and so it looked to a lot of ople, again, it furthered the other narrative of, you know, over reach, yes. but you took your eye off of th ball of what we wanted yo to do. so when you look at it, and you look at the new congress coming in, you seea significant majority and there are some commentators, norm, it will be interesting your comment on this. but when you looked at the

nate about a year ago, you would have said that republicans had a real uphill battle. they were defending more seats. so in some cases, you can say that, well, if we would have had this candidate here, a different candidate there, maybe they would have piked up another seat or two. that's probably true. on the other hand if you would have told me as a republican a year and a half ago we could have defended all of our seats by really being margin in places that have been close in the past in florida, ohio, and won six of those. i would have taken that bargain. in the house, looks like there are 62 new members with a couple of races undecided. what i think folks focus on and should focus on is that because of retirements and other things, there are actually more than 80 new members of the republican caucus. about 1/3 of the republican caucus, the majority there is new. so they are -- and of those

people, i think by my count, there's at least 35of them that have never held any kind of elective office. not congressman, not dogcatcher. these are people who come to washington, maybe not with an attitude of let's go along to get along. they feel like they are here to make real change. what they mostly campaned upon, in terms of health care, was repealing the law and replacing it with what they would say is common sense reform. i look at that, i look at the pledge for america. i look at the outcome and i'm one of those people who believes in this day and age, when you campaign on, you say you have to do. i think to answer your question, my sense that republicans in the house are going to have to have some kind of a vote. whether it'll come in the first week, first month, first couple of months, i think they are going to have a vote that repeals the law. they may replace some of the provisions in that vote. senate votes or bills to show

what they are for. all of the reporters who wri on this, there are a number of legislative proposals that have insurance and other things they will point to and i'm sure reintroduce. i think they'll have a votin the senate. i think there are a number of members in the senate unlike this last election, there are now 23 democrats, a majority of those up in the senate are democrat who's are defending seats. a lot of them come from big square states in the middle of the country that voted for john mccain and george ush. there maybe in a senate that's 53-47 essentially, three or four or five of those folks who migt vote for repeal if it came down to a repeal vote and again in the senate amendments generally don't have to e attached to germane legislation. it could come up on a energy bill or tax bill. there will be that attempt.

clearly the president is going to veto that. i tnk the question is, what do they do next? and i kind of put it into three categories. i think rather than an either or, i think they are going to do all three. i think that are going to investigate, legislate, and appropriate dealing with the appropriations process. i take in reverse order. in terms of appropriations, there are things that you can do. i think sort of shutting down the entire government. you can attach riders and say that treasury funds shouldn't be spend to enforce the mandate now that it's enforceable until 2014. they already ramping up. i also agree they have be very careful. i have personally not viewed the appropriations route as the most effective route. i think it's one route that people will look at in terms of investigate, we talked about this. there will be a lot more

oversight hearings and i think y'all know, there was a lot of frustration that secretary sebeilus didn't come up and testify before the house and senate, accept in one circumstance on another matter. i think that will change. i think don berwick, he'll have another hearing next week, even max baucus said he thought it was not good use to the president's time to reappoint him in a recess appointment. what are they doing in the response to law? so i think we'll see that. i think the third thing will be in the legislative arena, and the way that i would look at it is that rather than a strike and replace, after they have their vote and make their effort, i think what we'll see is a series of surgical strike. and maybe going after things,

norm mentioned one of them. the individual mandate. we can talk more about the substantive implications. but that clearly is unpopular, more than that, there's the state lawsuits that you can point to. i think they'll go after the independent payment advisory board potentially. i think they'll look at some of the industry fees and axes which you can argue were -- ffset the cost of the bill. but will very likely drive up premis if you tax the underlying cost of care, they are going to go up. i think they'll look at some other programs, some of which will save money and others of which might harm the bill. whether they are successful with a president that still holds the veto pen, we're among among -- obviously that's an uphill battle. but my last comment would be, i think that in anything, the next couple of years beyond what are legitimate taking the republicans at their word letimately and what they will

do, in terms of trying to attack the law are also going to be an attempt to keep alive in the minds of voters those things about the bill that they don't like. for me, the next couple of years in some ways, become about the 2012 elections. which are -- i guess started on november 3. and in part become about 2013 when there maybe a new president in the white house and maybe more seats in the senate in the republican hands and reminding all of us that many of the provisions, while they are under way, the insurance reforms and new subsidies don't take affe until 2014. that becomes the real focus is keeping this alive, even if they can't make changes this year because of the president, trying to be in a position to really make some of those substantive changes in 2013. so i'll stop there. >> john, how does this strike you? either from the institutional point of view,