come together with headquarters and arrive at this decision. as michael said, it was not easy. this metaphor of thinking about ice cream -- it is a hot day. if any of you decide to go after word, i bet you will not get the same thing. if someone asked you why you choose between vanilla and chocolate, you will say it tastes good, it is what i prefer. when you come down to four landing sites, that is basically what it comes down to, which one feels right. there is no hard yes or no it sir. you do not make a long list of things and put numbers by them. we as a science team, as a community, we got together, and in the end we pick the one that felt best. why does it feel good? as dawn was explaining, you have a mountain of rocks that is 5 kilometers high. that is higher than the tallest mountain in the lower 48.

it looks like haii. if you come sailing up to hawaii. this is not a tall spire. it is a broad, low, round-like shape. that means we can drive up the with the rover. this might be the tallest on anywhere in the solar system that we can live with t rover. we think and plan around this mission, but we of a hope that if we live longer, we might be able to go higher a higr up the mountain. that alone justifies spending -- sending the spacecraft there. then when you add in the science schools, it turns out the most attractive targets are at the base of the mountain. we of the payload to address those with. in the two years we have to run this mission, we can address the principal goals, which are the kinds of thingshat the mars community would really like answers to. what you can see in the first graphic that we have up there

is the spacecraft with all of at mission -- instruments that are on. we have nine principal investigators that have contributed instruments that are part of the rover in cape canaral. those principal investigators are dave blake, 1ken edget, ralph gellter, paul mahaffey and roger weens. if i just described a few of these instruments, we can start off with everyone's favorite, which are the cameras. we have 17 cameras. you will get lots of pictures to look at. there is a camera that is mounted to the bottom of the rover. in the video where the sky crane is reeling down the rover, this camera will turn on and take a movie at five frames per second, full-color, hd resolution.

this will be one of the most fantastic projects that has ever been created. with cameras on the mast to look around and find the types of rocks that we would like to do chemical analysis on. when we think something is project really promising, we can drive up closer. then we have a laser that shoots out of to a distance of 7 meters away that is that the rock, creates of spark of life, and then we look at the start, and this tells us what chemical elements are in the rock. then we deploy the arm, put it down on top of the rock, and we have a drill. this is just like a drill you buy at home depot. the drill goes into the rock up to 5 centimeters, creates a powder. the armecollects the powder, brings it back, takes it on top,

drops it down into one of these holes on the top of the rover, and we have to instruments that are insidehe rover. what you can see in those instruments is the mineral logic composition of what is down there on mars. we hear about hydrated minerals that we see from orbit, and now we will be able to determine the composition ofhe minerals. in addition that, we can take a look at organic carbon. we're not a life of detection mission, and we cannot look for but we canany type, look for organic carbon that can be preserved there. our primary goal is to explore habitable environment. that means resource of energy from microbes to undertake metabolism and live, and we also have a source of carbon for life as we know it. here is the trick. if we want to look for organic carbon, we have to be able to work with rocks that look much

like this one does. this is the rock that comes from early earth, almost 3 billion years old. it tells us all lot about the eay environmental evolution of earth, to really the rise of oxygen on earth. ese layers are the things we're interested in. this started out as sedimentary particles. those when the sentiment becomes a hard rock, all the organic becomes destroyed. we almost never see organic culture preserved. it's a good to the next one, what we can see in the slide is the rover itself.

you can see the instruments we have been to before. i want to skip to the next one. what you can see is where we land and the images that dawn was showing. this is called a luvial fan. we think water was running ong and moving sediment particles. we do not know how this is formed. it looks very special. it is onof the things that uniquely goes with the site. then we can drive out and go out to where it says "clays," which is one of the minerals that is formed with water. that patch of green is a place that we would study. then we would go to where it says "sulfates," another kind of mineral. we are exploring a geological

envinments that consists of a stack o layers that tells about the environment. when we skip to the next one, why do these layers matter? this is the history of geological exploration on earth. 150 years ago, wh the first explorers went down the colorado ver and discovered the grand canyon, they discovered all of these yers of rocks. what we have learned since then is tt, if you start from the bottom of the pilot leaders and you go to the top, it is light reading a novel. we think this will be a great novel that offers the evolution of mars, with strong prospects eventually and maybe even a shot at potentially discovering organic compounds. find those don't organophosphates, what we learn about things like and canyon is have a history and environmental conditions change onerous. let me finish with the last one.

this is what it will look like as we go through the map. we will start out. the first chapter is what we have in the landing, which looks exciting already. thene will go towards the green star. that is where the clay minerals are forming the layers. when we're done th those, we will go into the third chapter and look at these sulfates where the yellow star is. after we're done with that, we can go to the top. now we have gone through hundreds of meters. just with the opportunity rover, we have gone about 20 meters of rock. what we see in this image as hundreds of meters of rock. we have that many more pages to read in this book of the ely environmental history of mars. in addition to these minerals that we can see, which gives us a lot of excitement for the site, is the next thing. the blue star we can see from orbit. it has been observed elsewhere on mars.

we see these fracture systems. they occur all over mars. in some places, they are spectacularly developed. deal craters one of them. they're not down at the bottom of the mound. their 100 meters up the story of environmental evolution to and it makes a line. notice that there is a dark line right in theiddle on the side. -- down the middle and two white lines on the side. water fill in with merals and that is the kind of thing that we think is a great prospect for uninhabitable interment. to summarize, we have many attractive possibilities. we think it hashas high diversity. it is possible that some of those might sustain organic carbon. >> if the media has questions,

they can come to the microphone. then we will go to the phone lines. i want to remind you that you can find all this information on www.nasa.gov/msl. there is an incredible google mars site. i want to thank all of the folks acro this great country and worldwide were working on this mission. particularly the folks at the kennedy space station who will take us back to mars. leesonentleman. [applause] -- ladies and gentlemen. [applause] okay, let's go to the phone line with irene. irene, with reuters. we will come back. go ahead, eric. give your name and affiliation. >> some people in your son's

team are saying that thi could even be a bathtub that was once filled all the way to the top with water. others are worried that maybe some of these wateree signs could just be easy these watery signs could just be -- these watery signs could just be something else. >> we will get answers to questions you're asking. right now, we have apostasies -- we have hypothesis. we can make estimates of the where water may have been present in. in the year that we arrive at theail landing site, we continue to refine our hypothesis and come up with particular observations.

the question of how much water may have been there, there may not be one answer. there could be multiple answers. the reason why this is attractive is that there could be multiple scenarios in which water would have been psent at this time, we do no know how much would have been there. >> tony reichert, "aerospace magazine." have you started to map out how you actually climb the mountain to the first order? that is a three-mile high mountain. i realize the relief is exaggerated their. >> it is a three times vertical exaggeration. we're committing only to climbing the lower bottlpart of. one thing we did to confirm the site as being viable from an engineering perspective was that we conducted a study by a subset of people on the team and within the project who were charged

with the responsibility of finding out if we could actually drive there. we get together with some of the engineers and a handful of scientists to try to drive this terrain. do not forget that this high- rise cameras incredibly valuable. you can see this table from orbit. that means you can look up accurate models in a dance of arriving there and drive them across the train and make sure we can do it. wead multiple paths that we found we could get through those layers. >> if you were to get to the summit, can you guess how long that would take? a full year? >> no, no. where the blue stars, that would take two years to get there. the warranty expires then. but if history is the predictor of the future, we expect to have some future life left to go. if we were to go on for 10

years, we could just -- it will take years to get to the top if it is possible. >> one of the issues was how long spend on the scientific investigation. it is not just a matter of engineering capabilities of driving. it is the fact that this is a rich sweet of things to look at. you can look at characterizin where you are and going to see the next thing. that is a very exciting part of the mission. >> [unintelligible] >> in some ways, we would generally be climbing in about 20 degrees. that is comparable in slow capability. it has similar ground pressure -- slope capability.

it has similar grant pressure. >> we will take one more question and then we will go to the phones and wrapup. >> i had a similar question about time frame. how quickly will you be getting information back from this mission? do you really think this will be going on for 10 years? >> we will see what happens. we have planned for two-year mission. we understand we can achieve the principle signs goals and create hypotheses. after that, we will just have to see. but the point that she made it was a good one. if we can land and finding that some incredibly interesting and want to spend six months on a, we will. we can analyze a number of rocks

and drive a certain amount of commuters. we are in the phase where we're doing to scientific exploration and we will test hypotheses. when we are satisfied, we will move on. our hope is that, our plan going into this is that we will get to the base of the mound. that is their target. >> let's go back to the phone. irene? >> thank you very much. can you hear me? >> yes, go ahead. >> i have two questions. maybe someone can talk a little bit about [unintelligible] >> i will take a crack at it. it was really difficult. one of the things we did was have a meeting of the mars science laboratory space team.

and with the investigators involved in the mission. we ended up with two fnt runners. one was the first french and the gail crater. there is a slight preferenceor gail. there was a real preference in that it is not one trick pony. as we saw from this pot today, there are different in terminal settings that can be explored. anyone may have the possibility for observing some organics. you do not have to have the scientific hubris of thinking that you know exactly where to go or what mineralo taet. you have the choice of several different things.

if one does notork, perhaps the other one gives you the great payoff. >> ladies and gentlemen, i will have to jump in here. we are out of time. this room has to be configured for the mars they could how to tell media here and on the phone that these folks will be available: this press conference. i want to thank you all for joining us. we want to think the museum for hosting us. when it comes to mars, science never sleeps. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> next, a discussion on the deficit. then a senate armed services hearing. after that, a discussion on job growth in america.

>> on news makers, john larsen, chairman of the democratic caucus, offers his perspective on the debt ceiling negotiations. newsmakers, sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> next, a discussion on the debt ceiling with the poll taken. this is 45 minutes. talk about issues, talk about entitlements but let's get your take on what happened yesterday. guest: probably predictable in the end. it's awfully difficult on this kind of timetable to have an agreement on big issues like tax reforms, social security reform, medicare reform, markede reform. they're all necessary. they are inevitable if we're going to do these but to do them on the compressed time frame i think was just too ambitious. they need to turn to the task

of getting the debt ceiling raised and go back to dealing with the underlying problem which is the size of the programs and the fact that they are leaving so much debt. host: how much of factor was entitlement programs and what led to the end? guest: well, i wasn't in the room so no one knows for sure but i think there reall is an imbalance in what i have heard between the time and attention spent on reforming entitlemts, white house pretty much adamant against changing their basic structure. theywon't survive in the current form so that's not gog to help versus the time and attention spent on raing taxes which in the end will not solve this problem. we can't tax our way out. so it was a mismatch and mr. boehner finally decided they need to try another approach. host: from your previous stafmente do you see just a cleanup or down vote on debt ceiling being raised? guest: no. we don't have the luxury of that. the real problem is the debt. the rating agencies have put the u.s. on notice about its fiscal outlook.

so if you merely raise the debt ceiling and say we can't deal with things driving the debt they're going to view that as very negative so there has to be some real progress made. and i think the quality of that progress is more important than the size. real progress is raising the debt ceiling and then back to work . host: from somebody who spent time in the bush adnistration, some of the statements that has been said has never had to come through th. in this case it was -- guest: not quite true i think. raising the debt ceiling is always a tough vote so there are some thing that is are very typical. we go back to when president clinton was in office he was using the same measures that tim geithner is using right now. so raising the debt ceiling is always a nasty business. there was always a lot of finger pointing and blame cast about. i think there are two big differences now. difference number one is we have a real problem with the debt. so it's not just a matter of raising the debt ceiling.

that's a symptom. it's we have an underlying problem. can we solve the problem. everyone agrees we have to raise the debt ceiling. the other big differs is that the house used to basically use the parliamentry tricks so they didn't have to vote. they left it to th senate. and in the senate tre was a will spirsy if you were up you vote no and if you weren't you voted. we're in unchartered waters and you see what you see. host: from the financial person's perspective is there a combination of cutting and tax revenue that needs to be addressed as far as when it comes to raising the debt? guest: i think if you look at the commission you lear an enormous amount. this is a commission the president appointed. it's a commission that was constituted with sitting members of the house and the senate. republicans and democrats. it was support bid a majority. maybe not a super majity but a jirt of members supported the plan and it had four real lessons. this is a big problem.

so no more we're just going to cut off and pretend it's fine. we need substantial changes. it is fundentally a spending problem and the dominant changes have to happen on the spending side. so you republicans that are accepted defense is going to be scrutinized, you have to realize that entitlements are going to have to be looked at. when you get to revenue touf have a tax reform. we can't simply jack up the rates or use something out of the current system to raise the ref new. so inn looking at solutions i think should look to that box. that's the box that passed bipartisan muster before. it's not inside that box i don't think it flies. host: our guest until 9:15. and you can ask him questions by the phone lines. the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. for we brought you here i part

to talk about that. let's talk about discussions this week about markede part d. there was a hearing that took a look a lot of issues in it but one of it dealt with prescription drugs and changing the formula that is used for how they are rebate. from a novice's perspective what is the proposal? guest: if you step back, the setting is one in which the debt's crucial threat to our nation both national security and economic perspective, the driving force in that debt is the entitlement programs medicare in particular. so oposals that affect medicare deserve very close scrutiny. this proposal was to move into medicare mandatory government rebates from drug companies into the medicare program for every low income participant. this is a formula that has existed for a while in medicaid and which has been subject to a lot of scrutiny. and what has typically been

concde sd that this raises prices elsewhere. the money has to come from somewhere. in medicaid it raised drug prices for private payers. our analysis of how this plays out if you stick it into the medicare program is that seniors bear a disproportionate burden. their premiums go up 20 to 40%. their out-of-pocket costs go up between $200 er year, a total of $4 billion. i think it's a lesson about the right way and wrong way to fix an entitlement program. this is the wrong way. medicare part d operates on having drug companies compete for the business of seniors, 18 million seniors out there, big market, there's a lot of money. competition has been so fierce that it's much cheaper than i for example predicted when it was passed in 30. 40% cheaper. medicaid is uformly perceived to be our least successful. so we're going in the wrong direction. and our estimates are it will

be damaging to seniors and we don't want to be balancing the budget on the backs of current seniors. this will affect people immediately and we don't want to do it in a way that affects innovation and i think medical science in the united states is widely perceived to be the successful innovators. so this is the wrong way and it gets ticklingish because the president gets very clear because you cannot balance the budget on the back of seniors. butis proposal is now doing exactly that. host: so for medicaid, is the negotiation as far asrebates arconcernedetween the person or who gets the drugs and the drug companies directly and for medicare part d it's between the drug plan and those who provide the drugs? guest: so in medicaid it's a law. it's 40%. whatever the lowest price is we get 40% in rebates, send us a check. medicare, the way it wos,

they negotiate on average you get about a 20% discount off list. one of the thing that is happens is if you say you must provide a 40% discount they stop giving aw the 20%. so you're giving up something that was got through voluntary. you are layering another tax. so it's got to come from somebody. it's going to come from private payers or research and development. host: so the president why, what's the driving force between changing it from one stream to another so to speak? guest: from my persctive, i'm mystified. the medicare program has worked really well. they were worried it cost more. it's cheaper. they were worried plans wouldn't participate and we've had a remarkable amount of participation. it's our most successful program. so i think it looks nice on the surface to say that's very successful. that not going to happen.

host: as far as the political appetite to ke cheese thanges, how would you engang that? guest: part of the politics is we need to get medicare savings, we know that. let's get them from the drug companies. ey're easy political rget. and demagogue them. they'rbig rich corporations. we'll take their money and it will be painless to everybody else. in the end, the money has to come from somewhere. it'soing to come from seniors, very damaging to them and it will probably be damaging to the innovation in the pharmaceutical sector. so when we do entitlent reform it has to be something which is thoughtful, which understands the unintended consequences of the type that we've identified and i don't think you do it in a budget deal in a week. this is a serious issue for the future of these programs. every one of our core safety net programs our social safety net is broken. social security is running in red ink. that's a disservice.

medicare is running enormous amount of red ink. right now it is borrowing 280 billion a year from general revenue that seniors pay and the kinds of come from the tax don't come close to paying the role. medicaid is entirely debt financed. in many cases they are not serving the beneficiaries. medicaid beneficiaries a end up at emergency rooms. they can't find primary care physician. 70% can't find specialists. so that's a program that is a disservice to our goals in serving america's poor. and all of them will not serve the next generation. so we need to reform them in their own right so that they serve their intended purpose. and at the same time they're ballooning the dt and the debt is threatening the economy. from any perspective where we are now is unacceptable. so we do need to get entitlement reform done and done quickly in a thougful way but you can't say we're going to get companies to pony

up it won't work. host: indiana first up for our guest mike on our democrat's line. caller: good morning. i've got some solutns to solve the national debt. number one is congress and senate take a pay cut. and also pay for their own health and life insurance. we have to. why don't they have to? another solution is to take all these women that are having tons of babies and limit t how many kids you can have being on welfare and also put them to work. host: can i add something off of twitter? guest: i think what you hear is firsof all part of our problem. as the commission said this is

a national moment of truth. small changes won'tolve it. so whatever you may think of them in terms of their fairness are not going to solve this problem. and medicare in fact is part of that problem. she right that health care costs are the core of this issue. but medicare feeds the health care costs. it is a big payer of physicians and other providers. it pays on the basis of volume. fee for service. do more, get more. it feeds the fragmentation that makes health care expensive in the united states. it pays hospitals, doctors, the drug companies. pays some particular inshurens companies. canned find a beneficiary in there anywhere. it's fragmented, uncoordinated care that ends up being expensive. so we misuse the american science. medicare is part and parcel of that problem. host: kansas. up next. republican line. caller i listen to all this

but it seems to me that that's the very thing you people want to do is attack what we have paid in to. what we expect. and they borrowed from social security many, many times never paid it back. it doesn't make sense to me why we can't get it solved with this bickering fwack and forth, that is all they are doing, whether you are republican or democrat. host: we'll leave it there. guest: so let's stipulate there's been a fair amount of bickering back and forth. i think we can accept that as a state of affairs. it is always tough to discuss these entitlement issues but one of the thing that is gets lost in this is no current retiree need be affected. social security for current retirees no plan that i see seriously touch that is. even for those near retirement.

the same is true in medicare. but the programs themselves for those who are not yet in retirement do need to change and that is an ineye scapeable fact. host: are we talking age lilts them? guest: there are ma things you can do. you can change the progressivity of these programs, where the moment the affluent get less and do that progressively. in america, the affluent pay more premiums. they could pay more. i don't see why we need to subsidize an affluent person like bill gates or warren buffett. there are a lot of thing that is could be done but nothing would affect those currently retired and the septment that i paid into this program, i deserve everything i get out is a fine sentiment but doesn't add up. most people will pay in a fraction of what they get out of these programs. medicare gets 75% of its funding from general revenue.

that means that most people are going to have their medicare paid for by their children and we have left enough burdens for our children. host: mike for our independents line. ssachusetts. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm wondering about this health care system of ours. it seems that we pay so much more than the rest of the countries around the wld. as much as twice as much and sometimes more. i'm wondering what the cbo numbers are on the single payer system. it seems to me i think we pay about 60% of our budget is spent on health care. it seems ridiculous to me. why don we go to a single payer system which would be so much chearp and is it just because it would cost socialism or something like that? guest: i don't know what the

cbo numbers are and i won't speak for them. but i don't think this is a promising route for e basic problem. for the following reason. single payor is a way to finance a health care system. it basically says we're going to have one km that pays the bills. our problem isn't the insurance aspect of it. you have two costs in the health care system. you have the use and delivery of medical services to americans. it is a very big bill. on top of it you have the payment system. you have insurance you don't pay the full cost of your care, someone else does. most estimat are that the layer on top of the underlying health care costs something like $200 billion. so it's a couple of years. our problem is the cost of care zefts. so i've never thought that single payer was the route to stolving the underlying problem. host: this is off of twitter.

guest: legally, no. the supreme court has ruled that in fact these do not have the force of a contract that is been true in social security, true in medicare as well. they don't pay the bill. sure, you pay a tax and you will see it but as i said, the financing for medicare comes in part from hi taxes, those are those exclusively into the hospital part apart from premiums paid for doctors and for drugs. but in the end, this is massively subsidized by general revenue. this is really being paid for by the income and other taxes that are collected and at the mome, it's really being paid for by the kids. host: are there models you can look to and how they finance and operate? guest: i think the part d program is a tremendously successful program. it harnesses the best aspects to compete while providing a benefit to seniors. that's always been the goal and

that is why i don't want to mess with it by imposing these price controls. the biggest thing we need to do is to acknowledge the fact that we have to have a budget. these programs are breaking the budget and they are breaking the budget because we built the contradiction that says you the beneficiary may have all the finest medical science america can think of for low or no cost. that turns out expensive. then we turn back and say stop that. or we're going to cut your payments. we threaten the doctors all the time. we're going to give you a 23% cut. they're doing this now in going forward for all the providers. we're going to give you these cuts. and then they say, we can't afford to do business this way. we're not going to see any more patients. and 70% of medicare practices have thought about whether they should take on new practices. medicaid we have a big problem already in that. so then they go back and they pour more money into it. so we have to say this is the amount of money that is available for medicare and medicaid this year. you the providers better get

some efficiencies and serve these ben firries. you get good service for the money. until we do that we're not going to succeed. >> host: social security? guest: structurally easier to fix. this is not nearly as difficult. so it's been mystifying to me why we can't get the politics in order and do this. you can fix it through any number of combinations o retirement ages, the change in the progressivity of the formula i mentioned, the way we measure inflation. and some will want to add more taxes. you can get the system to come into balance relativel easily. it would affect nobody retired right now. no effect on current government spending. so take that off the table. it would send the sf signal that we could get it fixed. to my eyes the number one thing you should do is do it tomorrow. host: next up, washington. democrat line. keith, good morning. caller: i feel that republicans are overplaying their hand like

they did back in 95. they have people out here fighting about the debt or people arguing and talking amongst themselves about the debt ceiling and all that. i think that america is getting what it deserves because tough democrats and the republicans and they don't care about the people at all. and i think we're going to get what we deserve. i think they're going to drive the car into the ditch and not only do that. they might even drive off the host: you're breaking up so we'll have to lee it there. guest: history will decide whether republicans played their hand beautifully or poorly. to my eye, we have these two threats, threat number one is the near term destruction that comes new don't raise the debt

ceiling. leaders have said we have to get the debt ceiling raised. the bigger problem is the cataff if i that comes if we don't deal with the rising debt. that scares me enormously. it is a threat to everything that we value in this country. prosperity, our national security, and at the heart is the need for fimet and tax reform. so what comes out of this is ultimately some real cuts in spending in the near term and an agreement to raise the debt ceiling and a path to getting the serious problems solved. host: is there a reality is that if august 2 comes and goes that social security checks won't go out? guest: er payment is at risk. the notion that somehow there is a farde class among the people who deserve from the united states is a very misleading statement. we're collecting about $2.3 in revenue and $300 billion

payments. so you've got 2 trlion left. we owe 2.1 in social security, other so-called mandatory programs. so a $100 billion hair cut. make most of those somehow. and that leaves you zero for the troops, other national security. education, roads, you know, health programs. it's a fantasy to think that there is a way to not raise the debt ceiling and to continue to honor anything like our obligations as a nation. host: back to health care issues. this is peter hibbert saying guest: among the many things you can compare across countries, germany-u.s., canada-u.s. or compare across regions in the u.s. vastly different outcomes for the same cost or sometim high costs worse outcomes. all of them are an indictment of the efficiency of the u.s.

delivery system, which is not orienting around high value, high quality for low cost but is instead oriented around volume and the delivery of services. so that is our problem. fee for service medicine is dangerous to our budgets and it's turning out not to be good medicine. host: baltimore, maryland. caller: hi. i was reading an article last night by paul crugeman. and it was originally published on 9/14/03 and he talked about a doctrine by the republican party called starving the beast t. it was coined by david stockman who was ronald reagan's budget director. and due that taxes should be cut precisely.

andgrover nor quest at that time told national public radio, i don't wanto abillionish government. i want to simply reduce it to the size that i can drag it into the bathroom and drowned it in a bathtub. he also said to u.s. news and world report, the goal is reducing the size and scope of government by draining its life blood. d edwin full never of the heritage foundation president said implied that he and his organization want to do away withhe institutions of franklin roosevelt and lyndon johnson. host: so your question, sir? guest: well, this is set up, it'surposefully set up for this to happen. host: we'll leave it there. impltsdz there's a clr disagreement about the scale and scope of the social safety neand really the role of government. yomping inn's made any defense otherwise. if you look at some of the

things that were done the house passed budget they were deeply different approaches to trying to provi a safety net in the united states. that's a legitimate and important debate to have. there's a second pect of the gentleman's remarks which is that somehow there is a deliberate desire to have the public finances not add up and thus endanger the country and i findit hard to believe that in good faith over several decades that either party would have wanted us to come tot this situation we are now where things are so rad cliss out of balance and so dangerous to the next generation that we have to really get serious about fixing them. . .

that's what fee for service medicine looks like. >> host: charlton, massachusetts. judy, democrats line. go ahead. >> caller: yes, i'm concerned about the cost of drugs. way back when they were before congress the bill for negotiating the cost of drugs with the pharmeutical companies in the wee hours of the morning they allowed lobbyists on the floor and after

three hours the vote came and congress was not allowed to negotiate the cost of drugs such as -- as they do with the veterans and ultimately what happened is the pharmaceutical companies had a free rein with the price of drugs going up. thank you. >> guest: so the events that came with the passage of the medicare part d program, particularly in the house of representatives i think do represent aall-time low in terms of conduct of the house and passage of a bill. i can remember i was cbo director at the time thinking i'll watch for an hour, they'll vote and i'll go to bed and i was up at 4:00 a.m. and it was a mesmerizing and appalling sight. i don't think that's what we should expect from our legislators. on the other hand, the substance of the notion of having the secretary of health and human services negotiate with the drug companies for better prices, then could the prescription drug plans the cbo looked at this

several times and concluded there isn't a negotiating advantage. if you've got 6 million customers in your drug plan you have a lot of leverage and there's n much more the government can bring to bear. >> host: for instance, for instance,, if some legislation came up to deal with the debt ceiling and it had revenues and taxes as far as part of that, would it end up going to cbo for a score? >> guest: absolutely, yes. >> host: how long would that take? >> guest: you know, i'm just laughing because what they will undoubtedly do is blame cbo for not giving them a score. congress' famous move when they take make -- can't make a move they'll blame cbo. if they invent something radically new cbo hasn't seen before it takes time to understand things. the prescriptionrug plan, for example, there did not exist in nature and financial plan for out patient prescription drugs. we had no idea how the drug companies would respond to it, what seniors would enroll, it took a long time to analyze. on the other hand, if it's something that says we're going

to take $10 billion out of, you know, a program somewhere in the system those are well understood. that's going to depend on the mix. the timetable right now i think really does argue for a messy process. you're not going to give cbo much time, you're not going to give congress much time to read. so that usually leads to reliance on things you pretty well are known, grabbing things you understand, putting into a bill. >> hos good morning, donna, independent line. >> caller: hi, my name is donna from baltimore, maryland. number one they have caught entitlements, not too long back a senator from one of those northern states introduced it, i'll get back to that in a minute. what i'd really like to know is go back to what caused us to be in this position and i don't think it's healthcare costs, i don't think it's drug costs, because there are millions of drugs that are very cheap and --

or they eventually becomes cheap after their patent wears out, that's between the drug companies. i'd also like to know if you go back to the reagan, or, i'm sorry, the bush years and how -- how much it will add up to the tax cuts for the wealthy and add that amount up and make the people pay for this deficit that caused this deficit, being us giving the money to the banks where with no um, no reasoning behind it or how they had to change any of their behior that got them in that position in the first place or when they gave theirselves all those giant um, you know, um bonuses or whatever they're called. >> host: let's let our guest answer. >> guest: so there are two different issues. there's where we are now, deficit of about 1.15,

1.16 trillion and whe we're going. and the where we're going part is the terrifying part. for example, if you use the presidt's budget and roll the clock 10 years from now that budget assumes the economy's back to full employment, the financial crisis is a distant memory, we're fighting no wars overseas, it's -- it envisions, you know, a pretty good state of affairs and despite that and despite the fact that the president will have raised all the taxes he's proposed and i think this is informative revenues are much higher than they are traditionally, almost 5% of gdp. the lesson of that to my eye is this isn't a tax problem, this is really a spending problem, the core of it are the health problems and that's inescapable, thpolitics of it might be ugly and people's desire to wish it wasn't true might be profound but the numbers are what the numbers are. then there's the question of how we got to where we are and the cbo recently put out a paper that said, you know, go back to -- to 2000 and the famous surpluses seminars the eye could see, go from that to where we are now, deficits as far as the eye could see, what happened,

and they roughly say, i don't have the numbers off the top of my head that the tax cuts and the wars certainly contributed, that's about a third, and about 2/3 are recent things, financial crisis, response, stimulus bills, those kinds of things. so there's an accounting there. but the notion that somehow it's all the tax cuts for the rich really is not supported by the numbers. >> back to medicare, dierdre harmon says -- >> guest: again, i think that's what happens when you build this contradiction when that says you can't have a budget it turns out to be expensive. you start adding things procedures to ajude indicate whether services should be denied or not. that strikes me as unproductive. >> chapel hill, north carolina. bob on our republican line. >> caller: hey, thanks for taking my call. a debt limit qstion, quickly. since mr. obama started talking about the grand scheme we've

seen both s&p and moody's come out with threats to a downgrade if that isn't forthcoming. do you think -- think our treasury secretary has prompted the rating agencies to do that? and if that doesn't happen and we get a clean -- some sort of clean debt limit increase and there is a downgrade, does that not reverberate back on mr. obama? >> guest: well, i'm not privy to any discussions that secretary geithner may or may not have on the rating agencies, on the substance, if they're doing their job they have to be looking at a fiscal picture that just doesn't add up and at some point it will b their obligation to say that quite clearly in the form of not just a negative watch or a negative outlook but they will actually haveo downgrade the united states. we're not immune from the laws of arithmetic or economics. we're perilously close to the edge that looks like greece and

other sovereign debt crises. they're doing their job when they say you've got to get your house in order. we shouldn't let that happen. the consequences are, in my view, simply catastrophic. we've seen dwight, what happens when financial markets melt down. a downgrade either because of a failure -- failure to raised debt ceiling or failure to deal with the problem is something that means higher interest rates for everybody in the united states and higher costs for the government forever. the economy's weak. we don't need that tomorrow, jennifer rubin and gender steam -- and jim gerstein. and national parks service director john jervis talks about the safety of national parks.

"washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. next, a senate armed services confirmation hearing for military chief of staff. after that, a discussion on job growth in america. last, at 7:00 a.m., your calls and comments on "washington journal." >> at a senate hearing this week, senior military commanders said that the budget cuts are coming and that the pentagon would need to stay heavily involved in those decisions. the armed services committee heard from the nominees of the joint chiefs of staff vice chairman, and transfer cmdr. -- and transfer commander. this is two hours and 40 minutes.

>> good morning, everybody. the meeting meets today for the military officers. our witnesses are sandy when it fell -- sandy winifeld, general william frazier, iii to be commander united states transfer command. we thank you to view 4, who many decades, have committed service to our nation and you're willing to continue that service in these positions with great responsibility and challenge. but me also extend on behalf of the committee our thank you to your family whose support has been so important in the success you have enjoyed and whose support for you makes a difference for the nation as well. as it is a tradition that we particularly enjoy, we would

invite each of you to introduce any family members or friends who are here during your opening remarks. one of the first actions that all three of our nominees will carry out if confirmed will be to immediately implement the reduction of u.s. forces in afghanistan by 10,000 by the end of this year, removing the rest of the 33,000 u.s. surge forces from afghanistan by the end of the summer in 2012. these reductions are part of an ongoing process of transitioning, increasing responsibility for afghanistan security, the afghan security forces, which, by 2014, would have lead responsibility for security throughout the country. the afghan security forces have

increased by almost 100,000 since the president announced the surge in december 2009. that afghan army will expand by another 70,000 security forces by the time all of the u.s. surged forces -- surge forces are brought home in 2012. one afghan elder in southern afghanistan told me that they want the ability to secure their own country themselves. having afghan forces in the lead puts the lies of the taliban propaganda during the atkins taking over their own to carry is the key for the strategy to success in afghanistan.

admiral sandy winifeld, in his capacity, you're responsible for military support to civil authorities for domestic emergencies and aerospace warning and control for the north america. in his current capacity, he is the commander responsible for operations with a defense gmc system. if confirmed, he will have a number of key roles and responsibilities related to missile defense. we will be interested to hear his views in whether he believes we should demonstrate correction of the recent gmc failures --

gmd failures. he has a wide range of responsibilities, including playing a major role was chairman of the requirements oversight council and defining and improving requirements for future acquisition programs and modeling the progress of ongoing programs. -- and monitoring the progress of ongoing programs. the f-35 is a dramatic example of something being underfunded. contractors will provide needed items and materials on time and on budget. a significant challenge related to the vice chairman's deposition responsibility is in the area of cyber security.

all of these systems, equipment support, intelligence, and everything else that the department of defense does relies on networking. that will be a large part of averell w -- of admiral winnefeld responsibility. .

we are at id level of spending barings 40 cents of every dollar we spend -- we are at a level of spending, borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend that we cannot afford. it will have to be part of the belt-tightening. there is no doubt about that. you have had such tremendous on

the ground experience in i iraq and in that area. i know you are fully aware of the requirements, so give your honesty in the best judgment when you are called upon to do so. you have to respect the commander in chief and the civilian defense officials. you have led to those men and women in combat. many have lost limbs and their lives. i am sure you feel an obligation to speak for them to avoid unwise decisions to give away the things they fought and many have died for. will you share with us first and

foremost that you will give your best military advice, regardless of the consequences? give us your best leadership. i pray that you have the kind of experience that can help us make the difficult decisions that we will be facing. >> i will always give my honest and frank opinion, especially when it comes to taking care of our soldiers. i will continue to do that. many of the issues that we deal with are not black and white. there are great, as you are well aware of. they affect decisions and opinions. it is my job, from a military perspective, to identify what

the risks are and give my opinion on how to mitigate those risks, to be successful in accomplishing our mission. i will always do that in front of a committee or any other form that a participate -- forum that i participate in the government. >> i know families and americans are happy that we can withdraw our forces as rapidly as possible. what would happen if we draw down too fast and undermine the success that we have gained and may be suffering a strategic loss that was not necessary as a result? what impact would that have on our laurels, men and women -- more ryle, men and women? >> -- morale, men and

women? if the events occurred unlike what you expect at this moment, and we unwisely did not handle the situation based on a goal to reduce troop levels regardless, it would have an adverse impact on the men and women that put their lives at risk for us, would it not? >> i would say that the many this peppers. -- participated in the wars in iraq and around the world, they believe in what they are doing. that is why they continue to reenlist, go back for multiple appointments. it is our duty as leaders to make sure we do everything we can to ensure their safety in the success. we will never stop doing that. that becomes the case, it would have an impact on the ground.

>> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to begin by thanking each of you for your extraordinary service to our nation. i think your family is as well. they share in the sacrifice that you have made. i know some are here today. i would like to assure them that we share in the gratitude of the country for them into their service. you spoke very eloquently about your attention to all of our warriors, our wounded warriors and those that are serving now. most especially to the need for better care when it comes to from a brain injury, posttraumatic stress.

i understand from your testimony and our conversations that he will seek to upgrade and improve the kind of care that the military provides. am i correct in that assumption? >> that is correct. >> so far as the problem of suicide, which you have spoken to very eloquently in your written testimony, would you have plans to try to upgrade the type of care provided to our warriors? >> the work has been tremendous, but it is not done yet. there is much more that we have to do. we identified the factors and now have to mitigate those factors that are responsible for suicide. we still have a lot of work to

do. we must do all our -- all we can to reduce this risk that we have today. >> do you have any thought you can share about the potential causes of those increased rates of suicide and so forth? >> it is a combination of things. it has to do with the number of appointments, family stress. uncertainty. many other issues that we deal with. it has to do with physical injuries that affect individuals mentally. it has to do with the home environment. all of these things. the main things we have to understand is what those risk factors are, and when does it become critical. it is about as training our young leaders to understand and

recognize the signs. to recognize the factors. i have spoken to some that have done a lot of work to help our leaders understand these issues. the individuals themselves have to identify that they have their own issues. they do come forward and ask for assistance get help. that is so important in this process. we have to create an environment that allows them to do that. >> i do not mean to put you on the spot here, but part of the popular view of making a frank and candid self reporting of problems more effective and more frequent and making it more acceptable -- many people may

have debated the condolence letters sent by the president. what is your view as to whether or not those factors should be provided more frequently to the families that may be affected? >> i will not comment specifically on the president. as a commander, i have sent letters to all to include those who have committed suicide, because they are such an integral part of our force, our family, and our comrades. we owe them the at most respect and honor for their service regardless of the struggle they were in. >> thanks. you also commented on your written testimony about the need for better transitions for our

wounded warriors to the veteran affairs and maybe expand on that point. >> the army has done some could work. there are teams around the country that are helping us to do it better transition as they transition out of the army into veterans affairs. from anecdotal discussions i have had -- i have spoken to several warriors is getting ready for the transition. the discussion between treatment of an active -- military doctor to a veteran affairs doctor. one of the things that sometimes becomes dramatic is that they use different treatment regimens. it makes them feel uncomfortable. the administration piece is taken care of. we need to medical transition as well.

that is as they transition from medical 2 veteran affairs. >> i welcome your attention to this problem. i know it comes from a genuine caring. i think that is extraordinarily impressive. anyway i can be helpful, and assure the members of this committee will be there. general, of wanted to follow up on some of the questions. you mentioned about cyber security and you will lots of information. i do not think the american public appreciate how much information you transport. i wonder if you could share with the committee your view as to whether it needs to be done as a

deterrent nature to make innovations or intrusions more costly. >> the cyber domain and protection of our data -- in my current position, and as a look forward to moving into a realm where they deal with dot com domain. there must be a partnership to ensure that the right data is getting to the right place with the right information at the right time. protection of that the data is something i will be focused on if confirmed and moved to trance,. -- trans com.

i would be going out and engaging our commercial partners to ensure that they are protecting their data as much as possible. that will have to be a collaborative effort that we will have to work together to ensure that we can accomplish the mission. cyber will be very high as we move into this position to ensure the protection of the data. >> thank you. my time has expired. at some point, the attacks have to be viewed as an act of war on this country, if the attacks thedot com impact our infrastructure, banking system,

so that it constitutes an act of hostility on this country. think about that topic as you have indicated doing. we look forward to working with you. i am sure you will be confirmed. the country will need your service. thank you very much. >> thanks. >> i am sorry i could not get here earlier this morning. i would like to welcome the three nominees and thank them for the extraordinary service to our country. president obama cannot have made better selections. i have known you in your previous positions. i know you have done great work, really transformation work, and i appreciate it. we are lucky to have you in our

service. one family member had the wisdom to marry someone from connecticut and become a my constituent. and -- i think we have a majority on the committee to support the conclusion. >> i would second of that observation. >> the quality out mayes the quantity of your support. >> i know that many of my colleagues have talked about the impact of budget cuts on the military. this is a serious challenge. we are the armed services committee. we feel a special protectiveness

of the military budget, but we should. after all is said and done, the first responsibility of our national government, which is to protect our security. if we do not have security, the american people to not let anything else, our freedom, or the economic opportunity that has been part of what it has meant to be an american. everybody has to give in this crisis. our national debt has become a national security problem. we have to work together to cut it down. we have to be careful about the impact of these cuts on our military. we have to understand the classic members, district advocacy has to be tempered by the national interests getting our government back on the fiscal balance.

beyond that, and i want to focus my question on this -- how we treat the military personnel and the numbers we have are critically important and beyond parochial district level or state level concerns. a lot of us on this committee spent a fair amount of time in recent years trying to make sure that the two services that have been most stressed and under most demand in i iraq and afghanistan sought an increase in recent years. now, the army has been directed to carry out a production from five hundred 70,000 in active army numbers down to five hundred 21,000. 570,000 ined 70,000 --

active army numbers down to 520,000. and i'm here is a quotation. reduction should not be automatic. they are conditions based and will require periodic assessments. we are not operating in a static universe. things are changing all of the time. that is with regard to national security. i want to ask you if you would discuss, what are some of the conditions as chief of army, you will ask way before these

reductions are carried out. -- carried out? >> it is based on the temporary increase that was put in place to account for many of the wounded warriors and those not available that we have had, and has taken away from meeting our requirements. the other 27 is based on the fact that the assumption that we will continue to come out of afghanistan on time by 2014. because of that, we will be able to maintain a deployment ratio that is something we can sustain over a long time frame. if we decide to stay in afghanistan longer, or a contingency comes up that

requires deployment of army units, that would be something that could impact that force reduction. it could put more pressure on the army itself. those are the kinds of things that we have to understand. we have to constantly reassess based on reality and what is going on around the world. >> i appreciate that answer. is the 22,000 number of non- deployable, has that not gone down? >> it continues to go up. >> that also puts stress on near as you try to go down. i think we have to follow that carefully. we have to see if when the defense authorization bill comes to the floor if we can state

some of these conditions. our drawdowns in -- are conditions based, it seems it is fair to say that the drawdown of our instruments of how many people we have in uniform will be conditions-based as well. i want to talk about iran. we talked about this when you q.re in direcira some have said that we publicly know that i ran has been training and equipping extremists that have gone back into iraq and are responsible for the murders and deaths of hundreds of american soldiers. some could argue if it is

hundreds. it is certainly some. and the wounding of a lot of others into the killing of thousands of iraqi soldiers and civilians. i was encouraged by that. i know a lot is going on. the far nature -- nation is coming in and training -- it is a cultural war. in what is going on. i was very encouraged a week ago about statements made. they said iran is supporting extremist groups, which are killing our troops. we are concerned about the weapons provided. we cannot stand back and allow this to happen. we will not walk away from this, but take it head on.

as you begin a new chapter in your career, i wanted to ask you to comment. do you agree with the secretary panetta and animal -- admiral mullen about this behavior? >> i agree with it. i do not want to take away any options. they are testing our patients to be sure. there are plenty instruments of national power that can be applied. i fully support what they said about it. >> i thank you for your statement. you have been on the battlefield, and you know how important it is. we have escalated our identification of what they are doing. if they do not stop, our credibility with them is going to go down if we do not do

something about it. none of us want more conflict. we are not asking for it. i think the three of you. other forward to working with you. i will paraphrase an old political slogan. you are extraordinary and you are as extraordinary as the people you are leading. this is a top rate, high quality military we have. it is the one institution in our country, that we can look at when people say, americans best days are behind us. i cannot say that about congress. but we can look at the military, and i thank you for that.

>> we appreciate your comments. a couple of quick questions. one is about iraq. you indicated that you would support retaining some u.s. forces in iraq after the december 31 deadline if there is a request. how much longer does iraq have to make a request for us to consider? >> everyday, it makes it more difficult, because is not only the best -- general austin has built a lot of flexibility in his plan. more importantly, there is going to have to be some work done on some status forces agreement between the two countries. it has to be done soon. i cannot give you a specific

date. the sooner the better for us to make this appropriate transition. >> you said something -- it is important we provide are back with the support of they think is necessary. i assume it would be a joint decision. >> we have done a joint assessment where we have identified gaps in ebert capability. -- in and our capability. >> relative to the importance of keeping it equip coming the indicated strong feelings about the importance of doing that, because of the requirements we place on them. we have in the army battle tank

-- it has an introduction of an upgraded m1-a2. stopping the production means stopping the the clipping of the guard. here is the issue. the army is going to begin the next abrams upgrade modernization effort in 2016. they are going to end the upgraded m1-f the m credited1a

as it now stands. the army has initiated a comprehensive cost-benefit and risk analysis and the impact of that caption production on our armored vehicle production facility, which is in ohio. the final results of the analysis are expected at the end of the year. we will not have results on analysis until the end of the year. in considering the costs of closing in restarting production, should we not consider increased capability in the national guard tank units, which would result in continuing this protection during this gap? >> we will take a look at it.

several other impacter -- factors impact on this. there is force reduction in the mix that we decide that we need in the four spirit we could decide that a number of heavy units could reduce and we could push more to the guard at the active component. that could be one solution. part of the problem is waiting to see what we are going to have to do with our force makes and force structure as we think about this problem. we will look at this issue very carefully and work with you want. >> there's a question as to whether not it pays us to restart and whether those costs are not better -- >> i am not familiar with all the details of that but i will give back to you. >> is a star admiral when a film. you believe that it should be operationally effective and should be tested in an realistic

manner before deployment? >> yes, sir, i do. we are also, as you know, and a simultaneous training, test, and development phase. , you hadmiral c experience as a combatant commander responsible for the ground force system that currently provides protection of the homeland against the threat of a limited missile attacks from nations like north korea and iran. you also have experience working in a cooperative manner with russian military officials. if we could work out something in a cooperative manner with russia on missile defense, that would enhance our security against common missile threats from iran. would you agree? >> yes, sir, absolutely.

>> ok. senator lieberman. gentlemen, we are all in your debt. we thank you and your families profusely. we will do this confirmation as speedily as we can. you never know for sure, but i think all of us are pretty darned confident that it will happen very quickly. thank you. we will stand adjourned. thank you, colonel. general. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [inaudible]

[inaudible]

>> next, a discussion on job growth in america. live at 7:00 a.m., your calls and comments on "washington journal." >> it takes about hind the stacks looks as broadcasting and cable. required tv viewing. it solves mysteries that even nicolas cage cannot conjure. c-span's original documentary, the scenes of the world's largest library, tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span. >> following a morning meeting with president obama, and john boehner met in the afternoon with senate and house leadership from both parties. no remarks were made following the meeting, but the speaker said he hopes to have a deficit reduction proposal ready on sunday. meanwhile on friday, iowa senator tom harkin said he wishes for the obama was bolder in addressing unemployment.

lawmakers joined with the task force and job creation through your report on u.s. manufacturing and the impact of spending cuts on jobs. this new america foundation event is an hour and 25 minutes. >> the unveiling of the report by the task force on job creation, the new america foundation. introducing one of the authors of the report will be congressman john garamendi, who is to my right. he was elected in 2008 to the house of representatives. he serves on the house armed services and natural resources committee. in four decades of public service, he has served as a member of the california legislature as lieutenant governor of california, the california insurance commissioner, the chair of the commission for economic development, as well has having been a former peace corps

volunteer, serving abroad had helping to negotiate a peace treaty during the ethiopian air train war. he is a man of many talents. today, we will be focusing on jobs. congressman garamendi. >> thank you very much. i think they will take this standing up. it is wonderful to be here and a share with this. this is an issue that is of profound importance to this nation. i was thinking back on those years. it was in the mid-1980s that california became very concerned about competition from japan. we set out to look at what was going on and how we could be competitive.

the report said there were five things that california needed to do to stay competitive. one, have the best education system in the world. no. 2, do the best research in the world, make the things that come from the research, pay attention to infrastructure, and do not forget about the international. well, here we are. 1979, just as we were doing that, we had 19.4 manufacturing -- 19.4 m million manufacturing jobs in united states. there were about 2.6% of the american economy. fast forward, all those years in california, where we neglected education and did not pay much attention to research, never bothered to manufacture anything because we were going to be a service economy, time runs on. 2010, america, 11.5 million manufacturing jobs, some are just over 10% of the economy. whao, something has gone wrong here. and it is not getting any

better. yesterday, one of those groups that tend to want to see what congress is up to stop by. this is solar world's little pamphlet that the left with me. but they also left was of the really scary. the president of it was there and he said that energy security, we have been worried about energy security, or real -- oil security -- we know our future is in the hands of the petrol dictators and very unstable prices in the world. energy security. he said, " do you know that the green technologies that we are so dependent upon for our energy in the future will be controlled by countries in asia?" what are you talking about? he said you need to know that there is one company, one, manufacturing solar cells in the united states. all of the solar cells are being manufactured in asia.

how about wind and wind turbines? on and on it goes. the report you will see today is of utmost export -- but most importance to this nation. it calls to this nation about a very important fact, that we're losing it. we're losing our ability to make things in america. as we lose that ability, we will lose their leadership in the world, our national security will be at risk, and we will not have the kind of wealth that we need to maintain the middle-class in america. fortunately, there are people that are thinking about this. i have the great honor of introducing one of them. leo hendry, jr. is at the new american foundation. he is a member of the council for relations. -- the council for foreign relations. he is an investor in things that are supposed to make a lot

of money and create a lot of jobs, he hopes. and we hope he does, too. he is a former ceo of tci, liberty media, and their successor, at&t broadband. he knows what it is to be in the business world. he is also a blogger. he is a "huffington post" blogger. [applause] >> senator tom harkin, we just had a vote on the floor and turn down the deficit cap that came over from the house. >> wanted to do with it, tom? >> he tabled that sucker. [laughter] i will quickly turn it over to senator harkin didn't let me -- senator harkin. let me just say that one of the reasons it is such a privilege -- senator harkin. let me just say that one of the

reasons it is such a privilege, rep garamendi was my legislator and my insurance commissioner. he is now obviously a congressman from a state that defined my career. at no point did anybody in the city california ever speak more eloquently about creating jobs, preserving jobs of quality for the american worker then john garamendi. later in life, i became a transplant to iowa. i president initiative when it was popular. on the senate side, it is tom harkin who has carried the mantle for so many years. it is a privilege for all of us who had something to do with this commission task force to have rep garamendi and our dear friend tom harkin with the skin how -- what does. so tom, some comments from you and then i will be a little more precise about the report. >> thank you very much. i apologize for being late. i did have that vote. how did you get here so quickly,

garamendi? >> we get our work done quickly. >> you do not do anything. [laughter] that is probably good. we did just turn down that cut, cap, and kill medicare. it is not really a cut appeared in it is an invitation. -- it is not a cut in. it is an imputation. -- amputation. it is not really a cap. it is a decapitation of our federal responsibilities. first of all, thank you for mentioning my presidential race. some of you may have missed it. [laughter] i appreciate him mentioning that. let me sum it up this way. the debate that is going on right now is like deciding which train to take and you are on the wrong track. we're trying to decide whether to take the train on the $4 trillion cut or the $3 trillion cut.

that is the wrong track to be on. what should be doing right now to stimulate job creation in our society? [applause] that is why this task force is so important at this time. there are two ways of creating jobs. the private-sector could spend the money that it is sitting on to create those jobs, but it is obviously not doing it. or the febrile government needs -- the federal government needs to get the wheels going to stimulate demand. i hate to use the word "massive stimulus" but an infrastructure-type program. where does the government get that money? either you are with or you raise the revenues. -- you either orally or you

raise the revenues. -- borrow it or you raise the revenues. i say you raise the revenues. if the private sector is sitting on a trillion dollars and they do not want to invest it, then we can. and that is where we need to raise the revenues to do so. this task force has come up with ideas on that. i have ideas of my own. but there is plenty of revenues to be raised out there. it raises the revenues and then you stimulate the economy by putting it into both human infrastructure and the physical infrastructure of our country. to me, if we did that in a very bold manner, a big manner, you then start to create a demand. the demand comes up and you put people back to work. that would tell the markets out there that we are moving ahead aggressively and boldly. we are not shrinking. we're not retracting. but we will expand and grow and that would stimulate further private investment.

that is why i say that we are on the wrong track. we're arguing about these things. it is dismaying to me to see a president of the united states from my party who seems to except the fact that we are on the wrong track. -- seems to accept the fact that we are on the wrong track. i was hoping he would be more bold on the jobs creation effort. ron wyden gave a great speech on the senate floor. i was talking on this very issue. we need more people talking about it. that is why leo, hugh, and a task force and what you have been doing here, we have to be focusing on the single most important thing, putting people deficit. that can come later. but to cut spending now is like putting leeches on a 6%. you will just bleed them more and make them more sick -- beaches on a sick person -- leeches on a sick person.

you will just leave them more and make them more sick. incoherence repulse their dominant private-sector last year. and who are they going to make amends for jobs and services? -no. ithat is a formula for a downward spiral. leo, thank you very much for your great leadership. i think the task force on job creation. -- i thank the task force on job creation. i read it through. you are on the right track. [applause] >> let me add some quickest or zero perspective. -- a historical perspective. what will be fun is -- michael is such a front of this initiative, we will ask for your support and questions as well. this actually began in 2006. coxit began with tom harkin. we were running up to the iowa caucuses of january 2008. in 2006, we saw that the

uncounted unemployed women and men in this country for the first time were breaching a 30% cap that had been on every prior recession. in the worst recessions, the nine prior recessions as we were running up to them, the more than a third of the counter. release a thelma -- counted. we have reached that early in 2006. we knew that, by iowa, something dramatic was happening. that dramatic outcome is that we have one woman or man who is unemployed and not counted for every man or woman that is. 29. tribesmen who aspire to a whole employment. with tom's guidance as the senior senator from the state of biowatch and the run-up, we established the first of these task forces. it was called d horizon projects. the women and men named in the task force were involved in that initial effort it was taught and hugh others who suggested --

it was tom and others who suggested that we create a prescription to generate jobs. we knew we are committed as a party and as progresses to pay- go. we could not always impose on the government to have these initiatives undertaken. we would come up with ways for paying for these initiatives. if, hypothetically, the senate and the house tomorrow were to pass $3.20 trillion in cuts, we can prove that 1.8 million additional jobs would be lost almost instantly. so we would be digging the hole infinitely deeper. it was 29.5 million men and women we are concerned about and it would reach up to 30.3 million.

as a party, we are committed to thoughtful cuts. we're also committed to responsible revenue raising. we have worked with our leaders on that aspect as well. when the task force was coming together, it instantly migrated to the reality that we have to have a list 20% to 25% of men and women in this country making something. we can only survive bubble-to- bubble and we know that bubbles killers. -- kill us. we know that we have an unfair trade balance with china. $260 billion, consistently, year after year, in manufactured goods. $0.5 billion.

$2.5 trillion accumulated in china. we know that the cost differential between a manufacturing goods in china and its counterpart here in the through subsidies can we have pointed to many vendors at american workers -- which many fingers at american workers and said it is your fault. it is your wages that cause these problems. that is not the case. destroying this country. we know that the business community is sitting on its hands. with the senator was describing policies that induced the behaviors and the outcomes that will restore the economy. we are genuinely at a tipping point. we are right on the edge of no senator or no member of congress being able to fix the problems. there are 15 prescriptions in the task force report. we are not 90s and think that they will be instantly enacted.

they're written by our colleagues that -- we are not naive in thinking that they will be instantly enacted. they were written by our colleagues. they will now be out there. than our two members. the national injured -- and need a national infrastructure bank. it needs to attack the $3 trillion of decrepit infrastructure we have that this has not only forestalled full employment, but has naidas -- is making us increasingly uncompetitive in the global economy. we are fully prepared, anxious to see credits go there. those that are responsible to the community to bring manufacturing where it belongs. we are partners in the green economy initiative. we are particularly sensitive to these men and women who are 50 and older. i think something on the order

of 13 million men and women have been an unemployed for more than a year. publicly. 9 million of them who are 50 years and older. about 5.5 million of them are 18 and older. some have a college degree and cannot find a first job print some have a high-school diploma and cannot find a first job. andthe manufacturing renaissance could happen to the older worker and a youth employment initiatives for the younger worker. china is the dragon in the room, not the girl appeared it cheats and it cheats everyday. -- not the guerrilla. it sheets and it sheets every day. keith0 and speaks more deadly than i in length manufacturing.

michael, we thank you for your leadership in introducing it. but anthank god you got out of that fort, tom. >> thank you, leo. -this does have the feel of being an alternative reality in this room, discussing what most economists consider to be the

critical problems in the american economy while, on capitol, they are discussing how to further hurt the jobs picture. there is no real liber discussions, as far as i can tell -- no real vibrant discussions, as far as i can tell. as with as strident as balloon -- we have to try to inject this into the conversation. we have now had a generation, maybe a generation and a half since the reagan years, of a set of policies that has pretended ha to support the american medical costs -- the american middle ha class and allowed the world to consider them as the consumer of last resort while policies have, in a

termite fashion, have been undermining the middle class in so many ways. of course, the real lesson of the giant crisis in 2008 was that it was all an illusion. the american middle-class was sustained by enormous amounts of debt, debt that was promoted and encouraged in many ways by government policies as well as by wall street. hiwhat we see now in this long aftermath, two years after the recession supposedly ended, but still feels like one, is and basically an inversion of that junk credit bubble going on in the 2000's. we are in the middle of what some economists say is perhaps the worst recovery on record. leo alluded to this earlier. in and hearand even scarier figure in some ways than the

official and unemployment rate, which is 9.2% -- although the actual unemployment rate is much higher higher -- is the number of americans who have ventured to the ranks of the long-term unemployed or the permanently unemployed. if you look at the bureau of labor statistics data, it is released it -- it is really scared. in the previous recessions, you do not see the figures that we see now, something like 43% of the unemployed in 2010 were unemployed for 27 weeks. many of them are for more than a year now. ahowe do not have policies in place to try to bring them back, to get them trained, to give them the skills, to give them the work. this jobs report, and this task force report on job creation could not come at a more important time.

it notes that it has probably not been since the great depression that so many americans have been unemployed for so long in a supposed recovery. more than 20 months, i think it says. with that, let's begin the discussion, not only of the specific proposals laid out here, but of their political liability. -- viability. i think that is very much the question at hand. because of what is going on, because of the kind of debate and discussion on capitol hill, seemingly divorced from the economic crisis we are facing, and what can the president do? howwhat can the congress do in terms of these kinds of these his her proposals? we have already had partial introductions. leo, senator harkin, as well as the congressman, cheryl swittenger, another author this report.

we also have one of the founders of the group and the founding editor of "the world policy journal." patrick malloy has served four- year terms on the u.s.-china economic and security commission -- four two-year terms of the u.s.-china economic and security commission. as firm dean and between u.s. and china. -- he has observed that the relationship between the u.s. and china. we will want to hear from him a lot about the china trade issue. was that, why do we not start the discussion? how will like to start off by asking what do think of these kinds of proposals being laid out in this report or that are politically feasible at this point?

>> i would rather turn to the experts. >> i would just throw that out there. what do you think is politically feasible in this kind of environment? >> politically feasible? [laughter] >> ok, next question. >> i kind of alluded to it in my opening statement. political feasibility depends upon political leadership here in political leadership comes about from individuals who have a deep feeling for and an intellectual concept of what is happening to our society at large. if a political leaders this to -- says to you that our unemployment is 9% and does not mention the 18%, they do not have a firm gr