got individual rates. everyone said, again, that i like this. that they improved territoriality. but, if you gave me -- if i had to start from the position in some symbols where it was a much lower rate, i want to they should not have as much to be concerned it out. that to me would be very interesting. i would like to see them go + on top of that. the other thing that is interesting about the committee we have not sit too much, it really is a legislative process. my assumption is that if

congress puts it on the desk, no matter what gets said somewhere else in town, it's something passes congress it will be five. i think it would be in unbelievably reckless, but dangerous, and politically disruptive. jane and made a point earlier in terms of people voting, it seems like every election or every couple of elections we suddenly discover a new truth. i am not sure may be the new truth in the 2012 election is simply retreating and waging war on the other camps. that may have been the last election strategy. it may not cut it in 2012. i think there is a level of anchor, and it is reflected in what is often called it the tea

party. it is really the tea party movement i think it includes people who have been democrats, independents, republicans, and they are brought together by the fact they are irritated and upset. they hold a lot of us wait. -- they hold a lot of sway. i think it is their irritation at to government. if i am loving errors at the other guys, the wrong place to be. >> to respond to that and say something positive, i have been thinking about that for one hour. the tea party is part of the problem, not part of the solution. it does reflect anger, but it seems to have an ideological agenda.

if they do not go along with the new tax pledge, but they must get a primary opponent. you grow a thicker skin. it is proof you are in the middle if you get slammed from both sides. i think the people who are angry in this country are the people in the middle. that is why there is conversation about a third party. these are people who think neither extreme of either party are intact -- is entitled to their own facts. that is why we seem to have the operating effect. these people are thoughtful and want facts. here is my positive point. i think there're are a lot of smart people in congress in both parties who came here for the right reasons. they may not agree on everything. we on the panel cannot agree on everything. but we want to solve this

problem. we want to try out various ways to solve this problem. i think this thoughtful group in congress needs to be liberated. given a chance to engage in legislation here, which is not given a chance. it is war press releases rather than a serious, thoughtful effort to solve a big, huge problem. my idea is, i guess, it should be considered. i would not do the up or down vote now. i think everyone would run a way. i would try to help the people in congress in both houses to really have thoughtful things to say understand it and try it out on their own constituents. i actually think we could pass not it necessarily but something like it.

give congress a chance to be good. that is my hopeful thought. >> 3.5 hours of policy today, i will set one closing word of thanks. i think we heard so much today about how real the problem is and how large the problem is. one thing we focus on is the danger of doing nothing. a lot of time, the focus is, i do not want to do that. but instead, if you think a little more about the cost of doing nothing, which we heard from so many different voices today, it is an incredibly powerful argument for why we need to act. if you are not going to get your first choice, it is not an excuse to walk away from the table. we need a compromise that will get this done. with all these truly remarkable

voices today talking about this, what i hope is all these forces will come out of the shadows. in the coming months, we will be hearing over and over again the support for the super committee. somewhere along those lines in that spectrum, i think we can urge them, support them, and come up with a real resolution to this problem. it was great to hear so much about bull's absence and which was a remarkable piece of work and can serve as an important lift off point for the discussion to go forward. thank you so much to the panelists and thank you to our moderator, peter cook. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] >> what house coverage tonight and into the weekend. this evening, anita perry campaigning in iowa. also, ann romney speaking to women in new hampshire. and michele bachmann in management, virginia. she won the straw poll there. and we are a lot of credit with texas governor rick perry.

that is coming up friday at 6:00 eastern on c-span. the food borne illnesses said 128,000 americans to the hospital each year, the department of agriculture is working to prevent the hospitalizations with better food safety inspections. the secretary for food safety explain to the new process in a speech -- a speech today in washington. this is one hour. >> good morning, thank you to come into the exchange. it really is an exchange of ideas. he will hear from dr. hagan today. if you ask questions, please identify yourself here we are really honored that dr. hagan is here today. she was sworn in in august of

2010. she oversees the policies of the health regulatory part of usda. she has advanced the eight sites based public health agenda there, and i think that is important. she has overseen regulatory programs. as you know, food safety is in the news all the time. just yesterday, at least 30 people have died from eating contaminated cantaloupes. they tristan to a farm in colorado. has been eaten by people all over the country. we have had a number of meat issues as well. it recently, they recalled 40,000 pounds of ground beef intended to school lunches due to possible e. coli contamination. then there is a massive recall of turkey over the summer. this is an issue that is ongoing. we had an exchange a few months

ago with the fda. is something we have great interest in here at ogilvy. thank you for coming. if you have questions, please identify yourself a door organization. i will turn it over to dr. hagen. >> thank you. good morning to everybody. lots of familiar faces here. as to see you sitting in the front row. am i supposed to talk to this microphone or step back and talking to my -- ok. we are going to do some slides this morning. it will be fun. i do not normally do sleights what i do speeches. will be looked at the attendee list, there was a pretty mixed group. i hope this is not too simplistic for all of you.

since i do not normally do slights, -- the first question is, why do we care a about this? what do we have a number of vacancies and vaulted the regulation of food safety in this country? because it is serious business. over 48 million americans get sick every year from food borne illness. at 48 million people. one in every six americans. quite a few people in this firm will get sick this year from the food that they eat. it kills more than 3000 people every year. for all food borne ellises, some particularly that we will discuss this morning, those of the most vulnerable among us are the most vulnerable to feed board illness and even death.

younger children, the elderly, people with chronic medical conditions. this is a big deal. it is something we need to do better on. it is something we are constantly striving to do better armed. the cost estimates range. some are as high as $150 billion. other estimates are lower. regardless, the costs are in the billions in terms of health care costs, lost time at work, just a general societal costs. this is a problem that deserves our attention and the best efforts. most importantly, it is preventable. these are preventable illnesses. we need to be doing something about this. people often ask me what is the most challenging thing about making food safer. i do not know if there is a single challenge. i think it is very complex when we look at what is in front of us right now in 2011. i just wanted to list a couple of things here. i think he's really apply to all

of the products that are under regulation by the government, but in particular there is an inherent risk to the products we regulate. the same could be said to produce. these are raw products by and large. would you look at what happens in the meat or poultry production system. like animals, and on one hand -- one side of the system and other things go out on the other side. that is a significant challenge to come up with some products in the end. we have a lot of people we need to feed in this country. we feed people all over the world. people want things, they want them in different varieties and what them hear it around. and what then to be cheap and safe. there is an increase in demand for the food products we regulate. changes in production up like to

supply distribution. there was a time when supply chain to really on across the state and county lines. now the across continents and oceans. this is a pretty significant change over the past 20, 30, 50 years. makes it more complex to trace things back. but the more complex to have complete control over what is going into products. some of the organisms that we now see where some of the types we see our greater threats are different than what they were some years ago. we see emerging pathogens, something we must be on the alert for all the type. we are paying a lot more attention to chemical hazards. in the past couple of years, we sought equal shot up in cookie dough. that was not something on anybody's radar. even the problems that have been in peanut butter, even though there has been a witness of the risk and those types of foods, that came as a surprise to most people to see so many illnesses

and such severe illness related to peanut butter. we do live in a post 9/11 world, we have to think about the increased risk of contamination. we have done a lot of work on that front. as i alluded to earlier, changing expectations and demands. when looking at our products, people want to have ground beef but they wanted to be 97% lead. some people wanted to be 98% in, all these different formulations. again, consumers expect and deserve that these products are all safe. they want to have access to them you're a rat. we want strawberries in january. it has to be a supply chain for us to have to have strawberries in january. so we have different expectations and we have different demands that we did in years past. finally, we have an increase at risk population appeared as i mentioned earlier, young

children, i would not say that is an increase in population, but certainly, we have been aging population. we have people who are living longer because of interventions. we have people receiving transplants. we have people living their entire lives with hiv and aids. we need to be paying attention to that. what are we doing about it? specifically, and at usda. for the past 15 years or so, our agency has been evolving from an inspection agency that started back in 1906 until the -- after the jungle was written until -- into a public health agency. the reason we inspect these products is because we want to keep people safe from harm. we have been on that path for some time. i think it under this administration our efforts have been strengthened. a couple of words about what the food safety and inspection

service does, and then i will give you a quick comparison with fda. food safety and inspection is the agency that falls under my mission which is the office of food safety and the fda. what we do? we protect public health by ensuring the proper laboring of the food product supply. we are a lot of different people. we are inspectors, scientists, veterinarians, educators. the vast majority of our workforce is in inspection and in front line work. our inspectors and personnel are in more than 6200 food establishments every day. we ensure the safe processing of over 150 million head of livestock every year and over 9 billion birds. that is a lot of product that is passing to our hands and our inspection system. in a addition to our present and

the inspection work that we do, we have other important functions such as outright response. we worked very closely with state and public health authorities and the center for disease control. we have something that crosses our jurisdiction, we have a big enforcement role. we do a lot of laboratory testing. we have three laboratories that test thousands and thousands of samples per year. as we mentioned, we do a lot of work in food defense. so just to contract, i am not from the food and drug at ministration, so i will not say too much about the specifics there. but just to remind folks in the route, the fda is responsible for the city of produce, berries, seafood, and many other foods. at the food and drug administration, they are responsible for the but deletion of drugs. a few words about the food

safety modernization act, even though it is not something that applies to usda, it is a big step per everybody who wants to have safer food supply and moving us forward. a couple of pieces, it does give the fda a mandate for prevention. it gives them greater oversight of imported food. it gives them mandatory recall authority. the requires they have collaboration with general safety agencies. there are many components and pieces of it which require conversations with our secretary and with some of our programs. we have had a very good working relationship with the fda about this. they have used as heavily in a consultative role. here is a side-by-side about who does what. we will be ticking on the

regulation of catfish, thanks to a provision in the 2008 farm bill. we rule on that at the end of last year. are still analyzing comment on that. as they think that already mentioned, every plant in every single day. any establishment that slaughters meat or poultry, an inspector has to be present during the entire day. processing establishments, we need to be there at least once during every shift. fsis does not have on farm jurisdiction. both of our organizations do a lot of consumer safety education. be a partner on some terrific efforts in the last couple of years. i wanted to talk a little bit it out how we currently collaborate with other key players in the food safety

system and those who track food borne disease. the most -- the president for this group in the first two months of coming into office in 2009. the charge to all of us is a big one. it is basically, you need to improve the food safety system. i was not in a position that i am at the time right now. at the time, i was still with the agency. i can't speak a little bit about what happened at the beginning at where we are now. we worked very hard for the first couple of months. in july of 2009, we had a report with our key findings and what was going to guide all agencies involved over the next couple of years. the first priority is we need to prioritize prevention. at each to come first and foremost. articulating it has mattered a lot. the second is we need to

enhance surveillance and enforcement. the third, we need to improve response and recovery. it is not just response in the case of outbreaks or negative event. we need to be able to recover as well. we need to give consumers good information about what products are implicated, what products are not implicated, and when they can get back to their normal consuming habits. another collaboration is foodnet. this is a really important collaboration really for anybody who works in the prevention of food borne disease. they give us our annual report card. we look at where we take our trends from, how do we know what we are doing, we look to the foodnet results every year. it is a collaboration between the usda, fda, and all of the state health departments that take part of it. foodnet includes 10 health and

safety departments. when include a city level, los angeles county, it covers 50% of the population. we look to foodnet every year to tell us what is happening. we look at trends from year to year. usda was one of the regional and the partners of food that and continues to be engaged in every single working group that foodnet has. we are now in the 2020 state of this. it is an important collaboration as what appeared to set national health objectives. there is a whole section of food board buses. we call those objectives. the arco accountable for achieving those objectives. corporate response is a place where we collaborate heavily. --outbreak resposne is a place

where we collaborate heavily. figuring out exactly what proportion of which ... are attributable to which food processes is important we think about where our resources need to go. it sounds easy. it felt like we should be able to just talked at the normal -- the number of people that got sick, ask them what made them sick, but it is extremely challenging. proves to be one of the biggest challenges we have had. we have engaged in a particular collaboration called the interagency safety analytics collaboration. the first half-dozen projects or so, this is a pretty neat thing we are doing with our partners.

as we have been looking at how we do this at usda, the plants in which we need to view this, how we approach this, we kept these three priorities in life for ourselves. prevention, prevention, prevention. prevention is what we need to be most focused on. everything that we do, anything new coming to our agency, has to keep people from getting sick. house to allow people to make their best courses when buying food for their families. if we want to prevent illnesses, what are the tools that we need? what tools need to be in our inspectors hands? what kind of tools as the industry need? how we make sure do innovations are moving forward at the pace they should be. what kind of tools to consumers need? what kind of information do they need to take additional steps to keep themselves as safe as possible. we are looking at the tools

necessary to get there. most importantly, we are thinking about and talking about and engaging people all the time. this sounds like something that should be obvious, but until you articulate it and say this is important and one of our priorities, folks do not always understand or believe it. the people part of this is really two cold. is remembering that there are real people behind statistics. these are families whose lives have been destroyed forever. remembering that these are not just numbers are real people who are impacted every day. in connecting those stories with our people because our people really depend on what we do. our inspectors live in these communities. they grew up in them. the are very invested in what they do. getting 10,000 people engaged and completely invested is something that takes work. i think that is been a really important part of what we have

been doing. how very important to this is, and trying to connect our own people with the people we protect. we believe we are an agency whose policies are based to science. we have always said executed them and remain an agency for inspection. we're not just talking about all of these steps that we can take, we are actually doing this. we are putting the steps into action. these are the things we are doing. as i mentioned, prevention is worth it all started. the question we ask ourselves over and over again, are the things we are doing going to keep people from getting sick? we are emphasizing very heavily our ability to collect data, analyze it, and use it. we have to look at having a true effort. we know where our jurisdiction begins and ends, we are not looking for new jurisdiction at fsis, but we feel really

strongly if we are going to talk about how to make food safer, we have to talk about how to make it safer from start to finish. pathogens, hazards, these things that make people sick, they do not pay attention to jurisdiction. they do not operate in silos, and we should not operate and then either. i wanted to tell you a couple of specific things we have been up to the past couple of years and what we are to right now in case you are aware and provide some starting places for questions. as we have looked at -- we are looking at implementing prevention. i want to focus on the production environment. we start here at the slaughterhouse door and ends here were food is distributed. what are we doing with in that box where most of our activity occurs? where are works go on and where we are appropriated to do our work? i broke into beef, poultry, and

ready to eat because that seemed like a simple way to do it. some of the things we are doing right now, we are looking at changes to our testing programs. we understand and agree we cannot test our way into food safety. it is really important. safety is a way for the industry to know that the policies they have in place for food safety are actually working to make food safer. it is for us to know. we have been looking at whether our testing programs and not only the methodologies themselves are designed to do what we needed to do in this day and age. we have something like nikolai which has been such a success, contamination rates have been driven down so low, you look at something like that, we still have to be able to detect it. we still have to be able to protect people even the contamination rates are so low.

we are certainly looking at how to improve our trace back policies. this is a big challenge for anybody who works in food safety. during an outbreak were people are getting sick, we went to footrace back as quickly as possible to stop any more ... from occurring. we have to be able to trace back when people are not sick. we have all these multiple hurdles in place. if we find a problem at some place down the line, certainly, if we can get back -- the closer we get back to the source of the problem, the more people we can prevent from getting sick and the first place. this is challenging. especially when you look at ground beef. it comes from multiple sources, those sources have multiple sources. it is something we need to be better at. we are looking to push prevention further up the stream in the process. i think everyone agrees. it cannot tester which to food safety at the end. all that is for important.

the better we get at prevention, contamination and the first place, the better off we will all be. we took a huge step forward on september 13 just a couple of weeks ago when we announced a new policy. stex -- these are all in the same family as the college. all of the ability to make people very sick. all have the ability to kill people. it all have in terms of attack rate. 113,000 people a year get sick with these organisms. although we think that the policies we have had have been effective in controlling these organisms, we have not had a policy about their control on the supply side. we announced a new policy, this is a proactive approach. it is designed to keep people from getting sick. we will begin a testing program

at fsis in march of 2012. the test results and cells are important. if we find more product that is on said, it can be diverted from commerce. but companies do what those results is even more important. this is a major step forward in the safety of the be supply. but look forward to implementing it later. next up, i have poultry safety. a couple of things that are important to talk about here. in march of this year, we published the performance standards for what we call or less, these are young chickens and birds and turkeys. the performance standards for salmonella have not been updated in a very long time. there were never any performance standards. the matter. will set an expectation, we set a standard. the industry strives to achieve the standard. people are safer. performance standards matter.

putting out these performance standards is extremely important. our calculations are the ones that are fully implemented, we will reduce salmonella ellises by 25,000 per year just from the implementation of these performance standards. we think that is public health policy at its best. and the thing we are very engaged in, i would say the entire food safety community and that includes folks who are more involved in the tracking surveillance side is trying to understand this rise to despite the efforts that have been made, when you look at numbers in terms of pork contamination rights, the members we track that we call volume percentage positive, we see a tremendous improvement in those numbers. we've got from an average of 16% less than five years ago to less than 5%. this is not a true prevalence, it is important that i say it is not a study designed to

determine prevalence, but it is stated that we track. the fda has the new egg roll. there have been a lot of efforts made in terms of driving down contaminations of food products in the production environment. we have somnolent it's going in the wrong direction. i think everybody is collectively trying to scratch their heads and figure that out. arkansas be not looking in the right place? is it not poultry and is it something of? are we looking or sampling in the wrong place to be able to determine what is going on? this is something that food and that has been very interested in try to dig into the salmonella data. one of the things we have been doing is we have a chicken parts and baseline knowing that more people are buying chicken parts these days. we are interested to see what that data tells us if there is a higher rate of contamination and chicken parts and the whole bird.

might that incentivize us to do something differently. finally, certainly in the wake of the recent large outbreak and recall of poultry, we have been looking at it before that. we need to look at the brown poultry industry specifically at what we can do there. i think we are going to see significance from the industry itself. i think it's a very large outbreak and recall has really shaken people up and gone people's attention. i know the industry is already looking at steps they can be taking, best practices that can be established. how they can be shared. you are going to see some steps forward coming from the agency on ground poultry as well. this has been a success story in terms of contamination rates from ready to the products we regulate. i am talking about deli meats, hot dogs, things like that. when you look at the curve, it

goes like this after the role was fully implemented. there has been a lot of success there. while still not there is a difference between ready to eat products that are packaged in the production environment and sealed up there and if those that are purchased at the grocery store in terms of their ability to cause illness and harm. we have worked very closely but the fda and with folks in academia on a series of risk assessments. right now we are engaged in one where we try to look at what happened to the retail environment. what are the factors that drive to reach contamination and what can actually be done to mitigate them. does everybody were 60 but in the deli? are there different things that can be done? that is one of the things we have been working with them on in -- for a long time. this is strengthening our data collection.

for somewhere about six months now, we have been in the process of implementing a new data management and practical decision making tool. one of the things we started to do was simply streamline the hundreds of data streams and systems we have that ssi s into a more comprehensive data system. --in fsis into a more comprehensive data system. it is to give us a real time data system. it feeds into the analyst at headquarters and actually identify trends and anomalies before we put it public at risk. this is something we are very excited about. it has taken a little longer to implement that we had planned, but we are invested in getting the right rather than getting it quickly. finally, as i mentioned before,

we think we have to be looking at food safety all the way through. we are not looking to go on the farm or regulate producers at fsis, but everything that happens on the farm impacts we do. we know we have a huge stake in improving or finding avenues to improve food safety. we have done a couple of things already. in 2010, i think, we released the e. coli 0157:117. we have charged our national advisory committee to look at this issue as well. what we have been really engaged in is this a grass-roots type of discussion with producers, with packers, with scientists. we have a huge research

portfolio about food safety. how can we be helpful? how can we bring people together? we are not looking to go out on a farm and start making regulations or do anything like that there. we have to foster a discussion. we have to make people realize they have a stake in this. i would say most of the producers we speak to our more than willing to participate in some kind of food safety initiative. there are constraints. we want to make sure that the technologies we are encouraging are asking them to employ are actually going to make food safer. we have to make sure they are of feasible. we want to make sure that the costs are manageable as well. we have had a very good dialogue over the past year on this issue. we are really looking forward to a public. i think we have a date up there. we have the registered notice any day on this. it will be november 9. we want to bring people together.

people who raise animals, the meatpackers, consumers, retail, everybody to talk about how we can be useful. how can government be useful on this? what types of things will be helpful? we have a really significant effort going on at the department. i am the co-chair of this group. we are looking at how animal health, human health, and the environment all come together. this is something we would pay a lot of attention to in that setting. so we talk about what happens before, that box that be the interior of what to talk a little bit about what happens afterward. i just want to say, again, we are always working. our prime responsibility is to make sure food is as safe as possible before it reaches consumers. that is what we do every day, all 10,000 of us. that is what industry is striving for as well. but we know the system is not perfect. we know there is inherent risks.

we know there are still additional steps that can be taken in the hands of food preparers to increase the safety of food products they put on the table. we have been dedicated to this effort for a long time. we have a staff that is really terrific work. there are so many resources available. i would encourage you to check out the information on our website or the foodsafety.gov website. we have information for every situation imaginable. we put things out proactively we know a big storm is coming. we podcast, we tweet, how many twitter followers to we have now? hundreds of thousands. that is pretty awesome. i do not tweed because i do not know how, but our agency tweet and people follow us. are any of your followers? yes. we do everything we can.

we introduced a mobile up this year. karen has been on our web site for a long time. pp totroduced a mobile a recognize people who do not often have food safety questions when they are at their computer. so you can ask her. hey, can i eat the peach said that i'd left out overnight last night? she will answer you. they are all responses to real questions that people have asked. we do not confine ourselves to just the parts we regulate. we try to answer questions will be canned or give people a place to go when we cannot answer that. we are really try to get better at pushing information out. the average life for a long time of people knowing exactly what we really like, where our web pages, and where they have to go to. we are trying to get the information out in a modern 21st century way. one of the biggest commitment we made was to a fallen public-

service advertising campaign. we did this in partnership with the ad council. these are the folks who have brought you many legendary figures such as smoky the bear, friends don't let friends drive drunk. we had it terrific panel of stakeholders from the industry, consumer advocacy, academia. we wanted to break the apathy. we know that people have heard this all before. we know people say they do these things, they washed their hands, use meat thermometer. in practice, people do not really do these things. is it because they do not get it? did not get that one in six people get sick from food poisoning? is it that? is it just about raising awareness? is it about practicality? what is it? we really wanted to do something

different and catch people's attention. we decided to go with four messages that have been traditionally used which is to claim, we have them all laid out here. to clean, to separate, to cook, to chill. we wanted to grab people's attention. we are hoping this is going to work. david says it is going to work. i do not know if you see our ad on tv. we bought a couple of them -- we brought a couple of them a long today. [laughter]

>> keep your family safer, go to foodafety.gov. >> david was going to share one more for us. > one in six americans will t sick from food poisoning this year. keep your family safer. check your stepsfoodsafety.gov. >> this is a sample of what we

are trying to do. we are trying to drive traffic to the food safety website. as every piece of food to the information you could want when it comes to food safety. we reached a lot of people already. we know that more people are looking. we had a 700% increase in the traffic. and a 400% increase on the amount of time people spend looking at the website. two that number is important. we know those numbers are important. whether people actually change their behavior is what is most important. we have data we are compiling that will be tracked. the give us information about how many people are using meat thermometer. we need to track what we are doing. we need to see if we are impacting people posing behavior with his campaign. we are excited about what we are

doing. we have wanted and needed this kind of national exposure for a very long time. finally, what would a presentation be without a strategic plan? i will not check about it in any detail. we recently released -- that put it up here only because it is important that people understand we are not just talking about these things and we are not just police miscellaneous policy ideas out of the air because they seemed like a good idea. it is all part of a strategy. we know where we are going and what we want to achieve. we will hold ourselves accountable for getting there. this particular strategic plan was written for us in a very different kind of way. strategic plans to be dry, boring documents that sit in white binders on shelves and people do not look at them after they initially see them. we wanted people to understand what it was that we are saying. coming back to the idea that we are 10,000 people, we need to be

fully engaged in doing this important work for american consumers. this is what it means in your job every day. this is what we are trying to accomplish treaty should have a direct line of sight between the work you do every day and the objectives of this agency is trying to achieve. to put it up there. is available -- i think it is on the website. if anybody wants to take a look at it. i did want to mention that is where we are right now. we are a public health regulatory agency. it is our sole responsibility to protect consumers from harm. everything we do every day blitz us a little closer to achieving that goal. i think i will leave it there. >> anybody have any questions? >> hi, on the matter of

labeling, you said labeling helps people make the best and most of for the choices. i am relatively new with this, what i understand with labeling on poultry and range, free range -- there is very little free or arrange about that label. can you talk a little bit about your view of that label in particular and whether you think it gives consumers the information they need to know. i think it gives them an idea of chickens running around on the green hillside. that is not the case. >> i will say that a lot of labelling programs like that do not happen through our agency. those are certifications or determinations that are made elsewhere. free range falls under that category. our focus has been on exactly what you said. do labels tell people what they need to know?

in places where we are able to make those decisions, we are taking steps forward. one of the things we did at the end of last year was to revive a very old rule that had been stagnating for some time about the labeling of single ingredient products. people are very conscientious about what they are buying and how to cook their meals together now. starting in january of next year, people will note the same additional products in this along with every other for the bite at the course restored. when products have been injected with sodium or other solutions like that that will offer -- that will alter their nutritional value. we think it is important people know that and can make those choices. for us, it is not adopt good or bad. there is room for all of these products on the market. we are focused on trying to make sure people have as much information as possible.

>> alan ferguson. i have two questions. i understand the new rule that you proposed on the will not take effect for a year. is that correct? >> march of 2012. >> what is that, and how has your agency been effected by budgets -- the 2011 budget? how do you think you will be affected by 2012? will you be able to carry out and take care of these additional? >> to your first question, the reason for the delay is the industry -- the portion of the industry that will want to adopt testing themself -- i should make clear this is a requirement of the agency. they may not choose to adopt the testing agencies themselves. they need to get things up to

speed. the test kits have been in development for some time. we have to make sure that the technology exists for companies to be able to take the steps that they need to take. the other issue is our international partners. there are always issues that come up in terms of -- we operate -- companies that export their products to the united states must be equivalent requirements to those we have in the united states. there are products that could be produced before these requirements were put in place and it could be on the water at the time when things get implemented. we allow for some transitional time there to make sure that this is actually going to make food sector. if what the industry to consider what steps they can take in implementing this program, they have to have the time to do that. as for the budget, i would say i

did not have a crystal ball and do not know what is going to happen to our budget. i do not think anybody knows what is what to happen to anybody's budget for that matter. what i have told the agency over and over again is we need to keep our values and priorities upfront. our priority and responsibility is to protect consumers from harm. we need to figure out how to do that. whenever budget climate we are in, there is no question there is going to be some challenges. act fsis, i mentioned once or twice in my presentation, we have to be present at every meat and poultry plant for those plants to operate. that is a significant piece of information. i have heard and i have read people speculate about whether we will have enough inspectors to keep food safe. we have to have enough food inspectors to keep food safe. i cannot say for sure how we

will be impacted. we have certainly been taking steps for the last year or more. we want to make sure we are reducing duplication or it might exist. we have taken a look at lots of positions at headquarters. we have done a lot of things in terms of process improvement to make sure that we are as clean as possible. our absolute priority is to continue to protect american consumers regardless of what circumstances we find ourselves in. >> hi, i first want to thank you and ogilvy for providing this forum. you have mentioned that post 9/11 you have implemented a to dispense system. i wondered if you could elaborate on that. -- a food a defense system. i wondered if you could elaborate on that.

>> there are a couple of things about the food defense. we have an entire office that handles the defense. has undergone a number of name changes over the years. we have the emergency preparedness at response professionals that now lead all of our efforts. we are always thinking about were the vulnerabilities are. he worked for a closely with homeland security and work very closely with law enforcement to make sure that we are anticipating things and we are prepared for events that may occur. we have encouraged establishments to adopt food it defense plans as well. we have a strategic objective in our plan about to defense plants. it is a combination of awareness, being on the alert, looking at what products are the most vulnerable and putting steps in place to make sure that we are reducing the risk as much as possible. then being ready to move.

it is a laboratory network that is co-managed and coal led by the food and drug administration and the food safety inspection services. the have worked very closely with us to the years through cooperative agreements to become equipped, to become ready to go, to have all of their personnel trained to be able to look for a particular threat a chance that we might not be able to look for in sort of normal public health labs. it has taken a lot of steps there. it is something we have to be vigilant about all the time. i would say to your second question, how have we been stricken by the administration, we have a president who said to us very early on, this is important. this is really important. as i said, no pre german -- predetermined outcome, there needs to be steps taken to improve the safety of the food supply and improve the confidence that consumers have in the safety of the food

supply. it starts at the top. it always starts at the top. your given your marching orders by the president to do things differently, to come together and figure out -- to bring ourselves to a place where we have parity. we do not have one side of the system where we have authorities at the other side does not have. the administration starting at the white house has been extremely supportive of us. i also work for a secretary who has been out in front about this from the very beginning. he takes this very seriously. he has been a a real supporter of the things we wanted to do. there is a town and there is an attitude that this matters. this is one of the most basic things we can be doing for the american people is improving the safety of food. >> good morning. thank you so much for this talk. i am with the humane society of the united states.

probably even in better economic times there was not a sufficient number of inspectors out there. i was wondering if you could talk about the technological initiatives you are exploring to use technology to augment the capacity for inspection. >> let me try to understand your question. you are saying there were not a signal -- a sufficient number of food inspectors exports i was a situation akin to the border control or people involved in inspecting the ports for home and security. is a staggering challenge. i am wondering if there are ways you are supporting technology to try to improve -- >> thank you for your question. but this a couple of things. we are at a historical low vacancy rate for personal, that includes veterinarians. there was a recognition government why it of the fact that we needed to have more

public health veterinarian to a particular in the federal work bourse. we really stepped up our recruitment and retention efforts on that front. filling vacancies is a huge challenge. we are in a little bit different situation that the fda and that we are required by law to have people every day. we have to staff the plants so we can perform our statutory leave mandated functions. we are always looking looking for ways to keep the vacancy rates down because we have to end because it also is the right thing to do for our employees. your question about video monitoring, we released earlier this year some guidelines about the use of video and surveillance equipment. this does not replace inspection in any way, shape, or form when it comes to humane handling of animals. we put out these guidelines of the industry understood how we expected them to use video

monitoring. also, to make that clear that this was not going to replace having an inspection and of veterinarian out there. we can use the videotape -- we can use thatso, yes, we are alws exploring new technologies, but it is clear in our statutes that we need to have people there, on the minds. there are a lot of things there. the laws were written a very long time ago. we recognize that. we think that our system works, and this holds industry accountable in a way that is important, so the people are never going to get replaced. >> good morning. my name is alexander. i am from russian television

international. thank you very much for your presentation. a question based on my personal experience. before my work in the united states, i lived and worked in the united kingdom. more or less the same situation. the topic of food safety in the british headline news, but the thing that i could not say, and i have wondered here, it is genetically modified food, and i am wondering, maybe you in the united states have another system, more ease to the problem. food in the united states more clean from the genes than in the united kingdom. maybe i am wrong. it is a huge topic in the united kingdom but absolutely no news here in this country. is it because of clean food or another system could >> i think

it is just the newspapers you are reading. i think there is a lot of attention to genetically modified food here in the united states. the main focus really i think is whether they should be labeled, and all cases are not. that seems to be significant market concern. there are folks that feel very strongly that they should be labeled. people are interested more than ever of what goes into their food, what is not in their food, how it was raised, what conditions the animals were raised under, so i think there is quite a debate under that, and i do not think that issue has been settled. >> hi, my name is maria, and i am with "american observer," and thank you very much for your presentation today. my question is sort of a follow- up. with respect to the debt situation, and i certainly do

not have a crystal ball. i do not think anyone does, which makes a lot of us nervous, but be that as it may, and you are so organized in your strategic planning, what plan do you have any effect should there be market reductions in your budget? i have heard you say you need inspectors on site, but beyond that, do you have a plan, and if so, in that plan, what are the important matters in a very small, a brief statement, and what are some of the things that might go? >> well, it is an important question, and as i said before, we still have a job to do, and i believe that regardless of the state of the economy, whether we are in a terrific place or a terrible place, people need their food safety. it does not change. it is one of the constant, and i

think congress has recognized that. we certainly have received less in our budgets, and we will receive less in our budget in the coming year than we have before, but i thing there is widespread recognition of the fact that people still need safe food regardless of the state we are in, but i think, like everybody out there, we have to ask ourselves what are the things that we absolutely need to be doing, and what are our core functions? what is our core mission? that is exactly the process we are engaged in right now. that is exactly the process we are engaged in throughout the department of agriculture, and i guess speaking for the entire government, i would think that we're all looking at that. what is our core function, what are the most important things, and what are the nice to haves, and as i mentioned earlier, we

are looking at the number of positions we have. we are not looking to reduce the number of positions in the field we have because we cannot, but we are looking at the headquarters functions, where we can see efficiencies. we are looking at every single aspect. we are looking at what we can do in the laboratory, trying to make sure that everything all sample we take at the expense of the american taxpayer gives us as much information as possible about the safety of that food, and a lot of what we are doing with the food safety, we are aligning scheduling what people are expecting with what is coming in from the fields. i would say we are looking at every single opportunity to fight the efficiencies, anticipating that budget times will be difficult going forward, and we will have to see what happens from there. >> we have time for two more questions. >> tony. good morning, doctor. >> good morning, tony.

>> i also like to sit up front in church. >> i am glad to hear that. >> the question i have, last night, the agency released a revised press release from september 11. it is the second cargill recall. a specific type of salmonella, heidelberg. along with the antibiotics that are resistant to treating that particular strain of salmonella. is that going to be an ongoing practice by the agency? and did that information gets out to the medical community? >> whether it is going to be an ongoing president, i do not know. whenever we have a public health alert, and we get additional information in after that goes out, we do generally update them, but i would not say it is in its policy. if we find out new information

and distribution or other states that may be involved or something like that. it is really important to get as much information out in the first place as we can, but in that case, it is correcting it for the record. going out to the medical community, when we do our press releases, we have an enormous network of recipients, and all of those include the major professional organizations, medical organizations, and also the public health department at the state and local level. i do not know that we have found a way to access each and every physician in the united states to make sure they get that information, but we have certainly added those groups to our recall notification to make sure the public health community get that as well as the textbook positions. >> hello, mary clare with associated press. i'm going to try to get something in here under the wire.

there might be some upcoming elaboration, if you can elaborate on that. and second, there is a big outbreak in cantaloupe right now. just because the issue of listeria is in the news, and a lot of people do not know much about listeria, if you can talk about what you guys have done about listeria over the last decade. the last out to brit was a listeria of fruit and hot dogs. >> thanks for your questions, mary claire. it is good to finally see you in person. i am not going to commit to any specific thing right now, but i will tell you that there is the medium term and for a long-term items that we need to be looking at. the very first thing that we do is a recall. we make sure that no more products are going out and that products are coming back. that is the first step always take in these situations to prevent more people from getting sick.

we have an intensive investigation team, a multi disciplinary team that includes microbiologists, enforcement people, field office people, looking really at every single piece of data, every single part of the operations to see if we can find out what happened at that particular plant, and our next step is to look at whether any of the practices might be a general rise of all -- general izable and if there are more steps to take. you will hear more from us, but there are some short-term and some long-term things to engage in. second, the listeria, forgive me a. i do not remember the year that the final rule was published, but the agency took a different approach to listeria with the publication of the final rule in the early 2000.

i will trust tony on this one. 2003. we set up risk-based sampling and a risk-based approach to things depending on what kind of interventions -- interventions people putting in place. some large as the operations they have in place and try to demonstrate listeria control that way. some companies go a number of steps further and apply a couple of steps in the production environment and then an anti- microbial that gets added before the package is packaged up. this is a different approach. we sample the company's according to the type of risk group we feel they fall into, and we have a lot of collaboration with industry. we have a lot of collaboration with stakeholders from elsewhere, consumer groups, and people on the hill, and i think that was a success. this was before i got there, but

i will go ahead and say we. i think we involved all of the people who would be impacted by this, and that was a world that was headed for success. we have seen just a tremendous decrease of contamination and product that we regulate over the years. we are now at well under half of 1% in terms of contamination rates, and that is pretty significant. with listeria, it is not so much that there are so many illnesses. most people who did it do not know that they have it. most have a mild gastrointestinal illness, but those who are most susceptible, including pregnant women and the elderly, they can get really sick, and the mortality rate is very, very significant, so a lot of people ask why we have similar policies on something that only kills 1500 or 69 jews per year, and that is because you have a chance of dying if

you're in a specific risk group. we believe this remains very, very important. we continue to look at risk factors. when we learn something about the prepackaged items and what we see at retail, ok, what can we do? what are the next steps we can to get retail? what are the best practices for that sector of the industry? >> thank you all for coming. we really appreciate your being here. thank you, doctor. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> tonight on c-span, watched two presidential candidates on the campaign trail. at 8:00, we begin with the first lady of texas and wife of representative -- governor rick perry.

>> some people may be more polished in their presentation. there was something last week where i was sitting on my hands, biting my nails, and wiggling my feet. no, i think we have got a debater in chief right now. i am not looking for a debater in chief. i am looking for a commander in chief who will do the right thing to get our country back on the right track and working again. [applause] >> then, the wife of mitt romney. >> and right now, what i can do is be out there representing my husband's and giving people an opportunity to recognize that we need a person in the white house with leadership skills that is going to change the course of direction that our country is headed in, and i am willing to do that. >> and later, presidential

candidate michele bachmann has a speech from the university. tonight, on c-span. >> new york city mayor michael bloomberg today said the u.s. has become a, quote, "the laughingstock of the world," because of policies that force highly skilled immigrants to leave the country. he talked about american competitiveness, hosted by the chamber commerce. this is about 45 minutes. >> it is often said in washington that our next speaker needs no introduction, but i need to introduce myself. i am the senior vice president here, and i have been doing immigration for about 13 years, remarkably unsuccessful in getting something from the goal post, but we keep working away, and that is what this field is all about. truly, the next speaker needs nothing in an introduction. michael bloomberg.

his biography is too expensive, and the mayor has squeezed us into a tight schedule already. mr. mayor, it may have been several years ago when you're testifying in philadelphia, and i am not sure what we were working on, mccain-kennedy, something or other, what version, the arlen specter bill, but listening to your testimony at that field hearing, i just have to say that with people like you getting engaged, this was awhile ago, i thought we had success of getting something done eventually. over the years, we did lose the senate floor, but you formed a partnership, and we are working with you on that. if you want to see an impressive list of members of the coalition, all i want to address the website to www.renewoureconomy.org. there are mayors across the

country. we are working together. these are the kinds of things i think we did not have eight or nine years ago which really helped form the grass roots that we need, if we ever eventually are going to get a bill done. today is focused on high skilled immigration. the other will be a subject of our next panel. thank you for coming. i very much appreciated and afford to your remarks. [applause] >> i do not know if it has been a rough morning here. i spend a lot of time sitting on the tarmac at laguardia. we started out early, thinking we would have no problems with the weber, and then we kept getting delays, delays, delays, and we kept looking at the map, but the faa knows better. thank you for having me. it is good to be here. i love the chamber of commerce and used to be a member.

tom donahue cost me a lot of money. it was not the gifts to support the chamber, because i think they have always done a great job and money that is well spent -- kate, and good to see you. how is your spanish? we share a spanish tutor. when i left, i was given a beautiful porcelain eagle. the trouble is, i was already the mayor. mayor cannot keep dips. so i liked it so much that i went to the company that made it and bought one to take home. without having to spend that money, i would have had a lot more money. my girlfriend could have had a better wardrobe, my kids. i am sure my remarks will not run too long tonight for those in need to do not know it is the beginning of rosh hashanah, so i have to wrap this up before

sundown. [laughter] this is the jewish year 5772, which is ironic because 5772 a d is when some people say we are going to have a bipartisan budget agreement. you have to use the map to get there, but it is tough but this hour of the morning. certainly, three septembers ago as the global meltdown continued, our nation faced really the prospect of economic collapse, and thankfully congress and the ben bush administration acted quickly and decisively to shore up the financial industry, and i have always thought that hank paulson, bob steele, ben bernanke, tim geithner, they really saved this country, and we owe them a great debt of gratitude. people say we should not have done tarp. those people just to not understand what had happened to our country and that there would

have been a meltdown that would have damaged our economy for many years into the future. but in the two years that followed, congress did pass, and president obama signed, a stimulus package. they rescued the automotive industry from bankruptcy. the past financial reform legislation, and they did extend the bush era tax cuts, and i do know we all have different opinions of those actions, and i would bet that a lot of you like me think that some were more helpful than others, but as we approach the end of 2011, two things are really very clear. first, the american economy remains in very serious trouble, with more and more concerned that we are headed into a double-dip recession, and, second, i think it is fair to say more of the same just is not going to do the trick to keep us of that. whatever you may think of the president's job plan, and i give

him credit for at least putting forward a concrete agenda. it is easy to talk, but i have always said, "ok, what would you do?" and the president has said what he would do. he has put forth some things that whether you agree with them or not are concrete. i think we cannot spend our way out of this crisis. nor can we cut our way out. without doing both. we need to carve our way out, and with that, we need a new approach, and that is why i am here today. we really need an approach that allows businesses to grow, that expands markets overseas, the spurs innovation, that increases the number of entrepreneurs that start businesses here, and that creates opportunity for every wrong of the latter. what if i can tell me there is a way we can do all of these things at no cost to the taxpayers? not one penny i think at ito to that in the process, we could

raise revenue and use either that revenue to pay for tax cuts or to pay for essential services like national defense, i suspect all of you would say, "great. what are we waiting for?" and i think that is the question we are here looking for the answer to. we can do it in a way that both parties can support, if we have an open and honest conversation about immigration reform based on economics rather than anything else. right now, the two parties come to the extent they talk about it at all, they play to their base. democrats say we need comprehensive reform. i agree with that. republicans say we need to tighten the border. i agree with that. that is where the conversation ends. if we can get both sides to talk to each other instead of past each other, i think we can see a lot more agreement rather

than disagreement, and we can do more to strengthen the economy than anything that is being discussed in washington today, and that is why we are here today, to talk about a middle ground and how both parties can seize upon it. we all know our partnership for a new american economy, an organization that we formed a business leaders and mayors from across the country, there is an emerging consensus on how to tackle immigration reform, and it boils down to a saying that once again will define a presidential election. "it is the economy, stupid." at the two parties are involved in a standoff on how to create jobs, immigration reform based on our economic needs offers a unique opportunity, i think, to the both of them. it does not require either party to walk away from their position on taxes and spending. instead, they can reduce

legislation consistent with their principles that reflects sound economics, that will put thousands of americans back to work, and that would be popular with the voters back home, and today, i would like to talk to you about four ideas that i think should form the basis of the legislation. there is not a panacea. there is no such thing. but there no doubt are ways to strengthen our economy and create the jobs our country needs. first, both democratic and republican business leaders and mares agree that harvey's the distribution should be better aligned with our economic needs. every year, we admit more than 1 million more new permanent residents, but 85% of the visas we hand out are for those seeking family reunification or refuge from harm, while only 15% of the uses are given for economic reasons, and the real number is probably something like 7%, because many bring their spouses and children.

there is no doubt that family reunification in humanitarian relief are vitally important. they reflect the values that have long sustained our country, but immigrants have done even more than shape our culture. they have built our economy, and we need them to help continuing to build it particularly at this point in our history. allocating only 15% of these is based on economics is just terrible public policy, and it really is holding our economy back. in today's global marketplace, we cannot afford to keep turning those away with skills that our country needs to grow and succeed. it is sabotaging our economy. i have called the national suicide, and i think it really is, and that is what i think we should dramatically expand the number of green cards available for the best of the best, the highest skilled workers we need to join the u.s. economy permanently. these high skilled workers will not only help create thousands

of jobs, they will also give us knowledge of foreign markets that will help u.s. businesses increased their exports. one study found that a 1% increase of immigrants working in managerial and professional jobs leads to a 3% increase in u.s. exports to their home countries, and you can just take the example of caterpillar, the company famous for its bulldozers and every other heavy equipment. much of their sales are international, but to design the bulldozer that we sell in china, caterpillar has to know how the chinese approach construction and infrastructure, and having a few chinese engineers in senior positions goes a long way towards the filling that need and making sure the products are saleable overseas and competitive. the second idea that both democratic and republican business leaders and mares agree on is that foreign students who are earning advanced degrees in technical fields from our

universities should be eligible to be worked here permanently. two-thirds of those who earn a computer science or engineering ph.d. from a u.s. institution, 2/3. these are the individuals who make the discoveries and innovations that propelled businesses and create jobs for americans, and they are already here on our soil, but when they graduate, our immigration system has no permanent path designed for them. after a brief grace period to stay and work, our laws allow them cumbersome, temporary visas and a long, uncertain path to a green card, limited by a tangle of restricted rules and quotas. now, turning these students out of the country is, to put it bluntly, about the dumbest thing we can possibly do. other countries are bending over backwards to attract these students, and we are helping them to do it.

we have become a laughingstock of the world with this policy. the fact is there is no such thing as too many engineers, too many scientists, or too many technological innovators. we need all of them in this country. those that earn degrees in science, technology, engineering, or mavs, what has come to be known as the stem fields, "s-t-e-m" fields, let's offer them green cards, and let's convince them to stay, because that is not a foregone conclusion either. we are in competition with the rest of the world for the best and brightest. we have to make sure that them and their families want to stay here. the truth of the matter is, there are lots of alternatives for people in this day and age. in the third key ideas that they agree on a mostly is that we

should stop turning away so many entrepreneurs who want to come here and start businesses. these businesses will hire american workers, and immigrants are more than twice as likely as those born in america to start a new company, and a research study shows that u.s. job creation in the last 30 years is entirely attributable to start up companies. one-quarter of u.s. engineering and technology companies started during the.com boom have a foreign-born founder. 40% of all venture backed high- tech company's success will not to conduct a public stock offering had an immigrant. and out of the fortune 500, including many longstanding giants of american business, more than 40% were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants, but as with foreign students, our immigration system has no path for foreign

entrepreneurs, even if they have a great business idea that has already attracted investors, so these entrepreneurs are finding other countries that are smart enough to take them and their new businesses, and to double the pain, u.s. capital, capital that could have created economic growth, it disappears overseas with them. let me tell you the story of just one entrepreneur who wanted to grow in the united states. it is about a canadian named e-e-p."ep, "d-d he found success with an on-line quiz program that quickly attracted more than 1 million users and also attracted the interest of u.s. investors. they wanted him to sell the program, but he could not get a visa to stay in the united states, and his ability to build the company, a company that could have created u.s. jobs,

got him nowhere with our immigration system, so his investors gave up. the opportunity past, and he went home to canada. it is no surprise what happened with his next idea. he and two other canadians had creative ideas for a business selling video games to play on smartphones. he was able to convince u.s. investors to get on board, but this time, his partners had chosen to grow their company in vancouver, canada, where they have less trouble getting visas for their employees, and, of course, over the border to canada when u.s. capitol and the jobs that could have been created in the united states. this is just craziness, but we can stop it, by offering a conditional visa to immigrants who have capital to back their business interests. it's a new company correct -- creates jobs, the entrepreneur would receive a green card to

stay and grow the business into the future. america already has some of the most enterprising individuals on earth, but entrepreneurs are like a ph.d. in computer science. you just cannot have enough of them, particularly when we have an enormous amount of people unemployed in this country. people say, why bring more immigrants into this country when you have more unemployed? because that is the solution to the unemployment problem in this country, more jobs being created by more businesses. fourth and finally, both democratic and other leaders agree that we should expand and streamline our existing tools for attracting talent to our country. temporary visas like the h-1b program help fill critical gaps in our work force, but the numbers are too few, and the filing process to go long and unpredictable. in many years, the visas have been exhausted in your days, and even in the midst of the recession, the visas have run

out before the end of the year for which they are authorized, and this leads to critical shortfalls not only in the software industry but in engineering, electronics, pharmaceuticals, and aerospace. this is just absurd to deny american companies access to the workers they need. the government does not know how many skilled worker at -- skilled workers are needed each year. only the market does, so let the markets work, and you can do that by eliminating the cap on h-1b is this. another arbitrator that we should eliminate at the same time is the one that limits green cards by country. right now, iceland it's the same quota as india. it just makes no sense. i have nothing against iceland, but just think about where the next engineers and entrepreneurs are going to come from. we will get some from iceland, and we would love to have them come here, but just because of size, you are much more likely

to get an awful lot from india. this just makes no sense. why should we care what country a skilled immigrant comes from? this means that high skilled employees can face a wait of up to 10 years for a green card, and during that time, they are prohibited from getting a promotion or taking a new job. no wonder why many return home, and that is a loss not just for american companies that invest in them but for our entire economy, because they return home to help our competitors, these other countries. it is sort of like -- think about it this way. the yankees sending cc sabathia home to pitch for the giants. by the way, in case anyone is interesting and anyone here from san francisco, it is not going to happen [laughter] and the yankees will go all of the way to win the world series,

just so you know. i did not want to take out all of the anticipation and worry. to help the u.s. economy and the american worker. each would create more jobs, and if we do not take them, we will be not only undermining our economy by putting our nation's future at risk. just look at what other countries are doing to attract the people we are turning away. in china, the government offers tax breaks, cheap loans, and startup capital to chinese citizens who are educated overseas and to return to start a business. china has also launched what it calls the thousand talents program, a campaign to lure them back. the government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in israel in the program to attract thousands of israeli expatriates', particularly researchers and doctors, by offering them tax rates, free

tuition for further education, and other. in chile, they are looking for those of any background, and the founders of new technology companies there get startup capital, free star, reduced red tape, and access to mentors, and many of our competitors from canada and the u.k., australia and new zealand, have programs designed to attract entrepreneurs who come to create jobs. all of these countries know that smarten visa policies alone cannot guarantee that their economies will be successful or it will be successfully weathering any economic storm. but they do know they will not stay competitive unless they can attract top talent from around the world, and that certainly includes the united states. now, with too few jobs to go around today, as i said before, why should we have these people

compete for slot that would go to u.s. workers? i just want to repeat. as the data clearly shows, immigrants do not take away jobs, they make jobs, and that is especially true for high skilled immigrants. a study has shown that for every h-1b position, u.s. technology companies increased their employment by five workers, and it is not that the u.s. work force does not have many extraordinary individuals, but the global economy is changing everything. people and resources are moving more freely than ever before. offices and factories can increasingly do the same work anywhere, and information technology is creating unprecedented cross border opportunities, and as a result, america is no longer the crossroads for enterprise and innovation. countries from asia to south america and now back an opportunity, so the united states simply has to compete

like never before for talent. that is a competition we can win if we work at it, and we must win if we're going to remain the world's strongest economy and a beacon of hope for people around the world. america has always been that begin. exactly one month from today, new york city and the entire country will mark the 125th anniversary of america's greatest monument, the statue of liberty. since 1886, the torch of lady liberty has brought light to the darkest corners of the earth, beckoning to our shores all of those both yearning to breathe free, and yet, it is not lady liberty's torch or her broken chains that have inspired such bob. it is her location. the power of her symbolize and the reality of new york city as a gateway, the golden door to the land of opportunity that is the united states of america.

that reality is our history, but it also must be our future. and yet, today, we are saying to those who dream of becoming americans, who dream of coming here to start businesses, tippet we do not need you. we do not need your sweats or your skills. we do not mean your ideas or your innovations." but nothing, nothing could be further than the truth. we desperately need immigrants who want to come here to work, who have the skills are companies need to succeed. the american dream cannot survive if we keep telling the dreamers to go elsewhere. today, we may have turned away the next albert einstein or levi strauss or oscar the la renta or sergie brin.

a desire to worked and worked and worked and worked, to build a better life for themselves and their families. in washington, the debate will not be ending anytime soon on how to create jobs, and in all likelihood, the gridlock will not be broken unless the two parties find ways to align their political interests. that is hard to do when each has staked out such entrenched positions, but immigration reform offers both parties a chance to champion the cause that is vitally important to american companies. it offers both parties a chance to show entrepreneurs and business leaders that they understand the need of the american economy, and it offers both parties a chance to show the american people that when it comes to immigration more form, they are in favor of policies that will help american workers and help our country get moving again. this is a chance we cannot afford to miss, and it is up to

us, all of us, to seize that chance, so thank you, and let's get together and make this happen. your future, your children, your grandchildren's future depends on us getting this done, and i cannot urge you enough to call your congressman or congresswoman, call your senator and say we just have to have this. enough with the posturing. this is a time for a political campaign, but there is also to save america. i have been working with my senators in new york, particularly chuck schumer, who understands the issue, i think, and i think there are many others, lindsey graham, and others, the understand, but you have to call your senator, your congressperson and say that this is something that just cannot be consumed by partisan politics. it is not something that can wait for the next election. this is about keeping america

the superpower, the greatest country in the world, the place where our ancestors came, and where our future has to come. thank you very much. [applause] i will take a couple of questions on topics as anybody has any. i would be happy to do that, and any questions from anybody? i do not seem to -- yes, sir. yes, sure. just tell everybody who you are. >> mr. mayor, it is really great to hear from you, and welcome to d.c. a couple of questions about what you have said. this is a great program that you have laid out. there are publications, and it is an interesting platform. what are you doing in new york city to encourage immigrants to come to new york city and to make it easy for them to do

that, and what would you recommend to other levels of government in prosecuting this change? >> britney answer the questions slightly differently, and i will come back if it is not adequate. i was asked on television two months ago, what do you do about the big industrial cities that have lost their industry and have hollowed out? they have schools would mdc its. they have housing that nobody is living in. they have roads without cars. and i said what you have to do, because given the political reality and economics the way it works and the world situation today, you offer visas to people to come to america. you assign them to a city. the deal is they have to live there for seven years. they have to agree to take no federal, state, or city subsidies whatsoever, but if they stay there for seven years,

you give them and their family full citizenship. now, let me tell you what happens. america, with all of our problems, and we will ourselves much too much. we do a lot more right in this country than we do wrong. america is that place where people yearning to be free one to come. the place where people want to practice their religion and say what they want to say and practice their destiny and live their kids in a place where they will be able to prosper going forward. you would feel that city, each of those cities overnight. the people that attract would buy those houses or fix them up with their hands. they would go to those public schools, and they would demand public schools, because people who come to this country understand that education really is the key. they create businesses, because they will have to do something to support themselves, and if they had to drive halfway across the country and take two jobs,

they would. that is the immigrant ethic, no matter where they come from, and that is a way that i think it's politically viable because it does not cost us any money. nobody can argue that they are coming here to scam the system more be supported by others. you know there are going to create business because otherwise they are going to starve to death and maybe take jobs that nobody else wants. someone could say to me, "mayor, you do not understand, we do not have enough jobs in that city." yes, he is never going to have enough jobs unless you get somebody to go there and create those jobs, and the truth of the matter is if americans were going to do that, they would have done it. you see the cities where the basic gold mining industries have left, and nobody is moving in. you have to find something new. you cannot sit back and say "god will provide peer " god helps those who help themselves.

this replaces the old-line industries. it is called tourism. we are going drafted a million tourists in new york city, and they create jobs, a ticker tape for entry-level people, people who do not have a great command of the english language or perhaps do not have a formal education, certainly not a high school diploma or more, people know may have problems in their background and would not go through a traditional hiring process, so to some extent, we have made up for this. we still have so many people unemployed. we are creating small businesses, which i really think is the solution to the country's unemployment problem, because big countries can use this to do more with less. we would like them to pay a lot of money and pay a lot of taxes. that is what supports our country and build your ira or pension system, but we also need those that are labour intensive and that are hiring people, and those are the ones

that are small and that are not automated, where you do more with more, and that is our problem today, to create. we have also tried to attract different industries. new york is the fashion capital of the world. we have double the number of fashion houses and in paris. we have i.t.. googled just bought a building filled with these people. all of these companies are expanding their businesses in new york. biotechnology. we work hard to bring film and television back to new york city. it started to new york city, went to california, came back to new york city, went to toronto. that news for you, if you want to have a movie, all of our sound stages are busy. but we have new pilots, six comedians -- sitcoms so we have

tried to attract businesses where new york has an advantage in terms of intellectual capital and the diversity of our population, and that is the other key, i think. america is a country that is built on immigration, built on the diversity, and the more different people you have from different parts of the world, number one, you'll have more choices when you want to go out to dinner, folks, which is great, you will have more choices of where to go to pray, you will have more choices of people to talk to, but you also have much more divorce business opportunities, because people come and recognize opportunities from their homeland or get a brilliant idea and go and create it there, said new york's strength has been the diversity of its population and the fact that we live as a mixture rather than a mosaic, which is different than other big, diverse cities, but the answer your question comes back to immigration. other questions? yes, sir.

please take a microphone. >> i am paul. first, baltimore has just done what you were just describing. the green cards. they have breast a half century decline under the governor. most of the talk over the past several years has been about comprehensive immigration reform, which is never managed to pass. most of us were talking in terms of steppingstones, small pieces of legislation that can do some good that can get past. i wonder in particular what you think about the chairman smith, who has talked about the fact that he thinks a meristem bill could pass this year. now, it would not do lots of other things. it would not, for example, include the h-1b, but it would provide green cards to roughly 50,000 highly trained workers

and make permanent residents about them. is that the kind of thing you think we should do? >> anything you do to have more people come here and stay here is a good thing. comprehensive immigration reform may very well be the desired goal for a lot of people, like it happens to be for me, but not for everybody. but i think some of the problem is being addressed. the number of undocumented in our country, which is very hard to count, but it has got to be dramatically lower than it was a few years ago, and you can see it. the number of people trying to cross the mexican-american or american-canadian border has gone down precipitously. why is that? because the economy in canada and the in condi -- and the commodity -- economy in mexico is better. bomb rda, they are planning to open their new plant in mexico. -- bob rda -- bombardier.

every statistic shows that. a lot of them have gone back because they cannot get jobs here, but there are jobs back for more ever they came from. to some extent, the issue of what do you do with 11 million undocumented is fixing itself. it is also true, incidentally, that the number of undocumented, and they are here, yes, they broke the law, but they broke the law because we as a country wanted them here, and we wanted to have it both ways, so we passed the immigration reform to say it was illegal, and then we helped them, and did not enforce the law, so we are complicit and that, as well, but to jeopardize our economy based on what happens in the past is just about as stupid as i can think of.

it is hard to explain that to my children. we are sacrificing someone's ability to get a job in the future because of whatever you think happens in the past. it is just nonsensical. we have too much in this country on blaming. we are looking back, for example, on the mortgage crisis. who caused the mortgage crisis? number one, it was not the banks. it was any and freddie and the congress that did more damage than anyone else, but so what to cause the mortgage crisis? the problem we have is helping people keep their homes and pay their mortgages antigone mortgages and to build new houses. you go around the world, and you talk to your friends elsewhere, and they just cannot conceive. "are you doing what you are doing?" comprehensive immigration reform may be the desired thing, but regardless, we have a problem now, and the problem now is that americans do not have jobs, and our tax base is not

growing the way you would want it to so that we can reduce rates or have more services or any combination there, and all we are doing is trying to blame somebody in the past, and incidentally, the people we are blaming, we are wrong on who we are bringing. yes, sir? wait until we get a microphone. >> one of the topics in mentioned was entrepreneurship and encouraging people to start small businesses. having just graduated from business school, i see that most people going to business schools around the country and of getting bored away, even those with good ideas are starting businesses, and the end of joining big companies are mostly financial services because of the financial stability, and they just do not want to take the risk and get stuck there and do not end up starting small businesses. what do you think the government's role should be encouraging people who are starting businesses but do not

want to. >> you can encourage small- business group with tax policy. i think one of the things that we'll talk about is the tax rate and the tax breaks and gimmicks and whenever. keep in mind, some of those, not all, but some of those are there to encourage certain kinds of economic activity, and before you willy-nilly go and get rid of some of them, let's understand what they do. if i want you to drill for oil over there, giving you an incentive may be in the country's interest. a tax break for oil drillers, but we want the oil, or we want somebody to go and build houses, and there are arguments as to whether the mortgage deduction really does encourage housing. canada, mortgage interest is not deductible, they have the same percentage of homeownership, so even those kinds of things he can question. i think the first thing is you are wrong. they are not going to financial-

services. why? financial services are cutting back. every day there is a news story in the paper with thousands of jobs, thousands of people being laid off, so financial-services are not where people are going directly out of business school today, but let me tell you, when i went to business school, it was small, boutique investing firms and the consulting firms, and these go through cycles. for a young person to get out of school and go start a business, in some cases, it is very hard. they had to borrow. i certainly did come to go through college and to business school. some want to build a nest egg or gets a more experience before they go, but some go start businesses. i know people who have dropped out of college or never went to college and started businesses. bill gates is the one everybody holds up, but there are lots of people that just said, "this ain't for me," said you can go

and do that, and it does not have to be a business that grows -- i was not smart enough to get out of business school and go start a company. the only reason i did is because i got fired, and nobody would hire me. i did not have any choice. yes, sir? you want to end this? yes. >> the unions continue to argue about the recruitment of immigrants driven by the desire to undercut the wages of americans. they even argue that with regard to the h-1b program. do you think this is just a disagreement over statistics, or is there something else driving that position? we have been at the other side of the bargaining table with them on this issue, and it is sometimes hard to decipher what is going on. >> somebody who is going to start a company, a top-level science, engineering, it is hard to argue they take jobs. they create products that people

then manufacture and service, and that is where the unions tend to be, in manufacturing and service, as opposed to the creative end, not totally, but largely. what is true in this country is farmers are moving out of the country. they just cannot get anybody to pick the crops. now, there is an argument the union would make that if you raise the compensation, you would be able to attract people. the problem is, your produce would cost so much that nobody would buy it, and there would be plenty of alternatives for people to buy produce grown and packaged elsewhere, and even in that industry, there is an awful lot of evidence that you have unionized truck drivers and unionized people in stores that sell products it products get there, but most people in america just are not going to work a backbreaking job, a low- paying job, which is all the market will support, of picking crops, some temporary workers

that come here for three or four months, if we cannot get them, the farmer cannot pick his crops and does not grow the crops, and unions typically would want jobs that last all year long. i think they would tell me that would not be satisfactory to have a three-month or six-month job, but that is, in fact, what the farmers need, and if they do not, they will move their jobs south of the border or elsewhere is. you can it produce from around the world. i think what you have to do is you have to work with the unions to understand where they are coming from, and they are trying to protect their members, and there is nothing wrong with that, but there are plenty of statistics to show and plenty of places where you can work with the unions, just as republicans and democrats have to work together to find, in particular, industries where the immigrants would create jobs for their members. that is the way you get them on board.

this really is crucial to america. i hope that behind-the-scenes there are plenty of people in congress working, because they must be getting pressure from farmers and cannot pick their crops, from companies they solicit for political donations to cannot keep growing here and who are expanding overseas, and they have got to be reading the newspapers just like everybody else. we live in a global, competitive, technological world, and nobody is going to put that genie back, so coming together and doing what is right for the country. if they do not, the voters will hold them responsible. people always say that if you do not vote, the voters will hold a responsible, but there is an awful lot of unemployed in this country and a lot of people who worry about becoming unemployed, and maybe this one does have the legs and the power at the

polling booth. there is enough blame in washington to go around. there are no real winners and the kind of chaos and paralysis. this is something where everybody can stand up and do something for america, and, yes, there are going to be a couple of people that demagogue against them, but if you stand up and say, "i created jobs in my city, in my district," maybe this is finally the time they will do something. thank you for having me on. [applause] >> our "road to the white house" coverage starts since, and we will begin with anita perry, then ann romney and at a luncheon in new hampshire, and also this evening, presidential

candidate michele bachmann from liberty university in lynchburg, virginia. that it to be called the 20 person to contact with america. housext up, today's white briefing with jau carney. relations with pakistan and the situation between asia and the palestinians. this is one hour. >> okay. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thanks for being here today for the daily briefing. it has been a while. just returned from the west coast and colorado. spectacular weather. i think -- ed, you were out

there, right? wonderful. i don't have any announcements to make at the top, so we'll go straight to questions. jim. >> thank you, jay. on jobs, now that congress has put the fight over fema behind it, there still doesn't seem to be a sense of urgency in the senate, that they'd take the bill up. but the president has been demanding, take the bill up now, send it to me. is it a bit disingenuous to suggest that republicans are the obstacle when democrats control the senate and that's where it seems to be being put on a backburner? >> jim, we are extremely confident that the senate will take up the american jobs act. the majority leader has said the senate would take it up. and as you point out, there has been business that the senate had to get done in september because of the fiscal year constraints, and that included not just fema funding but the cr in general, surface transportation extension, faa extension. i mean, these were things that had to get done, in many cases, to prevent either people being thrown off the job and added to the unemployment rolls or to ensure that the government continued to be funded and disaster relief continued to be in place.

the senate will move. democratic support in the senate and the house and across the country is very broad for the american jobs act. and the president will keep up the pressure, because what we have yet to hear from republicans is, are they going to support all the elements of this bill? and if not, why not? if they're against modernizing schools, for example, they should say so, and they should say why. if they're against hiring teachers back, putting them in classrooms to educate our children, they should say why.

it's certainly not because the bill isn't paid for. the bill, as you know, is paid for. there is no higher priority right now for the american people or for this president than to take measures to grow the economy and put people back to work. so you'll continue to hear from the president about the urgent need to take this up. we're confident the senate will do that. we hope the house will follow. and we hope that congress will take action on america's number- one priority. >> in his interview with bet television, the president said that he expected some of these elements in the package would pass through congress. why not focus on those that he thinks could pass and create more of a cooperative situation rather than the confrontational situation that he's creating? >> the american jobs act is comprised entirely of ideas that have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. the president believes very strongly that the entire bill should be passed, every element should be passed.

and as we've said in the past, if at some stage one piece of it or several pieces of it were voted on and passed and sent to his desk, he would sign them and say, send me the rest, because they're all extremely merited and they're all very needed by this economy right now. i don't think, as a matter of approaching this, that the president is going to take items off the table, precisely because there are no controversial elements here. there is nothing here that is anything but entirely mainstream, anything but in keeping with what economists on the outside say would help grow the economy, would help create jobs, and obviously the entire thing is paid for. so we're going to push the whole bill. and if it comes to us in pieces, we'll keep demanding the rest as it comes.

>> can i ask you one question on eurozone? on monday the president said that the european debt crisis was "scaring the world." and he said that the european nations haven't been as quick as they need to be to address it. is the president frustrated right now? in fact, even today, divisions within the european community as to how to respond -- whether to expand the bailout fund in any fashion -- the markets seem to be reacting to that even as we speak. >> the markets, as you know, fluctuate. they go up, they go down. so i'm not going to address that with relation -- in relation to anything that might be happening in europe. we have made clear, the president has made clear that we believe europeans have the capacity, the financial wherewithal, to deal with this

problem. and we have been urging them at the presidential level, at the ministerial level through secretary geithner, and at other levels to take forceful and direct action to handle it. action is being taken. we continue to have those conversations and make the points that i just made -- that europe needs to address this and we believe they have the capacity to do it, and the political will to do it. so we continue to have those conversations. it's certainly a matter of concern, as the president made clear. it's an interconnected, global economy and this situation has clearly caused a headwind to develop for many -- several months now for the overall global economy and, in particular, the american economy.

so we take it seriously, and that's why we've maintained the kind of communications we have. yes. >> questions about pakistan. what's your response to charges that admiral mullen overstated when he said the haqqani group was a virtual arm of the pakistani intelligence service? and also, now that the u.s. has openly demanded that the pakistani government and intelligence sever their links with the haqqani network, what, if any, consequence will there be if they don't comply, and how much time are you going to give them to take some action -- give the pakistanis to take some action? >> well the administration's view, as i've said and others have said, is that the continuing safe havens that the haqqani network enjoys in pakistan and the links between the pakistani military and the haqqani network are troubling. and we want action taken against them. and that is a conversation we have had with the pakistani government for a long time, not just in recent days and weeks. it is also true that our cooperation with pakistan has been extremely important, and

that pakistan has been very helpful to the united states in our fight against al qaeda in particular. but they do need to take action against the haqqani network, to deprive the network of the safe havens that it has in pakistan. as for hypotheticals about what action we may or may not take in the future, i don't want to get into that. as i said yesterday on air force one, we are reviewing aid. as a matter of course, we review our aid programs. but we are engaged in the kinds of consultations with our pakistani counterparts that you would expect, and that have been ongoing for quite some time. >> by when? by when? or no timeline, or -- >> i wouldn't want to speculate

about if something does or doesn't happen then something else may or may not happen. that's a level of speculation i don't want to engage in right now. but our concerns about this have been clear for a long time, and it is part of what we characterize, i think quite candidly, as a complicated relationship, but an important one. because the priority here is our national security interests, the national security interests of the united states, the protection of americans here, and the protection of americans and our allies abroad. and in achieving that overall goal, pakistan has been an important partner. not without complications, but an important partner.

>> and what about the admiral mullen statement, saying that he did -- u.s. officials in the region are saying that he did -- he overstated. >> i think the issue here is that what the admiral said, and others have said, is that we have concerns about the safe havens that -- and the existing links that we're quite candid about, between the pakistani government and the haqqani network. we're in regular contact with our counterparts in pakistan on this issue, and we have urged pakistan to take action against the haqqani network. we believe that that is in their self-interest as well as in our interest to do that. jake. >> just to follow on that -- just to offer some clarity here. is the haqqani network a veritable arm of the isi? yes or no? >> well, it's not language i would use. i think that the fact that there are links between -- that exist between the pakistani government and the haqqani network, the nature of those i think can be assessed and is complicated, but there is no question that they have safe

havens in pakistan -- the network has safe havens in pakistan -- and that pakistan has not taken action to eliminate those safe havens. >> so it's not the position of the obama administration that the haqqani network is a veritable arm of the isi? >> it is the position of the administration that there are links and that pakistan needs to take action to address that -- >> but not farther -- >> and to deal with the fact that there are safe havens for this criminal network that is dangerous for pakistan as well as for the united states and afghanistan. >> right. but admiral mullen went farther than that, and that's -- as far as --

>> i think it's a matter of semantics, and i think that the -- admiral mullen was talking -- >> no, it's not. >> i mean, it's a matter -- you're trying to -- on the language here i think i'm being quite clear about what our position is, which -- and it's a serious one. it's one that we raise with our pakistani counterparts regularly, because it is of such great concern to us. we have said unequivocally that the haqqani network was responsible for the recent attack on the u.s. embassy in kabul and on isaf headquarters in kabul. and the fact that they are able to operate in afghanistan because they have a safe haven in pakistan is a matter of great concern. and we have urged our counterparts in pakistan to take action and raise with them the importance of doing so. >> respectfully, it's not a matter of semantics. it's quite a different thing to say that there's a links -- there are links and one is a veritable arm. i mean, it is -- they're different. but we can move on. >> okay. >> you said earlier that nothing in the jobs bill is controversial.

i assume you're talking about -- you're not talking about the funding for the jobs bill, because obviously the tax increases are controversial. >> well, they are obviously opposed by some who don't believe that we need to make the kinds of choices that are inherent in the bill, which is -- for example, oil and gas companies that have enjoyed enormous subsidies paid for by the american taxpayer that are no longer necessary, in our view, not least because that very industry is making record profits this year. and, again, you don't make these choices in a vacuum. we don't have unlimited resources. so we either -- we have to make a decision, is that subsidy to that industry more important, a better use of american taxpayer

dollars than putting teachers back to work, or giving an extended payroll tax cut to american workers, giving a payroll tax cut to small businesses? these are the kind of choices that have to be made. now, i think as we've said all along, if there are better -- if congress comes up with alternative means in part or in whole to pay for these important provisions, we certainly want to look at them as long as they're fair and balanced, they don't put more onerous burdens on the middle class in order to take action to help the middle class. we think that the balance achieved in this bill reflects the priorities of the middle class, and were designed to give the maximum positive impact to the economy. >> so the tax increases are not controversial, is what you're asserting? >> i don't think they're controversial in our view in terms of the choices that they represent. and i think that the data certainly suggests to me that a majority of americans believe that this is an appropriate approach, a fair approach, and they support it. again, if congress has other ideas about how to fund these important measures, we certainly want to see those, but our standard here is that it has to be fair. it shouldn't -- as we have seen in other attempts at dealing with other issues through congress -- that it can't be,

you know, we're going to pay for this by eliminating medicare as we know it, or we're going to pay for this by slashing education funding by 30 percent. i mean, those are not the priorities that i think the middle class in this country support and certainly not this president. >> and, lastly, i read something in the gaggle yesterday, you criticized the -- or it might have been two days ago -- you criticized the republican presidential candidates i believe for -- there were -- there was a smattering of boos and a smattering of applause at inappropriate times during the previous republican debates. and you were suggesting that the fact that they didn't protest means that they couldn't be commander-in-chief or -- >> no. >> could you explain what you meant? >> i certainly didn't say that. i think i said that i was surprised, i think many people were surprised, that in an instance where a solider serving in ira>> asks a question from ira>> so he is over there in harm's way, risking his life on behalf of every one of us, and he asked a legitimate question

about "don't ask, don't tell" and what these candidates might do because it personally affects him, and there were boos in the audience. putting aside the audience -- it's not about the audience, it's about the fact that there was no response, no one on the stage said, wait a second, regardless of what you believe about this issue, we should thank this soldier, he's over there risking his life for us. and that was my point. and i think that it's an important thing to note when the job that they are auditioning for is the job of commander-in- chief. >> so just to continue -- >> i didn't suggest it was disqualifying. i was simply making an observational point. >> just to continue our conversation from a few weeks ago when you said that the president, who had not heard remarks by jimmy hoffa, jr. , was not responsible for them, you are saying that the republican presidential candidates are responsible for boos -- >> no, no, no, i didn't say that at all.

i was surprised that they did not -- not one of them reacted. i'm not saying they're responsible for it. i'm just making -- as an observer, that -- >> just an impartial juror. >> i didn't say i was impartial. i'm simply making the point that there was an opportunity there to separate an issue that may be controversial -- although we firmly believe that it shouldn't be and isn't, and that's why we eliminated "don't ask, don't tell" -- from the fact that this soldier is serving his country and putting his life in danger for all of us. and that was all. it was an observation, it wasn't a -- i wasn't criticizing the audience members. i was making a point about the absence of a reaction from the candidates. yes. >> right after osama bin laden was killed, current defense secretary leon panetta said obviously at some point he

believes a photograph will be released. but now this administration is asking a court to block the release of any photographs, saying that it would jeopardize citizens in the united states and troops. why is that the position that this administration would take, given that you vow to be the most transparent in history? >> we are the most transparent administration in history, without question. the fact is, there are also legitimate limits to transparency when it comes to risking the lives of american troops overseas, and i think a very sensible decision has been made that the release of those photos would unnecessarily increase the danger that our troops face overseas, and potentially not just overseas. >> clearly your own defense secretary doesn't believe that. >> well, again, i think that this is the administration's position, and that's something the secretary of defense said in the immediate aftermath. this has obviously been evaluated quite closely by the administration, by lawyers, by the national security team, and that is our position.

and i think it's an eminently sensible one, given the potential for causing greater risk to our soldiers overseas. >> following up on the jobs question, yesterday the president said about congress, "it's been two weeks, and what on earth are they waiting for?" but you responded to the first question saying, well, we understand the delay because they had so much else to do. so it would seem that the president is being a little bit cute with his audiences if the administration does understand the delay. so i'm wondering, will he match his rhetoric with any action? will he threaten or say this has to be done by a certain deadline?

>> well, he may. i don't want to predict what he might say before he says it. the point is -- needs to be separated here. this has to be acted on. it is legislation that has to move through congress, and there is a process by which legislation moves through congress. jessica, you know, because you're a veteran at covering these things, that part of the effort here that the president is undertaking is to continue to put pressure on lawmakers to focus on this priority, because the american people are focused on it, and to address it. the timing i addressed with jim about the fact that, understandably, the senate had to deal with some issues that could not wait and that had to do specifically most of them with jobs and the economy, and we know that the senate will take up the american jobs act. i mean, if you're asking me -- if you're -- >> in pieces, though -- we all know it will be in pieces. >> no, no, no, no -- there's a lot of -- >> it will get a vote, it will go down. >> there's a lot of i think questions like -- >> isn't he being cute with his audiences? >> you know, since there's not 100 percent guarantee that this will pass, why did you bother? right? that's not how it works here. >> that's not what the question is. the question is, don't we expect that if it passes, individual pieces of it will pass? and so what he's telling his audiences is, we have to pass this entire bill -- >> yes.

>> but nobody who really covers congress expects that will happen. so -- >> you're talking about expectations grounded in cynicism that has to do with the fact that -- >> or is it reality of washington? >> of the dysfunction in washington. but that doesn't make it acceptable. >> but the reality. >> and we have been candid about the fact that we believe the whole bill should be acted on and passed, in its entirety, unchanged, and sent back to the president. we are also understanding of the fact that this is a process that moves through congress and that it is unlikely to arrive back wholly unchanged and intact. it may come back in pieces. it may come back as a whole with some different elements to it going to funding and that sort of thing. but we're not going to preemptively accept that we're only going to get half, because 100 percent of the bill is merited. so half would be half good

enough for the american people. there is not a single thing in here that isn't beneficial to the economy, beneficial to employment. so we're pushing for the whole thing. we're pushing congress to act. and as i've said, if congress separates out elements of it, passes them, sends them to the president -- again, if they are elements of the bill that he -- that is his bill, and they are paid for in a way that is balanced and acceptable, he will sign them and then say, where's the rest? if it's the tax cuts, he'll say, where's the funding for infrastructure? where's the help to rehire teachers or to give the incentive to small businesses to -- or to businesses to hire veterans returning from ira>> or afghanistan? and he will make that point all the way through. obviously the quickest and best way to do this is to act on the whole thing. but we're clearly understanding of the way that congress works and aren't going to rule out signing pieces of it if that's how it comes. >> one last unrelated question. you had an event at a largely latino school yesterday.

you have a latino event today. is the administration worried about eroding latino support in the face of stalled immigration reform? >> the administration had an event -- the president had an event yesterday at a school because it was representative of the kinds of schools across the country that need renovation, rehabilitation, science labs that aren't older than you and i. and the -- and then that's true for all americans. look, the president has gone out and -- >> overwhelmingly latino. >> maybe yesterday. but the president has gone out in different parts of the country, and will continue to go out all over the country and speak to different audiences about the absolute need to take action on the jobs act. he'll speak to teachers, he'll speak to construction workers, first responders, small business men and women, all of whom have a stake in this bill.

he'll speak to working men and women who get a paycheck, who desperately need the extra $1,500 on average that they'll get from the payroll tax cut that's included in this bill. i think that given the broad support for it, given the many sectors of society it assists, there are many available audiences who want to hear this message and the president will bring it to them. >> if i may -- >> norah, how are you? >> i'm well, thanks. on pakistan, if i may, does the president disagree with the chairman of the joint chiefs, admiral mullen? >> the president -- i'm going to repeat what i said before. the president believes, and it is this administration's policy, that -- and this is reflected in what admiral mullen said -- that there are safe havens in pakistan for the haqqani network, and that is a

problem and a concern. and we have brought our concerns about that fact to the pakistani government on numerous occasions and will continue to do so -- because we believe it's not only in the interest of the security of americans in afghanistan, it's in the interest of pakistan and their citizens that action be taken. we also think it's important to look at this more broadly in terms of the overall relationship that we have with pakistan and the importance of the cooperation that we do receive from pakistan in our fight against al qaeda, and in taking measures to increase stability in the entire region. so -- >> when the chairman delivers remarks before congress, does the national security team review those remarks and improve them? yes or no? >> i would have to check on that in this case.

>> do you know if admiral mullen's remarks were cleared by the white house before he gave them? >> i don't know. the point is, is that what admiral mullen said is consistent with our position about the network's -- the haqqani network in pakistan, about the fact that the haqqani -- >> but you're using a very different language today. you're saying there are links and there are safe havens. what admiral mullen was saying was that the haqqani network is a veritable arm of the isi, that they're collaborating a terrorist network that is attacking americans. so either there are links or they're collaborating. which one is it? >> what we have said and what is our policy is that there are links -- i think that is irrefutable. the fact that pakistan has not taken action against those safe havens allows the haqqani network more freedom to operate, and that results in increasing their capacity to take action against americans in afghanistan.

and that's a matter of great concern, and we bring those issues to the pakistanis and express our concern about them. >> why did you say earlier that those were words that you would not use? why would you say that you would not use the same words as -- >> well, i just -- >> admiral mullen who has been to pakistan 27 times since 2008, has probably the closest relationship of any administration official with general kayani, knows more about pakistan than just about anybody in this administration and spent time with him. why would you say that you would not use the same words as admiral mullen? >> well, admiral mullen testified, and his words are there and they reflect the fact that we have this issue with pakistan over the safe havens provided to the haqqani network within pakistan. i certainly am not here trying to take issue with what he said. i'm simply saying what the position of the united states government is and this administration is about those networks.

and this is a matter of concern for us, and it's why we are quite candid about the fact that it's a concern, but also put it within the context of our broader interests. and i think it's important for everyone to remember that the cooperation that we have had, even within the context of this complicated relationship, has produced very positive results that have improved security for the united states of america and its citizens abroad, soldiers abroad. >> thanks, jay. i just wanted to follow on jake real quick about -- to use your words, then, why was there an absence of a reaction from the president to jimmy hoffa's comments on labor day, if you're now saying the republican presidential candidates basically have a duty --

>> the president wasn't on stage, he wasn't -- he didn't hear them. it's a different thing when the guy is on stage and they were addressing a question to the candidates on stage. >> but the comments were broadcast all around the world, and it was pretty clear that one of the president's top supporters -- >> i'm talking about a real-time thing. again, it's just an observation. >> on solyndra. i understand the white house has pushed back hard on republicans launching attacks and --after the fact, 20/20 hindsight -- saying we shouldn't have done it. but the l.a. times had a story -- >> you mean republicans who solicited on behalf of companies in their states and districts loan guarantees through the program, and in those solicitations talked about the wonderful merits of the program and its job-creating potentials and the importance of the clean energy industry to the future of america and our energy independence? you mean those letters? >> is there a question in there? >> and those same republicans have now come out against the program. >> and as fox reported last week, darrell issa, one of those republicans, did push for clean energy money, even though he's attacked the administration. there. the l.a.times, though, yesterday, reported not after the fact, but in real time, in october of 2010, people inside the white house, democrats --

larry summers, secretary geithner -- said that this loan program has problems, it doesn't have enough oversight. and they wrote him -- at one point, i think it was larry summers wrote a memo to the president saying, this could undermine your clean energy agenda. so my question is -- i understand the back-and-forth with the republicans, but why would people inside this white house who are saying there may be real problems here, why was that ignored? >> well, i think -- just to make clear -- i think the memo you're talking about was authored by a number of people. it was a memo that represented the discussion internally within the administration about this program. and i think it's entirely to be expected that the president's advisors would scrutinize a program like this, and might have differing opinions about it and about how best to achieve the president's goal here, which was to help this vital industry, broadly speaking -- the clean energy, clean technology industry -- take hold and grow in this country so that we can compete effectively with the chinese, the indians and the europeans, the brazilians, in the 21st century.

it would be a remarkable day when on major policy issues there were no debates or disagreements or differences of opinion about how best to approach it. and the result of that process was some actions to improve the program. it's important to remember that solyndra, for example, was the first loan out of this program and that the program has continued and evolved as it's gone on. so, again, going back to the memo, i think it's -- memos are

written all the time that reflect assessments by advisors to the president and others in the administration with their views. >> also important to note that people are not perfect and mistakes are made. has this administration learned anything from the episode that makes you say, we've got to be more careful next time we spend a half a billion dollars? >> first of all, we are constantly reassessing not just this program but others, and making adjustments to make them better, more accountable, more efficient, lower the risk of -- increase their chances of success, lower the risk of failure. as regards this particular loan, as we've made clear, we're not -- we're disappointed that this particular company did not succeed. the nature of this program is to fund companies that might not otherwise get funding. to help that industry grow, there is risk involved. overall, we believe that the investments are vital because we are not content with the idea that we should cede vital industries of the 21st century to our competitors overseas. it's just -- we don't want be buying all this important

technology from the indians, the chinese, the europeans, the brazilians. and i don't think most americans want -- they don't view america as that kind of country. and it's vital to this country's economic growth that we, in effect, take these risks, as previous generations and previous administrations have, to make sure that the united states of america continues to be leading the world in cutting-edge technologies. >> jay, can you talk about or detail the meetings that people in the white house have had with ways and means, with the head of appropriations -- hal rogers, dave camp -- about the jobs program? what is the legislative strategy, the calendar? i understand the senate is delayed but is there some sort of strategy, or is it simply -- >> i don't have a list of meetings to give you, or conversations except that you can be assured -- >> is it real? i mean -- >> yes, it's -- >> i mean, that's what sort of seems to be missing, is that there -- is there actual work going on between the legislative staff and house republicans? >> yes.

yes, definitely. >> what is it? can you tell us some of it? >> again, i can get -- if you want, i can get back to you with more details. i'm pretty sure they'll be rather dull, but the communications that we have with members and staff members on the hill are consistent and -- >> are they being receptive or not receptive? >> yes. look, the -- not least because -- and perhaps almost overwhelmingly entirely because the american jobs act is made up of things that are widely viewed as mainstream and effective, that economists view as the right kinds of measures to take if you want to grow the economy and create jobs, that the bill itself is paid for -- there's broad support for it, certainly among democrats and, we believe, among republicans, based on recent history, for large pieces of it and hopefully all of it. >> do you feel like there's been progress made? i mean, we know that the senate

at least has said they're going to do it sometime in october. is there progress made on when house republicans are going to pick this up? >> well, we certainly hope. i mean, that's obviously a more complicated task. when the president first put forward the proposal, we heard some relatively positive, conciliatory reaction from republicans in the house. there's been a little less of that, although what i haven't heard yet, what i don't think we've heard -- correct me if i'm wrong -- is anyone in leadership, or even in the rank and file, coming out and saying, well, i actually oppose building more roads and repairing bridges. can't do that. i oppose hiring teachers. we shouldn't do that, we should do something else instead. obviously some have taken issue with the way that we pay for this, and we certainly want to hear if there are alternative

ways to pay for it. but we believe it has to happen. and those alternative means have to be reasonable and balanced, and they can't shift the burden -- help the middle class and then harm the middle class in the same action. so you know better than i that there's no higher priority right now. there's nothing on average americans' minds more than the economy, their concerns about the fact that it's not growing fast enough, their concerns that employment isn't increasing fast enough. and this addresses that urgent concern. the president's fiscal plan addresses the medium- and long- term economy. and taken together, they are a comprehensive -- they represent a comprehensive vision about where we need to move this country economically. >> are you guys concerned about the report that says health care premiums surged this year 9 percent? are you concerned that this is

health insurance companies trying to handle the amount of younger folks coming on, dealing with preexisting conditions, and that they're just trying to raise their premiums now to handle the influx of folks? or is there some way you guys are looking at this to see if this is a result that gets fixed in the rest of your health care reform? and what is the administration's reaction? >> nancy-ann deparle, the deputy chief of staff here, wrote a blog post on this i think yesterday which is worth reading. it goes into more detail than i will here about it. one thing i will point out that's important to note about his survey from the kaiser family foundation is that it's essentially backward-looking. and drew altman, the president of the kaiser family foundation, says, "critics of the national health reform law passed in 2010 like to blame everything but the weather on obamacare. but regardless of how you feel about the affordable care act, its effect on premiums this year is modest."

so that's the assessment of the people who did the survey. i would also make clear that -- >> so "modest" implies it had an impact. >> within the context of -- again, you have to look at the fact that a lot of the affordable care act has yet to be implemented. 2014 is more of a target -- >> but this doesn't have to do with trying to bring more people into the insurance umbrella here with the -- >> again, i would just point you to the statement. the increase was large. the effect of the affordable care act was "modest" -- his words, not mine. i also think the author said clearly that this was a look backwards.

and there are other -- mercer, a well-known independent benefits consulting firm, released a surveyed of employers showing that their health insurance cost increases will average 5. 4 percent for 2012, which is the smallest increase -- or would be the smallest since 1997. so there are other -- there's certainly a lot of other evidence that the impact of the affordable care act will actually slow the growth in health care costs, which is obviously one of the goals. additionally, the kaiser survey -- since we're talking about it -- points out that more than 2 million young people have insurance now with -- on their parents' insurance, directly because of the affordable care act -- a piece of the affordable care act that has taken effect already, it's already had this tremendous impact on young people in america, which we obviously think is very positive. laura. >> following up on the first part of chuck's question -- so just to be clear, are you saying that there are ongoing conversations between the white house and house republicans over the legislation and how to get it passed? >> not specifically that i'm aware of with house republicans. we have regular conversations, the legislative team, with congress -- both houses, both parties. i don't know that we've had conversations -- i don't know that we haven't, but i don't -- i'm not aware of any conversations specifically about

the timing of the affordable care act. although, we've made -- i mean, not the affordable care act, the american jobs act. in the house, we've made it abundantly clear that we want congress, both houses, to take it up. we don't set the legislative calendar. we, by focusing attention on this need and proposing the legislation, we try to have an effect on the actions that congress takes and the schedule that it lays out. we're confident that the senate is going to take it up. we hope that because of that, the house will act accordingly. >> so what were you referring to when you said that there were ongoing conversations? i thought that -- his question mentioned the house. i could be wrong about that. what were you referring to? >> i was referring broadly to congress --senate, house. i don't know specifically about conversations that may or may not have taken place with house republicans or house republican staffers. they may have, i can check. but i'm not going to get into this thing where we -- because -- we're going to give a readout of every conversation between somebody in the

legislative affairs office and a staff member on house appropriations about this. but i can tell you that we have conversations with the relevant committees, the relevant leadership, the relevant staff on this very important legislative priority. >> so you're certain that you've had conversations with democrats, but you're not sure whether those conversations are also with republicans? >> i know that there have been conversations with the republicans as well. >> i think what we're just trying to figure out is if there's actually work going -- >> which specific conversation -- >> no, no, not -- >> look, i don't know what -- look, let's step back. >> whether there's actual work going on behind the scenes. >> the president and his team drew up legislation, specific legislation. it is going to be introduced in the senate. it has very specific component parts that others on the outside have judged to have a very positive impact on the economy. we believe the congress needs to take action on it. it's not that complicated. this is not an elaborate piece

of legislation that needs to be picked apart and renegotiated. it's there, congress should act on it. >> and on another issue, does the white house have a position on legislation the senate does plan on taking up next week on china currency manipulation? >> we're reviewing the bill. no, seriously, we are reviewing the bill and we share the goal of achieving further appreciation of china's currency. as you know, and those who -- in the financially oriented press know, the -- china has moved some in terms of appreciating its currency. i believe it's appreciated about 10 percent, adjusted for inflation, since june of 2010. but it's substantially undervalued, and we need to see continued progress, and we've made that clear publicly and privately. >> but you're not sure whether you're going to support this?

>> we're reviewing the bill. >> and do you have any idea when you might have a conclusion to that review? >> not that i could offer today. >> jay, in speech after speech, when the president speaks about upper-income earners paying a "fair share," are you able to define that phrase for us? what does it mean? >> well, i think one place to look for it is the so-called buffett rule we've spoken about, which reflects a basic principle that some very affluent americans who have benefited enormously -- which is great, but they have benefited enormously from what this country has provided them and the opportunities provided them, and have seen their incomes expand dramatically over the past dozen or so years, even as middle-class incomes have stagnated or declined -- some portion of them are paying, actually, a lower effective tax rate than folks in this room or plumbers, teachers and others, including warren buffett's now famous secretary. so the principle is simply that

we should not have a tax code that allows for that kind of imbalance. there has been a lot of i think misleading pushback on this notion -- people who throw out facts and figures about the proportionate share of taxes paid by wealthy americans. well, naturally, people who make $100 million a year, even if they're paying a lower percentage than you or i, are going to be paying a larger dollar figure to the treasury than you and i are. the fact is that the burden should be proportionate and fair and balanced. but also, some of these studies take into account --

conveniently ignore the fact that everybody who earns a paycheck pays payroll taxes, and that's a substantial tax burden on working americans, substantial, proportionally, much greater than -- or proportionately greater for working americans than very affluent americans. so it's a principle about making sure that everyone is paying their fair share to create a situation where everyone can share in the prosperity that we are sure will continue to be the providence of this country. >> but if you're going to put that into law, you can't say, oh, if this man is paying more than his secretary he's all right, but if he's not -- you've got to -- the tax code needs a number or a percentage. and have you worked on that yet? >> well, the answer is, in the proposals the president has put forward, he's stated some principles about the tax code, as well as specifics in terms of some loopholes that should be

closed or changed -- the carried interest law, for example, or the deductions, 28 percent. there's a broader need for tax reform, and within that, it should -- the principle that the buffett rule explains should be contained within it. >> but you don't have a number yet? >> i do not have a number. >> a bloomberg survey of economists shows that the president's jobs plan would lower the unemployment rate by 0.2 percentage points. is that enough, do you think, to stimulate long-term growtandn that said that, were those not to pass, you could shave off 1.7 or 1.8 percent of gdp. and then he said, if the whole thing passes you add another 0.2 or 0.3.

so taken together, that's 2 percent of gdp at least, which is what i think moody's and others have estimated might be the impact if the entire bill was passed. so, generally, we think it reflects a broad consensus among economic analysts about the impact of the american jobs act. >> but it's still less than 300,000 jobs, though. >> no, no, but you need to look at the survey. in fact, it's not if you tease out what their assumptions are. they're starting from different baselines, and there are built- in assumptions. and i wish we could make assumptions about what congress would do if it were entirely sensible all the time, but unfortunately we can't. a lot of that has built-in assumptions about what will happen that's already part of the american jobs act. >> and on chris christie's speech last night, what's your reaction to what he said, calling the president a "bystander in the oval office"? and did the president see any of his speech? >> i can tell you that he didn't. we were watching the red sox as we were flying home -- a nail- biter. fortunately they won. sam stein is not here to celebrate with me. so we did not see it. i actually don't -- i haven't even read it yet, so i don't

really know about that. i would just say in general that in the two and a half years that barack obama has been president, it simply -- i mean, it has been one of the most substantial periods in our history, in terms of the seriousness of the challenges we faced, the enormity of the crises and the potential even worse crises that this president faced and took head on. when he came into office there were -- i mean, remember the headlines that you wrote and others wrote, "imminent great depression." "global financial collapse." "bank holidays." "nationalization of the banks." "predictions of unemployment as high as 25 percent." that's the economic environment

that we faced when we came in, and that this president addressed head on with a series of incredibly challenging decisions that he took, that by any measure arrested the extreme downward slide that this economy was taking when we were hemorrhaging jobs at more than 750,000 a month, when the economy we now know in the fourth quarter of 2008 contracted by close to 9 percent, the kind of contraction we haven't seen since the great depression. i mean, this is a -- there were no bystanders in this white house. >> just really quickly, why isn't the president going to the new york fundraiser on friday that warren buffett is hosting? is it a scheduling conflict, or was the -- >> i'll have to take the -- what's that? >> surrogate event. >> it's a surrogate event. yes. >> this afternoon in the online q&a, the president said, as he has before, when he was asked about deporting people who would otherwise be covered by the dream act, he said he can't choose which laws on the books to enforce. but a couple of years ago with marijuana he did exactly that. this administration said in states that have medical marijuana laws, federal laws prohibiting marijuana use should not be enforced.

so why does the president say he doesn't have that authority? >> i really don't even understand your question. i mean, the -- >> the question is about prosecuting -- >> obviously -- well, maybe you should -- >> you've got limited resources. >> i would address you to the department of justice for questions of prosecutorial discretion. i can't even say it, let alone explain it. so the -- i mean, the fact -- what the president said is absolutely true about the particular issue that you're talking about. so -- but, again, if it's -- in terms of the discretion of prosecutors i would encourage you to -- >> this administration has demonstrated that it's not -- i mean, you have a fixed amount of resources that you can put to enforcing this law or that law. and the administration can say, we're going to put it towards this law and not that law. so why does he say he can't do

that? >> ari, again, i think with a comparative here, i just -- i'm not sure how to answer your question. the fact is you can't choose which laws to enforce and which not. and the president is quite right in that. >> jay, just one -- >> mark. >> just one question. it was my turn, jay. >> can i ask about the supreme court? >> jay, just one question once a week. that's all. >> i think it was the washington post's turn or the new york times. i can't remember which one, but yes. >> briefly, the supreme court -- >> come back. >> i know that the justice department has got briefs coming out later today -- but in general terms, in layman's terms, please, what does the administration want the supreme court to do as regards the health care law? >> we firmly believe that, as has been upheld by a number of different decisions, that ultimately this -- the affordable care act will be found constitutional, because it is. does that answer your question? >> well -- all right. does it worry you about the timeframe that's likely to take place here with the case coming up this fall and then being ruled on in the middle of a presidential reelection bid?

>> i'm not -- we're not worried about what we believe the ultimate decision will be here, which is that the individual mandate provision is absolutely constitutional, as a number of courts have already decided. obviously some have decided otherwise, but we believe ultimately that this will be resolved in the favor of the constitutionality of the act. >> has the administration decided it's a good thing to get this resolved as quickly as it can because of the uncertainty? >> no. i think we've been following -- we've been moving -- it's been moving through the process, and we continue to argue the merits of it. and the process will continue. again, we're very confident that it will be found to be constitutional. >> can i follow up on mark's question? then why didn't -- i mean, isn't it clear you do want to speed up the process, or you guys would have asked for another appeal? >> well, i think that you're asking that question backwards. i mean, we're not trying to slow down the process, if that's what you're asking. we're letting the process -- >> it sounds like you're trying

to actually speed it up. >> well, no. we're just simply -- >> you could have gone to the full appeals court. >> we could have, i guess, but we didn't -- i don't think we thought it was necessary. the -- find if i have anything specific on that here. i think i'd remind you that two appellate courts have previously ruled in favor of the affordable care act, and we're confident, as i said, that when all these cases are resolved that we will prevail. not taking action is not -- doesn't mean we're trying to speed anything up, but we're also not trying to slow anything down. we're confident that when it comes up, it will be seen as constitutional because we're quite convinced that it meets that bar, clears that bar. >> on libya and iran, please. we're in the seats, they're not here. >> i know, but the seats represent organizations.

i get it. connie, and then lester. but those seats are -- you know how it works, connie. >> for the record, we've been here since the '60s and the '70s -- >> these people travel -- >> yes. i mean, we're seniors. >> yes. you had a question about -- >> on libya and iran. do you have any update on the threats by the iranians to bring some of their naval ships off the u.s. coast? and also, any update on the missing libyan missiles? >> okay, let me -- i'll take them in that order. on the iranian navy, i think we don't take these statements seriously, and -- given that they do not reflect at all iran's naval capabilities.

as for the erroneous report about manpads, it is simply not accurate that 20,000 shoulder- fired weapons are missing, when 20,000 is the number of weapons that we have assessed the qaddafi regime may have acquired over the last 40 years. so that's an erroneous report. however, it is certainly true, as we have been talking about quite openly for weeks, if not months, and as ben rhodes, the deputy national security advisor, briefed on extensively in new york at the united nations, the issue of conventional weapons, including manpads, in libya. and that is why we have a state department official on the ground there. we have five other contract officials dealing with this. it's why we have been discussing the issue with the tnc regularly, and working with nato and our allies and partners on this issue. so i think that's the answer to that. lester. >> thank you. just one question. >> i'm sure. >> the plo's u.n. ambassador, areikat, has been quoted by the washington times and other media as saying -- and this is a quote -- "it would be in the

best interests of the two peoples that the proposed future palestinian state be free of jews." and my question, does the white house believe that this statement is or is not judenrein? >> is not what? >> judenrein. >> free of jews. >> sorry -- >> no jews. >> free of jews -- a nazi term. >> yes. we obviously don't believe that -- we believe that any action taken by either side that makes it harder to come together and -- in direct negotiations to resolve the issues between the two parties so that we can have a two-state solution that both sides support, is not helpful, not conducive. and that would include actions as well as statements. that would apply to that. i have not seen that statement, so i don't even know if it's

accurate. but it would not be -- it's not helpful. >> listen, thank you. thank you very much. >> yes. >> thank you, jay. on the issue of the israeli settlements, has the u.s. been in contact with any of the countries in the region following the announcement? >> you might want to address that to the state department. i made clear yesterday that we're deeply disappointed by that announcement. going back to the point i just made to lester, we support actions and words by each side that move the parties closer to direct negotiations, because that is the only way that the palestinians will achieve their goal of a sovereign state, and, as part of that, the israelis will achieve the kind of security that they greatly deserve in a jewish state. so direct negotiations are the only way to go. actions that make it harder to achieve that are not helpful and not conducive to the goal here.

>> well, the question was asked to the state department, and they basically said what you said. so -- but is there -- >> they said ask the state department? >> no, no, they -- >> i mean, in terms of, have we had -- i just don't know if we have had -- i mean, i imagine -- >> i'm asking if the -- >> rarely a day goes by that we don't have consultations with our partners in the region. so i'm sure that -- >> but on this issue? specifically on this -- >> i don't know. >> thanks, jay. >> last one. yes. >> just to follow up on this, in the light of israel's decision to build the settlements, what is the administration doing to prepare the ground to bring the two parties together? >> we are working assiduously towards that goal with the quartet, with others, with the two parties, the palestinians and the israelis. i think we were quite clear about our opinion of this announcement yesterday, just as we were quite clear about the inefficacy of pursuing unilateral action at the united nations. we encourage both sides to take actions to achieve the goal here

that they both seek. thank you. >> jay, how many manpads are missing? if it's not 20,000, how many are missing? missing?