and increasing the quality of life that people have. we had a young lady there, sheila frazier, mr. paulsen mentioned, and what a great story. what an amazing young lady who's a senior from indiana who had a knee replaced because of cancer in her bone. they can take this particular device and extend it. as she grows taller, as her body grows and they can adjust this particular device inside her leg for her as she continues to grow. it's amazing technology. that's why it's so important for us to protect this industry, to do no harm ott industry. it's gring fast. a at a time when america is facing high unemployment rate,

industry continues to grow. it's high-paying jobs. i know it's huge benefit to the part of indiana i represent. these are jobs that pay well and the types of jobs that we want to keep right here in america. as we talked about this tax, it is going to be a burden on these businesses and on these jobs. i can tell you already after talking to the folks in northeast indiana at these businesses, that there are other countries like china, china has a growing population. you have other countries that are starting to advance in bioscience. this is why it is so important for us to make sure that we don't affect this industry in a way that it will start looking to other countries like china or india, other places around the world, europe is obviously -- is already a mature market, china is an emerging market, and they want these in -- want

these particular devices there. if we build them here, we can export them to countries like china and they can be buying from american made countries where people that live in my community, where they're building those particular devices, and as was mentioned, 204 members of the house of representatives are signed on to this repeal of this tax and -- which i believe is great numbers, almost a majority, and i would urge our leadership to bring this forward to the floor for a vote. because we know if this tax stays in place, these companies are going to start looking elsewhere. this is a huge burden upon them. so i thank each member who was at the hearing in indianapolis, we saw some fantastic, amazing things being developed and if we can keep government from hindering this type of technology, this type of growth, we'll lead in new ways in manufacturing, even though

we have the automobile industry there the steel industry, this is an emerging market that's going to continue to grow as people gain in wealth they gain in access to these types of services in the health care industry and i would just encourage all my colleagues to sign on to this particular legislation because we don't want to see this industry move outside of the united states. i appreciate mr. paulsen and his leadership and i yield back. >> one of the things folks don't often recognize is -- mr. paulsen: i think of a state like california and the high value manufacturing there, i visitted companies in california, i'd like to yield to mr. bilbray who's been a leader on moving some of the packages of bills to help streamline the f.d.a. and modernize the f.d. ample as well. mr. bilbray: thank you.

mr. speaker, mr. paulsen is leading on not just the issue of jobs. this is an issue of jobs and lives. that's one thing we overlook so often. i'm glad to hear about the hearing in indianapolis, we had a hearing in san diego. i'm sure that you guys are glad that you didn't have to come to the hearing in san diego because we were in la jolla overlooking the beach and surf at the scripps institute of oceanography but maybe someday you'll be able to break away and come to one of our hearings in san diego. but mr. speaker, we're talking about an issue that's not discussed enough about and i guess one of the issues that i'm excited about on this one is that it's a bipartisan effort. i think if there was one thing i'd want everyone to know about washington, d.c., democrat, republican, or independents, the biggest problem with this town isn't that washington tries new things, or that washington makes mistakes, but when washington tries new things and makes mistake, they're not willing to go back

an correct it and straighten it out. they ignore it. a lot of times they think the only problem is throw more money and taxes at it and make it better. this is one of those items where democrats and republicans ought to get together and say, look, this was rushed there, wasn't looked into and needs to be corrected an straightened out. that's what this bill, both the gentleman's bill and my bill, say we need a setback -- a step back period a cooling off time and let's straighten -- straighten this out. the first thing is take the huge tax off the back of not just the producers but the american consumer. we're talking about a tax of $20 billion. we're talking in california alone of 112 jobs, something that i think -- 112,000 jobs, something that all of us will say later we lose these jobs,

oh, my god, how could we have done this? more importantly, we're talking about those lives of people that depend on not just those devices that are out there today but those that will be out there in the future. is there anyone here that can assure themselves that their children or grandchildren or granddaughter or grandson or even their mother or their grandparents will not need to have medical devices somewhere down the line, not just to improve the quality of life but to assure life extensions or the fact of just being able to survive certain medical crises. these are all questions we've got to ask ourselves individually. but as a nation, we have to ask ourselves, was this the right step for us to take at this time or at any time? if it wasn't, we've got to be brave enough to do what washington doesn't do enough, go back, correct the mistake and move on in a much better and more secure form, something

that can be substantiated. let me be blunt as somebody who has a major medical device industry in my community that there are ways we can correct these things. anne shoe and i back in the 19 -- ann eshoo and i back in the 1990's worked on it. when it comes down to it, don't provide health care to the public by tacking it out of the cupry. you're not going to make -- country. you're not going to make that available for those who need jobs or who need the medical breakthroughs. i look forward to working on this in a bipartisan effort with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on things like f.d.a. reform, another thing we have to do to keep this vibrant industry here. we will rue the day, democrat or republican, if we allow it to leave the country.

the other is huge resources we have for more research and development to be brought back in this country by repatriating american money overseas that's being kept overseas but because of punitive actions of the federal government here in washington, $2 trillion that could come back to help do resedge and development to save lives, to develop the next generation of medical devices, to be able to create that opportunity in economics and in medical breakthroughs, that's the kind of thing we need to see democrats and republicans work together on. i look forward to building on the cooperation we see in this bill an work on it in other bills related to public health and the economic opportunities creating jobs in america with american jobs on american soil. i yield back. mr. paulsen: folks think of states like california they think of high technology and ned medical devices. it's the investors that have a large component in states like california that invest in these

companies. the f.d.a. is becoming so risk averse that the investors aren't invest what's needed to saturday the new products. that's the challenge we have. someone else who was at the hearing a little over a week ago is my friend and colleague, mr. young, who i think also heard some of these personal stories if the patient perspective and from the innovator perspective. i want to thank you for your leadership in inviting me to be part of that hearing in indiana. mr. young: i thank mr. paulsen for your leadership and i share your desire to heighten the value on this industry. we need to create nurturing environments for all these jobs. as i travel around and listen to my constituents, a lot of

feedback about the uncertainty in our economy. there's regulatory uncertainty, uncertainty about future tax rates, energy rates and health care costs system of these medical device manufacturers are certainly laboring under the burden of uncertainty with respect to the f.d.a. regulatory process, then here we add an additional excise tax to their bottom line. i'm happy to support h.r. 436 which would lighten that burden. i don't think probably many people appreciate, i certainly didn't appreciate until i started looking into it, exactly how burdensome this device tax could be on the medical device industry. 2.3% of gross sales is what it taxes. so that's a top line tax. before all the other deductions and costs come out. so essentially, that would translate into about 15% taxation on profits of many of these medical device companies.

add that 15% profit tax to 35% corporate tax and 5% tax when you add together the state and local corporate tax burden and you're north of 50%. of tax on profits. so it's no wonder that so many of these device makers are instead deciding to ex-pan operations or start up new operations overseas. we have to do what we can to prevent that. now in my home state of indiana, approximately 40% of all life sciences sector jobs are related to this devices industry. this high value added industry that improves the lives of so many patients and certainly all the workers who work at these companies. my district in particular has some employers that we'd like to keep around, like the cook group in bloomington, then as we head south to jeffersonville, indiana, and everywhere in between. the tax impact is going to

burden not just the large companies, however. there are 00-plus f.d.a. approved medical device manufacturers in the state of indiana. and as my colleague mr. paulsen just indicated, they're all serging for financing. they're searching for venture capital to bring their fledgling operations to the next level. so a cook group, they can probably weather this storm and figure out some way to remain profitable. but it's the next cook of the world, the next tinkerer in their garage or their spare bedroom that may not be able to grow their business and create the jobs that our constituents are all demanding, should this device tax go into effect january 1 of next year, as it's currently scheduled to do the regulatory challenges, which i already mentioned, are also very important. they must be addressed separately. i know there's separate legislation out there to do that. i'll be supporting that

initiative as well. the bottom line here is there are jobs at stake and there are people's lives at stake as well. we heard from sheila frazier, her name has been mentioned here before but very powerful testimony about how this young, outstanding lady, high school student, from a very young age, contracted cancer and she was going to have to have her leg amputated an because of the ingenuity, the entrepreneurship of people in my home state of indiana, they were able to put together a company and sell these products and develop a product that benefited sheila frazier directly. now she's living a very productive life, has both of her legs, thank the lord, and we need other people to benefit from similar innovations in the future. so i am most proud to be here to speak on behalf of h.r. 436. i urge my colleagues to sign on to this legislation, to vote in favor of it, and with that, i

yield back. mr. paulsen: can i ask how much time we have left. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman tees -- the gentleman's time has expired. mr. paulsen: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: under

the speaker's announced spoil of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. denham, for 0 minutes. mr. denham: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm hear to talk about h.r. 173, the civilian property realignment act. here we have an opportunity to not only cut waste, to create jobs, and to cree -- and to bring in new revenue without raising taxes. here's an opportunity for republicans and democrats to agree and send the president actually something he's asking for. the civilian property realignment -- what it would do is have greater oversight over leasing authority. we would have redevelopment of underutilized property, the best use possible and combined agencies where you may have 50% of an agency in one building, 50% in another, have them in one agency and sell the things we just don't need. properties around the nation,

some of which have set vacant, some of them are declared vacant, underutilized, then finally create transparency. . we want to create transparency, showing how many employees are going to be housed in which building and before we lease or buy new space, actually let people know before they go out and hire new employees. this is the best opportunity to shrink the size of government. oversight of leasing authority. we held a hearing several months ago, the securities exchange council went out over a weekend and secured a million square feet over the next 10 years at the cost of $550 million. over half a billion of taxpayers' dollars was committed on a weekend with no oversight, with no authority, and today we have a vacant space because the

employees that may have been hired have never been hired and taxpayers are on the hook for $550 million. we need new oversight. we need greater oversight. the security exchange council, we have pulled back their oversight. this has happened and many different agencies have the authority and have the ability to secure these types of leases. it is time to bring it all under one department. g.s.a. has the opportunity to manage all of our leases, all of our portfolios and make sure we are making sound business decisions. what a philosophy that is for government. actually see what we need, what agencies have how many employees, what are their leasing needs, have the transparency and the oversight before we go secure a new lease. redevelopment, we need to

redevelop some of these properties. the old post office down the street here, about a block away from the white house, a property that we had built in the late 1800's, just a beautiful property. if you see one of the tallest buildings in the capital region, big clock, nice historic building. that's one we don't want to sell off. but rather than spending $6.5 million in upkeep and this vacant building, why not make it a showpiece and allow constituents and visitors to go up in this national monument, go up into the clock tower and be able to take one of the greatest views that our country has to offer. and let's do it and make a profit. we have offers coming in now from trump, marriott properties that want to redevelop this

property and create hundreds of jobs in the redevelopment process and create jobs in the long-term by making sure we have an employment base for years to come in this capital region. but this isn't about washington, d.c., and let's make sure that the infrastructure is there done by a private investor that is going to go out and redevelop this property and then have the long-term job effect afterwards. it can be done, it can be replicated. this one jobs investment, the companies that are talking about moving into the old post office is $140 million total private investment. 300 immediate jobs. go around the area, we could use the 300 jobs in this one project. 275 permanent jobs for year-end, year-out in this new hotel that

would be redeveloped. $11.2 million in annual revenues to the washington area. this is -- way to get republicans and democrats to agree on something that not only creates jobs and gets rid of waste and $6.5 million we spend in operating costs, but get a property moving again in the right way. we need to co-locate. there are too many properties out there where we have 25 percent utilization, 50% utilization, why wouldn't we have close to 100%? there is no business that wants to keep vacant office and warehouse space. but in government, because we don't have agencies talking to each other, we have vacant office and warehouse space across the entire nation. here's an opportunity to do more with less. we have an opportunity to in

courthouse sharing, we have waste, 946,000 extra square feet, which is constructed because of lack of sharing. number of courtrooms needed is 27 of the 33 courtrooms, which would have been reduced by a total of 126 if all we did was just share. but this is one example. again, this goes across the entire buyer buyer across the united states. -- bureaucracy across the united states. one of the biggest areas, not only for redevelopment and jobs, but to bring in revenue. there was a lot of talk out there about taxes. you want to bring in revenue that republicans and democrats can agree on? sell off properties that we have sat on for decades and may have bought at one time or developed at one time because we had a purpose for using them. but there's no accountability, no efficiency to be able to say

at a certain point that this property is not being needed or utilized and will cost us millions in operating costs and billions of dollars to do improvements. we don't look at all of our properties across the nation. we don't look at our asset portfolio by agency. let's start looking at the 1.4 million properties, buildings that we have across the nation that your federal government owns that utilizes taxpayer dollars and make a decision, are we using it now and can we sell off some of the things we don't need? we have identified 14,000 excess properties, excess, meaning we don't need them today, let's start by selling those off. but look at the big ticket item. rather than giving the presidio back to california or san francisco and doing a sweetheart deal for one city or state,

selling off a big property to new york, let's do a competitive process that affects all of our taxpayers, that actually brings revenue back to our treasury and reduces our debt. and along the way as we are selling off these properties, the private individual that buys it or the company that redevelops it is going to re-invest in the community. you can generate millions of jobs just by creating the redevelopment across the entire nation. there is a great opportunity with our property sale as well. and we need oversight. i mean, the oversight, there has been a huge lack of oversight across the nation. one of the glaring examples is in my home state of california, a courthouse proposed over a decade ago. now in 2000, we had 60 judges

with a proposal to add 20 more judges, going to build a new courthouse, about $400 million that it was going to be to build this new courthouse. we spent millions of dollars acquiring this new piece of property, beautiful, downtown, but it is a hole in the decade and we haven't hired new judges. we have less judges now and across the nation there is a new policy to actually co-mingle, share, courtroom space. we have two courtrooms in the l.a. area that aren't 100% occupied. we have space there just for individuals. if we did sharing, we could get rid of one of those two courthouses, but we are going to obligate half a million to build a new courthouse. we need greater oversight so we can look at all of these properties. the stimulus package we had at one time and the money being

spent out there and being used for shovel-ready projects. this old courthouse is going to spend half a billion dollars on courtrooms we don't need. we need greater oversight. if we want to move this country forward, if we want to get republicans and democrats to agree, we want to get both parties in both houses to work on something together, if you want to send something that the president is asking for, that creates jobs, not just numbers out there or long-term -- that creates jobs today. something that's going to bring in revenue. we know we need revenue and we have a huge debt that we have to pay off. immediate revenue within the first year, over $15 billion in the next decade and that is a conservative estimate that we have a chance to sell quite a bit more. and lastly, cutting waste.

with one bill, we can cut waste, we can create jobs and we can create revenue with both parties agreeing to something that will move our country forward. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a, rule 1, the house will stand in recess

opposite if you will, of the so-called jobs package the president has laid out which is really no jobs package at all. the president's proposal is a rehash of jobs creation in the past by this administration which basically has simply

consisted of spend manager money, rolling out jobs-ready programs that we hear from the white house would immediately create jobs for the country but quickly we learn that those jobs ready programs are not jobs ready programs and in fact did not create jobs as they anticipated but cost the american taxpayers more money. >> watch both these events tonight beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. the federal reserve today lowered its growth forecast and raised unemployment projections. in a press conference that followed feds' meeting on monetary policy, chairman bernanke said the policy will remain unchanged based in part on positive trends in the overall economy. this is 50 minutes. >> good afternoon, everybody, welcome.

in my opening remarks, ill briefly review the policy decisions of the federal market decision and place that in the context of our economic projections and policy strategy. i'll be glad to take your questions. as indicated in its statement, the committee decided today to maintain policies initiated at previous meetings. in particular, the committee is keeping the target range for the federal funds range at 0 to 1%. we anticipate low rates through 2013. we will purchase longer term treasury securities and selling an equal amount of shorter term treasury securities. our purchases of longer term securities exert downward pressures on long-range interest rates. at the same time, the likely path will limit shorter term

interest rates. consequently this program should foster more accommodative financial conditions, thereby helping support a stronger recovery without changing the overall size they have federal reserve's balance sheet. in addition to further ease conditions in mortgage markets, we are continuing our previously announced pam in which the principal payments from our holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage backed securities are being reinvested in agency m.b.s. the committee regularly revuse the size and composition of our securities holdings and we are prepared to adjust holdings as appropriate. in conjunction with today's meeting, the participants submitted projections for economic growth, employment rate and interest rate for 2014 and over the long you are run. the central tendencies and ranges of those predictions are in the figures distributed. the longer run projecks shown at the right side of each

figure represent participants' assessment of the rate to which each variable will converge over time, assuming appropriate monetary policy and no further shocks to the economy. the longer run projecks for growth and real g.d.p. have a tendency of 2.% to 2.7% an the longer run projecks have a central tendency of 5.2% to 6.0%. these projecks can be interpreted as participant's estimates of the economy's normal or trend rate of growth and normal unemployment rate over the longer run. because the economy's longer run ratings are determined largely by nonmonetary factors that can evolve over time and cannot be measured, these estimates are inherently uncertain and subject to revision. the central tendency of the longer range projecks for inflation is 1.7% to 2.0%.

the inflation outlook over the longer run is determined almost entirely by monetary policy and hence these projections reflect something consistent with our mandate of maximizing stable prices. the maximum inflation rate is judged to be 2% or a bit less. i turn now to the committee's economic outputs. participants' projecks for real g.d.p. have a central tendency of 1.6% to 1.7%. outlook growth strengthened in the third quarter, reflecting that it had weighed on growth earlier in the year. in addition, factors associated with the natural disaster in japan have diminished. easing strains on household budgets and contributing to a faster pace of spending in

recent months. the committee expects only a moderate pace of economic growth overcoming quarters reflecting ongoing drags from the troubled housing sector, still-tight credit conditions for households and smaller businesses, volatility in financial markets, fiscal consolidation at all levels of government and other factors. looking further ahead, economic growth is expected to pick up as a result of improving financial conditions, strengthening consumer and business confidence and the continuation of a highly continued stance of monetary policy. specifically the central tendency of growth projecks picks up gradually from 2.5% to 2.9% in 2012 to 3 ppt 0% in 2014. in light of the anticipated moderate pace of economic recovery, the committee expects that the unemployment rate will decline only gradually over coming quarters.

the presixth in the -- prediction in the rate of 2012 have a tendency of .5% to .7%, only about half a percent lower than the current reading. the unemployment rate is expected to climb to 6.8% or 7. 0%, still below the estimates of longer range unemployment. in short, while we expect that economic activity and labor market conditions will improve gradually over time, the pace of progress is likely to be frustratingly slow. moreover, there's significant downside risk to the economic outlook, most notably, concerns about european fiscal and banking issues have contributed to strains in outlook markets which have likely had adverse effects on growth. european leaders announced a numb of steps to address those issues. we will continue to monitor european developments closely.

i'll turn now to the outlook for inflation. the prices of oil and other commodities rose sharply earlier this year. consumer inflation consequently picked up over the first half of 2011, reflecting higher prices of gasoline, food and other goods and services for which producers passed higher input costs along to customers. in addition, prices of motor vehicles served associated with the disaster in japan. however, inflation appears to have moderated as those transtorian influences have waned and as low levels of research utilization constrain prices. further, survey measures imply that longer term inflation expectations have remained stable. consequently, the committee anticipates that over coming quarters, inflation will settle at or below its mandate consistent rate of 2% or less. specifically the central tendency of inflation projections is 2.7% to 2.9% for

this year but declines in 2012 and remains subdued through 2014. the committee will continue to pay close attention to the evolution of inflation and inflation expectations. the current economic outlook prvidse important context for understanding today's policy decision. the committee's mandate from the congress is to seek maximum employment and price stability. with unemployment well above normal levels and expected to decline only slowly and with inflation expected to remain at or below mandate consistent level the committee decided today to maintain the current high degree of monetary policy accommodation. we will continue to assess the economic outlook in light of incoming information and we are prepared to employ our tools as appropriate to promote a stronger economic recovery in a context of price stability. finally, i would like to note that the committee strives to explain its monetary policy decisions as clearly as possible and continue to

explore ways of enhancing clarity of public communication. specifically, we have been engaging in a series of discussions about potential approaches to providing the public additional information about our monetary plcy goals and policy strategy as well as about our outlook for the economy and the future stance of monetary policy. however, no decisions about such approaches were made at this meeting. thank you for your patience and i'd be happy to take questions. >> mr. chairman, over the past several movepts, it seems to have been increasing criticism of the fed's policy. you received a letter on the eve of the september meeting urging you not to take action from the g.o.p. leadership. several g.o.p. presidential candidates criticized fed policy in the debates. on the first issue, do you think that crossed the line, was it appropriate in terms of

the fed's independence? in the second, what are the g.o.p. candidates not hearing or understanding about fed policy in your opinion? >> well, politics is politics and federal reserve tries to stay nonpartisan. out of those -- and out of those debates. our job is to do the best we can for the u.s. economy, promote a mandate of maximum employment and price stability and although we must be accountable to congress over the longer term in the short-term it's very important that the fed be free from political pressures. therefore we're going to make our decisions based on what's good for the economy, not going to take any politics into account. the concerns expressed relate to the possibility that the feds -- fed's highly expansionnary policies may be contributing to inflation risk. i would simply point to the record. if you look back for the last five years, inflation, though it's been volatile because of commodity price fluctuations, has averaged 2%, close to a reasonable definition of price stability, whereas the area

where we have fallen short is on the unemployment side. i think that criticisms based on the concern about inflation have so far, at least, not proven very valid. >> nauble >> i'm not going to -- [inaudible] >> i'm not going to comment on that. we are free to make decisions based on the interests of the american people and the interest of the economy. that's what we're going to do. >> has the fed discussed the idea of nominal g.d.p. targeting? and what are you views on the advantages and disadvantages of that approach? >> so the fed's mandate is, of course, a dual mandate, we have a mandate for both employment and price stability and we have a framework in place that allows us to communicate and to

think about the two sides of that mandate. we talked today, or yesterday actually, about nominal g.d.p. as an indicator, an information variable, something to add to the list of variables we think about. and it was a very interesting discussion. however, we think that within the existing framework that we have, which looks at both sides of the mandate, not just some combination of the two, we can communicate whatever we need to communicate about future monetary policy. we are not contemplating at this time any radical change in framework. we're going to stay within the dual mandate approach that we've been using until this point. >> chairman you said in the past you understand some of the anger on display with the occupy wall street protesters. a lot of anger is directed at the fed with some protesters

saying that the fed is part of the problem, that the fed preserves the financial system and promotes income inequality. are the protesters right? is the fed part of the problem? and secondary -- secondarily, can the fed do anything to promote a more equal economy? >> as i said before, i understand that many people are dissatisfied with the state of the economy. i'm discitied with the -- dissatisfied with the state of the economy. unemployment is too high. income inequalities has gone on for 30 years but as that continued we have a more unequal society than we've had in the past. so again, i fully sympathize with the notion that the economy is not performing the way we'd like it to be. in that respect, the concerns that people express across the spectrum are understandable. i think that the concerns about the fed are based on misconceptions. the federal reserve was

involved, obviously, in trying to stabilize the financial system in 2008 and 2009. a very simplistic interpretation of that was that we were doing that because we wanted to preserve bankers' salary. that's obviously not the case. what we were doing is trying to protect the financial system in order to prevent a serious collapse of both financial system and the american economy. we needed to take those steps. if we hadn't taken them, the consequences would have been dire. not everybody understands that. therefore they sometimes misunderstand our motives. our motives are strictly to do what's in the interest of the broad public and i believe that our efforts to stabilize the financial system which ultimately proved successful were very much in the interest of the broad public. with respect to the current economy, as i described earlier, we are currently continuing with our accommodative monetary policy. we are trying to do our best to support economic growth and job

creation. i think it would be helpful if we could get assistance from other parts of the government to work with us to help create more jobs but certainly we are doing our part to try to create more jobs and more opportunities in america. with respect to inequality, i think the best way to address inequality is to create jobs, gives people opportunities, gives people a chance to earn income, gain experience and ultimately earn more. but that's an indirect approach. that's the only way the fed can address inequality, per se. >> john holtz from "the wall street journal." mr. chairman, the fed's forecast for 2013 shows the unemployment rate finishing the year between 7.8% and 8.2%. the statement says that short-term rays will stay near

their current levels, at least through mid 2013. does that suggest that the fed could conceive of raising short-term interest rates before unemployment even gets to 8% or much lower? and if not, could you explain how people should interpret those two messages? >> well the statement says at least mid 2013. so clearly it could well be some point beyond that and markets are anticipating a later liftoff. one of the things we discussed yesterday in our communications discussion was how we might further clarify that part of the statement. and try to provide more information about what conditions would prevail at the time we would be considering raising rates. but we haven't come to that point yet. we certainly would like to provide more clarity about that. but again, let me emphasize that what we are seeing now is

at least -- there's no implication that we would necessarily move into 2013 with those conditions prevailing that you described. >> mr. chairman, what is your appetite for a renewed push into large scale mortgage backed securities purchases? the fed stated the intention to move the structure of its balance sheet more to its original, you know, treasuries only composition but recently it provides the program through the reinvestments and folks like governor turello and others have raised the possibility of large scale asset purchases. could you comment on your views on that? >> i'd be glad to. you were absolutely correct, first that ultimately we'd like to return our portfolio to treasuries only. that may be some time down the road at this point. you're also correct that as

part of our policy action at the last meeting, we began to reinvest mortgage backed securities and agency debt back into mortgage backed securities, thereby providing additional support for the mortgage market. the housing sector is a very important sector. it's -- the problems in that sector are clearly a big reason why our economy is not recovering more quickly. i do think that purchase of -- purchases of mortgage backed securities is a viable option. it's certainly something we would consider if conditions were appropriate. so the answer is yes, we would certainly look at that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. greg robb, marketwatch.com. at the moment, banks are holding hundreds of billions of dollars in excess reserves, at the same time corporations seem to be holding lots of cash, and

at the same time foreigners keep investing a lot of money in the united states. current account deficit is very large. could you shed some light on that situation? is there something that foreigners know that u.s. companies don't about investing in the u.s.? >> well most of the -- a great dell of the investment in the u.s. takes the form of purchases of u.s. government debt, treasury securities. and that in turn reflects desire for the liquidity and safety provided by the u.s. treasury market. for example, as you know, two of the largest holders of u.s. treasury securities are china and japan who hold those securities primarily as foreign exchange reserves and in the case of china, in an effort to keep their exchange rate from appreciating too quickly. while it's good that foreign central banks and so on have the confidence to buy u.s.

treasuries, it's not quite the same as investing in plant and equipment. we've seen a little bit of improvement there but still obviously too low to be consistent with a full employment economy. >> sir, could you comment on the failure of m.f. global, a primary dealer, and specifically the financial times is reporting that the leverage ratio at m.f. global was 40 to one. were you aware of that? did the fed approve of that? is that an acceptable leverage ratio, particularly since the financial crisis? >> certainly. the new york federal reserve bank approved m.f. global to be a primary tealer, i believe it was in february of this year. at that time, the company met

the criteria set forth in terms of management, financial condition, capacity and so on to qualify to be a primary dealer. we have set those standards in a way that would allow smaller firms to participate in the primary dealer market. but i would like to emphasize that -- a couple of points, first, we are not the regulators of m.f. global. that's done by the s.e.c. and cftc, so we do not have ongoing insight to developments within the company. and secondly, again, the -- making them a primary dealer did not in any way constitute a seal of approval in fact, the new york feds' website contains a statement pretty much to that effect. so they were primary dealer, we

stopped trading with them before they failed. we suffered no losses or other consequences from our transactions with the company. again, in terms of your question about leverage and financial condition, the company declined very, very quickly, based on apparently a small number of large bets, as far as i know we were not aware of that, but again, to emphasize, we are not the overseers, the regulators of that company. the question is, was that an isolated case? it appears to be an idiosyncratic case. we're monitoring funding markets and elsewhere, so far we have not seen any significant impact on financial stability. >> follow up on that, should

the fed be, in an ongoing basis, monitoring primary dealers? >> the question is, should the fed be monitoring primary dealers? only if the fed is the supervisor. in this case, the combination of a broker-dealer and future commissions merchant imply to the s.e.c. and cftc are the appropriate supervisors. they would not have qualified, this company would not have qualified under the provisional guidance issued by the fcot. there's no reason for the fed to be overseer of those companies. >> mr. chairman, this is the third straight set of economic projecks that have downgraded forecasts for frothe and pliment. i wonder, is there some systematic error, some blind

spot that's behind these kind of overly optimistic forecasts? what are you doing internally to understand what you got wrong in the last few projecks? >> it's a perfectly fair question. we spent a lot of time reviewing those errors. the staff in particular presents us with information on forecast area -- errors and revigs, etc., so we look at that carefully. i think it's clear that -- in retrospect, that the financial crisis and a number of other problems including the dysfunction in the housing market have been more severe and more persistent than we initially believed and that together with a number of other phenomena like leveraging by the household sector and so on has slowed the pace of recovery. so yes, we have again downgraded the medium term

forecast, evidently the forces, you know, the drags on the recovery were stronger than we thought. i would add, however, though, that although i think it's very important to look at the fundamental factors affecting the recovery, there's been some elements of bad luck. for example, this year, the combination of the natural disaster in japan, which had global impacts in terms of growth, oil price increases, european debt crisis, which was not anticipated to be as sever has cree -- or create as much volatility has it has in financial markets. they do explain at least part of the downward revision. >> many of us wonder what the fed has accomplished with its

monetary policy actions since about qe2. officials like to talk about the effect on interest rate bus the economy seems insentiv to interest rates these days. can you explain what you accomplished? can you tell us whether you think your mandate requires you to do anything you can think of on an ongoing basis until some targets are met? and can you explain to the average american why you're doing what you're doing and do you think you risk credibility if the average american doesn't see some sort of improvement in the economy? >> it's a fair question. i would first say that a monetary policy is having effects on the economy. we've talked about the effects on asset pries but continued to am size the effects of changes in interest rates, for example on decisions like investment or car purchases. one area where monetary policy has been blunted, the effects have been blunted, is the

mortgage market where very tight credit standards have prevented many people from purchasing or refinancing their homes and therefore the low mortgage rates that we've achieved have not been as effective as we had hoped. so monetary policy may be somewhat less powerful in the current context than it has been in the past but nevertheless it is affecting economic growth and job creation. if you ask about the accomplishments, i would first of all mention a very important one, which is that we have kept inflation close to 2% on average which both has avoided the problems of high inflation but also very importantly has avoided the risk of deflation. we've seen in other countries that deflation can be a pernicious problem and difficult to get out of once you are there. we have been able to achieve on average stable prices.

with respect to growth, i think that our plcies, including the cutting rates to zero in december of 2008 and the first round of asset purchases in the fall of 2008 and spring of 2009 were very important for helping to explain why the economy stopped contracting and began to grow again in the middle of 2009. i think there's a lot of evidence that that did promote growth and job creation. i would argue that we've also been successful with some of the later actions that we've taken, although it's early to say, for things like the maturity extension program. we also face the problem of asking the question, where would we be without these policies? our best guesses are that absent the support of monetary policy, the economy would be in a much deeper ditch and unmoiment would be higher than it is. that being said, people rightly recognize we have not yet

gotten the economy back to where we want it to be an their dissatisfaction is perfectly understandable. i do think we need to do whatever we can to move the economy toward price stability and maximum employment and we'll continue to do that so long as the tools we have are efficacious and they don't have costs or risks or negative side effects that are worse than the benefits. we'll always be making that evaluation. >> in response to pedro's question you said you would consider more m.b.s. purchases when the conditions are appropriate. can you elaborate on what conditions would be appropriate to do large scale asset purchases? >> i don't think i can be as precise as you would like. the m.b.s. purchases and treasury securities purchases are one set of tools that we

have. the other set of tools that we have are communication tools, which essentially tie interest rate decisions to economic conditions or to time. those are -- with interest rates close to zero, those are basically the two tools we have and we need to continue to work on how best to use them and what combination to use them to achieve objectives. in terms of when we would use these, i think all i can say is that the committee will have to look at the outlook and if it judges that we falling sufficiently far short of our objectives in terms of inflation falling at or below its target and growth being insufficient and that we believe monetary stimulus would be beneficial, you know, then the committee obviously would try to take corrective action. but i can't -- you know, it's a

committee decision. swreel to look at the outlook. we remain prepared to take action as appropriate to make sure the recovery continues, to make sure that we have stable prices in the u.s. >> your colleague phrased this as further action would be required in the absence of favorable developments. does that mean looking at the forecast table that we have here today that if we don't see improvement what's in those tables that further action would be required? >> again, i can't speak for my colleagues on the committee. i will say that that forecast we have is satisfactory in one dimension in the sense that it is low and stable but unsatisfactory in the rate of growth in the economy and the

judgment we are going to have to make, do the tools we have, are those tools likely to be sufficiently effective or do they bear costs and risks that would make them less effective or not worth using. it's a judgment we have to continue to make and continue to evaluate the outlook. but again, i really can't speak for my colleagues until we have looked at the entire array of data and made a decision about that. >> in the european debt deal that may or may not come to pass, it's been said that the banks operating, the big banks have all agreed that 9% capital ratio is appropriate while the u.s. banks have been arguing that they can't afford to do

that, will reduce lending and would also put them at a competitive disadvantage internationally. but with that happening in europe, do you think it's appropriate that the big banks in the u.s. should accept a tier one capital requirement? and how does that development stand at this point? >> well, we are committed to and are in the process of implementing number three, which has a basic requirement including a buffer of 7% and additional surcharges for the largest institutions. we think that's an appropriate framework. i'm not sure that the 9% that europeans are talking about is really comparable to the capital requirements that we are imposing or will be imposing on u.s. banks. for example, the composition of their capital as far as i

understand is common equity. i do not know what risks weights are being applied to the assets so there are a number of questions on capability. my expectation is that the europeans who agreed to the conditions will ensure that their banks meet the standards over time. of course, that's being phased in over a number of years so as not to jeopardize the recovery, but over the remainder of this decade, we anticipate implementing all of the key elements of it in the united states. >> mr. chairman, you have partly addressed this, but there is something i fail to understand. given that your forecast is

gloomy for employment until 2014, given you aren't worried about inflation, why not act today? >> as you point out, our forecast is not a very satisfactory one in the sense that unemployment is very high and growth is very slow. we have taken a lot of action. let me be clear, the federal reserve's monetary policy is highly accommodating now. we have brought rates close to zero and $2 trillion in asset purchases and made commitments about rates. the maturity of our portfolio and taken steps at the last two meetings, so we are being aggressive in providing monetary accommodation. i was asked before about conditions for further accommodation. we are prepared to do that and will continue to observe how the economy evolves. we have a projection with a lot

of uncertainty and it will be important to see what happens in terms of market financial conditions and economic growth. but we are prepared to take further action. we are prepared to do more and have the tools to do more if that's appropriate. again, while i do not shirk the responsibility of the fed having to do what it can to meet its mandate, obviously, a broad range of policies can affect growth in employment and i hope there will be a range of actions that will complement and supplement the federal reserve's efforts. >> i'm from the "l.a. times." you mentioned the streak of bad luck that struck the economy earlier this year. with the latest developments in europe this week where the debt deal seemingly was done and the rug was pulled out, are you getting a sense that the economy

can't catch a break and how would you advise americans to deal with these continued shocks to the economy and european markets? >> i don't want to make excuses. we did overestimate the pace of recovery for some fundamental reasons having to do with, as i mentioned, the time taken to achieve financial repair. the state of the housing market and so on. but that being said, as i indicated earlier, there has been a certain amount of bad luck and i think the volatility in financial markets associated with the european situation has been, along with volatility associated with american fiscal conditions is a drag on the economy. part of the reason the second half of 2011 was less strong than we anticipated when i was here at the last press conference in june, so there has

been that concern, it's showing up in americans' confidence and sentiment. right now, consumer confidence is about where it was in the depths of the recession. that's very discouraging. to some extent, it will be a drag on consumers' willingness to spend and to invest. my best advice to americans is to -- is to continue to live your lives and continue to think about your personal situation and try to make smart decisions based on your own financial position. clearly, americans are trying to improve their balance sheets and trying to pay down debt. that's important. at the same time, you want to make smart decisions, make good investments, budget properly. so financial literacy is a big part of this and lack of financial literacy is one of the

things that got us in this mess in the first place. i would advise people to try to be smart about their finances. unfortunately, we can't dissociety ourselves from europe. the things happening there do affect us and that is an unfortunate fact. i hope the europeans will find a set of solutions that will allow markets to calm down and take off some of the headwinds from the u.s. economy. >> i'm from "the financial times." could you explain the menu of options that the committee has for improving its communication about when it might raise interest rates and what the conditions are which it might do. might it make sense for it to publish a forecast of its future interest rates and what are the advantages and disadvantages of doing that?

>> as i noted in my opening remarks, no decisions have been made, and i want to be clear that there is no final outcome here in this discussion. but there are a range of things we can do. we can provide more information about our objectives. we can provide information about what inflation is to be in the long-term, for example. we can provide information about the future path of interest rates, which we have done to some extent via our mid-2013 statement. and the alternative approach that charlie evans and others have suggested is to tie that to economic conditions and to provide more information about under what circumstances we would raise rates. that is something we have discussed and is an interesting alternative. there's a lot of interest in using the survey for economic projections in constructive ways. to provide information to the

public about our plans, and in particular, using the s.e.p. as a way of giving information about our future policy decisions is something that is on the table. no decision has been made about that, but that's one direction we might find productive. >> bbc news, what is happening in europe has an impact on the u.s. economy. can what the fed do more than react to events happening abroad? >> it is a bit frustrating. the key decision makers in europe are the european leaders and economic policy makers there and ultimately it's their responsibility to find solutions to have -- to this very difficult problem. i and treasury secretary and

other economic policy makers do confer and meet with european policy makers and give them advice. sometimes they take it, sometimes they don't. but they have to make those decisions. so what we can do is only a couple of things. one is that we can look at our own financial institutions and try to assess the exposures and the linkages between our institutions and those in europe and the conch debt in europe and have been doing that on a consistent basis. we have looked also with other regulators, money market mutual funds and other institutions that have connections to europe. that's one thing we can do. and the other thing we can do is stand ready as necessary to provide support that the broader economy needs should things worsen. we are hopeful that the latest measures vigorously implemented

will ultimately reduce the stresses, but in the case that things do get worse, both monetary policy and our policies of lender of last resort are available to insulate the u.s. economy from the effects. >> can you talk about what impact you have seen from longer term c.d. rates and development bond yields and do you have any recommendations for people buying on that income? >> it's a little bit early to assess the effects of what we call the maturity extension program, but it does seem to be having at least in a preliminary sense, does seem to be having the intended effect of lowering longer term interest rates and

twisting the yield curve as was anticipated. that, in turn, should lead to still lower mortgage rates and other interest rates that are relevant to the economy. we are quite aware that low interest rates do have costs for a lot of people. they have costs for safers. we have complaints from banks that complain that their net interest margins are affected by low interest rates. pension funds will be affected if low interest rates for a protracted period require them to make larger contributions. we are aware of those concerns and take them very seriously. i think the response is, though, that there is a greater good, which is the health and recovery of the u.s. economy and for that purpose, we have been keeping monetary policy, trying to

support job creation. savers are not going to get very good returns in a. and if you want to earn money in your investments, you have to invest in an economy that is growing. and so we believe that our policy will >> given how hard it is to bringdown unemployment, why are you confident that you have the tools to bring it down in the future? >> well, we have the ability to provide more stimulus and accommodation.

>> a monetary policy by lowering interest rates and making conditions more accommodating should stimulate spending and over a period of time, that will help bring down unemployment. that is something that we know from a lot of experience and although it has been a very slow press here, we don't think it wouldn't work in this case as well. part of the increase in unemployment reflects structural factors, mismatches between worker skills and job opportunities, loss of skills and geographical mismatch, et cetera, and to the extent that that's the case, monetary policy is less effective because in that case only other kinds of

labor market policies can really make progress against that type of unemployment. but again, i do think that a considerable part of the unemployment we are seeing is cyclical and amenable to monetary policy. cyclical unemployment left untreated can become structural as they lose skills and attachment to the labor force, work networks dry up and so on. so in that respect, it's important for us to try to address the unemployment problem in a sense while it is amenable to monetary policy. >> you mentioned that the fed has the tools. given in the statement it says that the committee -- are you less aggressively considering -- >> we did see modest improvement

in the third quarter. we saw for example, stronger consumption spending, reasonable amount of capital investment, lower inventories, therefore suggesting more production in the fourth quarter. looks like the fourth quarter will be moderate growth fourth quarter. there was some improvement. some improvement at least early in the period in financial markets, although some of that has been reversed. so that was part of the situation that we were acknowledging in our statement, that's true. but as has been noted, the immediate -- medium turn

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> starting at 8:00 p.m., president obama and house republicans talk about their jobs plan. john pistol testifies on

aviation security and confirms that airport screeners find guns detail. and the joint deficit reduction committee holds another public hearing with the co-chairs of two previous commissioners and they have been tasked with finding deficit savings by november 23. all of these events on the c-span tv networks. >> would you continue your statement, please. you will get it in due course. >> i'm prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes office. >> he was the u.n. ambassador, former governor of illinois and ran as the democratic nominee for president. adlai stevenson. live friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern.

for a preview for his speech and other videos. go to our web site. >> when i got into it i started to sell my book, ever person i worked with i had a rejection. and i said what about this? >> in his nonfiction, he questions the motivations, ethics and morality of brilliant people. his account of mark zucker berg was adapted for the screen, "bringing down the house" followed students who won millions in las vegas and "sex on the moon" tracks a candidate. now your chance to ask your questions. earlier today, new hampshire

secretary of state william gardner announced january 10, 2012 will be the state's primary retaining its status as the first in the nation. this is 25 minutes. >> welcome. good to see you a lot of you again since last week. this will be the 25th new hampshire presidential primary and contrary to what some of you have heard, this is only the ninth one that i have actually set the date for. standing to my left is former state representative and state senator, who wrote the language in 1975, 36 years ago that was the first protection that was codified in state law to preserve the tradition of the new hampshire primary and he has

been with me when i set the date in years past. and to my right is the son of the late former governor hugh gregg who championed the primary over the years during my years in office, more than anyone else. and i have had kay gregg here in the past and hope to have her this year but was unable to be here with us, so i asked cy if he would be here. he was with me in 2004 when i set the date then. last week, near the end of the filing period, ed o'donnell, one of the candidates came up to me and he had filed over 20 years ago for president.

his picture is right there actually and he said something to me that sums up in many ways what the new hampshire presidential primary tradition is all about. and he said that there's still many tyrants in countries around the world, but new hampshire is like no other place on earth, where all individuals, regardless of their status in life, can get their name placed on the ballot by a very simple process and have a chance to run for president. and he made that comment, as others have in the past that the new hampshire primary has really been for those regardless of their status, whether they have fame or fortune, but they have a

chance here. and it's my honor and privilege to say this morning that the tradition of the new hampshire presidential primary lives on. and it will be held on the second tuesday, the 10th day of next year, 2012. most of you in this room have in your own way, whether you are legislative leaders or party leaders from all walks of life have helped inappropriate ways protecting and -- in appropriate ways protecting the primaries. whether it was your work with candidates and took what

appropriate action they felt was best, but a lot of individuals here have been part of preserving our tradition. and i want to point out that our friends in iowa and south carolina and particularly the state republican chairs there, they were helpful at the critical time during this -- during this last month to six weeks, demonstrating the solidarity of the early states and both were willing to come here to demonstrate that solidarity if it was necessary. but they were able in their own personal conversations to help without having to do that publicly.

so i'm going to ask former representative because without that language 36 years ago, we wouldn't be where wer because that was the first time that after having had the primaries for over half a century with a specific law having it on a specific day, it was necessary after 50 years to change if we needed, to have the flexibility, if we needed, to preserve and honor the tradition. and i was in the legislature at the time, and i know there were a lot of people that were not exactly supportive of that at that time. but the language was put into the statute and the language has certainly come in handy over the years. and he's always been there to make sure that in my years that

i live up to what that spirit and law actually meant. so, with that, if you would like to say something, jim. >> i have been involved one way or another in every primary in new hampshire since 1960 when i delivered little fliers in my neighborhood for a neighboring united states senator who was running for president. and in all that time, i have learned and seen that the new hampshire primary really is not about new hampshire, it's about protecting an important element of american democracy, to make sure there is a way and a place where candidates running for office in a real election, which new hampshire's primary is can meet voters face to face, eye to eye in their living rooms and on the streets to communicate their messages. not so much about money, not so much about national networking. in new hampshire, it's about being able to relate with people

and we get to see them up close and they learn from us as well. it's never been about competition between new hampshire and any other state or any of the national parties. that new hampshire we consider in 2016, 2020, a december scenario if necessary, as the secretary of state indicated that he might be willing to do this year, should give a message to the other states and to the national parties that they need to find ways to be able to make sure that seven days or more after new hampshire is a protected window in the future. bill gardner did incredibly well at being able to make clear that that seven days is what the new hampshire primary is all about. not just that we are first but at least seven days and will likely be more this time after the new hampshire primary that the candidate who did well,

either came in first or second or communicated their messages well and learned a lot in our state, can go on to other states and do well there. today begins the next process. it ends the strategy of the past several months to make sure that new hampshire will stay first, but begins the process that really the election for the candidates begins today. january 10, 2012 happens to be 68 days from now. the polls in new hampshire open on midnight on that day and that is 1,644 hours from now. [laughter] >> so the candidates have a lot of work to do. what we have learned in the past, though, everything that's been done before this date as the new hampshire primary seriously gets under way is what has happened in the past.

we have seen a lot of unpredictability in candidates in past elections and candidates might want us to get the polls and get the fundraising they have already done, might want to look at the next 68 days and make their messages in new hampshire, because this is where it counts. and bill, you did a wonderful job again. thank you. [applause] >> how close were we if nevada hadn't moved, the announcing of the date today? >> well, we were -- i was sort of on the edge of a cliff. and i was hoping that if i had to move, that there would be a puddle of water to jump into if

necessary. but this cycle, in my opinion, the most difficult cycle for new hampshire was 1984. then 1996, and then 2000 and then 2008 and then this one. [laughter] >> if you consider the cliff going the year before, i first said that new hampshire could possibly have its primary before the end of this year, only after it was confirmed by me that nevada had a resolution that said that nevada was going to have its event four days after new hampshire whenever new hampshire was going to have it s

event. and once i confirmed that, i knew, based on that, we would have to have the possibility on the table that we might have to go the year before. and we face that before in the 1990's and two states actually had laws that said they were going to have their primary on the same day as ours, whenever that was going to be. and we know that after the four days after this year that we faced, that state decided to set a date and that state decided to change the date. so it wasn't necessary. we never actually had to look to the other side of the cliff. we just were looking on the side that we had come from. so -- >> what did the parties do in

the next election cycle to stop this from happening again? >> a lot of people -- that's a question, certainly on a lot of people's minds across the country. and i'm always hopeful. i thought after the last cycle that we would not face this again. and i'm hopeful that in the next cycle we won't have to face it again, but there is no simple answer to that question. >> r.n.c. -- are you encouraged by the way that the r.n.c. handled the nevada situation this time around that they do

understand in going forward? >> yes. certainly. and what they dwemon straighted that they were -- demonstrated that they were willing to do in that process. that was a good thing and it helped. >> do you still feel -- for those who don't know, could you refresh our memories about new hampshire's record in picking presidents. >> new hampshire has always -- the winner of the new hampshire primary going back has become president except three times and it was a second-place in new hampshire. so that's the record of new hampshire. no one has finished below second

and become president since we have had listing of the names of the presidential candidates on the ballot in addition to when we had the delegates on the ballot grouped together by candidates so that a voter could -- and you don't have to win new hampshire to be perceived as the winner, because in some cases, a candidate who exceeded expectations substantially was perceived to be the winner here. and that a historical fact over the years that has made a difference for some candidates and that was clearly the case in 1968 that when this primary really gained the attention of the country because of what happened here and a sitting

president changing his mind and decided not to run for re-election after the new hampshire primary and before the next state had a primary. >> with that record, what does that say about the new hampshire primary given that record? >> the thing about the new hampshire primary and new hampshire in particular, just think about this, four years ago, over half a million individuals in this state went to a polling place on january 8 and voted, over half a million voters that day. we had 529,000 votes cast. less than 5% were by absentee. people in this state wait until the end. they look at early innings. they want to watch all of it because significant events have happened here during the last

weekend of a campaign, events that sort of become symbolic for people, because the difference among candidates within a party are not as great as the general election, certainly. and little things make a difference. and people in this state care deeply about who they choose and that it be right, that it be right for the country and put a lot of time and effort into this. they attend events. we had a survey after 2000 that are actually affords them -- the people that were surveyed said they shook the hand of a presidential candidate. not just asked a question but actually shaking the hand of a candidate. people care here and we have this turnout that every person on the check list in new

hampshire can vote in the presidential primary. we have a closed primary, because you have to declare your party before you vote, but we don't have a requirement that someone has to stay in the party for a week, six months, six years. we don't have a duration requirement. but before you vote, you have to have declared your party. but anyone on the check list can vote. that's why our numbers are so high and that's why the result here is so meaningful, because it is a true cross section, not just a small percentage, but a huge percentage of the people of this state. >> [inaudible] some say it was a distraction to an agreement. do you agree? >> anything that candidates felt

was appropriate on their own to help preserve the tradition of the primaries helps us and is appreciated. >> during this 24/7 news cycle that we have on twitter and facebook, but throughout the process, you kind of got elevated into other worldly status. bill gardner invents new answer now. [laughter] >> what do you think of the status that has been created around yourself? >> we didn't know much about it. there is a suspect in this room who is believed to have started that. but nobody is really familiar or tweeted in this office and we

were talking about it six weeks ago. i was asking a few people if they could show me what this was all about, but there was only one person here who actually ever looked at it. but it was pretty entertaining. the first person to mention to me was the second day and the person actually told me two of them. and one of them was -- one of them was about the 11 days versus the seven days and the other was that i wasn't really bald but my hair left in fear. [laughter] >> those are the first two i actually heard and then some of them -- there's one thing when i set the date for the first primary, we had the three

national networks and that was it. and then we got cnn and some of the others. and then later cycles, we had local tv stations from detroit or atlanta. and each cycle, technology has changed how this is followed by the rest of the country. and it's wherever you live in the country it's in your back yard because of technology. and it was 2000 that for the first time computers actually played some role in this and then 2004, bigger and this time, it's twitter, with the suspect in here got started. that's a change and how fast everything is.

>> what was the one that -- one of them was about new hampshire doesn't need a photo i.d. because i know everybody that votes. [laughter] >> that was it. >> many of you were here during the filing period and now, you take it from here. and it's your way of treating the candidates fairly and -- new

hampshire is unpredictable and it is unscripted. and those moments are precious, because those moments have shown the rest of the country some insight into candidates' character that may never have been made -- that they may never have had the chance to become aware of. and those moments are your moments. that's how they happen. and you play a big role in this as well and how the candidates remember their times here. so the legislative leaders, party leaders, citizen activists and the person who puts the time into it really wants to do the right thing and really wants to

make the right choice. they care about it and they do it and it's time for them to go from here. 10 weeks, 70 days -- that's it. that's it. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> watch more video of the candidates and track the latest campaign contributions with c-span's web site for campaign 2012. it helps you 1/2 debate the political landscape. candidate bios and links to c-span partners, all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> and c-span's road to the white house continues on friday as five candidates head to iowa. we expect to hear from perry,

gingrich, bachmann and paul and santorum. there will be a debate on the u.s. economy and social issues in houston saturday live here on c-span and watch on c-span.org or listen on c-span radio. >> president obama today continued to try to rally support for his jobs bill. speaking at the key bridge in washington, he called on congress to authorize $50 billion for infrastructure spending and took aim at congressional leaders for failing to pass legislation to put americans back to work. >> if the speaker of the house, the republican leader in the senate, all the democrats all say this is important to do, why aren't we doing it?

what's holding us back? let's get moving and put america back to work and if congress tells they don't have time, they've got time to do it. in the house of representatives, what are you guys been debating, a coin for baseball. [laughter] >> you had legislation reaffirming that "in god we trust" is our motto? that's not putting people back to work. i trust in god, but god wants us to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work. [applause] >> both were at the capitol today, a group of house republicans unveiled a jobs plans which proposes changes to the tax code and eliminating federal regulations, contrasting their ideas from the president's proposals. >> this is basically the opposite of the so-called jobs

package that the president has laid out, which is really no jobs package at all or the president's proposal is a rehash of the proposals of jobs creation in the past by this administration which consisted of spending more money and rolling out jobs-ready programs that we hear from the white house that would create jobs for the country and we learn that those jobs-ready programs are not jobs-ready programs and did not create the jobs they anticipated but cost the american taxpayers more money. >> watch both these events tonight at 8:00 here on c-span. next, state department's supposeman briefs reporters on the middle east process. she said the obama administration is disappoint wd yesterday's announcement about housing construction in east jerusalem and the west bank but looks forward to another

session. from the state department, this portion is about 15 minutes. >> we are deeply disappointed by yesterday's announcement about the accelerated housing construction in jerusalem and the west bank. we continue to make our opposition clear to the government of israel and as we said again and again and again, unilateral actions by either party work against efforts to resume direct negotiations and do not advance the goal of a reasonable and necessary agreement between these parties. so we have also said that we believe that the regular transfer of money, whether it's u.s. money, whether it's israeli money is important and should continue to be made. this is key to strengthening palestinian institutions and necessary for funding the future of the state. again, we want to see both sides get back to focusing on the negotiations and away from unilateral actions that make all

of that harder. >> at what level have you made clear your continued opposition to these steps? was it the ambassador in tel aviv? >> yes. >> anyone higher than that? >> david is the secretary's representative on these issues. >> i know. >> you said israeli money, but that's actually palestinian money, as i understand it. >> correct. >> and do you see an equivalent, then, of what the palestinians did having the very symbolic vote at unesco versus the tangible response from the israelis? >> i think our concern is that neither of these sets of actions is helpful to the environment of getting back to the negotiating table. and there is action-reaction here that is not helpful. we are trying to get these parties into a positive cycle of

engagement and trying to encourage them to come back to the table, and that's going to continue to be our focus and our concern is that the move in unesco where it may have looked symbolic to some actually has real consequences, has consequences on the u.s. side, which you have seen, but in terms of the environment, that this is what we have been warning about. >> you have been saying all along it doesn't change anything. unesco doesn't change anything on the ground, does it? but what israel did yesterday changes things on the ground. are you unprepared or unwilling to take action against either side for continuing to do things that you said are destructive to the peace process? >> what are you proposing, matt? sounds like i got a policy

recommendation. >> that would be the best and brightest that you have in this administration trying to figure out things. how is it u.s. policy to encourage peace talks -- you are unwilling to do anything against either side when they continue to ignore you and not just ignore you but make matters worse. you are a parent, you have two spoiled children, what do you do to get them to stop that behavior? you punish them. you take some kind of action. you did have leverage with the israelis because you give them $3 billion a year. you did have leverage with the palestinians because you give them millions of dollars a year and yet you aren't going to do anything with that? >> we are engaged in policies rather than questions for the podium. i think you know where we are.

>> answer this, if the administration upset or embarrassed at all by the fact that two relatively tiny groups of people are running rough showed over american foreign policy? >> we are concerned about whether we can get back to a good environment for talks. >> you do believe your involvement in u.n. organizations such as the unesco, iaea, your involvement is an american interest and you are prepared to allow these two small groups of people to make you forfeit your national interests in international organizations? that's what you are saying to me. >> look, with regard to unesco, we were absolutely clear not only with the palestinians but with the international community that if this went forward, there would be a cost. there is legislation on the books. it is u.s. law we have to cut

off funding in this case. that is what we have done. the choice was clear, the choice was made. now what is important is that everybody, the parties, the international community, all need to take a step back and find a way forward back to the negotiating table that doesn't force bad choices on the international community, that enables the parties to get back to productive work together. that is what we are focus odd. >> across the street this morning, former secretary of state james baker complained that the u.s. has not shown leadership and referenced his position back 20 years ago on the loan guarantees when he said we will give the loan guarantees if you stop the settlement and he apparently used that as a basis of an example of leadership. do you concur with secretary baker? >> secretary baker is a private citizen and was engaged in this

process 20 years ago. he has spent a lot of time as secretary working on these issues. at the time when secretary baker was serving, the u.s. was not speaking out publicly about the importance of the palestinians having a state. >> just a quick follow-up. you said that for the next 12 months, there is not likely to be any negotiations or going back to the negotiations and therefore the united states should focus on three things, one to maintain peace in gaza and second to make sure that israeli-palestinian security remain and thirdly and most importantly, to refocus on the egyptian-israeli peace treaty. if that goes down, everything else in the region will go down. >> we are focused on all of those things but trying to make progress with these parties and

trying to use the president's framework from may 19 and the cortet to get the parties working on the issues that divide them and narrowing the differences. we are not prepared to give up on the differences. >> and lastly, do you feel at one point this window will close completely? >> i'm not going to set up false premises out there in the future. you know where we are focused. >> former secretary of state rice gave a very strong interview to associated press yesterday in which she also had serious issues with the way this administration was handling the peace process. now in the last two days, you have two secretaries of states questioning the way this administration is handling the peace process.

you haven't been able to get the parties to the table. it does from that point speak to -- an ineffectiveness. no one is challenging your commitment to wanting a two-state solution, but does speak to the ineffectiveness of u.s. policy. is there any -- is there any thought to maybe including a wider group in some of these peace efforts? i'm not talking about the cortet but other parties. you don't, just to be blunt, you don't seem to be getting anywhere with these parties and don't seem to have enough influence if you aren't willing to take these measures of consequence to get the parties to do what you need them to do. do you go back to the drawing board and start again or do you walk away and say if you aren't going to help yourselves, we can't help you? >> i don't think anybody here

believes you can bludgeon parties to the peace table. that is not the exercise we are engaged in. i would reject the premise that we haven't moved forward in recent weeks. we did have, less than two weeks ago, envoy meeting with each party in which both parties agreed to try to work now with us on the next stage of the road map that the cortet put forward, namely to come up with concrete proposals on territory and on security. we will continue to keep our sleeves rolled up and work with the parties on the goal of having another meeting in the next couple of weeks so we can see what the progress of their internal thinking is and meet the deadline of having them exchange those first drafts with each other within 90 days. we have a path going forward and we are focused on trying to stick to that so we can actually

narrow the gap, because that's what's most important. >> if that can't be done, you do you think that is what is happening? >> that is why we were warning against the move in unesco and exactly why we have been critical of the settlement activity and why we want to focus international pressure on these parties to come become, why we set out a concrete approach that breaks things down into smaller bites and endeavor to narrow the gap. >> you said another meeting in the next couple of weeks. did you meet another set of meetings? >> correct. can i let michelle -- she had her hand up. >> the u.n. bid, the palestinians are now expecting a vote either on november 11, 13, somewhere. what's your diplomacy been on that? i know bosnia seems to be unable

to decide where to go. have you been reaching out to countries like bosnia not to support the palestinians? >> we are working as we did in new york. and working with all of our security council on this issue. the focus on that activity is largely in new york, but i don't think anybody doubts where we stand on this and we continue to make that point clear. >> last two questions, there might not be negotiations which you did not object. and ineffectiveness in the peace process, some argue it's because the last two months is the pre-election season and administration -- inaudible --

do you see this making you less effective in any way and the way it affects your ability? >> american elections or -- >> election of this administration. >> we are trying to make as much progress as we can. we are working on having another round, another session with these parties in coming weeks. we are focused very much on the 90-day clock that the cortet set for these parties to be ready to exchange their ideas with each other so we can start negotiations. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]. . . >> president obama called on congress to authorize $50 billion for infrastructure spending and took aim at congressional leaders for failing to pass legislation to put americans back to work. >> if the speaker of the house, the republican leader in the

senate, all the democrats, all say that this is important to do, why aren't we doing it? what's holding us back? let's get moving. and put america back to work. [applause] and if congress tells you they don't have time, they've got time to do it. we've been in the house of representatives, what have you guys been debating? john, juvee been debating a commemorative coin for baseball. [laughter] you had legislation reaffirming that in god we trust is our motto. that's not putting people back to work. i trust in god, but god wants to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work. [applause] >> over at the capitol today, a group of house republicans unveiled a jobs plan which proposes changes to the tax code. and eliminating federal

regulations. contrasting their ideas from the president's proposals. >> this is an act opposite of the so-called jobs package that the president has laid out which is actually no jobs package at all or the propose's proposal is really a rehash of the proposals of job creation in the past by this administration. which basically has -- simply consisted of spending more money, rolling out so-called jobs-ready programs that we hear from the white house would immediately create jobs for the country but then quickly relearn that those jobs-ready programs are not jobs-ready programs and in fact did not create the jobs as they anticipated but simply cost the american taxpayers more money. >> watch both these events tonight beginning at k p.m. eastern on -- 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. first day on washington -- thursday on "washington journal," jim mcgovern of massachusetts stops by to discuss potential cuts in government-funded food and nutrition programs.

then we'll hear from republican congressman bill huizenga of michigan. he talks about the u.s. economy and the work of the supercommittee. later a history of vaccines with dr. plotkin. washington jurmd takes your calls -- "washington journal" takes your calls, emails and tweets on c-span. >> every weekend on "american history tv" the people and events that document the american story. this weekend on american artifacts, white house curator on the decorative and fine arts rarely seen outside the white house now on display at the smithsonian's gallery. and from the civil war, author jeff on historical fiction. he's written both a prequell and sequel to his father's to move he will, "killer angels" and the gold water for president committee follows barry

goldwater in 1964. look for the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history. or for our schedules in your inbox, click the c-span alert button. >> earlier today white house press secretary said that europe is a high priority right now and he anticipates that its debt crisis will be the focus of the upcoming g-20 summit. the president will meet with european and other leaders at the summit beginning tomorrow. this briefing runs 55 minutes. >> hi. good afternoon. welcome to the daily briefing. i have no announcements to make at the top so i will go straight to questions. >> you said that europe should be swift, that that -- does that mean that the president would oppose the referendum in greece

because it could delay resolutions? >> we have said and i'll say again today that europe made some important decisions and we look forward to further elaboration of those decisions and rapid implementation of them. the events in greece that you reference only underscore the need for europe to come together and to unite behind conclusive action that resolves this crisis. so we would anticipate that this will be a subject of discussion at the g-20 to which the president departs this evening. and, you know, our goal is for there to be unanimity of purpose coming out of the g-20 which is the preeminent forum as this administration desired, the preeminent forum for these kinds of discussions about the global

economy. and clearly europe is a high priority right now. >> will the president at the g-20 specifically address the greek referendum? >> he will certainly meet with his counterparts in the g-20 including chancellor merkel and prime minister cameron, president sarkozy and others and this will certainly be a topic of discussion. i can pretty much predict that with great confidence. as you know, chancellor merkel and president sarkozy are meeting with the greeks today and i don't want to get out ahead of any outcome that have meeting but what i fully anticipate is that this will be a focus of the g-20 meeting. >> on the president's speech today, he referenced the house action yesterday on the in god we trust motto and said, i trust in god but god wants to see us

help ourselves by putting people back to work. i mean, isn't it a bit much to bring god into the jobs debate? >> well, i believe the phrase from the bible is the lord helps those who help themselves and i think the point the president is making is that, you know, we have it within our capacity to do the things to help the american people. and that's why he's working so hard to get congress to take action on the american jobs act and the provisions therein. and he -- because he believes it's in the interest of the american people that that action be taken. and certainly believes that americans who are unemployed, who are looking for work deserve the attention of washington, the atext of congress, as well as -- attention of congress, as well as of the president in their policymaking decisions.

it's the number one priority for him, getting the economy growing faster and getting the economy creating more jobs. now, he was obviously making it -- this particular reference in the context of inaction by the house of representatives which has spent time on issues like commemorative hall of fame baseball coins and reaffirming a motto that i don't think anyone doubted which is that in god we trust is our motto. so, his point was simply that the house should get busy with matters of great importance to the united states and to the american people. yes, karen. >> what is the white house reaction to israel's decision to speed up settlement building and what impact do you think this could have on the effort to restart the peace process? >> we are deeply disappointed by yesterday's announcement about accelerated housing construction in jerusalem and the west bank. as we have said before,

unilateral actions work against efforts to resume direct negotiations and they do not advance the goal of a reasonable and pace in agreement between the parties and that's the only way to achieve the two-state solution that both sides have as their goal, with the palestinians having their own sovereign state and the israelis having the security that they so deeply deserve. so, any action, as we have said all along, that either side takes, that makes it harder rather than easier for both parties to come together and direct -- in direct negotiations is something we oppose, that we are disappointed by. and that would be the case here. >> on europe, does the president have to walk a fine line in some respects, in the sense that when secretary geithner went over to europe a few weeks ago and seemed to be offering advice to the europeans, the reaction among some was, we don't need your advice, don't tell us what

to do, does he have to sort of strike a balance there of being helpful but not appear to be lecturing them or telling them how to get this done? >> i appreciate the question. we have said that this is a european problem and that the europeans have both the capacity -- have the capacity to resolve it, the resources necessary to resolve it. and need to take conclusive action to do so. it is also the case that we have a certain amount of experience in making the hard decisions and mustering the political will to take the actions necessary to save our financial system and in fact the global financial system which is what happened in 2008 and 2009. so we have a role here to play because of our experience and knowledge and of course the fact

that we are the largest economy in the world and we, you know, can bring to bear insight and experience in a way that really no other nation can. but there's no question that this is a problem that the europeans need to solve and that they can solve using the resources they have at their -- variable to -- available to them. >> is there anything the united states can or would offer at the g-20 to help greece and to help -- [inaudible] >> the united states obviously has a great deal of influence because of who we are and the role we play in the global economy and globally in general. and i would not discount the significance of the experience that we have as -- in terms of

its usefulness to the europeans. separately -- on the second point, if you're referring to assistance, well, you know, as i just stated, the capacity exists, the europeans have the resources necessary to deal with this and both through the resources the europeans have and the i.m.f. there is what we believe is the resources that are necessary for this to be democratic with. -- dealt with. what remains to be done is the further elaboration and rapid implementation of the kinds of decisions that were made last week by european leaders. >> anything on the dinner tonight, the -- that vice president biden is holding with cantor? >> i might invite myself to come along. but the -- no, the fact is, and i can't remember if we discussed this or not, if i did from the podium, that vice president and congressman cantor i think fair to say developed a close

relationship during their prolonged negotiations earlier this year. you have to remember that at least in the case of the vice president he's deserves a senator for 36 years and he began service in the senate at a time when relations between members were, i think it's fair to say, much more collegial and he remembers that time fondly. and he certainly believes that any restoration of that kind of collegial atmosphere serves a greater purpose. so he -- my understanding is that this is something that the two gentlemen had wanted to do for some time and they finally got it on the schedule. >> congress still has about eight appropriations bills left to do, the c.r. runs out in about two weeks. would you support a longer term c.r. to get that done, get that work done? >> you know, i don't have anything for you on that.

we want to let congress do its job, we're focused on creating jobs right now and we're obviously engaged in that process but i don't have anything specific to say about how congress will fulfill its responsibility. >> do you have anything specific to say about the work of the supercommittee? many outsiders say that the money isn't going to solve the problem. >> the president definitely believes that congress can and should do more. when he put his proposals forward at the very beginning of this process there was a reason that they amounted to such significantly higher number in savings, deficit reduction, because he believes that that's the kind of figure you need to shoot for if you want to reach a solution to this problem in the near term.

near and medium term. so, and that $3 trillion, $4 trillion goal that is manifested in the president's proposal, it reflects a similar belief that bipartisan commissions have looked at this problem -- who have looked at this problem have reached. so, what is also true is that congress' mandate is to reach a certain threshold. the president's put forward his proposals, he certainly hopes that as the committee does its work it takes into account what he believes is essential which is that any outcome here needs to be balanced so that the burden of reducing our deficit is not borne by seniors or others in our society who are struggling, that everyone pays their fair share. so we'll see how the committee carries on. >> any guidance or push from

here? >> well, the guidance and push comes in the form of the very detailed proposal the president put forward. as i think i've said before, the solutions here are not that complicated. it's not -- it takes political will. >> are you talking to members of the supercommittee? >> we discuss, you know, actions in congress all the time. and -- but this is a congressionally created committee with congressional membership, no seats at the table for members of the administration. the president at the beginning of the process put forward very clearly his proposal, publicly did it. and hopes that the committee takes it up. certainly if they took it up, passed it and it emerged out of congress as he wrote it, i guarantee you he'd sign it. but we'll have to see how congress and this committee in particular fulfills its mandate.

let me go to the back there. yes in the yellow tie. >> you can address the text you've goten from speaker boehner, mitch mcconnell, the president has been off campaigning and has all these campaign events, instead of staying in washington and digging down into the legislative process on these jobs bills, on the supercommittee. >> as i said many times before, the president is out talking to the american people, hearing from them and explaining to them his ideas for moving this country forward, growing the economy, creating jobs. one of the reasons he's doing it and we're being very transparent about it is because he understands that there is resistance among republicans to actually address the number one priority, the need to grow the economy and create jobs, and that he doesn't think that republicans will listen to him if they stand in a room and tell him how important it is to do this but he does think that they

might listen to their own constituents. and that is why he's calling on americans around the country and certainly in the states and cities and towns and rural areas that he's visited recently, to let their voice be heard, to make sure their congressman, their senators understand how essential they believe it is that congress get off the dime and take action on their urgent priority of growing the economy and creating jobs. as i've said before, the republicans may refer to this as campaigning, the president would be delighted to be deprived of the opportunity of having to make this pitch if congress -- if it meant that congress actually acted and passes the american jobs act and did it in a way that paid for it so there's no adding to the deficit, not a dime, and paying for it in a way that's widely supported by the american people. again, poll after poll demonstrates this to be true.

not just democrats, but independents and republicans as well. there's not a lot of complexity here, you know, as the president has shown, because he's worked with republicans in congress on the free trade agreements, on t.a.a., on patent reform, on the 3% with holding which is working its way through congress and we support, repeal of that provision which was passed into law in the previous administration and voted for by republican leaders, but we agree should be repealed, where we can find common ground and work together this president is very eager to do so. especially where it has a positive impact on growth and jobs. but there is clear and obvious resistance in the senate so far because that's where the votes have taken place to the kind of commonsense, middle-of had been the-road solutions. one of the reasons that they put

forward for opposing them, even though they're the kinds of things they've supported in the past, is because they don't think millionaires and billionaires in this country should pay a little extra so that our economy can grow and more americans can go back to work. now, that's a position that they can take, it's just happens not to be supported by a broad majority of americans and i suspect not supported by a majority of the constituents that members of the republican party represent. so, that's the debate we're having. and the president is taking that debate out into the country. on these trips. and discussing it with, you know, presenting his ideas to americans in a variety of ways including through the regional television interviews he did from here yesterday. because he feels so passionately that that's the right thing to do. so we hope that as we move along, the senate as you know is going to put forward and vote on the provision from the jobs act on infrastructure, infrastructure used to be

something that republicans and democrats supported in a broad, bipartisan coalition. hopefully that will be the case. in the senate. and hopefully the house will begin to take up some of these measures. as we go through this process the president remains hopeful that enough republicans will vote for them so that we can take the measures necessary to put americans back to work. because what remains true, and i believe the speaker of the house may have said something about this earlier today, about measures that he has deemed job creating measures that he believes should be acted on and i would just point you to the assessment of outside independent analysts, economic analysts, about their so-called jobs plan. and even if you believe that the ideas contained within their jobs plan are good ones and merited, they do not address the near term economic need that we have. they do not grow the economy in the short-term. they do not create jobs in the

short-term. and in case of the senate economic plan, jobs plan that was put forward, i believe it was macroeconomic advisors said that if it were implemented right away, including the balanced budget amendment, it would cost millions of jobs. i don't believe that's what the american people are looking for congress to do. >> the president -- [inaudible] with democratic leaders yesterday and today. he hasn't brought the republican leadership up here. he hasn't called for, for example, a jobs summit which lindsay graham said would be a great idea. why not engage the republicans more directly instead of just, you know, going up and holding campaign events and throwing up bills that you know, everybody knows this infrastructure bill is going to die in the senate tomorrow? >> look, i've said before, the president has in the past, i think, as you know, i assume you as well as many others in here know, met with republican leaders at great length and on many occasions this year and i'm sure he will continue to do so in the coming months and years of his presidency.

the fact of the matter is this is, again, we constructed, he constructed the jobs act and made sure it was filled with provisions that had historically garnered republican support because he wanted it to pass. i don't think there's a constituency larger, much larger than the population of this room who would support the idea that what america needs right now is for another meeting to be held in the cabinet room when the solutions to our problems are so clear. and i'm not precluding further immediatings -- meetings on important issues because there will be. but when it comes to job creation, again, the -- it's just not that complicated. if you want to grow the economy in the short-term, you want to take measures and do it in a way that's paid for and doesn't add to the deficit, the american jobs act is the answer. provisions that -- ideas that republicans or others in congress have that answer the mail with regard to near term economic growth and job creation, this president is very eager to look at and consider.

as long as they're paid for and as long as they're paid for in a way that's fair. >> when you were saying the republican plan does not create jobs in the short-term, god has not issued a verdict on the jobs bill, but the congressional budget office has and republicans like to point out that on the infrastructure piece that's being debated in the senate now, kolb says that the majority of the projects would be spent out in 2017. so when the president goes to the key bridge today and says, you know, you got to pass this so question act now, isn't this in fact something that's going to take a few years to create jobs? >> i'm not sure about the c.b.o. report, if that's referring to the infrastructure part or the broader infrastructure surface transportation bill, but -- because the infrastructure portion of the jobs act is targeted for projects that can be implemented in the short-term. there's no question that they extended, will jobs be created because of the jobs act if it's passed beyond 2012? yes, indeed, and we think that's a good thing, too, and as the

president mentioned today at key bridge, if the infrastructure bill were passed out of the senate, out of the house and signed into law, that it would allow that project to be sped up and begin creating jobs in 2013. again, it's -- the purpose of the jobs act is to have the most immediate near term impact and near term certainly means both 2012 and 2013, but also positive job impact in the future. again, concentration is in the near term. >> the g-20, just to push it one step further, the question us got before, you were trying to walk a balance here. there's a narrative that's developing, it might be a wrong narrative, but that china's got a lot more clout going to the g-20. they have an open checkbook, and that the president is going empty handed because you were talking before about can bring experience to the table but you don't distribute u.s. doesn't have the money right now to go in and help with the bailout. so is the president going from a position of weakness?

>> absolutely not. the united states is still the largest economy in the world. it is still the most power of nation in terms of its -- powerful nation in terms its alliances and its influence around the world. and that influence comes in a variety of ways including the wealth of experience that we have. so i would not discount the importance of that with regard to this. but the focus here is not on whether or not the chinese involve themselves financially. that really is a side show to the focus here. the focus here is a european problem that requires a european solution for which the europeans have the resources and capacity necessary and that requires the kind of political will that would allow for the rapid implementation of the necessary solutions. we have some experience with

making tough decisions in the face of financial and economic instability. and i think that that experience is valuable to those having to make these decisions in europe. >> one of the interviews the president did yesterday, he said the american people are better off because of his policies, because he prevented a lot of worse things that could have happened. you've said that before. october 3, though, i think it was, an abc interview, he was asked that directly, he said the american people are not better off. >> they are better off than they were four years ago. four years ago is the summer or the late summer, early fall of 2007, before the economy collapsed, before the financial crisis. so i think it is a statement of fact that unemployment wasn't as high, that the economy hadn't begun to contract. what is also true is that when this president took office in january of 2009 the economy was in freefall.

we had contracted. the economy shrank by almost 9% in the fourth quarter of 2008. the final quarter of president bush's time in office. we were shedding jobs at rate of almost up to 800,000 a month. that's an extraordinary amount of job loss. the recession took an eight million-job toll on employment in this country. all of those factors obviously were felt by our economy and our country before this president's policies were either debated or passed or signed into law and let alone had a chance to take effect. , so what this president did was make some very difficult decisions, decisions that weren't wholly popular, politically popular at the same time, including bailing out and holding accountable the american automobile industry. including saving the financial system from collapse, not

because -- to reward the financial sector but because a financial collapse would have had a terrible impact on the overall american economy and on american workers. so, since those policies began to take effect, the decline in our g.d.p. was halted and reversed and the job loss was halted and reversed. it has not been nearly enough. but it is simply a matter of fact according to the statistics provided by the b.l.s. that we have now created over or close to 2.5 million private sector jobs in the last however many months. we're still seeing public sector job loss, largely teachers, which is one of the reasons why the president feels so strongly that we ought to through the american jobs act put teachers back to work, educating our children. but we have a long way to go. there is much work to be done. and this president has the stamina and the vision about where this economy needs to go.

and he's presenting his ideas to congress and to the american people to do just that. >> there's been a more than usually amount of -- [inaudible] about the iran nuclear issue. you probably saw the reports about decisions or discussions or debate that took place in the israeli cabinet. you can give us a sense of what the degree of concern here is about a potential unilateral strike by israel, has there been an assurance, has the president received an assurance that this wouldn't happen? when's the last time you spoke to prime minister netanyahu? there were israeli drills with nato and italy. so all this is coming together and it's raising some big questions. >> let me go to the start of your question which referred to buzz, rumors, decisions that may or may not have been made, debates that may or may not have been had. i'm not going to respond to that kind of speculation.

we are very focused on the threat that iran poses and the fact that iran has not upheld its responsibilities with regard to international commitments. specifically its nuclear program. and we are very focused on that and we have through the actions that we've taken, this administration has taken, have isolated iran through sanctions and other actions to the point where i believe the president of iran himself recently conceded that those sanctions are having a dramatic negative impact on their economy. we remain focused on a diplomatic channel here, a diplomatic course in terms of dealing with iran. >> has the president spoken to netanyahu? >> the -- not that i'm aware of. in recent days obviously they met at the u.n. but i have no conversations to report in

recent days. >> quick follow-up to that. on the iran threat reduction act that the house foreign affairs committee took action on, what's the administration's position on that? that legislation as it moves through? >> i don't have a position to enunciate. i haven't seen it yet. dan and then steven. >> follow up object the question from erica. the president eadvocating -- [inaudible] a house republican aide said that the baseball and in god we trust were procedural matters that took less than 20 minutes or so and again this person pointing out that they had these 20 bills that they've passed that will -- >> [inaudible] >> 20's the number. is that a fair jab from the president? >> i think the other day when they were dealing with the commemorative coin bill, i might have read or i think i read the agenda for the day which was quite anemic and it included that and whether it took 20 minutes or not, the fact is they were out of town by 3:00 p.m. the point the president is

making broadly is that, i mean, if not for the president's instistence on pushing the american jobs act, would we be having a debate about jobs and comet right now in washington? or would congress be or would the republicans in congress be so divorced from the reality that americans are encountering every day that they would be debating matters wholly unrelated to the primary concerns of the american people? i think that's possible. i know the democrats would be out there pushing this. and certainly the president is. his point merely is that the house of representatives hasn't even voted on the american jobs act, refuses to put forward provisions of the american jobs act. thus far. and while they can talk about their 15, 20, 50 for all i know, i believe it's 15 measures that they call job producers, don't take my word for it, ask economists about whether they will have a positive impact on the economy or job creation in the near term. they could argue that the long-term reforms will have impacts, deregulation, cutting

taxes, cutting waste, cutting spending, cutting regulations, maybe that is the answer, although we've seen that movie before. and it led in part to the economic crisis we were just talking about. but even if that's the right policy and we dispute much of that, it won't have a positive impact even by their own measure or the outside economists' measure or judgment in the next couple of years. well, i don't think the american people can wait. i don't think at 9.1% unemployment they expect congress to be dealing with matters only that will have a positive effect on their lives in 2014. if at all. so, yeah, i think it's a fair jab. do i say so. >> another question on europe. is it possible for the u.s. economy to have a sustained healthy recovery if the european situation is not stabilized? >> well, we are the largest and most powerful economy in the world. there's that fact. but we are also part of the global economy and one thing

that is abundantly clear i think for any of us who have been watching it this year is that there are things that happened to the global economy that have affects -- effects on the american economy, negative effects. like the earthquake and tsunami in japan, like the upheaval in the middle east that affected global oil markets, like the crisis and instability in the euro zone. that's just a reality, that this country and every country has to deal with. now, we have tremendous capacities and resources of our own. we also have the ability to take care of the things that we can control. the ability to take the measures necessary, even the tough political measures necessary, to reverse catastrophic economic contraction that we were faced with in early 2009, to reverse the massive job loss that we

were faced with in early 2009. to prevent the collapse of the financial sector, to make a very difficult, bold decision to save the american automobile industry. to save the more than a million jobs affiliated with that industry. because this president didn't believe that we should just cede that industry to our global cometters to in the 21st century and just september fact that we're going to buy cars for the rest of eternity from the rest of the world. in the present tens that means that we should do the things that we can control. we should take action to grow our economy, create jobs, and take action to address our medium and long-term deficit and debt challenge. the president has put forward plans for both of those. as of yet the republicans have yet to put forward a plan to deal with our near term challenges. >> i guess what i'm asking, even with all -- >> that didn't answer your question?

>> going back to what i said initially, though, even with all of that, if the european situation is not stabilized, won't it continue to be a drag on any kind of recovery? >> there are all sorts of head winds that exist or could potentially exist for the american economy which is why we have to take the measures we can to strengthen it, so that we can power through the challenges that exist out there. now, it's very important that the europeans take the conclusive action that's necessary to deal with this crisis. obviously for their own sake, but our interest is not entirelyal truistic. it's also because we are a very important part of the global economy and it affects our economy. but we need to take the action that we can, that we can control, to strengthen our economy, put our people back to work. one second. >> earlier you were talking about the meeting with the vice president and the majority leader. you harkin back to the days when

republicans and democrats would go out and have a drink and everybody got along and, sure, they'd fight it out on the floor but it was much more civil back then. do i take from that that, you know, the upshot of this dinner tonight could be more cooperation? it sounds more transactional whereas cantor's office is saying it's a completely social visit. >> it is a social visit. >> they're friends. >> they have a good relationship and, i mean, i've spoken with the vice president about this. and they developed a good relationship can during the course of their many negotiations. so it's a social visit. i'm not -- i mean, it's hard to imagine they won't talk some business, but maybe they'll talk sports, i don't know. but the point is that that kind of atmosphere, which, you know, where the communications aren't solely held through either negotiations over policy or in back and forths on cable shows, has in the past, in our history,

been conducive to more cooperation on the issues that americans most care about. i don't think anybody is holding, you know, out hope that one dinner is going to change the atmosphere in war but i think it is important to remember -- in washington but i think it is important to remember that, you know, we're all humans here, we're all -- everybody is a son or a daughter , mother or father, brother or sister, you know, and they're here, elected by -- in terms of the elected officials, that they're sent here by their constituents to do the work that their constituents wanted done and hopefully they're mindful of that as they press on with the business of the day. but, yes, it's a social meeting. >> another thing you often hear in town is that given the option to kick the can down the road, congress will kick the can down the road. now, november 23 is the deadline to avoid the triggers, but the triggers themselves don't kick in until 2013. so is the real deadline 2013 or

are we going to have all next year to straighten this thing out? >> you described the mechanisms that are in place through the legislation. >> the deadline, november 23 is really is the deadline. >> it is the deadline for the committee to report and my understanding is if it doesn't then -- right. i think they kick in but they don't begin to take effect for a year. you're asking me, will congress, if this were to come to pass and how congress would react next year, you know, i would hesitate to speculate on. that i think that as we've seen as discussed by members of both parties, the sequestration part of this is onerous enough to hopefully compel congress to act. and that was the purpose of it.

so that it wasn't an acceptable outcome and that therefore congress would do the right thing and make some hard political choices and come up with a bald approach to deficit and debt reduction that could clear congress and be signed by the president. so hopefully they'll do that. >> the arab league says that syria's now accepted its plan to end violence in full. has this been communicated to the white house? and would it be fair so at that -- to say that any resolution to this that leaves assad in power would not be acceptable to the united states? >> i don't know about any communications but i will say that our position remains that president assad has lost his legitimacy to rule and should step down. we support all international efforts that are aimed toward convincing the regime to stop

attacking its own people and perpetrating violence against its own people. but our position on assad has not changed. >> first of all, on the keystone pipeline, you have said and others have said that this is a decision that the state department made. in an interview yesterday, president obama seemed to suggest that the state department was -- would report to him and he would make the decision. i'm just wanting to clarify where is the final decision making on this? >> what the president said yesterday is wholly consistent with the process that we've described that exists by executive order and which has actually been followed for decades by president of both parties in cases like this. the ree view of this decision -- the review of this decision is housed at the state department, by executive order, because of all the considerations that have to be taken, have to be reviewed . it is also the case that -- and

that process will move forward. and it is not done in a vacuum. the process itself requires consultation with a variety of executive branch agencies as well as input from stakeholders and public comment and that process is ongoing. it is also true that this is the obama administration and we certainly don't expect and the president doesn't expect and you should not expect that the ultimate outcome of this process will do anything but reflect the president's views. >> so ultimately he does make the decision? >> ultimately it's his administration and the process is run, he is not running the process. the state department is running the process and it comes up with a determination. but all of the criteria the president cited in that same interview yesterday about -- that have to be considered and that's public health, national security, jobs and the economy, all of these criteria he expects to be considered as part of this process, he knows will be considered, and he certainly, you can expect that the decision that is reached will reflect his

views. >> is this from a technical point of view -- is the way this works at the state department? undertakes this very view -- review, takes all these things into consideration, and then makes a recommendation to the president who ultimately signs off on it or not? >> it's his administration so i don't think you'd see a situation where the decision is made by his administration that he doesn't support. >> how does the decision reach the president? >> well, again, i can assure you that this determination will reflect the president's views. and i think that's what he was expressing yesterday. >> the second thing is that the progressive activists and voters have been feeling a lot better about the white house, i think it's fair to say, over the last couple of months as you talked about jobs and investments rather than cutting the deficit. wondering if there's any concern that if the supercommittee reports and if it does in fact

-- [inaudible] which is to put forward a bold plan which does include elements -- [inaudible] if that sort of ground that you've gained with important people and the president's constituency could be lost again? >> the president believes that the proposal he put forward to the supercommittee, which contains entitlement reforms as well as revenue increases, and other forms of deficit reduction , is the right way to go. are there political challenges contained within an approach like that? absolutely. for both parties. but that is the point. about balance here. and so if the supercommittee were to take up his recommendations, he would be very glad indeed and he would sign it. carrie and then mark. >> the supercommittee -- [inaudible] you can explain why

the white house has taken more of a hands-off approach to this process versus over the summer? just what is the thinking -- [inaudible] it's not that kind of tense involvement. >> i appreciate the question. the circumstances are quite different. there wasn't a process that existed in the summer as there exists now, congressionally mandated by law, set up by congress, consisting of members of congress in a special committee. secondly there was the threat of default on our obligations that should never have been the case but which was made part of that process by an element of one party in congress that wanted to use that threat to push its ideological agenda. the president took the seriousness of that threat -- took that threat very seriously and it was absolutely his

responsibility to ensure that we did not default for the first time in our history on our obligations. this is a different situation. that threat has been removed thanks to the president's instistence. and that's -- is that the weather you have on your iphone? it's 57 degrees outside. sorry. new glasses, right? [laughter] where was i? that threat no longer exists because the president absolutely drew a line in the sand and said this cannot happen again. >> [inaudible]. >> there's not the kind of threat that default represented. secondarily i would say that the president at the beginning of this process, rather than -- well, at the beginning of this process put forward his ideas, his proposals for dealing with

our deficit and debt challenges in the medium and long-term. and as you know, in the process that was conducted this summer, there were, well, a variety of different mechanisms that worked but one of them included very quiet negotiations with the speaker of the house. where much to the frustration of some plans were not made public, proposals were not put on the table, accusations were leveled that the president didn't have a plan, even though there were stacks of paper involved in negotiations that represented very much what the speaker of the house and the president were discussing. in the hopes of reaching what was called at the time a grand bargain which would require the kind of quiet negotiations so that both the speaker of the house and the president of the united states could walk out of the room together and say, this is where we have to go, it's hard for both of our parties but it's the right thing to do. the president very much believes that that was worth trying for. he also believed that the speaker thought so too. in the end it was not possible for the speaker to do it. this is different.

the ps pat has put forward his proposals, the congressional process is in place. he hopes that this bipartisan committee will make the right choices, follow the tell platt that he's laid -- template that he's laid out and that he will have the opportunity of signing a piece of legislation that codifies the kind of broad-based balance deficit and debt reduction coming -- come the end of the year. >> [inaudible] -- next two weeks, overseas for the 10 days before the deadline. does the white house see any parallel in that, how they balance the two? is there any chance -- >> two things -- i would not anticipate any changes in his travel plans. the president -- the conferences that the president's attending here are actually very related to the global economy, in the case of the g-20's we've discussed, there's issues on the table here that have a direct

impact on the american economy. the asia-pacific economic conference as well as the east asia summit, these have to do with a very much our capacity to trade, to increase our exports, to grow the economy here and create jobs. so there are strong economic components to both of these trips and he is obligated to travel around the world and represent american interests abroad at these gagget,. -- gatherings. so it is also true that he is fully capable, wherever he is, of exercising his authority and engaging with his staff here, with the administration, with members of congress from abroad. >> it's been nearly two months since president obama unveiled his jobs bill, he's given by my count 27 speeches, gone to eight states with it. at what point -- >> where do you get these numbers? [laughter] >> everybody uses them. they must be right.

[laughter] at what point does the president acknowledge that he's got a stalemate that he's dealing with and it's on to try something else or reach out to work out a deal that doesn't yet exist? >> he'll never acknowledge that more cannot be done or should not be done by congress on jobs and the economy. never. he will continue to press congress to take up the provisions of the american jobs act in the senate, as senator reid has said, the senate will. and hope and pray that, referring again to the almighty, that the louis feel pressure enough from its constituency that -- constituents that the house republicans will do the same. now, i do not believe or i find it hard to believe, we find it hard to believe that congress will do nothing before the end of the year on the jobs act. and specifically on provisions that would help the economy grow , put money in americans'

pockets. it would defy all of my years of experience covering and now working in this field given where the public is. so i certainly would be surprised if republicans in congress followed the lead of some republican presidential contenders and decided that extending the payroll tax is not the right thing to do, you know, that would mean a tax hike on every american who gets a paycheck next year. as a purely political consideration, i think that would be a very bad idea. on their part. i'd be surprised if they went there. so we'll see where this ends up. the president will not rest until he believes every american is looking for a job, can find one, that the economy is growing sufficiently and that our economic foundation is strong enough to allow us to compete and win the 21st century the way we won the 20th.

paula. >> the deficit reduction plan the president put forward, you noted it as the same range as simpson-bowles but they're arguing that if you don't do one to that scale, that you basically will have dire economic consequences, not unlike what you're facing back in august. so does the president share that view? >> all the more reason for congress to act. >> well, but if it is that dire economic consequence, why wouldn't the president insert himself into this like he did -- >> he has. what i love is when he was having these secret negotiations that we weren't talking about with john boehner, everybody's asking me, why isn't the president inserting himself, right? where's his plan? ok, so he was obviously intimately engaged in a process that he helped lead to comprehensive debt and deficit reduction, balance in a way that would not overly burden any sector of american society. and in this process he has put

forward a plan. because, again, none of this stuff is rocket science. it's not that complicated. what the elements have to be. as you can see from his proposals, as you can see from the simpson-bowles' commission proposals, they have a familiar sound to them because what you have to do here is pretty clear. what it takes is political will. what it takes is a willingness, as we see it, of republicans to accept the fact that it is only fair and right that the wealthiest americans bear some of the burden here. of reducing our deficit and getting our long-term debt under control. and listen to their constituents instead of the grover norquists about what the right priorities here are. so he is engaged. he put his cards on the table with his proposal. and he certainly hopes that congress takes up that proposal and if, as i was asked before, they act on it and they present

him with something that reflects the balance that he believes is necessary, i'm sure he'll sign it. >> thanks. >> yes, excellent. >> i don't know how these two events work on the numbers but contrasting yesterday's event about fort monday roadway with -- monroe with today's event, both of them are job creating numbers yets the president was driving a van in virginia or a bus in virginia -- >> that was a hell of a big van, right? >> it wasn't a big event there yet there were 3,000 jobs according to the president, so why the difference in level of importance in terms of the public event? is it because keybridge is -- [inaudible]? why the difference? >> well, i'll try to process the question. look, he will do different events around different

proposals or he'll make announcements or will put out paper. it's just going to depend on his schedule and the size and significance of the proposal. but i have said before, he will do everything within his power and his executive authority, broad measures that can help hundreds of thousands or millions of americans, smaller measures that can only help smaller number of americans, he will do it all. and in terms of the events that may be built around the announcement, that does depend on a lot of factors including travel, scheduling and the like. so i don't really have anything more than a broad answer to that question. but he'll push them all. and they're all important. because, you know, there's no silver bullet solution to our economic challenges. there's no one piece of legislation, not even the american jobs act alone, solves

our economic challenges. and the jobs act is made up of many different provisions. he'll do everything he can through congress, through legislative proposals, through executive authority, small measures, medium measures, large measures, to help the american people economically, put them back to work, grow the economy, assist them with scarce drugs or refinancing their mortgages or students dealing with the burden of loan obligations. you can expect that he'll continue to do as much as he can in all of the variety of ways open to him. to pursue this agenda. >> just to go back to keystone. we expect a decision's going to come out of the state department but it will reflect the -- actually getting to the president's desk and then on the nebraska interview yesterday he said that jobs created by the keystone oil pipeline wouldn't be worth the health and safety consequences if there was a

spill that would contaminate the water supplies. so what kind of, you know, surveys are being done by the e.p.a.? you can talk a little bit about the process? >> process is being run out of the state department that process by mandate includes input from a variety of different executive branch agencies as well as from the public, as well as from other stakeholders and that's required. so this is not something the state department is doing in a vacuum. at all. it reflects the input of experts from across the administration and stakeholders and folks in the public who are interested and have views on this across the country. so, all of those factors will go into the review that the state department is undertaking. as for the process, i mean, the timing of it, i will refer you to the state department. as i just said before, i'll reiterate, this is -- the president's administration, the state department is part of the

obama administration and you can expect that the ultimate outcome of this process will reflect the president's views. thanks very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> thursday on "washington journal," democratic congressman jim mcgovern of massachusetts stops by to discuss potential cuts in government funded food and nutrition programs. then we'll hear from republican congressman bill huizenga of michigan. he talks about the u.s. economy and the work of the supercommittee. later a history of vaccines with dr. plotkin, history of vaccines project advisor at the college of physicians of philadelphia. "washington journal" takes your calls, emails and tweets live every morning starting at 7:00 eastern on c-span.