balanced weight you have to have revenue, as well as discretionary cuts, defense cuts, and entitlement reforms. the president has always approached this in a balanced way. bipartisan commissions have approached it in that balanced way that the president has. so far, republicans in the congress have not approached it in a balanced way that is really the only way you get this done that is fair. otherwise, as we saw from the ryan budget, if you protect the wealthiest americans from having to pay their fair share, not just protect them from having to pay more but actually giving them more tax cuts, then the burden falls on senior citizens who see their medicare bills skyrocket, and then the families of children that are disabled and others that are vulnerable in our society. that is the alternative if you do not do it in a balanced way. >> the co-chairman of the

deficit-reduction committee, congressman and others are saying that it will not be possible to make a bipartisan agreement before the committee's deadline. the committee has until november 23 to vote on a proposal, but the panel would have had to reach an agreement by midnight tonight to meet a requirement of 48 hours notice of proposal. secretary clinton and secretary geithner are holding a news conference about sanctions on iran. it was scheduled about 50 minutes ago. it is running a little bit late. -- 15 minutes ago. it is running a little bit late. it of focus on the chemical sector in an effort to pressure to iran to halt its nuclear weapons program.

>> as we wait to hear about new sanctions against iran, a team effort between britain, canada, and the u.s., more about the deficit reduction committee. the committee has not reached agreement on how to cut $1.2 trillion in deficit-reduction over 10 years. senate majority leader harry reid releasing a statement that says, in part, "the american people are tired of hearing their elected leaders listening to the voices of their party instead of the voices of reason.

here are secretary clinton and secretary geithner. >> good afternoon, everyone. i am delighted to welcome secretary geithner here to the treaty room of the state department. and also welcome his team and thank my team for the work they have been doing with respect to iran. recent days have brought new evidence that iran's leaders continue to defy their international obligations and violate international norms, including the recent plot to assassinate the saudi ambassador here in the united states. and to admire pride by the -- as verified by the iaea that iran

has furthered its development of nuclear weapons. this report by the iaea is not the united states or its partners making accusations. it is the result of an independent radio. there have to be consequences for such reports -- for such behavior. iran was condemned in new york and at the iaea in vienna. the u.n. strongly reprimanded iran for human rights abuses, and forcible restrictions on its people. iran will increasingly face isolation. today, the united states is taking a series of steps to sharpen his choice. first, president obama signed an executive order that for the

first time specifically targets iran's petrochemical industry, a significant resource for revenue and a cover for import of sanction activities. this will allow the sanctions on technology and the petrochemical sector. a lot -- launched a worldwide diplomatic campaign to encourage other countries to shift any purchases of iranian petrochemical products to other suppliers. second, we are expanding sanctions on iran's oil and gas business. u.s. law already sanctions large-scale expansion of upscale oil and gas and our aid will be able to sanctioned goods and technologies for those activities as well. this will make it more difficult for iran to work around the sanctions and will further impede efforts to maintain and

modernize its oil and gas sector. third, under an existing order, we are designating a number of individuals and entities and for existingle in iran's nuclear program, including in richmond. their assets in u.s. jurisdiction will be frozen and americans will be prohibited from engaging in any transactions with them. finally, secretary geithner will discuss in more detail how the treasury department will identify money-laundering concerns. this is the final warning that we can give it that any transaction with iran pose a serious risk of deception or diversion. these steps, accompanied today by complementary measures by the u.k. and canada -- and we

expect additional sanctions by other international partners in the days ahead -- together, these represent a significant ratcheting up of pressure on iran, its sources of income, and its illegal activities. they build on an existing sanctions regime put into place by the u.n. security council and a large number of countries, including our own. acting nationally and multilaterally to complement the council's measures. these sanctions are already having a dramatic effect. they have almost completely isolated iran from the international financial sector, and have made a very risky and costly place to do business. most of the world's energy companies have left, undermining its or aforts to boost production. iran has made it -- has found it more difficult to grow its national airline and to procure

equipment and technology for its prohibited weapons program. those individuals and organizations responsible for terrorism and human rights abuses, including the revolutionary guard corps and the quds force have been specifically targeted. the impact will grow unless iran decides to change course and meet its international obligation. let me be clear, today's actions do not exhaust our opportunities to sanction iran. we consider actively increasingly aggressive measures. we have worked with congress and have put to -- to effective use the legislative tools provided. we are committed to collaboration to develop additional sanctions that will have the effect we all want, putting strong pressure on iran. the administration's dual-track strategy is not just about pressure. it is also about engaging iran,

engagement that would be aimed at resolving the international community is serious and growing concern about iran's nuclear program. the united states is committed to engagement, but only if iran is prepared to engage seriously and concrete without precondition. thus far, we have seen little indication that iran is serious about negotiations on its nuclear program. and until we do, and until iran's leaders live up to their obligations, they will face increasing, -- increasing consequences. now i would like to invite secretary geithner to explain how the sanctions will be working. >> thank you, secretary clinton, and my compliments to your colleagues and to mine for doing such a great job on the significant financial actions. since the president came into office, this administration has executed a very aggressive

strategy to stop iran's illicit activities. a key part of the strategy is to impose overwhelming financial pressure on iran. and because of this strategy, iran has been subjected to this new and damaging levels of financial and commercial isolation. we have dramatically reduced iran's access to the international financial system. iranian banks are losing the ability to do business around the world, which in turn, reduces the government's ability to engage in activities opposed by the international community. second, iran's shipping line, which has transported nuclear material, is shut off and we find its ships routinely turned away. its oil sector is in decline

because it cannot attract the foreign investment it desperately needs to maintain levels of production. together, the intensification of sanctions by this administration, alongside our partners around the world, has inflicted substantial damage to the iranian economy. to continue these efforts, the treasury department today is designating additional entities or their support of iran's nuclear proliferation activities. we are undertaking the significance step of enacting the patriot act and are including the entire banking sector, including financial institutions that do business with iranian banks. if you are a financial institution anywhere in the world and you engage in any transaction involving iran's central bank or any other iranian bank operating inside or

outside of iran, you are at risk of supporting iran's illicit activities, it's pursuit of nuclear-weapons, and its support for terrorism, and its ability to evade sanctions. any financial transaction with iran poses great risk of supporting those activities. financial institutions around the world should think hard about doing business with iran. we are taking this action alongside our partners in the united kingdom and canada, who announced earlier today they are implementing similar measures. as a result of this coordinated effort, iran is now cut off from three of the world's largest financial sectors. we encourage other leaders around the world to take forceful steps like these actions to prevent iran from simply shifting financial activity to banks within their

nations. as we put these measures in place and as we continue to expand the reach around the world, we will explore other measures. no option is off the table, including the possibility of imposing sanctions on the central bank of iran further. until iraq leaders -- iran's leadership abandoned its current course, we will use tough means to impose economic consequences on its leadership. >> [unintelligible] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> that was live coverage from the state department. the deficit reduction committee has officially announced that

the panel failed to reach agreement. the democratic senator and republican rep say despite intense deliberation, the members of the panel have been unable to bridge significant differences. president obama is expected to make a statement about the committee's inability to reach agreement. that is expected in about half an hour from now at 5:45 p.m. eastern. we will have that live here on c-span. the hill is writing that a senior republican about today to roll out of legislation to prevent pentagon spending cuts mandated by the committee's failure. the chairman of the house armed services committee said the cuts would do "catastrophic damage to our men and women in uniform and national security if they are implemented." the debt ceiling that created the committee mandated automatic spending cuts as much as $600 million in national security if the panel was unable to reach

agreement. again, we will have live coverage of president obama at 5:45 p.m. eastern. >> tonight, "the communicators" looks at other government sponsored broadcasts to the middle east. >> our purpose, our mission is to describe journalistically the events of the day. there's nothing that says we have to present the american for market -- foreign policy, but that is a huge reason why we exist, because people want to know what is the american position. it what explained. they want to know how it came about. they want to know if it is unified. they want all those answers they are not getting from local media. >> tonight, "the communicators" on c-span2. >> there was a flood.

people were filling sandbags desperate try to keep the river. he went down from the motorcade and took off his jacket. my memory is that he filled three sandbags, said hello to everyone, got back in a car, and went on a plane. but that night was not 3 sandbags, but it was reagan filling sandbags with his shirt off. >> tonight, they talk about the legacy of ronald reagan. new york city mayor michael bloomberg and qari and huffington discuss the american dream and opportunities in the u.s. and astronauts are awarded the congressional medal of honor. for the entire thanksgiving schedule, go to c-span.org. >> white house education advisers join the discussion on college affordability, education

quality, and how best to engage students on higher education. this event is hosted by the center for american progress, which posted its first event on education in the country. we will watch this and to live coverage of president obama at 5:45 p.m. eastern. >> good morning, everyone. i am the director of the post secondary education center here at the american center for progress. i want to welcome you all to our event, including more student voices in higher education policy making. for those of you that are familiar with the work in higher -- post secondary education, we spent the last two years working on the issue of college affordability, but with a slightly different tack than others. the conversation involves around how to make college more

affordable and regardless of the price. how do you make post secondary education more affordable with regard to the cost. it evolved over the last few years into two core bodies around the space. one is in consumer information. that has been rolled out by julia morgan, the principal author of the brief we are releasing today. that was basically about creating user-friendly consumer information to improve college was with the hope of creating a more competitive market in hired education. the second is technology, and how technology deeply embedded in administration and research functions in hiring can bring down the cost of higher education. today we are beginning an additional policy analysis around student voice. students have traditionally

entered the policy-making process after things have happened. we're beginning to explore with the help of a grand house didn't force -- how student voice can be more deeply imbedded in the decision making process. i'm looking forward to the conversation both today and as it starts in the next few years. to keep -- kick this off, i would like to introduce tobin van ostern to introduce our speaker. >> good morning, everyone. it is my pleasure to introduce our first speaker today, the senior advisor for education at the white house domestic policy council. she previously worked at the department of education were she focused on the challenges to college access, affordability,

and completion. prior to this, she was the director of government relations to the advisor committee on student financial assistance. her research their focus on college access programs, community colleges, and the ability of low and moderate income families to afford college. she also worked previously for teacher america geared up in massachusetts, and the congressional black caucus foundation. she holds a degree in science and secondary to kashan from vanderbilt and she also will they master's degree in management from the harvard school of graduate management. she has been incredibly accessible at the white house through questions large and small and has always been interested in hearing the student perspective. please join me in welcoming our first speaker. [applause] >> thank you. thank you all for being here

today and interested in such a relevant topic. i think education policy is one of the most interesting policy issues that anyone can be involved with. what i think about my colleagues at the policy council and the staff there, there are some people that work on health policy or housing policy. you do not usually have random people on the street telling you what you should do about housing policy. but anything that i have here, people will give a perspective. it is largely in part because people have gone to school at some point in their lives and everyone has a perspective about how schools should be. everyone has a perspective about education policy. in this world, i focus on higher education policy. college access, college affordability, college completion. i hear a lot of those perspectives in my personal role and outside. and, thankfully, we have pretty

clear direction -- or i have pretty clear direction in what i should focus on. by 2020, we should be first in the world with respect to the proportion of our young adults with college degrees. in thinking about how we achieve that goal, we really have a college completion crisis in our nation in a way that people do not really think about compared to kate-well. nearly half of those who start do not -- k-12. nearly half of those who start to not finish college. a lot of people when they hear about why we have the goals think it is primarily an economic goal. they want to make sure that we have a strong work force in the future. and that is certainly true. the president wants to make sure we have the most competitive work force in the world, but the

role of education in society is much broader than that. when you think about the role of colleges and universities, it is to create citizens who are prepared to participate actively in democratic life. they are supposed to be prepared to be good citizens and the education is broader than just economic means. certainly, by having a college degree you are better off. if you have it bashers degree, the unemployment rate is about half of those who do not. but the role of higher education for civic life is something that we do not necessarily talk about as much, perhaps because of the times we are in. but it is really interesting that this is a row of higher education and we do not necessarily -- a role of higher education and we do not necessarily model it. what i mean by that is that students are supposed to be prepared for civic life. what better way to be prepared then to be engaged in the roles and decisions of what they are

on campus? being actively engaged and thinking about the decisions that actively impact you is a model of higher education. too often, that voice on campus is missing. a different perspective that i hear is often of the college president, vice president, the dean, student financial administrators, even counsellors to all have something to say about college and higher education when the end user is the student, the person that is supposed to benefit. it is too seldom that we your student voices. not that we do not hear from students when there are tuition increases that are pending and that goes on long after the decision has been made to tuition. i administrators deal with that and realize it is going to make some students unhappy. we will figure out how to deal with that for this contained

timeframe. but when the decisions are made to pull back funding on the state level or a decision is made to include a football team that is going to drain resources because they will not bring as much in the -- i went to vanderbilt. it is probably the only school in its division that has not had a violation in the last 10 years. when decisions like that are being made, where is the student voice and how will that impact campuses in a long -- in the long term? the reason students do not have as much of a voice as maybe they should are buried. -- the reasons students do not have as much of a voice as they should are varied. the administration and faculty will be longer lasting than the students.

that may have an impact. i do want to thank the center for burnie this issue to life and hopefully we can start to address some of the solutions to these problems. we have talked about some of the actions we can take to elicit that student voice and to increase power through the use of data. when we think about the cost and value of college, students and their families have a lot of power. they can vote with their feet. but you cannot relieve vote with your feet if you do not know what the outcomes are and you do not know what the true costs are. done aministration hasn' couple of things for transparency. one study looked at the trends in college crossed over time. we have also increased transparency with information on the fastow -- fafsa.

and recently, in the midst of an announcement about student debt and ways we are trying to help students manage their debt, there was a portion that i think is really important, one that is a shopping sheet that we have developed. it has broader ranging authority and can help students better understand the difference between the cost and value of the different types of colleges. imagine when you were looking at different colleges and if you could know how much were student loan payments were going to be. you could compare that on a similar basis for every college. those are the kinds of things we are trying to do to empower students and their families with information that they can use to make a difference.

but really, knowledge is power. we are trying to be as transparent as possible. and we are always looking for additional ways -- as tobin said, for things that are acceptable because i do not think we have all the answers here. but we are always looking for more solutions. if we are students and families with the information that they need, we are on higher education system. the center is doing great work in opening up the progress -- the conversation. i am glad to see you all here for the conversation. i am looking forward to the discussion. thank you. [applause] >> zakia has agreed -- zakiya has agreed to take a few questions.

what is next? >> for one, the consumer financial protection bureau is taking it put on the financial aid system. you say we are missing something, right now on the website, they are taking feedback. we would hope to have a final version of that the people could use in their everyday lives. thinking beyond that, we have a list of their of colleges that are an increasing costs and looking but for better ways to have students get that information. >> how about next with a net price speculator? >> it is a requirement that we have a net price . net price is the difference between the cost of attendance, minus the average amount of

financial aid and scholarship. too often among low income students they're scared away from more expensive colleges because they see the cost. my pal barter -- my alma mater 0.sts $45,000 p because harvard and yale has generous financial aid policies, you might apply. the net price helps students and families understand the port they apply how much the college will cost. we're looking for ways to pool that information and make it more acceptable so students can have one stop shopping. >> any other questions?

this lady in the back. [unintelligible] >> we represent low income students, first-generation students. what can we do to encourage institutions to share information about success rates so consumers can make better decisions about where they should attend college? >> thank you. that is a great point, and the organization as a great role to play for high school students and adults looking to go to college. one thing is colleges are required to provide help grant graduation rates. go togrant -- poell grants lower income states. it is not a reporting parma.

they did not have to give it to the federal government. if you call them and ask them what your graduation rate is, they are supposed to tell you. there is work that's just maybe they did not do that and maybe nobody knows that as a requirement they should do that. as an organization like that, saying he should be asking for this information and shaming people when they do not give it to you. a great role for the consumer or the public to play. >> we will take one more, the gentleman in the back. >> you are talking about resources for consumers. i work with colleges every day and we are looking for best practices. what is the government doing for the administrators to help them? >> that is a great question.

we believe institutions -- there are differences in institutions that are doing good things and the others. some say it we are open access, we take everyone in, so you have to assume our graduation rates will be low. there is a difference when you can probe for things like -- control things for low income status. colleges to do things to improve the quality of their students coming in. what we're doing is every competition we have had in the office of post secondary education, most of those we have attach something called a priority for college completion tracking. you get -- at the grant was about building institutional capacity. i was talking to one of my

colleagues who said isn't that what they are suppose to be doing? it is interesting when you asked schools do is their customer. there are a lot of constituencies, and the student is not always the primary person. there is a view that colleges are here and if you are not taking advantage of what they have to offer, shame on you. we take the perspective of we are providing subsidies for students that attend college, and because the purpose of higher education is so great, but for economic and civic future, it is incumbent upon and to think about that. >> join me again in thanking zakiya for being with us today. [applause] i want to take the liberty of introducing our lead author. julie morgan is my colleague here at the center for american

progress. she has her doctorate from boston college where she is an adjunct faculty member. she earned her be a from the college of william and mary. she was excited to take on this project about student voice. julie? [applause] >> hi, thanks so much for that kind welcome. i was excited to did this work. i am a little bit outside of what i have been working on, but sort of tied it. we started this work from the idea that students are -- they are so often not included in the policy discussions that can have a huge impact on their lives, how much they pay for college,

what kind of services they are getting, what kind of campus they live on. this goes along pretty well with work on post secondary education. our work is at least premised on the i get that higher education should be more stood center. there are a lot of constituencies police and ecologies -- pulling at colleges and we want them to look at the student body, how has the student body changed over time, and what can make our colleges serve students better. it is silly to think about creating a more student- centered care education system without including students in that conversation. that is how this ties in well with the work we have done. when we define the problem of student voice in higher education, we felt there was a beenem, but it's has

defined pretty well. there are groups work every day on higher education policy issues. the occupied wall street movement has helped us think about the problem here. you have these students out there at the occupy protests that are demonstrating the fact that students are ready to speak out on higher education issues and issues that mattered most to them. we know students are taking on more debt to finance their education. they are graduating into a slow job market. they're frustrated with their situation. they're struggling to pay down their debt. if you look at that -- that chronicles, we are the 99% movement, there is a lot of writing about their student loan debt. i will read to you from one of

that. i graduated from of the country's top universities with my master's and $150,000 in debt. i hoped to work in a non-profit. i now work in business giving advice on how to best push their products. i did this because i have a 2- year-old daughter who needs to be provided for. within two weeks of her birth i started saving for her education because i never wanted her to have the burden of student loans. i want her to be able to follow her dreams i never got the chance to. when people tell her she can be everything she wants to become it is a lie. he could only do that if you have the money. students are expressing quite a bit of frustration with their situation. the idea that the whole american dream is a lie is a powerful statement. a lot of the students and former

students protesting across the country are asking for student loan forgiveness. they have a little bit of this from the white house when the president announced something that lesson the payments -- to lessen the payments. those of us who work at higher education recognize the problem of rising tuition and a steady decrease of financial aid at state institutions are a series of solutions. student loan forgiveness is going to be a part of it. there are other things we need to do. we need to think about ways to cut college costs more and smarter investment in financial aid, should teach uses of online course work, and a rethinking of how to manage the quality of

educational institutions. tt touestion that we fel find the problem, can steeds have a stronger boys in these conversations to have a chance to make decisions? we think the answer is yes, which is great. that is a great take away. i report -- the report examines the types of student voices out there and the barriers student days in being an effective participant in this conversation. students at a number at avenues available to them for voicing their opinions. i will name a few. student government is a big way for students to voice their opinions and a way they can voice their concerns for the college administration. it can also -- it is another club at doles out money to other

organizations and is ignored by the administration. it depends -- the whiteoing live to house briefing room to hear from president obama. he is going to speak about the joint deficit reduction committee's announcement that they failed to reach agreement. this outcome committee triggers $1.20 trillion in automatic spending cuts over 10 years beginning in 2013. while we wait a couple of statements from lawmakers. john boehner saying while i am disappointed, the house will forge ahead with the the commitments which have made to reduce government spending and removing barriers private sector job creation. this process did not end anin the desired outcome. i'm confident the work done by

this committee will play a role in the solution we must eventually find as a nation. that is from house speaker boehner. and a statement from anti policy. americans demanded and democrats supported the bold plan to reduce our deficit and grow our economy. the plan could not be balanced because republicans insisted on extending busch-erick tax cuts and repealing the medicare guarantee, while refusing to accept a jobs proposal. that is from nancy pelosi. also i wanted to mention as we wait, hillary clinton and treasury secretary geithner announced sanctions on iran today. >> good afternoon. as you know last summer i signed a law that will cut nearly $1 trillion in spending of the next 10 years.

articles all also required congress to reduce the deficit by an additional $1.20 trillion by the end of this year. in september, i sent them a detailed plan that would have gone above and beyond that goal. it is a plan that would have reduced the deficit by an additional $3 trillion by cutting spending, slowed the growth of medicare and medicaid, and asking the bloodiest americans to pay their fair share. in addition to buy plan, there were a number of other plans for them to consider for but democrats and republicans. all of which promoted a balanced approach. this kind of balanced approach isreducing our debt ficit, supported by an overwhelming majority of americans. democrats, independents, and republicans. it is supported by experts and economists from all across the political spectrum. and to their credit, many

democrats in congress were willing to put policy aside and commit to a reasonable adjustments that would have reduced the cost of medicare as long as they've were part of a balanced approach. but despite the broad agreement that exist for such an approach, there are too many republicans in congress who have refused to listen to the voices of reason and compromise that are coming from outside of washington. they continue to insist on protecting $100 billion worth of tax cuts. even if it means deep cuts in medicare. at this point at least, they said it will not budge from that negotiating position. so far that refusal continues to be the stumbling block that has prevented congress from reaching an agreement to further reduce our deficit. now, we are not in the state situation we were in in august.

there's no imminent threat to us defaulted on the debt that we know, and there are always $1 trillion in -- locked, and if congress could not reach the deficit, there would be another $1.20 trillion of automatic cuts in 2013. divided equally between domestic and defense spending. one way or another, we will be trimming the deficit by a total of at least $2.20 trillion over the next 10 years. that is got to happen one way or another. beck $1 trillion lot then, at either congress comes up with $1.20 trillion, which they have to do, or the sequester kicks in and the automatic spending cuts began. the question right now is whether we can reduce the deficit in a way that helps the

economy grow, that operates with a scalpel, not with hachette, and if not, whether congress is willing to stick to the painful deal we've made in congress for the automatic cuts. some in congress already are trying to i do these automatic spending cuts. my message to them is simple. no, i will veto any effort to get rid of this automatic spending cuts, domestic and defense spending. there will be no easy off ramps on this one. we keep the pressure to compromise, not turned off the pressure. the only way the spending cuts will not take place is if congress gets back to work and agrees on a balanced plan to reduce the deficit by at least $1.20 trillion. that is exactly what they need to do. that is the job they promised to do. they have still got a year the figure it out.

congress has not come to an agreement yet, nothing prevents them from coming up with an agreement in the days ahead. they can still come to get there are around a balanced plan. i believe democrats are prepared to do so. my expectation is there will be some republicans who are still interested in preventing the automatic cuts from taking place, and as i have from the beginning, i stand willing to work with anybody that is ready to engage in that effort to create a balanced plan for deficit reduction. now, in the meantime we have a lot of work to do this year before congress leaves next month. we have to work together to cut taxes for business owners and workers all across america. if not, taxes will go up starting next year, and i am not about to let that happen. middle-class americans cannot afford to lose $1,000 next year

because members of congress cannot act. we still need to put construction workers back on the job rebuilding roads and bridges. we need to put our teachers back in the classroom educating our kids. when everybody gets back from thanksgiving, it is time to get the work done for the american people. all run the country, americans are working hard to live within their means and meet their responsibilities. i don't expect washington to do the same. thanks. >> the bipartisan leadership of the deficit reduction committee, patty murray committeejeb hensarling, sank eight despite deliberations members of the panel at the unable to bridge

the differences. a couple of headlines, the said committee concedes failure -- deficit committee concedes failure. we will have president obama's press conference at 8:00 p.m. here on c-span. right now we will pick where the off at an event from the center of the american progress. >> we have been working a lot ell grants. it is a federally funded program that is a pipeline from high school to colleges and community colleges. we want to make sure we are registering folks to vote so students have access in

different student centers. those are the issues that we have chosen. we know the supercommittee is making some crucial changes to the pell grant, which only serves 10% of the stint it could serve. students across the country, including those in minnesota, we did a postcard campaign where we asked students who did social media. we figured twitter would be a smart way to get people's attention. we did facebook, which did a call-in to representatives who represent student on a federal level. we did a postcard campaign and delivered them to patty murray's office in washington state. we're excited about that. we got a lot of students involved in the organizing.

the got students engaged in the education around the pell grant, cause we know a lot of students need the help grant. we're doing work on what changes might be, and finding practical ways to keep the students' voices heard. >> hello, the campus or and as i -- campus organizer at university of maryland. i would emphasize groups working on a whole range of social issues. the idea behind pirg is students would pool resources that help them run statewide and local campaigns and able to lobby full time in state capitals and washington, d.c., on behalf of students. a quick highlight.

for me, i was a stint in california -- when i was a student in california, i did a lot of work in 2010 on ofcal grant program. they are a state-based program in california. governor schwarzenegger at the time pulled caal grant from the table. a lot of students are dependent on these grants to stay in school, that he was putting them on the table as an option. we act pirg organized a campaign to help save the cal grant. the personal stories from students, binding students were personally affected, what would happen if your cal grant was cut?

taking those stories and compiling them across the state and showing them to legislators, having a lot the day in september -- in separate bento, west sacramento, letting them know what an important program it was. he came out saying how important the cal grant was and did everything he could to defend it. was in power link as me as a student, to become a student leader, training other students movemnt. to creat a >> it sounds like you guys are doing sophisticated methods of getting attention in congress and with the state government. how do you think we could help other students get involved in

those kinds of sophisticated campaigns? >> we ran a massive recruitment drive on campus. i have close to 40 student interns. climate change, poverty, and yet you have an opinion and want to get involved, look for these institutions. other student groups getting involved with state government. i have learned students have a lot of these issues, which was evident in the paper, a lot energy around this. it is on organizations like us to about a fight that, make it a solid voice cannot find a specific solution with an advocate for and get them to set up lobby days, running classic campaigns -- running grass-roots

campaigns. >> i was hoping you could tell us about what is called on with the occupy movement. >> i am and historian of student activism. i run a website that has been tracking historical trends and organized, but what is going on in the contemporary world. the rise of occupy wall street has been a coming together of a few different trends, one of which is the student movement has arisen since the fall of 2008, in the course of the current financial crisis in the united states and worldwide. speier -- starting in 2009, there was an large scale news did movement coming up in response -- new student movement coming up in responding

to cuts and higher education and increased tuition combined with cuts in enrollment, increasing in -- all this kind of stuff. that movement, which in california calls itself allen occupy movement into a dozen 9, as been growing for a while and has merged with the larger occupy wall street movement in the last couple of months. what we have seen there is a tremendous amount of repression of student organize in california. more than 300 students, u.c., cal state students, over 300 and arrested in the last couple years, including 60 cents at berkeley, one instance --

including 60 students at berkeley. arrested, taken 40 miles away, kept in holding for a date said they could not rally against their treatment. we have seen what has happened not only in davis a few days ago, but in berkeley the week before that. that kind of police force, physical force, against student activists has become routine, particularly in california in the last couple of years. prc now, an interesting moment that be having this discussion, with the correct amount of attention that uc-davis extent is getting, we are seeing a much bigger public spotlight on questions of student activism, >> we in the paper make a bed of

a reference to the idea that universities don't always encouraged the students a choice but were approaching it from the position that universities should be encouraging the student voice. from all of your experiences, what do you think the approach has been to student activism and what do you think it should be? >> i had a really positive and experience. i went to the university of california at santa barbara and they tried to set up student activism on campus. college park has over 200 active the students on the campus and are all student government recognized. the administration is there to help them and create a system where they can foster their

voice. could it be more effective? sure. but the important thing is they're working, on these issues and set of animosity against them. santa barbara was similar. i was good friends with the dean of students. students could hold of and and talk about what kinds of resources were available. different schools are going to be different, but my experience has been positive overall. >> i have a little different experience. i have a different approach. in my first year of college, i went to an open house government meeting which got me involved in an internship with the president of the student government on campus. i was -- i needed a job and i

needed money. i had no idea what i was getting myself into. i ran for vice president of the campus and one to terms. through those three years of the student government leadership and fostering relationships with students, i was able to be a liaison between the administration and students on the campus. tuition went up over 50%. we've traveled up and down the state. to protest and -- i have had the benefit of fostering relationships with student affairs.

they were the first to get caught when things like that happen to the states. our vice-president for student affairs was all laid off -- she was an african-american and one of the few women of color we had. i felt like i had no one was there to listen to student needs on the campus, but in that role, we had a good time getting students involved in the campaigns and getting students involved in election work. i have had a different experience working with police officers and organizing strikes and protests. the region board represents over 200 students and we have

one of voice on that board of directors. we have been trying to give more student voices and it has not been successful. there are a lot of other ways we have been trying but it has not been a welcoming either. we want to make sure we are educating other students and we believe we should be stakeholders' on the forefront of all of these decisions that are happening. >> if you look at it historically, what you find is a the late '60s and early '70s were a real watershed moment. the biggest reason for that directly and indirectly was the response to student protests and

in many cases, extremely disruptive student protests. a lot of the student uprisings were responses to restrictive and a vandalizing it university policies. we think about the '60s being about the civil rights movement and anti-war movement but dorm policies motivated a huge number of students. what university and policymakers found was that bringing students with an actual governance role did the a huge amount to transform the nature of student protests involvement. what we saw was a rise of independent is in student government and we saw the creation of the student regions with the voting power and you

saw a rise in independent state and systemwide organizations and the student lobby and student involvement in university committees. all of this stuff designed to make students not nearly students but stakeholders and give them an active voice in the running of the university. what we have seen that subsequent to that is a gradual retreat from those principles. what tends to happen is that students tend to be the most likely to protest in an aggressive and disruptive way when they feel like they have no other venue to be heard. even in the case of uc-davis, the chancellor announced there is going to be a task force to examine policing policies. but she is giving no indication

that students will choose their own representatives or this task force will have any decision making power. there is no indication the students really have any direct say or will have any direct say in the shaping of university policy. if the students actually had a direct voice, the nature of what we are beginning to see on campuses would certainly shift. >> i think of the you see movement as a stronger voice than other places but it may be because they have a weaker link to administrations. >> i think there are reasons it has been important but the fact the administration has been so recalcitrant has been a major factor. >> i was at a dinner a few nights ago and there were people

who were active in the '60s and they had a longing for the good old days. students are just not the same as they use to be. i was a student recently and felt pretty good about my role there. i wondered if this is just nostalgia or is there actually a different between the way students participate today? >> i think there are a few things going on. one is that as you indicated, students are much more likely to be older and are much more likely to have kids and a full- time or serious part-time jobs and are more likely to be graduating with a huge amount of debt. that leaves them with less freedom to engage in activism and organizing. the rise of commuter colleges

changes the environment. that is one piece of it. it is also very easy to neglect the amount of student organizing going on today. one of the things that is obvious to me but is often forgotten is look at the american university of 1968. how many students had women centers or a lesbian and gay student centers. the answer is zero. the first campus gay and lesbian organization was established in 1969. now every campus has won and they are active organizations that are performing all sorts of student support work, giving advising and counseling and they are organizing and engaged with the administration.

but that kind of involvement is flying beneath the radar of most of the public. the 26th amendment in the early 1970's, giving students the vote transformed the nature of student activism. previously, the vast majority of undergraduate students were disenfranchised. they had no way to engage in the political process. after that, you see the rise of a student lobbies and student organizations. again, when a thousand students show up, that is not sexy in the same way a thousand students taking over an administration

building is not sexy and it doesn't get the kind of attention these tough in the '60s got. it is a question i hear a lot less than i did a year ago but it still question that rests on a fundamental misunderstanding. >> i wonder if either of your organizations have wrestled with nontraditional students and are thinking about that issue? >> we have on our board of directors, a process in which different communities are represented on our board of directors. we have students of color, undocumented students. the issue is being brought up and discussed and i know when financial aid and programs were taken up, the cost -- it was a

heavy conversation for us to carry. it's definitely being talked about and i think we all have to suffer and deal with it right now. >> you have been doing a lot of work with community college students in the last year or two that as at any time in the past. >> we have recruited a lot to come to our campus and our legislative conference happens in march and we bring over 200 students here and train them how to lobby and educate them on the issues. we have a really big press conference and action in front of the capital. it has been hard because it is a

two-year program more three-year program and we have a student -- they are on our board of directors and we are working on finding out about what issues we can take stances on and we want to be proactive about policy and higher education. >> i had a similar experience with non-traditional students. we have people who have families and it's a lot more difficult to plan meetings at 7:00 at night when they have to go home. the biggest way to combat that is to be really flexible. i know this is a general problem working with organizations and government, the government runs from 9 to 5 and students go to class 95. if you want students to come out, it is difficult to

amalgamate physical people because they are students and their job is to go to school. it makes it difficult even with traditional students. nontraditional makes it even more difficult. the biggest thing as far as combating that is to be flexible and have meetings when they are available and have those discussions on when that can happen. the organizing at community colleges has been vastly different. some schools do not have that. the university of maryland has a large on campus and they feel like it's part of their home. people actually feel like it is where they live and that's where they have their community. with community college, it is totally different. that is the only time they are in campus. you want to organize a protest

or demonstration, when can you find one that works with everyone's schedule? it disenfranchises them and it's a big issue. my piece of advice is to have meetings and that's ok. >> i want to keep time for questions from the audience. what do you see is the biggest problem in higher education right now and how does listening -- how could listening to students bring us to a better solution? >> the biggest problem -- from my perspective, it would be off the lack of student participation and decision making on campus. there is a lot of power students do have the students don't realize how much power they have

and what they can't accomplish and do. not being reactions to the problem in having students participate in the discussion in the first place is a bigger problem. we can talk about access and affordability and ultimately that starts with students participating in that discussion in the first place. making that voice more institutionalized and having all of the problems you mentioned would be the problem i address first. >> i would say that it is cost to higher education. they are parents or double major in or working on campus or they have family problems at home. that is deferring a accessibility and time toward the cost of tuition.

i think has gotten to expensive. my annual salary is the cost of my loans. if i did not have to do any thing i would be student loan debt free. for example, the united council of wisconsin, they have an amazing and statutes that says students have input and are the primary constituency for all student issues and relevant things and no other state has that statute which i think is interesting. cost is the biggest issue and when we talk about costs, stop taking away our financial aid to

be able to afford higher education, if higher education was free, it would solve a lot of problems and we couldn't focus on other issues that are really important. students are disenfranchised and the cost of education is important to consider. if students keep losing and financial aid or support services to be able to stay in higher education, students don't want to stay engaged. that is an important piece to the conversation we are having today. they feel like there's to the invoice does not matter or does not have power, so it is a mix of what she just said. >> as they lose out on money, they have to work more and that

takes time away and they cannot stay engaged. >> as the ongoing privatization of education is one of the great stories of the 21st century which has been neglected by the national media as part of the national conversation. just one example. if you are and out of state student at uc-berkeley living on campus, the cost of attendance is now higher than the cost of attendance at harvard. it is more expensive to go to berkeley than a visit to go to harvard. not only has that transformation happened but in the last two and a half years, the proportion of out of state students in the incoming student pool has tripled to 30%. admission decisions at berkeley are increasingly driven by the

revenue stream. what you have now is at a school like berkeley is one third of the incoming class, berkeley is essentially a private university, and not a cheap one. the reverberations around those policy changes, we talk about the increase in cost of higher education far more than we do about the radical extent to which state funding has been slashed. the degree to which per student spending has been slashed in recent years, the magnitude of that is something the vast majority of americans are completely unaware of. >> let's take some questions from the audience. if you could just give your name

and organization. >> i am a graduate students -- graduate student and speaking of financial affordability, the issue i hear most about is didn't frustration with their earning potential and unpaid internships. students i meet with are afraid of breaking the relationships they have with potential employers. they won't be able to network with them if they are fighting against them. can you talk about retribution and things like that? >> at occupy wall street last week, there was a massive student demonstration and the most twisted chant from the demonstration was f internships

-- and they did not use the word f. the way it cuts not only purchasing power but warps the nature of who is able to go into an not-for-profit jobs or entry-level jobs, if you want to be a public-interest lawyer, you have to be rich because the only way to get into the pipeline is to work for free. that model is spreading throughout the work force. the fact it is having on class mobility is profound. >> i want to tell a story of some of my co-workers i have worked with on the hunger conference. one woman had a really hard time trying to decide if she wanted to come and work because of

student debt. she could not take an unpaid internship. that limits your options. i have had conversations with a student after i saw an article a couple weeks ago talking about unpaid internships. it was actually talking about how it was taking away entry- level jobs for people who have already graduated. but the most important thing is to look at what the internship will be getting them is it a resume builder? are they learning skills or are they just getting coffee and making copies? is that really what you want to do with one of your semester's? students who have to make those sorts of trade-offs, it is an unfortunate experience. you cannot pursue things like --

it was a really big decision to even go into this job because i was an economics major and cut have gone into business but i wanted to be doing this. the internships were unpaid and it was difficult and lowered by purchasing power than and now for sure. >> that is an interesting thing that has come out of occupied wall street. the frustration with student loans and its difficult to say whether it's about the loan-or whether you cannot find employment. the recession and joblessness has brought light to this issue of of the use of on paid employment. hopefully we will see some conversations around that. >> i am a student at howard

university and a staff member at the education trust. one of the major higher education issues is a for-profit colleges and how they are predatory on blow in come. they have the highest loan default rates and students don't know what they are getting into and so they have already left the colleges. i want to know what has been started to reach out to the students to get them to stand up for their rights. >> that is an interesting question. was difficult to get students from for-profit colleges involved in the debate over gainful employment which would improve the situation for students at these colleges. >> we do not have for-profit

colleges. but that is right. they are predatory in low-income communities and we have been doing some work with documentation. students with for-profit colleges have been graduating with a triple what my dad is. there is no help or resources being provided and they need to get out of that process. a lot of things have been spread over youtube and social media to shed light on that issue. it's not whether or not they are able to have financial aid or not -- it is a very under the rug constituency and base. we have not been doing too much direct action. not all what has come out and we -- there is a certain stigma that those two bases have and that is what we have been doing.

>> this is an area where students are voting with their feet. the enrollment at for-profit colleges is plummeting. i believe kaplan is off 47% year-to-year decline in enrollment with the parent company of phoenix not far behind. students are abandoning these institutions in droves and that has been without a huge amount of organizing going on. >> i'm a professor with the graduate school here and i have been in higher education for 32 years. i was a student five times in higher education and i am debt free.

i think the biggest office sought in this country and i have education in three different countries is the word non-profit organization. when a president of a college that has only 240 students making 1.7 $5 million a year, that's up about $841 an hour. what do you expect that tuition will be? when the associate dean for that same university is making $300,000 a year, how can we call that a non-profit organization? the problem is these students' activities are always focused on social, activism, groups, but

nobody ever questions because the idea of non-profit organization in this country is in, verses disbursement and the problem is we never question whether this disbursement is legitimate or not. that is the major problem. when i went for my first bachelor's degree, the cost for the old degree was about $10,000. when i went for my ph.d., it was 250,000. the students need to be active and they should focus on their work rather -- the problem that created this is we start calling these students

customers. >> i want to make sure we have time for other questions. this is a place where we see a big gap between private institutions and public institutions. students at private institutions have more leverage -- students at public institutions have more leverage than those at private institutions. we have seen a lot more activism coming out of public institutions. in terms of the concept of a student as a consumer, there are two different ways in which that concept appears. one is the way you guys have been using it. that is absolutely a legitimate use. the other is the conception of students as consumers and the consumerist mentality.

without going into a huge amount of detail, that is an attitude administrators often ascribed to students. it is an attitude which are rose among the university administrators in the 1970's as a response to the creation of paul grants and other ways where students got more power in determining how the money was going to be spent. you are exactly right. the conception of a student as a consumer is intended to reduce the role of actually running but university. >> i do not think we friend as are these schools for profit or nonprofit, but something we raised in the paper is that since day have access to information about revenue and what they are spending it on, i don't know if your organizations have run into that barrier.

>> this to and government on by campus, we have been doing a lot of work because the director for african-american research center got fired. the first thing the student government did was where is the budget coming from. why did it come from student affairs? why are sciences and physical education in getting merged together. the budgets were not acceptable or reader friendly. we had a meeting with one of the auditors and the report was 170 pages long. it had no pictures and was not in color.

when students are saying when people are requesting students come up with solutions, we don't have all that we need to come up with these solutions. it is their job in congress to come up with these solutions. we have had that discourse with the relationship of the administration calling us kids because we are not. we are trying to empower the student voice. we need to stop calling us kids and -- >> can we get another question? >> thank you.

thank you for putting this on and for the report. that will be very useful. higher education policy becomes very concrete in the classroom. college faculty members and educators see the impact the policy has on students. i was going to ask very simply what role do you see college educators having in an powering students to put their voice out there and encouraging student activism? >> there was a group at uc santa barbara that touched on these issues. the biggest advantage we had with that group was the head of the faculty senate was sitting with us and we had representation from the worker'' union. it was interesting to have students, faculty, and the union

talking about budget cuts at the same time. it was interesting to hear their perspective. faculty is very aware of what's going on but that does not always happen. my experience in college park is that it's not happening at all. students could do a better job and faculty could do a better job. students have their issues and faculty as their issues but there are lots of things across those boundaries. it was really cool for me as a student to be sitting across from the head of the faculty said talking about tuition costs and what we should be doing. >> we have had educators who have been great allies to students. a lot of overarching relationships students are developing because they have their own set of issues because

they're all so taking furlough days and getting cuts to higher education. educators, please allow students to do class announcements. we go to the classroom and tried to do 32nd commercials before the class starts and invite students to come to the meetings. they let us know about meetings we would not otherwise know about. i had some amazing professors that would let us know. [unintelligible] educators and students working closely together to do those things and supporting activism what happens, or at the table

level. allowing students to be educated on what meetings are taking place, some professors are conservative and don't like to talk about that and we're talking about history and what happened to ronald reagan. educators and students have been working closely together and they can play a bigger role. >> looking at the way the you see story has developed in the last couple of weeks, two of the crucial turning point was first, the professor at uc-berkeley being on the receiving end of violence and that being a videotaped so that it was not just students and getting beat up. it was a tenured faculty member

dragged by her hair to the ground. brutalized by uc police. after that uc-davis incident on friday, the first detailed report came from an untenured faculty member who described what happened in extremely graphic and powerful terms. that kind of faculty advocacy is something we have very rarely seen in the last few years. faculty being willing -- i am a faculty member and i love signing petitions as much as the next guy does but that's what everyone is expecting us to do -- to sign petitions and express our disapproval and faculty actually being involved and present, not necessarily to get beat up, but to observe what's going on in these protest can

have a very powerful effect in shaping public opinion. >> i wanted to come back to these issues of systemic issues in higher education. the state of washington introduced -- it was making an open course library for all of the materials for 45% of their gateway courses across the system which would reduce the cost for textbooks and other materials almost 400%. i'm wondering how student organizations -- how do you scale that nationally? this is a material reduction in the course -- the other things that spark challenges -- competency based education.

online, you can radically reduce the cost of delivering a course. how does that get passed on to students and how do you deal with issues or competency based education tends to require less faculty? the faculty may not be less supportive. these are key issues out there now that can radically reduce the cost of delivering higher education. how do you deal with how that get passed on? >> when we talk about reducing the cost of higher education and saving the quality that, accessibility, and affordability, my personal stance is no. it does away with the life experience where we tried to give students access ability or skills they need to join and to a democratic society. i think online class is don't do that. it takes away the meaningful

relationship of the be -- of the student next to me or -- a lot of those internships come from the professors. it is great to lower the cost of education, but i don't think it does a good job of keeping the quality of higher education. >> something that does actually maintain quality is open source textbooks. the average student pays $1,137 a year on textbooks. of theabout the cost meal plan, which is the best comparison i've heard. it is a huge financial burden to

your education. you are paying to read -- tuition costs and tax but cost on top of that is huge. one thing that could be done is to adopt open source text books online. professors are not aware these books are available. compiling data and having meetings with professors to make decisions about textbooks in glasses and getting them to adopt these open source books is a monetary example. the 200 students are taking the class -- if the professor adopts an open source book, they are saving students to hundred thousand dollars. it is really that simple. for i would encourage professors to write more of them.

it is less money students will need for textbook costs if these are available free online. if you think one chapter should go for another, you can move things around and add supplemental material. that is something i would love to see more of. i love the idea of having the thing online. i hate reading of the computer screen, but you can get it printed instead of paying for the book, you just need the information. you can get a printout for $30 and it saves so much money.

>> we are about out of time. thank you to our panel for being here. [applause] and thanks to our audience. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> already this evening, congressman buck mckeon, chairman of the armed services committee, has said he will introduce legislation to prevent further pentagon spending cuts after the joint deficit

reduction committee announced today it failed to reach an agreement to across-the-board spending cuts, including as much as $600 billion in defense spending. but president obama said about one hour ago he will veto any effort to get rid of automatic spending cuts that would take effect in 2013. >> good afternoon. as you all know, last summer, i signed a law that will cut nearly one trillion dollars of spending over the next 10 years. part of that law required congress to reduce the deficit by an additional 1.2 -- $1.2 trillion by the end of this year. in september, i sent them a detailed plan that would have gone above and beyond that goal and reduce the deficit by three

trillion dollars by cutting spending, slowing the growth of medicare and medicaid commack and asking the wealthiest americans to pay their fair share. there were a number of other bipartisan plans to consider from both democrats and republicans, all of which produce a balanced approach. this kind of balanced approach to reducing the deficit where everyone gives a little bit and does their fair share is supported by an overwhelming majority of americans, democrats, independents, and republicans. it is supported by experts from across the political spectrum. to their credit, many democrats in congress were willing to put politics aside and commit to a reasonable adjustments that would have reduced the cost of medicare as long as they were part of a balanced approach. despite the broad agreement that exists for such an approach, there are still to be

republicans in congress have refused to listen to the voices of reason and compromise coming from outside of washington. they continue to insist on protecting $100 billion worth of tax cuts for the wealthiest americans at any cost, even if there remains reducing the deficit with deep cuts to education and medical research, even if it means deep cuts in medicare. at this point, they will not budge from that negotiating position and so far, that refusal continues to the main stumbling bock preventing congress from reaching an agreement to further reduce our deficit. we're not in the same situation we were in in august. there is no imminent threat to us defaulting on the debt that leo. there are 1 trillion -- the debt that we note. the law signed the somerset of congress could not reach an

agreement, there would be another $1.2 trillion of automatic cuts in 2013 divided between domestic spending and defense spending. one way or another, we will be trimming the deficit by a total of at least $2.2 trillion over the next 10 years. that is going to happen. we have one trillion dollars locked in. either congress comes up with one trillion dollars or the sequester kicks in and these automatic cuts will occur that bring in an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. the question is whether we can reduce the deficit in a way that helps the economy grow, that operates with a scalpel, not with a hatchet. if not, whether congress is willing to stick to the deal we made for automatic cuts. some in congress are already trying to undo these spending

cuts. my message to them is simple. no. i will veto any effort to get rid of automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. there will be no easy off ramps on this one. we need to keep the pressure up to compromise, not turn off the pressure. the only way these spending cuts will not take place is if congress gets back to work and agrees on a balanced plan to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion. that is exactly what they need to do. that is the job they promised to do. and they still have one year to figure out. although congress has not come to an agreement yet, nothing prevents them from coming up with an agreement in the days ahead. they can still come together around a balanced plan. i believe democrats are prepared to do so. my expectation is that there'll

be some republicans who are still interested in preventing the automatic cuts from taking place. i stand ready and willing to work with anybody who is ready to engage in that effort to create a balanced plan for deficit reduction. in the meantime, we have a lot of work left to do this year. before congress leaves next month, we have to work together to cut taxes for workers and small business owners all across america. if we do not act, taxes will go up for every single american starting next year. i am not about to let that happen. middle-class americans cannot afford to lose $1,000 because congress will not act. i can only hope members of congress working so hard to protect tax breaks for the wealthy will work just as hard to protect tax breaks for small business owners and middle-class families. we still need to put people to work building bridges and that

teachers back to work in our classrooms educating our kids. when everyone gets back from thanksgiving, it's time to get some work done for the american people. all round the country, americans are working hard to live within their means and meet their responsibilities. i know they expect washington to do the same. thank you. >> tonight "the communicator's" looks at the u.s. government sponsored broadcast to other countries with the middle east broadcasting network president. >> our mission is to describe journalistically the events of

the day. there is nothing that says we have to present the american foreign policy, but that's a huge reason why we exist. because people want to know what is the american position? they wanted explained in the want to know how it came about and they want to know if it is unified. they want the answers they are not getting from local media. >> that's tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> there was a flood in fort wayne. people were desperately trying to keep the river. air force one stopped and had a motorcade down to the flooded area. my memory is he filled a three sandbags, said hello to everyone and got back into the car and got back on the plane. but that night, what was filling the airwaves was not three sandbags was ronald reagan filling sandbags with his shirt off. >> sam donaldson, andrea

mitchell, and chris dodd talk about the legacy of ronald reagan. new york mayor michael bloomberg will discuss the american dream and the opportunities in the u.s. and john glenn, neil armstrong, and was armstrong are awarded the congressional medal of honor. for the entire thing is getting day schedule, go to c-span.org. the u.s. -- >> the u.s. postal service is expected to use billions of dollars in revenue this year. a group of bipartisan senators proposed legislation to create savings for the nation's mail carrier. today, the postmaster general said that the bill unveiled in congress will not help the organization. but if congress were to approve the postal service recommendations, they would be out of the red by the end of 2013. from the national press club, this is one hour.

>> we are the world's leading professional organization for journalists, committed to our professions future through our programming comments such as this, working to foster a free press worldwide. for more information, you can visit our web site. to donate to programs offered to the public through our journalism institute, you can check the web site as well. on behalf of our members worldwide, i would like to welcome our speaker today. the head table include the guests of the speaker and working journalists to our club members. if you hear applause in our audience, and this is something i reminding people brought the political season, if you hear applause, we note members of the general public are

attending. it is not necessarily evidence of a lack of journalistic integrity. i would like to welcome our c- span and public radio audiences. our broadcasts are available as free downloads. you can also follow was on twitter. after our guest speech concludes, we will have questions and answers and have as many questions as time permits. a note that the journalist present at that head table does not signify an endorsement of the speaker. i ask each of you to stand up briefly as your name is announced. that small is a veteran radio producer at the associated press. we call him the beast. also joining us today, a club member and vice president of the global business development for the eurasian business coalition.

it just so happens drew is the retired public relation officer for the association of letter carriers. also, our senior survivor president and organizer of the first postal form. for those of you who do not know his story, he was inaugurated 51 years ago this next january. he was inaugurated when jfk offered him congratulations that day. ron castro men is the deputy postmaster general. amy morris is the organizer of today's luncheon. she has done a fabulous job.

she is the executive anchor for the federal news radio. thurgood marshall jr. is the vice president of the board of governors and the incoming chair as well. congratulations. nice to have you here. the list of former president goes on and on. the bureau chief of the "buffalo news." a reporter for the "federal times the." and a senior correspondent for federal news radio. give them a round of applause. [applause] popular lore tells us of the u.s. postal service -- neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of these appointed rounds. though what it weather might not prevent, a financial storm

could the united states postal service has been woven throughout the tapestry of american life since the birth of this country. it has been part of our community and communications. but that tradition and service is very much risk. the postal service is an organization in need of a new business model, it seems. as it stands, it cannot simply fold. it is under a legal mandate to serve all americans, no matter where they live. the letter carrier who goes door-to-door in downtown washington has the same responsibilities as the one who travels to remote villages in alaska. it's one of the few government agencies authorized by nothing less than the u.s. constitution, article one, to be precise. seen as a linchpin for their survival, it's part of a more than 1 trillion dollar industry that employs upward of 8 million people. while it might be regarded as

too big to fail, it continues to hemorrhage money and failure seems to be a possibility, if not an option. the convenience blame is often placed on technology like e- mail, making the classic handwritten letter seemingly obsolete. as -- in fiscal year 2011, the postal service lost more than $5 billion as we now know. the more complicated aspects lies with the sound retiree health-care plan. the postal service is required legally to have prepayments toward retiree health benefits. it's a bill that has come due and the postal service cannot pay. the man passed with fixing all of this is our guest today, the postmaster general. he has been with the postal service for 35 years. he began his career there as a clerk. he was formally named postmaster general less than one year ago and has his work cut out for him. in september, he warned

lawmakers the postal service was operating with just one week's worth of cash. the weekly cost for the postal service add that to about $1 billion. now, congress is involved. the 21st century postal service act now congress is involved. the 21st century postal service act of 2011 has passed the senate committee on homeland security and government affairs. it awaits action in the senate. seemingly, like a lot of things. [laughter] this bill would preserve it 6- day mail delivery for the next two years and it would renegotiate existing union contracts to offer buyouts to its employees, and recalibrate pre-funding requirements for retiree health benefits. how can the postal service be saved? will the legislation be the trick or will it be something that just buys a little time? please give a warm welcome to the postmaster general himself, patrick donahoe. [applause]

>> thank you for that introduction. it is a pleasure to be here with all of you. i have the privilege of leaving one of america's greatest institutions. it is an organization that serves literally 150 million american households and businesses on a typical day. it facilitates trillions of dollars in commerce. it supports the $900 billion mailing industry that employs 8 million people. the postal service is part of the bedrock infrastructure of the u.s. economy and our society. throughout our rich history, we found the nation together, and

we do so today even in this digital age. we connect every senator to every receiver and provide regular delivery to the most remote locations in this country. americans today view the postal service very favorably, as a familiar institution and a trusted, a viable part of american life. but for the institution to thrive, it requires irrational business model. the postal service is fundamentally a business. yes, it is a government institution, but it operates as a business. we charge for the delivery of products and services. our revenues go up and down depending on mailing trends in the economy. we report profits and losses. we issued quarterly financial statements. we are even sarbanes oxley compliant. and contrary to the understanding of most americans, the postal service is not supported at all through taxpayer dollars. we generate all of our revenue from the sale of postage products and services.

that means the postal service must compete for customers. we must sell, actively sell and persuade people to buy our products in a very competitive marketplace. unfortunately, while we have a mandate to operate like a business, the reality is we do not have the flexibility under current law to function like a business. america needs a postal service that can operate like -- more like a business. consider the example of a post office. most retail companies would close retail stores that fail to turn a profit. roughly 25,000 out of our 32,000 post offices operate at a loss. we have thousands of post offices that bring in life and $20,000 in revenue in the year that cost more than $60,000 to operate. and many of these are within a few miles of a neighboring post office. and yet, the reaction from

attempting to close one of these low activity post offices and provide another option is something to behold. people rallied around their post office and they do so because it is a cherished institution. it is a part of their town. on the one hand, that demonstrates the power of our brand and the extent to which customers feel connected to the postal service. but on the other hand, it makes no business sense. there are better and more efficient ways to serve our customers. here is an interesting statistic. purchasing stance accounts for 40% of all of the retail transactions that have been at -- 48% of all of the veto transactions that happen at the post office. people go out of their way to buy stamps, and they do not have to do that.

today, there are 71000 retail locations that provide a variety of postal services. these retail partners aren't restored, gas stations, pharmacies, and -- are in grocery stores, gas stations, pharmacies, and they are convenient. a lot of them are open seven days a week. in the coming years, we want to dramatically increase the number of retail partnerships that we offer. we think there is a huge opportunity for small businesses to operate these or some other type of postal unit. by the way, everything you can do at the post office you can also do at usps.com. will there always be a role for a traditional post office? absolutely, but they're also be a range of opinion options for services. but we need flexibility to provide them. we are in a deep financial crisis today because we are in a business model that is tied to the past.

we are expected to operate like a business, but do not have the flexibility to do so. our business model is fundamentally in flexible. it prevents the postal service from solving problems and being effective in a way of business would. delivery companies facing a significant downturn in revenue would consider adjusting delivery frequency, just as our competitors did when they saw the economy slowing in 2008 and 2009. and looking ahead and sing another 28% volume decline on top of the 23% we have seen already, the postal service should be able to do the same, i just delivery frequency. -- but just delivery frequency. -- adjust delivery frequency. most companies do not offer pre-retiree health benefits. we are required by law to fund an entire 40-obligation in 10

years. -- an entire 40-year obligation in 10 years. that has effectively bankrupt us. the postal service has also been obliged to overpay in to the federal employee retirement system. not civil service, but federal employee retirement system, by $11.4 billion over the course of the last 20 years. >> [unintelligible] we are the 99%. do not close the post office. [unintelligible]

stop ripping off the postal workers. hey, hey! ho, ho! [boos]

>> the good thing is that they have definitely been paying attention to this situation. [laughter] [applause] at any rate, -- [laughter] if we could only get that $11.4 billion back we could keep a couple of post office. -- post offices. this has been an enormous drop on our financials -- a financial stability. consider the worst volume of delivery was in 2008-09. our billion dollar losses were due to raise $7 billion mandated retiree health benefit payment that no other business would have made. given the volume of declines we have experience, that statistics says to me that we do a very good job of controlling costs, but we are working with

insurmountable constraint. over the past four years, we have reduced the size of the work force by over 128,000 employees and reduce annual operating costs by $12.4 billion. and we did so while providing record service. that is a tremendous testament to the work our employees do on a daily basis. we have announced plans to reduce the number of mail processing facilities from 460 today to less than to wonder by the year 2013. we have announced plans to study -- 230 by the end of 2013. we are streamline our operations with the goal of reducing another 120,000 in delivery round. these things are good, but they do not bring us back to profitability. to turn a profit and bring us back to a sustainable financial

track, we have advanced a plan to achieve a $20 billion cost reduction by 2015. unfortunately, as things currently stand, we do not have the flexibility in our business model to achieve this goal. for this reason, we propose important changes to the laws that govern the postal service. we propose gaining delivery flexibility, which we have used to transition it -- transition to a five day delivery schedule. most other post offices have done this years ago and there has been very little cost from a financial standpoint. we have proposed a restoration of the $11.4 billion and a more rational retiree health benefit schedule. we have proposed taking over our federal health employee insurance and that would mean to shifting probiotic -- shifting to private providers.

we are also seeking the ability to manage our work force more effectively and with greater flexibility. these and other proposals would enable the postal service to operate more as a business does, to provide better service and better compete for our customers. i'm grateful that congress is now working on postal reform legislation. the stake holders should be grateful as well we have seen a strong commitment to our issues from congress and the administration. however, there is a big question that needs to be answered about what the final package will look like. how we treat the -- how it treats the model as a business and gives us the standards we need. the postal service is contending with a steady decline, 7% per year, in the use

of first-class mail. this is due to the rise of electronic communications. people are paying bills online. the decline puts us in a race to get ahead of the cost curve. to become profitable, we must cut costs faster than the rate of decline with first-class mail. speed is the answer. speed is also the it -- the way to judge whether congress is truly interested in enabling the postal service to operate more like a business. for business to delay our ability to cut costs, it will result in sizable financial losses. for example, if we are unable to implement a five-day delivery schedule now, we will needlessly carry a $3 billion operating costs. multiplied up by several years and you have a pretty big number. if you consolidate to a hundred 60 mail processing delivers -- 260 mail processing delivery plants in the next year, it will impact our ability to

modernize our retail networks and manage our work force and our health care costs more effectively. if congress does not pass legislation that allows for more cost control and does not make more fundamental changes to our business model, the postal service could be running deficits in the range of $10 billion to $15 billion annually. lack of speed could killed of postal service. -- killed the postal service. these losses will ultimately burden the american taxpayer. volume will decline quickly for the rest of this decade. and we simply do not have the ability to cut our costs quickly enough. those are the facts. with the rights legislation

that enable swift action, the postal service can quickly return to profitability and stay profitable, and continue to fund the universal service that we provide today. we need provisions of the legislation that provide us with the speed to reduce our costs by $20 billion by 2015. businesses do not solve issues for years on end. they make decisions quickly and act quickly. off off unfortunately, the legislation -- unfortunately, the legislation does not provide us with the speed we need. those elements have impose greater constraints on our business model. they do not come close to unraveling the cost reductions of $20 billion by 2015, which they must do in order for us to return to profitability. if passed today, either bill would provide at best a couple of years of profitability and

many decades of state losses. however, taking the best of the house, the senate, and the administration approaches, congress can provide the postal orders with the legal framework and business model that it needs. it all comes back to the notion of speed. will the postal service be able to get ahead of the cost curve? or would be doomed for perpetual losses? -- will we be doomed for perpetual losses? congress needs to give us a business model that allows us to act quickly to lower our costs. today, we operate in a very dynamic environment. people and businesses have many ways to communicate and we have responded with in the current constraints of our business model. we compete for customers and are more efficient than we have ever been. we deliver nearly half of the world's mail and do that with record high level service. we use the most advanced technology for sorting in the world. 95% of the letter-sized mail is

never really touched by human hands until a letter carrier puts it in the mailbox. our productivity has increased dramatically since 2000. we have roughly delivered the same amount of volume that we delivered in 1992 with about 170,000 fewer employees. the postal service operates efficiently like a business and compete for customers. we have got to go further down that path. if we do so, i am convinced that the postal service will have a bright future. we can continue to provide the nation with secure, reliable, affordable delivery platform. we can be profitable and self sustaining. we can continue to innovate and change to meet the mailing and shipping need of the american public for generations to come. we can also be thought of different as a successful business enterprise that performs a vital national function. it will only happen if congress

develops a symbol -- single, straight forward copies of legislation. the ability to control and take care of our health care costs, to streamline governance and to provide more flexibility in the way we leverage our work force. all of this needs to be done right now. the postal service is far too integral to the economic health of this nation to be handcuffed to the past and into an inflexible business model. america needs a postal service that can evolve and operate with fewer constraints. i have no doubt that the postal service will remain the great american institution. but in order to do so, we need a great business model. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you very much for your poise and your speech. talking about congress and the news today for other reasons and the so-called super committee, and you are talking about congress needing to get the job done for you, let's break this down in two steps. first, where is the legislation that you are talking about in terms of moving forward, and how do you look at those prospects at this point? the other piece would be, what does the apparent breakdown in the super committee's work, or the inability to come up with the $1.2 trillion, how does that affect your operations? >> first, i think is important to keep in mind that we talk about legislation, we are

pushing for legislation that will help you what -- the united states of america, that will help the ailing industry be strong and our board for the future. -- the mailing industry be strong and vibrant for the future. there are a couple of things going on. number one, the administration has weighed in with a letter sent to the deficit commission. i will talk more about that in a second. they agree that we should move from six days to five days. they agreed to give us our overpayment back and a couple of other small things. you got that on the table. there are two bills, one in the house and one in the senate, and both have gone through a markup. they're talking about delivering with flexibility. there are other opportunities for us to control costs, and also some flexibility for pricing going forward. in the senate, we have some good opportunities there from

the standpoint of new products development. they have the ability to move from the six days to five days, but the problem is that there is a bit of a delay in time in that. over the course of the next couple of months we would like to get everyone on the same page to work through the legislative process. from a super committee standpoint, what we do not know what is going to happen. there is no one who has come forth and said we are definitely in there. >> in terms for the prospects of the passage of legislation in the house and senate, how confident are you? >> there are a lot of people that will say that is going to be a tough year and if you do not get it done, it is not going to happen with elections next year. i think the administration and the congress, both the house and the senate, understand the importance of a vital and help the postal service. we have spent a lot of time and these guys have done a lot of good work. if you have seen the work that

has already been done with this administration and with the senate, they have gone a lot of things done. over on the house side, they have done a lot. there is a lot of interest. it is just a matter of trying to get what is out there right now thought through and pushed through so we can get things done quickly. >> one of our listeners sent a big question. what is the intent of the bill if it would not actually saved the postal service? >> from their perspective, it is the best way to approach the issue. there are a couple of things there. they do allow us to quickly move from a six-day to a five-

day environment. they are going to give us the overpayment back from the purse system. -- first system. however, there are constraints around the network changes. we would have a little more government oversight with network changes, post offices. i think we can do these things much quicker if we act on them now. within the bill, there is also a control board. it would almost step in like washington d.c. and take over the world for our postal service. if we get to that point, we have failed. we are saying to give us the freedom to act like a business now and we will make sure we have a much stronger postal service going forward. we do not really need another body to be telling us what to do. >> the postal service was extended contract negotiations with the two unions. are you on your way to arbitration and a deal that "favors union? -- "favors unions?" >> when you see the reductions we have done from a cost standpoint and the productivity that is in there, we have done an excellent job.

they understand the issues that are facing the postal service. when we got to the point last night where we needed an extension, i think it is well worth sitting down to continue the talks. there may be a solution in there. from the postal service standpoint, we are looking to resolve this health care issue, and at the same time, more flexibility with our labor. >> what happens if you do not reach an agreement? >> then we go to arbitration. but i make a loss is much more than half full person. i'm hoping we can get something done. >> the $1.5 billion retiree health payment has come and gone. did you default? and if so, what is the consequence? >> we did not the fault. the continuing resolution with the postal service has been exempted from making a payment until the 18th of december. our proposals on health care would basically eliminates the

need to pre-fund. we have laid out a plan and are working with the unions as a potential provider in there. we can eliminate substantial requirements that are now in existence on this organization. this prepayment is different from the entire industry. it needs to be resolved. >> does it change the benefits of the people who are covered? >> i do not think so. there are people that i've spoken to in two big companies that have recently renegotiated their health plans with the providers -- it is not like we would be getting health care from someone on a street corner. these providers, one of them has reduced costs by 14%, the other by 12%. this year will pay $7 billion in health care without a pre funding.

the cost-reduction the $720 million. that gives you big opportunities to cut costs going forward. the other big push with health care is been -- has been to work with our retirees to move them to medicare. right now, we are overpaying for retiree health benefits for retirees since they are not required to go on medicare. we think we can get a better deal for them, better cross coverage, and a better proposal going forward. >> here is something from a postal employee in lansing, michigan. how do you plan to ratify two contracts currently in the negotiations when you have not honored the uaw -- the apwu contract that you just signed? >> i think we have done a lot of work to honor the apwu contract. we continue to honor it.

we have done a lot of work with our employees. >> are you making any changes in your position on post office closings? senator collins said you endorsed the language that would create a new office standard. >> the one thing we do not want to do is close to a post office and walked away. many of these towns, depends on where you are in the u.s. the further west you get, they are further apart. we are looking at a consolidation to a nearby post office, providing additional rural service. in our rural service, their carriers are a post office on wheels. in many cases we are open for eight hours and we have less

than two hours of work, less than one hour in some cases. >> that is a good job to have. >> i know. think how boring it would be. >> [unintelligible] >> oh, i'm sorry. we have those things, but we are looking at things like a village post office that gives those things going. >> do you still have only one week's worth of operating cash? >> i will have to ask the cfo. here is where we are in the cash. we have a ruling that came out that says we will have to be back the first money that we set aside. we are doing that. we will still have a couple of weeks of operating cash. that is why it is so important to get this resolved because

like any other business, we'd want to get off the debt paid down so we have -- get the debt paid down so we have a stronger future. >> does the postal service kila can use and other countries model to fix its -- feel it can use another country's model to fix its current situation? >> i have spoken to many around the world and there are different models. a lot of it comes back to public expectations. but we have almost 50% of the world's mail because we have a very different postal service. bills come through the mail, payments come through the mail, magazines, catalogs. many of these others are much lighter post. the germany charges 75 cents a letter. how about if we moved the price of 2 75 cents and everybody will be happy? i do not think so. we think from a business model perspective, looking forward to my first class mail is going to drop off. -- going forward, first-class mail is going to drop off.

there is definitely an opportunity for us and the digital world, and we want to go that direction. >> besides the five-day week delivery schedule, what other best practices can you adopt? it is a variation on the same question. >> we adopt things based on what we see that our industry best. -- are industry bests. we use the fedex and ups for the transportation services as well. and we have learned a lot from them. we have learned a lot from retailers about how to best serve customers, looking at self-service and so on. from the standard of best practices, we are open to any business in the u.s. to see how best to do it >> what do you do

with respect to measuring customer satisfaction, and where are you with that? >> we have a saying that what gets measured gets done. we are measuring everything. we are measuring point to point service. on a monthly basis we have a delivery score for about 8 billion pieces of mail. we measure that against time and delivery service. we have a customer experience measurement. we are constantly looking at what the customer is saying in order to improve our performance. >> how are you doing, generally speaking? >> our overnight mail service is about 96.5% on time. we only measure very satisfied or mostly satisfied. we do not even want to deal with satisfied. >> how about the treatment at the counter?

all of us have had different experiences with that over time. some people are better than others. how do you work on that kind of situation? >> you have to work on it every day because, if you make changes, the of work our reductions that you make, you have to work with the employees to talk about how important it is for good customer service. do we have to do more work? absolutely. we have a lot of great people out there that provide great service every day. >> how many post offices have you closed, if any, under the latest closing initiative? is there a delay in the process of closing? >> we have closed about 500 post offices in the last year. 3700 are still in the evaluation process. we have closed about 50 processing facilities in the past year-and-a-half and will continue to do that. as the volume has dropped, we have to make these changes.

you cannot wait until the bitter end. >> is their right appeals process where a community says, hey, we are special? >> yes, here is what happens. if you close a post office you have to have a public meeting and explain why you are doing it. one thing we have learned is it is better to go in and give people options. that is an area where we have not done as well going in. we have not articulated the options. we will go in, a town has the opportunity to go back to us with an objection or to the regulatory commission. we are doing those kinds of things now. the same thing with the processing area. it is the same kind of public hearing and we go through that same process, too. the most important thing for people to know from a customer's perspective is, we do

not want to make it any more difficult to get mail into our system. we want to make it easy. when we retain facilities so people do not go out of their way -- in fact, for a lot of the small businesses, we want the mail to come in the front door rather than the back door. as we make these changes, we will use technology to make a much friendlier process for the company. >> is there a political process involved? when you are asking congress to give you legislation to make corporations fiscally sustainable, what kind if involvement politically do members of congress have on this decision making process as it relates to closing post offices? >> you get opinions from many different people. and it is interesting -- there are 535 members of congress and if you give them a list of issues for us, you have 535 different scores at the end of that. there are members of congress

that would not want to close a post office for any reason. there are some that want us to close. some of them want us to move from six days to five days. our opinion is to put all the options and for the people. the more we can communicate and help people understand where we want to get to and how we are going to get there, i think we will be able to move both the public and congress in that direction. 80% of americans are saying to move from six days to five days. do not become a burden on the american taxpayers. >> back to the union question, there is a lot of animosity between management and unions. do you have any hopes or plans to try to change that? >> i do not think that there is that much of animosity between management and unions. you have that through the organization at any point in time. you can find that in any industry. i think our union leaders are

responsible people. the three people at the head of our management, they are responsible people. they have their opinions. i respect those opinions and i know that they have listened to a lot of our suggestions. the bottom line, we have got to coalesce, give some things up in some cases. anytime you come up with a good win/win situation, everybody has got to give a little bit. >> a knowledgeable person in our audience says 80% of americans may want six-day to five-day delivery, but senator collins does not. how will you deal with that? [laughter] >> her biggest concern is about rural america. what about people getting their medicines? and we have talked through some of those concerns.

you -- do you have a saturday delivery? that has been a proposal. the bottom line, we have lost 24% of the male and we are losing another 20%. -- lost 24% of the mail and will lose another 20%. >> speaking of getting politically correct answers, one says, assess your regulator. do they do a good job in helping the pipe -- the post office a solvent? for its i think we have an excellent regulator. we tried -- >> i think we have an excellent regulator. we tried to reach out many times over the past few years, whether this price or service standards, and we have worked with these guys. to a large extent, it is legislation issues.

the regulator does what you have told them to do. if you give them a list of 10 things to do, they have to do those 10 things. if the list is only three things, they do those three things. i did we have a good relationship with the regulator. -- i think we have a good relationship with the regulator precaution -- the regulator. >> someone asks, is it time to start charging the congress for the postal service? >> we do charge to the congress. many people say you cannot say you do not take any taxpayer money. we don't. even things for the blind and so on, that is just recouping because of laws that have been passed. as for congress, they have to pay.

>> another person mentioned, how do you get past each member of congress not accepting post office closings? >> we are a microcosm of what is happening now. there is a $7 income and $10 spent and you have to figure out what the fairest way to shrink that down. as we sit down with people and you walk through and explain things, they understand. there are very few people i have run into over there who are adamant and would not list them on any point. -- listen on any point. that is the approach we will have to take in order to get this resolved. >> what would ben franklin, our nation's first postmaster

general, due to postal service operations -- do to postal service operations? >> i'm not sure. [laughter] i think the thing that is important about the postal service is that you've got to keep the basic tenets of customer service and you're also a sore wrist at the forefront -- and the universal service at the forefront. i think we can do that without hurting our customers. >> someone asks, if post offices to close, what happens to the release day? >> we are selling real-estate and eliminating leases as we speak. last year we sold something like to one or $50 million, to $300 million worth of businesses. 7% on our floor space is el onta, -- 70% of our floor space is owned, but we only own 30% of our buildings.

if someone out there has a lease for a post office, that is considered a municipal bond. do not get rid of that. [laughter] >> what happens to the employees once a facility closes? >> we are working toward that. from an employee's standpoint, we produce the career headcount -- we have reduced the career headcount by 250,000 people since the year 2000. we have never laid anyone off. we are proud of that. i come from pittsburgh, a steel town. i watched 50,000 people get laid off in one fell swoop. you read our model in the beginning, even though it is unofficial. people feel that way. trying to work things out with the local unions, that is what we are trying to do. one thing we have in our

advantage is there are 150,000 people right now who are eligible to retire. if they retire, then they are not employed. we are trying to work through those, too. >> what about selling these facilities that are not great mistake? >> we have had a couple on the market. -- not great real estate? >> we have had a couple on the market. we thought about a woman on to them, but it is not getting any better. -- we thought about holding onto them, but it is not getting any better. >> how much impact are the current campaigns 4 priority mail and smaller pieces -- for priority mail and smaller pieces having on your shipping cost experts priority is great. -- your shipping cost? >> priority is great. the other thing we have done is

we have our advertising right now for first-class mail. it is the first time we have done it in years, and the whole message is the upper class mail is important and we think customers need to think about it that way. we will also have some advertisers coming up for standard mail, and we think it will go a long way, too. >> for today's business owners, what are some of the most cost- effective ways for customers to use the products and services? >> every door direct. if you are a realtor, and i'm trying to sell people on every door direct appeared -- is a very good way to reach your customers. you can go online and a lot of the charges that you have, once we get more sophisticated, once you go online, it is the most direct way and it is the best

return on investment. >> one of the postal service unions has hired ron bluhm to create a growth plan. did they talk to about his strategies for his role? >> we have talked to ron bluhm. i think it is a good move on the part of nelc. any organization he has been involved with, the focus has been on how to continue to make the organization dry. >> you talk about germany and the 75 cent stamp. how do you know what the right price point is, particularly if you are trying to stanch the flow of red ink? why not have a substantial postal rate increase? >> that has been an issue for us.

we are very careful of doing is pricing ourselves out of business. if you take a look, whether it is catalogs or advertising mail or first-class mail or periodicals, each of those provides a way to communicate with a segment of the american public. our big fear is if you put too much of a price on standard meal, they will chase -- on standard mail, they will chase people to the internet. >> you will stop delivering the mail if congress does not pass a bill to help you. if congress does pass a bill -- a bill to help you, how quickly do you see pulling out of the red? >> i see getting out of the red by the end of 2013. we would have a positive 2014 and a positive 2015. we would be in excellent shape from a debt to revenue perspective, and we would be running with profits. >> someone makes note of the

fact that you have prepared to distribute antibiotics in case of another bioterrorism attack. if, god forbid, an attack did come, how ready you feel you are? >> we have worked with the department of human health services in three or four major cities where we have letter carriers for volunteers and have been to people's houses and have delivered antibiotics or whatever people need. based on what we have done, we would be ready if called upon. >> i think your web site says you have some 216,000 vehicles that you use. what have you learned about alternative energy to fuel them? >> we run a number of small

fleets with alternative energy. we have had the largest natural gas fleet going. we run the hydrogen vehicles out on the west coast, and even have experimented with the hybrids. you have got to make very good decisions with vehicles. people pitch out of a time, to buy a new fleet. if we replace our fleet, it will cost $7 billion. we will keep our fleet for 25 years. if you have a $7 billion investment and you are stuck with it for 25 years, you have to make a good decision. if we had to do today, i would go with the four-cylinder gas engine because it is by far the cheapest to operate. >> is the fleet being reduced inside because -- in size because of the other changes? >> yes, i know we are under 216,000 now. we are probably down to about 211,000.

we have been providing vehicles to our rural carriers because it is easier to deliver on of and it is safer. we have reduced by 12,000 to 14,000 vehicles in the last few years. >> there are 200 lots of undeliverable mail that are sold at a profit each month. are you considering internet based auction methods like gsa? wei'm not so sure that should be doing that on something like e-bay or something. i do not know. but we can look at that. >> a member of audience says who will be the first living person on [unintelligible] -- on a u.s. stamp. perhaps lady gaga? >> you have to wait until the committee figures that out. they have some excellent ideas.

>> can you share? >> no, i cannot. [laughter] >> secretary of state hillary clinton and tim geithner are for new sanctions against iran in an effort to pressure pteron to stop a suspected nuclear weapons program. it targets iranian companies involved in in richmond activities. >> -- involved in the enrichment activities. >> i am delighted to welcome secretary geithner are here to the treaty room of the state department and i also welcome his team and thank my team for the work that they have been doing with respect to iran. recent days have brought new evidence that iran's leaders continued to defy their international obligations and violate international norms,

including the recent plot to assassinate the saudi ambassador here in the united states. as verified by the new report from the international atomic energy agency that further documents iran's conduct activities directly related to the development of nuclear weapons. this report is not the united states or our european partners making accusations. this is the result of an independent review and reflects the judgment of the international community. there have to be consequences for such behavior. on friday, iran was condemned in boat at the un, in new york, and at the iaea. they strongly reprimanded iran for continuing human rights abuses, persecution of minorities, and forcible restrictions on political freedom. the message is clear.

iran's in transience continues, it will face increasing pressure and isolation. today the united states is taking a series of steps to sharpen this choice. first, president obama signed an executive order that for the first time specifically targets iran's petrochemical industry, a significant source of export revenues and a cover for imports for sanctioned activities. this will allow us to sanction the provision of goods, services, and technology to the petrochemical sector. to accompany this new measure, we will launch a worldwide diplomatic campaign to encourage other countries to shift any purchases of iranian petrochemical products to other suppliers. second, in the same executive order we are expanding sanctions on iran's oil and gas business. u.s. law already sanctions large-scale investments in upstream exploration and development of oil and gas and

now it will also be sanction doubled to provide goods, services, and technology for those activities as well. this will make it more difficult for iran to work around the sanctions and will further impede efforts to maintain and modernize its oil and gas sector. third, under an existing executive order, we are designating a number of individuals and entities for their roles in assisting iran's prohibited nuclear programs, including its enrichment and heavy water programs. their assets will be frozen and american individuals and entities will be prohibited from engaging in any transactions with them. finally, as secretary geithner will discuss in more detail, the treasury department is formally identifying iran as the jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern. this is the strongest official warning we can give that any

transaction with iran poses serious risks of deception or diversion. the steps were company today by complementary measures by the u.k. and canada and we expect additional sanctions by other international partners in the days ahead. together, these measures represent a significant ratcheting up of pressure on iran, its sources of income, and it's illegal and activities. it will build on existing sanctions regime put into place by the un security council and a large number of countries, including our own. acting nationally and multilaterally to implement the council's measures. the sanctions are already having a dramatic effect. i have almost completely isolated iran from the international financial sector and have made it very risky and costly a place to do business. most of the world's major energy companies have left, undermining

iran's efforts to boost its declining oil production, its main source of revenue. iran has found it much more difficult to operate its national airline and shipping companies and to procure equipment and technology for its prohibited weapons program. those individuals and organizations responsible for terrorism and human rights abuses, including the revolutionary guard corps, has been specifically targeted. the impact will only grow unless iran's leaders decide to change course and meet their international obligations. let me be clear. today's actions do not exhaust our opportunities to sanction iran. we continue actively to consider a range of increasingly aggressive measures. we have worked closely with congress and have put to effective use the legislative tools that have provided. we are committed to continuing our collaboration to develop

additional sanctions that will have the effect we all want, putting strong pressure on iran. the administration's dual track strategy is not only about pressure. it is also about engaging iran. engagement that would be aimed at resolving the international community's serious and growing concerns about iran's nuclear program. the united states is committed to engagement but only if iran is prepared to engage seriously and concretely without preconditions. so far we have seen little indication that iran is serious about negotiations on its nuclear program. until we do, and until iran's leaders live up to their international obligations, they will face increasing consequences. now i would like to invite secretary geithner to explain in more depth how some of these sanctions will be working. >> thank you, secretary

clayton, and my compliments to your colleagues and to mind -- secretary clinton, for doing such a great job today on the significant financial actions. since the president came into office, this administration has executed very aggressive strategy to stop iran's illicit activities. a key part of this strategy has been to impose overwhelming financial pressure on iran. because of this strategy, iran has been subjected to new and damaging levels of financial and commercial isolation. first we have dramatically reduced iran's access to the international financial system. iranian banks are losing the ability to do business around the world, which in turn has reduced the ability of the government to finance activities opposed by the international community. second, iran's national shipping line, which has transported material in support of iran's missile program, is now shut off

from many of the world's major ports and routinely finds its ships seized or turned away. third, iran's primary source of revenue, its oil sector, is in decline because it cannot attract the foreign investment that it desperately needs to maintain levels of production. together the intensification of sanctions by this administration, alongside our partners around the world, has inflicted substantial damage to the iranian economy. to continue these efforts, the treasury department today is designating additional entities for their support of iran's nuclear and proliferation related activities. today we are taking a very significant step of acting under section 311 of the patriot act read for the first time we are identifying the entire iranian banking sector, including the central bank of iran, as a threat to potential institutions

that do business with iranian banks. if you are a financial institution anywhere in the world and you engage in any transaction involving iran's central bank or any other iranian bank operating inside or outside iran, then you are at risk of supporting iran's illicit activities. its pursuit of nuclear weapons, its support for terrorism, and its efforts to deceive responsible financial institutions and to evade sanctions. of any and every financial transaction with iran poses great risk of supporting those activities. so financial institutions around the world should think hard about the risk of doing business with iran. we are taking this action alongside our partners in the united kingdom and canada who announced earlier today that are implementing similar measures to insulate their banks from iran,

and as a result of this coordinated effort, iran is now cut off from three of the world's largest financial sectors. we encourage other leaders around world to take forceful steps like these actions to prevent iran from simply shifting financial activity to banks within their nations. as we put these new measures in place and as we continue to work to expand their reach around the world, we will continue to explore other measures. no option is off the table, including the possibility of imposing additional sanctions on the central bank of iran. the policies iran is pursuing are unacceptable, and until iran's leadership agrees to abandon this dangerous course, we'll continue to use tough and innovative means to impose severe economic and financial consequences on iran's leadership. thank you. >> thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]