dr. cassidy had to say, i think you brought up a good point and i think it's fair to ask if the dea data mining capabilities are as robust and clever as you suspect google's are and perhaps we can visit that in the days ahead. but this is sort of abaral question to each of you. and thank you, mr. rannazzisi, for mentioning my support of your takeback days, but 995,000 pounds of drugs in three days. the question i want to ask each of you if you care to comment or weigh in, who is paying for those pills? are we paying for them in the form of health care premiums? are we paying for them through dive@sin out of medicare part "d" and medicaid? who is paying for all of those pills? why are there 995,000 pounds of extra pills being turned back in? what is the overall toll in health care in our country just from this problem? anybody? >> i can tell you from are our local takeback days, these are good solid citizens who are coming in with brown paper bags filled with prescriptions that they've had and they're concerned because they know you cannot flush prescription drugs down your toilet and the

dr. cassidy for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i have a price waterhouse cooper article which speaks about the availability of shale gas has been tremendous in terms of jump-starting manufacturing. lower feed, stock and energy costs could help reduce natural gas by almost $12 billion annually through 25 and that because of that, there may be one million more workers added in 2025 in manufacturing. really tremendous. now, my concern is if we take john marshall, the power to tax is the power to destroy, the president's insistence upon denying energy companies the same manufacturing tax incentives as other manufacturing companies, does that denial of a section 199 for an energy company imperil our at least potentially harm the manufacturing renaissance we're joined because of the work these energy companies are doing? >> let me address the energy and then i'll do what i can on the tax. i am not an expert. the tax is really done out of the u.s. treasury. not the u.s. congress. >> it's so interrelated to the ability of a manufacturing

dr. cassidy now for his five minutes, and again recognize we are crunched for time. >> y'all give me the hook when we got to get there, okay? i'm used to women telling me what to do. whoever feels most qualified, i'm struck again as you heard my previous questioning how natural gas and domestic oil and gas, from everything i read, contributed greatly to lowering input costs and otherwise improving the robustness of our manufacturing. if you will directly contributing to tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. now the president almost demagogues the issue. i hate to say that, because he continues to suggest that we can replace that sort of energy with what he calls renewables and not have a downside. now let me just give some statistics that we pulled up from the energy institute that the federal electric subsidies per unit of production in 2010 dollars per megawatt hour for natural gas is 64 cents. for nuclear is $3.14, and for solar is $776 per megawatt hour. to me it is laughable to think if your input cost is based on something that has to be subsidized at $776.per megawatt hour, tha

dr. cassidy now for his five minutes and again, we are crunched for time. >> y'all give me the hook when we've got to get there, okay? i'm used to women telling me what to do. to whoever feels most eququalif, im struck as to how natural gas, from everything i've read contributing greatly, other wise improving the robustness of our manufacturing. directly contributing to tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. the president almost demagogues the issue. i hate to say that. because he continues to suggest that we can replace that sort of energy with what he calls renewables and not have a downside. let me just give some statistics that we pulled up from the energy institute that the federal electric subsidies for university of production for natural gas is 64 cents. for nuclear is $3.14. and for solar is $776 per megawatt hour. now, to me, laughable to think that if your input cost is based upon something which has to be sub sigh diazed at $776 per hour, you could have the same robust manufacturing that we're having now. gentlemen, would you challenge that? agree? >> i would agree. energy

dr. cassidy. >> thank you. clearly our problem in our economy right now is unemployment. and we know that that unemployment is disproportionately focused upon blue collar workers. those workers have traditionally been employed in mining, manufacturing and construction. now i think we're all encouraged that the renaissance in mining in north american energy assets, fossil fuel in particular, have led to a renaissance in manufacturing as recently discussed in "the new york times," cnn money and elsewhere. this is fantastic. if we take it as a moral imperative to increase blue collar prosperity, then i almost see it as a primary variable we should take it as a moral imperative to develop our domestic energy resources. my concern is that much of what has happened has happened despite federal efforts. which had been actively inhibitory bringing those domestically or north american resources to the benefit of our blue collar workers. so, mr. secretary, i thank you for being here. i look forward to the discussion and ask you specifically to address really what appears to be an h

dr. cassidy. >> thank you. clearly our problem in oregon right now is unemployment, and we know that unemployment is this proportionate focus on blue-collar workers. those workers have traditionally been employed in mining, manufacturing and construction. i think we're all encouraged that the renaissance in mind in north american energy, fossil fuel particular, have led to renaissance in manufacturing as recent discussed in the new york times, money and also. this is fantastic, and if we take it as a moral imperative to increase blue-collar prosperity, then almost as a primary variable we should take it as a moral imperative to develop our domestic energy resources. my concern is that much of what has happened has happened despite federal efforts, which have been actively inhibitory of bringing those domestically or those north american resources to the benefit of our blue-collar workers. so mr. secretary, i think you for being here i look forward to the discussion and ask you to specifically address really wha

dr. cassidy. >> i have an article which speaks about how the availability of shall gas has been tremendous in terms of just starting in manufacturing. this could help manufacturers reduce natural gas expands by almost $12 billion annually. there could be 1 million more workers added in manufacturing by 2025. if we take those maxims, the upon the's insistence nine energy companies the same oftax exemptions, does that do not out of this section 199 in peril or potentially harm the manufacturing renaissance we are enjoying because of the work these energy companies are doing? >> let me address the energy and i will do what i can on the tax. i'm not an expert. tax gone out of treasury and not commerce -- tax is done out of treasury. >> i have indicated what the president has set out for a factoring companies. i agree that your point about the incredible value to the united states of this natural gas find said that we become more dependent on u.s. sources of all forms of energy which is the position we most want to be in. it is the risk -- >> i except that. if you raise the cost of the company

dr. jim yong kim will become president of the world bank. it was almost a foregone conclusion once he was tapped by president obama last month. i spoke a short time ago to shaun cassidy of "the new yorker." it has been awhile since we have had a rock star head of the world bank. is he that man? >> if he is, he has been hiding his stardom. all we know is he is an expert in world health. he has spent the last few years in new hampshire where no one has seen him. the obama administration has really pulled him out of obscurity. the most we know about him is how little we know about him at this stage. >> he seems to have faded in public view compared to the international monetary fund, which has gotten so much spotlight. it means that shot in the arm, does it not, the organization at the moment? >> it certainly does. now that the imf is involved in things like the european crisis, the financial crisis, 10 years ago the world bank was quite prominent when people like tony blair and president bush were talking about development goals. that has all been relegated. you are exactly right. it needs a leader to come forward and bring it back into public consciousness right aroun

dr. jim yong kim will become president of the world bank. it was almost a foregone conclusion once he was tapped by president obama last month. i spoke a short time ago to shaun cassidy of "the new yorker." it has been awhile since we have had a rock star head of the world bank. is he that man? >> if he is, he has been hiding his stardom. all we know is he is an expert in world health. he has spent the last few years in new hampshire where no one has seen him. the obama administration has really pulled him out of obscurity. the most we know about him is how little we know about him at this stage. >> he seems to have faded in public view compared to the international monetary fund, which has gotten so much spotlight. it means that shot in the arm, does it not, the organization at the moment? >> it certainly does. now that the imf is involved in things like the european crisis, the financial crisis, 10 years ago the world bank was quite prominent when people like tony blair and president bush were talking about development goals. that has all been relegated. you are exactly right. it needs a leader to come forward and bring it back into public consciousness right aroun