let me begin by asking you to respond. twice in the last week, the president meeting with house republicans and senate democrats. the senator said we do not want it on camera. >> we want to have a dialogue with members of both parties. i think there was something valuable about the exchange the president had, both with the house republicans and with the democratic senate caucuses this week. i think it was invaluable for the public to see the changes were open and honest, but if senate republicans do not want to do that, the president is not not going to talk to them because they do not want to do it in public. >> is this a photo op, or is this serious? >> i think there were very positive. >> we had some kind words from senator ryan who said he wanted to work with him. immediately after, house democrats attacked what he talked about. what does that do for the attempt at bipartisanship? >> there is going to be back- and-forth about ideas. we should not be afraid to advance ideas. we should discuss them. one thing the preside

. >> let me ask you something, a point that you made. i understand with jobs needing to be results oriented. that's fair. but you did list a lot of things there that some would say shouldn't be part of a teacher's

let me ask about the details of his social care plans.can he say whether he is ruling out all forms of a composer he levied with a means tested or not, that elderly people would have to pay? is he ruling that are? >> he should read the white paper that we put forward what it sets out all the various options before us. mr. speaker, they can make all the noise they want. they can put up all the posters. they have absolute no policy to do with the problems. there are no substance. they have no judgment. they can hurl insults. they are not the new politics. they are the same old stories. [shouting] >> i've got -- i've got the paper right here. one of the options is a 20,000 pounds levy on every single elderly person in this country, except the very poorest. that is what it says. so let me ask him again. will he rule out any form of compulsory levy on the elderly? yes or no? >> if he reads the white paper, he is not -- [shouting] >> mr. speaker, he has not reported it correctly. and he should read the whole chapters so that he sees what it is.

but let me ask you this, the u.s. national security adviser, jim jones, has said that the increased pressure on iran is likely to lead to an attack on israel. do you agree with that -- not necessarily by iran. >> i understand the idea. i don't think that we are yet there. yeah, he probably intended probably hezbollah or someone else will attack us. in fact, ahmadinejad, this guy, he was two days ago in damascus, probably negotiating what should follow. he talked about a new middle east with no zionist and no -- israel and new israel. and this guy, you know, happened to develop not a new avatar-like long bows, but a nuclear weapon. so we have to take this situation seriously. i'm not sure whether we are going to face a preemptive attack by the hezbollah, but anyhow, we are not interested in conflict in the north or in the east. but if it is imposed upon us, we know how to respond. >> well, you say that, but then, of course, there's the gallstone effect. in other words, would you do what you did to hezbollah in 2006? al

let me ask you this, too. understand if the banks have to pony up on a risk basis or a size basis some money to the fdic for the insurance fund. that i understand. this is not about that. >> right. >> this is a punitive bank tax. now if you have to pay it, what's it going to mean to your loans, your stock price? what does it mean if you have to pay? >> it's interesting you say that. i did an investor presentation today. we have figured out that it looks like they are recant aing their ways a little bit about repo financing. they are done on a thin margin. half of our leverage is repo finance done usually at a quarter profit. it's small. now tack 15 basis points on that and repo goes away. >> they will exempt re purchase? >> that's a conversation people have been having. what you have seen so far is a let's throw it on the wall and see what sticks proposal. >> mm-hmm. >> the more they took through it they will find people like us that all we did -- and you made the point -- 2007 were $44 billion. that's when th

let me begin by asking you to respond to senator cornyn. he said we'd like to have the president.we don't want it on camera. >> well, look, we want to have a dialogue with members of both parties, and we'll do it as we can. i think there was something valuable about the exchange that the president had both with the house republican caucus and with the democratic senate caucus this week. i thought they were good exchanges and i think it's valuable for the public to see those exchanges. they were open and honest. but if the senate republicans don't want to do that, the president is not going to not talk to them because they don't want to do it in public. >> is this a photo op or is this this serious? >> i think most people who watched thought that they were quite serious. i think they were substantive and valuable. so i think they were very positive. >> during the president's exchange with the house republicans, he had some kind words for congressman paul ryan. he said he wanted to work with him. immediately afterwards the house democrats attacked what he talked about. what does tha

let me ask him one final time -- are these sorts of levies ruled in or ruled out? he says that he wants consensus, and the fact is that there is consensus. labour advisers, labour ministers, and labour councils all think that he is doing this for cheap dividing lines before an election. one last go -- are you going to do a levy? rule it in or rule it out. >> [unintelligible] >> order. order, order. order, order. honorable and right honorable members on both sides are far too excited, and they must simmer down. >> the wall of noise will not disguise the fact that the conservative party has absolutely no policy on an issue that is vital to the needs of the elderly for the future. this is a big challenge that this country faces because of the demographic changes that are taking place and the needs and ambitions of old people. i have got to conclude that, when it comes to dealing with big areas of policy, i have to say, mr. speaker, this is no time for a novice. >> gordon marsden. >> thank you -- thank you, mr. speaker. will the prime minister congratulate the organize

. >> ifill: let me ask you.... >> exploration funding was cut by $12 billion just in the time that i was administrator. >> ifill: let me ask you this, mr. griffin, to follow up on your point. pretty good in this time of deficits and spending priorities, competing spending priorities, was "pretty good" going to be good enough? >> it was actually excellent. it's more than good enough. let me point out that in this time of deficits and spending priorities that nasa fits within the domestic discretionary portion of the budget. you could cancel the entire domestic discretionary portion of the budget, all of it, and not close the deficit. the domestic discretionary portion of our budget is one-8th of our total spending. >> ifill: how about that? >> well, i think we disagree on the facts and what the augustine committee said. they did say it would require $50 billion more over ten years just to get to where we had planned to go. i think this administration.... >> that is correct. >> what this administration has done is add money to the five-year budget plan that they have been proposing last

>> let me ask you a question that i asked dr. gallo.s there any chance you can go back to the table and continue negotiations? >> we're ready. as far as i know anyone at this school is ready at any table at anytime to talk to superintendent gallo and the board of trustees and anybody else who wants to be involved. we've said that from the beginning when everything broke down. and as far as i know, they walked away from the table. we've said it over and over and over again. there seems to be other agenda here. they don't seem to be listening to us. if they don't listen to us soon, the tragedy won't be just for myself and my family after 32 years in education. it will be for central falls as a stay. the former governor of this city graduated from this high school. we have many, many people throughout the country that have become famous and have great influence and the history of this place will go down the river. >> all right, thank you for your time tonight. and i wish you also very good luck and to your students. >> thank you, jessica.

jeff, let me ask you to wrap up. we need to get to the question in. >> that is a hazard of inviting me to a conference and one other area this is context of social media. as consumers become more involved in the electric grid, consumers can also be some of the early warning system about patterns of outages and if that is aggregated when also helps the utility get better awareness. thank you. >> thank you. chris, let me go to the visual that i have, the next slide. yeah. we have heard a common theme throughout today's panel discussions and that is the notion that innovative, putting up fire walls, others have been phrased it the same way, those of us who come from the community of vulnerabilities, love to find those things and if one targets your system they look at what you put in place as a challenge, so, understand that adversaries think outside the box. i'd like to move into the questions and answers session, we have a microphone up front, those of you who have questions, please come up to the front, self-identify

but let me ask you this., are you with the other republicans who are putting out the word negotiations with the white house, that the president of the united states should not to have a lectern tomorrow? he should sit at the table at the same level as you guys. is that important to you? >> i think quite frangly this whole discussion should have been at this table at the same level. i think in part the reason the president is doing this is because he left the writing of this bill to the congress. i think he may have thought it was going to be a bipartisan process but down at this end of pennsylvania avenue it was not a bipartisan process. we were not allowed, republicans were not allowed in the room in the commerce committee to write any of this bill when it went through markup in the committee, the democrats accepted a number of amendments, and then mrs. pelosi ripped those amendments out of the bill before it went to the rules committee. if this is going to be a discussion, it would be better if he sat at th

let me ask you three questions. first of all the republicans have asserted that the freeze on non-security discretionary spending propose in your budget follows an 84% increase in spending of that category. you agree with that assessment? >> no. let me be very clear about this. in 2008, spending in this category the budget was $408 billion. an increase in fiscal year 2009 because of the recovery act. then in 2010, it was $447 billion. so that him up is gone and that is the level as you can see in our table. that is the level at which refreeze nonsecurity spending. in fact is slower than i did 2011. so to argue that refreezing off of this grossly inflated race is just factually inaccurate. smack thank you for clearing that up. >> my next question involves what we're spending. ms. kaptur ask you about the cost of the war and i want to go further that is the cost of the war and the impact on the deficit. the fact is that i want to give the administration credit for putting numbers in the budget that i think reflect the

super bowl, i think that most people, vast majority would agree that this is not a safe ad. >> let me ask a question. >> well, this is free market. that really has to determine. >> let me ask you a question. interracial couple talking about having a baby and having fertility issues? is that okay? that's a very real, everyday problem. >> i welcome it. >> that's you. maybe somebody else wouldn't, though. >> you're right. it doesn't matter. >> that's the issue here. >> you're right. >> who draws that box? >> cbs. cbs does, because that's what the free market allows. >> you're right. but it's a tough one. it's a tough one. >> larry: you could go nuts, right, reject cereal ads on the basis of sugar, it's bad for kids. you could go nuts. >> you can. >> larry: and have no ads. >> but that will be true for anything. you'll have no ads. you're right. the beer ads probably offend teetotale teetotalers. you're right. >> larry: obviously well financed for a start-up organization to have gays meet gays. >> absolutely. we do have our investors, we're very smart. we have a very strategic marketing plan

let me ask you this. a young woman or man, say 22 years old, out of college, officer material, they want to serve their country. but they're gay. what should they do? they want to serve their country. they're patriotic. what should they do? >> they should serve it in some civilian capacity and not join the military. >> why not? >> because the presence of homosexuals in the military is incompatible with good morale, discipline and unit cohesion. that's what congress found in 1993 and that's what the law states. >> again, there is no data, there is no evidence, there is no study whatsoever that you can point to to support that outrageous statement. and what i would also suggest to you is that 79% of americans today support open service. they support gays and lesbians, being able to serve their country openly. indeed, i would say to you that the latest gallup polling shows that 61% of weekly churchgoers support gays and lesbians being able to serve openly. indeed, 58% of conservatives support repeal of don't

. >> lastly, let me ask, you talked about the employment rate. that does not really reflect what's happening in poor rural communities and latino communities where the unemployment rates are up as high as 16.9d% and higher in some of these poor rural communities. is there anything you can recommend that we could do to deal with this problem. these minorities have a lower interest rate. that's a terrible problem. welcome. >> somebody has their mic on. >> thank you, on page 3, you talk about the lending institutions one of the reasons why bank lending is down. the other since you began is that in situations for example how many loans were turned down. we like reserve banks around the country with summit meetings with community leaders and development organizations there will be some cases where tighter stand ars are justified because of the weakness of the economy and the condition. my second question is completely different. we have 4 million jobs and picked up 4 million government jobs. when i went on the recovery website. my question is in a lar

let me ask this question, let me ask about wellpoint's motivations in increasing premiums. i've sort of mentioned it and others have mentioned it, wellpoint's executives -- and in a way, ms. be braly, the profits were not a motivating factor in raising premiums in california. in written testimony you indicated you were disappointed that the critics cited profits as a primary reason that companies were increasing the costs of premiums. so let me ask you this, right there is a document book. on tab 13, please, take a look at tab 13. if we could put it up on the screen. it's an e-mail that was sent on october 7th in response to a voice mail, in fact, i think ms. miller, i think you're the one who left the message, a senior corporate actuarial wrote, the average increase is 23% and is intended to return california to a target profits of 7%. versus 5% this year. so my question is, were you attempting to raise profits to 7% then in california by increasing the premiums? was that the purpose behind this e-mail? >> i think cindy miller was going to respond to that -- >> okay. it wa

let me ask you this. you said in your testimony in reept months we've not lived up to the high standards our customers and the public have come to expect from toyota. and we're all concerned about that. and there are two groups of people who i think that we've all expressed concern for, most obviously the consumers out there who put their trust and faith in -- and their families in the toyota vehicles. >> yes. >> and, of course, the workers. the workers in this country who rely upon toyota to make a living and take care of their families. i guess that's why i ask you the question about the we. we've also heard a lot of confusing testimony about the electronic throttle control system. six years ago nhtsa compiled data showing that toyota camrys had over 400% more vehicle speed complaints than those with manual controls. so it's rather difficult to -- do you think that's an acceptable sort of number to suggest that there isn't something to it? i mean 400% more. >> there's no question it's a big number. but

be able to see the doctors they want in the kind of bill that you're proposing. >> well, let me -- since you askeduestion, let me respond. the 8 to 9 million people you refer to that might have to change their coverage, keep in mind out of the 300 million americans we're talking about, would be folks that the cbo, congressional budget office, estimates would find the deal iç the exchange better, would be a better deal. so, yes, they would change coverage because they've got more choice in competition. let's be clear about that, point number one. point number two, when we do props like this, stack it up and you repeat 2,400 pages, et cetera, the truth of the matter is that health care is very complicated. and we can try to pretend that it's not, but it is. every single item that we've talked about on the republican side, if we wanted to exhaustively deal with fraud and abuse, would generate a bunch of pages. i point that out just because, you know, these are the kind of political things we do that prevent us from actually having a conversation. now, let me respond to your question. we could set up

- >> do you remember -- >> the 16th is when we conclude the transaction so just before that. >> let me ask on the counterparties when was that meeting with the counterparties to discuss the payment might be to them? do you remember those states? >> i don't believe it was a meeting with counterparties. what i asked my colleagues to do after looking at a range of options is to purge the counterparties individually and try to negotiate concessions. >> so there was no act will meeting where the counterparties or in a room -- >> i don't think -- i would have to check the record and get back to you but i don't believe they brought them in a room together. >> when using your colleagues these are people that work for you, they were under direction? >> absolutely. >> so you were aware of the 100% payment to the counterparties? >> as i have said many times we decided and i fully supported the decision -- >> that is a yes. >> in each of these meetings with the count to produce to negotiate we were not able to negotiate any of them down? and i mean these four separate meetings i guess. due to question

let me ask you this. let me ask you this.sidered to be an interim report, correct? so they're still conducting tests. >> correct. >> is that right? okay. will you provide the committee with the final test results when they are obtained? >> yes, we're going to make that public. >> whether do you expect that to happen? >> i don't know. >> now it's my understanding that toyota's counsel who is sitting right behind you told committee staff today that toyota had, in fact, replicated dr. gilbert's tests. and that toyota was able to produce the same conditions without triggering an error. is that correct? >> yes. >> when did exponent do that test? >> the wee hours of the night last night. >> so this is new information for us? >> yes. >> i'm assuming toyota will be willing to shart results of that testing also with this committee, correct? >> yes, we will. >> now, in your opening statement, you said that toyota had done extensive testing of electronics and found no issues. do you wish to change or clarify this remark in light of the

. >> let me ask jordan, is there one issue, jordan, that's driving this for you? >> i would have to say for the youth, the issue is going to be employment. many people, like myself, i just graduated from law school in 2009, i came and i looked around. luckily i was in a position where i had options in front of me. i decided to come and give time back to the movement. many of the people that join us today, young professionals, our organization is really noticing it's moving from the high school students and the college students to these young professionals that are graduating. they were told if you go to school, if you go ahead and invest your time and get the education necessary there's going to be jobs available to you. that's not what we have today. we're calling for fiscal responsibility. >> guys, stand by for a minute. lisa, i want to ask you when we come back, i know on your blog you describe yourself as a right wing extremist. i want to talk about whether you guys think the tea party is right wing extremism. ( music playing ) get the taste of a home-cooked m

let me ask you this. let me ask you this. to be an interim report, correct? so they're still conducting tests. >> correct. >> is that right? okay. will you provide the committee with the final test results when they are obtained? >> yes, we're going to make that public. >> whether do you expect that to happen? >> i don't know. >> now it's my understanding that toyota's counsel who is sitting right behind you told committee staff today that toyota had, in fact, replicated dr. gilbert's tests. and that toyota was able to produce the same conditions without triggering an error. is that correct? >> yes. >> when did exponent do that test? >> the wee hours of the night last night. >> so this is new information for us? >> yes. >> i'm assuming toyota will be willing to shart results of that testing also with this committee, correct? >> yes, we will. >> now, in your opening statement, you said that toyota had done extensive testing of electronics and found no issues. do you wish to change or clarify this remark in light of the finding

let me ask you this question. how does the media sleep at night? here is the president of the united states after smearing everybody that said he's been involved with acorn for a long time. he'd come out and say no, it was 13 years ago. claiming he has nothing to do with a scandal-ridden organization. do you remember when he was with george stephanopoulos recently? he said i don't know anything. you don't know anything? and yet, who are you lying to? you're lying to us or lying to acorn when you say you don't even have to call us, i will call you? this is a story not only he's lying but you don't have to go and try to find a way to make this a story. today, acorn is in the news for dissolving nationally. the media has to go out of their way to avoid these stories but, of course, they do. why are they silent? how do they sleep at night. now the question is what do we do about it? we have to stop telling lies to ourselves. the harsh lies. they're hard because we have to say we can continue to spend this money. no, we can't. no, we can't. he'll be dif

let me ask it a different way. bill, have you looked at porn while you were working? >> that's correct. i have done that when greg was supposed to be working. >> reshmi, you said women look at porn too. >> stop it. it is a myth. >> they do. >> that's up there with women think about sex too. >> yeah, sex? >> greg, even though i am here and not doing other things, i can't tell you if any of the employees were women because the sec refused to identify them saying it could subject them to harassment and annoyance in the conduct of their official duties and private life. >> do you think a woman would say this is a distraction, per say? >> only if we were a huh maf raw dite. >> come on, guys, i am sitting here minding my own. >> i ran sends animals into space. i was disappointed. i thought iran sent turtle from "on tau entourage" into space. >> continue hate on jerry ferrara. >> we very much luke how his hat matches his outfit. >> exactly. at some . a sweat suit has to make it into space. congressman greg asked if this was a big deal and you gave a long, articulate answer.

the chairman has proven he can ask a question so complex as to even be difficult for people of your great knowledge, and it does not surprise me. letferent way, the same question, so that we all on the dais have clarity. mr. inaba, isn't it true, that in order to use a advanced brake override system like this, your cars depend on systems such as microprocessors and engine control modules that can simultaneously reduce fuel when sensing through the data bus that the brake has been pushed, isn't that correct? >> you are much better technically, savvy, than i am. i think that i believe so. >> so i think that for all of us here who are concerned, of course, about fail-safe, and acceleration caused by electronics, i think that -- i'm asking you -- isn't it fair to say that although electronics could at times be a problem, and your people have not eliminated that, the solution is in fact electronics in this case, and that is what is going to give the higher level of safety? >> well, i can only say that this is an added measure of to customer confidence, and of course, i dot no mean to say it is solving all of the problems. >> yes. i unde

let me ask you all at once. sorry for all of that. i never get three questions. >> i think, there are more than three but that's fine. why don't i actually propose, let me, i know this is an issue that we have discussed at length in the past and something that you feel passionately about. >> right. >> the basic goal here is to get a concept operational, building on the success that we have had with the tiger grant program that has been successful. get a concept operational and after proof of concept it could be expanded both into other areas and spun if necessary. you asked a series of detailed questions. i think most auspicious approach might be for me to get back to you in writing. >> why don't i lay those questions out for you, dr. orszag. thank you, i yield back. >> [inaudible]. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there we go. thank you, mr. chairman. dr. orszag, i know it's been a long afternoon. thank you for being in front of this committee again and your many it today. we all agree we're going through a weak job market. our focus here

let me ask you this. let me ask you this.the exponent report was considered to be an interim report, correct? so they're still conducting tests. >> correct. >> is that right? okay. will you provide the committee with the final test results when they are obtained? >> yes, we're going to make that public. >> whether do you expect that to happen? >> i don't know. >> now it's my understanding that toyota's counsel who is sitting right behind you told committee staff today that toyota had, in fact, replicated dr. gilbert's tests. and that toyota was able to produce the same conditions without triggering an error. is that correct? >> yes. >> when did exponent do that test? >> the wee hours of the night last night. >> so this is new information for us? >> yes. >> i'm assuming toyota will be willing to shart results of that testing also with this committee, correct? >> yes, we will. >> now, in your opening statement, you said that toyota had done extensive testing of electronics and found no issues. do you wish to change or clarify t

have brought forward a truckload of uncertainties that i really don't like. >> uh-huh. >> guy, let me aske last question that i'll ask and then we'll turn it over to the audience. and i think ben commented on this earlier. but there's been a tremendous crisis of confidence here, a confidence in leadership. every poll you see it says people don't trust our leaders anymore. there's clearly huge outrage against the bankers. but part of that there's also tremendous frustration, pent-up frustration. people don't have jobs. i come from an old fashion view people who don't have jobs they're not going to be happy no matter how strong the welfare systems are. how do we restore confidence in people that are actually going to have to run organizations that create, if you will, cohesive capitalism and successful capitalism? >> well, i think it relates to the comments that have just been made. i think everyone on the panel has saidç that capitalism real does have to demonstrate responsibilities beyond shareholders. and i absolutely agree with that. i think the problem that we've had -- and again it's

let me ask you, when we send people to congress, do we ask them to vote their conscience or ours?in which the numbers are so skewed they need to vote the people's way? >> that's the great question since burke. he thought you should represent your on or conception of what the national need is. i don't think there is an answer. if i think if you are president obama, you came in and promised health care reform. now for political reasons your entire presidency hinges on coming back with something. if he comes back with nothing, i think he's wounded beyond repair. he's allowed to go ahead. is it undemocratic? we don't govern by polls. let's take president bush when he ordered the surge. there was public opinion way against him, all the congress was against him and he was right. and though i think it is a mistake to go ahead this health care. i respect the president's right or ability or notion that he needs to act in the national interests as he sees it, even though i think it is a terrible mistake. >> greta: in terms of conscience, do you agree the vote on health care is different, li

we are trying very hard to really put that word "customer" first. >> let me say to you, i'm going to askstion i think every american that has a toyota would want me to ask. i can ask this because it is personal as well as con depressional. i drive a camery hybrid. i switched to toyota reluctantly because i wanted to buy an american car. the americans were not making hybrids almost at all. i went straight away to toyota. why? i didn't ask how much it cost. i was relying on this sco extraordinary rep takes had been built over generations. so i ask you, mr. toyoda, is there any chance that the camry hybrid will be recalled? for any reason. >> first of all, let me step in. first of all, chairwoman, you are driving american car. it is produced -- >> it's got mr. toyoda's name on it. you don't want to claim it anymore? you are disclaiming the car? >> no, no. it is an american -- >> it was the americans fault? >> no, no. please. first of all -- and also, now camry hybrid is not on the recall list. >> no. i just want to find out if you expect it ever to be on the recall list for any reason. >> i

let me ask about something else president obama has called for.here's a clear case for a levee to compensate tax payers what happened in the past and what may happen in the future. is it time to work with the president on the kind of levy he is proposing and drop the prime minister's act on transaction which is rejected across the world and ridiculed yesterday by the governor of the bank of england himself. >> we never argued there should be a one size fits all solution with every single country taking the same action. what we have always agreed is all countries should work together whether it is the g 20 or the eu that we should all work together to tackle the global economic crisis and one thing we agree with president obama on and just about every other country in the world is we need a fiscal stimulus to support the economy out of recovery. the only people who seem to disagree with that is the official opposition. >> president obama just announced a freeze on spending in the united states and the government raised the rates which is how fiscal

the senate, monica, and that's why i'm confident of our success in the august 24th primary. >> let me askbout something senator mccain has said. he says he was misled on t.a.r.p. by then treasury secretary hank paulson and ben bernanke. t.a.r.p. was supposed to be used to counter the mortgage crisis, not to bail out the big banks. do you believe mccain was misled? >> no, i don't, monica. the night before on nbc nightly news, you may remember john yang had a record that feerchbd john mccain saying because of his experience, he was best equipped to rhett republic arizona. now, in western inventory knack ewe lar, this ain't john's first rodeo. when he suspended his campaign to go back to washington to sit face-to-face with those decisionmakers, now a couple years later, he's telling us he was misled? i have to tell you, this is isn't revision of history. that sounds more like john kerry in 2004 than the john mccain i used to work with. >> and the mccain camp is attacking your spending record. they have a radio ad saying you talk like a conservative, but you spend like a liberal. they're citi

but let me ask you this. is there anything you have to do to change the way the disciplinary works once you have gay soldiers in the same barracks, for example, close quarters? is there anything you have to do differently than you have to do now? >> absolutely not. in fact, the easiest thing to do here is to tell the military, let gays serve openly. the hardest thing to do is let congress pass legislation repealing the law. what our command structure says, goes. so our troops are going to listen to the commanders. we have the strictest guidelines in regards to what we call heterosexual relationships. an officer cannot be involved physically, intimately in any way with a noncommissioned officer. these strict guidelines -- >> so they would apply to gay relationships as well? >> absolutely. >> with it's the same with men and women serving together. >> you were in, i wasn't. thank you. please come back again. i'm sure we'll talk about this again. we'll hear the other side, too, as this debate continues. although

>> are you asking me -- >> yes, do you have the same information i have, where we have -- >> i'm not exactly sure. >> this is a conference in st. simmons island? don't have that? okay. let me do this. if i may, having been a trial lawyer, may i approach the witness, mr... >> you may ask your questions, mr. green. >> okay. then may i have it given to the witness? >> yes, that would be fine. >> thank you. >> here. okay. would you pass that to the witness, please. >> while it's on its way to me, i may -- >> i may have to interrupt, i only have a minute and two second left. let me go through these and perhaps the chair will give you the additional time. the first list, the first bullet, 150 employees, leadership conference, $28,995, was that a legitimate conference? >> to be perfectly honest with you, sir, our scope did not involve determining the legitimacy of the conference. we took what we were able to get from the department at face value. i e it it is a terrible thing to assume it was legit and it is my assumption it is a legit conference and perhaps ms. ducan elaborate senate i can get back for the record but when we looked through all the conferences, they were legit

let me ask you, diana. to plan all of the details and there are a lot of details, especially when you're doing it all in one week. where do you begin? >> right from here we are going to try on dresses to get it narrowed down for the viewers vote. exactly and the groom is going to try on his tux. we're getting started. >> you are waiting on the audiences to decide on a few things. >> we have three different color schemes. we can't printout anything until we find out when the viewers want. >> are you more nervous than the bride and the groom? >> to some extent, but we will pull it together. >> and we will and it's going to be wonder. you the viewers do get to vote on all of the details from the dress to the food and the honeymoon. as you heard the winning couple will have a cake tasting in our studio and the bride will be taken to try on dresses. you will decide which dress she will walk down the aisle in. voting for that will start on monday morning at 9:00 a.m. wedding in a week is sponsored by fox 45, wedd

let me ask this in my reading of the various bomb in the nuclear history documents whether it is kissinger and nixon conversation with the lakner strategy papers the thing that jumps out at me is most of the bomb managers thought the problem was it was on usable, but it wasn't actually a real deterrent, that there was no way you could credibly threaten the end of the world as we know it and so they sought for years and years and years of your options of the limited tactical battlefield nukes and finally the precision guided conventional weapons like we use today on the cruise missiles this has all been a push by the managers who basically didn't see the bomb as a credible within. >> guest: that was true especially after the hydrogen bomb. hydrogen bomb scare everybody. it was called a genocidal bomb. that got destructive. the atom bomb people like meets the who went and investigated the ruins in japan said you know, they recovered, we can use it, he wasn't afraid of using the atom bomb but was afraid of using the hydrogen bomb but it's interesting that as you say that the dates that came l

so let me just ask a pretty straight forward and, maybe a bit of a basic question, to start out west.telling mean that he will then you are trying to wrestle out of the system mumbai this rule, if we were just to say, great, where would we pass at the way you wanted the past? what do you vote this appears? >> i wouldn't call them evil but i feel that i fail to be more confused than before. >> that's all, right. >> what i want to give his taxpayer support and expect little activity and i want to look ahead. if you don't bar that it will become bigger and bill year. in answer to what is already risky business and i don't want my tax payer money going to support some of its proprietary trading. it's as simple as that. >> but here is the problem, mr. chairman, and here is where i am struggling to follow your logic. let me just give you some concrete examples. aig, how would this prevented it all the tax payer money going to aig? israel had been in place, what would have been different? anything. >> riss all i think it is a big insurance company that should have been better supervised in t

please as we move forward if you have something you want to throw up here please raise your hand but let me ask the first five or six questions. [laughter] does that sound good for you, craig? >> works for me. >> in our archives, craig, we have hundreds and hundreds of president reagan's radio addresses from the 1976 to 1980 time frame, and when i saw him he had that many radio address is i thought to myself you know, from the outset after the 76 convention to be on the air that much and then having read in your book the fact he was also writing a biweekly newspaper column he was traveling around the country dozens and dozens of different speeches he was the thing from the convention on word. it would seem to me what must have happened at that time was campaign staff said we are not letting this go. from the moment to leave the convention do all these things to position yourself to run for the presidency. was it that purposeful or was it more by happenstance? >> as a matter of fact it is the campaign after 1976 pretty much dissipated the staff went their own way with exception of peter hanford

dodson let me ask you this, in relation to, and i'm admitting this is an unfair question because youext of history to really do this comparison, but figures of today versus those before the advent of 24-hour cable coverage of every little thing one does before social networking, will we see the same kind of iconic figures of the past that we grew to know as children or does technology change that in your mind? >> i think what technology has done is speed the process of creating, i'll call them pseudoicons. the media has a capacity to turn someone instantly into something larger than life, for relatively little achievement and little accomplishment of any kind, so the technology, in my mind, is probably facilitating that kind of, if you will, iconic creation. >> and while that's true, ellis, the plus of the internet is the availability of history, even if it's not taught in school there at your fingertips yet at the other end of it is i say with the social networking, the advent of 24-hour cable coverage and the like, we see warts o people that heretofore you would not have seen, some

. >> let me ask you this. are they saying commuter airlines are a lot less safe than other airlines? >> reporter: under the regulations there is truly one level of safety. but i think this accident showed when it comes to commuters in certain weather conditions, there are concerns and that's what the board addressed today. >> in certain weather condition, you mean ice, storms? >> i mean conditions that are challenging for the pilots and they may not be well enough trained to handle. >> thanks to you, lisa stark. >>> "on the money" tonight one u.s. auto maker celebrating a big day. ford sales soared 25% over one year ago and in port, ford's triumph is toyota's pain. toyota was down nearly 16% and here's chris bury. for forward dealers. recession may be in the year. woo have a lot of customers intent on prping it now in the future. >> reporter: in january, customers so scarce last year, came roaring back, led by a surge in smaller cars. >> that really shows people of switching away from toyota and looking at for

let me ask you a quick question on the budget. want to go back to the mrap that's specifically designed for afghanistan. tell me again about that vehicle. what's the difference in that? than what we're using in iraq and what's the budget difference there. >> the cost per vehicle is roughly the same for the all-terrain vehicle and the mrap. the mrap designed for afghanistan is designed to operate off-road where the mraps in iraq were designed to operate on the road so there's quite a difference in the engineering as well as in the power train and so on. >> any of those vehicles in afghanistan today? >> yes, sir. we probably have that somewhere between 500 and 700 right now. we're ramping up the production right now we'll be send in 500 to 1,000 a month, pretty quickly here >> do you have any idea when that will begin? will it given before the weather warms up? >> yes, sir. again, we're probably either this month or next going to be at 500 a month going into the country. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator chambliss. >>