but what i see now, what i see in the companies that we have nsf made -- in sf made in san francisco, i see men and women working you can actually earn enough to support their families. i see and be a's from stanford, ph.d.'s from mit starting the next ipad manufacturer or the next apparel manufacturer instead of the next twitter. and that is nothing to say anything against water. and for all of you tweeting right now, please continue. but at the end of the day, as for my own daughters, i would be proud for either of them to work in this sector. this is a whole new world we have in front of us. and tonight, if you are a resident of san francisco who has stumbled your way and use -- to explore what we have to offer, dig deep. use the rest of this week to go on a factory tour. i especially want to highlight the valencia corridor. we have 60 retailers selling manufactured products this weekend. a number of them received damage last week. one way you can show your support for those businesses is to shop this weekend. if you or someone with expertise, or if you are a funding corp. -- fundi

part is government funded research itself that has been very effective in areas of the health, nih, nsf, and that in thinking about allocation of resources to prizes across innovation, one wouldn't have to balance all three of these components of our innovation system. and then more particularly in the area of health, one of the points that was referred to earlier was that our system of testing is a very costly one, that drugs that have to be made available have to go through a set of tests. there's a lot of belief that that testing system is inefficient. and it certainly raises problems of conflict of interest because typically the drug company does its own testing. and we know some very dramatic stories of that conflict, playing out in ways that led to probably the death of other people. so i think one thing that went on is thinking through more deeply reform the ways that our system of testing is conducted. and that system of testing is one of the mechanisms by which the drug companies exercise monopoly power and act as a barrier to injuries to making r&d and the drugs less -- the dr

it has to do with the sustainability of the nsf forces. those of us who deal with this regularly, when you put a pencil to this, it just doesn't work. i know that secretary gordon said, in fact, i think he listed this as the number one priority for the chicago meeting, was to chart a clear path forward for security forces in afghanistan for sustainability. i understand you want the money that you want from the european countries and from others, but when you look at what cost to maintain the ansf, even when you include the drug profits that they may, it just doesn't work. how do you get there? what are your thoughts on that? how do you get some confidence in being able to do this when the numbers just don't work? >> thank you, senator. the work you desired is being done on the hill. hill. it is being done by the administration as well. my department, as well as the department of state -- we are working those numbers as well. also, at nato. with allies in the afghan government, there are a lot of pencils going about trying to determine as w

that has been effect i have in area of health nsf, nia, and that in thinking about allocation of resources, to prizes and innovation, one has to balance that the all three of these components of our innovation system. and then more particularly in the area of health, one of the points that was referred to earlier was that our system of testing is a very costly one. and drugs to be made available have to go through a set of tests. there's a lot of belief that testing system is inefficient. and certainly raises problems of conflicts of interest. because typically the drug company does the own testing. we know some dramatic stories that have conflict of interest playing out in ways that lead to probably the death of other people. so i think one thing that went want to consider going forward is thinking through more deeply reform of ways that are sfm testing is cubilitied. our next system of testing is one of the mechanism by which the drug companies exercise monopoly power. and act as barrier to intrade to making our r&d and the drug market less competitive. so i think that one -- this is an

as transition progresses and as we commit the contributions that sustain the nsf, we have to look beyond the transition in 2014. the conclusion recently is a significant step in demonstrating our enduring commitment. several other countries have recently reached similar agreements with the afghans. the collective support for training, advising. all work is substantial and our continued education. this proves in march of 2011 that the alliance also stands ready for new challenges, even unexpected challenges. then, the president just that nato should play a leading role in fulfilling the u.n. mandate. he knew that only nato has the capacity to provide the command and control necessary to integrate multiple partner air forces in an effective operation. there is this rapid response to conduct the political consultation. there is no other group of countries on earth that can do what we did so successfully for the libyan people. in just nine days, we went from a u.n. resolution to put an aircraft in the skies over libya. we all know that nato succeeded in protecting civilians. while the milita

>> i think what the government is doing here is providing an education program for all nsf grantees andhat is going from pure research in your lab to actually getting out of the building and wanting to become a commercial enterprise. it's a large step for scientists. the way i describe it is the difference between an introvertand extravert for scientists is looking at issues. our goal for training them is the goal of looking customers in the eye. >> it is possible to get a private/public partnership that is actually useful and works. we are craving something where we can actually see that done. >> yes. this is probably the most bipartisan thing i think anybody can agree on. it is less than a quarter or 1% of the national science foundation budget parsimonious with your money and mine. and yet the results might be particularly spectacular. we primed the pump with billions of dollars of cold war research in the valley with lockheed and the fact that stanford had a 400 person weapons lab. most people forget that venture capital didn't bloom on day one. this is another example of i think th

the nsf gets more? guest: right. i cannot give you those details.ost: how does that square with the white house request? guest: the deal we ava prices near $72 billion. is a little bit more than the president requested in his budget. it squares with the budget ax that we passed in march in the house. -- act that we passed in march in the house. host: where is the focus these days? is it still al qaeda? or other parts of the world? guest: it is a balanced focus. it ought to be a balanced focus. we have adversaries and threats around the world. obviously, the most high-profile is out data -- is al qaeda. we do not have troops in iraq. still, a big part of what we do is make sure the folks in afghanistan have the intelligence they need as well. there are threats from around the world that are not from afghanistan. we do a lot of work trying to find out what competitors in countries around the world are doing. host: if you had to make a list of those other than afghanistan -- guest: china, russia. those are the emerging issues that need to watch what th

that has been very effective in the area of health, nih, nsf. thinking about allocation of resources to prizes and to innovation, across innovation one has to balance that, all three of these components of our innovation system. and then more particularly in the area of health, one of the points that was referred to earlier was that our system of testing is a very costly one. drugs to be made available have to go through a set of tests. there's a lot of belief that that testing system is inefficient. and it certainly raises problems of conflicts of interest because, typically, the drug company does it own testing, and we know some very -- >> a portion of a hearing we aired earlier on our companion network, c-span3. it's available to see in it entirety in the c-span video library. go to c-span.org. and now live to coverage of the u.s. senate. senators returning from their weekly party meetings this afternoon. they're expected to complete work on extending the export-import bank charter, votes on amendments and final passage expected shortly after

when isaf's mission will shift from combat to support for the afghan national security forces, the nsf secondly, an agreement on the size, cost and sustainment of the ansf beyond 2014 and, finally, a road map for nato's post-2014 role in afghanistan. regarding capabilities, nato's ability to deploy an effective fighting force in the field makes the alliance unique. however, its capacity to deter and respond to security challenges will only be as successful as its forces are available, effective, interoperable and modern. in the current era of fiscal austerity, nato can still maintain a strong defense but doing so requires innovation, creativity and effectiveness. the united states is modernizing its presence in europe at the same time that our nato allies and nato as an institution are engaged in this similar steps. this is a clear opportunity, i might even say necessity, for our european allies to take on greater responsibilities. the united states continues to strongly urge those allies to meet the 2% benchmark for defense spending and to contribute politically, financially and opera