tv C-SPAN Weekend CSPAN November 21, 2009 2:00pm-6:15pm EST
the defense and criminal investigative service sits on it. in this instabs, my understanding the information came in but the m.o.u. as well as perhaps fisa restrictions would have prevented the dcis agent from sharing it back to the army and d.o.d., the pentagon, without permission. depending on where the information came from. . . the committee will be in a better position to judge whether or not that was the right judgment.
mechanisms certainly did exist if there was a desire to share that with the criminal justice -- >> we heard about the silo's before 9/11. allegedly, he has made -- talking about the one where the colonel said that maybe people should drop bombs on themselves and go to times square in new york. contacts with imam -- silos still in place? is there information not being shared? >> tremendous progress has been made.
when it came to the jttf, as an indication that we have made a lot of progress. it is not clear to me that the information that was going to be sort of the personnel system ever made its way to the personnel file. if that is the case, that means that when the had the communications and looked at the record of the personnel file, if there was no derogatory information, they are at a disadvantage. we have to fix that system if there was information inside the military. we need to make its way to a format. >> you have brought some of the most important testimony today as far as fixing this going forward. it sounds like this obviously should have been in place. it is simple as far as their
policies and procedures. going forward, if these policies and procedures are in place, it takes pressure off. maybe they are obligated to report. let's say the of somebody who is a muslim that feels -- should i report this or not? will i be stigmatized? i agree. it protect them. that is very important. i want to go back to something that you said is a little bit disturbing. when he said that they feel -- say they uri moderate muslim out there. and they feel like they would be stigmatized. they would be kind of set apart.
getting back to what he said as far as the obligation of the muslim-american kennedy, they have an obligation to separate those that are radical so that somebody that as moderate feels like they can come out and condemn. that would seem to me to be the overarching obligation of the muslim american community. it would be to not let the radicals control the community. >> senator, you and i don't disagree. >> you were just reporting the facts. >> that's right. i am simply telling you that based on my experience, this is a continuing challenge to the law enforcement community that is to encourage moderate muslims to speak out. i suppose my only suggestion is we ought to take some heart and some reassurance in the fact that there are many patriotic,
law-abiding muslim-americans do what they can to stigmatize those who have radical beliefs and weed them out of their communities before they can do any harm. and for that we are very grateful. >> i think this panel has all given excellent testimony today and given those in the military some further direction to go as well. we need to renew some of the tools obviously for law enforcement and maybe make some of the tweaks that you all have suggested to make that information sharing a little less cumbersome so it will be done more as well. i thank all the witnesses for their testimony today. >> there are obviously lessons here that relate to this particular case for the behavior of employees of the department of the army, the military in june, and generally the department of justice. but there are broader implications for society, and
particularly in these lone wolf cases, which are the hardest. when people hear people saying things that seem extreme, respecting first amendment rights, you have to begin to reach out and see if you can stop somebody before they do something. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there is already a great deal in the public record about major hasan that raises concerns about the adequacy of our law enforcement, about whether the military acted on the information that was not only available to it, but was in fact noticed and commented on in some of major hasan's department of defense records. the senate armed services committee's investigation in this matter is going to focus on the military and any connections of jttf to the military. our investigation is going to
be carried out in a way that is consistent with the essential need to avoid jeopardizing the criminal investigation into this attack by major hasan. i think the committee here has been careful, and i want to commend the committee and the witnesses who have been careful not to say something, particularly you, mr. silver, to avoid saying anything that could jeopardize this investigation, the criminal investigation and prosecution of this man. it is essential that we both investigate, correct where necessary, hold accountable where necessary, but also that we prosecutor without running into the defense that there has been a prejudgment by people who have some kind of command authority, or anyone else that is law enforcement. ms. townsend, your testimony, it seems to me, is right on
point when you talk about the jttf being encumbered, or apparently being encoum bettered by some of its procedures. the memorandum of agreement looks like a contract, with small print, between itself and the department of defense. it is 16 pages long. >> that's right. >> it took three months for people to sign that agreement. the way it was characterized in april before a house committee by the los angeles county sheriff was that a local task force officer may not share information with his or her home agency without tillman straighting the receiving entity's specific, quote, need and right to know, closed
quote. that is not enact wal -- fact what -- factual, but that is what the sheriff believed. >> right. >> and i think there is too much of that feeling of restriction that is in the jttf files. there is also a problem, it seems to me from what we can tell from the jttf piece, about the follow up either into other agencies' records and back to the jttf, and perhaps into jttf itself, when subsequent information comes to its attention, in particular jttf. i'm wondering if you can quickly tell us, ms. townsend, whether you know -- if jttf, if it gets information in year one has the ability, and in fact does, when it gets information
in year four, connect that back to the information that it had? could you give us a quick answer if you know the answer to that? >> i think it is fair to say the possibility exists that they could put that together, because there are records and communications involved. so it is possible, and that information is indexed. i think you have to look on and individual basis. >> there is some question as to whether in fact that did occur in this case. now, a number of witness of said that the need for investigation, the facts of these investigations, and the need for corrective actions does not impugn and should not impugn the contributions of or the loyalty of muslim-americans to our military and to our society. i think you all have said that, as have the chairman and other ranking members on this panel.
the diversity of our nation's military and of our nation has a whole has been a great strength. it has been one of our most effective weapons against the fanatics of any religion who claim the right to murder those who hold different beliefs. you quoted a significant statement, which i think is a significant quote of a muslim leader here in terms of the responsibility of the muslim community, and i share that. but you also point out as a counter narrative, with the opportunity for muslim-americans to be integrated, as have all other immigrants into the american society. i want to ask you to comment on a statement of reverend pat robertson, who recently and very publicly asserted the
following. that islam is "not a religion, but a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination." whether or not such a statement such as that by a well-known american cleric makes it more difficult for moderate muslims to make the argument, and indeed whether that kind of statement really helps the enemy to radicalize people who would then commit terrorist acts against us. do you have a reaction to that comment? >> senator, i think i will just stand by what i said, which is the division of our society would be detrimental and would be the worst manifestation and effects of this violent islamic
extremistiology. islamism is one of the great religions of the world, and in the end i think it is going to be muslim-americans that will help us defeat it. >> i want to press you on this question because i think it important for it cob contested and opposed, for a major religious leader in this country to label islam as a violent political system bent on the overthrow of governments. it gives them the propaganda tool they look for. i want to know if you think that is the case? >> i don't think it is helpful, and i do think it plays into the radical ideology and narrative. i don't think those kinds of statements are helpful. >> does anyone else want to
comment on that statement? >> i would comment on it, senator. i think it is an outrageous, irresponsible statement by a religious leader full of discrimination against mulls limbs in general. it no doubt inflames the situation and makes no contribution to what we are trying to achieve, and that is a stable situation. >> does anybody else want to comment on it? >> senator, i agree completely with general keane. it is offensive, ignorant, lacks a basis in fact and knowledge. there is a very small extreme wing not only by the way of islam, but there are extreme wings of other religions which are found to be deeply offensive to the vast majority of the believers of those religions just as fundamental extremism is to islam. they ought to take grave
offense to this statement and reject it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator levin in. thanks for racing that last question. i agree that not only was it outrageous, but as you said, it hurts our efforts to succeed in this kwlict. the other other senators who came earlier had to leave. if the witness can stand, senator collins can stay, we will do one more quick round. i wanted to ask some hypotheticals, if i could. if the new york police department was doing a court-ordered surveillance of somebody in the city who was known to be involved in islammist extremist activities, and as part of that surveillance came across a member of the nypd
communicating with that individual, what would the reaction -- let's assume first that the communications were of a religious nature, not particularly inflammatory, but still communicating with an vide who was known as an extremist, what would the reaction of the department be? >> i think the department would look at the nature of the communications. in the nature of the communications, it would give us an insight as to what the purpose of this interaction is. obviously any type of interaction between a member of the service and individuals who are being investigated just across the board would be something of concern and would get senior level attention within the department. >> right. the simple communication with somebody who had a record of being involved in association with terrorism or terrorists would raise concerns and raise
this up to a higher level within the nypd? >> yes. the two issues are the pedigree of the individual contacted as well as the contact of the communication. >> so i assume that if the content took a more extreme direction -- in other words, say an officer in the nypd was found communicating with this subject of an nypd investigation and was raising -- expressing extremist views, and perhaps even suggesting the justification for violent actions in pursuit of extremist views, i assume that would raise real alarm bells. >> yes. as i stated earlier, i think the process would be to reach out to our internal affairs bureau, to move that up the chain of command so that that got the appropriate level of attention. >> yes. and the attention would depend,
i assume, what that would mean. i assume you would watch that person more closely or take more aggressive action? >> yes, we would have to see what that means in con text. we would have to see if that was ice lated or would fit into a larger continuum. >> you have developed from your experience the four phases of radicalization. i wanted to ask you if you would apply that framework to what you know about nidal malik hasan? >> i think when you are dealing with a lone wolf or individual actor, to some degree they really are at the margins of the process that we have looked at and others have looked out.
our study primary looked at grooms of individuals. that said, we have looked at some of the information out there, and it is suggestive that he went through some kind of radicalization process. i think the key questions to ask are look at his behaviors and see how those correlate through some of the phasing and through some of the indicators that we have identified in the model. >> i was interested in concept you introduced of a virtual sbirtwal sanctum. someone like we have been talking about operates a public website with quite open expressions of exortations to jihaddist behavior. in other words, you don't have to have a court authorized surveillance of his e-mails, and there are a lot of others like this to conclude this guy
is at war and urging others to get at war. from what you know, behaved on the communications you have heard that occurred between them, that the f.b.i. acknowledges, e-mails between major hasan and a subject of an investigation, does that seem to fit into your vision of a virtual spiritual sanctioner? >> i think based on his pedigree, and going back to 9/11, also looking at what he has done more recently in terms of his website promoting in english jihaddist views, he is clearly an individual of concern. i think the next question we would ask is what was the nature of the relationship between him and another individual? the spiritual sanctioner functionally moves somebody down that path way, and that really is the key question.
functionally, what was the relationship between him and another individual? did he move that person down the path way, encouraging him to move from self identification to indoctrination, or indoctrination to jalledization ? >> we have to go into these e-mails, and they are classified of course. there has been some prescription, and i can't say this -- some description and i can't say whether this is based on fact or not, about the communication with the subject of this investigation. but the recipient of the e-mails says a lot of what hasan was looking for. there are a lot of muslim im manus -- immahmoud -- what i am
getting at is he may have been looking for spiritual sanctioning of what he is accused of ultimately doing? >> senator, i agree whole-heartedly with that view. i think who you reach out to for theological or dock trinl questions gives a message as to what you are looking for. >> there was a question raised about whether the u.s. military is doing enough to protect its bases in the context of the clear appeals by jihaddist leaders to attack our mill they're and their bases, and now the evidence in the u.s. of this string of plots. fortunately, most of them not
successful, but tragically, the one in little rock and fort hood successful. general keane, do you have any response to that? is there more that we should be doing to protect the security of the bases generally even in the u.s. from terrorist attack? >> well, i think we have dramatically changed security on our bases post 9/11 for obvious reasons. i am confident the military goes through continuous reviews to ensure the protection is of the rigor that it should be. it comes from within as opposed from without, and in that problem lies the issues that we have discussed here. it is more up to the members of that organization within to deal with that issue than it is to guard at the gate or others who are dealing with force protection issues as associated with a military base.
and certainly the other thing that goes hand in glove with this is cooperation with law enforcement agencies and intelligence services in terms of stopping these incidents before they actually take place. that is crucial, and that is what has prevented certainly most of these incidents from taking place, is the tremendous work that law enforcement is doing in cooperation with other agencies. that certainly has got to continue, and if we can improve the process, as frances townsend is suggesting, then i will add to it as well. >> well said. senator collins? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. jenkins, we hope that one of the results of our viffings will be a new pamphlet on extremist activity that incorporates the -- of our investigation will be a new
familiar flet on extremist activity that incorporates this. we know, due to the good work of the nypd, about the four stages of radicalization, and it is possible that speaker vention at an early stage could make a difference and could lead to something sort of discharge from the service. in 2007 when he testified before congress about the hottest radicalization and recruitment, you talked about the possibility of counter messaging. i would like to ask you whether you see opportunities for the
army to intervene at stage 1 of the radicalization process to try to help members of our military get back on track. >> i think it is important when we look at this in the context of military service, to be quite honest with you, what i was in the military, i did not know, nor did i care, what your religion was of the members of my unit. i dealt with them as individuals. what it said about their preferences for method of burial with something that did not concern me. it is entirely appropriate when an individual is displaying behavior that is inappropriate within the context of a military unit or is behaving in a way that is contrary to morrell --
morale, that there be an appropriate intervention. and in many cases, in a combat unit, that will be picked up fairly quickly and there will be that appropriate intervention. i think what we have to do is empower individuals and not be shy about it. that understandable concerns about free speech and civil liberties -- there is clearly manifest behavior that is inappropriate, wrong, contrary, and so on. in many cases, i think there is intervention. we know about radicalization only from those terrorists that have made it all the way through a terrorist act or an arrest. we don't have information about
those that drop out along the way. there are a lot that to drop out along the way, or are counseled along the way. would be interesting would be to know that in the case of major hassan, he has been subjected to extraordinary scrutiny because of this event. there are literally thousands of reporters that pick up every statement that he made. that, right now, is chronologically flat. what we like to see in order to compare it to what we know -- in a sense, construct a chronology. when was communicating with this imam? what were his actions over time, so that we can see a trajectory. at that point, we can identify where there might have been a useful intervention.
>> thank you. mr. chairman, let me and my comments today by going back to the 9/11 commissioned's report. it does appear to me that we did have -- it is too early to say for sure -- but that we had a failure to share critical information. a failure to ask questions and initiate an investigation or at least an inquiry or interview. and that the results were tragic, horrible consequences. a terrorist attack. the 9/11 commission reminds us, and i want to read from the report, in the 9/11 story, for example, we see stories that can be accessed like nsa information
that would have helped identify one of the terrorists in january of 2000. but someone had@@@@@@@@@ @ @ r@ >> what all these stories have in common is a system that requires the demonstrated need to know before sharing. that approach assumes it is possible to know in advance who will need who use the information. the point is that information must be shared with those that have the ability to understand the full context and take action. if you look at major hasan's presentation, there were two of them that i am aware of.
one i've looked completely through. there are warning signs and red flags galore. if you look at his contacts with the radical imam, without revealing what the e-mails said, just the fact that he was seeking advice with a known al qaeda associate, when you start to put together all of the pieces of information, it reminds me very much of the siloed information that was available throughout the federal government in different agencies prior to the attacks on our country of 9/11. our challenge is to make sure that we have not allowed new silos to build up, that the jttfs, which have been tremendous and have had a lot
of successes, don't inadvertently become another silo where information cannot be shared without jumping through too many hoops. that is our challenge. as we learn more through our investigation, to identify legal barriers, administrative embedments, that -- impediments that may have blocked information >> sharing in this case, and to identify in the military whether we need better systems to encourage the reporting. as the general put it so well, that it is no longer a moral act of courage, or an act of courage, but rather an obligation to report disturbing information. that is what our investigation is aimed at. and again, i want to thank the
chairman for initiating this very important investigation and to express my appreciation for all of you today for your forth right, candid and expert testimony. thank you. >> thank you, senator collins. it, as always, is a pleasure to work with you. we are going to conduct this investigation in the same thorough and bipartisan, non-partisan way with everything we have done together on this committee, including investigations, controversial and sensitive ones into federal government behavior regarding prior to 9/11 and also during hurricane katrina. i think you stated well what we have accomplished today. i can't thank the five of you witnesses enough for your testimony. i can't imagine a better way to inform our investigation. you have brought your experience, considerable
experience, expertise to the table. you have helped us begin to understand how to best approach this. you have made some specific suggestions not just about questions to pursue in our investigation, but about reforms to initiate as a result of what we already know about dr. hasan and the murders that occurred at fort hood. so i honestly can't thank you enough, and i would like to take the liberty of keeping in touch with you as this investigation goes on. i would also like to invite you not to hesitate to initiate to us as you watch this occurring. we are going to continue the investigation now. i hope we can work out in the cooperative way we have begun our relations with the executive branch, the conduct of the investigation. it will inevitably now take a less public turn with a lot of interviews and reviewing of
documents, and we will reconvene in public session when and if we think it is appropriate and constructive to do so, and then ultimately to issue a report and recommendations. but you have done a real service not just to the committee, but i also believe to homeland security and the people of our country. thank you very much. the record will stay open for 15 days for additional statements and questions. the hearing is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
votes. if they do, formal debate on the senate's health care bill could begin after the thanksgiving break. watch live senate coverage today on c-span 2. you can watch what your senators are saying about health care live on c-span.org. you will find health care ads, hearings and news conferences. read the bill and follow our health care coverage on the health care hub at c-span.org. >> this week on america and the courts, a preview of upcoming supreme court case, including one on gun rights, and an appeal by former enron executive jeffrey skillet. panelists incollude three
well-known people. america and the courts, today on c-span. >> book tv, sunday. three new books by and about sarah palin, including a book signing with the former vice presidential indicate and alaskan governor. a become on the persecution of sarah plip, and scott conroy on sarah from alaska. steven follows the transfer of power. and the u.s. financial crisis on after words. the former managing director of goldman sachs on it takes a pillagoe. find the entire schedule on line at book tv.org, including our four-day, holiday tv weekend, starting thanksgiving morning. >> president obama hosts his statistic state dinner next
week for the prime minister of india. the indian ambassador to the u.s. spoke wednesday at the peterman institution for economics. this is about an hour. >> as i am sure all of you know, dr. sync -- sink is not only one of the great economic reformers in history, but a world leader in thinking about economics, economic policy and cooperation between india and the rest of the world. he happens to be a close personal friend of mine. i have had lunch in his home, dinner in his home in delhi.
it is also a great source of pride for us communists to see the occasion in which one of our breed becomes a head of government, and in this case very successfully so. so we are all looking forward to his visit to washington next week. we thought, therefore, it would be particularly appropriate to have this session as part of the become, preparation, planning and thinking about the upcoming meetings between dr. singh and president obama. we are, therefore, very honored that the amle has joined us today to provide that kind of background information and discussion with the group. the ambassador is actually the second most senior member of the very distinguished indian foreign service, having joined it back in 1973 and having held a series of increasingly key
posts in the foreign service and the ministry of foreign affairs since that time. she was actually posted to washington at an earlier time, serves as minister for commerce in the early 1990's. she has been a director in the prime minister's office. she has headed the indian council of cultural relations, overseeing india's cultural diplomacy. she has headed two divisions that have been key in terms of india's relations with its neighbors, the office dealing with the sarc, and dealing with neighbors nepal, and butan. since then she has been serves as india's ambassador. of late, particularly concerned with the preparations for the prime minister's visit. so, ambassador, it is with
great pleasure we welcome you. we look forward to discussing the dynamic indian economy and what it important tends for relations between our countries. thank you very much for coming. [applause] >> doctor, distinguished participants, i thank you for hosting me today to discuss india's role in the global economy and the future of india-u.s. relations. these are two different but i believe interrelated ideas. it could not be at a more appropriate time, with less than a week left for the prime minister's first official visit to the united states as the first state guest under the administration of president
barack obama. in this city of great institutions, the petersen institute of special significance for me because on my last tour of duty here as minister for commerce at the embassy in the early 1990's, i relied a great deal on the wisdom and analysis of the petersen institute to make sense of a world that was then caught in tech tonic, political and economic shifts. that was also a time of momentous change in the direction of the indian economy . it was a change that was triggered by the immediate cause of an external payment crisis. but it was in response also to a fundamental reorientation in the mindset that had bun in the
1980's on what it would take to accelerate the economic development of the world's second-most populous nation. inled ya's nearly two decades of economic reforms have taken place in our own unique circumstances of a vibrant democrat creas, unparalleled pluralism and diversity and extraordinary social and economic challenges. they took place at a time when regional political parties were growing in strength and coalition politics was becoming the basis of governance in delhi. our reforms had to proceed on the basis of a deliberative
process, forming political and social consensus, which may have seemed slow, but provided enduring foundation to move forward. we have to be mindful of the extreme economic vulnerabilities of hundreds of millions of people in india, and we have to be conscious that while we should open ourselves to the winds of change, we had to protect ourselves from being wroifer whelmed by storms. like my prudentity, we had to look at ourselves to make the right trade-off between risks and returns. today, backed by a widespread national consensus, our economic policy is irreverseably on the path of competition and openness.
it is inspired not only by the success that we have achieved over the past two decades, but it is also drive by the energy -- driven by the energy and aspirations of an increasingly young india. we are now the second fastest growing economy in the world, which has averaged growth of 8.8% per year between 2004 and 2007, even as we have strengthened our macroeconomic stability. our manufacturing and services sectors have grown and modernized. our external engagement has been transformed, and we have shown both in the 1990's and now a capacity to withstand the worst impacts of international economic crisis.
we are aware of the challenges that lie ahead for us. our first task is to restore the momentum of economic growth , which has moderated in the face of the global economic crisis. though our financial sector remains sound, we were affected by the secondary impact of the crisis. our stock values we want down as foreign institutional investors withdrew money because of their own liquidity precious at home. we faced a severe credit crunch and a sharp downturn in our labor-intensive export industries. timely action by the reserve bank of india to ease interest rates, which were high, and ensure more liquidity, and by
the government to cut value-added tax and excise duties, to stimulate domestic demand helped to manage the impact. we grew at 6.7% last year and will probably grow at 6.5% this year. a reasonable performance in the prevailing circumstances. we are now seeing the return of investor confidence, reflected in both domestic investments and foreign capital inflows, which is accelerating business momentum with industrial growth rebounding to touch double digits in recent months. the government intends to ease the stimulus measures gradually next year, and we are hopeful that we will be able to get
back to a growth of over 7% next year. we have no doubt that with a savings rate of 35% of g.d.p., we can, with prude policies, sound investments and continuing reforms, return to a long-term growth path of 8% to 1% a year. -- 8% to 10% a year. as we seek to accelerate our growth, our key priority is also to make this growth inclusive. and for this, we need to build our economy on all three legs, services, manufacturing and agriculture. the services sector, powered by the revolutionary changes in communications technology and
india's human capital, was the first to connect with the global economy, particularly the u.s. economy. the dynamism and growth of the technology sector has had an impact in india, nurturing performance-driven ecos and indicating that india could compete with other areas of the world. this sector continues to grow, branching out into other areas, as well as moving up the value chain with a greater focus on innovation. the expansion of the domestic services market where i.t. penetration is still thin, also
affords new opportunities. in recent years, india has also achieved a significant turnaround in manufacturing, particularly in low-cost, high-tech manufacturing or would has been described as frugal engineering. offense, india has now emerged as the largest global hub for the manufacture of small, fuel-efficient cars with the fleet design changing the paradigm of automobile production. godrige is building a fridge that costs less than $100 for
rural india. and then the moon mission was undertaken at one/sixth the cost of moon missions elsewhere. expansion and diverse cation -- diversify cation of the manufacturing sector, particularly the labor-intensive industries is a key priority. particular focus will be on creating conditions to facilitate the growth of small and medium enterprises, which account for one third of the industrial sector and make a key contribution to job creation. agricultural productivity has plateaued in recent years, with the share of agriculture in the g.d.p. now down to 18%.
as this sector still supports around 60% of the population, capitalizing, the next leap in agricultural prouthivity is a core national concern. massive public investment is underway in expanding irdepation and building rural infrastructure, which will be critical for developing agribusinesses and food processes, providing new opportunities for rural growth and development. education will be the key to empowering our people and transforming their lives. the sweeping education reforms currently under way aim both at massive expansion in capacity and qualitative improvement at all levels. schools, higher education and
skill development, with a very significant increase in allocation of government resources for this sector. infrastructure development will be critical to support our growth objectives. it is estimated that we will need to invest $500 billion in infrastructure over the next five years, and another $500 in the five years thereafter. and in building the roads, ports, airports and high speed rail-freight corridors to connect india to the world, and empowering a five-fold expansion in electricity generation, we will seek an increasing role for the private sector, opening up exciting business opportunities which
will become new are drivers of growth. we realize that this will be an enormous task, but i also believe that as we have gone down the path of economic reforms, we have now reached a stage where we have built institutional capacities, management capabilities and regulate restructures that enable deployment of massive resources. even more than resources, we will seek to focus on stimulating innovations in products, systems and development processes to find solutions that are suited to our context and our circumstances, which give us modern and efficient infrastructure, reach
education, communication and health care to the furthest and poorest areas, ensure our food security, and make conventional energy cleaner, renewable energy more affordable and energy use more efficient. addressing the challenge of climate change is a high priority for us. our emphasis on climate change reflected in our ambitious national action plan on climate change under the prime minister's leadership comprises eight missions and draws from our civilizational tradition that treats nature as a force of nurture, from our contemporary needs, and from our desire to be good global citizens. although much of our demand is
generated domestically, and most of the investment is financed by our own savings, foreign investments and trade will continue to be an integral part of our growth and modernization processes, and full global recovery, a precondition for us to maintain a high growth path on a sustained basis. we will continue to address reform that stimulates further investment and collaborations in india and enable us to meet our key priorities. indeed, the most fundamental change in the indian economy is that it is now increasingly part of the current globalization. our trade has grown from a very low base. our net capital in flows have increased. and ivendian companies are now
increasingly -- indian companies are now increasingly investing abroad to increase synergies, improve market access and acquire technologies. this is a trend we see as indian companies increasingly seek to position themselves in the global market. just as india's success is, in its own modest way, an affirmation of the values of democracy, flurelism, individual freedom and rule of law, so, too, the economic progress of 1/6th of humanity will be of great consequence to the world. a nation of one billion people experiencing a growth rate of 8% to 10%, driven principally
by the domestic market and savings could be an anchor of global economic stability and will certainly be a great economic opportunity, whether it is in the field of consumer goods, urban services, rural infrastructure and public infrastructure. and in addressing our own challenges of clean and renewable energy, affordable health care and food security, we can contribute to finding solutions that apply to the world. with our growing global integration, we are engaging more purposesfully with the world. and as our stakes in the global order are increasing, we recognize, too, that we must assume greater responsibility for shaping it and have a voice
in the institutions of global governance. we will continue to support an open, stable global trading regime that is a positive sum game, reflecting a fair and equitable balance of interests, which is the spirit in which we are approaching the revitalization in the w.t.o. we also support the reform and expansion of the global architect ure of economic and political governance to reflect contemporary realities, make it more representative and improve its effectiveness in dealing with the challenges of the 21st century. india will always participate constructively in international efforts whether we are seeking arrangements for trade or
as our economic activities become reliant on cyberspace and outer space, we will increasingly need to ensure security and fair access to these common spaces. we will approach our security challenges by striving to build, in partnership with others, on the historic opportunity that we have at this stage in human history to create a global order and international arrangements defined by consensus and cooperation, not by divisions and domination. we approach our neighbourhood on the premise that our inter- linked destinies demand a cooperative relationship of shared prosperity and security. and, we will work with our partners in the region and
beyond to address challenges like extremism, terrorism and proliferation. the united states has been an important partner for india in the pursuit of our national development goals and our efforts to foster a climate of stability and peace in the world. over the last decade, india-us relations have undergone a remarkable transformation, with the process making a seamless transition through election cycles and changes in governments in both countries. this is a relationship that increasingly reflects the character of the relationship between the world's two largest democracies. it has met the test of public
goodwill and broad political support in both countries. it stands on the bedrock of shared values and is invigorated by our many converging interests. our political engagement has intensified, our mutual understanding has deepened and our collaboration has expanded into new frontiers. our security and defence cooperation has expanded significantly, especially in areas such as maritime security and counter-terrorism. and, the india-us civil nuclear agreement of october 2008 was as much an instrument as a symbol of this transformed india-us relationship. nowhere is the vitality of our relationship more visible, and
nowhere is its potential more promising than in the ever- expanding partnerships of enterprise, investment, trade, research and innovation that are being built by indians and americans. our trade has doubled in the last five years; us exports to india went up three times. our investments are growing rapidly in both directions. trade in services has continued to grow. over $12 billion of in the's exports in services in 2008. while trade in goods has declined in 2009 as a result of
the constraint in u.s. demand we hope that as the u.s. economy rebounds we will be able to recapture the momentum in our trade flows. we are two nations blessed with talent and innovation with a strong emphasis on science and education. we have a sense of comfort derived from our shared commitment to democracy, pluralism, rule of law, and individual liberty, and above all, a new one purpose in our political ties. i see our future economic partnership not merely in terms of opportunities for creating investment, but also for finding
solutions to the pressing global challenges of our times, for creating technological leadership for our two countries, for shaping the nature of the economy and business in the 21st century, and for bringing prosperity not just to our people, but to the world. we are at an important juncture with less than a week left for the meetings between the prime minister and president barack obama on november 24. this will be an opportunity for us to consolidate all that we have achieved in the recent past and turn our progress into a springboard for deepening our cooperations and setting new directions in our relationship. even as we strengthen our
growing cooperation in security, counter-terrorism and defense, we will give high priority to deepening economic ties. besides discussing government initiatives, prime minister and president obama will be briefed on how we can expand our economic cooperation in the years ahead. we will also increase our emphasis on cooperation and clean and renewable energy, education, science and technology, and agriculture. the agenda reflects the extraordinary breadth of our bilateral engagement and the vision of our cooperation. at the heart of the effort of our two leaders will be to
create a framework that brings our two people into a closer relationship of shared endeavors, which will not only be of great benefit to our nation's, but also of value to the entire world. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. you have touched on a wide range of issues. the floor is open for questions, comments, alternative views, and reactions to what ambassador shankar has said. the floor is open. yes? if you introduce yourself, fire away. we have a standing mic in the back. just to the left, gary.
ok. over there. >> thank you, madame ambassador. as one who has had the pleasure and honor of living in india back in the 1970's, i can only be amazed that the progress your country has made. my own organization has been focusing on jobs for youth in the middle east and i wonder if there are lessons we can learn from the indian experience, particularly in this new area of grain jobs, given the science and technology emphasis in india. my organization of the education for employment foundation. my name is mike hager. >> thank you for your comment. yet i think employment generation is a key objective for india. that is why it is our intention to build the economy on a very broad basis, because if we build it only riding on the back of a
single sector, we will not be able to provide the kind of employment that is required. while the i.t. sector will imply -- employ those who are highly qualified, or the sector will employ those who are highly qualified, it is manufacturing that is going to provide jobs for people who may not have the kind of educational background to be productive in the high- tech services economy. then, the third element will be agriculture, where we will try to trigger the next leap in agricultural productivity with an emphasis on agri businesses so that there can be a more orderly transition to the urban economy of some of our rural populations. clearly, green jobs will be an interesting new area in india.
we already have 9% of our installed generating capacity today that comes from renewable. this is mainly wind energy. but solar eller predicts solar energy will be a key objective because -- but solar energy will be a key objective because we do not have a shortage of sun. if we can harness that and bring don costs, along with making technology more robust, it would be a very important development for meeting in the's energy security objectives and expansion in energy generation in a way that reduces dependence on fossil fuels. we plan to target 20,000 megawatts by 2020. that is in solar energy. there will be opportunities for
productive partnerships between india and the u.s., including u.s. companies and indian companies in the field of business. similarly, in the hole in area of energy efficiency, there could be significant progress, and we estimate that if we can actually make advances in this field, we could add 25% more energy to our basket without adding to generation capacity. that, again, would be a key national objective. whether it is in devising building codes, in devising more efficient lighting, whether it is in better insulation in houses, i think there is a whole range of areas where we can collaborate. already today, i think the
energy intensity of india's economy has come down and we have made significant progress. it is now on par with other levels. but i think we can do more, particularly in the smaller medium enterprises. the large enterprises are now very efficient because our industrial targets are quite high, and higher than most other countries in the world. consumer tariffs are usually highest. in india, it is the reverse. it is a huge incentive for industry to conserve energy and be efficient in terms of electricity consumption. the big companies in many of the energy-intensive sectors have already made this transition. we can certainly do more in the small and medium-scale sector. in all these areas, i see potential for india-u.s.
partnership. >> a question over here. >> thank you, madame ambassador. that was a very interesting talk you have given. i am at the peterson institute. you realize very quickly from my question that i am from pakistan. you alluded to this issue when he painted a very bright picture for india and it is very impressive. but one of the problems in the medium and long term would be the fact that you are really a neighborhood -- you are in a neighborhood where you have a country with 65 million people next door to you, which is, to put it nicely, has great instability. this will be a problem for
india's future. i was wondering what your thoughts were on that, if you could elaborate on the comment you made about security, i assume it was alluding to pakistan. >> i think we have a strong commitment to stability in the neighborhood and we wish pakistan well. a moderate, stable, and democratic pakistan will be in india's interest. we also have a commitment to the stability and developments in afghanistan, and we have committed $1.2 million, over that, to afghanistan's development, helping to build roads, schools, hospitals, and so on, and undertaking development projects so that we can contribute toward this process. as i said, we wish pakistan well
and we hope that the national narrative can become one more focused on economic progress and growth. and ultimately, this is something that the people in pakistan will have to achieve for themselves. with the support of the international community. >> all right. ">> manufacturers alliance. i want to thank you for your excellent presentation of the whole economic reform story out of india. i wanted to raise a question about that in terms of trade policy. that has been another amazing transformation. 15 years ago, india was the most protectionist country according to wto.
you have undertaken some very important free-trade agreements the last few years, which is what i wanted to ask the question about. you have a comprehensive free- trade investment with singapore in 2005, a big success, earlier with south korea this year, you and you -- you are advanced with negotiations with the eu and japan. i read that just yesterday, your prime minister and the canadian prime ministers signed a memo to do the first up, a bilateral study group of the costs and benefits of whether you want to do a free-trade agreement with canada. with this momentum toward free trade camera -- free trade, where might the u.s. and india be going? could they talk about the possibility of setting up the cost benefit study group, which would provide a basis for later time to decide whether it is in
our mutual interest to proceed as you are with others? >> bilateral free-trade agreements have been an important aspect of india's trade policy. we have signed an agreement, as you mentioned, with south korea and also with singapore. singapore was the first. we hope to extend another when we have to services. we are negotiating agreements with japan and the eu. we would be open to looking at a study to examine the costs and benefits of a similar arrangement with the united states. i think this is something that can proceed only on the basis of suitable comfort level on both sides. at the present juncture, we are
not sure if that exists in the u.s.. >> i would like to ask a further question. my comment is, president obama's current trip to asia, and i 6 -- eye suspect most of the people in this audience know that, it has been an important step forward. when president obama committed the u.s. to participate actively in the negotiation for the trans-pacific partnership, which is now only four small countries, but with three others having indicated their interest in participating, including australia, vietnam, peru, and i happen to know, having just been in korea and japan a few weeks ago, they are ready to come into the effort now that the u.s. has done so, depending on some domestic politics, but very much interested in doing so.
that would provide critical mass and an important step in opening trade across the pacific. but that said, there is a positive signal for the first time from the obama administration to move down the road. it might add to the auspicious nature of a possible discussion next week with the prime minister with respect to india like ernie had mentioned. we will watch that with keen interest. we appreciate your answer. i want to ask a related question. there's a lot of discussion in asia about the architecture of the region itself with competing proposals, the one china has championed, there is one japan has championed, all of that in some sense parallel with are competing with the trans-pacific vision in a pack -- apec, what
is the indiana perspective on the asian architecture? are you anxious to be part of an agreement of the region? is your preference for format of that? what is being done to steer that in a direction that could be of interest to india? >> first of all, let me say india is not a member of apec. i will not comment on what the future objective of them should be. india has very much looked at fashioning free-trade agreements with the countries in southeast asia. the first was in singapore, which is a comprehensive trade and investment agreement. of course, thereafter, we have now signed an agreement with
south korea. we are negotiating one with japan. we participate in the east asia summit. clearly, our preference is for the format proposed by japan, including india, australia, and new zealand. of course, we see all of these different efforts as building blocks to the emergence of an asian community in future. if you look at each of these processes, they sometimes proceed in parallel. if you were to draw parallels, you would see their work. at which these concentric circles would overlap. at some level, i would say that all of them can be helpful in terms of creating a much broader area for economic cooperation and investment in the asian continent.
>> what did i hear? >> i am the publisher of "the american spectator." could you comment on in the's economic relations with china and particularly comment on how you see that relationship progressing over the next couple of decades, particularly in relation to china's attempts to control more and more national resources and resources in india and how that will affect your economy. >> i would draw your attention to the remark made by our prime minister. the world is large enough to have two big economies like india and china growing simultaneously. if they continue to grow, they could come in future, become engines of the global economy. china has now become our largest
trading partner in terms of trade in goods. we see that building a cooperative relationship between these two countries would be critical for the emergence of asia as an area of peace, prosperity, and stability in future. >> right. >> thank you very much for your remarks. i am from the national intelligence council. i would like to know, you just arrived, so to speak, in this new iteration of your career, which everyone here is looking forward to the evolution of it. it goes along with the new administration year. if you are thinking in terms of where you would like to be three or four years from now, at the
end of this administration, toward several years into your being here, can you tell us the several things you would like to accomplish in this period, and what the differences between now and then might be in the relationship? >> i would hope that we would develop our relationship on a very broad base -- in a very broad based manor, not focusing on any specific sector, but creating a facilitated framework to allow partnerships to flourish in a range of areas. i would hope that we would work our way through some of the constraints in developing our economic and defense cooperation in terms of the regulate a
framework, which exist at present, and which constrain the ability to reach our full potential. i would hope that india and the u.s. would be able to strike new partnerships in the field of science and technology, particularly in the field of green technology. it could become a global leaders in future. >> could i ask you to elaborate a bit on the regulatory barriers that you referenced? a lot of people here might be involved in working on those. maybe we can get some action. the site a few that you view as most troublesome -- cite a few that you view is most troublesome. >> one of the issues on the table is see how we can grow our high technology trade with the united states, and your export control regulations continue to
be somewhat restrictive. they were probably designed in an era where the u.s. had unquestioned supremacy in technology and during the cold war. i think there is a need to look at how that can be liberalized. similarly, in the field of defense cooperation, i think we need to put in place a facilitated framework. india is increasingly looking to build its defense capability through giving the private sector a greater role in defense production, including 26% for direct investment. we are increasingly going in for international competitive bidding for our defense procurement. if we can create the facilitate a framework, which will enable us to take a vantage of the new
priorities that the indian government had declared, then this is a new opportunity that will open up. on the indian side, i would hope that we would put in place our full process of education reform, the education minister who was here recently has indicated that he intends to move the education providers bill in the parliament sometime later this year or early next year. that is hopefully going to provide an opportunity for partnerships in the field of higher education on a more institutional basis than at present. similarly, in agriculture, you know, i mentioned that is triggering what one could call the next green revolution. it would be a very important
national priority. the u.s. was one of the country's that contributed to the success of the first green revolution in india and india's attainment of food security. so, we hope that by working together right across a range of areas, new technologies, arizona agriculture, -- arid zone agriculture, putting together a supply change, building backward and forward linkages between the rural and urban economies, we can really bring about a huge leap in growth in the agrarian and economies, on which so many of our people depend. i think that the possibility in the relationship argument and that the task for governments really should be to see how
within the framework of our national circumstances and priorities we can create facilitate tiv of arrangements to enable us to achieve these possibilities. >> ok. steve? >> madame ambassador, thank you. steve weissman of the peterson institute. may i ask about iran, a subject that was high on president obama's list in china and is likely to be during the visit of the prime minister next week? india has been very supportive of the iaea process of asking iran to halt uranium enrichment. because those discussions are stalled, the conversation has gone to sanction. in light of india's relationship with iran and the energy area,
both as an exporter of refined product and a potentially large importer of oil, what will the prime minister tell americans about india's receptivity to moving to sanctions, and what will -- can you give us a preview of what he might say about the negotiations and what the world is expecting of iran? >> i cannot give you a preview of lot -- of what he might say, but i can certainly tell you what our policy is at present. first of all, we do not support a nuclear iran. we have said that while iran has the right to have nuclear energy, they must fulfill their obligation as signatories of the non-proliferation treaty. we have voted against iran in the iaea and have supported the
process, as you mentioned, as a means to resolve all outstanding issues resolved -- regarding the program. we have incurred iran to cooperate in this process. as far as sanctions are concerned, india has implemented sanctions that are adopted under chapter 7 of the un security council. we have done that for all cases, not just iran. clearly, in terms of the evolving any consensus on what measures should be taken, i think it would be important to ensure that there is an international consensus because if you have major countries
outside the framework, then it will not be effective. you will speak with a divided voice. i think this was the advice, if i may recall, which the german chancellor gave to the earlier u.s. president, say even that it takes to call her, ensure that all security council members are involved. >> question back there. will you go to the microphone over there? >> thank you, ambassador, for your talk. since the conversation has moved to asia, may i ask what you think the impact of president obama's meetings with the
various joint declarations that your being made as seemed to offend against india's core national interests -- what do you think the effect will be on the prime minister's meeting with president obama, if any? >> if you would identify herself -- >> pardon? >> please identify yourself. >> american university. >> i would say that india looks to build its relationship with the u.s. not the cost of any country and not directed against any country. we look at how our relationship with the u.s. is developing rather than comparing how we stand with other countries. >> yeah? >> i am with the washington
tariff and trade. thank you, madame ambassador. last year, when the wto doha round talks collapsed, much of the blame was placed on india for resistance to making new offers in industrial tariffs and for demanding special safeguard mechanisms in agriculture. trying to make some progress in 2010, what can we expect from india in the coming year to change its policy? >> we believe this to go live to the u.s. capitol building as senate republicans are holding a news briefing with reporters on the health care debate in the senate today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> good afternoon. let me start by saying that this 2000-page bill cuts medicare, raises taxes, and
raises insurance premiums for the 85% of americans who have insurance. if that were not bad enough, if you look at the fully implemented bill over a 10-year period when all the provisions are operating, it is a $2.50 trillion expansion of the federal government. the cost to individual americans is going to go up. we thought this was all about trying to bend the cost curve. to regular citizens, the cost is going to go up dramatically. to talk about different parts of the bill, let me call on senator byrd from north carolina. >> thank you. i know this has been a long week for everybody in the room, but just remember, this 20 pounds is
the size of many people's turkey next week. that is what most people in north carolina think about the bill, too. we are here to talk about what we're hearing at home. what are north carolina residents concerned with right now? jobs. we are at 11% unemployment. they look at this bill and ask how it affects them. i have to look at them and say, the engine that is going to pull us out of this economic crisis, small businesses, and i look at a bill that says, if you are a small business and you cannot compete and offer health care today, if you add your 51st employee, we will send you a tax bill of $38,250. there is no incentive in this bill for small business to succeed. this bill is actually the cause,
potentially, of a continuation of high unemployment in this country because small business sees it as a limiting factor to it. two, i come from a state that probably has had more investment in the last 10 years in pharmaceuticals, vaccines, medical devices. it is the largest employer when you look at health care when you look at my state of north carolina. what do we do? we take those very crucial areas, those keys to our success to bring down the cost of health care, by curing disease, by detecting early, by increasing the number of options we have for treatment. we automatically put a new tax on them. to those who research, to those who develop, to those who manufacture, we tax their products. pharmaceuticals, biologics, medical devices.
somewhat ironic, we have put a new tax on the vaccine for h1n1 in this bill at a time when we're struggling to try to get that supply out to america. i guess i should not be shocked when you look at the bill that you find the word "choice" only 40 times. you find the word "innovation" only 25 times. you find the word "competition" only 13 times. that is in stark contrast to the 4677 times that you find "require" or "must" or "shall," or the 470 times it refers to "agency" or department -- or " dept." or "your." with north carolina has asked is, is this a health care reform
bill? the answer is, it is not a health care reform bill. this is a layaway plan. this is the harry reid layaway plan for this holiday season. pay in for four years before you get the first benefit back out. in four years, you will find out exactly how expensive this plan was. >> we all have received a lot of calls and letters about this bill. i would say today come easily, over the last week, calls have been about 90 to 1 in opposition to the legislation. i pulled out a quotation from somebody that comes out of a rural area in nebraska. this is what this person wants me to be aware of tonight at about 8:00 when we cast our vote.
this person says, "for the first time in my career, i am honest the questioning how much longer i can continue to constantly be up against regulations and funding when all you want to do is make a difference in someone's life. it is exhausting." ladies and gentlemen in all states are in rural areas. in nebraska, the majority of hospitals are small. their 25-bed and other. they're small, critical access hospitals. communities take a lot of pride because they know with the hospital closes, the community is in serious trouble of closing itself. i go to these hospitals. they have done a funding drives. they have done bake sales. they have done everything to try to support these little community facilities. they always ask the same
questions. i ask, if you could keep this hospital opened on medicaid reimbursement, can you do that? they say, no, we would go broke. up to 40% of our doctors in the u.s. do not even take medicaid because the reimbursement rates are so bad. what is the solution? add millions of people to medicaid. you're going to have the biggest it meltdown you ever saw. i ask the second question. i ask them, could you keep this hospital open on medicaid and medicare reimbursement rates? they say, no, we would go broke. what is the solution? the solution is to cut medicare by about half a trillion dollars. who are these people listening
to? aren't they talking to hospital administrators or doctors or nurses or community leaders who are leaving the fund drive to keep these hospitals open? i will wrap up with a store. i am in nebraska in a beautiful part our state in the northern area. if you look at the map in nebraska, this will really come home to you. between the northwest and central parts of our state, there is one hospital left that delivers babies. just one. ballantine. when we cut their rates, if that hospital cannot stay open, and a struggle today like every other rural hospital, i will tell you that it is a very serious consequence. if i were senator reid, here is what i would do. i would take two weeks.
i would take this bill to community hospitals across this country, little hospitals, little communities, and i would listen to the people. i guarantee you you would get an earful. this bill does not work. it does not work for america. it does not work for ballantine. it does not work for our people. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am new to the senate and i have come here with an open mind, coming here to try to be a problem solver. obviously, health care is a big issue for florida. we have nearly four million people who are uninsured. the cost of health care is a significant expense to our seniors. we have the highest per-capita senior population in the country. we have 3 million seniors on medicare. but what i have found here is that we do not get to be part of
the process. we do not get to be part of the process that determines what is in this bill. tonight, we're going to vote on this piece of legislation that does not do good things for florida. it is going to cut half a trillion dollars from medicare, health care for seniors. it will take $120 billion out of medicare advantage. we have more than 900,000 florida seniors who enjoy a medicare advantage. i am getting phone calls and letters from my constituents who are saying, please don't cut this program. it is providing vital programs in my life. it is not only helping me with my hearing aids and other things like that, but things that are saving my life like diabetics supplies. this program takes $120 billion out of it. it does not make any sense that when we are trying to improve health care, we will take half a trillion dollars out of medicare. florida seniors do not want that. we are going to raise taxes.
we are born to raise nearly half a trillion dollars in taxes and then we are going to take an increase in medicaid so states like florida will eventually have to pay a couple billion dollars more in medicaid. what has really occurred to me in reviewing this bill, and we have been combing through these pages -- a cannot tell you i have read every single word, but we have been combing through it -- is that what this is going to do is it is going to increase the cost of health care for the 170 million americans who have health insurance now, and for seniors, it is going to lower their quality of health care. what i am afraid is at the end of the day, where we're going to be in five or 10 years from now is that this is medicaid for the masses. we are going to turn medicare into medicaid. we're going to put everybody, basically, on a government-run or government-regulated program. that is not health care reform. we are supposed to care about
quality. we are supposed to care about access. we are supposed to care about cutting costs. i do not think this bill does anything to address those problems. tonight's vote really matters because this is not a good start. we should start over. we are willing to work through thanksgiving and for december ran through christmas and whatever it takes to do it right, but this is not a good start. the floridians i meet, and i was in the state last week, talking to floridians in tampa and orlando and jacksonville, and i had people speak with me. i had a janitor at a veterans hospital come up to me and say, what is going to happen with the health care bill? i said, we will be debating it. he said, you should not vote for. it is a bad thing. it is not one group of society that likes it or doesn't like it. the calls i'm getting form -- in my office, we have gotten nearly 950 calls on this proposal.
more than 800 are against it. we need to start over and we need to do it right. >> any questions you like to address? >> why the opposition to starting the debate? why not bring it up on the floor? >> well over 95% of the time, when we approved it like this, it is ultimately approved. you have watched our democratic friends trying to twist themselves into a pretzel, saying they are not voting for the bill. that is not what the american people think. they think that beginning this debate is a vote on the bill. let me also say for those on the other side who are telling you they want to change the bill, the best opportunity to change the bill would have been at the beginning. to deny the majority leader the vote he needs to start the bill
would have empowered any democratic senator who is truly interested in making a change, whether the change was on abortion language, whether the change was on whether the government ought to go into the insurance business. the time of maximum leverage would have been prior to tonight's vote. make no mistake about it. a vote for this proposal tonight is a vote for this 2000-page bill that you see here before us. it will not end the debate, but it is a vote on the bill. >> what is your view on the immigration-related elements of the bill? >> i think most americans feel that this government program ought to be limited to those of us who are citizens.
we are reading through the bill to see whether that was achieved. for that to be achieved, there has to be some way to verify that you are a citizen. we will have more to say about that later, after we are clear on what effort was made to guarantee that whatever benefits are available are only given to american citizens. >> going forward strategically, how you plan on going forward? there are issues with the leader on what type of amendments will be offered. i know you want this to be an extended debate. give us a sense of how you will begin the process. >> we have not discussed that and i think we will probably go forward with a rotating back and forth on amendments. he has indicated to me he understands the american people fully expect us to have an extensive debate with many amendments.
to be perfectly candid, if we did anything less than that, the american people would storm the capital. we already know how they feel about it. the american people do not want us to pass this bill. if they believe that we are somehow rushing it, that we're somehow denying opportunities to change it, i think they will be even more and rage. i am confident, based on what i know the american people are telling us and what the majority leader has indicated to me that he anticipates we will have a free-wheeling, wide open amendment process. we will be ready, assuming he has the 60 votes. it appears as if he does. we will be ready to get started on amendments on november 30. >> can we expect the same type of agreement that gives seen in the past where there were controversial things were things up and say, 60 wins? will there be an effort -- >> as you know, any one senator
can put us in a 60-vote situation. my assumption is many of the amendments, if not all of them, will end up requiring 60 votes. they also might be motions to waive the budget and this sort of thing. as is often indication in the senate, many of the amendment votes or boats that cast will be in a 60-vote context. >> you say this is effectively a vote for the final bill. are you acknowledging [unintelligible] >> i am not sure i understood your question. my preference would be to not support going forward on this bill and to get it fixed. if 60 senators decided to go forward, we will try to change it through the amendment process. at the end of the process, whenever that may occur. >> you said that this is a vote
for the bill. that sounds to me that your acknowledging defeat on this entire package. >> what i'm telling you is most of the time, when we proceed on a bill, the bill ultimately passes. there are a number of democrats were saying that they don't interpret their vote in favor of proceeding on the bill that way. we will have a chance to see if that is true. it will be a like the process before there will, at some point, be an opportunity to have 60 votes again to see if the senate, 60 out of 100 senators, want to terminate the process. the battle has just begun. i know many democratic senators are telling you not to place much significance in their vote tonight.
all options are still open. >> do you feel they are malleable? otherwise, you would not try to pressure the senators. >> the american people are asking us to stop this bill. we will do everything we can to prevent this measure from coming along. in that sense, tonight, it's 60 votes are achieved, would be the beginning of the debate. at whatever point we decide to see if there are 60 votes out there again to end it, and in my view, that will be a long time from now, very long time from now, we have a lot of amendments the american people expect us to try to change this monstrosity, and i assure you, we will try to change it. >> how is this a vote on the bill? >> let me say it again. if i were a democrat and i were interested in changing this
bill, i would say, you cannot have my vote until i get this changed or that changed. the easiest time to change this bill, if you were serious about it, would be right now. your power is greatest right now. he has no margin for error. he has no republican support. if i'm a democrat and i really offended by this 2100-page bill, i would say, you can have my vote as soon as you fix -- get rid of the government insurance company, or as soon as you fix this. the time of maximum opportunity to affect this bill is right now. thank you, everyone. >> senate republican lawmakers
this afternoon talking about the health care debate in the senate going on this weekend. a key procedural vote is set for tonight at 8:00 eastern to move forward with debate on the bill. it appears that the votes are there this afternoon. the two key senators announced they will vote to move forward. democrats get the 60 votes they need, formal debate is likely after the thanksgiving break. live coverage and debate, that is all on c-span2. also, you can see what your senators are saying at c- span.org/healthcare. search by name for debate from the senate floor. there are hearings and news conferences. you can read the health care bill and follow our twitter coverage at c- span.org/healthcare. now, a portion of a house hearing on h1n1 swine flu vaccine. we will hear about setbacks in
the distribution of the vaccine. this is a joint hearing of subcommittees on oversight. >> we will start with the five- minute opening statement from the doctor. you all know you can submit a longer statement for inclusion in the record. we would like you to stick to the file. >> thank you, chairman, ranking member walden, and members of the subcommittee. i am pleased to be back to talk to the committee about our response to the h1n1 pandemic and to answer questions. a brief update on the situation, we released new estimates for the told yes the -- the toll the viruses taken. a 22 million infected or ill. 98,000 hospitalized. almost 4000 deaths. the virus is spreading and considered widespread in 46
states. in many areas, it is beginning to decrease, the burden of illness, but in some, it is on the upswing. there has been no change in the pattern. still, it is a younger person's disease. many people with underlying conditions are disproportionately affected with severe complications. so far, no change in the virus. it has not become more virulence or change. we think the vaccine is an excellent match with this virus. unfortunately, the trajectory the virus will have as unpredictable. we do not know how long this wave will last, whether there will be multiple ways. we know that the flu season can last until may. we do not know how much trends will have. there are many unknowns and that makes it more important that we strengthen our response. without the investment of congress in preparedness and strengthening our ability to cope with the pandemic, we would be in much worse shape than we are today.
the cdc's response and others will talk more broadly. we rapidly identify and characterize the virus. we developed vaccines trains. we carried out laboratory surveillance in the u.s. and abroad to understand what was going on and direct our interventions. a more aggressive response has been science-based. we have rapidly deployed life- saving antiviral medicines and other materials. . spile. laboratory kits were prepared in record time and disseminated to all the public health labs in the u.s. and 150 other countries. we deployed field teams to support the state and local response in what very much an implementation effort at the front lines. we have issued science-based guidelines. we expected the disease to increase this fall before vaccine was available. so we worked to make the best
use of anti-viral medicine in cases of severe illness, to work on ways to better intervene in schools. we focused on businesses and health care workers and so forth. communication has been a priority for all of us, and we have down out reach with new media and old media and many partners. the heart of our response is the vaccination effort right now. it has ben unprecedented with the speed we have gotten the vaccine. but like were, i am disappointed with the speed of production. today i can announce there are 49.9 million doses of h1n1 vaccine for the states to order. it is not as much as we wanted to have by now or needed to have by now, but every dose coming out is being rapidly moved to places whe at c.d. we worked to develop
recommendations to prioritize the use of scarce vaccine for those at highest risk of disease or more likely to spread. we have a distribution system that gives each state a proratea population-based share of the vaccine, trying to have as fair a process as possible. the state and local health authorities are the implementers. they are deciding where that vaccine gets shipped. they are working very closely with the provider community, local health departments and hospitals with community health centers and schools where vaccination efforts can go forward rapidly. 34 schools have implemented vaccination efforts to reach children promptly. more are happening every day, and we know that the state of maine expects to finish their school-located program by the enof this week. we have done all this mindful
that the environment we love in makes communication and emphasis on the safety of vaccines the forefront for many. and so we've done this without cutting any corners on safety and have strengthen the our safety monitoring system to address any unanticipated problems. we are working hard with partners across government and in particular with the state, local and tribe alauthorities who are directing the program where they are. they have been working tirelessly to make this succeed, and i'm happy to detail some of the efforts they have been making in the comment period. when we have the opportunity to look back on this public health challenge, we will have time to reflect on the remarkable scientific accomplishments that made it possible to rapidly detect and track a previously unseen virus and get a vaccine drofled in record time. we will have time to look at better productions and delivers, and to rebuild the public health system we all
rely on. but today we need to quickly adapt from our recent experience and maintain our focus on the days, weeks and months just ahead. we will have more vaccine to put in the path of this virus, and it is our commitment to continue to work closely with our state and local public health partners to ensure it is as effectively delivered to those who need it most. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, dr. schuchat. dr. lurhie? >> thank you. i, too, am pleased to talk about our pandemic response. >> maybe put the mic closer to you. >> thank you for your foresight in helping to rebuild our country's vaccine infrastructure. as a result when we decided to pursue vaccine for the h1n1 this spring, we had contracts and manufacturers already licensed in the u.s. to get us out of the blocks quickly for manufacturing vaccine and preparedness of efforts of hospitals and headache systems
to be ready. my office has a four-fold response related to this pandemic. first, to work with the interagency. secondly, to stimulate the development of and contract for vaccines and anti-virals. third, to monitor and back stop states and communities if they get overwhelmed and request our help. and finally, not to take our eye on the ball and prepare for any other emergency. this response has been a public-private partnership from the get-go. as you know, we developed a new vaccine with unprecedented speed. this was made possible by investments in basic and clinical science, manufacturing, regulatory pro'ses and would not have been possible at all without our partnerships with industry. while modest amounts of vaccine came ahead of schedule, a combination of poor production yields, late completion of
seasonal season vaccine, and ceilings of one manufacturer cost the availability of the vaccine not just for the u.s., but around the world. while the number of doses produced and produced continue to grow, we remain vigilant. we talk with manufacturers almost every single day. we constantly monitor the progress of evansly lot produced, working to make up ground where possible. we have full time staff in the facilities of two of the manufacturers. in addition, the secretary and i have spoken to ceo he is honor several occasions seeking to identify opportunities to work together and to be had sure there are no obstacles in the way. while these delays are frustrating to anyone, we need to remember the virus is the real enemy here and the way forward is to improve our country's domestic manufacture capacity, using better technology so that the viruses
of the future do not defeat us. anti-virals have been another critical aspect of our response. we issued the first emergency use authorization for intravenus anti-viral. we are also focused on ensure the health care system in communities across the country remain able to treat it. we have authorized d-35 weafers to hospitals when they get overburden ened. and our first-ever vaccination team is headed to delaware to do just that. we have partnered closely with the private sector health care system, including health, insurers, pharmacies, big box
stories so cost not a barrier to people who want to be vaccinated. let me shift to lessons learned. clearly the support of congress has been critical in enabling us respond so quickry to this pandemic. and yet it is clear the chronic underinvestment in public health has real world consequences, and we cannot afford to let this happen again ever. while we have made vaccine in record time without cutting any corners, in retrospect our original projections were based on the collective experience with seasonal flew and with ha -- h 5 n 1 vaccine. and despite the best efforts of federal government and our partners in of the private sector. congress and the public have rightfully asked for
projections about numbers of doses, and we want to be transparent but at the same time provide all of the caveats about the uncertain nature of these projections. this has been a real challenge, especially as measures are captured with shorter and shorter sound bytes that omit detail about such caveats. this has led to frustration for everyone involved, especially the public. an part part of this transparency and part of our public-private partnership, well start releasing this week the number of projectsed doses by manufacturer for successive two-week periods. in this past week, storm-related delays nearly derailed shipments of vaccine. i want to credit the hard work of c.d.c. and others who worked all weekend for the vaccine to be shipped so the clinics could go on as planned. we are far from done with the science horsepower related
development of the vaccines and with building manufacturing capacity in the united states. we are excited that the first cell-based system will have its ribbon cutting in north carolina next week. my fear is when this is over we will decide we don't need to worry about another pandemic for the next 30 years. nothing could be more dangerous. what we have continued to learn will serve us well when confronting future public health emergencies and for daily health for years to come. i, too, looking for your questions. >> dr. goodman? >> i appreciate this opportunity to be here to zry f.d.a.'s activities in response. first when this influenza virus emerged in the spring, we said this can't be business as usual, and we immediately stood up an ns dent command system
response with anti-virals and vaccines. this enabled us to mount a flexible response inside and outside of government. our vaccine team acted immediately along with c.d.c. to begin the steps to produce a vaccine even before there was a decision or knowledge that we were going to need one. as you heard, in record time vaccine was produced and became available. i can assure you everyone in this effort, government and industry, has done everything possible to get as much vaccine to as many people as quickly as possible without cutting corners. i know this committee is concerned that a vaccine be safe. a very important perspective here is that the entire world is struggling with the biology of this virus, the challenge of reduced manufacturing yields, and frankly, the entire world is struggling with inadequate vaccine manufacturing infrastructure. despite these challenges we face in the united states and
the frustration we have been talking about, this country is one of the first to mount an effective large scale immunization campaign. now many people have asked us at the f.d.a. how can we be confident in a vaccine produced so quickly? we have this paradoxical situation where many want the vaccine and many don't trust it. we want to reasure the american people. the vaccines we have approved are made with methods that are tried and true. every year, f.d.a. manufacturers follow a series of specific careful steps to produce new up influenza vaccines every year. and these steps have produced safe vaccines year after year, adding up to hundreds of millions of doses manufactured and used in the united states. we followed this exact same scientific and regulatory approach for this 2009 h1n1 vaccine.
in response to some of the disinformation that was mentioned i think by congresswoman castor, one of the things we have done, for example, is my commissioner, dr. hamburg, with our working together, sent a letter to every physician in the united states, to explain about the vaccine, how it was produced and to provide a balanced review of the risks and benefits of the vaccine. but clearly we have a lot more work to do there. you heard from others that your investments in pandemic preparedness have been critically important. with respect to domestic capacity, i want to say that in may, the f.d.a. in an accelerated manner licensed an additional facility that the company has said has dramatically increased its ability to produce vaccine, and that is helping us now. but clearly we have much work to do. i would also say during this response we have worked with
h.h.s. to bring on line multiple additional filling lines to help ensure we get the vaccine produced out there as quickly as possible. now on september 15th we licensed four vaccines against the influneds virus, and a fifth last week. i want to point out again in a collaborative effort with the c.s.l. manufacturer who submitted data to us, we were able to extend the approval of c.s.l.'s vaccine to children down to six months of age, who >> concerned with. while we sexeekt these vaccines to have the same safety record as the seasonal vaccines, we are taking nothing for granted. enhanced safety monitoring, and i want to point out that every lot of vaccine musting evaluated, tested and released by both the f.d.a. and the manufacturer before it is used in people. because of the limited time, i
won't go into the work we have done on anti-virals and dying particulars. i do want to say that we have -- and that has helped avoid shortages. diagnostics have been fielded in record time, within weeks of the new disease thanks to c.d.c.'s efforts and our work with them collaborating to evaluate those. you have heard about protecting the public from fraudulent and count fit products. we almost immediately put a team in place to surf the interpret and deal with complaints. my favorite is the magic wanted that can protect against everything from anthrax to h1n1. you have heard heard of counterfeit and unapproved medications. we have actually put a wing it out there so others can spread the word with the list of counterfeit products.
now, looking ahead, i really do feel much has been accomplished in a very short time. and it is because of these strong collaborative efforts. the people you see here and many are, are talking every day. we are talking with the states and the manufacturers, and this has been going on from day one. but we need to ask ourselves, and we are asking ourselves, what do we need to do more both right now for this epidemic and moving forward? clearly you have heard about we need more capacity. we need cell-based manufacturing. and we at f.d.a. are very committed to make that happen. we last year or the year before provided guidance so we could get cell-based vaccines, but we also want those to be safe. we are supporting, with h.h.s. development of a redominant -- recome penant and others newer technologies. this is important not just about flu. it is important about other
emerging infectious diseases. if we have sards or a biological attack, we need a strong infrastructure. i will stop there but will say that we at f.d.a. are committed to working with our partners and you to protect the american people. we move forward with a very flexible, rapid response while taking our responsibility about the safety of these products very seriously. we really want to encourage strengthening our infrastructure here. i also want to mention again that this is a global issue, and we in the united states can work with global partners to strengthen the global response. none of us are safe and well protected from infectious diseases until we all are. i thank you for your support for public health, your support for the f.d.a. and your interest in this issue. thank you. >> thank you, dr. goodman and
to all of you. the way we are proceed now is we have a five-minute period of questions from members going back and forth, democrat and republican. for those who passed on their opening statements, they get seven minutes. i am going to start with myself and dr. schuchat. concern i hardy from my constituents is about the distribution -- the biggest concern i hear from my constituents is about the distribution. the guidelines basically leaves the distribution up to the states as long as they meet the guidelines. my concern is whether that is a good way to go about it. i suppose you assume that the states and localities, since they are close -- closer to people, would be the best way to distribute, but that has been sincerely questioned in the last few months. in new jersey, the biggest
question is the wall street companies. in new jersey i hear why is it that new york gave goldman-sachs and wall street firms the opportunity to do this? i'm told that employer-based distribution is one that meets your guidelines, and it was assumed they would do well since they have health clinics and have a good distribution among their employees. but i guess the concern would be if the leave the distribution to those who do it best, and the ones who do it best happen to be high-powered wall street firms, then there are two concerns. one would be does that make sense given that maybe a hospital or school might not do as good a job of distributing, but there's a greater need. the second question is whether or not some of these firms would only give it to high-risk
people as opposed to maybe their ceo's or somebody else? that is my concern. my question would be why does the c.d.c. leave it up to the states to create the plan for distribution? and wouldn't it be better to have some other federal mechanism rather than doing it this way? and what prevents somebody like goldman-sachs getting it when it maybe should be going to a clinic and monitoring how they go about it? >> thank you. the c.d.c. issues national standards about the populations at greatest risk for disease that are recommended to receive vaccine when there is a scare situation. so we issue that as a national level setting. we leave it to the states or large cities like "new york times" to find the best ways to put vaccine in the path of the priority populations, to
identify the venues. "new york times" actually put hospitals -- new york city actually put hospitals and doctor offices first. they put employer clinics in a lower setting. >> the problem i am hearing, in some of those cases, i don't remember which wall street firm it was. they had excess and didn't need it. maybe you could argue they are getting fewer dosages, but it could be argued that most or all of what they got should have gone to the hospitals because there is a greater risk pool there. how do we prevent that? >> that issue was of concern to all of us. dr. freeden sent letters out to all of our grooms -- doctors reminding about all of our target grooms. they have to follow the targeted population.
>> i am not suggesting, although some have, that goldman or others are giving it to people other than high risk. have you thought about the fact that if you do it that way, or if the states do it that way, it may be giving it to people who have a better distribution network with their employers, but they may not have as great a need. it is like the grant program and the guy that has the best grant application person gets the grant when there is maybe a greater need for the person who doesn't have the expert to do it. >> we have had a major commitment to vulnerable populations and underserved and to make sure we are not leaving behind those without good access. most of the states have carried out the larger mass clinics for people who do not have doctor's offices to go to. >> could you get back to me at some point to talk about why this kind of distribution is
better as opposed to maybe looking at some kind of a federal alternative? i don't know the extent you have looked at that, but if you could get back to us at some point? >> thank you. >> then the other thing i want odd to ask, when the secretary testified, he left us with the feeling that we were on track with adequate supplies of vaccine. i know that turned out not to be the case, and i am sure you have explained why. you did mention under funding, and i don't remember her saying anything about lack of funding. you said chronic under funding was one of the contributing factors. that is the first time i have heard that and i was a little disturbed because i don't remember her mentioning it. >> let me try to clarify here. i think the chronic under funding has been in the vaccine
are infrastructure overall. it would have been wonderful if we had more manufacturing capacity in the united states, if we had had cell-based or rebottom penant technologies that could produce large amounts of vaccine. while we have invested in that over the past few years, we need to continue to make a more robust commitment. i think we all know that the chronic under funding in state and local health has been a different problem. but congress has been responsive to deal with the acute needs to deal with this pan democratic. i would love to see that we can apply prevention in that sense, too, and really get ahead of this for the next pandemic. >> i don't want to beat you guys up today, but when it is something like that that
congress can make a difference, it really is important that if the department or anybody feels that there is a need for more funding, to detail that to us. again, i would ask you maybe to get back to me with more information about this chronic under funding in writing. a lot of things that come up here we can't do anything about, butóyolóyómolóyóm? with you on that. >> thank you. we have eight minutes left. we have three votes. mr. shimkus says he would like to go next. and then after him we will break and come back. >> thank you. i am going to be pretty short. i appreciate bart's focus. in my opening statement i hope that we to an after action review on this process to help us be prepared because the questions that he is raising is
really the question that i would have under a terrorist attack with biological weapons or others. we have to have a way to streamline the process and get approvals quickly. and that would be the debate on egg verdict cell. i understand the f.d.a.'s responsibility, but if you have a massive possible pandemic, we had better have a way to subvert the regular order for the needs of the whole and move rapidly. just like bart's comments earlier. i hope there is a process in place. and if there's not one -- i'm former military, and after training exercise, you do an after-action review. will that be done? >> what i can say is we have actually had several in-process reviews already, and we are
committed to after action reviews as part of our routine procedures. >> i would add to that, and i would add there are processes in place through emergency use organizations, that we would be able to shift to other products under the emergency use authorization. >> if something hit that we don't know about, and we are looking at this time line, then i guess we just identify it and then isolate people until we can roll something out? >> absolutely. there are several mitigation steps, and one of the things we did this summer was update guidance. so no automatic school closures in this setting, but if technologies ready ahead of time. we are better prepared than we were a few years ago thanks to
your up vefment, but we have a long way to go. >> i will end by saying i think education is a key. the positive aspect is the public is really better steward by better health practices. that will be the key thing before we can roll into this. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we have three votes, and we will come right back after)@)@ie >> thank you, mr. chairman. i mentioned three topics i want to hear more on.
that we were down to one licenseded flu manufacturer in the united states. people have worked very hard to get to the point where we are today. now we need to get to the point where we have much more domestic manufacturing capacity. i think in the case of c.s.l., they are based in australia, and they have a similar kind of arrangement and requirement rith the australian government. you remember that the southern hemisphere had its outbreak at a different team, and israel what was experiencing a pretty severe outbreak and decided that it needed vaccine first for its home country. when that happened, c.s.l. let us know that right away. we were immediately able to
downgrade our projected numbers of doses of vaccines. at the same time we worked closely with the manufacturer so that as soon as they met their requirement for their home country, they were able to start making and shipping doses to us. in addition, as you heard, they also submitted additional data recently so that their vaccine can be used down to a lower age in children, and that was really recently licensed. >> i also in my opening statement talked a little bit about using this pandemic, this seasonal flu as well as the h1n1 to learn as to innovate, and i am wondering what your shots are in three particular areas? one is faster manufacturing processes, whether it is cell-based or other opportunities there, use of a
djuvants and alternative methods of vaccine delivery, something other than injection or nasal spray. if we were to have a virulent flu next year, what is your time line for when these innovation are going to be generally available? >> that is a really great question. we are in year three of a five- year strategic plan to move us toward more modern manufacturing technologies and manufacturing capacity in the united states. as i said, the first cell-based facility has its ribbon-cutting next week in north carolina. but i actually don't think it is going to be able to make flu vaccine for another year. but when that is all said and done, they will be able to make 150 million doses.
that is still far short of the surge capacity we would need in the face of a public emergency. cell-based vaccine still need the viruses to grow. we still need other kinds of technologies. we have invested in a number of those. i think l is a lot of promise in a number of the new methodologies. i can't predict when they are going to come on line, but i also want to say it is great to be able to do those things. once you do them, you can't forget that you have to manufacture to scale with whatever those are. we have to be thinking now about how those new technologies and manufacturing capacity meet one another so they are not done one after another. that is another real challenge we have. we know and believe that
adjuvants have real promise. you use them, and they help you get a better immune response to the vaccine. it is a substance you mix with the vaccine. there is work going on right now to understand the experience with them, trials being done by the manufacturers as well as by n.i.h., mixing one company's adjuvant with another company's vaccine. depending on the outcome of those trials, if they are promising, that the manufacturers will submit applications to the f.d.a., but we are not there yet. and then in terms of the alternatives methods, people are working on things like patches, a transdeterminal method. some are working on vaccines that you can eat.
there are a lot of very exciting break plus in the science that i think are going to move us far forward. some are more ready than others . it would be great if you could use a patch instead of a shot. >> it is my understanding that some of that technology may have an impact on increasing the effectiveness of the vaccine. for example, micro needle application versus injection? >> right. and i think we are continuing to learn more about those. a lot of these new technologies are very promising in terms of also being able to get a better immune response. it is really the immune response and how it gets into the body to make the difference. dr. goodman may want to amplify on that. >> i would just add one thing. there is a lot of innovation and promising technologieses. we have cell-based vaccines in
this country, just not yet for flu. those things are making real technological progress, and those are things we are going to see progress in very soon. one thing i wanted to say is we see even in the most sophisticated manufacturing technologies, there are still challenges producing large amounts of things consistently and of high quality. even with some of the most advanced buy technology products out there today, this is complex manufacturing. the egg has been amazingly efficient, and relatively reliable. clearly it is an old technology and has many disadvantages, but some of the newer technologies are going to need care. what works in a mouse or in small production, it sometimes takes it time to get it to
industrial scale to be sure it is going to be safe and high quality for people. we are all working together to accelerate for that. our goal should be for an emerging infectious disease spread, to have vaccines much, much faster, and there is promising technology that can help us do that. >> thank you. i want to thank all of you for your comments today. i know that we did have some questions that i and others asked if you could get back to us in write. the process is that members can submit additional questions in writing to you, and usually they are just supposed to be submitted within the next 10 days. so you may get some additional written questions to respond to as well. but thank you so much for an important issue that you are involved in.
you had some comments? >> i wondered if it would be ok if i responded to something i heard in a couple of comments earlier? >> of course. >> i was concerned, and we haven't really had a chance to correct some misunderstandings here, and that has to do with vaccines going to guantanamo or terrorists. there is no vaccine on its way to guantanamo. there is no plan to vaccinate terrorists, or mum mum ahead of -- khalid shake muhammad ahead of anybody else. it get out there in a sound byte and it get ahead of other information. >> thank you very much. mr. beginning habit had a chance to -- ask a question.
the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am pleased that the first panel is still here. i have some concerns. in the interest of full disclosure. i have been a bit of a doubting thomas about our response to this crisis, this pandemic as it is now. of course my great concern was us creating a pandemic of fear. i think we have certainly done that. and we also have -- since 2006 when we were dealing with avian flu have appropriated in the ago department of state something on the order of $13 billion. feel free to correct me on my numbers, but a lot of money. as we tracked the concern was whether or not to develop and spend billions of dollars in the process and
develop a vaccine specific to h1n1, different of course from the regular vaccine that we will be producing for seasonal flu. i think the decision was going to be made, i guess was made, on the basis of how virulent this strain became and what kind of changes might occur, was it getting worse, and i think that you have said in your testimony did not maybe all three of you -- that the strain really hasn't gotten worse, and the virulence has not increased. but one thing i did notice here lately was that all of a sudden we went from 1,000 deaths in the united states literally overnight, to 4,000. that is, i find, a little disingenuous, but there has been this explanation that oh,
well we were basing cases of h1n1 on laboratory evidence, but now we are using a mathematical formula that we extrapolate or estimate. some people maybe in the c.d.c. ought to go to work for the census bureau with those kinds of calculations. i have real concerns about that. in fact, i brought along with me a blank death certificate where it says cause of death and contributing factors and that sort of thing, and i would be really curious to know how much of those 4,000 cases does the death certificate say the cause of death is h1n1 viral influenza? >> thanks for those comments. communication is really important to all of us, and being clear and not confusing. we did not overnight go from 1,000 deaths to 4,000 deaths.
all along we have been talking about use a variety of surveillance systems and the sufficiency of data collection. we have said that reported cases underestimate the true burden of disease. with seasonal influenza when we talk about how many deaths or hospitalizations, that is not based on individual reports from doctors and health democrats. it is looked at a lot of different data sources and modeling the data. what we did was took information from a couple of very good surveillance systems, hospitalization dat from our emerging infections network in 10 states, information from 30 or 35 states depending on the week about laboratory-confirmed hospitalizations and deaths. we used those two as a ratio to understand from hospitalizations, how many deaths might there be. we used our sentinel providers
to divide up states to high, medium or low in terms of how common the transmission was. and then we used correction factors based on community surveys done to really understand for how many illnesses are in the community based on household telephone surveys for everyone who actually sees a doctor -- >> dr., schuchat, with all due respect because my time is limited, but i want to make one other point. and i appreciate your explanation. i hope all three panel e.u.s understand my concern. the state university of west georgia is in my district in carrollton, georgia. they weren't having a problem getting access to the vaccine. i know that has been the main theme of this hearing, why we didn't develop -- i don't know -- literally 50 million vaccines by a date in october, and it was only 15 million or whatever. but the state university of west georgia had no problem.
they had plenty of vaccines. they had 11,500 students, and only 141 were willing to be vaccinated. a lot of them are very concerned. let me give you a quick quote. most students are saying that they haven't gotten the swine flu yet, so they believe that they are not going to get it at all, said shondra jones, a student from franklin, georgia. there are also people telling students not to get the shot. there are some who are afraid of the side effects of the shot. they have read about 1976 and the syndrome roam developed there. they believe the government did not test the shot enough, end quote. mr. chairman, i know i have extended beyond my time, but if you would allow them to respond to this because i think this is a huge issue. i don't care if we have 100 million vaccines, and 10% of the population is willing to take the vaccines, even though at high risk, what have we really accomplished here?
>> i am going to let you answer the question, but i have to be careful here, dr. lurie, because you opened it up to the guantanamo thing. chairman stupak wants to say something, too. so we will do those two, and we will be done. we are not done. mr. green is here. i give up. respond to mr. beginningry? >> sure. >> you raised one of the most challenging aspects of this pandemic. at the very same time people are waiting in line and driving hours to find vaccine, we have supplies way in excess of demand in some communities. we have huge information needs to fill, and i think we are really committed to break the myths about the safety of this vaccine, what we do know and don't know. there is a website, flu.gov that has information about myths and facts to help college
students understand what is the case. we have planned for some more outreach to those such as college students to help them understand the risks and threats. but we have this exquisitely challenging time where we risk raising demand some communities like that at the same time where we have so much extra demand verdicts supply elsewhere? that is why we have focused on state and local support. we have a supply-demand mismatch the other way at west georgia college whereas in the national level we may not understand the community sly and demand. one of our reasons for focusing on state and local distribution or direction of where the vaccine goes is thause of the local awareness of what is going on with that chunt. >> are you done with mr. his
response? >> yes. >> mr. green, let me explain what happened. it looked like we were done, and there was nobody here. dr. lurie asked for some time to talk about the terrorist ns guantanamo, and mr. steve berthiaume ack wendy to clarify and ask a question about that, and then we will go to you. >> doctor, you don't have anything to do with the military and getting the controlled drug to the military, do you? >> no. this whole program is run by the department of defense. >> so you don't know if people at guantanamo have received it? you don't know if the 218 international terrorists we hold in u.s. jails have received it? you don't know that? >> what i can tell you is, like all military installations. >> what is your source -- >> run by the department of defense, and they have pretty strict criteria going to u.s. forces, deployed health care
workers, civil annals, et cetera. >> correct. but under oath you said they did not receive it, and you don't know that. when major diana h. hainy says they will be receiving it on november 2, they could already have the vaccine down in guantanamo. this is now what, the 18th? they could have it there? you really don't have any personal knowledge of it? >> no. i'm sorry, what i was trying to do was correct a misconception of how the vaccine was distributed. i do not have personal knowledge of that. >> i understand numbered personnel are first. this was released on november 2 at the height of the shortages, and the people are upset about it. you are under oath. don't be testifying to anything you don't have personal knowledge of. >> fair enough. >> mr. green? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the patience of
our witness. you have been here a long time, plus you had to listen to our opening statements, but that is just the way it works here sometimes. i appreciate you being here. i i guess the frustration is we have had the health subcommittee, and i am on the health subcommittee and the oversight. we have had hearings since the spring, the most recent in september, and it seemed like the best plans that we had didn't pan out. it is not necessarily with the delivery system. we will hear about that from the next panel. we have the commissioner and the manufacturing side. there has been talk for many years about what we need to do for pandemics. and yet here we have what relatively can be major. a month ago we had a homeland security hearing in houston, texas, and we had 1,000 people died. now it is up to 4,000. if it had been something worse than h1n1, we would be sitting here saying why do we have tens
of thousands of people dying for avian flu. what do we need to do, and even congress, to live up to the plans and expectations that we had from the earlier hearings where we were going to have enough vaccine, the distribution center is there. right now but don't know if the distribution center is there because we don't have enough vaccine. we know something is working because people are lining up all over the country to receive it. my concern is the lack of regular flu vaccine, or at least the participation. the one thing we know now is hopefully next year, or the next flu season, we will have h1n1 in with the seasonal flu, but that we need to make a national effort to increase the seasonal flu vegas nations, and that comes -- vaccinations.
we have seen a little uptick because of h1n1. i want to see -- the cheapest thing we can do for the business community is a flu shot no their employees. that is what i have for all three of us. >> i think there are several things we could do to strengthen our response for seasonal flu as well as for a future pandemic, which i do believe we will have. we have a public health infrastructure that is weak right now. it has been -- it has suffered many job losses, many furloughs, and it leaves us a little bit of a weakened core to respond to this kind of thing. we do not sufficiently use information technology that could connect electronic health records and the private health care system with public health need. we could do much better targeting of priority groups if we had better information systems. some states have information registries that work pretty well, but they don't reach well to adults. adult providers haven't stepped
up the way pediatricians have to use prevention. >> i appreciate that, and we are going to run out of time. but we are talking about pediatricians, and we have a robust vaccination system for children. we know h1n1 target children and young adult. i had my 62nd birthday three weeks ago, and that was the first time i said i am glad i am there. the problem is we don't have the vaccinations. >> right. there are two things. we certainly need a more robust vaccine production with the new technology, broader manufacturing capacity. but with children, if you look at this pandemic, it is really affecting school-age children, and they don't go to the pediatrician very often or get vaccinated often compared to 1-year-olds and 2-year-olds. many states are having great experiences with school-located vaccinations for h1n1.
those could be modeled for seasonal flu in the future. but there is a lot of work to do before we would realize the efficient delivery system we would like to have. i don't know if you want to add? >> certainlyly. i would second her comments about strengthening the public healthy infrastructure at all levels. as we have talked already this morning, we do need to get to a much more robust manufacturing tech new orleans. we have talked about the fact that there are some promises new developments, and we need to continue to invest in pulling those kinds of technologies along so that they can make vaccine faster and more reliably. then those new developments somehow have to meet the large scale safe manufacturing capacity so that were we to have another kind of pandemic, we would be able to get vaccine out in very large quantities
much faster and not be reliant on the vagaries we have now. >> mr. chairman, i know i have run out of time. those of us from the sugar cube generation that dealt with polio, we have used that many times. our agencies need to look at that and say how do we deal with this? because next time it won't just make us sick for a few days. it may be killing more people than 4,000. we lose 36,000 people a year from regular flu. i am worrying about something much more serious. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i am going to say thank you again. i won't repeat what i said earlier. again, get back to us with my written comments. we would appreciate it. now we will call the second panel. >> thank you.
>> the senate is in a rare weekend session today to debate health care with a procedural vote coming up later on moving the health care bill to the floor. in order for formal debate on the senate's health care bill to begin, democrats must get 60 votes. if they do, formal debate could begin after the thanksgiving break. watch live senate coverage today on c-span 2. you can watch what your senators are saying about health care on line at cspan.org. search by name. for debate from the senate floor.
you will find ads, hearings and news conferences. read the health care bill and follow our twitter coverage. it is c-span's health care hub online at cspan.org. >> drew armstrong of congressional quarterly, thanks for joining us today. guest: happy to be on. host: the senate still in debate on saturday. what do the announcements today by senators landrieu and lincoln mean for tonight's vote? >> it means the democrats have 60 votes to move forward. it is the first big legislative hurdle they have had to pass. it means that health care is moving forward in the full senate, it looks like. >> a third senator, senator ben nelson of nebraska had concerns about going forward with the debate this past week. what generally were the concerns of these democrats,
and why is the vote more difficult for them than others? >> i think we have seen a variety of concerns, some specific to each senator among these three members of the democratic caucus. they are definitely all more conservative than a lot of their colleagues. they come from louisiana, arkansas and nebraska, definitely more purple or red states. senator nelson of nebraska, he mentioneded a lot of the abortion language was something he had a problem with. he said if it is the same language that is in the bill now, when it comes to further procedural votes on the floor, he is not going to be able to support that. there have been concerns over the public plan, the government-run insurance option that would be competing with private sure remembers. senator lincoln has mentioned that. and all of them have mentioned the deficit as an issue. there is a range of concerns, but it looks like they are going to be able to move forward with the procedural test tonight. >> along those lines, what
so-called sweeteners were included in the bill to bring them along? >> there has been a lot made of the money that senator landrieu's state may be getting. it is several hundred million dollars. there is oil and gas money discussed as well as medicade dollars that has been discussed. her state is in a tough spot because of the economic recession. the whole katrina thing is still going on down there and a big issue. sending some dollars back to the state. she said she is not ashamed in trying to get that money where she can and try to help her state out. >> assuming the vote goes the way the senate democratic leaders hope, what is ahead when they come back from thanksgiving? >> this vote here is really the first procedure test. it is basically to get us to be able to vote on amendments and to start changing the bill and start debate on the bill. when we get back from the thanksgiving recess, it means the process is ready to start here on the actual legislative
you are going to see amendments and votes on amendments. some of those contention issues like abortion and others, they are going to come up for serious discussion, and you you may see changes before this bill gets off the floor. >> as far as this saturday session today, what has the atmosphere be like? has it about quiet or lots of activity? >> it is college football saturday around the country, and here in the senate, it is the super bowl of health care. i talked to police officers, and they said they were expecting anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 people around the capitol and in the seats into the evening. there are small grooms of protestors and counterprotestors. there is one group yelling kill the bill and another group of protestors in support yelling we are louder, making fun of
the step that is -- the first that in the process that is ahead of us. now we're going to start getting into the legislative meat and potatoes of the action. the amendment votes and things like that. we're going to see a lot more debate on some of these contentious issues, the public option, abortion language, the overall cost of the bill. >> andrew armstrong of congressional quarterly, thank you very much. >> happy to be on. >> this week on "america and the court's" upcoming pri -- upcoming supreme court cases, including gun rights and the former enron executive. the former deputy u.s. solicitor general and the georgetown university law center professor richard lazarus. america and the courts, today at
o'clock p.m. on c-span. in 1989, judy shelton wrote about the soviet crash. in 1994, the monetary system. now she is talking about the u.s. economy. >> this is unprecedented spending on many deficits, and an unconscionable accumulation of debt. >> economist and "will street journal" contributor judy shelton. >> in his weekly address, president obama talks about the importance of economic trade -- international trade. he made this address while in south korea, the last stop of the asian tour that he did earlier this week. he is followed by the republican address that focused on costs of the health care legislation being debated today in the u.s. senate. >> i am recording this message
from south korea as i finished my first presidential trip to asia. as we emerge from the worst recession in generations, there is nothing more important than to do everything we can to get our economy moving again and again americans back to work. i will go anywhere to pursue that goal. asia is a region that we are now doing more trade with than any other place in the world. the commerce here supports millions of jobs back home. and the rest of the nuclear arms race -- the threat of the nuclear arms race threatens our national security. this includes some of the fastest growing nations. their committees and no solution -- there can be no solution to climate change without their help. we made progress with china and russia, sending a message to iran and north korea that they must live up to their international operations.
we develop a host of new clean energy initiatives with china, and our nations agreed to work toward a successful outcome at the upcoming climate summit in copenhagen. i have come to immediate action to reduce carbon pollution. i spoke dion men and women -- two young men and women -- i spoke to young men and women. and above all, i spoke with leaders of every nation i visited about what we can do to sustain this economic recovery. and bringing back jobs and prosperity. the task that we will focus on relentlessly in the weeks and months ahead. the recession has taught us that we can return to a situation where economic growth is fueled by consumers that take on more and more debt. we need to spend less, save more, and get the federal
deficit under control. we also need to get a greater emphasis placed on exports. exports and help create new jobs at home. if we can increase our exports by 5%, we can increase the number of american jobs by hundreds of thousands. this is already happening in businesslike american superconductor, and energy startup based in massachusetts that is providing wind power and smart grid systems to countries like china, korea, and india. increasing exports is one way to increase prosperity. we have an obligation to consider every additional responsible step we can take to encourage and accelerate job creation. in the next few weeks, we will
be holding a forum at the white house. i want to hear from ceos, small- business owners, economists, and financial experts, labor unions, and nonprofit groups to get this economy moving again. it is important that we don't make any of considered decisions with the best of intentions. it is important that we're open to any demonstrably good idea to put america back to work. that is what i hope to achieve. there is no policy that can bring back all the jobs we have lost overnight. i wish there were. some americans, neighbors, and family members are desperately working for work -- looking for work. i promise you that we're moving in the right direction. the steps we're taking are helpful, and i will not let up until businesses are hiring again, this -- american workers
are working again, and we're more prosperous than we were before. that was my focus the last 10 months, and it will continue to be my focus the months and years to come. >> americans are calling on congress for health care reform because they can no longer tolerate the skyrocketing cost. they want us to stop the punishing increases of insurance premiums and health care costs that year after year are driving countries -- families in this nation to the edge. they want us to ensure that we have meaningful access to quality health care. when harry reid finally revealed that the 2074 page bill that has been crafted three weeks -- crafted for weeks behind closed doors, that is hardly what we got. it will drive up the cost of health care insurance, not down. it will increase taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars.
it will cut medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars. it will grow the federal government by over $2.40 trillion in spending. it will impose a damaging, unfunded mandate on our states. it will leave millions of americans uninsured and establish a massive governmental intrusion into management of our health care economy. this is not true health care reform, and it is not what the american people want. it will result in higher premiums and higher health care costs for americans. at a time where we are experiencing record double-digit unemployment, the bill raises taxes by nearly $500 billion. a significant number of these provisions violate a promise to the american people, namely that lower and middle class americans would not see a tax increase under his proposals. this bill clearly breaks that
promise as it taxes a wide range of americans. those families with high value insurance plans, employers that can't provide coverage. and many others. it also levies fines and penalties on individuals, families, and businesses. medicare faces cuts of nearly $500 billion to create a government entitlement. even though medicare is already facing enormous unfunded liabilities. these cuts will reduce access to, and the quality of care that seniors receive. this includes hospitals, nursing homes, and more. as they see their quality of care reduced, seniors enrolled in the popular medicare advantage plans will also lose many of the benefits that we enjoy today.
we're already experiencing record deficits and debt. growing the size of our federal government by over $2.40 trillion over 10 years of implementation. when you take away the budget gimmicks used in the early years of the implementation that make the total cost get smaller, the truth is glaring at the congressional budget office agrees. this plan will increase federal spending and costs, not lower them. that means both you and the federal government will see costs go up. the legislation pushes 15 million people into the failing medicaid system rather than getting them access to health insurance. and in addition to forcing the uninsured into a failing entitlement program, it will result in $25 billion in underfunded medicaid mandates on states. they are already struggling financially. this mandate for the jeopardize
a state budgets as it forces them to drive up spending. it creates a government auction -- option and expands control over health care. it establishes the government of the determiner over what kind of insurance americans can produce. the first mandate would apply to the individual. the insurance or the irs would collect a fine from you. that employers face a penalty if you do not provide a government approved health-care plan. the bill proposes $28 billion in new taxes on employers that don't comply. those taxes will be passed along to employees in the form of reduced wages and less jobs. you will hear a lot about this bill. that is why i encourage you to read the bill yourself and form your own opinion. this bill is available on my website as well as a number of
other internet sites. take a close look at how the bill is founded, and who and what it covers. and how it may impact you and your family. it is a real eye opener. in recent months, i have heard from many in my home state about health care. they echoed what americans want in health care reform. lower-cost and better quality. what americans really want is the kind of step-by-step reforms the republicans have been advocating for years. common-sense ideas like the ability to purchase insurance across state lines. allowing small businesses to come together and offer more affordable health insurance to their employees. changing the incentives in our system from numbers of procedures to quality of outcomes. eliminating pre-existing condition limitations. eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.
and promoting wellness and prevention programs that encourage people to make healthy choices. these are the kinds of reform that makes sense and would really make a difference for all americans. thank you for listening. >> as the senate continues debate on its version of health care legislation, said a republican leader mitch mcconnell at some of his colleagues held a news conference. the first procedural vote is scheduled tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. this is 20 minutes.
>> the afternoon, everyone. let me start by saying that this 2000 page bill cuts medicare, raises taxes, and raises insurance premiums for the 85% of americans that have insurance. if that were not bad enough, you look at be fully implemented built over a 10-year. where all of the provisions are operating. it is a $2.50 trillion expansion of the federal government. the cost for americans is going to go up. we thought that this was trying to that of the cost curve. for regular citizens, the cost is going to go up dramatically. we talked about different parts of the bill.
>> i know that this has been a long wait for everybody in the room. just remember that this 20 pounds is the size of many people's turkey next week. that is what most people in north carolina think about the bill, too. we're here to talk a little bit about what we're hearing at home. what are north carolinian concerned with? jobs. they look at this bill. they know that small business is the engine that will pull us out of this economic crisis. we can't compete and offer health care today if you had your fifty first employee. we will send you a tax bill of thousands of dollars. there is no incentive in this
bill for small business to succeed. this bill is actually the cause, potentially, of small business. i come from a state that probably has had more investment in the last 10 years then -- in pharmaceuticals, vaccines, and more. what do we do? we take this very crucial areas, the keys to our success to bring down the cost of health care. we ought to put a tax on those that research, develop, and
create. we tax their products. medical devices. and it is ironic that we also have just put a new tax on the vaccine for h1n1 in this bill, and a time when we're struggling to get the supply out to america. i guess i shouldn't be shocked. when you look at the bill, you can find the word choice only 40 times. you find the word innovation only 25 times. you find the word competition only 13 times. that is in stark contrast to the 4677 * that you find the word require, must, or shall. 899 times that refers to taxes, fees, or revenues.
or the times that refers to agencies, the panel, or commission. is this really a health care reform bill? the answer is that it is not a health care reform bill. this is a layaway plan. this is the harry reid layaway plan for this holiday season. been for four years before you get the first benefit back out, and in four years, you'll find out how expensive this plan was. >> we have all received a lot of calls and letters about this bill. i would say that easily, over the last weeks, the calls are about 90-1 in opposition to the legislation. i will quote someone from a
rural area in nebraska. this is what they want me to be aware of tonight at it o'clock when we cast our vote. this person says, for the first time in my career, i'm questioning how much longer i can continue to constantly be up against regulations and funding when all you want to do is make a difference. it is exhausting. ladies and gentlemen in all states live in rural areas. a majority of our hospitals are small hospitals. they're cold roll critical access hospitals. i visit the hospitals that the committees take a lot of pride in. i go to these hospitals, they have done fund drives, bake
sales, everything to try to support these low community facilities. i always ask the same questions. if you could keep this hospital open on medicaid reimbursement rates, can you do that? >>they say no, we would go broke. the reimbursement rates are so bad. what is the solution? add millions of people the medicaid. and you will have the biggest meltdown you ever saw. and then i asked, who could keep this hospital open on medicaid and medicare reimbursement rates? they say no, we could -- we would go broke. what is the solution?
the solution is to cut medicare by about $500 billion. who are these people listening to? are they talking the hospital administrators, doctors, nurses, community leaders that are leading the drive to keep these hospitals open? i will wrap up with one quick story. i am in nebraska, a beautiful part of our state. it sits in the northern area of our state. if you look at a map in nebraska, this will really come home to you. between the northwest part of our state and were the central part of our state, there is one hospital left that delivers babies. ballantine. -- a valentine. they struggle today like every other rural hospital. i will tell you that it is a
very serious consequence. if i were senator reid, here is what i would do. take two weeks, take the bill to community hospitals across the country. little hospitals and communities. i would listen to the people. you would get an earful. this bill does not work for america. it does not work for valentine, nebraska. it does not work for people. >> the afternoon. i am new to the senate. i have come here with an open mind, trying to be a problem solver. health care is a big issue for florida. with nearly 4 million people that are uninsured. it is a significant expense to our seniors. we have 3 million seniors on medicare.
what i found here a little more than two months, we don't get to be part of the process. we don't get to be part of the process that determines this bill. and tonight, we will vote on this piece of legislation that does not do good things for florida. it will cut $500 billion from medicare, health care for seniors. it will take $120 billion out of medicare advantage. we have more than 900,000 seniors that enjoin medicare advantage. i am getting phone calls and letters from my constituents that are saying, please don't cut this program that is providing vital programs in my life. it is not only helping me with my care and hearing aids, but things that a saving my life like diabetics applies. this program takes $120 billion out of it. it doesn't make any sense to me
that in trying to improve health care, we will take $500 billion out of medicare. for the seniors don't want that. we will raise nearly half a trillion dollars in taxes. states like florida will eventually, over a 10-year. -- 10-year period, it will raise. we have been coming through it. it will increase the cost of health care for the americans that have health care right now. i am afraid that at the end of the day, where we're going to be in five or 10 years, this is medicaid for the masses. we will turn medicare into medicaid, and we will put
everybody on a government-run or government regulated program. that is not health care reform. we're supposed to care about quality, access, and we will care about cutting costs. i don't think that this bill does anything to address those problems. tonight's vote really matters. and we should start over. we will work through thanksgiving, december, christmas, whatever it takes to do it right. i was in the state last week talking to floridians. i have folks from all walks of life come up and speak with me. i had a janitor comes up to me and say, what is going to happen with the health care bill? i said, we will be debating it. he said, you should not vote for it. it is a bad thing.
the calls that i am getting to my office in the last six days, nearly 950 calls on this proposal. more than a hundred are against it. we need to start over -- more than 800 are against it. we need to start over and do it right. >> [unintelligible] >> over 95% of the time i am told that when we approved a motion, the bill was approved. we watched a number of our democratic friends say that they are not really voting for the bill. that is not the american people think. they think that beginning this debate is a vote on the bill. those on the other side that tell you -- the best opportunity
to change the bill would have been at the beginning. the votes he needs would have empowered any democratic senator that is truly interested in making a change, whether the changes on abortion language, whether the government ought to go into the insurance business. the time of -- make no mistake about it. a vote for this proposal tonight is a vote for this to thousand page build you see before us. it will not end the debate. but is like a vote on the bill. >> what is your view on the immigration related elements of this bill? >> the immigration issue? most americans feel that this
government program ought to be limited to those of us that our citizens -- that are citizens. we are reading to the bill to see if that was achieved. there has to be some way to verify that your a citizen. -- that you are a citizen. we will look and see what benefits are available, and that their only given to americans. -- that they are only given to americans. >> there are issues with yourself and the majority leader on what type of amendments will be offered? give us a sense of how you're going to begin the process. >> we will probably go forward with rotating back and forth on amendments.
he has indicated to me that he understands the american people fully expect us to have an extensive debate with many amendments. if we did anything less than that, the american people would storm the capital. we're -- we already know how they feel about it. the american people did not want us to pass this bill. and if they believe that we are somehow rushing it or denying opportunities to change it, betting they will be even more enraged. i am confident based on what people are telling us. the majority leader anticipates that we will have a wide-open amendment process. assuming he has his 60 votes, and it appears as if he does, we will be ready to get started on amendments november 30. >> you expect the same type of -- what we have seen in the
past where you line things up and say 60 wins. >> any senator can put us in a 60 vote situation. my assumption is that many of the amendments, if not all of them will require 60 votes. they also might be motions to waive the budget, that sort of thing. as is often the case in the senate, the votes that we cast will be in a 60 vote context. >> it is effectively a vote for the final bill. are you acknowledging this whole package? [unintelligible] >> i am not sure i understood the question. we do not support going for on this bill and get it fixed. if 60 senators decide to go
forward, we will obviously try to try and change it. >> you said make no mistake, this is a vote for the bill 95% of the time. it's an -- it sounds to me like you're acknowledging defeat on this entire package. >> most of the time when we proceed on a bill, the bill ultimately passes. there are a number of democrats saying that they don't interpret their vote in favor of proceeding the bill that way. we'll have a chance to see if that is true. it will be a lengthy process. at some point in late december december or mid january, there will be the opportunity to have to see if it will terminate the process.
the battle has begun, but many democratic senators are saying not to place significance in their vote tonight. >> do feel they are malleable? or you will not even bother trying to pressure senators -- >> the american people are asking us to stop this bill. we will do everything we can to prevent this measure from becoming law. in that sense, if 60 votes are achieved, it will be the beginning of the debate. at whatever point we decide to and if, in my view -- to end it, and it my view, that will be a very long time from now. >> how is this a vote on the
bill? >> let me say it again. if i were a democrat and i were seriously interested in changing this bill, i would say, you can't have my vote until i get this changed or that change. the easiest time to change this bill if you were serious about it would be right now. your power is greatest right now. he has no margin for error. he has no republican support. if i'm a democrat and i am offended by this 2100 page bill, i would say that you can have my vote as it is to fix -- as you fix the abortion language. the time of maximum opportunity to affect this bill is right now. thank you, everyone. ho[captioning performed by
national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> the senate is in a rare weekend session today with a procedural vote coming later on to move the health-care bill the four -- to the floor. democrats must get 60 votes. if they do, formal debate could begin after the thanksgiving break. watch live senate coverage today on c-span2. watch what your senators are saying on c-span.org.
you can search by name, and can find ads, hearings, and conferences. it is online at c-span.org. >> federal reserve chairman ben bernanke recently predicted moderate economic growth and lower inflation rates for the u.s. next year. he spoke at the economic club at new york. it is 50 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. but i could have your attention, welcome. it is my pleasure to welcome you
to the 406 meeting of the economic group of new york. i am the chairman. the club is one of the nation's leading non-partisan forms about economics and about business. more than a thousand speakers have appeared before the club in years past, and they're listed in your bulletin. i also wanted to recognize collectively the members of our centennial society. several members got together to make financial contributions to secure the club's future. so far, there are 127 members that of many contribution to be a member. their names are also in your program. we're pleased, delighted, and honored to welcome ben bernanke.
these are obviously very interesting times from economic perspective with questions about recovery, the federal reserve drawn into a number of political regulatory discussions. obviously, chairman bernanke stands at the center of this. he was sworn in february 1, 2006. prior to that time, he was previously a member of the board of governors. he had a very distinguished career as an economist at princeton university. t at princeton university. his clear thinking, his clear speaking, his research, his intellect, his experimentation me can definitely the man for times like these. mr. chairman, the floor is yours. [applause]
>> glenn, thank you very much. nice to be back here again. a few of my dearest friends here. [laughter] when i last spoke at the economic club of new york a little more than a year ago, the financial crisis had just taken a more virulent term. in my remarks that that time i describe the extraordinary actions that policy makers around the globe were taking to address the crisis. and i expressed optimism that we had the tools necessary to stabilize the system. today financial conditions are considerably better than they were then, but significant economic challenges remain. the flow of credit remains constrained, economic activity weakened, and unemployment much too high. future setbacks are possible. nevertheless, i think it is fair
to say that policy makers forceful actions last fall and others that follow were instrumental in bringing our financial system and economy back from the brink. the stabilization of the financial markets and gradual restoration of confidence of are in turn helping to provide the necessary foundation for economic recovery. we see early evidence of their recovery. real gdp in the united states rose an estimated 3.5% at an annual rate in the fourth quarter following four consecutive quarters of decline. most forecasters anticipate another moderate gain in the fourth quarter. had the economy falls in 2010 and beyond, it is less certain. on the one hand, those who see future weakness or even a relapse into the recession next year point out that some of the sources of the recent pickup
including a reduced pace of inventory liquidation and limited time policies such as the cash for clunkers program are likely to provide only temporary support to the economy. on the other hand, those who are more optimistic point to indications of more fundamental improvements including strengthening the consumer spending outside of autos, a nation recovery at home construction, continued stabilization and financial conditions and stronger growth abroad. my own view is the recent pickup reflects more than purely temporary factors and their continued growth next year is likely. however, some important headwinds such as constrained bank lending and weak job market likely will prevent the expansion from being as robust as we would hope. i will discuss each of these problem areas and a bit more detail and then and with further
comment on the outlook for the economy and policy. i began today by yielding to the unprecedented financial panic that last fall brought the number of financial institutions around the world to failure or the brink of failure. policy makers of the united states and abroad deployed a number of tools to stem the panic. the federal reserve sharply increased its provision of short-term liquidity to financial institutions. the u.s. treasury injected capital into banks. and the federal deposit insurance corporation guaranteed bank liabilities. the federal reserve at the treasury each took measures to stop the run on the money market mutual fund industry that began when a leading fund was unable to pay off its investors at par value. throughout the fall and early this year a range of additional initiatives required to stabilize major financial firms and markets both here and abroad.
the ultimate purpose for the financial stabilization force was to restore the normal flow of credit which had been severely disrupted. the federal reserve did its part by creating new lending programs to support the functioning of some key credit markets such as the market for commercial paper which is used to finance businesses day-to-day operations and the market for asset backed securities which helps sustain the full funding for all those loans, small business loans, student loans and many other forms of credit. and we continue to ensure that financial institutions have adequate access to liquidity. additionally, we supported private markets and help lower rates on mortgage loans to large-scale asset purchases including purchases of debt and mortgage-backed securities issued or backed by government sponsored enterprises. partly as a result of these and other policy actions many parts of the financial system have
improved substantially. in burbank and other short-term funding markets are functioning more normally. interest-rate spreads on mortgages, corporate bonds and other credit products have narrowed significantly. stock prices have rebounded, and some securitization markets have resumed operation. in particular, borrowers with access to public equity and bond markets, including most large firms, now generally are able to obtain credit without great difficulty. other borrowers, such as state and local governments, have experienced improvement in their credit access as well. however, access to access to credit remains strained on households and small businesses. bank lending has contracted sharply this year, and the federal reserve's senior loan officers opinion survey shows that banks continue to tighten the terms on which they extend credit for most types of loans.
although recently, the pace has slowed somewhat. partly as a result of these pressures, household debt has declined in recent quarters for the first time since 1951. for their part, many small businesses have seen their credit lines reduced or eliminated, or have been able to obtain credits on more restrictive terms. the fraction of small businesses reporting difficulty is near record high. and many of these businesses expect credit conditions to tighten further. to be sure, not all of the sharp reductions in bank lending reflects cutbacks in the availability of credit. the demand for credit has also fallen significantly. for example, households are spending less than they did last year in big-ticket goods, particularly with purchased a credit. businesses are reducing
investment outlays and have less to borrow. otential barbers are creditworthy, even if they are willing to take on more debt. also, write-downs of bad debt show up on bank balance sheets as reductions in credit outstanding. nevertheless, it appears that since the outbreak of the financial crisis, banks have tightened lending standards by more than would have been predicted by the decline in economic activity alone. several factors held explain the reluctance of banks to lend, despite general improvement in the financial conditions and increases in bank stock prices and earnings. first, bank funding markets were badly impaired for a time, and some banks have accordingly decided, or have been urged by regulators, to hold larger buffers of liquid assets than before. second, with loan loss is still high and difficult to predict
and the current environment, and with further uncertainty attending health regulatory capital standards may change, banks are being especially conservative in taking on more risk. third, many securitization markets remain impaired, reducing an important source of funding for bank loans. in addition, changes to accounting rules at the beginning of next year will require banks to make to become of a large volume of securitized assets back on to their balance sheets. unfortunately, reduced bank lending may well slow the recovery by dampening consumer spending, especially on durable goods, and by restricting the ability of some firms to finance their operations. the federal reserve has used its authority as a bank supervisor to help facilitate the flow of credit through the banking system. in november 2008, with the other banking agencies, we issued guidance to banks and bank examiners that emphasized the importance of continuing to meet the needs of creditworthy
borrowers, while maintaining appropriate prudence in lending decisions. this past spring, the federal reserve led the supervisory capital assessment program, or scap -- a coordinated comprehensive examination designed to ensure that 19 of the country's largest banking organizations would remain well-capitalized and able to lend to creditworthy borrowers even if economic conditions turned out to be worse than expected. the release of the assessment results in may increased investor confidence in the u.s. banking system. a week ago, the federal reserve announced that nine out of ten firms that were determined to have required additional capital were able to fully meet their required capital offers without any further capital from the u.s. treasury, and that aggregate year one common equity at the ten firms increased by more than 77 billion since the conclusion of the assessment.
the federal reserve will continue to work with banks to improve the access of creditworthy borrowers to the credit they need to get lending to creditworthy borrowers is good for the economy, but it may also benefit banks by maintaining their profitable relationships with customers. we continue to encourage banks to raise additional capital to support their lending. and we continue to facilitate securitization through our term asset backed securities loan facility, or talf, and support home lending through our purchases of mortgage backed securities. normalizing the flow of bank credit to good borrowers will continue to be a top priority for policy makers. weigel i'm on the topic of bank lending i would like to add a few words about commercial real estate. demand for commercial property has dropped as the economy has weakened fleeting significant declines in property values,
increased vacancy rates and falling rents. these poor fundamentals have caused a sharp deterioration in the quality of cre loans on banks' books and the loans that back commercial mortgage-backed securities, or cmbs. pressures may be particularly acute at smaller regional and community banks that entered the crisis with high concentrations of cre loans. in response, banks have been reducing their exposure to these loans quite rapidly in recent months. meanwhile, the markets for securitizations backed by these loans remained all but closed. with nearly $500 billion of cre loans scheduled to mature annually over the next few years, the performance of this sector depends critically on the ability of our workers to refinance many of these loans. especially if cmbs financing remains unavailable, banks will face the tough decision of whether to roll over maturing debt or to foreclose.
recognizing the importance of this sector for the economy recovery, the federal reserve has extended the talf programs for the existing cmbs through march 2010 and newly structure cmbs through june. moreover, the banking agencies recently encourage banks to work with their creditworthy borrowers to restructure its troubled cre loans in a prudent manner, and reminded examiners that, absent other at first factors, a loan should not be classified as impaired based solely on a decline in collateral value. in addition to constrained bank lending a second area of concern is the job market. since december, 2007, the u.s. economy has lost on met about 8 million private sector jobs and the unemployment rate has risen from less than 5% to more than 10%. both the decline in jobs and the increase in the ann plan a rate have been more severe than in
any other recession since world war ii. besides cutting jobs, many employers have reduced hours for the workers they have retained. for example, the number of part-time workers who report that they want a full-time job but cannot find one has more than doubled since the recession began, a much larger increase than in previous deep recessions. in addition, the average work week for production and non-supervisory workers has fallen to 33 hours, the lowest level in the post war period. these data suggest that the excess supply of labor is even greater than indicated by the unemployment rate alone. with the job market so weakened, businesses have been able to find or retain all the workers they need with minimal wage increases, or even with wage cuts. indeed, standard measures of wages show significant slowing in wage gains over the past year. together with the reduction in
hours worked, slower wage growth has led to stagnation in labor income. weak income growth, should it persist, will restrain household spending. the best thing we can say about the labor market right now is that it may be getting worse more slowly. declines in payroll employment over the past four months have averaged about to enter 20,000 per month compared with five and 60,000 per month over the first half of the year. the number of initial claims for unemployment insurance as well off its high of last spring, but claims still have not fallen to ranges consistent with rising and planet. also the economic panics widespread across industries and regions, different groups of workers have been affected differently. for example, the on and plena rate for men between the ages of 25 and 54 have risen from less than 4% in late 2007 to 10.3% in
october -- nearly double the rise in unemployment among adult women. this discrepancy likely reflects the high concentration of job losses in manufacturing, construction, and financial service industries, in which men who make up the majority of workers. from the perspective of america's economic future, the effect of the recession on young workers is particularly worrisome. the on in plan a rate among people between the ages of 16 to 24 has risen to 19%. and among african-american youth it is now about 40%. when a young people are shut out of the job market to the lose valuable opportunities to gain work experience and on-the-job training, potentially reducing their future wages and employment opportunities. given this weakness in the labour market, and natural question is whether we might be in for a so-called jobless recovery, in which output is growing but in plan that fails to increase.
productivity is defined as output per hour of work. thus, essentially by definition a jobless recovery, in which output is growing that hours of work are not, must be a period of productivity growth. in the jobless recovery that followed the 1990-91, and 2001 recessions, productivity growth was quite strong. it may seem paradoxical that productivity growth -- which in the longer term is the most important source of increases in real wages and living standards -- can have adverse consequences for employment in the short term. but when the demand for goods and services is growing slowly, that may be the cause. in fact, productivity growth has recently been quite high, even when the economy was contracting. output per hour in the nonfarm business sector is estimated to
have risen at about a 5.5% annual rate so far this year. well above longer-term averages. one reason for recent productivity gains likely was the reaction of employers to the freefall in the economy that began in the second half of 2008. normally, and players are slow to cut their work forces when the economy turns down. the process of finding, hiring, and training new workers is costly. thus, if employers expect the new downturn will be neither too severe nor link feet they retain more existing workers than the need in the short term, rather than laying them off and replacing them when the recovery begins. however, in the recent downturn, employers were exceptionally on certain about the future, some even fearing a second great depression. moreover, tight credit conditions left little margin for error. accordingly, to protect themselves against the worst possibilities, employers should workers much more sharply than
usual in recessions. thus, the productivity gains this year generally reflected pronounced declines in sleeper input rather than greater output. will the increases in productivity persists? it is likely that, in some cases, firms achieved their practice begins by asking their remaining workers to provide extra effort. the additional gains that can be achieved in this way are limited and probably temporary. although continuing uncertainty and financial constraints might make such firms hesitate to call your, if demand production and confidence picked up, they will find their labor forces stretched thin and will begin to add workers. however, other firms, facing difficult financial conditions and intense pressures to cut costs, seem to have found larger lasting, efficiency-enhancing changes that allowed them to reduce their work forces; and some less efficient firms, no
longer able to compete, closed their doors. again, improved efficiency converse great benefits in the longer term. however, to the extent that firms are able to find further cost-cutting measures as output expands, amy deily hiring. other factors will affect the near term employment growth as well. business confidence the dirt ability of the expansion, for example, will help determine in players' willingness to hire. the current prevalence of part-time work and short workweeks a slow job creation or early in the recovery period, as employers may prefer to convert workers from part-time to full-time status and to add overtime work before turning to new hires. in addition, difficulties obtaining credit could hinder the expansion of small and medium-sized businesses and prevent the formation of new businesses. because smaller businesses account for a significant portion of net employment gains during the recoveries, limited
credit could hinder job growth. overall, a number of factors suggest that employment gains may be modest during the early stages of the expansion. i return now to the outlook for the economy and policy. as i know it, i expect moderate economic growth to continue next year. final demand shows signs of strengthening, supported by the broad improveme additionally, the beneficial influence of the inventory cycle on production should continue for somewhat longer. housing faces important problems including continuing high foreclosure rates. residential investment should become a small positive for growth next year rather than a significant drag that has been the case the last several years.
prospects for nonresidential construction were poor given weak fundamentals and tight financing conditions. in the business sector, manufacturing activity should be helped by the continuous strength of the recovery and emerging market economists in asia. it enhances business confidence with firms with access to markets and should lead to a pickup in business spending on equipment and software that is already shown signs. i have already discussed to of the principal factors that may constrain the pace of the recovery like restrictive bank lending and a weak job market. . to expand and hire. i expect this situation to normalize gradually, as improving economic conditions strengthen bank balance sheets and reduce uncertainty; the fallout for banks from commercial real estate could slow that process, however.
jobs are likely to remain scarce for some time, keeping households cautious about spending. as the recovery becomes established, however, the rules should begin to grow again, at a pace that increases over time. nevertheless, as net gains of roughly 100,000 jobs per month roughly 100,000 jobs per month are entrants to the labour force, the on in plan a rate likely will decline only slowly if economic growth remains moderate, as i expect. the outlook for inflation is also subject to a number of cross currents. many factors affect inflation, including slack and resources utilization, inflation, expectations, exchange rates and the price of oil. and other commodities. although resource slack cannot be measured precisely it certainly is high, and it is showing through the underlying wage and price trends.
longer run inflation expectations are stable, having responded relatively little either to a downward or upward pressures on inflation; expectations can be allayed mornings a factor of inflation, however, it must be monitored carefully. commodities prices have risen lately, likely reflecting the pickup in global economic activity, especially in resource-intensive emerging market to the two economies, and the recent depreciation on the dollar. on the net, notwithstanding significant cross currents, inflation seems likely to remain subdued for some time. the foreign-exchange value of the dollar has moved over a wide range during the past year or so. when financial stresses were most pronounced, a flight to the deepest and most liquid capital markets resulted in the market should increase in the dollar. most recently, as financial markets functioning has improved and global economic activity has stabilized, the safe havens flows have abated, and the dollar has accordingly retracted
its gains. the federal reserve will continue to monitor these developments closely. we are attentive to the implications of changes in the value of the dollar and will continue to formulate policy to guard against risks in our dual mandate to foster both maximum employment and price stability. our commitment to our dawa objectives, together with the underlying strengths of the u.s. economy will help ensure that the dollar is strong and a source of global financial stability. the federal open market committee continues to anticipate that economic conditions, including low rates of resource utilization, subdued inflation trends, and stable inflation expectations, are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period. of course, significant changes in the economic conditions or the economic outlook would change the outlook for the policy as well. we have a wide range of tools
for removing monetary policy accommodation when the economic outlook requires us to do so, and we will colubrid the timing and pace of any future tightening to best foster maximum employment and price stability. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, for those remarks. as is the club's tradition, we have to questioners from the club. one will be henry kaufman, who is president of henry kaufman and company. and matt winkler, the editor-in-chief of bloomberg news. henry, the first question is yours for the chairman. >> thank you. mr. chairman, last year at this meeting i asked you roughly the following question colin quote what information would you like
to have it is not really available to the federal reserve? and you responded very candidly by saying that he would like to know what all that stuff is worth meaning of the toxic assets. now, the year has passed and i would like to put it into the current framework. what information would you now like to have then you do not yet have that would help you? >> well, i would still like to know what this stuff is worth. [laughter] we've made a lot of progress -- we've made a lot of progress in trying to ascertain the value of bank assets. of course we have an ongoing supervisory process. but as i mentioned i would like to stress this for a moment we had this remarkable exercise in the spring with the federal reserve, working together with the fdic and office of control of the currencies simultaneously analyzed the major port for widows of the 19 largest bank holding companies in the united states. together, account and about
two-thirds of the assets in the banking system. so in doing that, we were able to look across banks, across examiners and across asset classes, and we combine our official intensive examination procedures with offsite quantitative surveillance done by economists using a wide range of statistical methods. so it was a very complex exercise. i did we learn the enormous amount from the exercise not only about the value of the banking system, the assets held by banks, which by the way we announced our results as you know the confidence sector rose significantly. but we also learned a great deal about how to examine banks in a comprehensive way across the entire system. and i think, henry, i think going forward what we really need to know will be how to examine the system as a whole. i think one of the failures of regulatory oversight during the
crisis was our -- when i talk about regulators in general, how individual firms and how each individual firm is doing. one of the things we've learned and very challenging for us as we go forward will be that we need to look at the whole system. we need to see how the markets have interact with each other. we need to know how the businesses are cutting across different portfolios. we need to see the developments in the credit markets before they become problems and that this would be enormous challenge. we are already beginning that process and i look forward to continuing to learn to shore and more about our financial system as an organic whole route of an collection of on related financial institutions. >> mr. chairman, the governor of the bank of england gave a speech about banks being too vague. i wonder did you read the governor's speech, are you going to give a speech like the governor's speech or are you going to outdo him and lecturing
bankers? >> i don't try to copy because he is too clever. i thought that he had some very interesting ideas about the size of those issues. i would say one of the real important, perhaps most important issue the federal reform process has to address is too big to fail which is the topic of a speech. it was unacceptable that the government had to intervene to prevent the failure of major financial institutions with no choice in order to prevent the collapse of the u.s. economy. in the future it must be possible for banks and other financial institutions that come to the brink of failure and not pay their bills and debt. they must have the freedom to fail. and by doing that, we can create market discipline and the kind of information we need to present crisis like the one we
saw before. the question is how to create freedom to fail. i don't think making big smaller is going to do it because banks can still be systemically critical even if they are somewhat smaller. if they are incredibly interconnected with other banks. if they provide critical services in the financial industry or if risks of the various sorts grow across a range of banks. after all the 1930's we didn't have many large failures that we had a small bank failures. a2 address to big to fail the key element, the two key elements one would be to make sure those banks are very tightly supervised to make sure first of all they are safe and second of all that they don't have an artificial incentive to become large. but critically again i think we need to have an alternative to bailout. we have to have an alternative which is some kind of resolution or special bankruptcy regime which will allow the government to wind down safely failing firm in a way that will stabilize the
system that will allow creditors to take losses and predictable and understandable ways but will not lead to a crisis as we saw in september and october. so there are a lot of interesting ideas out there, reducing the size of banks, living wills, chairman volcker is here. he talked about constricting of proprietary trading. many things worth looking at or interesting but i think we will have a real market based financial system until it is safe to let a financial firm failed. >> henry? >> mr. chairman, if the american economy moves ahead along the moderate economic growth plan as you suggest, against the backdrop would you also -- craughwell the federal reserve respond to further financial speculative activities such as sharp increases in stock prices,
commodity prices and the trade would you respond through quantitative restrictive measures or through selective approach? >> you've just introduced the most difficult problem of monetary policy of the decade which is how to deal with the asset bubbles. you've had too big asset bubbles that both resulted in a severe downturn particularly the credit bubble. so clearly we need to begin to address those issues in a seriously. i would like to say we to carefully evaluate major class of financial assets. it is inherently extraordinarily difficult to know whether an asset is in price with its fundamental value or not. but we are trying and we are looking at various models of valuation for stocks and bonds and other kinds of assets. and for the u.s., again,
extraordinarily difficult to tell, but it's not obvious to me in any case that there is a large misalignment currently in the u.s. financial system and we will continue to observe that and i would note your view on that may depend very much on how you think the economy is going to evolves slicing is conditional on the moderate growth going forward. would week response? we use our interest rate tool to try to meet our dual mandate which is full employment and price stability if addressing major misalignments and financial markets through the use of interest-rate toll would further that goal and i think we would have to think about it very seriously. but as important as that is the problem still a arrives that identifying those misalignments are very difficult and knowing how much to move your interest rate and how to avoid bringing the rest of the economy down
remains very, very challenging problems for monetary policy makers. .. >> to try to restrain them and protect the system in case one of them exist. i think the best approach hear it all possible is to supervise regulatory methods to restrain undue risk taking and to make sure the system is resilient in case an asset price bubble bursts in the future. with respect to monetary policy, which can never say never. we have to keep an open mind. we need to evaluate all the
aspects of the economy as we go forward. >> mr. chairman, we have unemployment at 10.2%, and economists are daily parsing the difference between cyclical unemployment and structural unemployment. you addressed this to some extent in your top today. are you and your research staff now no longer looking forward to a normal job recovery? >> i did discuss that a bit in my remarks to you, as you pointed out. recently we have seen the interesting phenomenon that firms