but it is sensible that he would maintain as close relations a s as possible with afghanistan. if the country next to you is a problem, the country next to them is a friend. he is unlikely to be interested indian rolet of security in afghanistan. he has not, i think left us many clues and a lot will depend on what happens in afghanistan. accident i put on continuity in afghanistan will show up in other places as well, if modi is successful in forming a government. indian foreign policy tends not to turn on a dime. in the party manifesto, there was a delphic statement about the need to re-examine and nuclear policy s which is now centered on no first use. after a certain amount of press commentary, modi himself made a statement that i did not say we were going to can do no first use policy. i think you ve will see some policy changes to my that it will not be like flicking a switch. you are of the changes likely to see is in that direction the government liens -on some kind of
reports or goods. a lot of us have been to singapore and we see how these city states are also becoming magnets for a lot of the production, not necessarily the innovation work. and deborah mentioned the p3 s. my companies headquartered abroad are familiar with public-private partnerships. england went there about three decades ago. deborah mentioned brazil and chile. china. oh, china. i am also mentioning chile, who have built a really good private sector with public involvement. the u.s. is not set up as well to accept some of that investment. it is interesting. i am going to bring this up because i am an enormous nerd. you watch a company like elon musk s tesla. elon musk came out with the idea for the hyperloop, an entirely new type of transportation infrastructure that would lower the time between san francisco to l.a. to about 30 minutes. what was fascinating to me is how people said that will never work, you cannot do that in this country, we cannot build anyth
issues. we have callers during the first 45 minutes saying, why are they focusing on jobs and the economy. concern think that is a that some republicans have. as i said a minute ago, many the basics see political rationale for these hearings as seen as how they can make make life difficult for secretary clinton. there are other republicans who think this is over doing it and it is a basic argument within the house republican conference over how they should be positioning themselves for the fall. wee say emphatically all need to do is tear down the president and make life difficult for the president, say no to everything the president is for. and others are saying the voters don t want just to vote against people, they want to vote for people, and the republicans should be standing for something, should be promoting something, should be advocating things. john boehner, the speaker, does try when you see him go before the cameras which he does a couple of times a week g
those are important elements of what you bring to this. we have seen a lot of value. we have used at the department of homeland security some of we have used at the department of homeland security, both in my tenure and that of my successors, we have used your studies in the areas of demonstrating economic value of immigration reform and how it has a real impact in a positive way on our economy. i know here in california, the armor algorithms have been used for smart randomization of checkpoints. it is an efficient use of resources. in terms of the application of grant funding, we relied upon some of the work done it here in terms of maximizing the value of how grants artistry did so they how grants are distributed so whatare done based on manages risk and not what is politically expedient or looks good to the layperson or where it seems to satisfy some kind of intuition. we know that the efficient use of resources is in fact one of the pillars of homeland security secu
assertions that human activities climate change and you propose that the country weather the impacts such shifts could have on the quality of life? well, let me make the first point. headlines not with standing, of the climate is changing, because the climate is always changing and that s her yourable. the issue is not whether the climate is changing, as it always is changing. is whether there is legislative proposals before us that can do anything about it. what i disagree with is the pass capitalf we tray this will stop this from happening, when half the new emissions is coming from developing countries, and half of that coming from china that follow whatever laws we pass. i m all in favor of advances in cleanergy that makes us and more efficient. but in a way that through a cost benefit analysis is also good for our economy, and i don t think those two things are necessarily incompatible, but it must be part of that analysis.it i agree that we need to spend time and ener