>> you can read the report, but it really speaks to the quality of interaction between senior bp staff, senior halliburton staff, technical bp staff and technical halliburton staff. it doesn't matter if i put the right data in, there still would have been channeling. there still would have been the risk of influx. that's actually a very, very important insielgt. we heard -- insight. we heard from swb a experience and -- somebody with experience and knowledge in these situations. what he shared with us was never shared with the operator i'm afraid that you have stacked up a bunch of parameters whether it's the long string length, whether it's the pressure in the bottom hole pressure or the

small volume or pump rate, whatever it may be, what i heard him say is you stacked up a number of parameters that frankly won't matter. there is going to be channeling in the cement job. this is going to be a very difficult cement job to get right. now, the industry has tools to fix that, and they are got at fixing it, and while the primary jobs kg -- jobs are problematic, they can be done. >> as we heard yesterday, a man looked us in the eye and said we believed there would be challenging in our halliburton cement job and no hydrocarbon in the cement jobs. to me, i bet my bottom dollar at shell or exxon, and i'm not cussing your butts, but you would expect a corroboration

with the contractors and the people on the rig that if the cement guy absolutely believed that the hydrocarbon zone was not sealed off, and they were under balancing the well, you would expect the guy to raise a ruckus. you can dispute about how it was pointed out. you heard all the evidence, but to me you don't have the right team developed if somebody doesn't say, stop it now. he said, we knew there would not be isolation of hydrocarbons. we poured it and fine, talk about a failure of communication. timely last point -- >> and no expectation apparently that this was something to be shared. >> finally, it was muddled lines of authority within bp and between bp and its contractors, and richard, you know, we all

heard the arguments of who did what and when. >> there was a lot of that. here it was all very polite and heard it in our own interviews with company staff, and it was clearly confusing about where responsibilities lay, and what the expectations were for making decisions and sharing information and sharing the basis of those decisions. i -- fine, it's one thing to say, well, operator's responsible, but the operate is getting expert advice from a number of other people and sharing the advice and basis for that advice is rather important, and there were muddled lines of authority between bp and the contractors, and i think there's a comment from, again, bp's post-job report. >> megan, please.

>> maybe it was the previous slide. i'll read it. it was in the report. it stated -- oh, there we are. they were unaware to the extent if any halliburton supervisor provided technical support on the well site, and the investigative team was unaware of direct ingaugements between -- engagement between the well team in design of the macondo well job. in retrospect, here's a clear statement from bp saying it didn't work as well as it should have. >> thank you, richard, that finishes that segment. >> well, let me note -- >> i'm sorry. >> i want to finish with one less -- oh, really? [laughter]

>> i do want to make an important statement. i think it's important and it really builds on this list. this is a very -- to me, this is a significant list that says quite a lot, and what we've done over the last four months, we've learned about what happened, and in the chair's opening statements yesterday and closing statements yesterday, we made strong comments, and i'm going to echo some of that. i don't pretend to know how all of this can be made better. it is very complicated. it's a very exciting, complicated business, huge opportunity, and that opportunity carries risks. they need to be managed. i don't know how to do all of that well. there's a lot of people who need to be engaged in changing what needs to be changed. what i believe i've seen, and i believe our team has seen over the last four months is that leading up to april 20th, and

this is not an april 20th event, this is something that built over certainly hours, if not days, weeks, months, the company's involved each had data. they each had data. they were each responsible for operations. if data had been shared differently and if operations had been carried out differently, i believe this disaster could have been prevented. i think we have seen that, and for whatever reason, i don't know all the reasons. we don't know all the reasons, but for a number of reasons, stemming from the complexity of the well, the complexity of the environment, the complex nature of the operation, artesianing of data, responsibilities on the rig, for whatever reason, it didn't happen that way, and it's sad. >> if a commission will indulge

me for 5 minutes, i want to make one more effort to get the point across to the press to the point i made yesterday if i may. somebody -- some smart person told me when i was a young man never get in an argument with people who buy ink by the barrel, and that's you guys in the press, and now you buy 0s and ones for nothing. i'll try one more time. this is our preliminary inclusion number 13, okay. i said yesterday, at least eight times, we have seen no evidence of any decision in which a person or a group of people put safety on one side of the scale and money on the other side and consciously in their head chose money over safety. this is a relevantly modest observation. a bunch of the newspapers said bp didn't do anything for

money. i didn't ever say that, guys. i want to try one more time. we -- we are continuing to and have steadily investigated the extent to which there were a series of decisions at macondo that looking at them saved time or money and may have increased risk for safety. we've got a list of those. we've been working on them all along. the commission asked us to do it. it's in process now. i could show it if you wanted to, but that's not the point. inferences can be drawn from that information from the commission. if there is a long series of decisions, there were always made in a way that would save time, the commission like any court, can draw inferences from that. that issue is still open. now, we have asked bp, to, and

halliburton to provide us with examples of decisions they made that increase safety, decrease risk, but cost them more time and money. we have some information. we're waiting for more. we want to be sure we do a balanced job. we don't want to put up a long list when we haven't got all their information in ways they might have spent more money to increase safety. they've got until november 19 to give us what other additional examples they have. the, you know, the fact is that we have a list. the list shows that there are occasions where a decision was made that there was a choice of ways to make the decision, and the decision was made in a way that saved time. we know that under these circumstances, time can be money. my point is not that this issue

is resolved. all i said is that the men on the rig that night, these guys did not sit there and said, well, we made -- we blew up the rig, but we'll make the guys in lone dome some -- london some money. i'll talk to you until the cows come home. that's an important distinction we should get straight. the commission can put up the slide. you want to put it up there? >> i don't think so. >> okay, fine. never get in an argument with guys that buy ink by the barrel. i'm not trying to lecture, i'm just saying there is a distinction. please, you know, let's please get it straight this time. thank you. >> thank you, fred. thank you, richard. thank you for drawing it all together so great here at the end, and as i mentioned, we will look forward to having the

written summary and make reference to that if we don't actually include it verbatim in the report. i'll turn now to senator graham for closing comments. >> thank you, bill, and i wish to extend my thanks and on behalf of all the commissioners to all those who participated over the last couple of days and to those of you who have had the tenacity to stick it out and absorb this information. i think what we have learned among other things is that learning by going to actual experiences and drawing judgments from those actual experiences can be very valuable. the challenge that we have now as a commission is to take these conclusions drawn from actual experience and convert them into policy recommendations. among other things, that's going

to include decisions as to at which component of the multiple entities that are a part of this. individuals, individual corporations, come glom rats of entities performing at the same site, the industry at large, and then the relationship between the industry and the government to which one of those to we assign these various judgments that have been made of the seven judgments that we just heard. i've assigned one two individual behavior, two to individual corporate behavior, and four of them to this interplay between multiple entities at the same physical site. i believe that, the fact that so many of them came up under that

one category reenforces what we heard earlier from mr. odum that this issue of how to achieve safety when you have entities that around under the same leadership may not have the same culture of safety, may have different objectives that they are seeking to accomplish is going to be a critical area for our final report because it is the way in which this business operates. if this business operated as a vertically integrated one, it'd be a much simpler process than the reality of what we do face, but i think it's been a valuable couple of days. i thank fred and his team for the outstanding job that they have done in surfacing this information. again, mr. sears for his many

ways in which he was been an invaluable contributor to our effort. we are soon going to hear from some members of the public, and i'm looking forward to what they drew from the exposure to this discussion that we've had yesterday and today. thank you very much. >> thank you, bob. >> i would simply say that i echo the expressions of thanks to fred and sam and sean and richard. the fundamental obligation and expectation of this commission was to determine what happened, what the proximate cause was on the rig on april 20th, and i think we have made a great deal, a great contribution to the public's understanding of that event. more than any place else i have

seen the loose ends, the indeterminant kinds of effects and decisions and the specific mistakes that were made and pretty much who made them i think is a lot clearer, a lot more comprehensive and compelling now than it was 24 hours ago. i think the question that i had mentioned this morning of whether or not this was a unique event or suggested a systemic problem to me now is more, especially given the role of the three respected companies very active throughout the gulf, in thizations that we know -- in the decisions that we now know were so wrong suggests to me it's a much more systemic problem than i had believed, and

that being the case requires a systemic solution, and that's why i press so hard on the need for some kind of industry entity which can raise the game particularly of those companies who are not exemplars, who don't have the safety culture we heard described by mr. tillerson and mr. sears. i hope that will, the expressions we've heard about the intention to have third-party audits and take some of the lessons from responsible care and some other industry initiatives including from the nuclear industry, i hope that will result in the kind of strong and independent organization that actually seriously polices activities, and does in fact, define best

practice, and call people out when they don't exemplify it. the government challenge, i think, is really serious. i look at the present climate with respect to the availability to likelihood of public resources, and i really wonder how the director will fulfill his expectations which i totally agree we must help him do. it would be very helpful if the industry itself corporated in that enterprise, and maybe they will. i think it is actually true biased on my own -- based on my own experience that companies require regulators, and mr. odum hopes those resources required to raise the game of the engineers and inspectors are provided. he said they should probably

come from police revenues or tariffs i suppose. i think we can make a case from that. it did seem ire irrational that a program that produced $18 billion last year has to raise money for environmental studies and the like. finally, i guess i would just say that i think that transforming a culture does require leadership and long and consistent priority, but there is nothing like a crisis to focus the mind and to compel reform. some of the best success is achieved in american industry have occurred after they have gone face to face with possible bankruptcy or with a major recall or an accident, so one has to hope that that will be the experience drawn from this

tragedy, this encounter, and that the company's that are exemplar of a safety culture can help reform those which are not and provide an example to suggest that there's really hope here. this is a hugely successful industry, absolutely vital to the economy and to the success of the united states, and safety has been shown to be possible in even the largest and most successful companies, and we have to hope that that lesson is compelling to the rest, and we'll certainly do our part to recommend how that might be done. thank you all for spending these two days with us. we come back on the second and third of december in a deliberating session, and somebody is pointing at something.

what am i -- i'm aware. we're going to take 5 minutes now and then come back. i would ask mr. clemons, mr. hendricks to be prepared to come up. sit up on that over there and we look forward to your comments. first we'll take a 5 minute break. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] a public comment period is scheduled next. we'll have that live for you here on c-span2. here is how the associated press is writing today. bp too often operated on the fly in the closing days of work on the gulf oil well adding needless risk of a blowout. if you missed any of today's meeting on the spill in gulf of mexico, watch it on our companion network on c-span or

any time at c-span.org. some of what we heard this afternoon from the director of ocean energy management. >> first of all, thank you for inviting me. again, co-chairs reilly and graham, and other distinguished commissioners. as you know this is my third appearance before the commission. i'm delighted to be able to take this opportunity to continue our discussion both about the changes we've already made and our future plans for drilling on the nation's outer continental shelf. this commission and my agency of enforcement share the same goal, to reform the way offshore drilling is conducted and regulated in u.s. waters. as you know in late june, the president and secretary asked me

to become the chief's regulator of offshore development, and their directions were both sweeping and clear, to review the agency from the top to the bottom, and make the changes necessary to give the american people confidence that drilling in our oceans will be conducted in a safe and environmental responsible way. since then, as you know, we've aggressively pursued reform agenda designed to raise the standard of safety. these reforms are ongoing and will continue for some time and they are familiar to the commission, but i'll walk through them quickly. first relaunched a reorganization of the former mms. second, we formed an investigations and review unit stepping up our internal investigations as well as our external investigations and enforcement efforts. third, we have notices

clarifying we what expect from companies related to worse case discharges and certifications of compliance, the most recent of which was distributed yesterday. we have a policy to deal with conflicts of interest. we've begun a full review of category exclusions that no longer will be used to approve deepwater drilling projects. we issued guidance requiring companies to set permanent plugs on 3,000 wells and dismantling approximately 650. we have an interim final rule which you know enhances rules related to casing, cementing, b.o.p. certifications, and other matters. we've developed a rule with gas operators to have their own safety and environmental programs, the stems rule, and we have new environmental analysis both in the gulf of mexico and

in the arctic. now, we've pursued these changes while managing hundreds of loyal and committed public servants, many with the agency for 20 years or more through the crisis none had experienced before, and it's fair to say they have been profoundly shaken by the unrelenting and unfair criticism thaif received. -- they have received. those challenges can't be minimized because they are substantial, and they are difficult. let me summarize briefly some of the most significant challenges that i see for the development and regulation -- >> we're leaving this from earlier today to go back live to the commission looking into the oil spill with a public comment session right now. >> there's job loss effect as well. many small businesses are affected and thousands of jobs have been lost across all of the

gulf states. we sold our successful rental business and refinanced our home to open this business. this business is our future. our business income has decreased 54% because of the moratorium. more rigs have left the gulf that means more job loss and more percentage of our business being decreased. you know, opening a business for us was a very calculated risk, and we took very calculated decisions in opening our business. you know, you calculate your competition, the industry being slow, your cost, there's so many things to factor that you have to calculate. the one thing that we did not calculate was a federal government shutting down the entire industry and effectively

shutting down our business as something that i don't know if any business owner can calculate . it is my understanding that as this 50,000 oil wells in the gulf that have been drilled safely. oil rigs have been drilling for decades, and historically is one the safest industries america has produced. what the committee decide will set the tone for the future disasters and how they are handled in the future. we had a couple employees that were laid off. we -- currently we just brought them back at a redued wage -- reduced wage, and that's temp prayer, and -- temporarily, and by january if things don't change, they will

be laid off again. our visionary goals we have for the future has been just shattered, so we have no short term goals, no long term goals until this matter is resolved. you know, to make it worse was a moratorium and not issues permits is our main concern. the three points i'd like the commission to see to take back with you is our hope is you find the facts of the matter of this entire incident is isolated, and it's not a whole industry. believe that the industry is safe and will be safer from this incident. i would ask of issuing drilling permits because my job matters. thank you. >> thank you, sir. thank you for coming from louisiana to make that statement.

mr. hendricks. >> yeah, well, unfortunately he made a lot of my points in his remarks just recently. i won't go over the details, but basically, i was going to say that the last few days have dramatized the complexities that led to that event, and the questions in my mind when i looked at it is why didn't people connect the dots? we had the great resources, professional experience, technical skilled backed up by departments, labs, computer models, and knowledgeable systems, and yet they didn't get motivated toot the analysis -- to do the analysis that could have unmasked this risk and prevented this accident. in looking at that question, i tried to approach it from a

couple view points. one is a historical viewpoint looking at other risk evented that happened. we looked at tmi, the three mile incident, the piper alpha incident, and some other energy incidents, but probably the most interesting one from the point of view with this incident might be the loss of the two space shuttles. interestingly enough, it was mentioned as an example that they looked at. if you look at the two space shuttle accidents, perhaps sally ride put it best. she was the first woman astronaut for the u.s. that was a member of the accident investigation board for the columbia disaster. she said it was echoes of the challenger, sam problems they -- same problems they identified in the challenger that crept back

in and caused the accident again. they were things like differences between the government officials and the nasa facilities and the contractors, and essentially a lack of communication and the engineers were unable to make their appointments clearly enough to get investigations done. i think another thing helpful here is information in economics. one of the things that you can glean if you look at the recent work that's been going on in economics in the last 20 years or so, a lot of it revolves around informs and one the factors to suffer for it is moral hazard when this private information people have, and you want it to be shared and factored into a decision, and

incentives aren't in place to make that happen, it doesn't happen. you get suboptimal results. i think that's one thing that may be going on in this case, and one factor that may be contributing to it and making it worse is some of the contracting. as i understand it the contracts between some of the major service contractors and bp in this case provided full identification to the contractors even if their work was in error and caused damages. i think you might want to think about trying to put some limitations on that sort of contracting because it takes a way a lot of the up senttive -- incentives you want contractors to have. thank you. >> thank you for coming from care for that presentation. >> i'm speaking on behalf of the largest organization focused on ocean conservation, and thank you for the opportunity to speak

again this afternoon. based on the information in the last two days, i want to make the following points that demonstrates this drilling is dangerous to the environment and human life. when testing is successful, there's a huge amount of uncertainty on whether the well is safe. words like imperfect, course estimate, limitations, anything but clear, and subjective were used to describe the test of the integrity of offshore oil and gas wells including the evaluation of the cement. if the best estimate we have to prevent blowouts is described in such terms, it's clear we can't trust this industry. while the commission staff drawn the conclusion there was no conscious decision to sacrifice safety concerns to save money, this statement is in direct contrast with the evidence prevented. choosing profits over safety is

not discussed, but it clearly happened systematically leading up to the disaster. training costs were not sufficient and that could have prevented crews from interpreting tests. there was not contingency plans for signs what to do when mud was coming on the deck. the list goes on, and've are examples how exeaps short change safety in ways that cut cost. in the case of the deepwater horizon, the standard test succeeded in alerting the operators there was serious problems at the well, but there was no one on the rig capable of interpreting the alarming data. transocean didn't spend the necessary money to train their crew on interpreting these critical tests. we heard bp ignored the results of the cement tests, ignored the results of the pressure test, and made a series of bad decisions throughout the abandonment process. whether this is a case of greed

or negligence is irrelevant, but this is a dirty business one not made safe by a new set of standards. these cannot be identified until it is too late and it's impossible to safeguard or legislate against that which we don't understand. the laundry list of hazards over the first few days were not be here if not for the disaster. the commission should make recommendations on ways to better regulate existing projects, but it recommends a ban on new drilling. it is the only way to prevent this disaster from happening again. thank you. >> thank you. gulf restoration network from new orleans. >> thank you. i'm with the gulf restoration

network or grn. it's a 15-year-old environmental organization focused on the health of the gulf of mexico. our mission is to unite and empower people to protect and restore the gulf for future generations. i'll make brief remarks and ask to summit a 6 page written testimony into the record. >> please do. >> thank you. thank you to your staff who is clearly dedicated to this work. for our entire history, we expressed concern for spills and blowouts, concerns refuted by the government and the industry. they were wrong. there two causes in the bp deepwater horizon disaster. they lacked vigilance, and it is clear there is a willingness to cut corners and reduce cost, and the federal agency in charged failed to exercise needed oversight and enforcement of existing laws and regulations. in terms of response, once the

bp horizon disaster began, it was painfully orp that bp nor the oceans were prepared for a blowout of this magnitude. while a lot was undoubtedly learned during the spill, our concern remains that the industry will continue to push the margins, and the government continues to lag in oversight and regulation. a mechanism is needed to ensure that the government and industry remains vigilant of the the risks soarnghted with oil and -- associated with gas and oil development and are fully prepared to respond to a worst case scenario. after the exxon-valdez spill, counsels were informed for the prince william sound. these increased both trust and communication among citizens, the oil industry, and the government, and have resulted in improved environmental safeguards and substantially safer and more reliable performances of operations.

gulf communities face significant continued risks from oil and gas operations. a gulf regional citizen counsel provides citizens the ability to monitor and to call into questions potentially problematic decisions and aproamps. a -- approaches. a gulf with an annual budget equivalent to a few days expenses on a single drilling rig provides a proven pathway to improve spill prevention and response and alaw groups disproportion impacted and have say in its conduct. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. from environment america from washington. >> thank you for bearing through a very long day. i'll make my remarks brief. i will say at the outset i was very impressed with the work this commission has done and the investigative staff. you have gotten to the bottom of

the issues without legal power to do so and you communicated them clearly to the lay people among us. i'm here to talk about the future of offshore drilling, but not the future you all worked so hard and your staff worked so hard to improve because i believe the legitimate future for offshore drills is less and less and fewer and fewer places, not in more and more in additional places. why do i say this? i have four reasons for saying this. first, in economic terms, our oceans and dollars and cents are worth for in fishing and tourism than they are in the oil and gas that lie beneath them. when i studied the issue using only jobs and dollars of business and coastal counties and only in tourism and fishing and using government data, what i discovered is that outside of the gulf of mexico, tourism and

fishing account for a $200 billion per year industry. the oil and gas that lie offshore those areas might be worth $50 billion or $55 billion a year, a four to one ratio. in dollars and cents terms the sustainable and renewable activities that we do today are worth more than exploration for oil and gas offshore. 4.1 million people work in those jobs every day in nose coastal counties alone. second reason. there is a huge potential for renewable energy development in the oceans. one that we have not explored, but the europeans have. a recent study show that there about 1,000 gig watts of offshore wind available just in shallow water, less than 100 feet deep off of our coasts. you can see there's a huge

potential for electricity generation close to our shores and in the ocean, and it's renewable. for example, just to give you an idea of the vast scale, if you just look at the atlantaic coast, there's more offshore electricity than all the oil and gas used to power our cars. you can power twice as many cars with electricity from the atlantic than the oil and gas offshore. there's so little and gas off the lower 48 states. the government estimates there's 1 to 13 million -- 12 to 13 million barrels of oil. that's eight or nine months worth of our consumption. the risks are great. the benefits -- it's hard to imagine improving the safety by more than a couple

factors, certainly not by an order of magnitude and i make a recommendation to the committee, and i know it's not in your brief from the president, but recommend that offshore drilling should not be spread to coasts where it's not currently occurring. thank you. >> thank you, and thanks to you we'll accept whatever papers and materials you have and want to leave with us, we'll make sure our staff gets them. with that, i think we're prepared to conclude. thank you all very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the presidential oil spill commission finishing two days of hearings. all of today's proceedings are on our companion network, c-span

starting just after 6 p.m. eastern or watch it any time on c-span.org.

>> on this morning's washington journal, we talked about the long term effects of the republican gains on election night. this is about 40 minutes. >> host: joining us at the table a fred barnes talking about what's next for republicans. you wrote a piece called democrats can't blame the economy making the argument this is a realignment for republicans, and this will have a long-term impact down the road. why do you believe that? >> guest: well, i'm not sure how long the impact will be, but it's certainly a reversal of the last two elections in a stark

way. you can argue the people have shifted the most are independent voters who are quite fickle and voted democratic in 2006 and 2008, but republicans now, i mean, they have one benefit, in line with what the public wants. the public want the smaller government and the majority rebelled against the spending policies of the obama administration, and the publicments smaller government, and less spending and reduce the deficit, they want to bring down the national debt, and republicans are in line with that. they've got -- my one concern about republicans is whether they can sustain this or not. you know, if you remember back in the 1990s, i remember it anyway, after the big republican land slide of 1994, republicans were very good on spending the first couping years and then petered out in the late 90s and into the 21st century and by 2006 and 2008, they were accused of spending way too much, so

we'll see. >> host: your piece got reaction online when you wrote this on november 2, and media matters said they ignored polling really well saying this was about the economy and the number one issue from exit polls is people said the economy by far was the top issue on their mind, and that that is what impacted independents to swing and others to swing towards republicans. they also said according to the recent kyeser health tracking form, the health care reform is not drawing voters into the upcoming elections either and it wasn't the health care reform bill as you argued in your piece. >> guest: yeah, i think every other poll on health care showed it was an issue. it anger the independents, and it was one of the reasons, and that and spending. look when independents moved away from democrats, it was in april of 2009, not this year, not in the runup to the election on november 2, it was a long

time ago when it was spending, and the health care bill, and in other words first it was spenting in the spring and then summer. that's when independents abandoned democrats and moved to the republican side, and it manifested in the virginia and new jersey governor's races, in the election of scott brown in january of this year, and then it stayed that way all the way through the election last week. >> host: according to exit polls, independents and republicans said, okay, republicans, we're going to give you another chance, but if you mess this up again as you eluded to, we're going to vote you out again. do you think -- are you concerned at all there's not a change in faith? there's not a change in leadership when you have somebody like john boehner who is a presumptive speaker of the house and was in power in the early 1990s as well. >> guest: i think john boehner learned a lesson from the newt gingrich era and tom delay era

he has to do something about spending and about the way of the house of representatives operates, and it's -- republicans are getting a second chance, and there won't be a third chance. they have to do it now, and there's a lot of conservatives in the party to satisfy and the tea party people who decided to throw in with republicans for now. if you remember last year, greta, there was speculation the tea party people might form their on party, and that would have drawn votes away from republicans, but now they're in with republicans, and they're going to have to be at least satisfied. i think john boehner understands this and erikic can tore does and mccarthy does. it's paul ryan who has to understand best. >> host: on this issue of spending and the tackling the

deficit, the president's deficit commission comes out with their report in december. should republicans, like paul ryan, compromise on tackling this deficit, and look amount the idea of increasing taxes and combine with cutting spending in order to get at the deficit problem? >> guest: well, i don't know what paul ryan will do or paul coburn, but i think it depends on the ratio. spending cuts to tax increases. if it's one to ones republicans vote against it. if it's three to one spending cuts to tax increases, they might go for it, but this is just a recommendation. remember, greta, this is a recommendation of the commission . it's not something congress will adopt. >> host: first call, mary from georgia on the republican line. go ahead.

>> caller: yeah, lithium springs. >> host: okay, sorry about that. >> caller: i'm a republican. >> host: ye, we hear you, but turn the television down and we'll come back to you. turn that tv down. from florida, go ahead. >> caller: yes, good morning, and by the way, we followed you through the year, and you're up on it. i only wanted to mainly point out that and i think you may concur that i think the party of no aligned themselves. you have the various aspects and components of the republican parties, the new york cons, the conservatives in general, then you have the religious rights who basically infiltrated by way of the dixi ecrats.

be they get anything -- do you think they will get anything done and why the democrats were not strong enough to stay consistent and give the chance that was needed because there was good legislation going down and the president did give tax relief and breaks, but i think their articulation. i need you to kind of like concur on some and point out what you think down the road will happen. >> guest: okay. they don't call them independent for nothing. they are fickle. they voted in a sizable ma majority for democrats in 2006 and 2008 including for president obama, but a ma gorpty -- a majority of independents and there's a huge issue for them.

it's spending and the deficit and the national debt and the size of government, and when it comes to that when there was such a surge in spending and the national debt and the deficit and so on, that's when they turned away from president obama. now, they might like him on other things, although they department on the health care bill, but there was so much of what they didn't like early on, you know, they didn't like the stimulus. they didn't care for the health care bill. they might have liked oash things about president obama, but not those, and those were the big issues, and so they turned away, but the fact is they're expecting a lot out of republicans. look, if they could switch so dramatically between 2008 and 2010, they could switch back in 2010 and 2012 and vote for president obama assuming that the economy gets better and

pursues different policies in the next few years and assuming he runs for reelection. i assume he is, but i'll wait for him to decide that. >> host: what's first on republicans agenda to prove that they can govern? >> look. there's a couple things they have to do. there's two issues important to them, and one is spending cuts, and the size of government and the deficit and debt. that's one. the other is health care. look, there's two specific pledges in their pledge to america, and one, of course; is we're going to cut $100 billion out of the budget in the first year, and the second is there's a vote to repeal president obama's health care bill, so they have to do that. look, there's no expectation that they're going to, that congress is going to repeal the health care bill. i think there's probably not much chance to get through the senate, and if it did, it would

get vetoed by president obama, but when they drop the budget i think they'll get support particularly in the senate of senators up in 2012, and they can send that to the president. >> host: robinson is critical of the spending cut plan and writes that john boehner and mism mcconnell set their sights too low and talk about slashing the deficit, but they have no plan to accomplish the goals, none they are ready to lay out in specific details at least. >> guest: we'll find out next year when they take over in january in the house and they'll have more senators, 47 now. i think we'll find out and gene robinson is a ibility impatient too. i'm impatient too. this is why paul ryan is an important guy who understands

the budget i think better than anybody in washington, and he's going to drop the -- draft the budget is one of the house republicans will have to agree to. he won't have a road budget, that won't get anywhere. >> host: back to mary in georgia. >> caller: yes, ma'am, thank you, and thank you for having your session. okay, number one, what's next for the democrats, fickle indpementds, gop realignments, religious rights, those are not the issues. the issues is we have too many issues. a major one is not a major american influence in the spending, finance, ect. in this country, and sending $10 million a day to pakistan to harbor terrorists, health care, and tax

cuts are not going to solve the issues that we're voting for or against. >> host: all right. fred. >> guest: i'm not sure what the question was there. >> host: respond to her commentary i guess. >> guest: i will. particularly to pakistan and that's a fair point. sending money to pakistan, a country that's almost out of control and has a huge islamic radical element there, it's a tradeoff, and the tradeoff is that we're going to support the government there. we're hoping to get their help against al-qaeda and the taliban and we have to some extent, and that you weighs -- outweighs what might happen if we pull out and then terrorist groups might take over the country, a country like pakistan with nuclear weapons, and we don't want that to happen. you can raise questions about

this policy towards pakistan, but it's one that i think has bipartisan support, and obviously it was one the bush administration, and now the obama administration because they think that for all the problems of supporting pakistan it would be worse if we didn't. i think it's as simple as that. >> host: fred barnes is the executive editor of weekly standard. did you see the matt laher interview >> guest: i didn't, but i didn't think there's surprises there. i covered president bush closely and presidential memoirs, and since i haven't read the book, but they're usually not the best place to look for the best assessment of how a president did, but i'll have to wait and read this one, and i like the way he did it rather than just a narrative that other presidents have done, but picked out

decision points, and i think one is more important than all the others, and that is the decision in favor of the surge in iraq, a decision made in early 2007 which changed the course of the war in iraq which, and he'll probably be remembered for what happened in iraq and afghanistan, success or failure, and iraq looks like success with great difficulty, that's what he's going to be judged by. .. asked about that issue and the mission impossible banner. i want to show the -- sorry -- "mission accomplished" banner. >> it sent a very strong banner. >> no question it's a mistake. >> your words were used against you over and over again. >> that happens when you're president. and if i had to do it over

again, which you don't get to do when you're president, you know, get going, men and women. great mission. or something. i don't know what it is but -- host: fred barnes, what do you think about his thoughts looking back on that banner and having that up? guest: i think he was very wise to say it was a mistake. it was used against him. it was probably a mistake for him to fly in the way he did on a jet plane as i did, on that aircraft carrier, as i recall. and it was, as we know, then, of course, one reason it was a mistake is the mission hadn't been accomplished by then. so, look, i think political leaders from the president on down don't realize how much it's appreciated by people when they admit mistakes and they rarely do but when they do -- of course, president bush is no longer president, and i do have to say that people at the white

house defended that sign there and that whole episode right through the end of president bush's administration. but it's nice to hear him say it was a mistake because it so manifestly was. host: he talks about waterboarding and that comes out before the interview. what do you make of him? guest: of course, the treatment of al qaeda prisoners have become a huge issue. i happen to think waterboarding is wrong thing. lives were saved. i think it's defensible. i'm glad to hear that the decision was made by the president himself.

host: and matt lauer asked about the legality. >> the lawyers said it was legal. it doesn't -- it's not in the anti--- you have to trust the people around you and i do. host: back to the phone calls and we ask about what's next with the republican geopolitical realignment. steven on the independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning, fred. guest: hi. caller: i'm one of those independents that got swayed right and i voted for obama. i had the pleasure of talking to david stockman and i agree with him that i don't want to paraphrase his words but tax cuts is just another keynesian economic move to forgo. i can understand why they would do another tax cut to put it on

the credit card but as far as spending money. we spent $14 billion to protect our troops from i.e.d.'s and german shepards won in the end. i want to put a plug in for ted kennedy jr. versus joe lieberman. i think that would be a good race for our state. and i'm very -- i'm -- i'm very concerned that the g.o.p.'s take my votes seriously. i know they got deconstructed by the tea party movement, but it's all about the economy with my vote. i'm extremely worried about the -- even paul crodman's projections for 2025 are very concerning to me. i want to talk about the g.o.p. alignment and where they should go from here. guest: well, in the first place, if you agree with david stockman you're probably not

going to agree with what they want to do and that is maintain the bush tax cuts and not let them expire at the end of this year and that means all the tax cuts from the wealthy all the way down to those who pay practically pay no tax. i heard david stockman, former budget director under president reagan, at least in reagan's first term, the things that those tax cuts have to be allowed to lapse. republicans don't agree with that. i don't agree with it either. i think it would be harmful to the economy and ultimately to the generation of revenues if you did raise taxes on everyone or even the top brackets. it would be economically counterproductive and i think it would be a mistake to do that. the first thing we have to do in america is get the economy moving again and that means, look, the recession ended in june of 2009 officially but the economy's dragged along since

then. we know the job creation has been -- has been very meager. it's not even up to the level that we'll cover the people just entering the economy. look, if you're going to raise taxes, if that happens if you let the bush tax cuts expire, then that's not going to help boost the economy at all and certainly not going to help on job creation. and that's what's important. host: new poll out today, front page of "usa today," i want to get your read on this. split on how to govern. they found that 49% choose congressional republicans. 41% obama but also about how they should govern. republicans are more than twice as likely as democrats to say it's more important for political leaders to stick their beliefs even if little gets done. how do you read that? guest: well, if they stick to their beliefs, if republicans do, then a lot will get done, or at least they'll try to get it done if they stick to their beliefs, they'll cut spending, they'll reduce the size of government, they'll get the bush tax cuts fully to be continued for two or three or four years.

whatever they can find an agreement with with the president. and democrats. so a lot will happen. if you -- for instance, if they have to agree with democrats and president obama then they could get a lot done but they wouldn't be sticking to their principles. look, republicans ran on principles. if you see the 22-page pledge to america, i mentioned earlier, they have a couple of specific things. mainly it outlines their principles and their principles are to have lower taxes and less spending and a smaller government. if they're doing the opposite they're going to get in real trouble. host: those independents that you talk about will swing back towards democrats because they will not like republicans are sticking so much to their beliefs. the polls say 49% say it's more important to get things done. guest: i'm not sure what they mean by that. independents swung to republicans because of the issue of spending and the issue of health care. are republican going to be

successful on repealing the health care bill? no. but they can be successful in getting a lot of spending cuts through, i think. host: connecticut. democratic line. you're next. go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span and thank you for taking my call. i'm very concerned about all of the stuff the republicans are talking about, cutting spending, cutting back government. this is going directly contrary to what we're hearing from economists about the role of government in a recession. and i don't hear very many people talk about this directly. let's say the republicans' dream comes true, they cut way back on government spending, they cut way back on all this stuff and the country winds up in a depression, i haven't heard people talk about this possibility. and we go back to bush when he was bailing out -- when he was bailing out bear stearns, i guess it was, and i guess all this and boehner was pleading

with republicans back then to support those bailouts. host: fred barnes. guest: democrats, including then senator obama, voted for tarp and the big bailout as well. and a lot of candidates this year ran who had not been in congress back then ran against bailouts. i suspect a good number of them would have supported in the crisis back in the fall of 2008. but, look, economists are divided. you have some more liberal economists who want to spend more. they think that's the answer. spending more money by the federal government and that will get us out of the first recession and then a weak economy. now, it hasn't worked. that's for sure. i mean, the economy is just crawling along the bottom. what ronald reagan did, if you recall, was to cut taxes. cut taxes across the board, income taxes. it had a huge impact. this is what john f. kennedy

did. his tax cuts that were passed under lyndon johnson. that's what calvin coolidge did. it's what countries did all over the world. the record is, and a couple of harvard economists looked into this, about 30 examples around the world, what worked? was it the government spending more to boost the economy or did tax cuts work? and in almost every case tax cuts worked, not more spending. i think we need less government and tax cuts that will spur -- offer incentives and spur economic growth and job creation. that's what's worked in the past. host: republican line, fort smith, arkansas. good morning. caller: good morning. what is the chance of republican reforming the health care bill? the democrats should have stepped down the american people's throat that it's going to cost more than anticipated on. guest: well, that's certainly

true. but, look, republicans want to repeal it. they are going to have a vote on repealing it. a lot of difficulty getting that through the senate which after all voted for the health care bill before and democrats are still in charge in the senate and president obama. it's his health care bill. you know he said in his press conference last week that he -- maybe they could tweak it a little, but repeal it, that's not something he's being to go along with. if you talk to republicans they'll tell you one thing, they cannot really repeal and then replace the health care bill until they won control all of congress and, two, the white house in particular. they'll have to elect a president in 2012 and then there will be a chance of repealing it. i would say it's going to be an uphill fight. if they do have a republican president they'll be able to change it a good deal anyway. host: it sounds like a lot of action could be on the state level. "the washington post" reports this morning that new g.o.p. governors will steer this health care law saying that the states are given a lot of

leeway when it comes to administering many key provisions. guest: that's exactly right, gretta. what governors can do in about, oh, half a dozen or more republicans elected as governors said they'll slow it down, they were against it, they were not going to help speed it along. it's supposed to come online, the health care bill, in 2014. states need to set up the state exchanges through which health insurance will be sold. and they can -- and they can make it difficult for president obama and -- in doing the things to help implement that bill. you know, half a dozen of these governors have said they will do that. host: and also the federally funded expansion of medicaid. a lot of states will have control over that aspect of the bill as well. new orleans, henry on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just got a viewpoint take. i think the war on drugs have been lost. i think people who are on drugs

need to be helped and we can create more jobs for people here and take the people that are attacking these people and locking them in prisons, costing us so much money to keep people in jail. we have more people in jail more than anybody in the world. it's time to start locking up some of these politicians that are breaking the law left and right. host: fred barnes. guest: i'm all for locking up politicians that are breaking the law and we could probably use more of that. the war on drugs, you know, i think the only thing worse than this war on drugs is decriminalization or giving up on the war on drugs. i'm not willing to risk legalizing marijuana or even more hard drugs in this country because i think it would lead to a situation that would be worse, that would be much more widespread drug use. i can see that the war on drugs is not -- has not worked all

that well. and if you talk to people about mexico they say the demand for illegal drugs in the united states is what has fueled these huge criminal cartels in mexico that have reduced that country to in some parts the start of a civil war. again, like supporting pakistan. it's a tradeoff. and the tradeoff here in my view, anyway, and there are lots of people who disagree with me, including a good number of conservatives who think that the war on drugs is so -- has been so unsuccessful that in their view we need to get rid of it and try legalization. it would be better and particularly better for mexico as well. host: fred barnes is executive editor of "weekly standard." go to their website, weeklystandard.com, for more information. we'll go to dennis. caller: yes, mr. barnes, good morning to you. i watched you on various talk

shows throughout the last 30 years. guest: that makes both of us. caller: yeah. i as a democrat am not discouraged by what happened a week ago. in fact, i have an address inco@democratz.com. i am going to disrupt my friends of the democratic party. i have decided that any liberal who wants to get a $10 minimum wage or more start calling up when these corporations in ohio -- you know, that's where boehner has power -- and also call smuckers, the people that make peanut butter and jams and say to these two company c.e.o.'s, we're not going to buy your products until boehner

gets a $10 minimum wage passed. we're going to disrupt the marketplace. corporations have taken over the legislative process and citizens of a liberal persuasion, we're going to sock it to them by disappearing. host: ok. we'll leave it there. guest: i get the point. i think you're wrong on this one. i'm against any minimum wage because what it does is reduce jobs. particularly at the entry level. and companies, anytime you raise the wage, and particularly if you did it to $10, what would be the first thing they do? they'll reduce their number of employees. they'll hire fewer entry-level employees. and that's what happens. it particularly hurts minority youth who don't get hired. they'll have to say i'm against your plan trying to force smuckers and wendy's to raise their lowest wage to $10 an

employee and i think it would be -- basically i don't think that whole idea of a minimum wage, and yours in particular, is particularly counterproductive. host: john on the independent line. you're on the air. caller: hi, fred. guest: hi. caller: i have to say i'm a republican because i can't say i'm a democrat. i'm moderate. i'm almost like right down the middle. guest: ok. caller: i'm watching these things going on and, you know, it's hard to put it all in words in 20 seconds here but my thought is, you know, john boehner, he would be my last choice for this job. i like eric cantor. there's a bunch of them out like like michele bachmann. i wouldn't want her to be my senator but i think she's great. so, anyway. you know, on health care, i can't believe that, you know, they're trying to tell us that it's going to get cheaper and, of course, it's already going up and, of course -- if they

had just dealt with immigration they wouldn't be dealing with health care. i mean, that's the way i see it. that's a personal opinion, probably. don't you see it -- i watched it for years and i think you're great. guest: thank you. caller: tell me your real personal opinion on john boehner. guest: look, i think john boehner -- you hear things about john boehner. he's not well-known. i have been told, anyway, by a number of republicans who dealt with him over the years and, look, you're going to have trouble believing this, beneath his partisan republican is the heart of a real reformer. look, we're going to find out. the reason he's moving up to speaker, everybody moves up a notch. eric cantor moves from whip up to majority leader and congressman kevin mccarthy, who has been the deputy whip, will move up to whip. and michele bachmann, the

number four job -- host: isn't that how the establishment works? guest: ok, that's the way the establishment works. host: what about anti-establishment and especially the tea party folks that they wanted things to be mixed up a little bit, so should michele bachmann and rand paul get leadership position? guest: well, i don't know. republicans can't just rely in their leadership role and in their leadership councils people that have been there 10, 20 years. . 240 republicans, maybe 80 or more are going to be people who are freshmen. as most people, particular the tea party people have to be represented, whether it's michele bachmann and the number for job or somewhere else. i could say michele bachmann in particular, they need to bring her into the leadership one way

or another. i mean, she is a following around the country. she is someone who is very popular with the whole tea party movement and she's almost a part of it. i guess she is a part of it. though not necessarily michele bachmann, but those people need to be representative in the upper council of the republican party. >> host: >> caller: thank you so much questispan. mr. barnes, you were asked a question a couple of calls to go about economists saying how dutcher mantilla it would be for the united states to pull backs spending all of the sudden. and your answer was a typical political answer and liberal economists. but they did not have a gun in

this political fiasco. i would like to mention that the person appointed under a republican president, i believe, comptroller had said that cutting spending as well as raising taxes is the only way we will get out of the deficit that we are in and on the pathway to correcting our whole deabt. guest: you have characterized david walker's view. that is what he is for. in the short run, we could cut spending and we could cut taxes,

or at least not raise them. i do not think republicans are proposing new tax cuts in the near future. they do want to continue the bush tax cuts. if they are allowed to lapse, it would be harmful to the economy. as the president said last week when the new jobs numbers came out, we need private sector jobs. we need more. 155,000 or something like that is a big improvement, but it is not nearly enough. still not cover the new people, the younger people coming into the economy. we need investors and people who are going to create incentives to do that, to create more growth and more jobs. you are not going to do that if you have a big tax increase.

host: kentucky on the independent line. caller: there is a major difference between economics and mathematics. i do not know if people who call this program can discern that. you have so many variable theories floating around. mathematics is an absolute science. i know something about mathematics. i have taught it for 27 years. what they do is they form an artificial perimeter and the do all their equations inside the wall of the perimeter. it is an unclear picture. they take a series of variables and they make a series of projections. in mathematics, a projection is

a guess. it doesn't matter so much when you're dealing with low-budget items. when you're dealing with trillions of dollars, you can forget about scoring this bill. guest: it comes down to someone economic projections are mere guesswork. they are often wrong. projections on how much some bill will cost. somebody pointed out that when medicare first started, the projection was that by 1990, it would increase from $3 billion to $12 billion. it turned out to be &107 billion. -- $107 billion.

host: we are with fred barnes "weekly standard." caller: i am against tax cuts and i'm against corporate welfare. i don't think any of the tax cuts should be passed. i do not believe in trickle- down economics. i don't believe you can give it to the corporations and they will give it to us. there is money sitting on the sidelines. we are scared out here. the economy is bad. do not need spending. we don't the people who come on and talk real fast who contradict themselves. guest: are you referring to me? caller: yes, sir. we need people who will tell us

the truth. guest: i agree with that. most of the people i talked to favored spending cuts and tax cuts. they are in favor of smaller government. maybe i misunderstood you. you had a little bit of a different take. the economy is in trouble in lots of places, particularly california. next to nevada, california has the highest unemployment rate in the country. california did not used to be in this situation. people of california would set political trends for the country. now, the once it said have not been good ones, that is for sure. host: greg from florida. caller: good morning, mr. barnes.

increased reagan deficits massively? could you answer that first? guest: he did -- deficits did increase, but the economy increase. as the economy grew -- the economy grew incredibly. and then jobs group. the economy grew at a fast rate under president clinton, and we got to a balanced budget. we need to have that kind of experience again. bt did go down. there were a couple of years when there was a surplus. caller: you talk about the deficit -- or the economy growing with the deficit. that deficit never goes away. it becomes part of the national debt.

every republican has increased the national debt. republicans talk about the de bt and the rally around the cause. i am a youngster. guest: what you're making is a fair point. host: michigan, sharon, independent line. caller: i am a first-time caller. i have two questions. would the one -- you say that in order to grow the economy you have to grow the debt. i have heard nothing but the republicans talking about the debt left for our children. this has nothing to do with -- it has to do with home owners losing their homes.

i would like to know what you think of a proposal that would force mortgage companies to have a 50-50 mortgage plant where 50% of the mortgage payments went to principle and not all of the money to interest. 50% to interest, a 50% to the principle on people's homes so that they would be able to stay in their homes, gain more equity in their homes quicker, and pay them off quicker, thereby solidifying the home basis. guest: you can do that by having a shorter loan. my house in virginia, i had a 15-year loan. that means you pay off the principal much sooner than if the was a 30-year loan.

but did you want to require banks to do that? i am not sure. i don't think we want to tell banks to do that. it would make it harder for an awful lot of people to buy a home the people who would be buying them would be the upper crust who could afford the loaned where they are paying off the principal in the shorter period of time. it sounds nice, but i would not be for that. the housing industry would go nuts. host: lake mills, wisconsin. caller: hello. i keep hearing the democrats say we have to fund the tax cuts if we make them permanent for everyone. funded wheny be

production ramps up? guest: if the bush tax cuts are extended, nothing would change. all the tax rates would stay the same, rather than refer to what they were before they were passed in 2001 and 2003. the problem is not that they will not create any new incentives for people to invest and promote economic growth and job creation. the tax on dividends would go from t 15to 39.6%, and the tax on individual incomes would go up. that would be counterproductive in times of high unemployment. i think it would be a mistake. i am for reducing the capital gains tax are now, but the

republicans are not calling for that. they want to keep all the bush tax cuts. host: bob in the bronx, new york. caller: i have a question and a statement. where was the tea party won the bush administration was running up the debt like drunken sailors? please bring aunt sarah palin. she is the gift that keeps on giving for the democrats. guest: sarah palin has something that other politicians do not have. she is a star. she could be more of a conservative and a divisive force them democrats and some republicans like, but she is sort of a magnetic figure.

whatever she does, it is always going to be covered by the media. she holds no office right now. if you do not like her, she is still going to be around. the other question -- where were the tea party people earlier? it might have been nice to have them around earlier when the deficit was going up and so was the national debt. this huge surge in 2009 of increased spending and dead and the -- and the debt and that is what prompted them. they tend to be conservative people. when spending surged as much as it did and government grew, that is what prompted them. i wowould have liked to have

>> guest: i enjoyed it. >> national commission of the bp deepwater horizon oil spill continued its investigation today into the causes of the well explosion in the gulf of mexico gulf of mexico. witnesses include a peer of ocean energy management director, michael bromwich. a here's what he b had to say. agi >> first of all, thank you for inviting me. again, cochairs riley and grahal and other distinguishedd commissioners, as you know, this is my third appearance before the commission although this isi not a greater remove i can barely see you from here.ortunir discussions both about the changes that we've made in our future plans for drilling on the nation's shelf.

the regulation and enforcement share the same goal, which is to reform the way the offshore drilling is conducted and regulated in u.s. waters. as you know in late june the president and secretary salazar ask me to become the nation's director of offshore development. their direction was sweeping and clear, to review the agency from top to the bottom, and make the changes necessary to give the american people the confidence that drilling in our oceans will be conducted in a safe and environmentally responsible day. since then, as you know, we've aggressively pursued reform agenda to raise the safety and accountability for my agency. these reforms are ongoing and will continue for some time. they are, i think, in many respects, familiar to the commission. let me walk through them very quickly. first we've launched an aggressive reorganization of the former mms. second, we've formed an

investigations in review unit that steps up our internal investigations and external investigations in our efforts. third, clarifies what we expect to companies related to worst-case discharges, containment capabilities, and certifications of compliance, the most recent of which was issued yesterday. we have developed a policy to deal with real and apparent conflicts of interest. we've begun a full review which will no longer be used to approve deepwater drilling projects. we've issued for the first time, guidance for what's called idol iron. requiring companies to set permanent plugs on approximately 3,000 nonproducing wells and dismanned -- dismantling approximately 750. we have developed rules related to casing, cementing, b.o.p. certifications, and other matters. we've developed and published

the rule requiring oil and gas operators to develop for the first time their own safety and environmental management programs, the s.e.m.s. rule, both in the gulf of mexico and in the arctic. now we have pursued the changes while managing hundreds of loyal and committed public servants, many of whom have been in the agency for 20 years or more, through a crisis, the likes of which none of them had ever experienced before. and who it's fair to say have been deeply and profoundly shaken by the unrelenting and in many ways, unfair criticism that they have received. now there are great challenges that face the country with respect to offshore oil and gas drilling. those challenges can't be minimized because they are substantial and they are difficult. let me summarize briefly several of the most significant challenges that i see for the development and regulation of oil and gas resources. issues that we confront every day and are the context for your

work as well as for our reform agenda. first, to achieve the appropriate balance between ensuring that new safety environment standards are strictly adhered to my industry, and at the same time, expediting the prompt process of permits in deep and shallow water. this balance is critical and most be topmost in our minds as we impose and force regulations and make changes as we reform my agency. second, providing appropriate funding. we talked about this with dr. cruickshank. funding and resources for the management of regulation of offshore energy development. it's clear, and i've seen statements that the agency for decades was starved for resources and was not able to review drilling operations, conduct inspections, and enforce standards adequately. even though the agency personnel tried very hard to do so. i've been asked by the president and the secretary to fix these problems. but that will, to put it

starkly, require a substantial infusion of resources to accomplish. we have requested substantial resources from congress for the hiring of personnel to review drilling permits, to inspect rigs, monitor drilling activities, and to ensure compliance with environmental standards. there is a substantial technological gap between the industry and the people who oversee it, namely the people in my agency, that has to be addressed through new tools and training for government personnel. i'm deeply concerned without the resources that we requested, justification for which could not be more compelling. the changes and reforms that we have pursued and will continue to pursue will not be realized. third, there is a grave need innovation and technological development with the safety, the blowout containment, and spill response. there's a tremendous opportunity here, and a desperate need for technological development offshore. i believe some, if not all of

you, have gone on rigs and platforms. in many ways, they are engineering marvels. yet, the technological development that relates to safety has lagged behind the development of the rigs themselves. and so there's some questions that have come up that we need to address. what features should the next generation have in what types of censors and safety devices should be installed on the drilling rigs? what kind of electronic and metering should be required to get realtime and important data. both to the companies that operate, and to the regulators that oversee them. how will versatile and containment equipment be designed and be built. now the department announced the creation of the institute, called the ocean center sail institute, that we hope will draw on government, industry,

academia, and ngos to help address these and many other questions. fourth we need to optimize safety d environmental compliance regime for operational and offshore regulation. we will continue to think very hard about the safety and offshore regulatory regime. we have the prescriptive regulations, which is the system we currently have, and increasingly holding industry to performance standards that we develop. those must be appropriate for the reality and scale of the united states as current offshore and oil and gas industry in our economy. we can't simply import foreign models into our current model. then too, the model that we adopt has to be consistent with the existing relationships between government and the private sector. finally, we must develop the strategy for offshore energy development in the arctic. as you know the resource

potential there is substantial. but the arctic environment presents a broad range for challenges for oil and gas development. just to kick through them, they are whether conditions, the development of the necessary infrastructure. employs realistic still response resources and last but certainly not least, protecting sensitive arctic habitats and marine mammals. these are all important issues and we are considering all of them. final word, this commission is in a unique position to collect and analyze information relating to these issues. and to draw upon a broad range of expertise and perspectives in your work. i know your work is coming to a close. but the challenges for industry and agency to develop practical and effective solutions will continue. therefore, as we do already, i look forward to working with the commission, i

the recommendations and what you think the commission commission for its work. >> that's part of what michael bromwich had to say before the investigating oil spill. you can see the entire hearings turning just after 9:00 p.m. eastern time on a competing network, c-span. >> israeli and palestinian relations with the main topic at today's state department briefing. spokesman p.j. crowley also briefed reporters on middle east peace negotiations as well as the iranian nuclear program, sudan peace talks in u.s. response to the cholera outbreak in haiti. this is about 30 minute.

[inaudible conversations] >> no sign of the travelers yet, hot? twelve days out. would give them a day off. good afternoon and welcome to the department of state. i think the first thing to do is welcome in the back of the room we have some cadets visiting us for me just. welcome to the state department briefing room. we look forward to the meeting tomorrow between secretary clinton and foreign minister aboul gheit to talk about a variety of regional issues, including the status of our efforts on middle east peace. but to begin in haiti, we obviously continue to work very closely with the haitian government and the ministry of

public health in the aftermath of hurricane tomas. there are 16 to the centers that have been established in port-au-prince by the government of haiti and the desired, you know, doing an effective job as we indicated yesterday in increasing the haitian surveillance efforts to evaluate both the ongoing cholera outbreak and the potential impact that the rains from hurricane tomas is having. we can confirm at this point roughly 8100 -- the precise numbers 8138 cholera cases that have been identified this fire. 544, you know, people have died from complications of cholera and obviously the haitian government is establishing these

treatment centers, fully anticipate that they think there is an earlier report of an increase in cholera cases in and around the capital. you know, that said, the aggressive response by the government of haiti, you know, in cooperation with national partners, you know, we think should help to contain the outbreak. one that is obviously tragically we know people will die from cholera, even though it is a very treatable disease. but through a combination of the improved surveillance, pre-positioned stocks that are on hand in haiti, the tedious well-positioned to contain the outbreak and would expect to see if we've seen in recent years actually the mortality rate relative to the number of cases has gone down fairly

dramatically. i would also tell you, you've had some questions recently about the status of the supplemental funding. that deal was approved by congress. we have completed the process that was laid out in the supplemental appropriation. the then plan has been approved away as they cleared and we have transferred the first tranche of money, $120 million to the department of treasury over the next day were in turn be transferring that money to the world bank for the haiti reconstruction fund. so having completed the process as outlined in the appropriation, we are now moving aggressively to commit that money to haiti's reconstruction. second topic, was in touch with the e.u. high representative's office a short time ago.

i believe they have confirmed and it indicated to us that iran has in fact responded to catherine ashton, her invitation, dr. jalili has sent a formal response. iran has posed a couple of tentative dates. i would expect her of the consultations in the p-5+1 in the next day or two. there'll be a call between high representative ashton and secretary clinton this afternoon. i believe they'll be politicals direct or conference call probably tomorrow and we will work to try to nail down with iran a specific date and location for this meeting. and lastly, yesterday you asked about the question of iraqi christians and whether there has been any, you know, specific

request for a silent in the aftermath of the reprehensible attack recently. the answer is no, but we have not seen any reports of widespread displacement or resettlement. but we are in close contact with iraq and the unhcr. we do actually have programs that are already established and functioning since 2007, more than 53,000 iraqi refugees have been resettled in the united states. so we have a program that's available to anyone who has these concerns but in the immediate aftermath we have not seen any requests. [inaudible] >> since 2007, 53,700 iraqi refugees have developed in the united states. so we have aggressively work

days over the course of the year and obviously we're poised to be of further assistance, but we've seen nothing in the act or map of that particular attack. >> p.j., on the iranian response to the e.u. invitation, are we talking about a meeting of the p5+1 with them or are we talking about the smaller began a group meeting with it? it >> i think potentially we would like to see a committee, both within the context of the p5+1 and also what the context of the iaea. we are open to iran engaging through both channels. right now, you know, catherine ashton, you know it did propose a meeting later this month and iran has now indicated it is prepared to move ahead and we

will try to lock in a date and location, you know, very quickly. but to the extent that iraq wants -- i'm sorry, iran wants to pursue a tehran research reactor proposal, we are open to that. and that could be something that is done within the context of the begin a group and through the iaea, because they're obviously some technical aspects that have to be fulfilled for that to go forward, including the status of material that is shipped out of iran, who controls it and so forth. >> but the meeting were talking about and whether it's november 15th or december, are you talking about the p5+1 meeting? >> were prepared to move forward with the p5+1 meeting. we hope that i recur as early as that of the month. >> has the group agreed on the updated proposal you prefer to in the past?

>> that if something were still consulting with our partners on. >> the first meeting between ashton and jalili is to get to know you meeting. if i were talking about? >> again, we will consult and see how to move forward, but we are prepared to have a p5+1 meeting at a mutually agreeable time and location. >> they are going to be hosting these talks. do you know anything about it? >> cannot believe we've arrived at this point at either a date or location. that will be what we will be consulting our partners and in turn back to iran -- [inaudible] >> our immediate focus is to have a meeting of the p5+1. that is what occurred just over a year ago and we would like to see a series of meetings, you

know, those meanings could happen in different locations. so were open to a variety of ideas here. but i think what we're focused on one side of the p5+1 meeting. now, our major concern is of course iran's nuclear tensions, but within the context of the p5+1 were open for other issues that might be discussed. obviously, in any kind of engagement that would occur with the iaea and the context of the trr, there's potential for that kind of a meeting as well. i think our immediate focus here is to try to get, you know, not just one meaning, but a process through which the p5+1 we can address hearkens earns about iran's nuclear programs and any other programs iran wants to bring to the table.

>> iran's response that specifically they want to take place in turkey, which seems to be an effort to bring the least the turks and potentially the brazilians, given they were the facilitators of the last offer. what is your view on whether we're not talking about the trr at this stage, should the turks and brazilians be a big part of it? >> again, i'll come back to what we would like to have the meeting within the context of the p5+1. if we get a process going, then we'll see where that process leads. but we want to see a return to the kind of meetings that we had just over a year ago. we thought it was a productive meeting and would like to see it be a series of meetings, not just one. we know these are difficult, complex issues and clearly none of these issues can be resolved in a single meeting. >> to the iranians may clear the response that they're talking about the same thing you're talking about p5+1 or are they talking about a broader group?

>> well, we're going to have a conversation through representative ashton, but we -- iran appears senators wants to be open to meeting and relatively soon we're going to try to lock down a date, a location and begin to work the details. >> there up into a p5+1 meeting, you say? >> well, i believe we are talking about having a p5+1 meeting estimates one can be put together. >> p.j., if the iranians they will have a meeting to not talk about nuclear tensions, as the u.s. willing to go to meeting? >> will charlie come the hypothetical parrot on the top of our list is iran's nuclear intentions notwithstanding as i recall there were similar suggestions publicly prior to the meeting last year, but when we got together the nuclear issue but was of paramount importance in that meeting.

>> no, not yet. not so fast. >> you just said -- what charlie was saying, you immediately said that that might be a hypothetical issue, but we are hearing from iranian officials that they only want to talk -- they will talk about anything but their nuclear program. >> you now -- we want to meeting him at that manically planned to talk about the nuclear issue. >> so this doesn't surprise you come what's happening? >> i'm not certain that's actually the iranian position either. >> my question is about the turkey aspect. you have any opposition to turkey hosting this meeting that that's what iran wants? >> first and foremost we want to meeting. we want to put it together soon as possible in a location that is convenient for all of the participants. will consult tomorrow and then

respond with our own in answer to the iranian response. if we are successful in getting a process going, not just one meaning, but a series of meetings and a serious engagement on the nuclear issue and other issues, we can envision that they would be coming in now, many potential locations for this series of meetings. but will consult in the next day with our partners in the p5+1 process or the europeans, the e3+3 process. and i will respond formally to iran through high representative ashton. >> is turkey convenient for you? >> will see. >> don't you need to have an agreement in advance agreement about the agenda. because the iranians are imposing their own agenda.

>> again, samir, these are all good questions. we want to lock in a date and iran will have its own issues. as i recall last year, the meeting was predominantly about the nuclear issue, but on the sidelines there was the opportunities talk about other things that will come to the table repair to talk about a range of issues, but obviously at the top of our list is the iran nuclear program. ..

and then, you know we want to get this process going and we wanted to be a process. >> if and when there is a meeting. >> i would expect it will be at the political directors local. >> back to the pr update how far along do you plan to present a new proposal when this meeting does. >> you know, obviously in a meeting last year we put the trr proposal on the table. that is something that we are prepared to offer an updated version of that. it is possible that this could be something that is discussed again if and when the meeting takes place.

>> building 1300 new apartments in east jerusalem. somebody in israel has made this known order to embarrass the prime minister and undermine the process. >> i suggested that is a possibility. >> but today prime minister, it the israeli prime minister's officers-- office issued a statement defending the amounts and saying that it is not a settlement. israel sees no link between the peace process in the developing plan and jerusalem. >> there clearly is a link in the sense that it is incumbent upon both parties as we have insisted all along that they are responsible for creating conditions for a successful negotiation. so to suggest that this kind of announcement would not have an impact on the palestinian side,

i think is incorrect. we do understand that israel has its own position on these kinds of announcements. that said, you know we have indicated that we think these kinds of announcements act as time coming even if it is a process that is going to carry over for months if not years, are counterproductive to our reference to get the parties into a direct negotiation, so we haven't changed our deal. >> this came immediately or soon after the president made his own criticism of the settlement announcement. doesn't disappear, don't they appeared to be hardening their position? or explicitly rejecting the u.s. stance on this? >> again, the secretary looks forward to a meeting with the prime minister on thursday. i have confidence that this will be among the subjects discussed.

[inaudible] >> i'm confident there'll be a meeting. just on that point, we are still working on the venue. i think it will be, the meeting will stumble-- starts somewhat earlier in the evening somewhere around 9:00. we are still trying to nail down precisely where it will take place. there've been a couple of different possibilities approach. >> the israelis are going to take unilateral action, the international community should go ahead and create a state of palestine. >> and you know, this is why we have had a consistent position throughout that those sides have to avoid unilateral actions that really poison the atmosphere and prevent progress towards negotiations, which again is the only means through which we can resolve these issues once and for all.

>> is there any process, is there anything? >> there is absolutely a process what we are looking for is to make progress and that is something that we continue to aggressively seek. >> the announcement of the transfer of funds to the palestinians, will this be new money oregon 900 million from last year? >> you are asking me to step on tomorrow's news. we have been the leading contributor to the palestinian authority and the ongoing efforts of president abbas and prime minister fayyad to make a difference on the ground in the palestinian territories for the new fiscal year. we will have the opportunity to make an additional contribution you know to the palestinian authority and we will wait for

the secretary's visit here tomorrow. >> so is this additional to the 900 million? >> again, we have obviously can jb did a significant amount of money to the palestinian authority to support its ongoing efforts at building the institutions that will be vital to a future palestinian state. we are in a position with a new fiscal year to make an additional contribution, and i will leave it there in terms of a teaser and we will wait for more details tomorrow. [inaudible] >> in the secretary's meeting with egyptian foreign minister tomorrow she going to have any special focus for instance they are bleak and what they may or may not be doing in the next couple of weeks? >> i would anticipate the meeting tomorrow with foreign minister of bill gates will cover bilateral issues. egypt is approaching important

elections coming up. we will talk about middle east peace. the egyptians have had their own meetings in the region in recent days and i'm sure we will give the secretary and the date on their perspective, and clearly, what happens in terms of regional support or our ongoing efforts is a critical dimension of that. >> thank you. >> since the launch of president obama's initiative for peace in the middle east, we have seen nothing from the israelis but lip service from the prime minister of israel concerning the peace on one side. on the other side, they are building faster than ever their settlements on the arab lands. now, the only comforting thing in the middle east is what they hear from secretary clinton, her determination along with the president, president obama,

about are suing the peace process. but now, do you all have any new look or strategy to deal with this lipservice kind of policy of the israelis when it comes to peace, that you could really do something that would make a difference from now on, since they have proven that they don't really have sincerity are suing this? >> well, let me unpack your question and perhaps challenge some ingredients in there. we are focused on the direct negotiation. it is the only path to obtain the peace that we believe is vitally important for the israeli people, the palestinian people, the syrian people, the lebanese people and everyone else in the region. this is the only way forward. it is not about lipservice. it is about a negotiation. it is not about making one off gestures. it is about the means of tackling the very complex issues and unwinding the difficult

history in the region and focusing on the future, not being a captive to the past. we are determined, as he said, and this is why the secretary has been intensely engaged. the president has been engaged. george mitchell and others have made countless trips to the region. and we appreciate the efforts of others, including senator kerry who has made-- had his own discussions and recall that we are talking about multiple context here. not just peace between israelis and the palestinians that peace between the israelis and the syrians and the israelis and the lebanese. we are determined to try to make drug rests on all paths towards a comprehensive peace. that is our goal. when we came into this we knew this would be difficult, but we are determined and we are continuing to work with the parties to try to find a way to make arrests.

>> sir, i just want to make sure -- i meant the israelis lip service. not american lipservice. i didn't mean in any way that american--. >> again if you are in direct negotiation i recognize that outside of a negotiation there can be just just the back and forth public comments. that is why we are pressing both sides because inside a negotiation, you are dealing with the substance and that is where we want the parties to go. >> senator kerry seems to have had a good visit with president assad and president assad has praised president obama's efforts to bring peace to the middle east, but do you have any reading of the meeting, as the state department? >> i am confident that we have received a back brief from senator kerry. i have not, so it was an important meeting that he had both in damascus and beirut and it demonstrates that we recognize that we are in search

of comprehensive peace, and that remains our focus. >> thank you. >> one question, but following on senator kerry. this weekend, you guys pronouncing that the u.s. would take sudan off the terrorism list earlier. i wonder if they have these referenda and i wonder if you have had any sort of response from the sudanese, with you have seen any sort of improvement? >> general ration and ambassador princeton lyman remain engaged with former south african president tov allen back and the parties. we have had a series of discussions with the sudanese officials, both over the weekend and since then, and we are continuing to do everything that we can to have the parties live up to their obligations under the comprehensive peace

agreement. we are focused on the fact we are now rarely two months from the scheduled referendum on south sudan. we have got no time to waste. a lot has to be done. a lot is being done and there are reparations that are underway in terms of registration and training of poll workers who will be vitally important to carry off a successful referendum. discussions continue on a va, and we will continue to hold the parties to their obligation to a referendum. likewise, january 9 unless they arrive at an alternative that is mutually agreeable on both sides. >> so did the software at all change the atmosphere in those discussions? >> i think it has had the desired effect. they recognize that it represents yet both a further

commitment by the united states. we are putting real, tangible benefits to sudan on the table. and i need again to emphasize that what we put on the table this weekend is contingent on a successful referendum, a respect for the results, constructive work during the post-referendum phase, and meeting the legal requirements to have the country removed from the state sponsor of terrorism list. at it demonstrates that the united states is prepared to follow up aggressively on a path towards a different kind of relationship with sudan if sudan, along with south sudan, meets its obligations under the cpa. >> just to follow-up on that, the u.s. pretty consistently saying that it was committed to

full implication of the cpa but now it sounds as though you are saying full implementation of the cpa or half implementation of the cpa. is that a change in tax? >> i think it is a recognition of the calendar. the parties have agreed on many of the details on the referendum on south sudan. they have not agreed on the details of the referendum on abeyi so while it is very erratically possible that the referendum could still go on and on schedule regarding abeyi we recognize that is increasingly problematic. we are not relieving the parties of their obligation. today they are obliged to cooperate and schedule a referendum on abeyi. we are not taking anybody off the hook but we recognize that given there there is not agreement between north and south on the details of that

referendum, if they you know are able to arrive at a different course of action, that is up to them, but it has to be a mutually agreeable alternative and that is part of the discussion that is still going on in khartoum. >> is it your view that likelihood is increasing that they may be able to reach a deal without a referendum? >> again, the responsibility here is on the parties. they have an obligation today to hold a referendum on abyei on january 9, and we are holding them to that requirement. if they are able to agree on an alternative, that is up to them. >> the egyptian foreign minister is suggesting a further system between the north in the south. do you support-- do you accept such an idea? >> again come inside the cpa

there is the right of the people of south sudan to decide on their future. and, we will see how the people of south sudan, what their decision is in the referendum on january 9, and we will respect those results. >> just to get back on the sub by the issue, what that irrigation of the abyei element of the cpa deal, would that require ratification by the guarantors of the cpa, i.e. norway and the u.k. and so on or said something that north and south sudan to decide between the two of them the men present as they fait accompli? >> clearly the guarantors of the cpa include the united states. we are working cooperatively with the international community in supporting this process. it is up to the parties to decide, you know, to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution to sublife, but is their

responsibility first and foremost. >> thank you. >> i am mindful that we have got a white house briefing coming up in a couple of minutes so will make this the last one. >> the japanese government announced that it would start negotiating on the transpacific hardship. do you have a reaction to that? >> we are pleased that japan may be considering taking steps that could help pave the way for its eventual membership in the transpacific partnership. japan is a valuable and critical part of the transpacific economic system. the tpp as it is called is a regional free-trade agreement currently being negotiated among aypeck economies. they share our vision of a high standard, 21st century agreement, but we are encouraged by japan's interest and movement towards trade liberalization. >> thank you.

>> thank you. national transportation safety board chairman deborah hurson said today that within 15 years, one in five licensed drivers in the u.s. will be age 65 or older. her remarks came on opening day of the conference in washington looking at aging drivers and safety. here is part of what she said this morning. >> good morning. my name is debbie hersman and it is my privilege to serve as the chairman of the national transportation safety board. i would also like to recognize my colleagues who are here in the room with us this morning, member mark rose kind and earl. if you all would please stand so people know who you are. i know we will have some breaks and i encourage all of you to interact with the other board members during those breaks. welcome to the ntsb board room. we begin today at public forum on safety, mobility and aging drivers.

many of you are familiar with the safety board for its role in investigating transportation accidents and determining the probable cause of those accidents. however, the safety board also has the opportunity to bring leading experts together with the goal of understanding safety risks and identifying solutions. even when that activity is not tied to a specific accident. today, we meet for that purpose. we are convening this public forum to explore the safety issues related to the aging driver and to discuss possible strategies to prevent and reduce accidents, injuries and fatalities within this growing population. america is aging. baby boomers are now well into their middle years. people on average are living well into their 70s, compared with their 40s a century ago. more and more seniors are on the road than ever before. in fact, 30 million licensed

drivers in the united states are 65 or older. the forecast is in 15 years, in 2025, this age group will comprise more than 20% of the entire u.s. driving population are go that is one in every five drivers on the road. there is no precise way to define the term aging driver. just as no 217-year-old drivers have the same set of driving skills, capabilities and experience, neither do 70-year-olds, 80-year-olds or 90-year-olds. driver performance dairies widely in every age group, and a jawbone is not a good predictor of how well one will perform behind the wheel. factors like cognition, motor skills, medical conditions and injury tolerance are also predictive. so when we talk about the aging

driver, we mean age in relation to one's capabilities, not age as in the old or senior. older drivers tend to be conscientious and safety oriented. they wear their seatbelts. they may choose to forego driving when it is dark or when the weather is poor. they are less likely to speed or drive intoxicated. and they drive fewer miles than do other age groups. the good news is that drivers age 70 and older involved in fatal crashes has decreased in the past decade by 20%, even though the number of licensed drivers in this age group and the miles logged has increase. despite these encouraging numbers, we also know that when there is an accident, it is the older driver who is more likely to be killed or seriously injured. they simply don't fare as well as younger drivers.

this forum is an exciting opportunity to better understand highway safety trends and to discuss ways to minimize the safety risks for a growing segment of drivers. whether we are the older driver deciding whether or not-- or the older drivers family or community, we are all responsible for making sure that no matter what your age or destination, everyone arrived safely. while many of these issues we will discuss are topics that@p have been explored by other organizations in recent years, this is the first time that the ntsb is analyzing them in this format. we are very fortunate to have some of the leading experts in highway safety, academia, the medical community and industry here with us today. i would like to take a moment to recognize some of the groups that will be participating in the forum. aaa, the aaa foundation for

traffic safety, the alliance the bottom of the manufacturers, the insurance institute for highway safety, the american association of motor vehicle administrators, the american occupational therapy association, the governors highway safety administration, the american optometric association, the international association of police chiefs, national institute on aging, federal highway administration, the national highway safety of all of the participants for sharing your time, your insight and your expertise. >> you can watch his program on aging driving population in its entirety at tonight here on c-span2 starting at 8:30 eastern time. right now, look at the debates within the democratic hardy about how the party should position itself ideologically. we will hear from jonathan

callan president of the third way. >> jonathan cowan is the present of third way here to talk about what is next for democrats. let's begin with what his thirdt way?what gezdah we are a centrist think-tank here in washington.gs we have a staff of about 35. we work on national security, culture, domestic policy and cultural, domestic clean energy issues. happened to democrats last week. they lost majority in the house. going forward, the big question is who is their leader in the house. nancy pelosi says she is running for minority leader. sounds like she has the votes. what does third way think of the idea? guest: it looks like what will happen based on this morning's papers is most likely everyone -- pelosi, steady glow -- steady hoyer, clyburn, will drop down and not -- and knocked.

what is crucial is not dot but whether the democratic party has heard the mission -- the message loud and clear. host: de think they have? guest: it remains to be seen. the election is a week old or something like that. we will find out not just in a lame duck session but what we will find out in the next year. from our perspective in the third way, the message is resounding an incredibly clear is, voters want a party -- either or both political parties -- to move to and govern from the center. we believe this election, this historic sweep of seats in which democrats lost as many seats in the house as they have lost in 50 or 60 years, that historic sweep really is about the fact that voters did not perceive them in the center enough. "the new york times."

blamed the blue dogs. for democratic losses don't add up. -- the blame the blue dogs th eory doesn't add up. people sang that they block the president's agenda and because of them democrats lost the house. guest: it is an absurd argument. to say that moderate democrats and conservative democrats cost the house of the majority, the democrats the majority in the house, is an absurd argument on its face. in 2006 and in 2008, chuck schumer and rahm emanuel went about building a democratic majority, getting back to house and senate. a basically every single seat that democrats picked up in 2006 and 2008 in the more difficult purple and red districts in the state, those are gone now. the so, the argument that

somehow democrats can purge themselves, only had a small, liberal caucus, don't need moderate and blue dogs, if that mindset takes hold, what it means is democrats will be a long-term minority party for decades to come. host: if you don't want the mind set to take hold, why not have a more moderate thinking type person likes any hoyer as your minority leader for the party rather than -- or keep schuler? guest: i just think in washington you deal with political reality. the boats are done. it is already lined up. it is going to most likely be pelosi, hoyer, clyburn. in the end, here is the core question. does nancy pelosi -- nancy pelosi, hoyer, jim clyburn, the rest of the caucus, did the recognize the need to have a robust big tent on the democratic side that includes a lot of moderates or blue dogs or do they want to be a much more

smaller, liberal caucus that for decades is in the mind -- minority except when republicans mess up so badly that democrats actually get back house. if you look back to the 20 centric, what you can see clearly is there was natch -- never naturally occurring liberal majority. when democrats held power, unbroken for 75 years, it was because they built a big tent coalition, southern conservative, often racist democrats, and more northern liberal democrats. that coalition may not have been perfect but in the and it gave democrat and long string of unbroken power and ability to do significant things. the great society, social security, the new deal. if democrats want to regain power and hold it for any period of time, we are going to have to real -- they are going to lead to realize they need a big tent party. and they need to make sure that their agenda, what they are proposing, is in the center, appeals to moderate, and

actually fits with the times. host: hot in feel about the bush tax cuts? guest: what the president has outlined is where most middle- class voters are, is make sure my taxes don't go up. obama promised in the campaign that they would not let the taxes of middle income americans go up. if they can call to the promise, that is what most middle income americans care about. there will certainly be some who feel we should not lower taxes or repeal the tax cut on wealthier americans. most likely they will end up with a compromise in which they keep most or all of the tax cuts in place for at least a year or two until we are fully out of the recession. i think the ultimately many of the tax cuts that go to upper income americans, a large portion will go away. but more importantly, once we get past the immediate tax debate, the crucial thing we believe democrats have to do here at home -- not thinking national security -- is shift from being a party that is about

expanding the entitlement state and social safety net to a party focused on economic growth. democrats spent most of the last century attempting to build up a robust social safety net so that when you fell, there was a net to catch you. that is incredibly important. social security, medicare, medicaid, you can go down the list. those are super important things americans would not want to give up. however, the next century, we cannot take economic growth for granted and the democrats want to build a long-term majority and have the majority be valuable in governing, to really govern in a way that is relevant, they will have to be the party of economic growth. host: what is the first test for democrats? there are lots of headlines about the first test for republicans. what is the first test for democrats? guest: the number one will not be the bush tax cuts for what happens in the lame-duck. the number one test will be in when the president's fiscal commission comes out either with

a unanimous report or take a minority report, the key question for democrats is going to be are they going to rally around that call for serious deficit reduction and entitlement reform. the measure of whether democrats are seriously intending to be a governing majority -- not just for the short term but the long run -- is are they going to get serious about deficit reduction and entitlement reform. host: paul ryan, incoming budget chairman, indicated there is some compromise on that. possibly raising of age -- and i don't want to speak for him. i will try to find article. guest: we are real fans of paul ryan. not everything in his plan is perfect but what he has done it is extraordinary in both parties, including the right. what ryan has said is we can't just as republicans talk a good date -- what ryan has said is a can just as republicans talk a good game but have to put plans

on the table. host: this piece ran in "the financial times" last week. i believe we can begin to make modest changes like slowing the growth of benefits for the wealthiest earners or indexing eligibility age for longevity. never present a viable alternative for unsustainable status quo and they can be delivered by making no changes for those aged 55 and older who currently receive social security and medicaid. -- medicare. you don't impact of those seniors now, but future generations. guest: he is right. let me say a couple of things but first of all, the matter what we do for social security, it will not affect people 55 or 60. we will not change in the game when they are nearing retirement age. but think about this. by 2013, over 65% of all the money the federal government spends is going to go to entitlement. social security, medicare, and interest on the debt. basically, entitlements and interest on the debt. that percentage of our budget

being taken up by consumption, not by investments in our future, that is completely unsustainable. so, the real test for the obama administration, democrats in the senate and the minority in the house will be, can they actually come together with serious minded people like paul ryan and forge some kind of bipartisan agreement on deficit-reduction and entitlement reform did we should be clear that there are a lot of liberals and liberal democrats who do not think we should touch entitlements. they formed a coalition saying we are opposed to any entitlement cuts. that is a sign of a movement and a political party that is not serious about governing. host: republicans pretty much said the same thing on "meet the press." guest: paul ryan right now is one of the only republican who has shown himself to be deeply thoughtful and actually willing to put serious proposals on the table. it is just as much a test of the new republican majority -- yes, you could put a ban on earmarks

but those are small dollar amounts. the big test for boehner, mitch mcconnell, and eric kcanter is whether they can take all nine paws plan and turn it into a governing document in an attempt to forge a compromise. host: are you optimistic about senate majority leader harry reid when during his 111th congress he did not give any indication, according to some articles this morning, of wanting to compromise with republicans. guest: we happen to be huge fans of harry reid. i think he did a fantastic job of the last congress. if you look at what he actually got done in a senate where you have to get 60 votes to get anything done, it is actually quite extraordinary. he got things done in historic proportions. i think it is an unfair rap that he did not try to be partisan. one great example would to the media obsessed about four months which is, senator reid encouraged, supported, and

allowed senator max baucus to negotiate with the senator grassley over a health care bill for close to nine months, if memory serves. so it is, the -- the only just cannot get to a bipartisan deal. but i do think harry reid has been very clear after this election that he recognizes the imperative for bipartisanship is even greater now that democrats hold fewer seats. he is a principled guy but a pragmatist. i did what you will see in the next two years is boehner, reid, and obama administration striving mightily to find common ground. democrat line from milton, west virginia. caller: i talked to democrats around here. i know there are a lot of blue dogs here. but the biggest thing that we saw, we need our democrats with more backbone. a when they go into conference -- when they go into conference to debate these bills, you don't

give up on the public option before you even go into conference. the public option in january was 79% approval. they took it off the table before they went into conference. these are the issues. just like on the financial regulations. they took the hardest part of the financial regulations out before they went into conference -- host: hang on the line because i wanted jonathan cowan to respond to you and then you try man. it is interesting. here is a democrat saying, as we talk about, liberals gave ground and they should not have. why do you believe that the public option was a bad idea? guest: i understand lori's point of you and i have heard widely and i respected. whether she classifies herself or not, she is a liberal. if you believe deeply that public option was crucial to health care, you are a liberal because what we got in the

health-care bill was the first time ever universal health care. we got hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies for people who don't have health care and major reforms of the health-care industry. now, i happen to think and third way things that was a substantial historic achievement. there are some like lorton said was should have on what to a public option. a couple of things. let's not lose the forest for the trees. it was a historic piece of legislation and folks like lowry should believe in it. secondly, the votes were not there for a public option. you could not get a public option out of the senate. it was not possible. third, if you ask many moderate and blue dog democrats who campaigned this cycle and lost their seats probably in places like where lori is from, but then tell you, i cannot defend the public option. you can cite numbers 79% popular. and literally could not defend it. it sounds like government run health care. i can't defend it. don't ask me to defend it. caller: number one, they took

off the table before they went to conference. i can understand them negotiating it out. but they took off before. number two, it would have been a part of a choice for people like us who want to stick it to the insurance companies because they have been sticking it to us for years. we could have chosen the public option. and irregardless of whether it was in there are not, we wanted of the negotiations from the best down and instead they took it out before they negotiate. . other way and most major pieces of legislation get done that way so you can holder

principles but still get the things done. the second it is very unlikely you would have been eligible for the public option. very unlikely. the estimates were about 6 million people would have been eligible for the public option. you might have been among them. the odds are not so, so that was seriously oversold as a piece of public policy. we as democrats to believe in universal health care as a matter of economic and social justice, we should be and you should be laurie, very proud that was achieved under a democratic administration. that is not something to be bashful about or complain about. do something to be proud about and by the way i know many moderate and blue dog democrats who would say to you if they were listening in, i lost my seat because we passed a trillion dollar health care bill. maybe it was worth it though we took it as far as we possibly could and i've paid the price for that. en host: instead of from thehe c

far left. south bend indiana, john, independent line. go ahead. >> caller: first of all i would like to thank c-spancalle washington journal. you guys are great and also'd jonathan for joining you this morning.sh iin have two comments. one is regarding the tax cuts. i feel it is the biggest argument against i have two questions. one regarding tax cuts. i feel the biggest argument against them is that it's going to hurt business and most likely small businesses. if the democrats and republicans could agree to extend these tax cuts for everyone for two years and then take that two years to work toward creating a small business tax bracket that's separate from individual taxes and then raise the taxes for those making $250,000 or more that argument would go away. secondly, the health care bill i think was absolutely amazing what they were able to accomplish in decades and decades since they've done anything about it.

and now i think that the republicans taking the majority in the house that perhaps now we can do the other half. that is finding the efficiencies and cutting the costs in health care. it doesn't make sense that something in a hospital costs $100 when you can get them $40 somewhere else. cutting down administrative costs, that's what republicans are good at, finding efficiencies. those two things republicans can do. host: independent voter, have you -- that means you voted for republicans this time around? caller: i actually -- on the national and congress i voted for republicans. mike donnelly was able to continue on. in terms of local elections, i did vote for some republicans and every election i vote for some republicans and some democrats. i'm really a per candidate per issue kind of thing.

host: and how did you vote on the presidential ticket? caller: i voted for barack obama and mike donnelly and worked on john kerry's presidency in 2004. host: and you're leaning more towards republicans? caller: i'm still sticking with the democrats. i think they have a better notion about where the country should be going. but at the same time i'm also a centrist and i don't think it's a good thing to have one party in charge for too long anyway. guest: before responding to john's specific policy points. john is the caller that actually flipped this election. barack obama overwhelmingly won independence in 2008 and democrats got crushed on the independence something like 55-39. so john's -- in fact, going in the field right now to the poll

that we'll look at voters just like john who voted for obama but either stayed at home or flipped away and voted for the republican. john is the key for both parties for actually having a governing majority. on his two policy points, really interesting idea on small business carveout. i am going to talk to my team about that and see how that would align. he's right, there are small business owners who file in effect and pay individual tax rates and it's a concern to them. that's always been a concern. second is he's dead on about health care which is what democrats should be pushing republicans on and what republicans should come to the table with is, ok, instead of repealing health care, what we should be doing is fixing health care so that we instill the strongest cost containment possible. we began in the last health care bill to lay the foundations for serious cost containment but that job is maybe at best halfway done. the next best thing if the

democrats are concerned about health care is to join with republicans and put in measures that john is advocating. host: go ahead, teresa. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: republicans and independents almost ran to the ballot box to vote out the progressive, socialist agenda that the democrats keep pushing down the people's throat that they do not want. you talked the public option. it would have been 10 times worse if you allowed the public option. we do not want the democrats and obama's socialist agenda. we cannot convince you that we do not want it. you have laid it in the republicans' hand the redistricting and what we're going to have to do is we are going to have to redistrict these socialist democrats out of washington.

and i'd like to have your comment on that. host: well, let me start -- guest: well, let me start by saying, teresa, i'm not a socialist. never have been, never will be. i disagree with your characterization, as most democrats as socialists. however, i think you're spot on that there are a lot of voters, both republicans and many independents that are concerned about the size of government and role of government and government spending. your voices were heard very loudly and clearly this election cycle. i think the question you pose is an excellent one and that is, can -- they can win over our previous caller, john. the question is can democrats govern from the center? host: the problem withed too's democrats is 30 years ago they would have been considered republicans. guest: well, that might be true. it's a fairly ahistorical

tweet, as it were, since in fact many of the major pieces of legislation that got passed in the 21st century were passed with liberal republican support. so, yes, ideologies, you know, shift within the two parties over 100-year period. there were some very liberal, particularly in the northeast, republicans who frankly would now be democrats. and we'd be thrilled to have them in the democratic party. again, the tweet really goes to what's now becoming very conventional wisdom among the left in washington and in the blogosphere, we can be a small party, we can purge ourselves with moderates and blue dogs. we couldn't need them. if we go further left that's our salvation, and it is wrong. all the data shows it's wrong. it's wrong on principle. it will be the long-term demise of the party. host: we show the exit polls here. it's jobs, jobs, jobs,

foreclosures and underwater mortgage next. not bush tax cuts. guest: i do agree with that tweeter. the bush tax cuts really were not -- there's no indications they were a serious issue in this election. what were the major issues in the election were people who were very frustrated about the economy, deeply concerned what they perceived as too much government, too much big government and didn't like things like the health care plan. but the bush tax cuts i don't think became a major issue in almost any race. host: karen in cleveland, ohio, democratic line. you're on the line with jonathan cowan. hello. go ahead. caller: hello. good morning. host: good morning. caller: i'd like to comment his idea that democrats need to have a bigger tent. our problem is we do have a bigger tent. you can't even get one or two of them to budge, to compromise with us. and we have a whole bunch of

people up there that have all kinds of different ideas and can't stick together. if we could have stuck together we could have passed a public option because that's what we wanted. 75% of the country wanted that. that's what they're supposed to do for us. we pay them. they're supposed to do what we want. even if they don't think it's right or they could go. we're the people. we said that's what we want. they didn't even fight for us. they didn't even go in there with the public option in their pocket. they took it off completely, immediately. also, corruption is our problem. the money that we spent, the money that we as american taxpayers pay into the system for that we will have an umbrella or a parachute or a soft falling place when we get older, when we get ill, when something happens to us, that's what that money is for. it's not for all the other things that they spend it on.

corruption is a huge problem in washington and that's what we should be addressing and that's what obama said he'd try to address. he can't do that with a large tent of the democratic party because they have all different ideas. host: isn't that the nature of being in the majority, that your members peel off? when you're in the minority it's easier to stick together? guest: first off, you're calling from my hometown. i hear your point but there's absolutely no way to get a governing majority if you are a democrat unless we have a big tent. the numbers don't exist. there are not enough voters in the country, karen, who think about things the way you do. whether you're right or you're wrong, it doesn't matter. there aren't enough voters who look at the world in the liberal way that you do who can

comprise a democratic majority. second is, i really, as i encouraged the other caller, as a democrat you should take a lot of pride in what we did in health care. the public option is one piece of policy. it's not the be all end all. it only would have affected six million people. but as a democrat who voted for barack obama, and it sounds like you must have, you got done with obama and pelosi and reid historic things. the largest change in health care since medicare and medicaid. as a big tent party in the last two years we got huge things done. the big tent is the only way we're actually going to be able to govern. host: jonathan cowan is from third way. texas. jim on the republican line. go ahead. caller: yes. thank you. i'm a republican although i did

give my vote for president obama. i'm going to touch on three subjects and then really just one question. i feel what they're calling obamacare, if it's anything like the care that i receive through the veterans administration, i assure you there will be rationing and huge delay. it took me eight months to see a specialist. whereas in the private it maybe would have taken me two or three weeks. and people talk about the two wars. we really have a third war that's been going on for a long time. that's a war against drugs that disproportionately affects minorities and the poor. and the third issue is it seems to be the parties are pinning themselves, as i said so, rich against the poor. and i hear a lot of people call

talking about how republicans are driving companies to outsource and move overseas. what are these tax incentives that are causing companies to move offshore? if you could answer that. thank you. guest: great. thank you. your first point about obamacare, so-called obamacare, it can't be that the last two couple callers were upset there wasn't enough government and another caller saying it's too much government. here's the truth. the obama health care plan left in place the private insurance system in the united states. so it's very likely, tim, if there are changes to your health insurance, they're fairly modest changes. you're not going to have something with long lines and delays. that's not going to happen.

your second point, war on drugs. really interesting. it shows you kind of the ideological confusion of a republican caller saying we should be -- we shouldn't wage such a war on drugs. it's a more libry tarian issue. i don't think that will change much in the next congress. and the last question -- tax breaks. we would really agree with you the kind of economic populism many on the left preach. we think it's bad policy and bad politics. there are some tax incentives that do encourage companies to go overseas but they're not a major issue. the real concern we should have is -- what are we doing to ensure that american companies can compete effectively overseas which generates more american jobs and more income for more american companies? the playing field isn't what it was 30, 40 years ago. if we're going to have good

jobs for people we have to make sure we're internationally competitive. host: next call, north carolina, cheryl, independent line. caller: good morning. my concern is that we are still paying insurance companies. we need health care. the amount of money, just the money that's being wasted on the insurance company interests we could have clinics set up all over the country in all these empty strip malls that have been destroyed through the economy. and we could employ people who are worthy of employment. instead of these people who are extorting money. insurance is extortion. it is legal extortion. and now that we have scrooge in the house controlling things and we have a supreme court that has caved in through the interest of the corporations, we need somebody that will support obama's efforts to take care of the people.

host: jonathan cowan. guest: i happen to be not have the same point of view that you do about insurance companies. i think a lot of insurance companies take very good care of their -- the people that they insure. there are clearly some abuses as there are in any industry. but if you look at the health care bill, what we did was huge and it ended up -- so for someone like you, cheryl, you got significantly more protections from the health care bill vis-a-vis your insurance company. you have reforms in place, for example, that you can't be denied if you have a pre-existing condition, that you can keep someone who is a child until the age of 26. i can go down the list. the health care bill was really good for someone like you, cheryl, in making sure there was no abuse. host: nor topic from a tweeter.

would a moderate democratic party majority support worker rights? example, the employee free choice act. guest: had did not come up in the previous congress. right now it's a moot issue. as an organization we have not endorsed the employee free choice act. we do believe in unions and support unions and have worked with many of them on health care and other things. but i just don't think the employee free choice act will come up with the republicans controlling the house. host: democratic line in chicago. good morning, carl. caller: mr. cowan, i want to make two points and point out how terribly wrong you are. first off, you don't seem to understand that -- you don't seem to understand the reality of where we are today and that

is it doesn't matter about being in the middle. they've demonized even moderate democrats. they're all liberal. like all the blue dogs, they weren't liberal. republicans convinced the public, blue dogs are not. come time to vote, you're liberal. you got to go. second point i want to make is that over 30 years we have as democrats, especially with bill clinton and stuff -- i like clinton, but the democrats have moved to the center and they've been paying the cost. we had 30 years basically of a conservative economic policy. they had dick stockton on "60 minutes" a week or so ago. what he said, over the past 30 years most of america's wealth has shifted primarily to the

very top. host: ok. let's take that point. guest: so, carl, i just -- i don't agree that it doesn't matter if you're in the center or you're perceived as a moderate democrat, you're just seen as a liberal. that's how republicans would try to portray us. if you talk to the 60 or so democrats that lost their seat, many of them will tell you they had -- they tried to govern as moderates but they got saddled with a larger perception because of health care and other -- the stimulus bill that they just couldn't defend themselves on. bill clinton proved very clearly that a democrat can govern from the center and from that place promote economic growth that actually is a rising tide that lifts all boats. clinton is the model where the democratic party needs to be long runned. obama campaigned as not as a liberal. if we return to that he can have a very successful next two

years. host: bill clinton was part of a dividing government back in the 1990's and so we are going to be talking about that issue in our last 45 minutes this morning about divided government, how it works and what can get done. who was successful at it and who weapt? talking about that coming -- and who wasn't? talk about that coming up. before we get to the last phone call for jonathan cowan, where should democrats compromise when it comes to spending cuts? republicans have said that they would like to cut in the first year $100 billion, finding different ways to do that. should democrats agree to that? guest: democrats are going to need to agree to spending cuts with the deficit the size as it is. discretionary domestic spending where most of that $100 billion, whether we end up at 40 or 60 or 80, that's not the core points. the democrats need to work with the republicans to get reform in place, including social security and health care.

that's where the money is. host: dale, republican line. i am going to have to ask you to make it quick. caller: ok. yes, ma'am. quick. host: go ahead. caller: this guest here, he knows what he's talking about. but he has a party that he can't hurt right now. and let me tell everyone out there something. nancy pelosi has had money strings for the last four years. i'm not getting my social security increased the last two times all you democrats -- this is the democrats that's not giving me my cost of living raise. host: i'm sorry, dale, to cut you off short. not raising the entitled. -- entitlement. guest: i think they're probably going to try to fix that. if not in the lame-duck session, in the next congress, it's not a sustainable situation. people need a cost of living

.. >> we'll also hear from interior secretary ken salazar. this is a half an hour.