the first time american science is the lead in one of the major detectors. but we also want to make investments here in the united states, and so we have gone forward with director pared down he. we collectively made the decision that it is going great guns and we need to invest in the future which is the resources at the lab. we have every intention of continuing to invest in those and -- you know one of the experiments in the criminal lab investments is the detector in south dakota so that is why we are especially disappointed in the offense over the last year.

[inaudible conversations] good morning. welcome to the heritage foundation. director of lectures and seminars, it's my privilege to welcome everyone to wear louis lamé not a taurean and those who joined us on each occasion. we ask if they would make the last courtesy check that cell phones have been turned off. we will of course post the program within 24 hours on her website for everyone's future

reference. posting our discussion this morning is michael frank. mr. frank is vice president for government studies here at heritage. he oversees or reshoot capitol hill and the executive branch. he served as heritage director of congressional relations as well as having served for director to medication for former house minority leader dick armey. he also served in the office of national drug control policy and of the legislative counsel for then represented william dannemeyer california for returning here to heritage to work in his current capacity. he's a native of new york graduate appeal, earning his jd from georgetown. reassuring me in welcoming my colleague, mike frank. [applause] >> well, i will introduce tasting panel from the podium, but we will all be seated and make it a little less formal. first of all, welcome to heritage and welcome to this event. a preview of president obama strip to ireland, great britain and poland. we are honored today to have

three very same diplomats, to ambassadors and the british embassy to give us a preview of what to expect in some of -- discuss some of the challenges in each of the relationships we have with the three very friendly and important nations with whom we've been dealing with for a very long time. let me give a brief introduction of all three of our speakers. and i will preface this by saying that if you took collectively the diplomatic experience from our panel today, it is hard to find a part of the world where they have not served in area of the diplomatic relationships in the interest of the nations that they have not been on the front lines addressing over their careers or they are very, very extensive backgrounds. first -- will speak in the order in which the president conducts its business. we'll start with michael collins, the ambassadors since september 2007 to the u.s.

a native of dublin. he's been a career diplomat for over 35 years. he has served -- let me give you a couple examples of where he is served. rome, new york, washington and ireland's ambassador to saudi arabia and covered by wayne, kuwait, qatar and the united arab emirates. he has been ambassador to the czech republic come ukraine. can you figure the part of the world he has not had great experience? is also done extensive work at the u.n. he's been involved in the north-south relationship than a lot of economic issues and challenges that failing test case. also -- this is background. ireland is one of the most free economic relations in the world according to the heritage foundation. despite all the travails we been through economically the last year, i would still comes in number seven out of 179 countries in the world.

our second speaker, phillip burton who is deputy chief of mission in the british embassy here. he's been in that position for very recent knee. he also is a career diplomat, joining the foreign and commonwealth office in 1986. his postings include venezuela, india can't say person is but a key role in britain's policy towards india, pakistan and afghanistan. the u.k. has been a very high explorer and the index and number 16 in the world now and we expect them to move up the rankings as they lower the government or in the future. our third speaker today will be the ambassador from poland, with robert kupiecki born in warsaw and began working in foreign affairs to meet 94. he is a newcomer comparatively speaking.

.. to talk about the business of the president in my case mr. obama. an invitation was first extended to president obama in 2009, and the invitation was renewed following the new government in dublin in march of this year, so our new prime minister within

five days of coming into office in ireland and the oval office very happy to have a conversation with the president of the united states, most particularly happy to renew and extended the invitation to the president come to ireland and our great satisfaction the president accepted to come to ireland which he will do. he will arrive in ireland on monday for the visit to the u.k. in london on tuesday. this is a big thing for our country, and the president to ireland a visit in 2000 when the president bush was in ireland twice in 2003, 2004, but that was on other business and of limerick wasn't in the context of the e.u. summit which we were ourselves cheering at that time. it is a very big moment for us

and we are happy the program has developed and i would like to share that with you. the president well in his first meeting in dublin monday morning only the president of ireland in the park. he will then meet with a government nearby before he has an engagement with the staff at the american embassy of dublin. he will then fly from dublin to a little town southwest of ireland, population 300, where he will rediscover his irish roots. [laughter] he will then come from there he will travel back to dublin where he will speak at a major public event in the middle of dublin and public credit leader thus afternoon. so the basic element of the program and obviously it is a very big moment and because of huge celebration. a visit by a president, particularly with some irish

antecedents, any president of the united states and in the country is a very big moment and if i may say so also is a very big week for ireland because following an ongoing business at this time to ireland that for those of you who know your i risch understand and no need to reiterate just how significant that particular visit is. the significance i tell you that the last such visit of the british ruling monarchs was in 1911. so it's 100 years and the reason why it is taking place obviously now is because the service of the evolution of the peace process in particular has ensured that as we speak in ireland. but any event, she leaves on friday and the president arrives monday so you can see this as a big moment where we have an opportunity to engage with our two most important bilateral partners, most important

relationships, the u.k. on the one hand and the united states on the other hand. so, we are looking forward to welcoming the president. the relationship between ireland and the united states is profound and so many ways. so many people in this country have a connection with ireland. we ourselves have 35, maybe 40 million people but there are statistics that show the figure could be up to 100 million people that shares some connection with ireland. in a way it is a lot bigger than the ireland i represent. [laughter] so, you can understand why it's very important for us nobody but the united states who have made such a contribution to this country and whose role and place in society has given us the credential in the very special place and special contributions they've made along with other communities here in the united states or the generations.

so, we as arabs to with ireland for the nostalgic part there is a hard edge to the relationship and ireland and the united states have a very substantial relationship on the economic front in the recent times plea a huge part in ireland's economic expansion. some 95 calls in the irish people work for companies and ireland in high-volume operations, and these companies of course the gain access to the european market of some half a billion people, so it's a very important base and winning base and i say this for various companies to be in ireland to have access to the european market and beyond. we are the only english-speaking country and the euros on and one of the best places in the world according to the world bank's of these points would be obvious to many people but hard to mention

them again. by all the - - coming out of ireland i will come to that in the second but exports, i your land are from 9% swing countries talk about their capacity and their ability and their wish to grow their economies out of the challenges that we have, most either talk about the exports and we are infected and that. probably by some 9% last year. but it's not all one way. it will come as a surprise to many people to know that ireland is the 13th largest part of the united states, 13th but it's the number we have. [laughter] and something like 34 billion u.s. dollars from on your land into the united states. when people talk about environment one way it's important to acknowledge there's a second way as well and that is coming into the united states and there's over 200 large companies in the united states across all 50 states that have a reason of 82,000 jobs in the united states from the companies

alone and that is an extraordinary contribution for the small country. i'm very proud of it. of course ireland has current challenges and the daunting challenges through and are going through the period of considerable difficulty starting in 2009 in particular when our economy dropped by about 8% and 2,000 line was a little bit less in 2010 was a little bit less, so this year we are looking at stability, turning to stability and growth as well so ireland will experience modest growth something less than 1% in 2011 and we are looking forward to better performance in 2012. as we have taken very determined steps to address the very particular difficulties in our economy and we are quite confident with our partners and the imf and the european union

central bank that we will find a way out of the difficulties and the president coming out of your land that we give an enormous boost. there's no way of putting it to have the president coming to the country to do all the celebration and acknowledgment that he will do but also a particular time in ireland it will be very important. i just want to very briefly in conclusion refer to the president's own background. the president will go to the town in the south coast of ireland and we have many presidents in the united states can control, depending how you count them but in 1850 president obama's great, great grandfather whose mother's side sailed for america at the age of 19 and he was a shoemaker and his great, great grandson would be returning to ireland next monday as president of the united states. it is a story of improbable success almost a an irish legend

in the story of the irish people the courage, about the devotee and reach. the time when our economy is facing the difficulties that we are facing is a very grabbling that the president would invest time in coming to see us obviously and join us and the ability to celebrate his background but also giving the opportunity to promote the message we do want to promote witches' ireland is very much in business and on its way back. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i'd like to start by thanking the heritage foundation for organizing today's even into and giving the opportunity to talk about this and for acting as our host. unfortunately he couldn't be

here today because he flew back to london last night to help in the final preparations of the visit to london but he says his greetings and his apologies and asked to pass those on. this is going to be the president's first state visit to the united kingdom. he was last there in april, 2000 decline that the g20 summit. but of course he had a very regular introductions with a minister cameron says the general election in may of last year. he was here in washington last summer. they need to the international meetings and the g20 summit and the interest on the telephone as well over the big issues. the united kingdom, the united states is our closest ally, so the state visit has both symbolic and a substantial importance. before i say a little bit about the statement itself and what we

must expect i just want to say a little about the foundations of which the partnership between the united states is built. it ranges across all fields in both a government and private interaction so to use a military jargon and the full spectrum relationship by also want to pick out that very broad deep relationship three areas to highlight. first, the prosperity. it is a time of economic challenge across the globe and we work for a closely together on the global economic issues and how we are all dealing with those challenges on trade but also bilaterally we have a very important trade and investment relationship. so, by way of example, the u.k. and the u.s. are the biggest, single biggest investor in each other's country investing about half a trillion dollars in the

economies and there is a time when lots of talk with china is simply worth noting that u.k. investment in the united states is 570 times larger than chinese investment in the united states and nearly 1 million in the u.s. due to work everyday for british companies and in the united kingdom work. i think that is injury strong indication of the commercial and economic relations between and have employment and work together to ensure a more prosperous future. we are the closest possible allied by afghanistan whether some 10,000 british troops engaged on the u.s. trustees for

the u.k. by some second largest military contribution, and we have a shared approach to the security challenges that the world faced today from terrorism sponsored by al qaeda, iran and nonproliferation and north africa. the third and final is innovation research and education. again, we are very close partners and the u.k. is the top choice for american students who want to study abroad with greece. we come back today so if we look at the 2010 nobel science mind of those went to the u.s. and u.k. partnerships but of the partnerships have the recipients have come into the u.k. and the united states from other countries.

we both act in global times and work together to make the most of that time. >> i think they are often seen as being not about the pompous circumstances tree for those of you that got up in your pajamas and watched the recent role you don't know if you're going to get on that side. as i said earlier, there is also going to be a significant amount of substance, the president arrives in london and on tuesday will be welcomed by the queen and the first lady will be there as well. the substantial state where action between the president and prime minister will be a wednesday and that is when they have details, detailed talks.

the backdrop of course is the turbulence and a rapidly moving international stage partly in north africa and the middle east but also the aftermath of the death of osama bin laden which is a great achievement in the short fight against terrorism. so i think the president and the prime minister will be discussing these and will be talking about the situation in afghanistan and pakistan. i am sure they will also discuss how we can work together for the year of spurring and support countries like egypt and the transition which is a call that the g8 summit in france taking place after the president's visit to london. and i am sure also will discuss how we got our bilateral relationship in the sort of fields that i've been talking about, innovation, the defense partnership, cyber where the

u.k. will want to play its part in joining the international strategy in washington on monday on where there is a high degree of commerce between the u.k. and the u.s. approaches and how we can work together on things like the development field globally. so there is going to be a lot of talk and substance. i wanted to close by making -- picking up on what the ambassador said about the queen's visit to ireland. it is genuinely historic event and it does symbolize the relationship between the two countries and it's appropriate to place the president given all she's done during her time as president to bring the communities together. i had a very good fortune to

work with tony blair and the time of the agreement reached and i know from the first hand experience from the united states in helping to bring about that agreement in the call they gave to the efforts of the u.k. government, the irish government to simply reach an agreement so there is to my mind a neatness and symmetry to the fact that immediately after, the president will be visiting the united kingdom as a united states supports the peace presents achieved in that part of the world. thank you. [applause] >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i'd like to echo the words of my panelists and thinking the heritage foundation for providing the opportunity to highlight to europe. the last stop on the president's route to europe, president obama

will look the right on the afternoon of the 27th of may and come back to washington the next day and evening. president obama long expected the await but by other countries of the european union and it is also full received by almost all americans leading to the united states and the large group of taking the rules from central europe. the president's visit takes place in a very special moment as a net two months will take over the presidency of the european union and at the time of the president's visit we will hold a mace to delete a major summit of all central and eastern european heads of state for the president will be a part

of this summit and we intensify our efforts in the democratization through to nisha and i will say a few words about it in a moment. six months after the president visits washington in december last year so in a short period of time it is the second opportunity for the leadership to meet and substantially discuss the present program will be divided into two parts. on the first day president obama will participate in the concluding working dinner of the heads of state and the agenda will be of the meeting divided into two elements. the president will jointly take stock of the economic

transformation and transitions from autocracy to democracy and they also think the transformation and the transition model to the emerging democracies especially north africa which the other portion of the conversation will be to the common experience regarding the situations. we also have a substantial bilateral agenda which will be sealed with the premise you're deily to -- prime minister and a press conference and then as far as the topic of the discussions

are concerned they will be divided into three areas. those three areas will be held a strategic title in the united states but the three areas comprise political relations, democrat these could dhaka decisions and economy with the most prominent of economic relations which is now being occupied by the energy cooperation. in terms of security, the president will take stock of the cooperation and nato and the joint position in the 2004 trips continue the mission. there are common challenges in the same part of the countries of the dillinger is in line with

expected counter withdraw. we ( a major portion the abortion of the discussion. the president will also take stock of what they solve a discussed in december last year where they indicated the problem of the project for the bilateral negotiations including increased presence of the u.s. forces with the prospect of the regional leader. so i think by the time the president will be able to announce those undertakings it will involve the project of the missile defense in the united states by goodyear 2018. the second class of topics to be discussed with the president and the prime minister would be the democratization. the democratization in the broadest possible among the european union has played strong leadership regarding the

bureau's. which also increased or activities regarding to nisha a few weeks ago and the democratization team combining experts of the various heels of constitutionalism public life led by the legendary former president who visited to nisha pulled in meetings with representatives of the society, and last week the foreign minister in the first meeting for the foreign minister of the european union of what he calls substantial discussions and working as strong as a humanitarian so those issues based on our joint interest

commonalities will be as i mentioned the meetings between and last but definitely not least, the economy. over the last couple of years we have seen steady growth of our trade with the united states and it's a jury significant growth for the last three months of this year for the prospect of the economy exchange between the two countries. but there are projects mostly connected to run by the american companies that they will occupy the interest and the time of the leadership.

[inaudible] by various sources, poland has a lot of reserves under. so it is a huge prospect when it is properly put into the introduction to were not only satisfied but also the offer the opportunity and thus changing the balance and in balance of the energy sources and points of origin and it's not only the economy and energy related issues of the highly political point that is being discussed by the european union and obviously the united states and other countries interested in this issue. as i mentioned, the discussion

of the president's visit also has the european context of a call the european union presidency and in july this year there is one special issue that is free much on the agenda. they are the only country that is of the visa waiver program, and i would like to remind all of you president obama in december, 2010, declared that by the end of his presidency he would like to solve this issue so i believe that five months after the declaration in a legitimate we can answer very concise enough faith and by the administration and in the congress, so the question is -- i believe it is also an issue

[inaudible] so is the case. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. we can now turn to our audience for questions and i did ask if he would be so kind when we call on you to identify yourself for the purposes of the speaker. general? >> there is a microphone coming. >> georgetown and then the national journal. can you talk about all levels of the european concern in your countries and over all the continent over the american failure to deal with the debt limit, and the american deficit. is that going to be a topic of discussion, is that an area of concern?

>> we fight for the limit -- >> on the part of the u.k. i wouldn't use the word concerned. i think it's the wrong word. there is a very keen interest as you would expect for the administration and the economic sphere that the coalition government in the u.k. came in a year ago and agreed on the policy for the u.k. now set on that path. but i think i'm sure they have a discussion around the global economy and how to ensure our chairs growing prosperity for both countries and others of them as an interested in the depths of the economic ties between us and the investment called for the future of the

united states is important to the u.k., too. >> i have a huge amount to add to that obviously the economy, the economic hyrum and is a primary source of discussion and we have economic challenge is in ireland and it is always a matter of importance to us to get the perspective of the president of the united states having been at the meeting over st. patrick's day that is on the agenda, so it's certainly interested in how we are managing our way out of their economic challenges and we will be very interested in having this perspective of the challenge the united states is as well. >> question. >> jerry shaw with nhk.

first for the president's trip to poland. i know that there is an outreach for both of the russians and the u.s.. how much of that comes down to improve relations between the u.s. and russia directly? >> welcome with the polls reaching out to both the russians and to the u.s. to improve those relationships, how much of that is dependent on improved relations directly between the u.s. and russia? >> since the beginning of the president we follow close to recent policy of the united states. under the logic and we support the objectives of the process. in the meantime we are sometimes

refer the reconciliation because it's not only of political relations but also the issue of this historical problems. there are many avenues of dialogue and importance for the next two or three years in the activities of the performance. >> so we are satisfied with the outcome of the work and if we would put the context that i was is a major with the russians and the american process i think there is some degree of commonality in the expectation of the positive outcome and if this process produces the most stable predict all relations

with russian partners we would move on to the benefits of the international relations. questioned? >> i want to ask about libya in particular and north africa and middle east more generally. is their concern in any of your countries that this is less of an opportunity the president will probably see again tomorrow and has said before for the democratization of the region and more of a risk perhaps of military operations to more expense on the part of countries particularly given what's happening in libya and whether anything like that could happen again elsewhere in the foreseeable future whether that

be syria or iran or anywhere else. >> i think tom has said this very clearly. the change we are seeing in the arab world has been going since the beginning of this year so it could go on the first for some time and i don't mean completely unfolded. every country is different than us. that includes libya. but i do think i see the press minister is a major opportunity for opportunities of change in the united states as well and shared values around space, open, free society and changes that we are seeing in countries like egypt and transitioning into nisha. those are the ones we want to

support and one of the subject to the prime minister and the president will discuss is how best we from the outside recognizing that we are not necessarily looking at on the ground support will also be the topic. soledad said, clearly there are risks of what is going to be in the uncertain process, and i think the challenge for all of us is to look at the way in which we are able to respond to the collapse of the berlin wall and to bring the countries like poland into the european union and for those people to find a way to provide a positive incentive to change to do so in a way which is more on the values we think there's an opportunity.

>> mr. ambassador? >> poland doesn't shy away from its own international effort has was set in the democracy in the various parts of the world. but we would be interested in holding multilateral aspects and organizations especially the european union as we take over the president's organizations. >> [inaudible] heritage foundation. i'd like to ask the british representative ever since president obama came into office and removed the desk of winston churchill from the oval office there was the expression in this country and perhaps in britain,

too, that this president wasn't quite as the special relationship as his predecessors. do you think that one object of the presidential visit will be to correct this impression? >> i don't actually buy your thesis so i am not convinced that this is an impression to correct. the truth is the british media are one of the there's an interaction between the prime minister and the president of focus on the premise of this year in july and i'm sure next week in london the claim to the relationship is less special than it was i think the full spectrum is very deep and remains as healthy and robust and positive as it has always

been and i think their remakes of the pen minister into the discussions they have in private will reflect that. so i don't think it is a pressure that needs to be corrected. >> yes, the director of the council would like to ask the ambassador whether there is also an emphasis on the economic diplomat side because poland's transformation to democracy was supportive of course by the economic development that went along with it and you had the shock therapy program and then things like the enterprise fund that i was with that provided financing to tens of thousands of businesses. in conjunction with the democracy building efforts that you initiated and north africa are you also bringing along those kind of people who initiated the economic changes?

>> thank you very much for this important question. and i think the important transformation, the result of this transformation points to one single conclusion, that your effort in the security free market economy is worth every penny spent and whether it is enterprise found i think we are the only country who receives american assistance and returns of recent for the budget so when we look for effective, cost-effective relationships we look forward to working with you in the future. but with innovation whether we discuss the cooperation there are two ingalls from which we are looking at this. one in the democratization and implementation, the use of the transformation experience

possibly in other parts of the world and others to continue the part of the economic cooperation focused on innovation, focus on the technology and the robie a few positive messages conveyed by the u.s. president -- u.s. presence including high-level contact and the new areas of cooperation as we post in the next couple of years. >> when president obama first took office there was unhappiness in poland over some of his policies on missile defense. can you talk about where that stands now and also if we expect an announcement that they will be moving some f-16s from states

and poland and talk about the importance of that in polish? [inaudible] both countries agree that the adaptive approach will also involve poland starting from 2018. and this is the timeline working and consulting with the united states as far as missile defense is concerned for where the f-16's come from him but we are working for some time since 2010 that there will be the rotation of military presence and will continue. we have our bilateral negotiations taking place, and by the time of the visit it will be possible to announce the principles and we are very

close. >> what is the significance of that? what is the importance? >> let's say a threefold. the consequences that we think about first the increase of the u.s. military presence. it will benefit not only of security civility but also benefit greater in the relationships we want with the united states. there's the prospect of joint exercises for our operations within the north atlantic alliance as i believe if we look at those countries in central europe for the armed forces and the proper decisions they make

regarding the authorization and equipment there's also the regional cooperation to deal with the presence of the united states so i would agree much point to the conclusion that it might be appropriate relationship if it is progressive aspects like the two presidents announced. >> cade hour from bloomberg news. i'm wondering how the imf is going to factor into the conversations at all and have any of your country called for the reason i am? the imf, the controversy of what is going on. i know it is going to factor into the conversations of who should take over if he does

indeed have to leave. and i wonder if there is going to be any discussion of that. >> by don't know. [laughter] we have with the world bank's and the european commission in relation to the package obviously there are some issues around the interest rates which are subject of ongoing negotiations and the matter now is i think very much an issue that is ongoing and ongoing ensure but in terms of the conversations for the personality i just couldn't say what kind of conversations there might be. >> i would echo that to anticipate the conversation i

think i would emphasize that the imf is an organization as the director who was clearly in charge of the organization. >> if the free market organization with us quite a socialist was in that position in the first place. [laughter] >> my name is james with the heritage foundation. my question is falling on the polish investors's comments about the program and poland not being in it. after 9/11 for quite a few years no countries were admitted in the united states mostly because of the security concerns that bad people would come to the country that want to harm americans. then president bush, w. bush was traveling to the nato summit and he announced they wanted to bring in new partners into the

visa waiver program and in the fall of 20088 new partners came into the program including the estonians, not the ins, lithuanians, hungarian and czech. so the many countries that were former soviet bloc were brought in but of poland. so my question is to part. how does that resonate with the people's poland, the fact that your partner is an article 5, one for all oral for one but allowed to travel the same basis as most other europeans and in the second question is actually a little bit fun, my british guest and irishman. it is ireland and poland a few -- as ireland and britain view them as security for its? and are they allowed to travel freely throughout europe? thank you. >> thank you very much for the question. it's the only country that slipped out of the visa waiver

program and then published. there is no single national security threat coming from poland to the united states not to mention the long standing of the polish military cooperation engagement with various parts and the great relations. i would venture to say to the united states figures that the embassy has indicated rather steady outflow. there is a free moment to be to movement that we are part of the movement and i have no reports about the travel around here.

we understand how complex the situation use in the united states, but there is no i think logical outcome for decision regarding the 21 years now for the u.s. citizens. 21 years after the presidential declaration of the willingness to solve this issue i think there is the right moment and the legitimate that we would like to have the answer. >> could i just respond to the relation of whether we have the security threat, absolutely not. the first countries in 2004 when poland joined the european union

completely and competition to the member states of the european at that time of course principally among them poland, and since that time we have had the privilege of hosting in the country 100,000 to think the figure may be around 200,000 polish people in our community and they were a vibrant part very welcome indeed to years of from the security threat to your very welcome as members of the european union on the shores sometimes they are referred to as a lot in common with the polls and certainly polish people have made a contribution to the economy through the period of particular 2004 and on. >> with the investor just said, like ireland the u.k. opened up as they join the european union and some other countries

transition period which freed up the controversy will issue in the whole of the u.k. the experience i think is when one looks at the way spanish, portuguese coming when they join the european union now the experience has been positive and the gaps in the employment market and the numbers are falling back because you know that you have the public expenses for the economic development and the fundamental level is a to treat them exactly as we would in the header in the european union. >> thank you. >> the question over here. yes, sir.

>> daily telegraph. could i ask all of you what reaction you think president obama will get from the public in the country? and how widely popular he was at the time when he came into office during the campaign do you still think he got that same popularity in the country now? >> i think president obama can expect a huge enthusiastic welcome in ireland. a visit by president of the united states are rare enough since president clinton in 2000. so the public event that is the duty to preceded by the event there would be a lot of energy around the whole event but i

think the message still has an enduring quality to it which will designate very well particularly with younger people with home and as they remind of the fact for everybody at home these are tough times and the president of the united states to come to spend time with us to deliver a positive message we enjoy with the united states and in relation to the future and we are looking forward very much anything other than hugely warm and enthusiastic. also as my colleague said just the acknowledgment that there will be the u.s. role in the peace process is something that shouldn't be underestimated we are always at a point in ireland where we take it because it has

been hugely successful but it wouldn't have been the success and what have the partnership of the two governments and parties on the ground but particularly our american friends, and of all parties and across, so president obama would be the embodiment of the contribution and it is a process we don't take for granted. the united states remains very important so it is hard to get a positive and i think to say we have or challenges of the moment i think among her presents a very bright moment for us. >> from the u.k. i've worked in the british government cleared lot on ten downing street and i've seen from the side quite a lot of state visits to the united kingdom of which we

normally have to a year and to be completely frank, quite a lot of them come and go without the public noticing. there are some among them all and it might just be a photograph i am absolutely sure it will be like that. there will be very, very significant interests in the media but also in the general public in the president and first lady's visit and i think it will be extremely positive. >> [inaudible] >> for obvious reasons i can't go into detail. islamic the same situation has been expected for a long time so there is the interest in poland

regarding the leaders and with regional and bilateral regarding what i also know from talking to polish america it resonates well in the united states and among the polish americans. >> what is it about him and his message that still -- [inaudible] here's what i'm getting at. why was he so popular two or three years ago is he still popular in europe? >> anybody want to tackle that? >> i will get my feet into the water in doing so. i think the president has been in office now for two years and she is a person who the american

people have chosen as their elected head of state, and that's a very significant thing for the world, given the united states role in the world but it's also true i've spoken with many politicians and i think there is still news about him which means there will be keen interest. >> any more questions? we have one back here and there will be the last question. >> some questions for investor collins. ambassador, looking at the financial report year as a understand the total public support to the banks about 65 billion euro, 42% of 2011 gdp do you think the subject will arise upon the discussion with the president has to understanding the full extent of

the banking crisis and the role with the united states may play in capitalizing banks or improving lending domestically from the national perspective as i understand it this seems to be a top priority for ireland. >> well the hour top priority for us and it has been a source for people in ireland and many people find it hard to fathom some of the numbers we are faced with. we just recently stress tested the banks to a very, very high standard. that stress test is taking place of the moment but of course it is a matter of interest for the united states as to how this is going to be false. it is a matter of significant interest to the partners because of the relationship in terms of just the way these things are not interconnected globally.

it's no coincidence i think that we have a bilateral which wouldn't normally be something that we would have as part of our menu of the activities so of course the united states is interested but we have set the course already to be we've defined the policy and mentioned some of those figures there. policies both within the imf and the e.u. which we are falling into getting previews that suggest we are following a prescribed course and overall it is something that the united states has a great amount of significant amount of interest in and i am sure the president will just speak to the premise or after and succeeds the track we are following but we are very

determined, very committed to follow the course that brings us out of the crisis as soon as possible and the steps being taken on absolutely crucial to our economic recovery. >> okay, with that i would like you to join me in a warm round of applause for the guest today. [applause] thank you once again for being here. >> [inaudible conversations]

there appears to be a sufficient second. there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: alabama. session segregation i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, yesterday the senate debated a bill to increase taxes on the production of oil and gas in the united states as well as the tens of thousands of americans that industry employs and really the millions of americans it serves. we should have been debating a budget. in fact, the senate has not passed a budget for 749 days. but the majority decided to bring this bill to the floor yesterday in an effort, i think, to change some of the

conversation from the problem at hand, which is our spending problem in washington. today we borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend. spending on domestic government agencies -- get this: domestic non-defense government agencies in the past two years increased 24%. that does not count the $700 -- almost $800 billion stimulus package added to it. the medicare trust fund will go bankrupt in 2024. the social security druft fund will be insolvent in 2036. in the past decade our nation's debt has increased from $5 trillion to $14 trillion. despite the gravity of our situation, the majority has chosen to debate the bill to increase taxes on the oil and gas, an industry that employs

170,000 americans and a number are in my state, and added this past year 11,000 new jobs. the $1.9 trillion in taxes -- $1.9 trillion in taxes have been generated by the industry since 1981. the reid-menendez bill would not have decreased prices at the pump but would have shipped more jobs overseas and really resulted in the importation of more oil and gas. whenever you tax something, you get less of it. whenever you tax a refining process or whatever, you drive up the cost. it's just that simple. so we are all aware that gas prices have doubled in the president's first two years in office, and raising taxes on energy companies operating in america would do nothing to help that situation. the real solution is for america

to enact legislation that increases domestic american energy production. from a variety of sources: oil, natural gas, nuclear. we need to do more on nuclear. hydroelectric, biofuels and other sources of reliable energy that americans can put to good use -- our energy. conservation is a very important factor and should play a very important role. america needs an energy policy that strengthens our national security, fosters economic growth, protects the environment in a reasonable and cost-effective manner. americans need affordable domestic energy. regrettably, our senate majority plan does not seem to be interested in that kind of energy policy. in april of this year -- get this -- just last month, the

united states imported 344 million barrels of oil from foreign sources. 344 million barrels. that is over 60% of the oil consumed in america. that means that we sent $42.5 trillion overseas in april alone to purchase the oil that we imported. stated differently, last month alone, the united states spent over $980,000 per minute on oil from foreign sources. that's almost $1 million a minute. this presents a significant risk to our national security as so many have told us, as many of these dollars are going to nations that are not friendly to us. this also further exacerbates 0 our nation's trade balance.

we import far more than we export. and our exports now are beginning to rise a little bit, but those gains are being more than offset by importing of oil and the price of oil. so the reid-menendez bill would have increased the price of energy in america, which, i have to say, seems to be the objective of the administration and some in this senate. in september of 2008, steven chu told "the wall street journal" in an interview, "somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in europe." close quote. dr. chu, who is now the secretary of energy for the united states of america, he needs to be thinking about thousand get the cost down and serve the constituency of america -- about how to get the

cost down and serve the constituentive america. i don't know what idea he has that we ought to be raising the cougcost of energy to the leveln yiewmplet and the environmental protection agency in fact is enacting new regulations that will also drive up the cost of energy, in a way that should never have happened, in high view, and we've had some -- in my view, and we've had some votes on that, close votes on that. hopefully we'll soon be ail to pull back that effort. a study by the affordable power alliance concluded that e.p.a.'s greenhouse gas regulations could increase the cost of gasoline by 50%. electricity by 50%, and natural gas by 75% over the next 20 years. that's a stunning figure. as know doubt it'll drive it up. so the majority has yet to recognize the negative impact

these tax increases and new e.p.a. regulations will have on the economy. with gas prices up to $4 a gallon from $2.75 in september -- $4 from $2.75, this translates into a 5% cut in the average american's discretionary income. just for the same amount of gas you buy. this means less spend on home improvements, furniture, clothes, vacations, things people and families need. it is eaten up by increased energy costs. it's in a way a stealth tax on the american people. furthermore, increasing energy taxes will make doing business in the united states more expensive. as a result, jobs will go overseas t means a family which

pays $100 per month for gasoline will now pay over $140 per month for gasoline. if you were paying $200 a month -- and many are -- you'd be $280 a month, just the change in the gasoline price. add it up. that's what it amounts to. $80 for a family that uses $200 a month in gasoline. some argue that raising taxes will help reduce our deficit, but the bill -- the increases in the reid-menendez bill, would have raised approximately $1.2 billion in 2012, with a projected deficit of over $1,600,000,000,000 this year. the revenue produced from these taxes would be a drop in the bucket. don't think it's going to balance our budget, that's for sure. furthermore, the bill's sponsors claim that the money would be

used to reduce the deficit but there's nothing in the bill that does that. although the language sounds good, the language is essentially what we call a sense of the senate and has no binding power. in the end, nothing in the bill could have been construed as mandating deficit reduction. it's simply a tax increase, plain and simple, tax and spend. and as the majority tried yesterday to increase taxes on the energy industry, they ignored the convoluted tax system that is increasing and inhibiting job growth in america. the united states has the second highest corporate tax in the world, 39.5%. all the developed nations have been radioing their taxes. only japan has as high a corporate tax rate as we do and

they're reducing theirs. the canadian finance minister, i had the chance to meet him last week. canada is bringing their tax rate down to 14%, below 15%, and we're taxing at 39.5%. will that not cause a business to decide maybe to build their factory in canada rather than to the united states? the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. sessions: and cost much-needed jobs? mr. president, i thank the cha chair. i believe -- i would ask for consent to have one additional minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, i thank the chair and would say that i believe the mcconnell legislation which has three components, one aimed at restoring american offshore production in the wake of moratorium that's -- wake of the moratorium that's been imposed, safety component aimed at preventing future incidents like deepwater horizon, an efficiency component aimed at streamlining

the issuance of permits. i believe that's the right way to go, more productio. more production of american energy will help our country, our economy, and the american people. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i've come to the floor to talk about the republican bill to expand coastal drilling without environmental review, without the normal planning process, without important safety measures. but before i do, i just have to respond to my distinguished colleague from alabama's remarks about our bill, legislation yesterday. only in washington, only in washington could taking $21 billion from the oil companies' tax breaks, which the legislation said clearly would go to deficit reduction at a time that oil companies are making anywhere between $125 billion and $144 billion in

profits -- not revenue but profits -- would that be not reducing the deficit. only in washington could you say taking $21 billion from the oil industry and the tax breaks they get with record profits, the law says very clearly going to deficit reduction, only that could be viewed a different way. and to suggest that the oil companies cannot do without that $21 billion of the taxpayers' money when they're making $12 $125 billion to $144 billion in profits, it's pretty outrageous. but, you know, i know what today's legislation is about. yesterday was standing up for big oil by the republicans. and today is standing up for big oil again because it's not about reducing gas prices. haven't we learned anything from the tragic death of 11 men

aboard the deepwater horizon rig a little over a year ago? haven't we learned anything about the families that lost their livelihoods and the gulf economy that will take decades to finally rebuild? you know, just over a year ago i came to the floor to speak about this human and environmental catastrophe, a spill that many in this chamber said was inconceivable. well, inconceivable despite the fact that a remarkably similar spill had happened a year before off of australia's coast. 230 miles of coastline in louisiana, mississippi, alabama, florida were spoiled by toxic oil, and countless families who made their living on the coast had their lives turned upside-down. this is an example. this was the oil spill in australia.

this is similar to what happened in the gulf. now, despite this sobering reality, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have introduced a bill that will open new areas to coastal drilling, put millions more families at risk of losing everything. and at the same time that they are calling on coastal communities like my home state of new jersey to risk everythi everything, they have blocked efforts to address the fundamental safety concerns raised by the deepwater horizon blowout and the results of what the commission said. this reckless bill would allow drilling in sensitive coastal areas even though current safety and oversight laws have been deemed to be inadequate to prevent a repeat of the gulf disaster. so i ask you, mr. president:

have we learned nothing? mr. menendez: my home state of new jersey would face a risk of drilling along virginia's coast less than a hundred miles from the jersey shore. if the gulf spill happened in virginia waters, many new jersey families and much of our coastal economy would be ruined. we have magnificent pristine beaches. the dunes along the coast are breathtaking. wildlife is abundant. tourism depends on it. and it would all, all be in jeopardy. this is the second major driver and billions of dollars in our economy. now, for what? this photo shows what happens to wildlife when coastal drilling goes wrong. it shows a risk we cannot take. a spill similar to the one in the gulf could quickly travel to cape may and blanket the entire jersey shore in a sheen of toxic

oil. this would not only be an environmental disaster but also an economic disaster for new jersey. if our coast was covered in oil and our wildlife disappeared, tourists wading into the ocean would replaced by cleanup crews in biohazard suits. that's not what i want for the people of the coastal communities of my state or any other state. with approximately 60% of new jersey's $38 billion tourism industry generated by the jersey shore, we cannot afford to let this happen. and when we add the effect that a spill would have on my state's multibillion-dollar fishing industry, the economic consequences are unimaginable. it simply does not make sense to play russian roulette with an asset that generates thousands of jobs and tens of billions of dollars per year for drilling

assets that could never generate even 1/10th of that. now, my colleagues argue that we must risk our coastal economies in order to bring down the price of gas, that what you need is more production domestically. but here's the problem. we have greater production than at any, as this chart shows, than at any time since 2005. and yet what? gas prices haven't gone down. so where's -- how's the theory at play work? we've got greater production domestically than ever before. gas prices haven't gone down. and what's the department of energy tell us? it estimates that opening all the shores, all shores, to drilling would reduce gas prices by, how much, mr. president? one, two, three cents in the

year 2030. that's the department of energy of the united states. drill everywhere, three cents in 2030. i don't think that's about providing relief right now. three cents per gallon in 20 years yet we would risk tens of billions of dollars in damage to our coastal economies. so instead of doubling down on 19th century fuels, we should be investing in a new 21st century green economy that will create thousands of new jobs, billions in new wealth and help protect our air and water from pollution. it's time for this country to move forward and embrace the future rather than clutch to the ways of the past. over the last two days, we had two bills that present a clear choice, my bill to cut oil tax breaks and this bill to recklessly expand oil drilling. now, neither bill will do anything to gasoline prices, and despite rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, neither bill

is about gasoline prices. i said it very clearly. my bill to cut oil subsidies was about lowering the deficit and doing so by cutting wasteful subsidies. it's hard enough to be paying nearly $4 a gallon for gas but then to have the taxpayers reach in their pocket and give more money to big oil to have them make bigger profits, it's pretty outrageous. the republican leader's bill is about enriching oil companies by granting them new areas to drill without normal safety or environmental review. my bill was designed to help taxpayers and their bill is designed to help oil companies. when it's all said and done, that's what we are deciding today. are you with working class, middle-class americans or are you with big oil? i think there's only one fair answer, only one answer that makes sense for american families and only one answer that makes sense for ourselves as a country looking to future generations. the reality is, is that if we

learned nothing from the tragedy of a year ago, then it's a sad commentary. but if we have learned, yes, we can pursue drilling in certain areas but it must be done safely or else we spend then billions afterwards cleaning up the mess. i don't want to clean the oil companies' messes up. i don't want to put future generations of americans at risk in terms of the conservation of their environment, and i certainly don't want to wait for 2030 to take all of that risk and to risk all of the billions of dollars in coastal economy for three cents, mr. president. let's vote "no" on this suggestion and let's move forward to a green energy future that finally breaks our addiction to foreign oil and breaks our addiction to those gas prices that we suffer with today. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri.

mr. blunt: mr. president, i'm here to talk about gas prices and the economy and the effect of the economy on -- on our future. we need to work hard to be sure that we're producing more american jobs, and, frankly, i can't think of a better way to do that than produce more american energy. we use about the same amount of energy in a good economy as we do in a weak economy. those are the -- the -- it's the place to go where we know the consumers are, whether it's the electric bill or -- or gasoline at the gas pump and we ought to be doing all we can to produce those jobs. certainly there are many factors that affect the price of oil, things like the value of the dollar, supply and demand, the global events that affect oil, like the problems right now in libya and other oil-producing countries, or even the weather. you know, i live in a state that's bounded by the mississippi river and the flooding down the mississippi has had some impact on the north-south movement of refined

products in the country. and all those things have impact on -- on -- on gas prices. one thing that will come up this summer that i've worked hard on and my colleagues have joined me on would be looking at what we can do to be sure that our efforts to have clean air don't needlessly restrict the supply of -- of gasoline. you know, as we get into the summer months, too many cities have their own unique blend of fuel and that means that we -- we turn the refinery centers -- the refineries into profit centers making these unique blends of fuel instead of places that process oil into gasoline and different blends of gasoline only when necessary as opposed to whenever someone's convinced a city that that unique blend of fuel is the only one that they could possibly use. in my state, in missouri, we

have one blend of fuel in the summer. in st. louis, another blend of fuel across the state in kansas, and a third blend of fuel inbetween. and all those have to be blended separately, trucked separately, sold, obviously, separately. and the gas act, which i hope we can talk about more in the next few weeks, is one of the ways that we can say, let's bring as much commonsense into the system as we can, let's take the supply that we have available and use it in a way that makes the most sense. right before katrina in 2009, the president was given new authority in cases of natural disaster to suspend these fuel blends, if there was a restriction of supply. and the president did that. i don't think he had a he had the authority a month before katrina hit. the president did that, and in the six months that that authority was used, gas prices didn't go up in any significant

way at all, as i recall, because for that six-month period of time, gasoline became a commodity again. and if you could get gasoline, you can sell gasoline. if somebody had gasoline, you could buy gasoline. and it didn't matter whether tbas the unique blend that -- it was the unique blend that you had become convinced in your community was the only one that was right for you. and we set some standards on those blends at the time in the gas act that 38 of my colleagues have cosponsored. we'll set more standards. that's one way to try to use the supply that we have in a twhai makes the most sense -- in a a way that makes the most sense. but another way is clearly to go out and find more. you know, our approach to energy needs to be threefold. it needs to be to use energy more officiately, to use less -- efficiently, to use less and to

find more. as we transition a system, and i'm not at all of the opinion that we won't have a system of -- a fleet of cars that is powered in different ways at some date in the foreseeable future. but the foreseeable future would be 25, 30, 40 years. i'm almost -- i'm equally convinced that no matter what direction we head in fueling automobiles, that 25 years from now, the majority of cars on the highway are still going to be using gasoline. and so that means, let's find more of it here. and that's what the offshore producing and safety act does that senator mcconnell introduced, i, ao along with may of my colleagues cosponsored that. this bill really tries to restore our offshore exploration of energy. 30 of our energy has come from -- 30% of our energy has come from the novel, our domestic

supply has come from the gulf. we want to make sure that that number continues to remain at that level. since april of 2010, the administration has only approved 53 shallow-water and 13 deepwater permits. most of those were underway before the deepwater horizon spill a year ago, and in fact the moratorium has for all practical purposes become what some people are describing as a permatorium. we permanently decided we weren't going to look at the gulf for the kind of oil that it can, should, and needs to produce. in fact, offshore energy production is projected to fall by 210,000 barrels her day this year. 210,000 barrels per day this year. that means in the gulf, we'd be getting 210,000 fewer barrels of oil every day in year than we

got last year. surely that's no solution to become more dependent on other countries who are the recipient of the jobs that follow our energy future. and we need those jobs to be here. the estimate is that 190,000 barrels would be down in 2012 because we've not been pursuing the drilling practices -- it's possible that 2011 could be the first year since 1958 that the federal government won't hold an offshore lease sale, the first time since 1958. does that mean we're less dependent on oil and gasoline than we were in 1958 or 1959 or 1969 or -- no, it doesn't mean that. we're more dependent. and we need to move forward with looking at the resources we

have. recently -- recently meaning sat dimeaning --recently meaning sa. the president appears to have reversed course on this issue and has called for the alaska and gulf of mexico lease leasese reinstated. i think this bill actually helps what the president called for on saturday. that would be lightning speed for the senate to pass a bill on wednesday or thursday that the president asked for on saturday. but i think this is very much in line with what i would add submit a new position for the president to take. but it's one that he seemed to take firmly on saturday, and this legislation would help him out. the number of lease sales is undetermined by the president's address, but we could help by pursuing leasing and permitting with this act. this act directs the interior

department to conduct the offshore lease sales that the administration challenged -- or, canceled, rather, in december of 2010. these were lease sales that were under way. the process was well along, and the administration canceled those lease sales in december of last year. these were lease sales in the western and central gulf and on the virginia outer continental shelf and the alaska outer continental shelf. let's go back to that point, let those lease sales move forward, as they were doing before they were canceled. the president just said saturd saturday, let's do this. well, let's do t and let's give him the tools and encouragement he needs to do it right now. this would end the permanent

moratorium that occurred last year in the gulf. it puts a 30-day time limit for the interior dopt review and decide on -- interior department to review and decide on drilling permits. if rejected, the interior department needs to disclose why it rejected the permits. shouldn't be anything wrong with that. if a permit should be rejected, everybody ought to be told, it ought to be part of the record. it also provides for default approval if the interior department doesn't maying a decision within 60 days. and finally, it improves the safety procedures by adding additional requirements for a spill response plan, a containment response plan to see that that was done. this would mean that we'd have more american energy and more american energy has two impacts. one, it would inject more supply into the marketplace, putting pressure on the worldwide marketplace, putting price

pressure. and if we fully pursue our own resources, that does have an impact on the short-term response of the industry because they know that america -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. blunt: and so i would urge that we approve this bill. i intend to vote for it and i yield back. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. inhofe: mr. president, first of all, let me just say that for starters, i -- i will be supporting the bill that we have today. it doesn't go far enough, though. what we ought to do is open up everything. i'm talking about the pa sirvetion the atlantic, the -- the pacific, the atlantic particular, the gulf, i know there are some reasons why they are confining it to the gulf in terms of this legislation. while i respect that, again, it

doesn't go far enough. let me make one comment about yesterday's vote. i -- i think when people -- right now the single issue they have in terms of energy is the price of gas at the pumps. i know it isn't just m mine. thethey're all that way. yesterday's bill for was for a major tax increase on big oil. those are the five bifght oil companies, but nonetheless, you know, they -- and i hate to say this, but sometimes you walk on the floor with half-truths and get by with and it people will assume that that's true. and as much as i love my fellows on the other side, some of the things that were stated were just -- actually just totally inaccurate. to say that the big five don't pay taxes ... they pay huge taxes here. and i don't know where they come up with some of these numbers. i am going to single out one

company here: exon mobile -- and just fell you something that you're not aware of, mr. president. because it hasn't been said on the floor yet. in 2010, exxonmobil's total tax expenses in the united states were $9.8 billion. that's what they paid in taxes 2010, that includes income tax expense of more than $1.6 billion. that $9.8 billion in taxes exceeded the 2010 u.s. operating earnings of $7.5 billion. what we're saying is, they paid $9.8 billion in taxes. they only received $7.5 billion in terms of earnings from the united states. now why is that? it's because about 80% of their operations are in other countries. they're in countries -- 100 different countries. not one of the other countries charges taxes when they go offshore there. we're the only country -- i believe we're the only country that charges a united states tax

on production that takes place in someplace -- some other country. now, for that reason, if you just single out -- if we taxed them like most people do, it would have been a tax credit and not a tax at awvment but nonetheless they were accountable for paying taxes that year of $9.8 billion. look at this year -- that was 2010, during the first quarter of this year, our u.s. operating earnings of this particular company were $2.6 billion. that's the first quarter of 2011. the rest of their earnings came from operations in more than 100 countries worldwide. here is a number we won't hear in washington. during the first quarter on those earnings, u.s. earnings, of $2.6 billion, they incurred a sachs tax expense and paid a tax of $3.1 billion. now, they're paying more than they're getting out of this country. irthink that sooner or later you have to come up and just tell the truth of what's happening. it is all -- it's all class

warfare and i think we know that. big, bad oil. you know, they're all bad. and yet, you know, we have a lot of production in my state of oklahoma. we have companies like devon and others, anadarko, who are really doing a lot to relieve this profnlt i know what is going to happen. it didn't happen. it is not going happen. but if it had, the next target would be some of the smaller domestic conforms i remember coming down to the floor last year when our good senator from vermont had a bill and he was bringing it up by u.c., and i just happened to get here in time to stop it and debate it and defeat it. now, that bill -- they even used and held up a picture of a check from exxonmobil as to what their tax liabilities were. totally wrong in my opinion. and apparently in the opinion of 61 of the 100 senators because they joined me in opposing that particular legislation. now, we have a solution to the problem.

this is not -- this is not rocket science. i mean, right now we have -- and i've said on the floor many, many times that it just happened in the last eight months, the congressional research service, nobody has stood on the floor and questioned the fact that they are -- they're nonpar nonp, and they looked at t our recoverable fuels are greater in america than any other country in the world. the problem is, we have a political problem where the liberals here will -- along with the liberals in the white house, including the president, will not exploit our own resources. we have all of that oil and gas and coal that's out there. we could be totally independent of the middle east, totally. in a very short period of time if we just go offshore, on all three coasts, along with the north area, anwr, and with our public lands.

and as i say, every other country does it. and so you have to wonder why don't we do it? why is it that we don't care about supplying ourselves with homegrown oil, gas, and coal and taking caver our own energy needs? we have the ability here, but the politicians won't let us do it. well, there's one reason, and that is that -- and this is really disturbing -- that in the case of this administration, they don't want to do it. i mean, this administration has said many times that they are not interested -- listen to what alan krueger, assistant secretary of treasury said. he said "a tax subsidies -- subsidies, they're not subsidized. threes tax increases. "tax subsidies harass currently provided to the oil gansdz industry encourages overinv of domestic resources in industry." and slicked he says, "this administration believes that it is no longer sufficient to address our nation's energy needs by finding more fossil fuels."

well, look, i'm all for -- i'm for coal, gas, oil, aim for nuclear, all of the above, all of the reniewcialtion wind, sun, everything else, but we've got to run this machine trade, tomorrow, and the next five and ten years. you can't do that without fossil fuels. the -- further, they stated, "the administration's goal is to have resources invested in ways which yield the highest social return." social return. boy, this is a totally different thing. not an economic return, not the ability to run our country ourselves. but some kind of a social engineering that is going on. the best quote really and the most telling is the one that came from secretary chu, the energy secretary for president obama, listen to this, mr. president. he said, "we're goings have to get some regulatory thing going on high drailic fracturing" and he said that "somehow we have to

figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in europe." now, this is our administration saying this. this is the secretary of energy, that's appointed by president obama. "somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to levels in europe." they're intentionally raising the price of gas, and it's by their own admission. and we were warned way back during the campaign when president barack obama was a united states snorks he said "under my plan of cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." so we have an effort by them -- and i would just warn my good friends, my good friends on the democrat side of the aisle, you know, watch this pretty close. because just because the president wants to increase the price of oil doesn't mean that -- doesn't mean that your constituents do. in fact, i can assure you your constituents do not. unless there's something really

unusual about my state of oklahoma. let's swhee the c.r.s. report said in a little bit more specifically. "in the updated report" -- since the one i just talked about -- "america's combined recoverable oil and gas and coal endowment is the largest on earth p. america's recoveriable resources are far larger than those of saudi arabia, china, and canada combined." that's resources we have in oil, coal, and gas. in oil, america is the world's third-largest oil producer and seine dowed with 163 billion barrels of recoverable oil which will run the united states of america for 50 years. we could run all the oil that we'll need for 50 years. we've got t just got to get the politicians out of the way. natural gas , america's supply of natural gas is over 2,000 trillion cubic

feet, an increase of more than 25% just since the committee's 2006 estimate. at today's rate of use, this is enough natural gas to meet america's demand for 90 years. now, keep in mind, on natural gas, it's not just natural gas for -- to develop energy but also natural gas is something that we're going to be using in our cars. today it's available and they're working on technology. we're working on the certification of engines that will burn natural gas. and when we are, it's going to be -- relieve that tension also. right now the price of a comparable gallon of -- of natural gas to run an automobile is $1.60 a gallon. $1.60 as opposed to $4 a gallon. so it's out there. that's natural gas. now, in natural gas, i have to say this. the president made a speech -- and i responded on a couple of tv stations. this was probably three weeks ago, mr. president. it was on energy. and nesd that speech -- and he said in that speech, we

have an abundant supply of good, clean natural gas, we need to be using it. then at the end of that speech, he said, however, we have to be very careful what we're going to be doing because we don't want to contaminate our drinking water with hydraulic fracturing. well, i happen to come from oklahoma. the first hydraulic fracturing job was done in oklahoma in 1948. we have not had one documented case of one groundwater contamination in 60 years. and yet right now they're going to stop us from going after natural gas by taking away hydraulic fracturing. now, hydraulic fracturing in these tight formations, the shale formations, you can't develop a cubic foot of natural gas without using hydraulic fracturing. it's a way of inserting liquids in to force the gas out so that we can develop it. and so it's there. so what the president is saying we need to use natural gas but we don't want to use hydraulic fracturing. and there's an effort right now by many members in here to try

to take that over as a federal function, the regulation of hydraulic fracturing. right now there's never been a rob with it. it's rated -- it's regulated differently in different states. for example, in my state of oklahoma in the anadarko basin, you're talking about depths of some 35,000 feet. you go just north into kansas, it's between 3,000 and 4,000 feet. so it's different in different states. it needs different regulation. it's not broke and we don't need to fix it. now, what has the president done? he has put secretary chu in charge of -- of determining what we're going to do with hydraulic fracturing. well, that's secretary chu. he's the same guy that said we've got to raise the price of our gasoline to be comparable to the gasoline price in -- in europe and so that's -- that's the wrong guy for that kind of a study. besides that, i would remind you, mr. president, that we actually have a study that's going on right now by the environmental protection agency

on hydraulic fracturing that isn't through yet. it would seem to me that we ought to at least finish and get this study before you rush in there and try to pass something that will stop us from being able to develop our natural gasses. same thing i could say for coal. america's number one in the coal reserves. right now people aren't aware of it, we are reliant upon coal for 50% of the power that it takes to run this machine called america. america's number one in coal resources, accounting for more than 28% of the world's coal. so we have it here. we have gas. we have coal. we have oil. all we have to do is develop what we have. you know, how many people in america who have gone through elementary school don't remember supply and demand? we have a huge supply and there is a great demand for it but we have our politicians who won't let us develop our supply. and as long as that happens, it is going to be very difficult for us to make -- so i would just say this. there's a wake-up call here for

the american people. we have a vote this afternoon. it's not good enough. i'm going to vote for it but we ought to be opening up our exploration, our production all over america. and to do that, we have to go beyond this -- this bill. this is a start and