do is destroy that position in the global transportation fuel market. that is fantastic with benefits to the local economy but it is time enough to keep fuel down in the long term manner. but if we open it to fuels from coal, natural gas, biomass and other resources so it could be an arbitrage against oil with a sufficient capacity expansion made from non petroleum resources to where we get a situation that is compotation over the market share it with dry fuel costs down in a sustainable long-term manner that would make a global economy able to withstand the craziness in different parts of the world.

we cannot negotiate with the evil that is isis. we cannot talk them down rejuvenating to stop their brutality and murder of are all those ago under the same ideology but we can attempt to inoculate ourselves and seek to destroy them eventually. if we don't i guarantee we will call ourselves into a space -- dozens of complacency to forget about post nine levin frantic ness and just go back to sleep i guarantee we will wake up to a very nasty shock down the road if we don't open to competition. thank you.

>> [applause] >> thank you ann. when putting together the panel i decided deal other component we needed was someone to your talk about how this drop of oil prices will be viewed and embraced by the new g.o.p. congress. thought the person that could give us the most insight into that and also the way the new g.o.p. congress looks at energy issues generally, that person was mapped. -- matt for the u.s. senate g.o.p. policy committee basically the policy steering committee that thinks through the issues that the new congress will

cost about n the prism through which they see those. as a staffer for representative tim murphy who heads the congressional natural-gas caucus and represents the 18th district in pennsylvania one of the hub says the emergent shale industry. so that shale revolution shows that matt has contemplated with members on the hill and with meeting policy makers can something he has been connected with personally fear representative murphy's office. he also has a law degree from vanderbilt and one of the most thoughtful people i know from the emergent energy issues and raised to

address them and the questions how america's emergence as a leading oil producer will have an impact on our national security and i am very pleased to introduce you to ever last panelist. >> thanks to the hudson institute for having me. and the opinion i expressed today our mailing in do not reflect any republican senator. food does not like paying

$2.24 for a gallon of gasoline? that is the national average price down from last year this is the sign of yesterday's enrichment. low gas prices is act as the enormous tax credit distributed to every american family to stimulate business across the economy americans are likely to have as much as $115 billion of more disposable income this year if it averages $2.50 a gallon the typical family could save $1,100 annually. that is money to spend on other things. and for the low prices fact is the progressive tax cut to provide greater economic relief to low income households and senior citizens on a fixed income and do not require a dime of

taxpayer money and nobody has to wrestle tax cuts from congress. low prices for other products boost spending power. diesel is down since last year, residential heating oil is down $1.33. propane is down $1.40 for every dollar that they save is one day care use to purchase other goods and services for cop this is great news for american consumers but not everyone is celebrating lower energy prices. at $56 the barrel crude is below break-even prices for russia, iran and venezuela in the crude-oil prices well past $100 per barrel to balance budgets in 2015.

u.s. petroleum product prices have been cut in half mostly because brent crude have plummeted 50% during the same timeframe. on monday trading at $57 a barrel $58 less than its peak $115 june of last year. russia needed to trade around 107 and iran needs it to be $131 and venezuela needs prices to go about $151. brescia has 60 percent of foreign currency earnings from exports and around 50 percent of the annual budget from the gas industry. according to a 240 -- a 2014 article in the near time russia lurched to a financial crisis and it has

fallen more than 50% looking at numbers of the 1998 crash when brochette defaulted on its domestic debt. it is for half of venezuela's revenues and as much as 75% of iran said that today's prices economies are in a tailspin. with the oil revenues / and half the companies are less able to pay for services they need to ensure social order and maintain stability. there in weaker positions when negotiating with u.s. over military aggression and they're much dash condition and other provocative positions at home and abroad have a decline is oil prices fall.

at $50 of peril facing bringing their crude to market american energy producers are finding oil production challenging all they are a competitive and not under as much as stress as venezuela and russia and iran. in the eyes just report found 80 percent of domestic production anticipated in 2015 would break-even between $50 and $69 per barrel wti. on monday that crude traded at $53 a barrel. $55 less than the peak price of june last year at $100 per american energy producers are repositioning operations to better withstand a low-price

environment to delay capital investment to shut down production and refocusing their attention from currently being produced in this we spots progress of last friday the total number of drilling rigs actively exploring fell at 1,456 that is down 17.8% from one year ago and the lowest level in five years. energy companies are scaling back capital expenditures that means layoffs and not just with the oil patch exploration and production companies equipment manufacturers hotels and restaurants and transportation construction could all take a hit if this environment exist.

lower oil prices are a large part a function of booming oil production which has increased by 4 million barrels per day over the last six years. to keep up the flow flow, producers need to reduce cost. on the one hand, we have low petroleum prices that of consumers celebrate. on the other hand, we have energy producers who are challenged in this environment and we need it to keep the supply up and prices low and we have a lot of workers being laid off. how can washington help? mostly by getting out of the way. a good place to look for cost savings of need this regulation is a short-term snapshot of the oil markets

and should not be used as an excuse to block long term energy projects that is like deciding to cancel the bridge repair because the morning commute was lighter than normal. one thing congress can do and now the president has proved - - approved the keystone xl pipeline it is a long-term infrastructure projects that would operate well beyond the low price environment. it passed after debating on 41 amendments of you were adopted. nearly three times the number of amendments voted on in all of 2014. many of those were offered by democrats and nine voted.

pass 247 / 152 with 29 democrats it was a chance for 830,000 barrels of oil per day and hitting 100,000 from montana and north dakota to market in the most environmentally way but obama has delayed a decision for more than six years and during that time the project cost has increased by 40% from 5.$4 billion of but $8 billion in this is exactly the kind of unnecessary cost that mismanaged energy infrastructure to impose on energy producers. the president should sign legislation into lot immediately. open federal lands to oil production the federal government manages

648 million acres of serviced land which is 28% of land of the united states. expense to mineral resources including 700 million onshore and 1.7 billion offshore acres. the federal government only leases 2.8% of onshore and offshore federal lands for energy production fiscal year 2014. this was not by accident the president has used his designation under the national wilderness preservation system the national trails system, the antiquities act the endangered species act and other programs to block energy production on federal land and it has contributed to production falling by 6% on the land the president

controls 2009 through 2013. by contrast crude oil production has increased by 61 percent on state and private land despite his repeated attempts he cannot take credit for the shale oil revolution and the loyal -- lower prices that were brought to consumers it happened despite his policies not because of them. the federal government has great difficulty administering federally protected land. the combined main its backlog of the bureau of land management agency's is $22 billion we got to focus on effectively managing the land before we designate new ones. research they can provide energy producers greater opportunities for oil and

gas production. to provide certainty to the blm that has a backlog of 4500 applications to drill onshore leases for according to the department of interior inspector general last year it took an average of 228 calendar days or seven and a half months to process during fiscal year 2012. the states take 80 days or less percolate the keystone xl pipeline the permit backlog is another example where they are delayed to add an unnecessary cost for producers. last december the congress passed the blm permit process to address the

backlog. senator john grasso -- grasso sponsor though a bit -- legislation but a small example of the bipartisan group of policy makers to persuade not to veto every energy reform. we need to stop the run necessary burdensome regulations from the day before thanksgiving the epa proposed a new 626 page plus a 575 page appendix of the ozone standard of 70 parts per billion down from 75 parts per billion established by the bush administration. the epa suggest it would impose a cost of $15 billion per year on the nation not

including california. another $106 billion per year on california alone. the national association of manufacturers shows a new ozone regulation threatens to be the most expensive ever imposed on industry in america. at 65 the ozone standard board pushed a large swath into non attainment with their quality standards with more localities to curb production to manufacture development and agricultural operations and economic growth. crude oil exports could also help producers shore up the economics of production and to give access to foreign markets is the topic that is just starting to be

discussed and there have been several studies that projected positive benefits to the u.s. for exports to occur and the community has some questions about what that policy might mean for them. and on the hill is an issue the received increasing attention. these are just some examples of the regulatory burdens that have been unnecessarily there plenteous of others like hydraulic fracturing are planned methane rules are the endangered species act or national monument designation that five-year offshore play and just to name a few. the al look for oil prices we have heard from both speakers previously but

1.that cannot be overemphasized is energy producers and developers plan their projects over a long-term horizon. the federal government should not implement policies according to a short-term snapshot of oil markets oil prices are not guaranteed to stay at today's level. they could move up mahua home or with the increases were the middle east ignites in the conflict if economic growth picks up speed demand could increase and in either case oil prices could rise. on tuesday the energy information association said brent crude would rise up as high as $75 in 2016 and wti would go from 55 up at $71.

iea said it will cause them to make a pious but not bring it to when and. tobacco and noted in the 2014 article for the american enterprise institute what is now unfolding as the price decline over the past 30 years with relatively sharp rises but there is a lot of uncertainty the more competitive they can operate the more likely they will sustain production. we have tremendous opportunity to better position overproducers and

consumers and policy. thank you for your attention and i look forward to the discussion. >> thanks. this is usually the plane and a panel discussion i exercised my prerogative as the moderator prerogative to ask the first and the most interesting question. but in this case given our audience i think it would be more interesting or entertaining if we open the discussion into questions of first and i will reserve my final big question for the end if we have time left. if you have questions single day or as a group just come to the microphone and please

identify yourself also or your affiliation that you care to disclose. >> from the aspen institute institute, of a bite to ask anybody on the panel what about the low prices that exist now will decrease in future exploration and development outside of the united states like mexico or brazil canada, russia of the all have huge reserves and had plans to increase production. what can we look for in the future on that? >> the early returns that the longer-term the project

the more likely it is whoever sponsors it will continue with that. however we have started to see a decline of capital expenditure was some of the higher cost jurisdictions that indicates canadian companies have been announcing decreases from 25% to fourth quarter earnings and now we get a sense of what they are saying. but globally a lot of the projects seem to be a longer duration even with an element of state sponsorship so it is harder to get a handle at least in canada and the united states with what we have seen so far is interesting with the decline in capital expenditure however those prospects still remain highly contingent.

it is a longer-term project but then shale project could be started or stuffed with variability within a couple months window to get them going in terms of exploration. so it is highly flexible and highly adaptive elsewhere in the world. to cut spending by $40 billion. so companies are definitely reacting to lower prices was to reduce investment for certain projects. >> but how we are producing oil despite that.

with that technological efficiencies. that is a big question mark for a the analyst. what technological efficiencies that they could achieve in the low-price environment than is the big question mark going forward. >> at the research triangle institute and as the ceo of halliburton he says the slow prices in the way are healthy for the industry because they force more efficiency the way it is utilized with more optimization and less per force and also have higher cost for their producers and less efficient are out of the market in the long run

it could be a better use of technology to lower-cost of production overall. >> also of paradox relationship between shale producers and conventional producers because shale producers can react so quickly changes the price to cutback in exploration and production or ramping up when the price goes up so that means they have the ability to affect prices to provide a price support that larger retail big producers will want to use to their advantage to fund long-term projects knowing if the price reaches that a certain

level production will wind down. so we have an interesting relationship between shell and conventional production in a way to support the others continuing growth and development. >> howard d uc the development of the electric car? du think those prices would slowdown? >> i love what tesla has been doing with a high-end luxury consumer it gives a lot of room to have higher prices than the average $20,050,000 price.

so i think it is a fantastic technology these cars are incredible if you have driven one. but when you look at the first question is the development and the second is the movement of the technology into the massmarket. that is about the battery price, the plug and hybrid purses electric's the hybridization of the system. i think there is a lot of room for a growth in this sector of the market but it will take a long time and for that reason and we should applaud those companies to remove any break in the tory barriers that stand in their way it is important not to focus on

electrification as the sole option for the transportation market. looked at the low hanging fruit today that is actually the liquid fuel joyce. if it is made from coal or natural gas is not synthetic petroleum products. . .

certainly it's a big market with lots of applications and there will always be room for electric as well. not mentioning other option doesn't mean i don't think they are good. i am just focusing on these. >> i'm going to take your question and i'm going to read it to matt and that is mapped the degree to which a lot of the growth and electric automobiles in this country has been sustained by one subsidies but also by tax incentives and i think attacks would be a classic example. what is the mood right now among

gop congress for sustaining those kinds of incentives in regard to electrification and what do you foresee would be the impact. forget about just the issue of lower oil prices but the other impact and that is the way in which these kinds of subsidies and incentives push that market forward. >> well i think first of all certainly the republican conference is interested in and all of the above energy strategy including technologies like electric vehicles. we have some members of our congress who are real leaders on electric vehicles specifically and others that are more interested in natural gas vehicles so there is a really debate within our conference as to what the vehicle technology should look like going forward. i think taking a step back and just looking at the government's role in these types of policies

certainly our conference and quite a few democrats as well are more comfortable focusing on the research and development aspects of any of these types of technologies. when you get into the commercial deployment of that and you use government resources to incentivize that commercial deployment you have a lot of people that will become concerned with the capture of federal agencies, with picking winners and losers, with forcing technologies into the commercial space that aren't yet ready for the commercial space. i think a lot of people agree that one of the major innovations that cannot only help electric vehicles but were nobles is energy storage battery technology. more needs to be done on that front and there was an interesting report maybe last year by itif that policymakers

should focus less on commercial deployment and more on research and development. this is coming from a group that typically would be for commercial deployment policy so i thought that was an interesting shift may be on you know the more democratic side of the aisle or at least from a think tank. and, i would suspect that senator murkowski the energy committee chairwoman, you know will certainly be looking at policies focused on research and development in particular. she has promoted those in the past and probably will in the future and that is why i would look for action on our side. >> if you are buying a 100,000-dollar to tesla a tax credit isn't going to make that much of a difference. it would be nice but if you care that much you would ask for less my stereo or less expensive

paint job or something like that so focusing on the higher end of the market you make yourself more and mean. >> and also to changes. that's a very good point. >> are there one other point i might add these discussions on capitol hill also there's a debate about how to do them and whether to do them in a target way or not. obviously a lot of people like to get fundamental tax reform done. do you address tax credits for electric vehicles vehicles for examples in the context of a larger fundamental tax reform package? do you do it as a rifle shot approach? that's another question for all of these types of technologies and the government is looking attacks credits. >> more questions? >> thanks. abe schill ski from hutson. some people have argued that given the ability of the

producers to come into the market relatively quickly because they don't -- it doesn't take two or three years to get something going like it does with the deep sea drilling for instance but also to exit relatively quickly because their wells are shorter lives than if you don't don't keep reinvesting you will draw down your production. all of that taken together implies that for the future we should see much more stable oil prices and that some of the things we have seen in the past of these rapid swings in oil because of the inelasticity of supply won't be characteristic of the oil market in the future. i was just wondering what the panelists thought of that very? >> sure. i think that's the whole. the hope is that there's a new and more adaptive oil production system in the united states.

what are some of the caveats? one is that at least thus far the major participants in the industry, shell oil have largely been smaller companies and have lined up financing that is not as stable as the financing that is offered to large global oil companies. so the big question is whether or not there will be an ability or at least the financing exploration and production mechanism that has been operating on a systemic level in the united states for the last number of years to continue in an environment with the more volatile prices. tpd. the reason why i try to characterize where we are right now and price discovery is there's actually a brand-new oil production system in the united states, the one which you characterized and given the fact that the system is only a couple of years old or more than a couple only a few years old we are really not certain how it's going to react to the kind of

volatility added new price area that had existed when the technology first began to be deployed in a large and meaningful way. so i don't think there really is an answer but i do think the hope is that the system that has been operating for the last couple of years will continue to operate in a manner described in the question. so will it? i can't answer. do i hope it will? it seems as though it's been a good thing thus far and that's the most i can really offer. >> i'm going to take this question and give it a shot. we are talking about u.s. shale and the shale revolution we are really talking about two different revolutions. we are talking about the oil of course in which we think about it very much because of its impact and questions whether these price drops have oversupply but we also have the natural gas shale revolution and

so my question that i'm going to pose taking aides point and opening it up isn't perhaps the way in which the shale revolution will provide us with a certain cushion with regard to prices protecting us from large swings up or down is the real cushion maybe not in shale production of oil but in shale production of natural gas? >> i really do think that is the case. in fact if we do the right things, if we open our cars to fuel combination natural gas, the shale production in natural gas can be the game-changer. right now natural gas goes into the electricity sector into the chemical industry and so on. it's not arbitrage against oil. natural gas is competing against coal and nuclear power. we want arbitrage between

natural gas and oil. we want natural gas prices to rise as oil prices fall. and of course not natural gas prices in asia which are very high because natural gas prices differ around the world but looking at natural gas prices here. we want natural gas prices to be able to used as a lever against oil. when you think about this if we do that would be fantastic for the shale producers. it would give them incentive to expand production for the shale gas producers which right now have shut in production even before prices plummeted. even a year ago ago it wasn't economic to produce a lot of the gas from fuels that weren't producing white gas. we want to see a lot more that gas production and for that to happen you have to have tremendous demand and for that to happen you want to open the transportation fuel market. can i refer back to the earlier questions? we can't ignore the motivations

and the imperatives of other actors around the world. the saudis have three-quarters of a trillion dollars of cash reserves but they are steadily running through right now. that's why they can manage to keep these prices lower. that's why they haven't cut by half a million and certainly not by 3 million but they like balanced budgets and they are not going to keep running through cash reserves forever. once they feel their goals are accomplished however we may consider those goals to be. so they have a very strong motivation to keep their heads attached to their necks. to that end they need to keep subsidizing fuel prices domestically. they need to keep salaries going to government employees and most saudi citizens work for the government. they need to keep subsidies for food and everything else. they need to keep spending lots and lots of money which means they'd need a much higher price

in oil as matt showed us. we can't ignore that factor me can just think about the normal kind of supply and demand dynamics in a fairly competitive market because we are not dealing with a purely competitive market. we are dealing with a market in which a cartel has a very important and substantial role to play and the other thing we can't ignore when we think about coping for stability in this market, we simply cannot ignore the black swans. it would be folly to do that. we can't ignore the fact that the middle east is the craziest region in the world right now and will likely be for the foreseeable future for all of our lives and the lives of generations become. >> i'm going to come back down on my question. shale revolution come is it really to revolutions and are we going to see in the process a two-stage process in which the oil and the dominance of oil will fade and the rise of the

natural gas driven shale revolution and shale economy. matt pennsylvania, allegheny county? this was tim murphy's home turf. you know that very well. what is the picture? >> i currently work for senator john barrasso so oil and natural gas and you know we view both of these as important fuels. we view them both as a major foundation for energy economy moving forward. we believe not only will they provide domestic benefits broke provided geopolitical benefits and we think we should use them for both of those purposes. i think when you are talking about the competition between oil and natural gas it's an interesting question. i think it will evolve over time. one thing i would caution about the optimism of natural gas and it's not a caution as much as it

is something to consider there are obviously a lot of competing demand centers now for natural gas and a lot of people want a piece of natural gas going forward. whether it's the electric sector of the transportation sector manufacturing sector and you know we believe that the market should sort out natural gas is role going forward but we would and we do believe that natural gas is expansive enough in the u.s. now that we could probably fill most of those needs without putting too much upward pressure on prices. but you know do i see it as a replacement for oil as a transportation fuel? not anytime soon. that's not anything that is being discussed in congress for sure.

>> i'm going to leave time for one more quick question right here in the front. but we want the audience to stay. another question we want to know who you are. >> my name is david babson but they union of concerned scientists. i just wanted to bring up one thing. and though was talking about issues that can't be ignored and in a long discussion about energy and oil i wanted to ask about the influence that environmental considerations, climate change may have on energy policy and the thinking that's going on around that policy. matt this is actually more attracted to you and i'm from wyoming so you can say hello to senator barrasso for me.

looking at what you went through with some of these policies they tend to be somewhat devoid of thinking around the influence on the environment. how long is the gop going to continue kind of talking about energy policy but avoiding looking at the elephant in the room if you will which is the continuing accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere and those sorts of things and what are the relationships that need to be considered between policymaking and environmental stewardship? >> while the republican conference just like the democratic conference wants clean air clean water and clean land. i think everyone can agree on that and we believe that their nominal regulations in place that provide us with that. now the carbon question is a separate question from the criteria question.

in terms of carbon emissions there is a wide range of thought within the republican conference conference. if you follow the keystone pipeline bill you saw that there were several amendments that demonstrated to varying degrees were people not only on the republican side but the democratic side are on these issues. in general i think everyone agrees the climate is changing. beyond that i think there is a difference of opinion in terms of how much man contributes to climate change and how important and urgent it is for us to act. another point is should the u.s. act unilaterally or should it not? as it is today we are acting unilaterally. in fact the president is acting unilaterally without congresses consent.

the american people have rejected international climate change policy repeatedly since they rejected president clinton's btu tax in the early 90s. we still don't have consensus on these issues as a public much less a congress. beyond that when you look at the price, the price of the cost to american consumers, american households energy consumers, manufacturers economic development in all of these things you have to weigh those with the potential benefits of carbon emissions reduction strategies. you have to weigh what are other countries going to do in response to what we are doing. >> i'm sorry matt i promised and though the last word on this and then we are going to wrap up. >> i just came back from china and if you think about

developing asia and you understand that developing asia cares about breathing clean air and doesn't care what the climate is going to be like in 50 years. when we talk about climate when union of concerned scientists talk about climate the big bad guy in the room is cold. but at the world tries to stop china from using coal is essentially what you are doing is placing the priority of keeping the planet and stasis over the priority of lifting allowing hundreds of millions of people to let them sounds -- themselves out of poverty that doesn't allow them enough energy to cook two meals a day. the lowest cost way to produce electricity around the world in general today is coal and preventing people from using that because of concerns about the climate down the road is just wrong and the united states shouldn't have any hand in supporting that. >> on that uncontroversial and highly ambiguous statement i am going to have to wrap this up.

thank you again the audience for coming. thank you also to c-span audience and let's thank our panelists. [applause] and the hutson institute thank you very much and look forward to seeing you very soon. [inaudible conversations] at today's session of the white house summit on terrorism homeland security secretary jay johnson discuss the challenges in fighting terrorist groups and called on congress to fully fund his department. republican opposition to president obama's executive actions on immigration have prevented a deal and dh is spending which is set to expire at nine days. from the white house this is 10 minutes. [applause] >> thank you rand. good morning everybody. as i look around the room at so

many familiar faces from places as varied as boston minneapolis l.a. and i think about the weather in those three places realize it's all a matter of perspective here in washington. to some of you is freezing cold and two others of you with a warm respite from where you come from. welcome everybody. this is a terrific opportunity to get together on a timely and important issue. there are many distinguished people in the room that i see here including several members of the united states senate as well as the mayor of paris who is here, as well as a state, local and federal officials from around the country including our private cities boston minneapolis and l.a.. this is an important topic at an important time.

as i have said many times we have the faults to a new phase in the global terrorist threat and therefore must evolve to a new phase in our counterterrorism efforts. 13 and a half years ago when we were taxed in this country on 9/11 we were attacked by core al qaeda which send operatives into our country through relatively straightforward command-and-control structure. now 13 and a half years later the goal -- global terrorist threat is more decentralized more diffuse and frankly more complex. there are more al qaeda affiliates. there are groups that core al qaeda has announced. isil is prominent on the world stage these days. we see very effective and slick

use of the internet by terrorist organizations. very effective slick use of social media. when you compare where we are today with just a few years ago and the way in which bin laden used to communicate through grainy films taken on the foot of the mountain side and compare that with some of the products we see put out today in just a very short period of time we have come a long way and terrorist organizations ability to communicate. they have the ability to reach into our communities and attempts to recruit and inspire individuals who may turn towards violence right here in the homeland. this has to be a collective effort as the vice president said yesterday. it has to be more than a military response.

it requires not only the whole of government efforts but a whole of society effort. state and local law enforcement which is represented in this room as well as the public and the community. the campaign if you see something say something has to be more than a slogan. so i have personally made as part of my personal agenda our departments cd engagements. as many of you in this room know i traveled not just to the pilot cities of boston l.a. and minneapolis but also to columbus chicago and i intend to do more of these. it was through these engagements and these meetings that i have had the opportunity to meet many of you in this room. let me share with you just a couple of observations and some of the things that i have said

in our engagement across the country. first of all, i am sure many of you would agree when we in the federal government meet in the communities at cultural centers city halls and so forth to engage community leaders it has to be about more than just countering violent extremism. we have to have a dialogue across a range of issues. my department, the department of homeland security in particular has more interactions with the public than any other department of government so there are a range of issues that we discussed. frankly it's an exercise in lowering barriers, lowering suspicion and building trust. so when we have our engagement and we have our conversations would bring together very often

they be u.s. attorney in the state or the city, the police chief, the sheriff the mayors, the senators and end of the conversation across a spectrum of issues. enforcement and administration of our immigration laws things happening with local law enforcement, things happening at the airports come issues that individuals face at the airports for example. for my part, i have been in listening mode for these conversations. i have also said that we in the administration and the government should give voice to the plight of muslims living in this country and the discrimination that they face. and so i personally have committed to speak out about the situation that very often people

in the muslim community in this country face the fact that their 1.6 billion muslims in the world and the islamic faith is one about peace and brotherhood. for our part we ask something of you, of members of the community community. first of all i have heard over and over again that this is where we have to depend upon people in the community that we need to develop the counternarrative. we have heard that over and over now and we know that there are a number of those who have undertaken to do this. we need to take that to the next level, developing the counternarrative. also in our communities and the communities we engage we ask that we all have a stake so one of the themes of this conference which fits right in with that is our communities our responsibility, our shared

future and that is very much part of the message that we would like to bring when we go to places like l.a. boston minneapolis. our communities, our responsibility, our shared future so one of the things i like to say is that we all have a stake. it's our public safety. it's our homeland security. it's our country and so if you see something say something really does have to be more than a slogan. public engagement, public awareness. in our homeland security public safety efforts is becoming all the more crucial given how our challenges in homeland security our involvement. and so we go to city after city, community after community to deliver this message and to build trust and to build a partnership with people like you

in this room. we look forward to conversations today on day two. we want to hear from those represented in this room about best practices the effective practices that have worked for you, that have worked in this room and so we look forward to a good discussion. the last thing i will say which i say at every opportunity i can these days in public audiences in front of the camera is the department of homeland security, yes i'm going to say this again. the department of homeland security needs a fully funded appropriation. we need an appropriations bill for the department of homeland security. [applause] as many of you know homeland security right now is operating on a continuing resolution which expires in nine days.

as long as we are on a cr where were strained to last year spending levels and we are unable to engage in new starts, new initiatives for spending new initiatives, new spending for border security. we still need to pay for the enhanced border security we put in place last summer. we are unable to enhance border security, to strengthen border security. we are unable to do some of the things the secret service independent panel is recommended for the secret service. we are unable to hire for the coming presidential election cycle. we are unable to fund new non-disaster threats to many of the people in this room in uniform. we are unable to fund state and local law enforcement with our grants as long as we are on a continuing resolution. and we know the importance of those