available to eliminate and reduce the risk of a well containment event occurring in the first place and usually these topics, oil spill prevention and oil spill response are separated and the prevention side is the engineering domain and the response side tends to be an environmental domain. in our report we brought those industry's objective and the objective of stakeholders to prevent them from taking place in the first place. i'll direct your attention to the picture of the sea bed emergency shut-in device. these are the new technologies that i mentioned that have been recently developed and we see the need for additional collaborative research to validate these technologies which the industry views as proven and adopt them for full use in the u.s. finally, with regard to what comes next, i've highlighted as promised on this chart the key recommendations coming out of the report, the key technical recommendations. we have grouped the recommendations into three teams, environmental, stewardship, economic viability

and government leadership and policy coordination. these themes are the three pillars, if you will, of what's necessary to move forward with the development. the first two listed are in the environmental stewardship theme and the first is that industry and regulators should work together to analyze these new technologies for well control. the second speaks to oil spill response in ice and there is an industry collaborative research project that's been under way since 2012 that has been evaluating response technologies developed in temperate climates to see how they will perform in the arctic and we recommend that government agencies form that

collaborative and there are eight international companies participating. in the area of economic viability we make two recommendations and the first is around extending the drilling season. the picture at the left illustrates the challenge, currently the exploration drilling season is conducted in the winter or in the summer, excuse me, when the water is open and ice-free. that's about 110 days. however, the current practice is to restrict the back end of that season from exploration drilling to reserve it for same-season relief well and that reduces the season to 79 days and in order to drill the exploration well you need about 80 days to progress it if you have a dry hole. if you have a test to do you need more time. what it's requiring is two mobilizations for every single exploration well. what's possible with validating

some of these technologies that i'm talking about that have been used and demonstrated in other jurisdictions and in the '70s and '80s in the u.s. is to double that season so it would make it possible to drill in a single season with a single mobilization cutting the cost of drilling almost in half and significantly reducing the risk. the second economic issue is lease terms and you can see from the picture that the u.s. is different from other nations in terms of the lease construct being a development-based system which requires more drilling in the primary lease term to secure lease for development. other nations have recognized this challenge. it's very difficult to progress the number of exploration wells noted when you can only work two to three months out of the season during the summer months, and they've recognized this and they break the lease into a

couple of bites and the next bite is an exploration lease where if you have the discovery, you go into the process of converting discovery license and then you're allowed more time with which to advance the development and these are key technical recommendations in the report and i would be pleased and look forward to your questions. thank you very much. heather? >> we have copies of the report and really tremendous amounts of information is in there and i encourage you to take it home and read it. may i turn to -- >> you have the keyboard, ma'am. thank you, our fancy technology is passing down the row. all right, ms. pierce, the floor is yours. i just have to figure it out. great. thank you very much. thank you to csis and thank you to all of you for being here today. i'm going to talk about three things very briefly and the

arctic research study and the alaskan's perspective which i bring to the table. paula made the comment that it's important that any movements forward in the arctic have the public's confidence, but what we alaskans brought to the table was for this study for it to have credence in alaska, it had to have alaskans' confidence and so lots of alaskans got to take part and i was very pleased with the outcome. i'm going to talk briefly about one of the recommendations related to the arctic council and the u.s. chairmanship, and i am going to talk about the arctic economic council which you heard the senator speak about earlier. so the senator told you to remember those 4 million people who live in the arctic and i was honored to serve on the coordinating subcommittee not only with heather and many people here in the room, but

also with dozens of alaskans who worked on the coordinating sub committee and also on the different chapter teams. they brought their passion to the table. henry huntington of pugh, doctor and commissioner meyers and his staff now at alaska dnr, many, many scientists at the university of alaska, particularly in fairbank, but also throughout the state and we had a work shop in fairbanks where we brought in native leaders. we had tribal leaders and we had local government leaders and we had corporation and sea leaders and we had whalers and subsistence users and the person who made sure that we kept on the right track and remembered those people who live in the arctic each time we met was my friend richard glenn and just to give you an idea of all of the different hats that the people, that those 4 million people who live in the arctic wear, not everyone wears these hats, but richard is the executive vice president for lands and minerals and arctic slope regional corporation and one of the

largest of the encs and he's a geologist, he's a father and whaling crew co-captain and he's an eskimo dancer and a rock 'n' roll keyboardist and he's a member of the study coordinating subcommittee and he spoke to us a lot, but he talked a lot about balance, and so i put a quote here and i am going to read it to you. he said the study was all about balance and balance between conservation and resource development and balance between knowledge and western science and engineering. the arctic is our home. we aren't going anywhere. he talked to us many times as did some of the elders about the fact that the upic have been adapting to changing climates, to changing migratory patterns and to the infusion of new culture and technology for thousands of years. they haven't left and they're

not going to leave. another quote, if development comes, we want to share in the benefits while working to mitigate any negative impacts. do we get passionate about it? you bet we do and all of the alaskans who are at the table whether working at one of the chapters or at the work shop or at the coordinating subcommittee brought their passion to the table. we brought it back home to alaska time and time again and we insisted upon a focus on traditional knowledge. we insisted upon a focus on the benefits for alaska and i have to say the ladies to my left were extremely patient with all of the alaskans. so there is a recommendation in the executive summary in this study. the secretary asked in his letter about d.o.e.'s role during the arctic council chairmanship and so in the

policy leadership policy recommendations there is a recommendation and this is it. you heard the senator speak about the arctic council this morning, but a lot of people aren't familiar. it was created at the direction of ministers in the minister yal declaration, under the leadership of the canadian chair of arctic council. she represents the first time a participant has been chair. the inaugural meeting was in september last year, and that place we all don't quite know how to pronounce. the purpose is to facilitate business to business activity and responsible economic development. there are 42 voting members. there's a four member executive committee and that will include one prominent participant.

this is the first time in an international body like this that was developed certainly around the arctic council that the permanent participants are fully at the table with a vote. alaska is lucky and the united states, but particularly alaska is lucky because we have three business representatives who are from alaska. representing all alaskans. but we also have permanent participant representatives. one from the inuit. and so the u.s., alaska, has eight of the 42 voting members, and that's the largest single delegation. on tuesday the state department held a virtual outreach form, and presented to many people, many alaskans in particular, a new slide show about what the agenda is, and asked for

questions, and certainly the state department wants the input. but i just want to note that under economic development, the first bullet is harness the expertise and resources of the economic council, to inform the council's work to improve economic and living conditions in the region. now i actually have some insider knowledge. i have reason to believe when the group gets to ottawa next thursday, where they're having their second face-to-face meeting that they will choose to adopt a rotating chairmanship, just like the arctic council has. i also have reason to believe that the u.s. will be the second chair after canada. the chair at the moment of the new arctic economic council. and i also have reason to believe that tara sweeney, who is the business rep for the

inuit circumpolar conference of alaska, who sits on the executive committee presently, will be the chair during the u.s. chairmanship. the alaskans have met monthly. they talk about what they hope that they can bring forward to the larger arctic economic council. but they're bringing a number of proposed themes to the table next week, and i suspect because these fit so closely into the terms of reference for the arctic economic council itself that these will be adopted. so the overreaching themes for the next two years, encouraging publish/private partnerships,

predicting stable frameworks, facilitating knowledge and data exchange between industry and academia, establishing strong market connections between arctic states, and traditional indigenous knowledge, stewardship, and a focus on small businesses and indeed on indigenous owned businesses. the senator you heard say, she wants the aec to go on the road. i believe that certainly the alaskan members, the eight of them, will be very willing to do so here in the united states. will encourage business reps from other states to do the same. just so you know, the aec alaska folks bring the same passion to the table that we had at the -- during the study. so we will be very well

represented. thank you. >> thank you so much, and let me tell you we always encourage insider information. so thank you for that. that's terrific, and that really highlights what we're going to anticipate next week. just taking the moderator's prerogative for a moment, just sort of my very brief reflections in being part of this incredible process. my coconspirator, i'm sure he's here in the room, frank, senior vice president at csic and holds our schlessinger chair of energy, and said would you like to be part of this research study. i said sure. he goes, heather, it's a lot of work. i'm like, okay. no, heather, it's a lot of work. i was unprepared for the extraordinary amount of work. the people, the numbers, the meetings, it was extraordinary. you talk about passion. but what is so interesting is we all came from it from a very

different perspective. for me it was so helpful to understand the private sector, the technology, i mean, i could never understand the technology the two have an appreciation for it, and to have the private sector have an appreciation and quite frankly to be totally frightened, about the policy environment in which the decisions are being made. and so it was an incredible learning experience, and i think some great colleagues were formed, and i think we're going to continue this conversation well after this study. i have to say again, reflections for the peanut gallery. the department of energy requested this study. but in some ways, this runs into what senator murkowski mentioned. sometimes the biggest challenge is us and the inner agency process. because a lot of the conversation is part of the study was really about the department of interior. the department of interior was

in these processes and was very engaged, but they didn't request the study. this was about the department of energy trying to understand its emerging role in the arctic. but it was -- it was a part of the process that i think was very interesting. it was to see and to witness and have everyone experience it, as well as getting the critical voice from alaska. again, we in the washington policy communities get so focused on our inner agency fights and our regulation and who is doing what, and we've always been returned to what's important, and that's the people. and i was so grateful. again, for my two cents, i think the larger question this study raises, it doesn't come out, but this is my takeaway from it. does the united states want to develop the offshore arctic resources. do we or don't we? that's not an easy question to answer. and there are a lot of questions about economic viability.

there are a lot of questions about are we ready. do we have sufficient infrastructure, search and rescue, oil and spill prevention capabilities, do we have what is necessary. and as we've all been watching shell's journey, some may argue it's an odyssey of their efforts to do this, we've learned a lot through that process. but increasingly we're understanding, and i'm so grateful you talked about the l. when the state department first briefed their chairmanship agenda, i assure you it was not at the the top of the economic issue. they heard in stereo around the circumpolar arctic, that economic development had to be part of the conversation, and there was some reluctance. but i think we need to recognize they heard it. and they're responding. and so this is important. these voices matter, and we all have a piece of the conversation, and it takes the 200 plus people that came around the table through the vehicle of

the national petroleum council study to say we've got a lot of work to do. so again, sort of from the observation tower of this process, it was incredible. it was incredible amount of work. and i can't tell you, paul and carol had killed themselves the last 12 months, to shepherd this motley group and get to a really incredible product. so i want to thank you so much. so now i get to turn to some questions, and this is where i get to play tough questioner here. as much as you can share, sort of the challenge of the interagency process here. dewey has a strong role in this, but not the total role, and right before the study was completed, we had the department of interior propose some new guidelines, some new regulations, and that sort of entered in at the end of it. what's your perspective on the inner agency dynamic and your cooperative relationship with the department interior as you work on these issues? >> thanks, heather.

we have an incredibly robust, as many of you are aware, inner agency dialogue, but also an incredible amount of collaboration. particularly with the office of oil and gas at doe, and th department of interior, various agencies, for example, in the aftermath of the deep water horizon event. many of the learnings that have been taken up, have been developed in collaboration with our office, as well as the research partnership for secure energy america, which involves about 140 companies and technology firms. likewise, we have, as directed by the president's blueprint for secure energy future, which calls for an all of the above energy strategy, we have a multiagency strategy for understanding and working to develop the science to mitigate the impacts of unconventional oil and natural gas production, and this is with our office and usgs and epa and like wise you

usgs and epa and likewise you see the l recommendations that are pointed to doe. and this report really points back to that role for the arctic as well. in one way, the way i think about the work of our office, is we're the office of science for federal and state regulators. we were in alaska last week, and i can tell you state regulators in alaska are very much focused on these questions and understanding what the science says in an unbiased and neutral manner about this activity can proceed. and those are the same questions that our partners are asking at other federal agencies, and we're the office that they turned to understand what the center of the science understands. and it's a vital role that government research plays and providing policymakers with an unbiased view of science, technology, and its performance. so that we can move forward in these areas. so there's a very robust collaboration between our office and other agencies, and the recommendations here provide us sort of a road map forwards on what we should be looking at next in the area of science and

technology. >> carol, what surprised you the most about this study? you went into this, and i think, if i may tell my little tale out of school. i think carol was surprised at the world of washington policy sausage making. a canadian herself, she was looking at this going, why do you do that? well, why does that happen? i love that. because it was hard to explain why. but what took you by surprise the most about the study? >> oh my gosh. it's hard to pick one thing. i guess what i would say -- i mean, you hit on it, heather, we just learned -- those of us in the industry just learned a lot about the history of our arctic policy and also about the challenges in integrating the many different -- the many different aspects of arctic policy that are important to all stakeholders.

i would say when we came together to undertake this question, each of us probably came to the table with our own perspective of what was most perspective of what was mostly each of us from our own corners of the room, so to speak, were thinking of this, heather, pretty simply, and as we conducted the dialogue over those many months, the scope of the problem started small and got bigger, and then we tried to synthesize and bring it together in a meaningful way. and so, i mean, i just learn sod much in terms of the importance of listening fully and not letting your own biases stop you from hearing what someone else was trying to say. i learned that the exxon mobile project management culture sometimes clashes with the very focused on schedule and execution. sometimes clashes with the fulsome debate, and question learn to tolerate the strengths each of us brought to the team. but what i would say is we started out the journey together

with people saying hello, i'm paula from the department of energy and i'm caroline from exxon mobil and on the way we moved from being individuals representing our respective interests and we became a team that was about trying to really understand the secretary's question and understand the broader context behind his question. so i'm very pleased with what we delivered. if i look back on what helped us be successful, others will judge if they think it was successful or not. two critical success factors, was one establishing a transparent schedule, which we agreed with the secretary early on. the second was the selection of the right team at the coordinating sub committee. leaders like are in the room with us today and sitting at this table with me. i'm just incredibly grateful for everyone's support and the opportunity. >> thanks so much, i'm going to

ask you a question. i would have loved to ask senator murkowski, and we ran out of time. from the state perspective and your legislative career, the alaskan state economy has really been battered. on the one hand, we can celebrate low energy prices, boy, the budget has taken a hit. this is -- i -- this is an urgency in alaskan voices about their future economic growth model and concerns senator murkowski expressed as production declines, needing to find new opportunities, having legislation is white house

pulling offshore, onshore land away from exploration. what's the mood? what's the sense. and tell us, because what's going to be interesting, the next two year there is will be a lot of meetings with the arctic council. they're all going to be in alaska. they're going to hear an alaskan perspective on this. and i would like you to preview that perspective. >> well, it will be loud. you know, the legislature is supposed to adjourn under statutory requirements sunday night at midnight. and i'm not sure they're going to get out of town on time. one of the things that is battering us in particular at the moment is the fact that is down so low at this point, running around 500,000 barrels a day from the original 2 million barrels a day. in the past, including when i was chairing the senate finance

committee and oil dropped to $9.50 a barrel, even though the state budget depends over 90% on the revenues that we get from our oil and gas resources, and from the production of those resources, we were able to get through the times of really low oil prices because we had a robust -- in taps frankly. we've seen production come back up. that's excellent. but that continued drop in taps is really battering the budget, and will continue to for the future until we can figure out a way to get more oil into what is not just an alaska important infrastructure, but it's a national energy security infrastructure that needs to be protected for the nation's benefit, not just for alaskans. the mood is somber, but alaskans are resilient. goodness knows so many alaskans have, as i've said, they've been

there for thousands of years and they've been adapting for that entire time. so there's a resiliency. but there's also -- i would say a hopefulness that together alaskans can come through, make some changes to our base budget, but also see opportunities in the future that will help provide continued jobs for alaskans and for our children and grandchildren, but also support the budget. it's never bad to look at budgets and see where there may be some bloat. and that is happening. but the legislature and the governor will be careful not to try to go too deep. the former lieutenant governor is smiling at me. >> i sense mead may have a question when we turn to the audience. infrastructure is exactly where

i want to go. but carol, because the report did have a reflection on infrastructure, if you could just share a brief thought on that. and paula, you have been focusing on transportation and infrastructure, now that's obviously from shale gas and i would love your reflections on this. infrastructure and national pry orization. >> so we do have on entire chapter in the report dedicated to logistics and infrastructure and recognize it's a significant challenge to progressing with the development in the alaskan argument. -- arctic. with regard to exploration, the infrastructure needs are much lower, as the industry moves forward -- as shell moves guard with their plans, they will be bringing all the required equipment with them in order to safely and responsibly execute the program. including the oil spill response vessels and support that they are required to bring by permit. with regard to the longer infrastructure needs, the report does a very good job of cataloging the current state of infrastructure.

what's available today, what the gaps and opportunities are, and then make some recommendations to move forward. probably the most important one is that we see merit in continued emphasis on joint scenario planning, including the federal government, the state government, the local communities, probably most importantly and they likely would be in the best position to lead such an activity. the oil and gas industry, but also fisheries, tourism, et cetera, infrastructure, is a shared resource, so a joint scenario plan could potentially open up the opportunity for partnerships in particular areas between governments and industry, public and private partnerships as the senator was talking about earlier. >> sure, thanks, heather. in here in the lower 48, we talk about the revolution and the

knowledge that we have great rocks and that comes in really handy. and the other reason we're the envy of the world is we have an incredibly robust delivery. and we have 2.4 million miles of gas pipeline alone. nowhere else in the world would you find infrastructure so prevalent. so with this in mind, the president has commissioned the review that will be released very shortly, and the first year is focused on delivery infrastructure. and understanding what our needs are going forward in an integrated manner, and as that begins to roll out soon, you'll see, i think a key learning from that is that energy infrastructure, the infrastructure that secures our energy is not just pipes and tankers. it is ports, roads, bridges. it is all part of what underpins our economy, whether here in the lower 48 or alaska.

and you see incredible focus in the the senator's remarks this morning, as well as in our visit to alaska, a tremendous -- i mean, there was a great deal of priority and debate being focused on a natural gas pipeline, for example, in alaska as well as the future of taps and how to ensure it. and it goes hand in hand to develop the resource and the knowledge you can move the resource to markets where it's valued. whether in alaska and in other places. so this all combined with the changing nature of the climate and new challenges that we are seeing of the impacts of climate change on coastal communities and ports as well as roads. whether they're traditional roads or ice roads and new challenges with being able to build and maintain them, as well as t pipeline infrastructure. this is something i think we're going to be discussing quite

robustly over the coming years because there are tremendous investments that we need to make. onshore as well as offshore, and thinking about data and communications as well as in securing maritime shipping lanes. and the port support that would provide for spill response, for example. this is the age of infrastructure. and we should all be very focused on thinking of the ways we can support the development, because this is the underpinning for our economic and energy security. >> well said. it's time for the audience to engage in the discussion, if you have any questions or comments, please raise your hand and give us your name and affiliation. if you're too shy, mead, i'm going to put you right on the spot. so i think i will put mead treadwell right on the spot. i'll introduce you so you don't have to, mead. >> thanks, heather. my affiliation is heather and i are working on bringing

investment to the arctic, and pleased to be here today. and thank you for your report. i'm sorry i missed your presentations on alaska last week. as former chair of the research commission, i can tell you one of our last meetings as chair was at the white house just about the time the spill was happening. we had come up with suggestions on how the u.s. could better structure its support for oil and gas, or oil spill research. what did you find as you looked at both the public/private partnership that's happening in norway on oil and ice recovery, and what should we be doing specifically to meet the goal where you saw deficiency here in this report? >> thanks for the question.

oil spill prevention and response is the top topic on the mind of all stakeholders. and you know, i mentioned in our recommendation that we really want and need to see the department of interior specifically join with the industry in collaborating in this important area. i like the example that you cited in norway. for two reasons. the first is bessie has spent a lot of money in the area of oil spill in the arctic and they have a lot to bring to the table. they have a lot of expertise. and the second is they are importantly independent of the industry. it's not enough for the industry to say that this particular response performed this way. we really need that independent view. what we think needs to happen is for the department of interior to join that group, bring their research to the table.

we need to move forward with field tests in our arctic conditions. some of those have been advanced in other countries. but getting permits to do a field test of an oil spill response exercise is particularly difficult because no one wants to champion that. so we also see a need to move forward with permits necessary in that regard. there are discussions about building a specialized facility to test oil spill response off the east coast of canada in newfoundland. those are a couple of thoughts about what can be done in that very important area. >> just quickly, d.o.e. has focused our research to a great extent on prevention of loss of control. we do a lot of work on integrity, understanding how your cement performs at pressure and depth. understanding the ocean currents

and the stresses that puts on risers and translating that to our work on basic material science to understand what the risers are made of, for example. there's also, i think in the study, some recommendations that we'll be considering next. so we've been focused on the front end of the bow tie, if you will. but there's also opportunities on the right side as carol set out for us to with the department of interior to demonstrate the effectiveness of some of the technologies that are available to prevent or deal with loss of control of oil. so while to date we've been focused on preventing that. your best way to prevent an oil spill is to design your well really well and never lose control of it to begin with. but if you do, there have emerged an array of technologies to deal with it. and what we need to do is make sure that we're demonstrating and testing those ways in ways that people have confidence in.

that's what we'll be looking at in d.o.e., how we can participate in that through our national apps. >> one of the things that i learned and those of us who worked on the study who were neither industry and/or federal government is that there's not as much collaboration as we might expect or think or just thought was happening. for example, industry has an arctic joint industry project for slow response technology that the u.s. government is not party to. why? i was surprised by that. that bessie and others had not actually joined. so we saw lots of opportunities. and i think i came away with the belief there needs to be better understanding by everyone of all the work that is being done, and all the work that has been done, and the technology that is out

there, and whether we're practicing it and whether we're exercising it as well as we should is a different question. particularly in the u.s. where it's hard to get a permit to do a spill exercise. but there's kind of a step two, which is education, which is something that csis and other institutions like that might want to focus on. how do we get the word out there? what truly is happening. i would also say it provides an opportunity for the public/private partnerships that we're talking about. it's not just industry and the government. there are private companies around the world that are working on spill technology every day and have some really bright minds working on it. so there are real opportunities, and we should push forward to make those work for us. >> i'll add my two cents. the arctic council is the international perspective here. they have been working on oil spill prevention. and i think they will be presenting a framework for that. but it's going to be u.s. chairmanship that's going to have to work the issue. i think in some ways, the arctic

council, it does such amazing work. great assessments. marine shipping investment and then fabulous recommendations. and then okay. who makes sure the national government is really focused, really implements and bring those to fruition? this is going to be challenge for the u.s. i think the arctic economic council will have a big focus on energy and those implications. again, we're developing these good tools. we need the collaboration. >> and just one final point. dr. mike myers, who when we began the study as the university in charge of research. and when we ended the study is now the commissioner for the state told us time and time again that everybody can do all of their research at the university of alaska fairbanks where they're actually building facilities for this type of research. so once again, bringing it home. >> you had a quick follow-up,

and then i'll let others get in here. yes, sir. we're start with you. we'll get a microphone. >> no, no, here. yeah, yeah. >> my point about structure. >> just get a microphone. >> the oil pollution act of 1990 created an interagency committee on coordinating oil police and research. as we founded it, we called it the intergalactic. but i would really urge industry to play a much larger role in that committee. i would urge d.o.e. to play a much larger role on that committee. understand the work of the coast guard because they have the internal work. if state of alaska has put money toward the joint program. there is a way that we can come together. i find the issue with oil spills is people who want to go ahead and drill want to pretend they don't happen. they can happen. we know they can happen, and we have to constantly be pushing that edge forward. that committee needs greater attention to the white house, and it needs greater participation by the federal agencies.

>> one of the key findings was to secure public confidence in the development of oil and gas. and senator murkowski was touching upon the aspect of, you know, residents in the arctic being -- want to see development, while those outside, you know, want to preserve it. how do you address that giving the observation from many of the environmental ngos? >> well, i just want to point out one of the difficulties of trying to address it. so, clearly you need public acceptance to move forward. but if you look at the accidents

that have happened in terms of oil and gas-related industry in alaska and around the world, you'll find most of those are related to transportation, not to exploration phase and not to development phase. however, when you look at the new bessie arctic that came out last month, arguably because of the time lines that are written into, it pushes exploration rigs into a two-season event. rather than being able to go in, drill your well and actually do your testing in one year and then get out. if the real risk is during the the transportation phase, it does not make sense to push into two years where you have to stage twice. up and back and up and back. because you have more ships in the water and more opportunity to have a transportation accident.

so i think that what we need is a dialogue to understand what are the real risks, and what are the opportunities? and then we all have to accept that your risk is never going to be zero. just as mead said. we don't live in a zero-risk world. >> henry hedger, retired government researchers. perhaps you heard of botley plants for fresh water in finland where they use icebergs. the arctic has that tremendous amount of ice, and of course with the the climate change, they indicate it will melt. once it's melted, it's no longer serviceable. it becomes salt water in the ocean. the fresh water is a great resource, and botling plants would be needed, say in alaska. one of our own areas, let alone canada. if they can reduce the amount of ice that's fresh or well and good, then less of a problem with the rising sea level. also job creation. thousands of jobs could be created. and not just bottles of water, but barrels of water could be

shipped to areas of great concern like california, and you would have fresh water. do you have any comment? >> oh my goodness. drew? go for it. >> you know, there was just an article in the anchorage paper, maybe yesterday, that fresh water shipments are starting out of alaska to the lower 48. now that's not arctic water, but it's water. it's fresh water. so all the the way back to government hickle, but governor hickle had the dream of bringing alaska's fresh water resources south. various entities have picked up on that and have actually licensed some opportunities. i think you will see people move forward, and looking at the water resources that we have in alaska as being a very important resource to the state. we're seeing that right now as kind of a fledgling industry in alaska.

>> hi. john farrell, arctic research commission. i have a question for dr. gant. i was curious why secretary money commissioned this study. he will receive this report, and he will provide a response to the report, the recommendations in the report. is there anything at this point you can foreshadow as to what he might say in receiving the report and how he may consider the recommendations and begin to act on them? >> john, you know, i like my job and i would like to keep it. i'm not going to be so bold as to suggest what the secretary might say. i can tell you that he and the deputy secretary were very pleased with the quality of this report. it's 550 pages of a lot of great

science consolidated there. and we expect it will be a great resource for people as they come to the arctic. particularly those like me that know a lot less about it than you do, john. with regard to -- there are a number of recommendations that relate directly to d.o.e. and where we might pursue science and research. and almost all of those -- not only do they speak to our core mission and our core capabilities. but they are also implicitly represent our collaboration with other agencies, as well as our work and the work that the commission has going on as well. so as the secretary considers these recommendations and next steps, we will be working with our inner agency partners and other federal partners that were involved in the study efforts and recommendations to understand not only which piece of these recommendations seem -- because we can't do everything

at once -- the most imperative in priority from a time perspective, but which should be done through vehicles like our national labs. which should be done in direct partnerships with other agencies. which should be done through the arctic research council, our other agencies, or through partnerships at the state level. as drew mentioned, the university of alaska fairbanks has tremendous capabilities in this area and they're already a great partner for us. so we'll be looking for input as we move forward. and i'll let the secretary speak for himself when he does. thanks for the question. >> i would like to make a comment. i really appreciate the question as well. we want the report to be read and have impact. but i want to integrate that question with the question we had over here on how to navigate

the complex question that the senator laid out for us. should we progress with development, and how do we balance that with concern for the changing climate. i think the answer is in a debate that's rooted in science and research. not the sound bites that come across on twitter. not the statistics that are short quotes without the technical data to back up what they mean. you know, you could -- you could identify -- in our report we say the risk of a well controlled event in the arctic with new technology is extremely remote. how do i reconcile that with a quote that says the risk of an oil spill is 70%? the risk of an oil spill this summer is not 70%. the data behind that calculation is that risk is over the next 70 years.

people don't say that on twitter. but what we really need to do is get the scientific community together. john's organization, the industry experts, paula's team together to explore the findings in this report. do you agree with them? if not, what more science and technology is needed in order to move forward? and as paula outlined in her opening questions, only then can we have good science, good research, inform good policy. and that's how i think we can find some middle ground between these very polarized opinions a and move beyond them being someone's personal opinion. >> well, unfortunately the time is close. i'm going to have to cut it off here. but as you can tell, what a privilege it was to be a part of the team of such thoughtful people trying to wrestle with extremely tough, complex questions. and we know the stakes are enormous.

i think when you showed richard glenn's quote, we need a little rock 'n' roll concert. we need to jazz up our conversation on the future of the development of the arctic. please join me in thanking our panelists for a great arctic. but please join me in thanking our panelists for a great presentation. don't go away, we'll quickly switch panelists and conclude with our arctic health discussion. thank you.

jude giy collins has been an advocate for suicide prevention since her son took his live. she talked with it on washington journal. you can see the two of them on c-span 2 beginning at 7:20 p.m. eastern. in this weekend the c-span city's tour has partnered to learn about the history and lit rather life of topeka, kansas. >> the very act of signing it,litrather life of topeka, kansas. >> the very act of signing it, just signing it was viewed as an agent of act of war. so when northerners decided to send people to settle, that was viewed as an act of war by many

who had just assumed this would all be theirs. there are raids back and forth across the kansas border almost immediately. in may have 1856 john brown, his so thatns and a couple of other followers dragged five men from their cabins and they are shot and hacked to death with broad swords. that effectively cleared that area of so you were settlers. >> here in topeka if you looked at the schools you'd be very hard pressed to determine whether white students or african-american students attended because the school board really did provide all of the same materials that the white schools offered. and what is even more interesting for most people is they find out that after graduating from elementary african-american students attended integrated middle and high schools.

while they certainly are were no supporters of segregation and saw the injustice of attending separate elementary schools, the african-american community was also very proud of their schools. so while there was support for the idea of integration, there was also some resistance especially from the teachers and the local chapters of the naacp who feared the loss of the institutions and the loss of those jobs. >> waptch all of the events saturday on book tv and sunday on american history tv on c-span3. here are a few of the book festivals we'll be covering this spring. in the middle of may we'll visit maryland for live coverage of the gaithersburg book festival. and then we'll close out may at

book expo america in new york city where the publishing industry showcases their upcoming books. then on the first week of june, we're live for the "chicago tribune" printers row lit fest including your phone calls. that's in this spring on c-span2's book tv. former president bill clinton graduated from georgetown university in 1968. and in april, he returned to school to discuss the importance of public service. he was sblointroduced by the president of georgetown university. [ applause ] and good morning. it is my pleasure and privilege

to welcome you to georgetown. i wish to think all of you for being here and to offer a special word of welcome to our guest in attendance. including secretary of agriculture, and congressman john delaney, we are honored to have you with us this morning. we have had the privilege over the course of the last decades to welcome president clinton back to georgetown on a number of occasions. he was here in 1991. he was on these steps in 1993 just days before his inauguration. and now, for this series, in his first lecture of this series, president clinton spoke of the significance of those 1991 lectures, now known as the "new covenant speeches" on responsibility and rebuilding american community, economic

change, and american security. not only to his campaign, but also for his vision, for our future. he explained these lectures enabled him to "think about where we were, where we wanted to go, and how we proposed to get there." we have come together to engage the wisdom and insights of one of the most accomplished global leaders of our time. to hear his perspective from a lifetime of service to our nation. as president, he presided over the longest economic expansion in american history, including the creation of more than 22 million jobs, the reform of the welfare and health care systems, new environmental regulations, peacekeeping missions in places such as bosnia, and a federal budget surplus.

in the years since, the first free democrat since franklin delano roosevelt, he has focused on improving global health, education, and economic element around the world through the bill, hillary, and chelsea clinton foundation which he founded in 2001. in these lectures, he brings to bear these experiences, and those of his youth and early political career. an 1968 alumnus of our school, a rhodes scholar, a law graduate, attorney general, and then governor of arkansas. father hence, instructor who taught clinton during his first year has described him as someone who "thinks deeply." he says when people are well informed and deeply reflective

reflective, that gives them a freedom to listen to a wide spectrum of opinions. clinton is not a man who is closed in his thinking because he thinks deeply. it is only fitting for this lecture on the theme of purpose, father hence will serve as our moderator during the question and answer session that will follow president clinton's remarks. with this theme purpose, president clinton turns to each of us, as he did during those formative new covenant speeches to speak to all of you future leaders of our nation to think deeply about our own responsibilities, about where we are, where we want to go, and how we propose together to get there. he asked, what is required of us? how do we compose and live a life where service is important? today we come together to

consider enduring questions, how do we understand our purpose and are responsibilities, our service to the common good and to each other. ladies and gentlemen, it is now my privilege to welcome to the stage, the 42nd resident of the united states, and a true son of georgetown, president bill clinton. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you. thank you for having me back. thank you father hence for agreeing for ask me questions.

i'll give better answers than i did 50 years ago. i hope. thank you all for coming. students faculty, friends of georgetown. secretary vilsack, thank you very much for being here and your long career in public service. congressman john delaney who is a shining hope for the possibility of bipartisan cooperation. he's got a bill to repatriate all this loose cash that is hanging around overseas that has as many republican as democratic sponsors i think. some people think there is something wrong with that. i think that's a pretty good idea. so i thank him for that. i want to thank my classmates and friends who are here. let's get the show on the road. two years ago i came here in april intending to give a series of three or four lectures on

composing a life in public service. whether that is an elected or appointed office or in the private sector or working for a nongovernmental organization. in the first talk, i said there are four essential elements to any successful service. focus on people, policy politics and purpose. in that first lecture, i was primarily focused on the importance of people centered service. on the necessity of understanding how different people view themselves and the world they're living in. without understanding people, it's pretty hard to develop the best policies and to build and maintain support for them. as i said then, i grew up in a story telling culture. so i told you stories about people who taught me that everybody has a story.

and kept me focused on how to help other people have better stories. i told you stories about my family and my teachers beginning in junior high and running through georgetown. about people i had worked with over the years, people i had met who were dealing with their own life struggles. the second lecture covered policy making and the compromises that are almost always involved when trying to do what mack yoe velly called the most difficult thing in all of human affairs. to change the established order of things. we discussed how policy making was done when i was president in developing the economic plan in 1993 which reversed 12 years of trickle down economics and gave us the only period in 50 years when all sectors of the american

economy grew robustly and the bottom 20%'s income rose 23.6% the same as the top 5%. we talked about crafting the welfare reform bill of 1996. what compromises were acceptable, what wasn't, what has worked over the long run, what still needs to be changed. and we talked about the pursuit of peace in the middle east. i hope that talk convinced you that policy actually matters. that ideas when implemented have consequences and different ideas have different consequences. a great deal of political rhetoric is devoted to blurring that, to pretending that if something good happens and the other guy did it it was an accident. and if something bad happens and you did it well, it cooperate have been because you pursued the wrong policy.

and because so much of our voting habits today are determineded by the culture in which we live, and the conditions in which we experience the world, we tend to blur all that. so i hope i convinced you that whenever you're trying to evaluate policy, you should try to ask yourself is there a difference between the story and the storyline. always look for the story. sometimes it's in the storyline and sometimes it's not. there a difference between the headlines and the trend lines. typically for perfectly understandable reasons bad news makes better news than good news. but sometimes the trend lines are much better than the headlines. and we may have occasion to

revisit that. today i want to talk about the purpose of public service driven by a concern for people manifest in policies one is advocating. and about the politics of turning concern and good policy into real changes that fulfill your purpose. for obvious reasons, i don't intend to talk much about electoral politics. but it's important to remember as the secretary vilsack and congressman delaney can tell you, there is plenty of politics when the election is over in trying to implement policy. and there is plenty of politics if you're not in elected office. if you're working in a private business or you're working for an ngo. that's the the kind of politics i want to talk about. how do you have the skills to actually turn your ideas into action. in every public service success,

leadership requires a vision of a better future where the purpose of public service is made plain in the circumstances of the moment. a clear understandable plan to realize that vision and the ability to actually implement the changes. if at all possible by the inclusion of all stakeholders in the process. this is becoming are more important than ever before whether we like it or not. inclusive politics is necessary to have inclusive economics. including various stakeholders is necessary to effect positive social change. asia had three interesting very vigorous leaders at the moment. the president of china president xi who is trying to

grow the chinese economy internally more by modifying the one child policy and trying to eliminate some of the corruption that is in-depicendemic to the system. and prime minister abe by allowing widespread immigration by putting more women into the workforce and enabling people to work longer. and prime minister modi of india who has written a book called "inclusive politics inclusive governments." and who recognizes that his country's big problem is it has grown like crazy for the last 20 years in and around its tech prosperity centers, but only 35% of the people are being reached by that effort. and that india needs to develop the ability to aggregate and

deploy capital so that 100% of the people of india can have the chance to benefit from the enterprise that is now driving dramatic prosperity for just 35% of them. so this inclusion issue is going to become bigger and bigger and bigger in the life time of the students who are here. but let me try to illustrate the success of leadership and the pitfalls with a few recent examples. recent in my terms, not the student's terms. chancellor of germany when the berlin wall came down had a vision born of a lifetime of experience that included obviously living through world war ii. of a united peaceful and

prosperous journey in a united democratic peaceful europe. both these developments may seem normal to you. they were virtually unimaginable for most of european history in which germany was not a separate country but a collection of city states. and then united under bismarck. he became the second longest severing chancellor in german history in the pursuit of his vision second only to bismarck. andhe had a staemg whichrategy. it was first to unite germany after the wall came down which required very large transfers of money from west germany to east germany to begin the long process of equalizing the economic opportunities on both sides of the former divide.

second, to expand and strengthen the european union. he wanted all of central and eastern europe to come into the eu so that germany would be in the middle of europe, not on the edge where it had been a source of instability and conflict throughout the 20th century. third, he wanted to expand nato and strengthen the transatlantic ties of the united states because he thought that was important to building a ross per prosperous democratic future for germans and the rest of europe. and fourth, often forgotten, he game the most vigorous supporter of russia after the end of communism. its economic recovery, its democracy building and its increasing cooperation with the eu and the u.s.. it's hard to believe given today's headline, but that was the order we were all trying to build in in the 1990s and it

worked for quite a while. in the beginning it worked very well. but there were two central problems with implementing cole's vision after he left office. one is that much of european union, although not every member,ed a don'ted the euro as a currency. they had a eurozone currency. which was adopted before those in the eurozone had a common economic policy and common social policy and a common public investment policy. which meant it worked great when europe was growing well. and greeks could borrow money at german interest rates essentially. but when the economy turned down, it no longer worked very well. partly because the german voters didn't understand how much gain they had gotten out of those

good years when greece and spain and portugal and italy got to borrow money at common interest rates and buy german exports. and germfully is by the fullyfully fullyany is still the number one country in the uned world in terms of its gdp tied to exports and manufacturing. but a good lesson to the united states because of its dramatic success in involving small and middle sized businesses in the export market having a continuous life time training program and having a program that pays employers to keep people working instead of paying employees unemployment benefits. so it worked fine. but when greece failed, and ireland failed, and spain had skyrocketing unemployment all

for slightly different reason, although basically it was just a real estate boom going bust in ireland and spain, and portugal and italy had their own troubles the automatic response of the eu was to try to impose austerity on greece because they had governments that had for years made promises to people they couldn't keep. and because they had a country in which rich people didn't pay taxes. in fact constitutional lirly shipping companies are exempted from taxes, something a lot of people don't though. so if you were a cab driver in athens, you felt like a chump if you did pay your taxes. but greece began a program of

austerity. and today public debt is about 180% of gdp. which means that the fundamental laws of economics have not been repealed. if inflation is lower than interest rates, there is insufficient demand and more austerity will get you in a deeper hole, not get you out of it. so that happened. and there was no provision made at the creation of the eurozone for how to get out without collapsing the hole. or without spooking the markets. and that was probably an error. if they weren't prepared to have common economic or social policy and some sort of investment they should have made an exit strategy part of the beginning then the market hazards wouldn't have been so great. the typical thing for a little country like greece is to take all the hard medicine and then start growing again.

that's what iceland did, which is not in the euro zone. iceland and he bank iceland's banks were far more leveraged, but they also had more self made millionaires than any other as a percentage of their population than any other european country. so they started building get and get out of the mess they were in in a hurry. so it doesn't mean that cole's european idea was wrong. and that the eu and the strengthening of it and for many older europeans you're the boring and bureaucratic nation of the cumbersome machinery this brussels of the eu is a god democraticgodsend, far better than the uncertain city of war and endless intrigue with destructive consequences. the other thing that happened to cole's vision of course is that

russia took a more un theilateral and authoritarian turn as manifest most vividly in what happened in ukraine and what continues to happen there. but on balance you would have to say he was the most european leader since world war ii because of the good things that happened and the bad things that didn't happen. and i still believe over the long run we are will return to the path that he advocated for so long. second example. prime minister of singapore recently passed away at 91. and i was asked along with henry kissinger to represent the united states at his funeral because i had known him and had a lot of contact with him. and so i went.

when he took office more than 50 years ago in 1952, he was the leader of a small city state of a few million people with a per capita income of under $1,000 a year. it had recently broken off from malaysia. and there was a lot of uncertainty about two things. one was whether this little city state that was heavily majority chinese with a big melee minority and smaller but still noticeable indian minority and fill pea he knows and others in this diverse say the could ever make a go of it, and, two, whether a state that small could withstand the debilitating consequences of the corruption which was then endemic to most of the asian-rising countries. lee had a strategy.

he wanted a -- first his vision was to have a prosperous unified secure nation. and he knew that singapore had the most important thing of all at the time he came of age -- location. it was located at a critical juncture for all the major sea lanes in asia, he knew the asian economy was going to boom and he wanted to be there. so his strategy was first to govern singapore on terms of equal treatment for all its citizens without regard to their ethnic background. there were ten speakers at his funeral. his son, the prime minister, spoke first about his leadership. his second son spoke last about what a good father he was. in the middle there were representatives of every ethnic group in singapore who talked

about how he had made a home for them. inclusion. he also was so rigorous in the pursuit of corruption from cabinet ministers to minor functionaries overcharging people for fines that he allowed people who were part of his own political movement to go to prison. but he got rid of corruption and singapore soon gained the reputation as a police tolace to in-investigation, where everybody wanted to be where things were on the level. he'd made a huge difference.vestigation, where everybody wanted to be, where things were on the level. he'd made a huge difference.investigation, where everybody wanted to be, where things were on the level. he'd made a huge difference. the third thing he wanted to to was to have an alliance with the united states for security purposes. but to get along with everybody in the neighborhood. which he proceeded to do. and finally, he launched a

constant organized effort to modernize the country. educationally, economically, technologically, and to maintain social cohesion. which most of us in the united states on which thought was pretty severe. but it worked. i remember once there was a lot of joking in the press about the fact that singapore banned chewing gum. they got mad because kids were leaving chewing gum under desks and under things like that. but they got rid of the problem and they built one of the five best education systems in the world. a few years ago, a small country with only six plus million people allocated $3 billion to biotechnology research, same

amount i spent to sequence the human genome. so did it succeed? well, when he took office per capita income was under $1,000. when we celebrated his life at his memorial service singapore's per capita income was $55,000. one of the most remarkable economic success stories ever. ernesto became an accidental president of mexico. the person his party favored for their presidency was killed early in the campaign season. and he was picked to succeed him. but he was a very well trained economist. and he wanted to build a modern economy for mexico and a modern political nation.

that was his vision. so he set about building the modern economy by opening mexico to sxe tigscompetition and investment and promoting responsible more honest behavior. early in this effort through no fault of his own, they had a horrible economic crisis. they were about to go broke. and the united states sent them i was president, it was 20 years ago, we gave him a loan which on the day i gave it was opposed by something like 80% of the american people who thought about mexico's yesterdays instead of its tomorrows. he repaid the loan to the united states three years early with more than $500 million in interest. it was one of the best investments we ever made. we still have disagreements with mexico, but think about your own life. it's one thing to have a disagreement with a friend, and another to have a disagreement with an adversary. and the consequences are dramatically different. maybe more important, he

recognized that his country could never become fully modern unless it was more politically competitive. and his party, the vri, had enjoyed a mondayopoly on power for more than seven years. he had an honest election and he handed over power peacefully for the first time in seven decades to a member of the opposite party. did it work? well mexico's not free of problems, but it's worth noting that one of his successors built 140 tuition-free universities and last year they graduated more than 100,000 engineers. and that the economic growth was sufficient to keep mexicans home between 2010 and 2014 for the first time in my lifetime there was no net in migrations from

mexico. nelson mandela's vision was to build a modern democratic state that would survive and thrive after the end of apartheid and the end of his term. his strategy included his now famous reconciliation commission where people who had committed crimes even murderous crimes during the apartheid era could come and testify, make their actions a part of the public record, and then be reconciled to the rest of the country so they could participate in the future. it was an astonishing thing. he said we don't have time to build anymore jails. we have to go forward. something that was copied largely in a slightly different form by rwanda. and a capacity that is beyond the culture of many other countries.

interestingly enough, we are now seeing the ongoing efforts of the president of colombia president santos, to resolve the last remaining conflicts there with the farc and the big hang-up is who is going to be held responsible for what. and this is something we all have to deal with in our lives. and we have to deal with in other cultures. but accountability is important, but so is going beyond. and different people giftdifferent cultures go the balance in different ways. there is no doubt in my mind that mandela did the right thing for south africa. the second thing he did can was arguably just as important was practice the politics of radical

inclusion. that to most of us was symbolized when he invited his jailers to his inauguration. but far more important, that he put the leaders of the parties that supported apartheid in his cabinet. you think, well, that happens all the time. mandela ran for president with 18 opponents and got 63% of the vote. first time black south africans had voted in 300 years. and his whole term occurred when i was president. so we did a lot of business together. and i always let him call me late at night because of the time difference. he liked to go to bed early and he knew i stayed up late, so he'd call me late at night. he called me one night and he said they were giving me hell.

and i said who? i was always kidding him. he said, oh, no my own people. i said well what are they saying is this they're saying how can you put these people in the government you won 63% of the vote. while you were in risprison, they were beating us up. now you're giving them government ministries? and i said what did you tell them? he said well, we just voted for the first time in 300 years. can we run the financial system all by ourselves? can we run the military all by ourses? can we run the police all by ourses? is there one thing in this whole country we can run all by ourselves? the answer is thoono. maybe some day. this is not that day. he said if i can get over it so can you. we're going to do this together. you'd be surprised somebody gave a speech like that in washington, wouldn't you.

it is important to recognize, not to be too sanctimonious here mandela had paid a remarkable price and learned astonishing lessons. and he had the stature to do that and not fall. there was a third now often overlooked part of his strategy which is why it hasn't worked out yet. he named as his deputy president a much younger man who was the most gifted economist in south africa. because he wanted -- he knew it would take his entire term and he was determined only to serve one term, he was already well into his 70s and he paid a pretty stiff physical price for the first years of his imprisonment. so the other part of his

strategy was to be succeeded by him so he could build an economic modern state and increase investment across africa in a way that would stabilize south africa. that part of the plan didn't work for reasons beyond his control. south africa first became the epicenter of the world's aids crisis. and was made worse by the troubles in zimbabwe and other place which led to even more people coming into south africa who are hiv positive. mean dlt while and still to me somewhat mystifying his deputy denied the cause and remedies of the crisis. i knew will thisthis because our foundation helped them to come up with an aids plan and they were doing fine in the cities.

they had prosperous cities and great health systems. but they really had to get out in to the countryside. and when we celebrated mandela, i can't remember, maybe his 80th birthday or 85th i went down there and we had 50 people who worked with our health access initiative dressed up and ready on go to implement a plan that the government, cabinet, hadded a don't adopted. and it all was canceled. and it was a bizarre story of local politics gone awry. the third most important person in the political hierarchy is the treasurer of the african national congress. because he funds all their political operations. and it was effectively a one party dominant state. his wife was the health

minister. she had been trained in the old soviet union. and she thought aids was sort of a western plot to make pharmaceutical companies more money. and said all this could be cured by eating native roots and yams. sounds crazy now, but they believed that. and so the deputy felt perhaps accurately that he couldn't let her hold on to power so even though he had a wonderful woman working for him in his office who wanted do something about it, they dpts. but didn't. but the point is, another thing to remember whatever you do. he took office intending to build a modern economic state. he was gifted enough to do it. he knew enough to do it. but he didn't deal well with incoming fire. when something happens you

didn't intend to happen aids explodes. you can't play like it didn't happen. i always say when president bush and al gore ran for president in 2000, nobody asked either one of them what are you going to do when the twin towers were blown up pentagon is attacked and another plane crashes in pennsylvania. he could have said i'm sorry that's not what i ran to do, i ran to reverse bill clinton's economic policy, i'm sorry. i can't do that. you're laughing, but you see. that's basically what happened in south africa. and that's important to remember not just in politics, but in anything. there is always going to be something happen you weren't planning for and you have to learn to deal with that and pursue your original vision at the same time. but mandela still deserves history's applause because south africa is still a democracy,

it's still operating it's still doing a lot of good. president thuma who has his own problems has been great dealing with aids. really great. and mandela proved that inclusion is better than constant conflict. so i think all that works. now, let's talk about some nonstate actors. won the though bell prize in 2004, died a couple years ago, she was a good friend of hillary's and mine.bell prize in 2004, died a couple years ago, she was a good friend of hillary's and mine. she was an amazing woman. but she knew that the kenyan tree cover had gone all wait done to 1% of the land that it was eroding the topsoil destroying agricultural productivity, that it would cause endless political conflicts in the country.

fuel corruption. and she had a vision of repairing that damage so that kenya could take its considerable other strengths and grow in a way that produced broad based prosperity. but it was i need to figure out something everybody can do to advance this vision. i don't need to just be in the parliament advocate these changes. i need to do something that will involve everyone. and so she got thousands and thousands and thousands of people to plant trees. tens of millions of trees. single handedly from the grass roots up, she began to try to reverse a debilitating trend without which -- that we're still working on today.to reverse a debilitating trend without which -- that we're still working on today. soer so her vision as a citizen

organizing an ngo, she didn't have the power to do it all herself. but now the government has supported policies finally that are allowing us to map the country, to plan in a strategic way to do things. and they asked my foundation to go therebecause of i think our long fren shipiendship with her and what we've done. but that's a way to look at her life and say she made a real give and she did it by empowering individual people to do something that sounds simple and doing it on a scale that would catch the attention of the world. i'll give you another example. a republican american businessman, now sadly passed away a few years ago. in the early 1960s, ken iverson founded a company called new

corps. it was a steel company. his vision was to make steel not in original casting the way it was largely done in and around pittsburgh, but by melting down existing steel and then reforming it. and the technology was developed so the steel could then be rolled in one inch thick rolls instead of four inch thick rolls making it much more malleable, much more suitable for conversion into a variety of purposes. that's not the important thing. iverson decided that if he wanted his company to last for the wronglong run and to be able to adapt, that 40% of their success would be rooted in their technology and 60% in their people. so he adopted the most radical egalitarian culture of any

company of which i'm aware in america. and like i said, and the reason i know this is i recruited the company to arkansas and i liked him and i'm pretty sure he never voted for me. because he was a really conservative republican. he didn't want the go. to tell government to tell him do this, but first of all we had 11 steel mills in america, they had no corporate headquarters. they rented office space in charlotte, north carolina. they had a grand total of 22 people in the central office with 11 stooileel mills. the workers were paid a salary that averaged 65% to 75% of the industry average, but they got a weekly bonus based on production totals. and nonproduction workers got a bonus based on another formula.

in addition to that, there was a profit sharing plan of 10% of the profits unavailable to top management. everybody else participated. in addition to that, it if you had a child who wanted to go to college and you were a new corps employee, they would pay the equivalent of a year's tuition in community college for the child to go. one man in darlington, south carolina educated eight children working for new corps and it had no adverse effect on your pay or your bonus. in addition to that, they had a no-layoff policy. so i still got the letter ken iverson wrote to all his employees in the only year in the 1980s when new corps made less monday than the rear before. they neff lost money until the

financial crisis. but their profit margin went down. so he sent a letter which said spg like something like this. as you know, the world steel business is in a terrible slump and so our sales went down 20% this year. this is not your fault. you did everything i asked you to do. it is, however, my fault. i should have been smart enough to figure out how we could be the only company in the world not to have our profits decline. as you know i have a no lay-off policy, so everybody's income is going down 20% this year. but since it's my fault not yours, i'm going to cut my income 60%. and there was a big article in fortune or forbes, it was kind of mixed pointing out how he was now by light years the lowest paid fortune 500 company executive in america. he wore it like a badge of honor. when i was president, he wrote a little book called plain talk,

still my favorite one. he said i can go down the street in new york where all these corporate offices are and i can watch people go to work and look in five minutes at their desk and tell you whether that company is succeeding or not. and he said long before it became the problem it is today i don't want short term investors in new corps. they want somebody turning a quick profit they should invest somewhere else. we're in it for the long run. and it's very interesting to see at a very inclusive process there were only three management layers below him and the employee making the steel. and every employee had the president's phone number and his. and you could call him on the phone but only about if you had talked to your supervisor first. the point is, he created a culture of radical inclusion.

and it worked and it's working today. they have the same culture today except now in the education benefit is higher and if you got a spouse who wants to go to college or spouse is eligible and if you want to go after work, you can go. and none of it takes a penny away from either your wages or your bonus. so i'd say that guy was a success. by the time i became president, new corps was the third biggest steel company in america. and he did it with a vision, with a plan with execution and radical inclusion. and i'll definite you anothergive you another example. bill and melinda gates. they have a simple vision. their vision is that every life has equal value and therefore we

should create a world where people have equal chances. that's their vision. simple. they have a strategy. we got a lot of money. and we're going to invest to achieve that vision. but we're going to invest it through people who do things that we can't do. we don't want to hire 100,000 people to implement all these things we fund. so for example melinda gates and hillary recently announced before she left the foundation that they were going to -- all this data research they had done on the condition of women and disparities and the conditions of women and men in the united states and around the world. bill gates and the gates foundation invests a lot of money every year through our health access initiative to solve problems. and i love the way he just wants

to do what works. he said to me a few years ago, you know, the world shouldn't need what you do. the world health organization ought to be able to do this. but it can't. and so we do it. but it's very interesting to watch how a person -- and if you listen to him, he'll say we find it harder to give this money away than it was to make it. because our goal is simple and clear. we want to create a world of equal chances. and i think they have been most successful in their health investments around the world where the millennium development goals have been exceeded for declining infant mortality and any other number of measurements there. i'll give you one other example or two in health care because

they're important. i recently went to haiti where i've been working for many years to visit a project i supported another the grounds of the oldest aids clinic in the world. first aids clinic in the world was established in port a prince. now 3 million live there so a lot of people live out on a field. 100,000 people in what should be out in the water. this makes the possibility of water-born diseases much more likely. and that's what cholera turned out to be basically when it entered the water stream in haiti. because the country doesn't have

good sewer and water systems. so bill took the money that he got from a variety of sources and built a modern cholera treatment center. most important thing is this. this guy spent his whole life treating aids. and then when the earthquake occurred, all the land he had around his little hospital he gave over to a tent city. but he realized that cholera could be just as debilitating to his country. so he decided a hospital to maximize the successive treatment, sanitation no infections. and he treated the water and the sanitation above the ground because ever the characteristics i just described. he develop this haded this absolutely beautiful treatment center which got 99%ever the characteristics i just described. he developed this absolutely beautiful treatment center which

got 99% bacteria out of the waste system and then they covered it with chlorine and got up to 99% before it could ever be released into the ground. this one man and one place doing something at an affordable price that could be scaled and do save countless lives around the world. paul farmer, my friend is on the board of our health programs founded partners in health with the head of the world bank and he figured out how to serve an area of 200,000 with a health staff that would normally only serve 20,000. by building one good hospital and then satellite clinics and then beyond the satellite trained community medical

workers. and then he went to rwanda at our request and worked with our foundation and built a hospital in every region of the country they had all been destroyed except the one in the capital city during the genocide. the last hospital near the border is the only serious cancer treatment center in that part of africa. but they're all the same thing. a simple system that can be affordable and repeated by countries with income levels way below ours. if you have a vision, a strategy, and you have the support of people at the grassroots level because you're inclusive, these kinds of things can be done by ordinary citizens. these are things fwheed towe need to be thinking about as we work to

restore broad based prosperity, as we work to define our role in a world of competition from new and different sources to define the future. arguably the most interesting nongovernmental organization today which proves the importance of inclusion by its shortcomings but it's formidable is isis. isis is a terrorist organization an ngo trying to become a state. that is they don't recognize any of the bupd drioundaries of the middle eastern countries that are legitimate. it was largely drawn after the collapse of the ottoman empire in world war 1. so when they attack a place,

they set up then own jew additional judicial system, whatever their social services are going to be. and you can't disagree with them or they will kill you. as we have seen. they will allow a christian or a jew to live it they agree to pay a fine or a tax every year to live within their hallowed kingdom. but if they decide you're anis spos state they just kill you which is why they authorized the killing of other muslims and why they went after the totally powerless because they viewed them as inherently apostate. the only book i'll recommend

today. fascinating book written on the minority religions of the middle east bay a retired british ser haven't called heirs to forgotten kingdoms. there are still 200,000 samaritans there. so, we surely there's a good samaritan, the parable. it's fascinateing. but the point is, i said isis is the opposite. they have a vision. they have a strategy. they think they're right. but they are antiinclusion in the extreme. and people are voting with their feet and as you see. it will not be the future but it cannot be ignored. it has to be countered.

so as america charts its course with the world and tries to restore prosper the tyty at home, tries to get back more in the future business, to accelerate all these great technological and biological developments going on it is well to remember that we need to make our purposes clear. with a vision that is inclusive of our own people and also gives other people a chance to be part of constructive rather than destructive partnerships. for me personally, i've always had a pretty simple purpose. i always wanted at the end of my life, to be able to answer with a resounding yes three

questions. are people better off when you quit than when you started? do children have a brighter future? are things coming together instead of being torn apart. to me, all the rest is background music and i tried to develop the political skills and the ableility to constantly develop policy that would enable me personally to say that. which meant at given time, i might have a different vision for what the country had to do at this point in time or my native state had to do at that point many time. all of you have to do that. when i was a student here and i quoted this in 1992 when i came here and gave me lectures before i started my campaign. i was deeply moved by carol quigley's statement in the history of civilizations that the the defining characteric of

our civilization was a simple bloef that the future could be better than the past and that every person had a personal moral responsibility to contribute to making it better. that no one had the truth. so, the great joy in life was the constant search for the truth. and it was a journey that gave life meaning. so, i can't tell you what your purpose should be. but i can tell you you'll have a lot more fun in your life if you have one and if it's bigger than you. a couple of years ago right as the annual meeting of our global initiative was beginning i was notified that a young woman who worked for our health access

initiative in mozambique and her fiance, a gifted architect, had been among those murdered by al shahab and the attack on the mall in nairobi. she was a dutch nurse. ironically in all these years i've been doing this work, we've only lost two people to violence. both dutch nurses. but this one was a dutch nurse who was so good at what she did and went back to harvard and got a pafd in public health and bent to take management position in africa. her name was ellaf. she was 8 and a half months pregnant. she went to nairobi because it's the best place in that part of africa to have a baby.

and she and her husband were just strolling down the mall and they were killeded. the people that killed her doubtless think they are righteous people. but if you believe in an inclusive future, it doesn't belong to them. nigeria has a new president because a majority of people in nigeria don't like boka haram. they don't think you have a right to kill everybody that disagrees with you. so, any way, when i was at the global initiative, i was very moved by this because i had been with that woman six weeks before she was murdered. visiting our projects. and she was beautiful and very pregnant. and we joked, i said i'm a lamaz

father, if you have an energy just call me into play. six weeks later she was gone. none of us know how long we're going to be here what we're going to do, but her life had purpose. because she had a vision. and she developed a personal strategy to make a difference. which she did. so i told this story. that i just told you. and when i told the story another woman came up to me and she said, you know, more than 20 years ago, i was that young nurse. i was in kenya. i was working. in africa, ngo and i was pregnant and i went to nairobi to have my baby. she said my baby was born healthy. and i was blessed.

but a few years ago, he was shot several times in the virginia tech shooting. and she said thank god he lived and it changed his whole life and all he wants to do now is work in a nongovernmental group to give children a safer future. we all find our purpose in our own way. but if you work at it, it will come. i wish you well. thank you very much.

mr. president, the students have submitted some really excellent questions i think very stimulating, but the first one is is a softball. and i can't let you talk too long on it. we have got to it's going to be great fun, i think. there are some other good ones coming along. it's the teacher in me. what did going to georgetown mean to you? how did it influence your purpose? >> i'll try to give you a short answer because i think i told

this before, but when i wrote my autobiography, hi editor made me take out 20 pages i wrote about georgetown and there's stale lot in there about it. he said, you can't possibly remember all these people. and all these teachers and everything, but i do. it had a profound impact on me first of all because i met people from all over the world. both my teachers and my fellow students. that i would have never met otherwise. in our class, our class was the only graduating class in i think in american history that produced three presidents of three countries. when i became president, my classmate was the president of el salvador. when i left office gloria was the president of the philippines and the whole time i was there,

our classmate was the head of the saudi version of the cia. later ambassador to the united states, the united kingdom. i was here with fascinating people at a fascinating time. but it affected me mostly because of the teachers i had. and the people i went to school with and the conversations we had about what was going on in our class we had. it was very different than now. we did not have, my class, foreign service an elective course until the second semester of our junior year. a big controversy. but i loved it. it, i doubt very seriously if i ever would have become president had i not come to