you only need to look of the incidents that were the mentioned earlier. the u.s. senate and taxable -- impeccable is a good example. if he had to exited in getting that cable that has thousands of pressure on it, he would have either been ripped in half, driving under the water and drowned, so he is very lucky that he had such a bad name in my view. when a chinese submarine ran into the thing behind the john mccain, that could have easily turn into what we read in "lineman's block." bluff."d man's whether in fact the chinese navy had asked the philippine government for a prior military transit to the philippines, exclusive economic zone come in

that incident, i believe that point, we went immediately to lunch. why it matters for me is very much -- as china's capabilities have expanded, what they define as normal patrol in behavior, perhaps without having to ask mother may add to the civilian leadership has expanded both in intensity and in tempo and in geographic scope. we are increasingly rubbing up against one another's military forces on a regular basis. even after the edt crisis -- the e p three crisis, they're still having arguments about sovereignty and our stalemated on the issue on whether the u.s. will conduct a strategic operations in international waters off of china's coast. that is why it matters. int no. 2, when you look at the rhetoric and the guiding principles that we have articulated before secretary gates is visit, you're struck by

the phrase "sustained, reliable, and continued milary-to- military relations." embedded within that statement, imbedded within those words is our frustration fulfilled by the situation being hel hostage by the crisis. when you look at the three -- get the preconditions but the jenny said that before for what they regard as a basis for a stable relationship, in other words, the cessation of all arms sales to taiwan, the cessation of the strategic reconnaissance operations in international waters off of china's coast, as well as the third principle, which, remind me --

the 2001 ndaa that restrains the activities of the military-to- militaryelationship. i see two of them not changing, probably not the third, depending on the composition of the congress. the chinese have automatically built been an escape hatch that allows them to the right back to the pattern of cancelling and shutting down the military-to- military in times of crisis. inerms of disingenuousness or in genesis of both sides going into this visit, i think that the tone from the chinese side has been very tepid. they argue it -- there being clearly forced to do this by the civilian masters where clearly trying to check that box to create the proper atmosphere for presidents visits later in the

month. i think those were chosen with great care. they were not conditions osen in my view that can easily be removed as obstacles. i think you do that in negotiations where you're not interested in making significant gains. the areas that we highlighted as our areas of greatest interest by name in these discussions are also the areas we that are least likely for cooperation with the chinese. i don't think we did that to create a straw man that led to the failure pvide it we derive our interest in their growing nuclear capabilities, other cyber capabilities. i would also add any satellite capabilities our strategic discussion appeared they are the issues that concern us most. once again, i am drawn to the distinctions of strategic discussions with the sovie in which we did talk about the fundamental areas because of

parity and other things, the continuing chinese view of symmetry in those areas which is a major obstacle to us. what it actually highlights is the breakdown in that reciprocal dialogue and the failure to get the commander struck, to visit omaha. i am sure they had a great discussion about recreation sure they visited a lot of chapels and everything else. but it was not the dialogue that we wanted. when the boss man why he was so reluctant to come, was it

because he was not comfortable with foreigners? i said, fundamentally meant, what have read from their strategic doctrine, they have nothing left to say. they give us the "we will never strike first" briefing. if he came, he would have to come up with something different and we have heard that before. he is not prepared to say anything further on that issue and does not want to pull himself in a position where they fail to deliver the most basic context. on the cyber side, as much as i would like to have to have -- like to have a cyber dialogue, the plausible deniability that lies at the heart of computer network operations always gives them an out. i spent two hours this morning dealing with china origins and cyber intrusions. maybe that is just in my cyber -- in my front will bring out. but the slipperiness of cyber,

it is a very difficult issue with which to have concrete discussions, even when you can have one on the nuclear e. finally, at think it was important to talk to set an artillery, at least two depositions about second artilleries potential ownership of that capability. but we will largely be in transmit mode on those issues and probably not expect much in return. unfounate, i share my fellow panelists pessimism. fox have been taken in the rose garden. i'm not sure that behind that will be a robust and sustained and reliable and continuous mill-mail for all the strategic regions that we have outlined. thank you. >> thank you very much. this is sobering. let me ask the first question.

while i'm doing that, please raise your hands and i will take names. i think it is clear what the u.s. wants. and recognizes the need for mutual respect. we have had trouble on all three of those. can you think of a concrete example of what the two sides might do to build mutual trust and start there. what are the likelihoods of that happening in the next year or so and where do you think we might make progress on that? i would ask you to make quick responses. during the questions from guests, we will maybe pick and choose. why do not start? >> the light comes on.

i think training exercises are historical a great place to start. everybody tends to be on their best behavior. you exit the glimpses of what they're like to operate with. unfortunate, there is some experience with the kind of piracy operations of the african coast. it has been important for china. it has been important for everybody else to operate with them at sea. i think one of the things is that submarine rescue would be more interesting. it is somewhat more problematic, but it isn't in that other countries do to push boundaries with one ather. >> i would say that part of it is having a more frank discussion about military capabilities. in some other interactions i

have had with the chinese, you talk to them and get answers that do not only produce confidence or mutual trust, but sort of eroded because you hear flat denials of things you know are actually going on or statements that do not match what is happening with the capabilities. i think the u.s. has tried, as the administration has produced its various policy reviews, to give china some sense of what is in those and why is there. i do not know that we have gotten parallel answers back from t chise. but ere is the fact that our military in these difrent domains are more and more attractive and there is a competitive element of that. it is not just that the tactical level where we are operating in some of their waters. it is starting to be a net fl---

and four-structured level. i take in mind with our capabilities. as a secretary said the other day, it is often the case that the u.s. is looking at things that china is developing and what we need to do to protect our own interests. i think that a franker dialogue about those issues would be a big step. that is why i hope that these efforts to really get a strategic stability dialogue with content in it -- had hoped that would develop positively. >> james. >> i will go against my irish nature and talk about some good news. if you look back even five years ago at the military-millet ferrmilitary, would it not be gt if we could get the chinese to cooperate with us on the

peacekeeping operations. imagine if the connection get them involved in something witle piracy issue of of africa. they threw those out as their standard fare for the things that they are interested in talking to us about and are serious about. that is progress. i think it is throwing bloody chunks in the war behind you for the sharks. but i think those are things we can capitalize. i know the administration had talked privately with capital hill in the first to use about actually making concrete changes to the national defense authorization act to prevent freedom of action to be able do more things on the chinese side. but some of the things that we have talked about now are

actually prohibitive. in terms of process issues, i think it would go a long way for us to alter some of the characteristics of that legislation to allow us to have greater freedom. otherwise, our own hands would be tied it iour abilitto be helpful in the relationship. if i can ask everyone to please identify yourself clearly. >> i need to ask a question and that it will cut in aid for direction. given the pessimism that you all expressed about the views on the pla side and their lack of willingness or at least a reluctance to engage in mil-to-mil. will current mechanisms -- what current mhanisms to have that

are available to us and what future mechanisms which you propose? >> i think you ask the right question. as long as the dialogue is military for the sake of military, we will run into a whole series of internal bureaucratic and political issues on the chinese side. as long as they can frame it and slice of life that, it does not serve their interests and it does not serve our interests. one of the things that i have been most disappointed with has been -- both in terms of protocol and bureaucratic rank -- the chinese participation in strategic and economic dialogue, highlighted as a forum where we could bridge across the civilian and military strategic issues. as long as we continue to send top for fighters and top leaders to this meeting and they keep sending foreign affairs officers, we will never be able to do that.

that is a bureaucratic logjam. i understand it on the chinese side, but it will have to break it. we have an environment where we talk about security issues and a much more multi-disciplinary and multi-bureaucratic way. then been unwilling to figure out the key to unlocking that on the protocol side. >> i agree with that. let me come it -- let me comment -- let me come at it from a different angle. they're focused on issues of dominance, vulnerability, satellite, their strategies for dealing with the u.s.. that is a very competitive and contentious dialogue. what we really want is all of the chinese users of space, scientific use of space, commercial uses of space, satellite space, loss capabilities -- they have a different set of interest from

the military. they need access to space to carry a commercial opportunities to keep the chinese satellite tv network operating in remote areas. what we really want is some kind viewsform werthe pla's us are balanced by a variety of other urs based in china who have a different set of perspectives and interests and views. but that is one of the problems. i think the chinese system does not do well in cutting across bureaucracy and representing this particular interest and some of the programs that are kept pretty secure. it is hard to integrate across that. of the can find mechanisms to do that, i think that would be really helpful. >> one of the things is that it does take two to tango.

in these concentrated forms, if you have the wrong people show suddenly the wrong people yourself. i do not know that that is the best way to do it. you can fight fire with fire a little bit to try to focus the other side. it would be to say, look, i am ready to have a serious discussion. but if you keep mickey mouse in me, i will do it with you, too. they advocate building trust and confidence with things like maritime cooperation and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief and whenever we can do is great. i wonder, looking added instead of from the bottom up to look at it fm the top down and with

the panel thinks of the prospects that secretary gates could come back and convince president obama that he should persuade president hu that he should overcome these loud voices that disrupt the military-to-military relationship and other aspects. might we expect or could we hope for a realization by president couldn't tell that we do not want to disrupt the overall -- president hu jintao that we do not want to disrupt the overall situation. do we think that is a prospect? >> is interesting to me that we have not so far talk about the military relations issue. but i think it is significant in

this case. he staked out some interesting ground with the chinese military in my view. talking about his policy of new historic missions for the first five military task and the civilian origins of tt leads to some interesting conclusions. one of the unheralded reasons for new historic mission to be put out was to provide the pla with a vision of a future template to continue to receive large-scale central government financial resources for missions well beyd resolution of the taiwan situation. in other words, their modernization program, which had been so successful, primarily in my view because they finally had a concrete planning scenario, it could now have a wider range of planning some areas that we continue to justify double-digit annual increases in the to penditure without having it all be tied to tie one.

we are already in the election season. i think it is horrible that are presidential election season is two years long. we are already in the session. i think it is a very delicate dance going on with his relationship with the military, with the implications of that for the succession, particularly the estimation of whether a fact he will hold on to the chairmanship of the central military commission after the next party congress for that transition of wer. in that kind of environment, given that kind of sensitivity, given that they are in a political season, it is very unlikely that he would then expend political capital to try to force the chinese military to do something that they are disinclined to do for a whole variety of valid, strategic, bureaucratic, and financial reasons in their own minds. >> let's keep going.

this may not be the right place. with the republican takeover of the house, there will be very different way of focusing on all of these issues. hearin are designed to make sure none of us miss any of the provocative things from every level, a human-rights trade, etc., etc. in a sense, it is the bad news if you worry about managing the noise level. but it is potentially good news if you can shave the conversation in a positive way instead of just banging a drum. >> first, i have absolutely no idea it will go in. right now, you have a lot of neophyte's coming into the process. you have centers of voices who are no longer there. you have folks who will try to score as many political points against the administration as it possibly can over the next two years. they have already said that.

i think you'll see one more -- a lot more oversight hearings, whether the provider of really -- provide real oversight is another thing. you have certain folks who a saying, well, we will try to look at this and we will try to look at this and it does not relate -- it does not appear that there is a lot to look at other the and the fact that your to grandstand. it is a shock that politics would actually be happening up there. [laughter] what am i thinking? i think it will take a little bit of time to shake out. you have a lot stronger and louder and more polarized voice out there right now. i think the question is whether those voices continue the way they are or they start to moderate. there have been great examples that the new members have been having. there is a retreat where everyone went out and talked to

a secure line. what ship is that evolution taken the coming weeks and months and years? >> when you look at the house foreign affairs committee and you look at the membership of that committee, there are half dozen people on that committee that have long established bureaucratic legislative track record of interest in china. i would expect that that committee in particular would have a fundamental change in its town and focus in the next two years. >> let me add something. what ever global or international issue you were looking at or economic issue you're looking at, there is a china component to this. it would be less the case that is a foreign affairs or security committee that is really when dealing with china.

to keep the focus on a range of global issues, china will be a part of the. sometimes, it will be a positive contribution and sometimes it will be negative. the committee will be digging into issues that are at the port -- and of a part of their responsibility. >> i said it was hard for a reason. it is not just applying the electors to it and getting beijing to start changing direction. -- electrodes to it and getting beijing to start changing direction. we have already concluded that the united states is doing stuff and china is doing stuff, all responded to the other. this can ship itse in a positive direction or can go really, really long.

>> i want to comment on david's point, which i think is really critical about the issue of mil- mil and how instrumental that might be. there is a suggestion that there is real limits on how far on official tourney can go in a dancing it in termsf deepening understanding in a way that changes strategic thinking because the situation is so deeply enmeshed in politics on both sides, as well as military attitudes that are increasingly hardening. to me, what needs to happen is there needs to be a real serious think through on the u.s. side about how you can engage the chinese on significant strategic issues that are not just simply narrow- issue-based, but questions of

power and rpose in the pacificver time that are not all official. you cannot do this on an official level. you cannot engage in no official dialogue on estions like that that are somewhat open-ended, that are somewhat conceptual, and that are somewhat flexible in the way people dress them. you have these responses back and forth often. we can think of how you can develop in nonoffici yet not authoritative track. something that is not led by official predicted by official statements. that is a hard thing to do. that is one reason i haven't got

it. but i think it will be increasingly important. it is hard to get around these problems on the chinese side and maybe on the u.s. side and they can feed into specific qstions on the mil-mil level. that will not happen if there is not an understanding of the senior level of both governments. you have to reform this kind of -- youave stood reconfirm this kind of understanding. what comes out of it can really determine what happens in the u.s.-china relations, at least on the strategic level. there needs to be a strong suit -- a strong message sent by both sides of a commitment of discussion engagement of these issues and others that freckly lot of people now question whether it is possible. that kind of commitment has to show that the military's are not

in control. they're not dictating the direction of this relationship. the chinese, to some degree, the civilian leadership have indicated that in the last several months. i think there needs to be a broadening and deepening of that recognition of both sides. it would then allow for this kind of movement forward in these kinds of dialogue. >> when i walked into this room and looked at these photographs, i always have that feeling. maybe i am romanticizing an earlier area, but the idea of being able to have conceptual dialogue about power and purpose that are not tied to publicly stated the levels that have to be discussed -- it would be a completely new tenor in the

relationship. the problem potentially is due the strategical conditions apply now. is there a unifying common threat to? those sorts of things. or are there -- are they simply not there? >> presidents and administrations have marshalled their veteran talent all the time to open different tracks and negotiations. you can have them do back channel even better. you can get somebody who will be somewhat more seen as neutral to go ahead and do this for you. have the vatican get involved if

you want to open an avenue of discussion. [laughter] that was just to make sure that everybody is listening. ultimately, there are all sorts of mechanisms you can use to do it, any and all that can, the better it is. i am not sure that the other side is really listening. we are really quite open. generally, what we say is what we say. interpreting our interes, there is another agenda that people have in washington. people have to be pretty dense for deaf to not get it to carry that far. >> as a veteran and organizer of track to dialogue -- first, the chinese and u.s. government need a lot. all the different departments of the government and different departments and ministries have the various dialogues with china

on different issues. there is a constant stream of official visitors coming in. it is harder to talk some of these -- talk about some of the strategic issues because you get into issues of secrecy and sensitivity. but there is a lot of dialogue happening routinely between the two governments. and number of people in this administration have participad in an official dialogue, as well as official once and they do try to think systematilly and strategically about how you use the two. we have tried to help a little bit with that. the unofficial dialogue can be a means, as michael suggested, for dealing with bigger picture and conceptual things come exploring areas that are not ripe for official meetings where governments have to live up to what they say in those meetings. i think the administration is

trying to think strategically about when do you want things to be official and you're willing to live by the agreements that you make in those settings and also recognize that we're talking point will be cleared and it will be a more formal setting. when he wanted to be on official, where you can be more exploratory in trying to find a common ground. and how do use the two parts together? they are thinking systematically and someone strategically in terms of what the the right mix is of those two things. when you highlight some of these issues, such as space and cyber, that is good to talk about an official level, but maybe some of this unofficial dialogue in breaking ground in those areas. another thing it can do is it can bring different parts of the chinese system to the table. on space issues, the military's interest is fferent from a

commercial user or a chinese broadcaster. i think you want both of those in the room. sometimes, that is something that i as an organizer and others have been able to do, invite the right chinese from diffent parts of the system. sometimes, you can achieve a cutting across of bureaucracies that is very hard to do in unofficial contacts. >> on the cyber side, we have had similar dialogue. we create the usual track 1.5 kind of shield where the government people are there and they are in the back chairs and they can makeommentsnd those comments are not considered official policy. it sets up proxy channels and everything else. unfortunate, sometimes, i think it allows the side that is reluctant to do talking -- it gives them a communication channel without responsibility and authentication on something

that is as sensitive as cyber or nuclear. i would just point out that everybody in the room knows that the chinese side tends to be more systematic and harvesting the information that comes out of those meetings and developing a broader picture whereas, it tends to be more unilateral and there is not as much of an attempt to systematize the information and insight -- and messages that are coming in. >> please wait for a microphone. but it does not so much these issues. there is plenty of dialogue on that. my concern is more on the broader sense of how power is distributed and how it is changing in asia in particular and what that means for the

primary strategic interests of the two countries. we have an incompatibility between the nine states and the chinese. the u.s. believes that stability in asia is based on predominance. the chinese do not accept that notion. at least, they want to qualify it significantly. they haven't said they rejected outright, but they do not accept it entirely. they want to reduce their vulnerabilities. those vulnerabilities are based will large extent on what the u.s. sees as its predominance. that flows through a whole host of issues that we're talking about here. yet, it is never really in gages by the two sides. >> i think there's a big challenge their we have to grow been our allies in that discussion as well. it makes it difficult to talk big picture without including the rest of our northeast asian friends.

>> first, i want to compliment the panel on what i thought was a first-rate presentation on this questn. i wonder if one or two or more of you could comment on the psychological factors. 35 years ago, there was a defense stregy consisting of a people's war, storing grain everywhere, targeting missiles on our own soil because that is where you would have to engage the enemy. i went to china in 1976 with the house armed services committee for the first contact we have had since the nixon visit and it was impossible to have a dialogue. the terminology made no sense. they did not know what we were talking about. over the last 35 years, the we have made enormous progress, they have not been able to

velop indigenous first-rate military equipment. they had to purchase it from former enemies like russia. we are talking about relations between that military and the united states military. when we were rising as a great power, it was recognized as being the military in the world that has the strongest capabilities and that is most advanced. yet we are talking about relationships as though the chinese can resume to deal as an equal under these circumstances with the world's best. what you have described is what you would expect from somebody who has not proved themselves. the chinese navy has been a coastal defense force.

now, they are in the gulf and they are getting miniscule experience. their senior leaders are provincial in terms of the world outlook because they have not have the exposure or the contact with advanced military groups that you expect. if we want this military to military relationship to develop, we cannot have a great leap forward. we have to make incremental steps. we have to deal with each other in ways so that they can gain conscience -- condence that they can deal with us in the types of dialogues that we would like to have without losg face because they are constantly demonstrating that they are not up to our standards in terms of understanding what we want to talk about. maybe i am misrepresenting this. my experience is that the psychological factors play a powerful role.

have i misrepresented the issue? i would welcome some thoughts. >> i think that is a good point. if you meet with chinese military officers, sometimes you meet with colonels or lower ranking officials and they are really smart. a totally understand what is going on. you ask them why they are not teaching in beijing. they say that they are a colonel and no one would listen to them if they taught in beijing. the kind of limits that are in the system, which is covering your butt, there are a lot of places for information to stop if it reflects negatively. i think that ose are all factors that we need to consider in our own thinking. we stand -- some people have ph.d. s and the trouble around the worland study.

i think that we should do more about that. our focus should be to travel and spend a year in china traveling and doing whatever and then coming back and shading your beard of and cutting your hair and going back to work. you still have to figure out some way to have a dialogue. a functioning dialogue with folks that you really don't have a lot in common with. that would be a very long wait for us. you have to figure out ways to bridge a justified. it is difficult, but it is something that you have to push through. >> the big question is of the chinese threat perception of us. the more that we engage with them, the more we reveal that gap to ourselves that they know is still present. doeshat increase their level

of concern? i do not know how you overcome that. at the moment, they have some very advanced platforms, but on a network with the rest of their system? do they have advanced software on top of the hardware? if we fd out more about that for cooperation, does that reduce their deterrent? is that the way to overcome that? the very early stages would be joint force operations. they have seen that this is vitally important in order to conduct modern war. this is an area where they are feeling their way. they have made remarkable progress in recent years. but i do not want to use demeaning language, i just want to capture the idea. it is like taking someone from

the country and sending them to new york city. the way that they behave shows that there from the country. -- that they are from the country. >> let me speak to two aspects. i am not to talk much about ychology because he has written books on that topic. you can look at twoieces of it. one is the experience of training officers. that has changed. they would spend their career in one military region into the got to the senior level and have very little contact with foreigners. we now see an officer corps that is becoming more educated. there is a premium on credentials. there is more opptunities to travel.

over time, i think that will produce a change in attitude and a comfort in interacting with others. it has only been 10 or 12 years that the chinese military it really started doing the rudiments of military diplomacy in terms of exercises and deployments for this kind of purposes. over time, you will see a greater comfort of individuals in being able to operate at this level. it is much more sophisticated and effective. that is one piece. education, training and experience. they have made progress on that. the other side is the capabilities peace. -- peaiece.

they worked in favor of the strong at thexpense of the week. they are stronger. you are starting to see a greater willingness to show off those capabilities. sometimes that is a very negative way to try and intimidate neighbors. but it also means they can be more open without fear of giving away vital military secrets. that is also an underlying condition that may permit greater dialogue. it does not ensure that that will happen. it i perhaps, a condition that will support that over time. >> exactly. a that is the key issue. >> they are changing. they say that you do not ever asked us what we think of anything. >> i am fascinated by the psychological aspect of it. perhaps morehan i was in the

past. that may just be a residue of the fact that in parenting preteen girls and trying to train a golden retriever at the same time. everything you said is right. it fits very much with dick's book. there are new ingredients in this goulash. in my view, it is a very clear triumphantism that is being led by people in the pla as a consequence of the olympics and achievements along the way that suggests -- that was in full voice a few months ago. it is interesting to find

elements in this system backpedaling. perhaps the prematu unveiling of this new confidence. what concerns me most at the psychological level in our strategic dialogue --t is difficult to talk about this without appearing to be paternalistic. a combination that i feel in my person interaction with people in the pla, a combination of a cocky swagger combined with continuing insecurity and caution. you can define the chinese leadership as feeling that triumphalism. not wanting to deflect it.

but also understanding that they are sitting on top of huge structural problems. they have huge problems in military development. it creates a psychological divergence is that some people would seek to exploit and other people are trying to heal. we talked about the spokesman. i continue to fascinated by the . .he growth -- by the laggar this is a system that is so imprisoned by its stated principles. it is in desperate need of names. emerge.watching them a mo they do not have the words to communicate why they are doing things.

you cannot say not interference in thenternal affairs of other countries. that is the purpose of being a great power. yet they want to say that they are not interfering in their internal affairs, but they are interfering in internal affairs. it causes strategic confusion and increases the possibility of what gates called the calculation -- miscalculation. we are having a lot of difficulty matching actions with words. that is this unfortunate pubescent kind of process they are going through. that is why i think that some of our leaders in this area have said that we cannot react to everything that they do. we have to take a more strategic manager role.

we have to take more of an adult posture on this. we can get sucked into that drama as my 11-year-old daughter would say and then just spiraled downward -- spiral downward. we do have a deal with a china that was concerned about face. we do not know how to deal better with a china that is concerned about face, but also has all of these triumphal list witnesses. ist weaknesses.s >> there are looking at our economic system and laughing. that was until they started having their own food problems and then we can laugh at them. >> i think that hermann first said that. >> two a very brief

interjections. let's start here. >> the psychological discussio -- of the fundamental question that we came here talk about, in terms of the chinese psychology. what does the pla think that it is going to gain by cooperating with the u.s.? what is the pla by not doing this? >> my favorite term from cold war political science is famed compliance. -- feigned compliance with civilian desire for a dialogue. it is more about talking and talking and setting up meetings about talking. the shell will be there but i

am not sure that the content will be anything solid. >> it is absolutely pental thinking. i was summoned to the chinese embassy a couple of years ago. for some reason, they asked if they could do something with the dalai lama. when we talked about and, if the first words out of your mouth is the so-called dollar llama fallout, -- dalai lama. >> mike bills vary, please -- mike bills very billspllsbury --

pillsbury, please. >> it seems to me that this is much neglected topic in the study of wt they are like. that is to our detriment. i have run across a number of chinese military ridings where the attempt to assess what our american psychological views are. one article was called, "how american strategic culture drives the world." we are compelled to try to dominate the world. the general goes on with what to do with this kind of power. it leads me to ask a question.

do each of you think that our owdebate in washington about the nature of china -- u.s.- china relations is as sharp as i perceive it to be? there was a preface to a book of writings by me on military issues. they used the word vicious debate. there is a vicious debate going on in washington about china. the characterized it in various ways. either you agreevo with each other, or there is not much of a sharp debate about china. that strikes me as a pity. if there is the calculations and misperceptions between the u.s. and china, if i were drafting

president obama's talking points, i would be inspired by a the point that they seem to see a shift in the balance of power. both regionally and globally. this dates back to 2008. if that is true, do we agree with that? do we agree that america is in decline. are we adjusted our policy is -- policies to the attraction? that would be paper to hand to the chinese side that says the reason we want to dominate the world, if we agree, then bob sutter is right.

i hate to use the word, we need to reduce our role significantly. there is a clash here in the washington d.c. community. the panel seems to be the same. >> there is a laughable cartoon version of what is going on. to your point about decline, i think that secretary gates very carefully chose his words before he left when he said, "there are many nations in the dustbin of history who have doubted u.s. resolve." >> he did not say we are not in decline.

it is not the same thing. secretary gates did not use those words. >> i still like the tone of it. >> do you have something profound is a? >> i really do not have anything profound to said. i yield the balance of myime. >> we have three questions left and we have about 50 minutes if we are going to wrap up on time. >> my question is to make a comparison. in china, there is an increasing number of younger people and even much more influential people who are extremely well educatednd travel throughout the world.

it has been mentioned that young pla officers are showing up. it is not clear to me at the senior level that that is very general. i guess my point is whether it is a comparison of the role of the isolation of some of the plo leaders, could it lead to misjudgment? the second part of that, whether you have seen a change in recent years where the pla has gotten higher with the development of a sort of military industrial complex within china and to what extent that development is srting to impact on policy, whether it is or isn't? >> first, familiarity is a good

thing. i think that countries that have known each oth really well, it is not in their economic interest to go to war and they end up going to war. britain and germany are a good example. i think -- it is always good to make sure you have as much dialogue as possible. he have to make some of the right decisions in terms of making sure it used to that course. -- you steer the course you have to be in tune with what is going on and connect those thoughts regarding chinese policy. it gives you an multiplicity of ways to communicate and to give you a multiplicity of ways to screw up. in terms of the military industrial capability in china,

the greater the military industrial capability, the greater the broader industrial capability is a significant issue. increasingly, you have components and parts on the subcontractor level -- china has components that are dual use components. am i going to witc produce parts that -- what does that mean for us? china is going to become a self sufficient supplier at some point. that reduces the number of points you have on china. >> i think there is a lag between the caliber of the

officers and the senior people in decision making. that is one benefit that we get here. we [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> u.s. house is coming in for a quick pro forma session. no legislative business will be conducted today. and now to live coverage to the u.s. house here on c-span.

grant peace to those who have died suddenly and consoling love to all who mourn. for you have promised to be with us in our every need both now and forever. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval of there. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from alaska, mr. young. mr. young: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, by direction of the democratic caucus, i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker: the clerk will report the the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 31. resolved, that the following named members be and are hereby elected to the following standing committees of the house of representatives. one, committee on appropriations -- mr. larson: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered as read and printed in the record. the speaker: without objection. so ordered. without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska rise? mr. young: i have a motion the house do now adjourn at this time. the speaker: the question is on adjournment. those in favor indicate by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

>> pray that she might have a speedy rerecovery as well as the people in that community. bless us dear father and keep us in thy keeping power and we shall be so careful to give your name all the praise, all the honor, and all the glory and all this we ask in the matchless and marvelous name of our praise, amen. god bless you. >> thank you, reverend.

please remain standing for the pledge of allegiance which will be led by assemblyman dagman representing the 18th district in middlesex county. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> thank you, assemblyman. you can be seated. i recognize the president of the new jersey senate from gloucester county, representing the rd district, senate president, steven sweeney. >> madam speaker, i wish to inform the joint session of the 214th legislature that the governor has arrived. my colleagues, honored guests, ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to present the governor

of the state of new jersey, the honorable, christopher kristi.

>> thank you. thank you very much. thank you. before we begin i'd ask you-all to rise for a moment. we had an extraordinary tragedy this past week and attack on public life in america. and i would ask us to take a moment of silent prayer for the recovery of congresswoman giffords and the other victims and also for the family and friends of those whose lives were lost, including a native of new jersey, just take a moment of silent reflection and prayer for their recovery and help them through their grieve. -- grief.

thank you all very much. lieutenant governor, madam speaker, mr. president, members of the legislature, and the citizens of the state of new jersey, it is my constitutional duty to report to each of you on the year that has passed and the state of our state. and today it is my privilege to report to you that the state of our state is improving, getting better every day. [applause] why do i say that? state spending is down 9% in one

year. the budget has been balanced. state taxes are lower for the first time in a decade. the unemployment rate has begun to drop. and today is below not above the national average. companies are beginning to take a second look at new jersey. together we have begun to do something no one thought was possible. we are turning our state around. [applause] without a doubt, though, there is much work still to be done, but we cannot turn back now. make no mistake. new jersey is coming back. think of where we were. just one year ago, the fiscal year 10 budget was over $2 billion in deficit. with the year more than half

gone and our options shrinking fast. the state was actually in danger of running out of cash. within weeks of not being able to meet payroll. we faced a deficit for fiscal year 11 that was projected to be $1 is billion -- 11 billion. equal to 37% of the budget. the largest deficit in proportional terms in the country. property taxes had risen 70% in the last 10 years. independent analysts concluded we have the highest overall tax burden in america. unemployment was at 10%. the highest in a generation, the highest in the region, and above the national average. wealth and jobs and people were leaving the state. the new jersey we love. the new jersey of our youth, was in danger of slipping away.

some were beginning to write off new jersey. doubting we could change what the newspapers called our old high-bound ways. back then the state's largest newspaper opined, taxes are too high as it is. another paper put it simply, new jersey must change course. the day of reckoning had arrived. and arrived with a vengeance. we have clear choice. to continue our reckless ways or change course and choose a new, difficult path. one that would require real political courage. from all those who embrace the change. well, we did change course, decisively. today, step by step, we are putting ourselves on a better, more sustainable path and pushing ahead on the road to growth. step one, was to turn trenton

upside-down, to reverse the pattern of increased spending and taxes, to upend the culture of burying problems instead of facing them. you see, the right answer is to face big problems now. or face bigger ones tomorrow. i believe in a culture of truth. it hasn't always been easy because some of those truths in front of us were no pleasant, but at the same time everyone knew that the old direction was driving our state off a clip. into the abyss of no growth, high unemployment, and a fleaing population. -- fleeing population. but we did begin by turning the mindset of trenton around and today with your help new jersey's comeback has begun. [applause] .

the last year may have seemed like a long and winding road, but together we have actually changed direction quickly. look at what's happened in just the last 12 months. within three weeks of taking office, we took immediate action to prevent a financial crisis and stabilize the state's finances. we balanced that fiscal year 2010 budget by holding back what spending could be stopped and averted new jersey's cash crisis. we enacted the first steps in reforming our system of pensions and benefits. saving state and local taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. we enacted legislation to head off the looming crisis in our unemployment insurance system. preventing a tax increase of as much as $700 per employee for many employers. we made a down payment with unanimous support in the

legislature, by the way, on an education reform package which create add permanent interdistrict public school choice program. and we approved six new charter schools in new jersey, a small first step but with many more to come and soon. we passed the 2011 budget which restored some sense of fiscal sanity. it required spending cuts from every department of state government. we closed that $11 billion budget gap and we closed it without raising taxes on the people of new jersey. [applause] most importantly we took action on the problem which the people of new jersey had been crying out for us to solve. the growth of their property taxes. we kept that growth at 2% per

year. then we made the cap real by eliminating interest arbitration awards to 2% as well n one year new jersey has gone from being a basket case to national a national model. those same newspapers who thought we were in deep trouble are now telling a very different story. one said we have taken the first step in a very new direction. and another now says, new jersey is setting a national example. so make no mistake, other states are watching what we do here. will we turn back because the road is too hard? or will we press on because the future is too important? new jersey is getting recognized for taking on the tough issues that other politicians have refused to touch. we, we are showing other states that sometimes to create real change you've got to go all in,

show a little jersey attitude. [applause] and this month new governors are taking office across the country. republicans and democrats, using new jersey as the example of how they want to lead. the stakes are high. for example, one state, illinois, has chosen a very different path than ours. they are in the throws of debating a -- throes of debating a 75% increase in income tax rates. is that what we want for new jersey? no. new jersey intends to remain the leader not only in turning around the national trend of out-of-control spending and taxes, but in finding the path to growth. so on every one of these topics,

we have more and bigger things to do. we need to balance the budget quen. -- again. we need to put the unemployment insurance fund on a long-term sustainable path. we need much bigger and bolder education reform. and we need steps to save our pension system. and we need to enact the entire tool kit which will help us stem the growth of property taxes. so have no doubt we are not turning back, not on my watch. [applause] before i turn to the future to the task ahead, i want to make two comments. first, who would have thunk it? if i or the senate president or

the speaker had told you a year ago that by december we would have a 2% hard cap on property taxes and a 2% hard cap on interest arbitration awards, you would have told all three of us we were crazy. yet here we are with both caps in law. [applause] how did this happen? people stood up for their principles on the one hand but listened to the people who sent us here on the other. that is the model for the way forward. we must fight hard for what we believe in, but in the end we must do the people's work. my second comment is to say to this legislature and to the public watching or listening to today, thank you. we haven't always agreed, and we haven't always gotten exactly what we have wanted, but we have

acheeved -- achieved compromise and the people of new jersey are better off as a result. one year ago at my inauguration i invited the senate president and the speaker to engage in a symbolic handshake of cooperation, a commitment to worry less about who is getting credit and more about doing something worth getting credit for. today i want to thank steve sweeney and sheila oliver for using this last year of action to help begin to restore the public's faith in bipartisan government. [applause] the change we are working to achieve for new jersey is

transformational. so far we have changed the terms of the debate. you know a lot has changed when the people of the state vote down a record number of school budgets, even though 70% of the money in school elections was spent by the teacher's union advocating even higher spending. you know the debate has changed when my friends across the aisle proposed legislation and adopt legislation highlighting the need for tax cuts to stimulate economic growth. a year ago they were advocating tax increases. you know our direction has changed when the teacher's union start talking about tenure reform. and you know the world has changed when we can come together and actually begin to reform the pension and benefit system in a nearly unanimous vote last march. so there can be no question the debate in trenton has changed. we have turned trenton upside-down. [applause]

but now we can't be content. we must take the next step. we must make even bigger changes in the year ahead if new jersey is to be a place where families choose to live and work and can afford to live and work. it's traditional in the state of state messages to provide a long list of initiatives for the year ahead. every plan for every department of state government. comes as no shock to all of you today i'm going to break with that tradition. i want to highlight not the small things but the major challenges that our state has ignored for too long and that we must confront now. for new jersey it is time to do the big things. for this year the biggest things fall in three categories.

one, we must stick to the course of fiscal discipline. two, we must fix our pension and health benefit systems in order to save them. and three, we must reform our schools to make them the best in america. now, on these three what is at stake is no less than the future of new jersey. see, we are in a global competition and you know we are in a competition among the states. if we can't shed regulations, reduce spending, and hold the line on taxes, we cannot attract and create the jobs our citizens so desperately need. if we cannot make the promises of our pension system more realistic, there will be no pensions for those who have earned them. and if we cannot repair our schools, our people will not be ready for the jobs in the future . so our work, ladies and gentlemen, is far from finished.

here's where we must go in 2011. on the big things. the things that really matter. first, we must continue the process of getting our fiscal house in order. we did achieve balance in fiscal year 2011, but our long-term deficit problem is far from solved. it took years, indeed decades, to build it up so it cannot be solved in one year. so let's be clear. we cannot continue to spend money we don't have. we cannot print money, and we cannot run deficits. so we have to continue to make some very tough decisions about what we can't afford and what we can. next month i'll present to you by mibudget for fiscal year 2012 and i'll guarantee you this, it will be balanced and it will not raise taxes. [applause]

now, in order for that to be true, though, we need to better control our medicaid and health care costs. we need to examine the amount and structure of municipal and school aid programs, and we need every department of state government to start from the bottom up and plan not what they want to cut from last year but to advocate only what they absolutely must fund for this year. when i talk of controlling spending, i'm doing it for a reason. i'm not proposing to cut spending just for cutting's sake. i'm fighting this fight because we have to be truthful about

what we can't afford. whether it's health and pension benefits which are out of line with the rest of the country, or a tunnel we simply can't pay for. i'm asking for shared sacrifice so that when we leave here new jersey will be more fiscally sound than when we got here. i'm asking for shared sacrifice in cutting what we don't need so that we can invest in what we absolutely do need. last week former governor kaine submitted the report of his commission on higher education in which he made clear our system of colleges and universities are essential to our economic growth. governor kaine was right. i thank him for his commission's report. i also last week outlined needed plans for continuing to invest in new jersey's transportation infrastructure which we need to be world class for both jobs and competitiveness. but if we are to fund these

investments in the future, we have to control the costs in other programs. we need to make cuts in programs that have been shown not to work in order to make investments that will build a more productive tomorrow. some people say that getting spending under control and reforming the budget is the third rail of politics. the amount of freight to touch it, in fact i embrace it because it's been said opportunity expands in proportion to one's courage. so i'm asking you to join me in cutting the popular in order to fund the necessary. i'll go further than that. it is one thing just to say no to higher taxes after decades of tax increases, 115 in the last 10 years alone. if new jersey is to truly become a home for growth, we need to reform the taxes we place on business and individuals and we need to begin to roll them back.

[applause] so we need comprehensive tax reform. by that i mean changes that are considered together. not the piecemeal approach. in my budget next month, i will propose the initial installment of such a package, but let's be clear. we will not put in place tax cuts that we cannot pay for. any economic incentive package that i will sign will be connected in that context and only in that context. the context of a actually balanced budget. -- a actually 3w58d budget. the -- a constitutionally balanced budget. the second is the benefit

system. this cloud hangs over us and almost every other state in the union. it is one of the reasons new jerseyans pay the highest property taxes in america. nearly 75%, three out of every $4 of our state's municipal and county budgets are driven by personnel and labor costs. without reform, pension and health care benefits will increase by more than 40% in their cost over the next four years. without reform, the unfunded liability of our pension system will grow from $54 billion today to a staggering $183 billion within 30 years. without reform the required annual pension contribution by the state will grow to over $13 billion a year over that same time period. let's put that in perspective

for a second. $13 billion a year. that's more than the state now spends each year on its entire system of public education. in pension and benefit costs. the choice is clear, reform today or risk disaster tomorrow. without reform, the beneficiaries of this system face a high risk of catastrophe which will place all of their benefits at risk. so again, i'm not proposing pension and benefit reform just to be tightfisted. i'm proposing pension reform for the police officers who have served and contributed for many years, who may find nothing when they retire a decade from now. i'm proposing pension reform for the firefighters who every day put their lives on the line to serve the public. and who have the right to expect that when the time comes the public will serve them.

i'm proposing pension reform for the teachers who put in the extra hours every day to help their students. we now must put in the extra hours to ensure the system is solvent for them. the pension and benefit reforms i put forward are simple. they are straightforward and they are sensible. we must modestly raise the retirement age in an era of longer life expectancy. we must curb the effect of colas in a time of low or no inflation. we must ensure a modest but acceptable contribution from employees towards their own retirement system. and finally, if we can make real reform a reality, the state must also begin to make its pension contributions. [applause]

without reform the problem we face is simple, benefits are too rich, contributions are too small, and the system is on a path to bankruptcy. a recent independent study found the pension funds of 11 states will be out of money by 2020. just nine years from today. new jersey is one of those states. that is an unacceptable outcome to me. so that every beneficiary of the system i am fighting for your pension's existence and to the members of the legislature i say, please join me in doing so. now, as a part of our negotiation on interest arbitration, the leadership of the legislature promised to take up this necessary package of pension and benefit reforms. now is the time for us to finish what we started last march.

we should pass this package now and if you do, i will immediately sign it into law. [applause] the third critical action item for this year, perhaps the biggest things -- thing of all for the future of our state is education reform. we cannot ask children and families stuck in chronically failing public schools to wait any longer. it is not acceptable that a child who is neglected in a new jersey school must accept it because of their zip code. we must give parents and children a choice to attend better schools. why do i say this? let me tell you a story. a few years ago as united states attorney, i visited the problemmer sha reeve academy in

newark, like those and many charter schools, the slots in this charter school because it's been so successful and because we do not have enough charter schools are limited. so the slots are allocated by lottery. near the end of my visit i asked the mother of one of the students how she felt on the night her son was in the lottery. the way she framed the issue was so simple and so many ways tragic. she told me, whether her son was chosen from a lottery meant the difference between him going to college or going to jail. that's what she believed. over 100,000 students just like that one are trapped in nearly 200 failing public schools in this state. this is an awful situation. it is obscene. it is unacceptable in new jersey. and we must change it now. [applause]

we make progress here. with the interdistrict choice boil, expansion of charter schools, and mark zuckerburg's $100 million gift to the city of newark. i want to thank him and look forward to continuing my work with the mayor who is with us today to reform newark schools. we have work to do, corey. [applause]

but we need to tell those children and their families trapped in these failing schools that we are coming. so, before this legislature goes home for the political season, we need to give them more help toward im-- improvement, more hope, more choice. our commitment to these principles is why i have asked and i am honored to have my friend, former d.c. schools chancellor michelle rhee in the chamber today. [applause] no one in america has been more clear that we must change our public education system from one that caters to the feelings of

adults to one that prepares our children for the 21st century. michelle, thanks for coming today. and i want you to count new jersey among those who like you are finally putting students first. thank you, michelle. [applause] we have work to do. we must expand the charter school program beyond the six we improved -- approved this year and the 7 operating in new jersey. that's a top priority. i'm ready to work with you the members of the legislature to attract the best charter school operators in america to new jersey. to increase our authorizing capacity so they can start more charter schools here. to implement the interdistrict choice school law we passed last year, and to send help now to these children and their families in failing schools by

finally passing the bipartisan opportunity scholarship act without any further delay. [applause] overall statewide for pupil spending in new jersey is the highest in the nation, over $17,600 per student. but our results in terms of achievement are not number one. and they are not uniformly excellent or in many cases even acceptable. in multiple categories and multiple grade levels the gap between average students and those not at-risk has changed little in years. it is way too high. now, we must end the myth that more money equals better achievement.

it is a failed legal theory and we can no longer waste our children's time or the public's money waiting for it to work. [applause] we are running out of time. we are running out of time. the time for real reform is now. so here's what we have to do. first, we must empower principles -- principals. second, we must reform poor performing public schools or we must close them. we must cut out of classroom costs and focus our efforts on teachers and children. i propose that we reward the best teachers based on merit. at the individual teacher level. i demand that layoffs when they occur be based on a merit system

and not merely on seniority. i'm committed to improving the measurement and evaluation of teachers and i have an expert task force of teachers, principals, and administrators working on that issue right now. and perhaps the most important step in that process is to give schools more power to remove underperforming teachers. the time for a national conversation on tenure is long past due. teaching can no longer be the only profession where you have no rewards for excellence and no consequences for failure. let new jersey lead the way again. the time to eliminate teacher tenure is now. [applause]

let' be frank -- let's be frank, the issues i highlighted today are difficult. the process of cutting the bunt, being real listic -- budget, about being realistic about pension and budgets, those results will get harder before the results make them easy. no doubt in the months ahead we'll have to fight. some might even say i've been too ready for a fight. that my approach has been too tough. or too combative. i have heard that somewhere. explain it to you, though, it's for a reason. it's because the fight is important. it's vital. the reality is, i'll fight when it matters. it matters because i have seen what so many new jersey families are dealing with every day. for them this is not about politics. this is about their life.

[applause] i fight when the issues are big, when it matters most. sometimes that means we won't agree. sometimes we'll propose my -- you'll oppose my proposals, and you'll propose mine. sometimes i might veto one of you your proposals. when i do so rest assured it is because i believe it is in the best interest of the people of new jersey. 150 years ago after his election and before his inauguration, abraham lincoln spoke here in this building in the statehouse in trenton. on that day, speaking to a legislature controlled by the other party, lincoln said this, it may be necessary to put the foot down firmly. and if i do my duty and do

right, you will sustain me, will you not? perceived as i am by the members of the legislature, the majority of whom do not agree with me in political sentiments, i trust that i may have their assistance in piloting the ship of state through this voyage surrounded by perils as it is. for if it should suffer attack now, there will be no pilot ever needed for another voyage. our styles are different today but our resolve must be the same because then as now what is at stake is our future. 22 years ago another american leader spoke to his people. famously he was about big things. he focused on major change in the direction of the country. he was president ronald reagan. one of my personal heroes. and on this day in 1989, he gave his farewell address to the nation.

he talked about america standing for freedom not for the first time, but rediscovering it. that's what's going on in new jersey right now. we are rediscovering it. we don't have to reinvent our state. we already have a diverse and highly educated work force, a phenomenal base of infrastructure. and a state with physical beauty and tremendous talent. today we in new jersey must rediscover our strengths and put them to work on behalf of our people. reagan also pointed out in that speech once you begin a great movement there is no telling where it will end. in the last year we have begun a new movement in new jersey. a movement back to our roots. back to economic dynamism and growth. back to pride in our state. now, we cannot say today where it will leave and all that will

come of it, but we know the path of change is better than the path of stagnation we were on. i was determined when i took the oath of this office to give the people an honest assessment of our problems. to tell them the truth. even if it was difficult. and my proposed solutions were at times unpopular. to this day i ask that i be measured by that standard. i will always do what i said i was going to do. [applause] i may not offer the easiest course, but i will be direct to say which course i believe is best. our nation and our state face

major challenges ahead. but those of us entrusted to serve the public have the chance to stand up and fight for what really needs to be done at this critical time in our history. so today we cannot turn back. we owe it to the people of new jersey to press on. to fight hard when it really matters. and to work every day to create a real hope for a brighter future. for just as president reagan spoke of america as a shining city on a hill, i believe new jersey can once again be a beacon, a national leader in everything from economic growth to education and a wonderful place to prosper, to run a business, and raise a family. and my commitment to you today is to fight alongside each and every one of you to make it so. thank you. god bless new jersey and god bless america.

[applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> please remain. please remain standing for the benediction to be delivered by reverend reginald jackson of st. matthew a.m.e. church of orange,

new jersey. >> our father we come now to the close of this joint session. we ask your blessings as we go forth. order our steps in your will and grant us your favor. in all we do may we acknowledge you and in these difficult and troubling times use us as instruments of your will. send us forth mindful that we are your servants and may we go remembering your words he has shown you what is good and what does the lord require of you but to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your god. dismiss us from this place but never from your presence. this we ask. amen. >> thank you, rf rend jackson. i recognize the assembly majority leader from union county, representing the 20th legislative district,

assemblyman joseph cryan. >> madam speaker, i move that the joint session of the 214th legislature be adjourned. >> i recognize the senate majority leader from middlesex county, representing the 18th legislative district, senator bono. >> thank you. i second the motion to adjourn. >> all those in favor of the motion sick phi by saying aye. those opposed, nay. the aye vs. t the i declare this session of the 214th joint legislature adjourned. >> that wraps up our live coverage from trenton, new jersey, with governor chris crhistie's state of the state address. scheduling note for you, tate at 7:00 eastern, we'll take you to indianapolis for another state of the state address with indiana governor mitch daniels. he began his first four-year term as governor in 2005. and was re-elected in 2008. we'll have that live for you tonight, 7:00 eastern time right here on c-span.

the house came into session earlier today but they didn't conduct any legislative business due to saturday's shootings in tucson. when the chamber gavels in tomorrow, we expect members will consider a resolution related to those shootings in arizona which left representative gabrielle giffords, critically injured. you can follow the house live wednesday at 10:00 eastern here on c-span. a quick bit of information earlier today house speaker john boehner invited president obama formally to deliver the state of the union aspeech, tuesday, january 25, to a joint session of congress. we'll have live coverage right here on our c-span networks. >> every weekend on c-span3, experience american history tv, starting saturday at 8:00 a.m. eastern. 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. hear historic speeches by national leaders. and eyewitness accounts of events that shaped our nation. visit museums, historical sites, and college campuses as top

history professors and leading historians devil into america's past. american history tv, all weekend, every weekend. on c-span3. >> earlier today massachusetts senator john kerry said he hoped the tucson, arizona shooting would change the tone in congress on debates over energy and the deficit infrastructure. the senate foreign relations chairman also said partisan grid wok in washington hurts america's ability to compete in the global economy. hosted by the center for american progress action fund, this is an hour. >> good morning, everyone. welcome. i'm john poe desta, chair of the center for american progress action fund and i'm glad to join all of you this morning. a special thanks to senator john kerry for being here today. this is a sober and difficult time, but this is an important and timely address and

discussion. as we get started, i want to take a moment to remember those lost and wounded in the tragic shootings in arizona last weekend. if anything is to come out of saturday's terrible violence, i hope that those of us here in washington will begin to work with a renewed sense of purpose, service, and cooperation to honor congresswoman giffords, judge roll, christina green, and the other victims. i'm pleased that we have senator kerry here today to lead this call to action. the senator has a long and distinguished record of rising above the partisan fray in the interest of our country. and has acted with honor, dignity, and compassion throughout his career. i'd like to briefly recognize and applaud senator kerry's most recent achievement, the passage of the new start nuclear arms reduction treaty, in december. as months of discussions came down to the wire, senator kerry worked tirelessly to shepherd new start through the senate

even as a handful of senators tried to prevent the treaty from coming to a vote. but thanks to senator kerry's leadership, the treaty was approved in the final hours of the 111th congress. senator, thank you for your hard work on new start and for all of us, congratulations on your success. [applause] with so many challenges on the horizon, passing a budget, addressing the debt ceiling, getting the economy back on track, putting people back to work, dealing with the many national security challenges our country faces, the have i transit yolic rhetoric that slowed down new start wasted time and energy and a distraction from the real things at hand. it's the decisions we make now or fail to make that will determine the strength, influence, and prosperity of our nation in years to come f we want to compete with the rest of the world in technology and education and energy in economic power, we'll have to make

serious and sober efforts to lead today. that means spending far less time in symbolic debates and much more time getting down to the serious work of governing. in light of last weekend's appalling event, it appears the new congress will tone down its rhetoric at least in the short term. scheduled votes including the health care repeal vote in the house will be postponed in order to focus on and address the enormous tragedy in arizona. meanwhile, there is a loud and public debate which has taken place over the cause of the violence and whether the way we express ourselves should be restrained from this point forward. that's an important debate but i think it ignores a larger point. in order to move on to a new era of civility, we have to go beyond the words we use and actually change the way we do business on a day-to-day basis. we need to stop pointing fingers at each other and start taking responsibility for our actions and we must seek opportunities for cooperation and collaboration and actually try to understand one another in

order to address the enormous challenges facing our country today. i'm glad we have got people like senator john kerry in congress fighting to bring in focus back to the larger challenges before us. it's my pleasure to introduce him here today. senator kerry was first elected to the senate in 1984 from massachusetts. where he quickly established himself as an expert on foreign relations and national security. he won the chairmanship of the senate foreign relations committee in 2009. he's shared the senate committee on small business and entrepreneurship from 2007 to 2009. and of course he ran as the democratic candidate for president in 2004. he's an exsperspert -- expert on foreign affairs, competitiveness, and military affairs. i can think of few public servants more qualified to address the challenges facing our country going forward. senator kerry, welcome back to the center for american progress. the floor is yours. thank you for being here.

>> john, thank you very much for a terrific personal introduction, more importantly i think thank you for capturing the importance of our shifting the dialogue and the importance of our talking about the future of the country even as we face these difficult issues. and let me just say with respect to your very generous comments on the start treaty. it was a tremendous team effort and president, vice president, secretary of state and others were enormously engaged and we would not have achieved it without the kind of team effort that was produced. it's an honor to be here today. i know that someone might well ask, why with our country in mourning we are here this morning continuing to talk about the business of the country?

but the truth is that's what gabrielle giffords was doing. talking about the business of the country. and the truth is talking about the business of our country is more urgent than ever. john and i did consider postponing this speech, which had been planned for some time. .

there's much we still don't know about what happened and why. here's what we do know without any question. on saturday, a public servant went to meet with her constituents in the best tradition of our demock city and while out just doing her job, congresswoman giffords was shot down. today she's fighting for

in the weeks and months ahead the real issue we need to confront is not just the role

political divisiveness played on saturday but it's the -- but the violence that divisive politics disease to our business every day. speaker boehner was right to suspend the house's usual business. the question is now whether we'll all suspend and then end business as usual in the united states capitol. even before this event shook us in all of our partisan routine, it should have been clear that on bedrock questions of civility and discourse and democracy, the whole endeavor of building a politics of national purpose, the big question wasn't whose rhetoric was right or wrong, but whether our political conversation was indeed worthy of the confidence and trust of the american people. millions of americans wake up

every day knowing that we can do better, much better than we've done these last bitter years because our history has proven it time and time again. when the soviets sent the first satellite in history into orbit half a century ago, leaders from both parties rose with a common sense of purpose and resolve that never again would the united states fall behind anyone, anywhere. president kennedy summoned our nation to reach a great and audacious goal before the decade is out of landing a man on the moon and returning him safety to evert. there were no partisan divisions that blocked that way. with daring and unflagging determination we moved immediately to unprecedented levels of investment in science, technology, engineering and research and development. only 12 years after sputnik, two

americans humbly took mankind's first step on the moon. back then, just as today, our leaders, democrat and republican, had deep disagreements on many of the issues, but back then, they shared an even deeper commitment to stand together with the strength and the success of our country. for them at that turning point, politics stopped not just at the ocean's edge but at the edge of the atmosphere. for them, american exceptionalism wasn't just a slogan. they knew that america's exception -- america's exceptional, not just because we say we are, but because we do exceptional things. as i first said last month, we as a people face another sputnik moment now, today. the great question is whether we will meet this moment as americans did so boldly five decades ago. the decisions that we make or

fail to make in this decade on new energy sources, on education, infrastructure, technology and research, all of which are going to produce the jobs of the future, and our decisions also on deficits and entitlements will, without doubt, determine whether the united states of america will continue to lead the world or be left to follow in the wake of others on the way to decline, less prosperous in our own land and less secure in the world. some will question how in the world could this be possible? america, less prosperous? america, on the decline? they forget that exceptionalism for america has never been an automatic fact, a birth right on auto pilot, but it's an inheritance of an opportunity to be renewed and revitalized by each generation.

so let me share some facts with you. as john adams said, facts are stubborn things. right now, other developed and developing countries are making far-reaching choices to reshape their economies and move forward in new and very different global era. but instead of us responding as americans have in the past, the frustrating reality is that our american political system is increasingly paralyzed and divided into a lot of narrow interests that have driven the national good far from the dialogue altogether. increasingly overheeded -- overheated ideaology -- yodology and infighting leave us less able to address or even comprehend the nature of the challenges that will decide our whole future. the fact is that our strength here at home determines our

strength in the world and other countries are every day, constantly taking our measure, sizing us up, watching our politics, measuring our gridlock on issue after issue, enduring consensus has been frayed or sledded by lust for pow -- -- or shredded by lust for power or partisan games. health care, it started as a republican idea. a pro-business idea. because rising insurance costs leave big holes in the profits of corporations. cap and trade, guess again. another republican idea. based on market principles. and with bipartisanship, successfully implemented by president george her berlt walker bush. now denounced as ideological heresy. energy independence. for 40 years, every president

since richard nixon has recognized that foreign oil imports are america's achilles heel but whenever we had a chance to act, we've been blocked by entrenched influence and the siren call of short-term interest instead of achieving long-term success. even as we were clawing our way to the ratification of the start treaty that john just talked about last month, i noted that far more ambitious treaties have been previously ratified by votes of 90 or 95 to zero. i joke that in this senate in this climate, at this moment in america, in this hyper-partisan washington, 67 might be the new 95. i'm proud that in the end we sent a signal to the world that in american foreign policy, however uphill the slog and uncertain the victory, partisan politics can still stop at the

water's edge but the fact remains, it was closer than it ever should have been. all of this underscores the current danger, clear and present danger to our country, in ways that go far beyond that single debate and highlight a host of other issues that demand and deserve common resolve, not constant suspicion and division. if treaties ratified almost unanimously yesterday get just 71 votes today, what's the forecast for other decisive and divisive endeavors that once would have commanded 79 votes in the senate? we can't afford for the old 79 to become the new 49. dooming our national will to undertake the gridlock. because in 21st century, where choices and consequences come at us every day, so much faster

than ever before, with larger consequences and downstream impacts than ever before, the price of senate inaction isn't just that we will standstill. it isn't just that america will fall behind. it's that we will stay behind as we see the best possibilities of this young century to others who are more focused and more disciplined. just think about an issue as simple and as fundamental as building and investing in america, an issue that was once so clearly bipartisan, the republican mayor of new york city, mayor la guardia, famously said, there's no republican or democratic way to clean the streets. for decades, there was no democratic or republican way to build roads and bridges and airports. the building of america was every american's job. this wasn't narrow pork, it was

a national priority. but today, we're still living off and wearing out the infrastructure put in place by republicans and democrats together starting with president eisenhower's interstate highway system. we didn't build it. our parents and grandparents did. and now partisan paralysis has kept us from renewing that inheritance even as it deck kays from neglect -- as it decays from neglect. the question for all of us, what are we building for our children and future generations? reliable, modern infrastructure, my friends, isn't a luxury. it's the life blood of our economy. the key to connecting our markets, to moving products and people, generating and sustaining millions of jobs for american workers. the key to not wasting hundreds of thousands of hours of productivity, stuck in a traffic jam. millions of gallons of gas on

clogged highways. in the face of global competition, our growth and exports are directly tied to the modernity of our infrastructure, but you wouldn't know it in today's congress. as we invest too little in our -- and our competitors invest more and more, the harder and harder it will be to catch up and the more and more attractive those countries will be for future investments. in 2009, china spent an estimated $350 billion on infrastructure. 9% of its gross domestic product. europe's infrastructure bank financed $350 billion in products -- in projects across the continent from 2005 to 2009. modernizing sea ports, expanding airports, high speed rail line rerks configuring whole city cent irs. brazil investing over $240 billion in infrastructure in the past four years alone with an

additional $140 billion planned over the next three years. what about us? we know that americans have always been builders. we built the transcontinental railroad, we built an interstate highway system, we birlt think rockets that let us explore the farthest edge of the solar system and beyond. but as a result of our political gridlock and attention to the short-term and the partisan games played today, that's not what we're doing now. for too long, we have underbuilt and underinvested and too much of what we have done has been uninformed by any long-term strategic plan for our nation. in 2008, it was estimated that we have to make an an newel investment of $250 billion for the next 50 years just to legitimately meet our current transportation needs. right now, we aren't even close to that. right now, we're as many miles away from that as we ought to be

building in order to get there. other countries are doing what we ought to do. and they're racing ahead because they created train structure banks to build the -- they created infrastructure banks to build the new structure and we yet to reach con ken us is for our own infrastructure bank to make americans the world build -- world's builders again and too cope our country the leader in the new world economy. i can't tell you how many times in dealings with foreign leaders as we move around the world, you feel this feedback, hear it and see it, doubts, people asking questions about our country. imagine the possibilities, the possibilities for americans that would come from this endeavor. financing projects from high speed rail to air to sea ports with the expectation actually of being repaid for the cost of it. lending directly to economically viable initiatives of both

national and regional significance without political influence. run in an open and transparent manner by experienced professionals with meaningful congressional oversight. that is an indispensable strategy for prosperity and a legitimate vision that americans could embrace. if we offer america the leadership that it deserves, it ought to be an undoubted opportunity and necessity for bipartisanship. it's not just infrastructure where we have to rebuild our sense of great national purpose, my friends. virtually every measure shows that we are falling behind. today, the united states is ranked 10th in global competitiveness among the g-20 countries. america's now 12th worldwide in the percentage of 25 to 34-year-olds in the -- with a college degree. trailing, among others, russia,

you new zealand, south korea and israel. this year, investors pulled $74 billion out of domestic stock funds and put $42 billion into foreign stock funds. high profile, multinational companies, including aplied materials and i.b.m., are already opening major r&d centers in china. research and development. that's our life blood. and they're going to open them in china. as we look to the googles of the future, it's increasingly possible that they're going to be founded by students from foreign universities rather than m.i.t. or stanford. we need to face up to these new challenges. not just as individuals or separate interests but as a nation with a national purpose. the world of the next generation will change too rapidly for political parties to focus too

narrowly on the next election. in the 21st severage -- the 21st century can be another american century, but only if we restore a larger sense of responsibility and replace the clattering cacophony of the perpetual campaign with a wider discussion of what is best for our country. for the last months, we've watched the news and read the campaign literature and heard a lot of sound bites. we heard politicians say they're not going to become part of washington. they say they're for small government, lower taxes, more freedom. but what are they -- but what do they really mean? do they want a government too limited to have invented the internet, now a vital part of our commerce and communications? do they want a government too small to give america's auto industry and all its workers a second chance to fight for their survival? do they want taxes so low or too

low to invest in the research that creates jobs and industries and fills the treasury with so much more revenue that educates our children, cures disease and defends our country? we have to get past the slogans. we have to get past the sound bites. we have to talk in real terms about how america, our country, can do best. if we're going to balance the budget and create jobs, and yes, we should, we can't pretend that we're going to do it just by eliminating earmarks and government waste. we have to look at the plain facts of how we have done this before and by the way, you don't have to look very far back. in the early 1990's, our economy was faltering because deficits and debt were freezing up capital. we had to send a signal to the marketplace that we were capable of being fiscally responsible.

we did just that. as a result, we saw the longest economic expansion in history, creating over 22 million jobs, generated unprecedented wealth in america with every single income bracket rising. but we did it by making tough choices. the clinton economic plan committed the country to a path of discipline that helped to unleash the productive potential of the american people. we invested in the work force, in research and development. we helped new industries and working with republicans in a bipartisan way, we came up with a budget framework that put our nation on track to be debt free by 2012 for the first time since andrew jackson's administration. how we got off track is a story that doesn't require retelling. but the truth of how we

generated the 1990's economic boom does need to be told. we didn't just cut our way to a balanced budget. we grew our way there. and we cannot now just cut without remembering the vital need to invest in the future of our nation. nothing played a more important role back then than the fact that we developed a $1 trillion technology market with one billion users. here we are today, staring at another economic opportunity of extraordinary proportions, it's staring us right in the face and so far, we're doing precious little about it. far less than any of our principal competitors. the current energy economy is a $6 trillion market with today four billion users, growing over the next 30 to 40 years to

perhaps nine billion users. and the fastest growing sector -- segment of that is green energy, projected at $2.3 billion in just 2020. yet as of today, would a different policy decision by us, most of this investment is going to be in asia and not the united states of america. two years ago, only two years ago, china accounted for just 5% of the world's solar panel production. today, it boasts the world's largest solar panel manufacturing industry, exporting about 95% of its production to other countries, including us, the united states of america. just two years ago, they produced 5% and today they're producing over 60%. in the span of two years. we don't have one company in the top 10 companies of the world in solar production, despite the fact that we invented this

technology right here in the bell laboratories 50 years ago. shame on us. what are we thinking? what are we doing? china is reaping the rewards from the technologies that we invented. china's government is poised to outspend the united states 3-1 on public clean energy projects over the next few years. they installed 37% of the world market share in wind energy in 2009 and surpassed the united states as the fastest growing market. so this is a critical, absolutely critical component of where we have to go. let me just share with you, deutch bank's kevin parker who -- deutsche bank's kevin parker calls the u.s., quote, asleep at the wheel on climate change.

and on the industrial revolution, taking place in the energy industry. this is a foreign observer. saying we're asleep at the wheel. because of political uncertainty and inaction in this country, guess what he's doing? he's focusing deutsche bank's green investment dollars on opportunities in china and western europe where the governments provide a more positive environment. today, only 45 million of the seven billion green investment fund that deutsche bank manages is from the united states of america. simply put, because we are asleep, the investments are going elsewhere. so now is the moment in my judgment, i think in the judgment of the majority of americans, and with many of our colleagues, but not jet the coalesced majority we need, now is the moment for america to reach for the brass energy ring, to go to the moon here on earth by building our new energy

future and in doing so, create millions of steady, higher paying jobs at every level of our economy. make no mistake, jobs that produce energy in america are jobs that stay in america. the amount of work to be done here is literally sundaying. it's the work of -- is literally stunning. it's the work of many lifetimes and it has to begin now. it shouldn't be a partisan issue but instead of coming together to meet the defining test of our new economic future, we're leaving a political season in which too many candidates promised not to work with the other party. it was a platform of running for office. and in this, in the wake of the senate session that started for republicans with a power point presentation pronouncing and i quote, the purpose of the

majority is to pass their ageneral dark the purpose of the minority is to become the majority. obviously, it's no secret, i'm a convinced democrat and i know it's better to be in the majority than in the minority. i've been in both in the 25 years i've had the privilege of serving in the senate. i don't want anyone to come to the senate and check their beliefs at the door and go washington. that's not what i'm asking. and the founding fathers didn't want anyone to do that either. certainly, no one is elected to the senate promising to join an exclusive club or forget where they came from. but the truth is, some of the most fiercely independent, plain talking, direct and determined partisans i've ever known in the senate have also been the very ones who tackled the toughest issues. finding common ground with people they disagreed on just

about nearly everything else they thought about. daniel patrick moynihan was a new york liberal, alan simpson was a wyoming conservative but they could sit down and talk and disagree about deficits, debts, entitlements and somehow, some way they shaped a way forward and did it in a way that enlisted liberals and moderates and conservatives because they knew that certain issues were too important to be lost in partisan squabbling. and you couldn't find three more proudly partisan and ideologically distinct politicians than ronald reagan, tip o'neill and bob dole. but they found a way to put politics aside and save social security for a generation, rather than saving it for misuse as a cudge el in the next campaign. they didn't capitulate they compromised.

speaking of back room deal they agreed not to let either party demagogue the issues against those who cast the tough votes. if you've got to make a back room deal, that's the kind of back room deal we ought to make in washington. folks, you're not going to find a republican today who would dare criticize ronald reagan. last week when the candidates for chairman of the republican national committee had their debate, grover norquist asked each of them to name their favorite republican other than ronald reagan and he said he had to add that caveat so that everyone didn't give the same answer. we'd all be better off if some of these republicans remember that their favorite person, ronald reagan, worked across the aisle to solve big problems. and we'd also all be better off if grover norquist thought of that ronald reagan before he announced that bipartisanship

was just another word for date rape. that's the difference today. ideology isn't new to the american political arena and ideology itself isn't unhealthy. the biggest breakthroughs in american politics have been brokered not by the mushy middle or by splitting the difference, but by people who had a healthy sense of ideology. ted kennedy, orrin hatch were a powerful team, precisely because they didn't agree that much. and they spent a lot of time fighting each other and so the senate leaned in, listened on those occasions when somehow, this ultimate odd couple found things they were willing to fight for together. sometimes, as john kennedy once said, party asks too much. sometimes, party leaders also ask too much. especially if they exploit the rules of the united states senate for the sole purpose of

denying a president a second term. but that's what we witnessed for the last two years. republicans nearly unanimous in opposition to almost every single proposal by the president and almost every proposal by democratic colleagues. the extraordinary measure of the filibuster has become an ordinary expedient. today, it's possible for 41 senators representing only about 1/10 of the american population to bring the united states senate and therefore the congress to a standstill. now certainly, i believe the filibuster has its rightful place. i used it once to stop the drilling for oil in the arctic wildlife refuge because i believed it was in our national interest and 60 or more senators ought to be required to speak up on such an irrevocable decision. we should reserve that. but we've reached the point where the filibuster is being

invoked by the minority not because of that kind of major difference over policy but as a political tool to literally undermine the presidency. consider this. in the entire 18th -- 19th century, including the struggle against slavery, fewer than two dozen filibusters were mounted. in the entire century. between 1933, the coming of world war ii, it was only attempted twice. during the eisenhower administration, twice. during john kennedy's presidency, four times. and then eight during lyndon johnson's push for civil rights and the voting rights bills. big issues. by the time jimmy carter and ronald reagan occupied the white house, there were about 20 filibuster a year. but ladies and gentlemen, in the 110th congress of 2007 to 2008, there were a record 112 cloture votes and in the 111th congress,

the one we just left, there were 136. one of which even delayed a vote to authorize funding for the army, navy, air force, and marine corps during a time of war. that's not how the founding fathers intended the united states senate to work. and that's definitely not how our country can afford to work. chris dodd said it best in his farewell address a few weeks ago. a speech the republican leader called one of the most important in the history of the chamber. chris sounded a warning. he said, what will determine whether this institution works or not, what has always determined whether we will fulfill the framers' highest hopes or justify the cynics' worst fears is not the senate rules, the calendar, or the media, it is whether each of the 100 senators can work together. that was a speech that needed to

be heard. but the question now is, not whether it was heard, but whether we really listened to it. because when it comes to our economy, our country really does need 100 senators to face the facts and find a way to work not just on their side, but side by side. no one runners the -- no one runs for the united states senate arguing that the united states should have 1/5 its debt held by china. no one ran for office suggesting the united states should trail poland in education or that germany should develop the next gloogle or cutting edge green industries. no one went into a debate pledging that indian workers should hold jobs of the future, not american workers. that's what effectively is happening. there's a bipartisan consensus

just waiting to lift our country and our future, if senators are willing to sit down and forge it and make it real. if we're willing to stop talking past each other, to stop substituting sound bites for substance. if we're finally willing to pull ourselves out of the ideological cement of our own mixing. we will, no doubt, continue to be frustrated and angry from time to time, it's the nature of life and politics, but i believe that more often than not, we can rise to the common ground of great national purpose, surely we can agree and act to realize the goals set by the president who called his fellow citizens to meet that earlier sputnik moment in america, in an america that is not first if, not first but, but first, period. so in this time of congress and in this time of mourning, this

time of a lot of soul searching, in this time of challenge and opportunity, we all need to commit to reaching the across the aisle as colleagues did before us, to unite to do the exceptional thing that together can keep america exceptional for generations to come. that's our mission and we need to get about the business of accomplishing it. thank you. [applause] >> nart, thank you for the call to higher national purpose and the call to common good i think the senator is on a tight schedule but he has time for a couple of questions. we'll start in the back. would you please identify yourself.

>> dean scott, washington. could you talk a little bit about your vision for climate change this year, what you think can be done on this important topic, given the challenges? >> absolutely. we are working now to rebuild a coalition and consensus on a national basis that will revalidate the urgency and science, effectively. i think what happens with the u.n. thing was exploited, you can -- it was really that unfortunately it became too much politicized and as a result, we lost track of what we were really trying to do. i think there is a coalition out there waiting to rebuild.

if you look at what happened in california last november, where they beat back an initiative that was calculated to try to undo their efforts on climate, they won overwhelmingly and it was very significant battle. i think that's an example of what needs to be done nationally. congress is not going to be there yet, obviously, so i think the key is going to be energy. there are a host of energy initiatives, all of which can reduce global emissions, all of which can put the united statesen a path toward increased job production and new technologies and that's what i was talking about in my prepared comments today. this energy future that is, as i said, staring us in the face, is the largest market in the world, which other countries are rushing toward. i think if we can build a consensus that doesn't require command and control, doesn't require excessive regulatory

effort but unleashes the entrepreneurial spirit of the nation, encourages capital investment, sends a signal to the marketplace about the long-term goals of our country so that private capital begins to move in those directions here in this country and beech like deutsche bank reevaluate their position and see america moving in that direction, there's a huge amount that can be done. there are all kinds of possibilities in terms of new energy sources. we have a proponent in this room who i see who is deachly committed to something like fusion. many people think we could be doing more research in terms of fusion. there's a host of different things we could be doing more of, better, faster and commit ourselves to, which ultimately will reduce emissions, not to the level we need to according to science but sufficient to be able to allow us to rekindle the urgency, rebuild the movement at the grass roots, reconnect to

americans on this issue and hopefully build new consensus in the congress about why this is good for our economy as well as for our national security as well as for our health. i was with somebody the other day who is going to be engaged in a public campaign, i'm not going to tell you who it is now, but somebody well known who was talking about, you know, you walk into a doctor's office and you get a diagnosis that tells you you've got a certain kind of cancer. when you have a certain kind of cancer, 99% chance if you don't do this, 80% if you don't do this, etc., basically is what we've been told. 99% of the doctors in the world, the scientists who do research on this say, we've got this kind of cancer. and yet we're not behaving like a normal patient who comes out of that office. so we need to go reach america on it. i'm convinced we're going to rebuild consensus, we'll start with energy and ultimately we're

going to wind up, i hope, creating a job base and energy future for our country to meet the challenge. >> after talking about business in congress, what do you think about the administration's policy to solve the mexico issue, is it something you support? >> i think this is -- just a huge challenge for all of us. it is tearing apart the fabric of life and society in mexico, immediately on our border and there are ways in which we are contributing to this problem. not just in our use in america, and therefore the demands, but also in the gun trafficking and you know flow of weapons that empowered people to engage in a kind of civil war within that country.

we are going to look at this very closely in the foreign relations committee, we're evaluating whether or not we may even have a joint hearing or round table, not a hearing, but a round table discussion in mexico and explore all of the ways in which we can be most helpful. i think the administration is on the right track but we're going to look carefully at whether there's more we're able to do because this is a national security threat to the united states of america and we are partly, inadvertently in some cases, but turning the other way in others, accomplice us to in the problem. we owe the mexicans our best efforts to try to respond. >> sam stein, huffington post, you spoke about the pervasive use of the filibuster but stopped short of endorsing one proposal out there by senator

udall to revamp the rules of the senate. i'm woonedering if you're planning to sign on to that proposal and what you think the landscape for achieving rules reform on january 24? i do support that proposal. or the basics of the proposal. i think we want to protect the rights of the minority, the founding fathers envisioned that in the constitution, i think it's critical to that. what goes around, comes around. clearly having been in the minority, i understand that power. but, we have to find a way to guarantee that, as i said, it's being used not as a day-to-day tactic that has no accountability but that it is being used in a way that engages the nation in the legitimate debate about something substantive. as long as that takes place, i think it's a fair place to have that kind of struggle, if you will to try to find a way to get

your votes. today, you don't have to do that. you don't even have to talk. you can announce you'll be opposed to something and it effectively shuts things down. there's no accountability in whatever -- and the reason is or even who is doing that. that has to stop. i am completely supportive of efforts to guarantee we make it a responsible process. >> the other human rights treaties, particularly disabilities and others, i'm wondering, i know there are a lot of lessons from start, but if there are any particular lessons you think could guide work going forward and particularly on ones that are not just sound bites but a discussion. i'd be interested in your reflecks. >> i intend to seek the majority

leader's support in bringing another treaty to the floor of the senate, hopefully sooner rather than later. i need to run through a number of traps and talk -- drafts and talk with colleagues and work out which treaty that will be. there are several possibilities. but i think it's imperative that as i just said, we have got to do the business of our nation. there are several treaties that, one of them, for instance, is one that people have been looking at. the other is -- you know the list of them, i'm not going through them all. but the bottom line is, there's very broad support in the military community, in the business community, the chamber of commerce, the environment community, broad bipartisanship even for some of those. my hope is that if we reach out to people early enough have discussions with them early enough, do the sort of groundwork that's necessary, i

hope we can avoid people taking quick, hasty ideologically inspired or outside interest group inspired positions about position until they've had a chance to really evaluate what's at stake and that's my prayer with respect to all of those kinds of issues and i hoach out of today's discussion and beyond this is likely -- not going to be the only one, obviously, we're going to be talking about a lot of these things in the senate, aamongst ourselves, and there'll be a national dialogue on this i hope. hopefully we can really have a good campaign for 2012, but not lose sight of what we're really here to do and what the interests of the country are and not just with respect to those treaties but as i said with respect to this enormous agenda staring us in the face that's been gridlocked now for many too many years. president nixon talked about

energy independence. president carter took major steps to try to move us toward energy independence. since september 11, 2001, not only have we not reduced our energy dependence by 1%, we've actually increased it by 25% or 30%. so we've become more indebted and more bound because we failed to invest in these obvious alternatives that would not only liberate us from borrowing money from china so we can buy oil from someone else, and then follow the atmosphere and make people sicker and send them to the hospital and spend money on that, a very invirtuous cycle, not only are we doing that, we're not turning that around so we're creating those jobs here at home that reduce all those negative impacts. the irony of this is, folks, in public life, i've learned in the

years i've been here, there are very few public issues where you get, you know, two benefits for doing one thing. usually it's one for one or maybe one and a half or two. here you get knive or six benefits. because you clean up the -- here you get five or six fen benefits. because you clean up the air. you're not sending money to terrorists inadvertently through back channels. you're freeing america to make other decisions because you have more leverage, you're not dependent on people because you're indebted to them for the supply of your energy, you have more jobs in merg, you've increased national security. how many things do you get that kind of benefit for, for one big choice? i hope that we'll get there, of course, in this congress. i'm going to do everything in my power to help get us there. thank you all very much. >> thank you.

[applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> i've been told you have interesting things going on there. >> we are in contact with people in the senate.

>> that's the future. >> i'm very glad i came. >> i'm glad you did. thank you very, very much. >> we hope you can visit sometime. >> stay in touch. >> i saw you at the university of florida. >> i remember that event. >> do you think more money should be put toward the safety of public servants? >> i think people have to be thoughtful about it for a while. i think we unfortunately, i think the key is, we don't want public people to be isolated and somehow separated. the whole purpose of our democracy is to interact with people and i love going to events where people are rightfully contentious, sometimes and they disagree with

you and disagree forcefully, you can have a debate about it. we can agree or disagree but do it in -- >> it's part of the civil discourse. >> we have to agree to disagree sometimes. that's what i'm trying to talk about, when you have pat moynihan and bob dole and these guys they disagreed but they can be friendly in their process. now it's gotten angrier, people are somehow bitter and i think one of the reasons is, i should have talked about this a little bit today, one of the reasons is, that a lot of americans are feeling this slide in their savings, in their jobs, in their income, in their health care and their day-to-day lives and they don't see us responding. so the lack of response from washington is just people sort of, they don't see the deficit dealt with, there's frustration

built up and i think people are taking that out on -- i hope a lot of people will kind of think about the degree to which we're to blame by not responding adequately to some of these things or the increasing lack of stability. >> do you think reform should include filibusters? >> i think all of those things need to be included, no one thing is going to do it. >> coming up in just over an hour at 5:00 eastern, we'll be live with john c. scott ray yow program out of tucson, arizona. we expect to hear scheduled guests including senate minority

whip and arizona senator jon kyl, the program will be focusing on the shootings that happened over the past weekend and our live coverage here on c-span. at 5:00 eastern. at 7:00 eastern time, indiana governor mitch daniels with his state of he state address before a joint session of the indiana general assembly. he was elected to his second and final four-year term in 2008. we have live coverage from the house chambers in indianapolis at 7:00 eastern right here on c-span. the house came in earlier today but didn't conduct any legislative business, that due to saturday's shootings in tucson. when the chamber gavels in tomorrow, we expect members to consider a resolution related to those shootings which left representative gabriel giffords critically -- gribe rell giffords critically -- gabrielle giffords critically injured. we had an opportunity to speak about the ramifications on

security for members of the house of representatives. "the hs morning. susan crabtree reporting. she joins us on the phone. talk to us about security for members of congress. guest: memberwe talked to said local law enforcement can handle this up when it comes to district events. if you expect a threat or nervous about a rally or even to commit they will sprovide the security at right. a democrat from south carolina is saying that they do not know what the protocol is right now and are burnable in airports flying coach, so can we have

tsa protocols or can't than the provide a better support for members flying. and also, a republican from indiana is pushing for showing how vulnerable members really are. of congressber has asked for legislation that would make it a federal crime if you say something or use symbolism that would incite violence against a member of congress. is there any moment of for that type of legislation? -- is there any momentum for that typof legislation? guest: right now it is a crime to threaten the president, but not a crim to threaten members

of congress. they often receive threats. i have not really seen a lot of momentum about that, because members of congress do not want to change any type of access they hav with the public. i heard that time and time again. jack kingston was a big voice on that issue. host: paul writes the same in "the new york times", >> middle and high school students, it's time to upload vivoo for the c-span stay tuned

cam 2011. get your video to c-span by january 20 for your chance to win a grand prize of $5,000. there's $50,000 in total prizes. it's open to students grades 6 through 12, for complete details go online to studentcam.org. >> every weekend on c-span3, experience american history tv starting saturday at 8:00 a.m. eastern, telling the events of history. visit museums, historical sites and college campuses as top history professors and leading historians dell of into america's past. all weekend, every weekend on c-span3. >> the c-span networks provide coverage of politics, public

affairs, nonfiction books and american history, all available to you on television, radio, online and social media networking sites and find our content any time through c-span's video library. and take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local content video. it's washington your way, the c-span network, now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> the 23r58 commission investigating the gulf of mexico oil spill released a report outlining ways to avoid future disasters. it calls for more training and raising the liability cap for damages incurred in an oil spill. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> president obama appointed a

committee to study the deepwater horizon oil spill disaster, we had several charges, to mate gate this in the future, third to find the future of offshore drilling in the united states. i'm pleased that today we're submitting our report, submitting it on time, under budget and with a unanimous vote of the seven members of the commission. we began our efforts six months ago with a trip to the gulf. we thought it was important to hear the voices of those who had been most affected by this tragedy. i would like to recognize the distinguished service and extraordinary work of the commission's staff led by mr. richard lazarus and with mr. fred bartlett as head of our investigative team. this staff, which was composed

of sign tists, lawyers, engineers, policy analysts and more performed under a very tight schedule a great public service for which we as the commission are extremely proud. i would like to give a brief overview of our report and some of its findings and then i will turn the podium over to my colleague and co-chair, mr. bill riley who will address the implications for the industry practice and the future of offshore drilling. . e is a fundamental fact that the oil and gas our shores is an american asset. it belongs to the people of the united states of america, and thus the federal government has a dual role, it is a regulator for things such as sety into environmental protection, but it is also the land owner in a very

real sense we own this property and have an obligation to respond when the public trust is abused. a fundamental finding of our six months of investigation is the deep water rise in disaster did not have to happen. -- deepwater horizon disaster did not have to happen. that makes the ermous damage and the loss of lives even more tragic. for the past 20 years, there has been a rapid movement by the oil and gas industry to deepernd deeper, riskier and riskier areas of the gulf of mexico. this movement has generated a pundit revenues for the private companies and for the federal treasury. industry has been justifiably

proud of technological advances, which have been frequently compared in sophistication to those of the space program. the federal government has benefited by the increase in revenues. what happened during that 20 year period is that we became pulled into a sense of inevitable success, an illusion which massed the dramatic success in risk that accompanied the deepwater spill. on april 20, after a long time are rolling the dice, our luck ran out. our investigation found significant errors by three drilling companies, pp, halliburton -- bp, halliburton and transocean.

these are described in detail in the chief counsel report. they range from bill years to properly interpret warnings -- failures to interpret warnings, flaws of not being properly understood, and late stage design decisions. taken together, we conclude that these mistakes amounted to a significant failure of management. it is important to emphasize these errors, mistakes and management failures were not the product of a single rope company. we believe a unveiled a systemic failure within the oil and gas industry and with than the regulation by the federal government of that industry. how did such a situation come to

pass? how can it be that such questionable practices could take place when the stakes were so high? i am sad to say that part of the answer is the fact that our government let it happen, our regulators were consistently matched. the department of interior lack the expertise to successfully in force regulations. there was also an internal conflict of interest within the department of interiors old minerals management service. it was a service that have the responsibility for collecting revenues, the second-largest source of revenues into t federal government, second only to the income tax, and it had the responsibility of providing an effective management of safety and protection of the environment. those two conflicting

responsibilities, as we hrd from three former directors of mms consistently led to revenue trumping safety as a priority of the department'. we recommend, therefore, that congress and the of ministration created independent safety administration within t department of interior with the ability to oversee all aspects of offshore drilling safety. we believe this agency should be headed by an individual with a background in both science and management who should serve a thick term in order to be inundated by a the ability to make decisions. we also recommend bringing our offshore drilling regulations into the 21st century. it is not asking too much that

our perch in the united states be equivalent of the best practices and the world. they are not that today, and sadly thenited states has one of the lesser records in terms of the safety of its offshore drilling practices. the second piece of this modernization approach is called risc-based regulatory orientation. this requires all offshore drilling companies to demonstrate that they have thoroughly evaluated all the risks associated with drilling a particular well. macondothe realities of a cond is that it turned out to be a unusually risky area to drill, high pressures, many unknowns about the geology, and yet a

company with one of the worst safety records received the least in there for the entitlement for access to that area. april 20 was the consequence of the convergence of those unfortunate facts. our investigation is also demonstrating that science is not being given a significant seat at the table. actually i think thats a considerable understatement. it has been virtually shut out. we need proper consultation with those who have the expertise, scientists in and out of government, experts at agencies like nola and the coast guard -- these are the people that should play a major role in evaluating specific permit requests and operation of drilling rigs.

it is disturbing to learn that the march 2010 decision to expand areas to additional drilling in e at the intake and eastern gulf -- in the atlantic and eastern gulf were made without looking at the potential consequences. i will conclude my remarks by making a simple and obvious point that isften forgotten when we talk about offshore drilling, and that is again that these properties belong to all of us. they belong to the people of the united states of america. it is our government's responsibility to ensure that exploration and extraction incur in ways that are beneficial to the ccountry. drilling offshore is a privilege to be learned not a right to be

exercise by priva corporations. our recommendations offer a path to that destination. much has changed in the months since the blowout. we have learned a great deal about hoto contain spills at deepwater. industry has a new appreciation of the risks associated with deepwater drilling. the commission of plots all of these efforts -- applauds all of these efforts, but they are not enough. drilling offshore is inherently risky and we will never reduce the risk to 0, but as a nation we can take concrete steps that will mitigate the chances of another blowout and reduce the

consequences should another even such as that occur. the commission believes that these steps are vitally necessary. without such sponse we will continue to play safety for workers, the apartment and the region at an acceptable risk. if dramatic steps are not take and i am afraid that at some point another failure will occur and we will wonder why did the congress, why did the industry, why did the american people allow this to occur again. the people of the gulf have suffered so much that they deserve to know that their government and the industry are going to and are committed to the high standards of safety and protecti of the environment. thank you.

>> mr. reilly. >> thank you, bob. i want to first recognize that one of our distinguished members is ill today and very unfortunately could not be with us. she understood ways that none of us the rest of us probably here to the specific technologies and engineering realities that helped us explain what happened on april 20. i want to also emphasize, as bob just did, that this report is unanimous, came in under budget , and also on time. i understand that is the first time in the history of commissions that anybody has not asked for wartime. i was told by one member of congress that this is something we should advertise and take credit for and another one that said we set a terrible precedent for washington. i am very proud of the commissioners i served with.

none more than my longtime friend, statesman, and co-chair, bob gramm. this has been an enormously satisfying enterprise. the report has the quality it has and did get completed on time is a tribute to a marvelous interdisciplinary staff, as great as i have ever worked with recruited by prof. richard lazarus. senator gramm has characterized what happened on april 20. he has explained a proximate cause, the bad decisions, the blunders, the inexplicable -- inexplainable choices and the root cause as the president and his executive order directed us to do. the culture of complacency, government and the industry. i think the reality is that none of us were prepared for this. obviously government and certainly should have

been. the early response to this spill is evidence, and this commission is critical, even harsh about some of the faults in the early efforts to get a grip on the problem, identify the flow rate, to contain the following well. having said that, having visited the gulf, i have to say there is very impressive about the response of this. tens of thousands of people work day d night to try to clean it up. they may have incurred cost of time and eney into even health, but they did the job. after a slow start our government respond quite effectively to this spill. even in the case of finally

determining the flow rate with ingenuity. make no mistake about it, despite allegations, this was not obama's katrina. however, we have identified gaps that lead us to recommend important recommendations to the congress, administration come into industry. to congress we say, it is time to exercise serious oversight over the department of the interior and the bureau of oceans management that has succeeded mms. oversight that has not been characterized by a previous congressional responses and attention to that agency. we recommend as a first priority the resources be allocated by the congress to ensure that this agency is capable, is a match for the people they are inspecting and regulating every day.

they have not been. they have been overmatched. they have been under resource, underfunded, and undertrained. they're going to have to get resources from the congress. they will have to have a compensation system that allows more recruitment of able people, who unlike so many to reveal to us in the course of the investigation, did not understand key technologies like centralizes and-t negative touch sensors. we did a lot of questions about whether congress will pay a lot of attention to west. one congressman was paying a lot of attention yesterday when i briefed him based on the verbatim speech that later came from him. we can take some encouragement

from that i think. the fact that the building operation at interior, now under way in quite effectively so, is going to take time points to an important reason why industry, which cannotait, needs to pick up its own game. one thing is the chemical industry. when the nuclear industry after a three-mile island established the institute for nuclear power operations. there are other examples. the oil and gas industry, which may not have been a high risk industry when it is in shallow waters, have you so after this

incident here yen we have identified and documented as systemic problem in this industry. that observes -- that deserves observation. i am aware and heard from ceos of companies who dislike, who are revolted by the idea of being painted with the same brush, companies that had exemplary records for safety and environmental protection. i fully understand that. we do not say those companies have been remiss. what we say is that the likelihood of those that drill are at risk because of this result. in order to believe this is not

a systemic problem, one has to believe that halliburton would only has supplied faulty cement to bp. irrespective of whether industry except our analysis that this is a systemic problem, but halliburton and transmission are operating in all of the world's ocean for all of the oil and gas industry, even if you do not accept that, it seems to be indisputable that the solution of the problem must be industrywide. industry has to stop thinking that it is sufficient to have a state of the art best practice safety and management system and that is the end of the story. several companies, quite outstanding companies, presented their safety and management systems to the staff, meetings at which i was present. chevron, exxon mobil, shell.

at the conclusion of the meeting i do not think it occurred to any of us to ask wt are they doing, what should be done now? nevertheless, i asked the question how did you manage the risk that your rigs might all be shut down in the gulf? to that they have no question. going forward they need such a question. therefore assayed the institute, which is entirely manned by industry, which enforces best practice, which evaluates, audits the performance of various companies is what we recommend. i strongly encourage the most exemplary practitioners of good safety, the internment of protection, to leave the rest of the industry, which i know is a complicated industry and more complicated one than the nuclear industry. it is also technologically capable of well-financed industry to follow that course.

i guess one of the real tragedies but also the opportunities presented by this experience, and a tragedy like this does openness to be open to new directions, is the poor of the gulf of mexico. we have long known that the resources are a profound resource. louisiana has something like 30 percent of all of the country's wetlands. there silently eroding away. they are disappearing because of selevel risebut also dredging, and generations of oil and gas activity. for a long time we have known what needs to be done there. there are many projects, many that are authorized, that are standing by for support. for the first time in my career

as a conservationist, we have the prospect of serious money to do what needs to be done. if the fines and penalties that are to be aessed under the clean water act are deployed, 80% at least, to the restoration, the country owes that to the gulf and a very much hope congress will agree to appropriate the funds and direct them to the gulf. finally, the problems that we confront in energy in the oil and gas industry are like so many environmental problems, we cannot solve them alone at the country even. the gulf of mexico is shared to a very large degree with mexico. cuba has also expressed interest in possibly drilling 14 wells, some of them 50 miles off the coast of florida. i have already opened conversation with the mexicans, as has secretary salazar about

their need to enter an agreement with the united states. on hopes to but can be drawn into this conversation as well so that all of us practice the same level. -- one hopes cuba can be drawn into this conversation as well so that all of this practice the same level. the same with arctic. it is a punishing environment. it is beset by whether the like of which one does not see in the gulf, except maybe in the occasion ever hurricane. it will acquire special care and attention and the kind of regulations that are effective in the gulf will not be acceptable in t arctic. russia, canada, norway, denmark has already begun last summer to drill two wells, -- all will want to develop those resources and so will the united states. we recommend the state

department engage those countries and a common standard -- in a common standard going forward. those are some of the highlights of our recommendations. they are by no means all of them. we believe if these recommendations are followed and that if the course we have set out is taken, we will go a long way toward restoring the faith of the country in a vital enterprise. thank you. >> questions? >> as you pointed out, mr. reilly, the oil and gas industry, when it operated in shallow waters was not the ticket rate a high-risk industry. some in the energy industry have complained that the reason they

are drilling of 5,000 feet is the gornment has barred drilling in shallow waters. with the commission recommend or did you discuss the possibility of getting the shallow waters open so they do not have to go into deeper waters? >> we understand fully that the noticeso lease is five and six are recurring some attention and the certification of equipment. there are necessarily some adjustments that wiltake time before full resumption of drilling ochres and shallow waters, as well as inhe deep waters. senator gramm and i have been critical of the moratorium, which we thought was excessive and last a toed too long. that aside, the real reason we are in deep water is because that is where the oil is. if you look at debt reserves that are estimated to exist, they're not only in the deep

water, they are in the deeper and deeper water. we are where now plans to go down 10,000 feet. to the extent that oil and gas is in deep water, that is where the industry will go. not just here but in brazil and other parts of the world as well. alaska is shallow water. 140 feet or so. that presents its own set of problems. fundamentally this is a hopeful message. we believe this is a problem that can be managed, anin the interest of everyone to manage it. >> s? >> matt clover with cns news. you said this was an interesting wide problem. do you have any evidence that you could share with us that the same mistakes are being made right now? are they being made in u.s. waters and where are they being made? >> the commission did that

document these problems and other places. we are perfectly aware of blowout preventers that did not work in other environments. i would cite just once a cystic -- a statistic. the fatality rate for 100 million hours worked in the united states is five in united states water in the gulf. in the north sea and in europe it is one. that needs an explanati and points for problem. i think it points to a system- wide problem. sir? >> as early as last week jack girard, the president of the american petroleum institute said that he felt the american people believed macondo was an isolated incident.

as you know, there is significant resistance on the part of industry to create the safety institute europe called for. on the government side, congress last year tried to pass an oil spill legislation that contained a lot of the things you a call for. that legislati went nowhere. what are you when to do to make sure your report, as the row as it is come is not ignored by congress and industry? >> well, we're want to make a lot of noise. we're testifying on the 26 and january in the morning. -- 26 of january in the morning. we suggest there will be more attention to the kind of thing we have suggested, a more detailed research. we do not say really what we do not know here. we know this is a systemic problem given the pervasiveness of the contractors, the right

manager, owner, the largest in the world, halliburton, which is operating virtually everywhere servicing the oil and gas industry. the only thing i would say is i do not think one should assume that industry will not support a safety institute based upon the private conversations iave had, they are serioly deliberating on the possibility. i have every hope and expectation that they will in fact establish one. >> all the way over here. john beckman with energy daily. a week or so ago the interior recently relaxed and are meant to reduce for a number of of offshore crude water drillers that had already had their operations permied prior to the drill. what was your response to that? >> immediately after the all of the companies

i am aware of step down. investigated, inspected each of the companies, certainly the 33 that were shut down. the exploratory rigs down seven or nine violations. i think one can have confidence decisionssecretary's are defense will and wont to go ahead on those rigs. >> one of the underlying themes of our report is particularit we are recommending that drilling on specific sites be evaluated in terms of riskiness. it was our feeling that rather than throw a blanket over 33 that were affected by the

moratorium that it should be a evaluated on the company by company, rig by r. when a company and its mechanics were shown to be in compliance with the higher standards that have now been established, they should not be held back because there were others that had failed to comply with the new standards, and i believe that is the essentially -- that is esseially the policy the administration has concurred with. >> hi. i am with the "fiscal times." you have talkedbout funding and compensation. can you tell me where the funding is coming from and where, if you have a time when or specifics on how quickly you want this established? >> one of the areas where i think the funding should come

from is the lease itself. what is special about offshore drilling as compared to on shore, where much of the drilling takes place on privately owned land, all of the land in the gulf of mexico is public land that belongs to the people of the united states or to the people that belong to the five gulf states. we believe it is appropriate that in the decision to allow a company to have access to the publicly and, there should also be a provision requiring the company to pay a fee significant to cov the regulation as it executes that lease. this is not a new concept. in fact, butffshore industry is almost an allied air.

regulatedmajor reg industry pay for the regulation through some sort of sfee. we think that should be the case with the oil and gas industry, and believed the lease is one of the means of doing so. in doing so in a way that would ensure a sustained it, predictable source of funds for regulation so that the kinds of competencies can be met. >> over here. we have one. >> "washington post." canou talk about how the lack of subpoena power may he affected the ability to look into accountability high up as some of these companies? >> terry garcia.

we were able to through the very able efforts of archie cancel to chief cancel able to ascertain the answers to the questions the president asked. that does not mean there were people we did not interview, but we were able to obtain the information that was necessary for us to do our work. i want to follow up on something that the senator and bill had said about the question of whether this was an industry- wide issue. what was not in doubt and what is not disputed is that the industry was not prepared for this. what is not in doubt is that industrywide research and development efforts had not been undertaken to address this sort

of eve. what was very clear was there was an utter lack of ability when this occurred for the industry to effectively respond and then to contain this event. it w industrywide in that sense. >> sir. >> gentleman, one of your recommendations deals with the liability of offshore oil spills saying that 75 million is totally inadequa. to you have a range in mind? why did you not say lift the cap all together as some in congress have proposed? >> we looked at the question of liability and the recommendation is that the cap be lifted. we did not recommend that it be lifted to and unlimited liability. we could not reach an agreement on that. we did identify the ad to be

lifted in the per incident. this is also the recommendation that the of magician has made, and it is really of to congress to address this. it is really one of the things that does require congressional action. just to put a point on one of the earlier questions, there are many recommendations in this report that can be enacted by the administration. the agencies to have authority. as we call on congress to act and called on indury to act as well, there are actions that can be taken by the federal government using agency authority to strengthen oversight and regulation and we're calling on the administration to do that as well. >> thank you. libby casey with the alaska public radio. i was wondering if you could elaborate more about arctic. should there be a moratorium until oil spills in icy water can be cleaned up with proven

technology? >> the commission is not asking for a moratorium in alaska. recognizing that there are very important questions still ahead for us to be answered through additional research and investment in the arctic specific technology. we feel that research that has a specific time when it and focus research that will help answer questions for the private sector and public sector is really what is required. another very iortant recommendation of the commission as it relates to arctic development is we are asking congress to fund the coast guard so that they are adequately prepared for god forbid an oil spill, but ao search and rescue. as ice retreats and we see more and more traffic in the arctic, it is essential but the coast guard, and for that matter, the

navy, at the essence necessary to be able to respond in the arctic. for us to be able to move forward with oil and gas development and in the other development, we ed to be prepared as a nation. a number of studies have indicated that the coast guard does not have adequate capabilities to be able to respond appropriately and arctic. there are a number of things, additional research in terms of the environment, the international protocols that bill mentioned earlier with other arctic nations, additional investment in the coast guard, and i would add something we have not talked a whole lot about of this point, empowering local people to be part of the decision making process. after the exxon valdez oil spill regional citizens' advisory committees were created in alaska. our commissn recommends doing something very simar in the gulf of mexico to empower the people to be active participants in the planning of oil and gas

development, in reacting to proposals, reviewing a oil spill response plans, in training so that if there is this bill they are able to be part of the work force and a better prepared way. we recommend the same thing for the arctic. we think all of these things will better position the united states to be able to take advantage of the resources of the arctic, but we do not feel as thoh we should sit back and wait indefinitely for that to happen. we're challenging congress to put funding into both the research and the capabilities for the coast guard and other agencies so that we can move forward. >> yes, sir. >> randy showstack. i would appreciate if you could explain or elaborate on why science has not had a significant lead at the table and way made -- what may be the relationship between that and

the initial difficultiein determining oil flow rates and other problems. >> the lack of understanding of basic environmental processes in the gulf of mexico was striking as a result of this incident. for example, there were lots of confusion about whether there were submerged deepwater plumes of oil. there was a lack of understanding of where those plumes were going and what the effects may be. the science can answer these questions. some of the first results of science that have been conducted on this have been very revealing a very -- a number of very important publications. it should be done in advance so that we understand operating environment in a comprehensive way. in the past investments in science related to support the

offshore development program have been oriented towards completing the minimum, identify potentially sensitive environments for development of environmental impact statements, rather than comprehensively and distending the effect of oil and gas that might be released into the system. our recommendations are still up the scientific research community, elevate it so that it can bring the fruits of the research to bear o the environmental assessments to support the leasing decisions. and as part of that process to involve other very important powerful science agencies, both to bring theusgs best scienceo bear on this environmental decision making. the second area where science will be very important is, as

mr. wright the indicated, we remmend doing substantial investments of the penalties of the clean water act violations to go to the environmental restoration. these restoration assessments can only be effective if they are guided by the best science to directed to the priorities of restoring brazilians to the system and making sure that we're using the best methods to assess the outcome. in both of those areas in terms of the assessment of the risk going forward, with respect to oil and gas development, as well as the investments in restoration we think a solid scientific program is essential. >> down here. >> russell from "corporate crime reporter." nowhere in your report to question whether a crime was committed.

i am wondering if you believe there should be increased resources to criminals and in our mental enforcement to help detour -- deter this type of behavior? >> when we first met with the president and he gave us the assignment, there was an understanding that our purpose was to develop the factual record upon which this event occurred, that it would be for others, specifically the department of justice, to determine if those facts constituted a criminal act, and if so, for what specific purpose? we did not undertake the issue of attempting to determine

criminal liability. i will leave it to the readers of the reports of of whether they believe they can find it in our factualrogram. nor did we look specifically at the question of the resources necessary to reach a judgment as to whether a crime had been committed. >> all the way back there >> amy harder with "national journal." yosaid you did not rommend unlimited liability. i understand that oil spill liability trust fund already does that. two questions. why did you not recommend an unlimited liability removing the cap entirely, and you did -- did you consider the concept where companies produng in the gulf would pay into that? >> we do recommend a significant

increase in liability. we frankly are sensitive to what we do not know. we know that canada has a much lower liability maximum. $35 million. the united kingdom that has one that is not much more. we do not really know how the insurance company would address issues of liability were we to propose some kind of straightforward insurance pool. we have a lot of sympathy for e fact that there are 185 independent operators in the gulf. the truth is we did not have time to get in to conversation with the insurance industry. we assume, though we do not know, that some kind of insurance pool can deal with the special problems of the independence. we have been clear in meetings with them that oone hand we respect what they do, have a concern to ensure that they continue to be operating

competitive for all the economic and cultural reasons that they represent, but it is also unreasonable to expect they can inflict billions of dollars of damages that that bill will not be sento the public. some kind of compromise has to be worked out on that, and our position on this one is close to the administration in that we recommend a significant increase in the liability cap, without specifying exactly what it should be. >> if i can supplement what bill has said, the question that there should be a single member that covers all instances, if there is one thing we have leard is that there is a dramatic difference in the ris and consequences of that risk the deeper and deeper you drill into more dangerous high you're pressured or geologically challenging areas. -- or higher pressured or

geologically challenging areas. it could be dramatically different for well-known as shallow waters, as opposed to the unknown of the old toward deep into which we are about to commence operations. that at raises the issue ba the state the case as a new mode of regulation, i do not expect that will become familiar very rapidly in this country where it has not been the practice before, though a couple of companies to already use it in the gulf and is required to use in the north sea. what that says is on the foundation of prescriptive regulations come each company goes beyond that to assess those dangers and threats that are

inherent in a specific well information or rig degn situation. the advantage of that is a put a lot of initiative on the industry to focus specifically, not just to get the box is checked for compliance, specifically on a given place with its given challenges. one thing we hope it will do is avoid the prescriptions, which may be perfectly applicable today and the year after that, but the given -- but given t rate that this industry progress is, become obsolete in three to five years. the state the case would guard against that. we're recommending the interior department promote the in the industry can operate and do that in our own waters as well. >> what are the top priorities for congress that you will be recommended when you testify? >> i think the top priority is

to first of all give resources to the interior department to enable it to provide oversight job that has. secondly, to ensure that the majority of the clean water act penalties go to the gulf restoration, which i think is a top priority of ours. third, to lift the liability cap and really address that issue so that any future spill that happens in u.s. waters the public is protected. >> one question -- >> you are? >> [inaudible] one of the proposals was calling for more time to assess the applications. there is argument of about whether they can do that with existing authority or whether they can extend the 30 day window they currently operate under. i am wondering if there has been

a determination reached about whether this is is an existing authority? >> our position is that congress has to act. and that the clock starts running once the application is complete. >> yesk si, sir. >> jonathan tyler from "the tribune." how do youquare that with the finding that the disaster was a result of systemic problems that could repeat? >> the way i would swear it is that the companies that have not been implicated in this specific spill and that had been carefully inspected by mms immediately following the spill were judged to be in compliance with all known requirements and to have had an exemplary safety records are ready.

over here. edward falker with "energy guardian." the they determine it was inherently unsafe formation and should not have gone as far as it did? that at some point they should have abandoned the macondo well? >> i do not think we did conclude that. i know that is not the opinion of the industry. tom? >> as the well was drilled, operator recognized that there were inherent dangers to go further in drilling the well. so they stopped short of their ultimate target and decided to complete the well there then at that point. there is every reason to think in terms of the investigation that the well could have been completed and abandon safely at

that point. there were, however, a chain of mistakes, errors in judgment made, as they went about that process. each of which could have been easily prevented. i think our assessment of the investigative team was that this will could have been completed and abandon safely and came back and produced at some future time. there is, however, a recognition that as one trills the well even with the best geological reconnaissance information available, that the company will find unusual ris and challenges as they go deeper down the well. part of that is the safety case is to assess that in advance and a comprehensive way, while other than being surprised as one goes down and drilled the well. -- rather than being surprise as one goes down and drills the well. ith the "l.a. times."

there is a serious and regulatory sentiment in congress. i was wondering if you could tell us, given the priorities that you have that you will present to congress, what kind of reaction you have gone so far privately from members of congress to theecommendations that you are making? we will obviously ask them ourselves today but i wanted to get insight from you given this time it on where you expect to push back? >> i would say the answer is that as there are 535 members in congress, there are close to that in terms of their response to your question. i believe this issue and the searing impact at the deepwater horizon has had on a conscus of americans is such that it

will override an ideological preference for less government, less government intrusion, less government cost. what makes that level of optimism i think credible is the fact that members of congress understand that this is not just a typical example of government regulating of private enterprise. this is government regulating land of that the government and the people of the united states own, and that it must be treated as we are stewards of public assets, and valuable public assets, the gulf of mexico. and that recognition will cause, in spite of the reticence to accept additional regulation, this to be an exception.

second, as has been said, we think a substantial amount of the recommendations that we are proposing can be adopted without coressional action, that is it is in the hands of particularly the department of interior and administtion to execute. and from the comments we have had thus far from the obama administration, i am very hopeful they will take advantage of that opportunity. >> let me add to things. the congress can reorganize the department of interior to make a safety enterprise totally walled off from general -- revenue generation. that can be don it does not involve more regulation. that is as simple initiative they can take. we think it will be a guarantor in the future against revenue driving this program. we document through several of

ministration's that it has. german upton, a german hastings, chairman hastings and bingaming have allnm expressed interest and we believe will follow through with the recommendations. >> i wanted to ask you guys to talk about the recommendations you made with regard to epa. it seems after an event happened. was there any sense of given them a more up front role rather than leaving everything after the incident? >> the va has a national response center and has a role preparing for any response. we believe there are structural changes that need to be done

with respect to the area wide councils, and those are detailed in the report. one of the real surprises here, to me, is having overseen much of the response to exxon valdez in 1989, the status of the dispersant question was still unresolved. i did not permit the dispersant to be in many of the ssitive areas because of fear that getting into the water column will contaminate the fish. remarkable to me that we finally have a spill, and they are predictable, that we then have the argument about whether it is toxic? does it persist in the environment? does it depend how deep it is injected or how much is? we make strong recommendations that epa seriously begin to test toxics, the toxicity of

dispersants and their effectiveness, and to do so in real time situations. i can perfectly well understand why you when an application may go in through epa to deposit oil on the water and see whether something works to contain it or dissolve it, that is probably ot left at the top of in bobox, nevertheless we think it needs to be done. particularly recommended be done in the arctic to find out how it would work in the icy waters. >> it has a major role to play in restoration efforts and remmendations that we have made and the secretary made. as you are aware, the president has asked the administrator lee said jackson to head a task force. she has been set up to make

progress in an interim basis. she is leading that effort involving other agencies and the states. they will have a major role to play and the restoration programs. specifically one of the areas we point out is the alleviation of the so-called dead zone in the gulf of mexico. this has to involve management and regulation and pollution sources. it is an area much larger than was actually affected by this oil spill on an annual basis. if we're going to restore the resilience of the gulf oil spill, this is one area we should uertake in this restoration efforts, and the epa has a leadership rolin that regard. >> to be clear and contrary to my initial assumption going into the issue, we believe secretary jackson made a quite sound desion in the way to use dispersants in the way that she

did. >> >> thank you. i'm from blue bird news. the recommendion, how does this compare to how secretary salazar said we will do? >> secretary saws are made recommendations that are in direct response to the kinds of concerns that we have. he has now made separate leasing and revenue generation and a report to two separate secretaries. we respect that move. we think it is not enough. those two secretaries still repo to racing will separate it -- deputy secretary and that deputy secretary reports to the secretary. we are supposing that there be