that an employer might be subject to. if you are paying an $11,000 premium and your coverage does meet the federal requirements, you should be fine. he would probably not be subject to the fine, but you have to pay attention to the details. in terms of the question about household income, i am wondering if he is referring to the tax credit. there are tax credits for small business. that is just for small businesses. companies of 25 employees or less. your average income has to be $50,000. host: one last question, a tweet -- guest: we have heard a lot about repealed and replaced, house republicans want to start over. one of the things they talk about frequently is medical malpractice reform. they want to cap liability

rewards. they're also interested in allowing insurance to be sold across state lines of they are not subject to mandates. several other things that they have talked about. we do not know exactly what they're going to propose. that will probably pass the house but not go anywhere in the senate. host: to read more on this, go to cqrollcall.com. that does it for "wash. journal." have a good morning. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> coming up in p 30 minutes here on c-span, the brookings institution hosts morocco's foreign minister, delivering king muhammad's message on political reform. the foreign minister will also discuss challenges facing the wider arab world. that's live at 10:30 eastern. and more about unrest in the arab world at 1:00 p.m. eastern when lisa anderson, the president of the university -- american university in cairo, shares her perspective on political changes in the arab world. that's from the carnegie endowment for international peace. live at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. up until 10:30 we'll bring you part of this morning's "washington journal," a discussion on the impact of the coalition military activities in libya. nora bensahel, a senior fellow at the center for the new american security, where she works on national security.

i want to begin the headline that we started with this morning -- "the washington post." it appears that after conversations with the turkish prime minister by president obama on monday night, that they have backstopped their opposition of this being led by nato. it was like the french president sarkozy is going to be in agreement with having this led by nato. what is your reaction to that? guest: the military arrangements are going to be fairly clear. i think it enables nato's command-and-control structure to run the military parts of the operation. what is in the process of being decided is political control over that. in regular nato operations it would be the north atlantic council, but one of the things that the french president has proposed is overseeing the political aspect and giving

command in order to the military command by a committee of those participating in the operation. that gives turkey some cover. they do not want to be seen as a nato-led operation, and also the alliance can bring in some of the other countries who are not nato members into the political oversight of the mission. that is tricky to do. it establishes an ad hoc way a pattern of cooperation as the native council does. there may be some drawbacks associated with that political oversight. the agreement being talked about will be used -- using the nato command structure. host: we will talk more about the details. but in this article, is is that nothing is official. no one is signed the dotted line on this tentative agreement. it could be announced as early as today. can you talk more about nato command center, all of that? militarily, what does that mean?

guest: nato has been a military alliance since 1949. it has staff and officers assigned to that as their permanent position. they come from the national military. that is the commanding control structures used an overseas operation in afghanistan, for example, today. the advantage of using that structure is that is in place, it is tested, it is known. they are great difficulties setting up at hauck our arrangements. the command headquarters is located in belgium, about an hour outside of brussels. it is not quite the equivalent of the pentagon. in the war against iraq, the u.s. war was committed from a headquarters in florida. they have a communications established with the commanders

in the region in on the ground. host: what does it mean for the united states? guest: the and that is this is trying to hand off responsibility for the mission as quickly as possible. they wanted to do the things that only the united states could do, provide rapid command- and-control structure to get the operation going rapidly and effectively. and then to use the u.s. military firepower to destroy and dismantle gaddafi's command- and-control systems and particularly his surface to air missile capability. that is very important because no one -- everyone wants to minimize the danger to pilots enforcing the no-fly zone, and taking out those missile sites becomes very important to enable that. but that is the initial phase. that is starting to wind down if you look at the number of targets, the number of sites

already it, i think this operation has been designed so that the u.s. could do the thing that the unit -- the u.s. can uniquely to come up bring massive amounts of firepower in the beginning, and then pave the way for the countries to advocated strongly and diplomatically for the un resolution to come in and then sustain a no-fly zone. host: this piece written in the "washington post," it lists the deployment status, the military assets deployed to libya. only the united states was capable of doing what it has been doing since saturday. why is that? guest: the u.s. military is more advanced capabilities than most of our allies and partners, even france. there are some capabilities, but in order to take down that surface-to-air missile threat quickly and effectively and in as short a time as possible, the united states is the only country that has the capability.

host: we showed our burly retreated -- we showed our viewers earlier colonel gaddafi saying that we're going to be victorious. i am here, i am here, we're going to be victorious. guest: it is understandable for him to do. the outcome here is very unclear. the no-fly zone is in effect and is expanding across the country. perhaps more slowly than some of the city's held by rebels would like, but it is slowly expanding from the eastern part of the country to the west. it is not at all clear what happens once -- once it is expanded in the transition happens. the obama administration has made it clear distinction between what it is doing militarily and diplomatic policies of regime change in libya. president obama said that military means will not be used to pursue that diplomatic

objective, and that other tools of u.s. farm policy will be used. in practice, it is a confusing message to send and makes it unclear what happens after that initial wave of attacks is over. host: of the " washington post" editorial this morning. financial and arms embargoes are not likely to a force him out. an appeal to the collaborators to throw him out have been undermined by public predictions -- were determined to accomplish the stated aim, there is much more the administration could do.

a couple of things there. you touched on this -- we have a wide range of tools to deal with colonel gaddafi remaining in power. guest: the most obvious are financial, using sanctions to freeze the assets of key individuals and organizations in the country.

the u.s. security council or resolution explicitly addressed that, identifies people and organizations, but the u.s. is doing that bilaterally and on its own ends well. that is an open question. they do in some circumstances. it is not clear the extent to which they will work here. the u.s. had sanctions for libya for many years. it had to do with the shootdown -- the explosion of the plan over lockerbie. those were lifted recently. they have not reduced -- produced regime changeover that time. it is not clear whether the conditions are fundamentally different enough. host: let's go to the phone calls. we can talk later about the history of u.s.-libyan relations. callers joining us on the democratic line. carl, turn your television down. santa monica, you are a republican.

caller: thank you for c-span. what i think is that the comments coming from the president are a bit premature. i want to find a would you and your guests have to say about it. to withdraw within days, i think, is premature to say. when you have like khaddafi on television now, still speaking with you have him in power 40 years after the turmoil he was causing -- i think we should just stay our ground, get the job done, and stay calm. host: talk about days versus weeks. guest: they're talking about transition in the responsibility, especially the political responsibility, to these different entities or states. it is not talking about a complete withdrawal of forces over libya and ending the no-fly

zone. that is important. it is talking about reducing the u.s. role, having done the initial parts and turning over responsibility to the countries, particularly france and great britain, who pushed very hard diplomatically to get it established in the first place. host: we've seen general ham operating out of germany. is he leading this right now? it would no longer be him in charge? guest: yes. if it does use debt nato- integrated command structure, there would be a designated commander in charge of it. host: we will go to lake charles, louisiana. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am an ex-vietnam veteran.

a pack in the 1970's, we used to go to all of these ports in the mediterranean. we were always going into these countries that did not like us. they call that diplomacy, you know? these people threw rocks at us back in the 1970's. i knew back then that we were going to be the policemen of the world because we were showing our flag and these people hated us. we did it anyway. host: are we being perceived as the policemen of the world? guest: there is no love for muammar gaddafi and a lot of outrage about how he is treating his citizens. on the other hand, anything that

resembles western intervention is also a deep problem. -to the attitudes are conflicted in many ways. the longer this goes on without a final resolution, i think the pressure in the arab world may move more towards imposing intervention and then in terms of supporting the efforts to protect libyan civilians. host: this transition between who politically is in charge -- that is not going to sway -- will it have an impact on how the arab world is perceiving this? guest: i am not sure the people make a great distinction between a u.s.-allied intervention and an intervention where france and great britain are playing a

prominent role. it may make a difference for some. host: the general briefed reporters from his command post in germany on monday, speaking about how complex is to do this military transition. take a listen. >> there are some very complex, technical things that have to occur, particularly in the management, command and control of the air campaign to make sure that we have no destruction whatsoever in the ongoing operation, two, that we put none of our crews air risk as we go through this transition, so there are some complex tasks that have to occur. but i would also say that we are ready to begin the process immediately as soon as that

headquarters is identified. host: what is your reaction? guest: there are certainly technical issues. that is one of the advantages on building on the nato command structure. there is a standing body that is used to making these arrangements. host: what will be the u.s. role once this transition takes place? guest: i think that remains to be seen. what president obama said yesterday is he does not seem u.s. plans being heavily involved in patrolling the no- fly zone or being involved in maintaining it. exactly how many u.s. air plans -- does that mean zero? does that mean to sound? i think that remains to be seen. host: let me read a little bit

of this. this could ultimately hit several billions of dollars. the first day had a price tag well over $100 million in the u.s. missiles alone. this was written yesterday. do you have anything to add to that? guest: in the scale of the budget, they are not that large compared to the $750 billion budget of the defense department. this is being funded out of the normal budget for operations. the reason was the number is so high on the first day is because tomahawk missiles are so expensive.

all of the normal maintenance stuff that goes on in an operation. i think that will be the final driver of what the costs are. host: the defense department typically buys 200 tomahawk missiles a year. it will ultimately need to boost plans for pretreatment rates to refill its stockpiles. that totaled $112 million to $168 million for the first offense but the u.s. which lost about 112th long-range tomahawk cruise missiles. let's go to colorado. nancy is on the republican line. go ahead. caller: i have a couple of comments and a question. i see the hypocrisy going on compared to president bush. all kinds of questions were

asked of him, and nothing is going on with obama. they do not ask him in the tough questions. the press does not care. but they do make comments about how much it will cost and when we are going to get out. these things are going to come up finally as they did with president bush. president bush went through the congress and throughout the united nations before he went to iraq. host: lets talk about the constitutional question that has been raised. as you look at the war powers from 1973, the president can send combat troops in battle for 60 days without a declaration of

war by congress or a specific congressional mandate. does this mean ground troops? is there a distinction there? guest: that does not mean necessarily ground troops. it is the act of war in general. there have been major u.s. wars such as the 2003 iraq war which had congressional authorization, but most military actions have not. congress is recourse is very blunt. all they can do is cut off funding for military operations. that is something they can do if they are frustrated that no request has come into the vote on the conflict. host: that is what one

congressman has tried to do. let's go to bobbie, an independent from washington, d.c. good morning. caller: what is it that the political establishment -- one minute they are saying obama is not taking leadership. when he does exert a force, he does not have congress' approval and so forth and so forth. a what is it that they want this gentleman to do? everyone is talking about the cost of the work. how come nobody is talking about the cost of afghanistan? host: karl is on our democratic line. guest: i want to pose a

scenario. the united states says at the libyan situation is a mediterranean problem and it should be up to the mediterranean powers to pursue it. between the italians, the french, and the spanish, they have five aircraft carriers. i cannot believe that libya could stand up to that. why is it necessary for the united states to be participating in this effort when our european allies should be handling it? secondarily, if they are not able to handle it, why are they allies? guest: at the beginning, i think the u.s. policy has been designed deliberately to get these countries to take the bulk of the military action with the u.s. doing the things our front that it was uniquely capable of doing. the comment about the criticism of president obama is a fair.

at the beginning of this crisis, there were huge criticisms of letting civilians be slaughtered and not taking military action particularly when france and the united kingdom were pushing for a resolution. now there is a lot of military criticism about whether we should be there at all. some of this is part of the national debate on issues, but it is notable that there is a shift in the commentary about it. host: the new show our viewers this headline. -- let me show our viewers this headline. what does this do to the coalition that we are seeing conflict between the two russian leaders about whether or not this is an appropriate action in libya?

then you see the defense secretary calling for a cease- fire. guest: once the u.n. resolution was passed -- they did not vote for it but they did not veto it. once they chose to let it happen but without political support, their influence over what happens is very low. host: which will go to fort worth, texas. good morning. caller: they want to say he is attacking his civilians. his civilians did not like a peaceful demonstration. they rioted and took up arms. the people on of muammar gaddafi's side are people, too. nobody is looking to that. there was somebody that was willing to work. where are the diplomats?

where are all of the people that obama said he would put his hand out to? that is not europe's oil. that is lydia's oil. there is a time when the guests have to go home. host: what is your reaction? guest: he try to make a clear distinction between civilians who are not involved in military action and those rebels who are taking action against libyan security forces. in practice, especially if you are piloting a cockpit, that is a clear distinction to make. in principle, it has been established that the libyan people taking up arms, not just picking up a machine gun for self protection but those who

are engaging with real military capabilities, our real targets for security forces. host: he has made the distinction between working with opposition forces, that they are not doing that. guest: he said they are not providing what is known as their support, helping to facilitate ground movement. host: let's listen to his own words about this issue of the air strikes and how they are not being coordinated with rebel forces. >> our mission is to protect civilians from attack by the regime ground forces. our mission is to not support any opposition forces. while we have reports from people who are reported to be in the opposition, there is no official communication or formal communication with those in this

so-called opposition that are opposing the regime's ground forces. host: we will go to johnnie in massachusetts, the independent line. you are on the air with nora bensahel. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i agree with the gentleman that was just on. if anyone from this country believe that we took up arms against our government, that they would not shoot us down, you'd better believe they would shoot us down. the trouble is we want to control the middle east and we are taking country after country after country over now. we have bases in saudi arabia and in iraq, afghanistan, and pakistan. we have one in israel that people do not know of. until the american people wake up and see that we want to take

over the middle east for oil -- that is the only reason. wal-mart gaddafi is trying to protect himself -- muammar qaddafi is trying to protect himself. host: johnny mentioned being shot down. here is a headline from usa today. do you know the specifics of this? was it shot down? guest: what i read in the paper is there was a mechanical problem, that it was not shot down. host: this is an e-mail from a viewer. this person wants to know what the social policies have been of muammar gaddafi. guest: it is hard to talk about a social policy from any areas

in the middle east. what it dictators generally do is provide benefits to their friends and allies, particularly those that support them, and they take away things from those that do not. he does have an erratic streak of how he behaves internationally. there may be some eroticism of how he is distributing patronage threw out his country. host: a democrat from ohio, you are next. caller: i want to address a previous caller who said bush had gone to the u.n. and had gotten their permission. he did not get their permission. she also said that -- in fact, bush took out the international atomic energy agency inspectors out of iraq and the resolution.

it was pathetic that they voted for it. that resolution actually said exhaust all other means before invading iraq. i am amazed while i listened to msnbc and cnn the use of the "slaughter" and "massacre" in regard to libya. i have heard from your guest. i have heard many other people, chris matthews, and many other hosts actually used those terms. the massacre happened in iraq. we are not counting the dead and injured in iraq on your program and other programs. americans do not want to look at that. i am alarmed by the use of the word "massacre" and "slaughter"

on many programs. libya did not attack anyone. believe we are going in there and protecting civilians. if they were going in to protect civilians, we have many nations to attack. i wish we would address that issue, and the use of these words. also, what is the end game? what is the goal? who is in line to take charge? host: we will leave it there guest: i think the fear is there would be a massacre in the city of benghazi, that the forces were going to level the city. one of the things i have been hearing is you see a lot of comparisons to the massacre in bosnia and 1995 where 8000 men

and boys were killed in a single day's effort. there have been comparisons, the european leaders warning that benghazi was going to be another one. postcode this article in the financial times has the headline? -- host: this article in the financial times has this headlined -- below that are a couple of headlines to show you. below that is a question and answer about who is who in the opposition. who is going to take over? guest: is a great question. we do not know. libya is a tribal society. the rebels are not organized as a political force in any means.

if khaddafi is opposed or killed, it is not clear what political authority would succeed him. there are concerns that it would evolve into a tribal civil war or conflict. host: i want to go to the caller's question about what is the end came was. guest: is a great question. what the u.s. has done is to buy some time to protect as many civilians as possible. what the ultimate political outcome of this i think is very unclear. i think there is a lot that will shape >> you can find "washington journal" online any time in our video library. we'll leave this now and take you live over to the brookings institution in washington. as unrest continues in the arab world. the foreign minister of morocco

is in washington to discuss proposed reforms to country's constitution. taieb fassi fihri will be speaking this morning before the audience of the brookings institution. later today meeting with secretary of state clinton. just getting under way. live here on c-span. >> this time to host the minister of foreign affairs and cooperation of the kingdom of morocco, taieb fassi fihri. it's a special pleasure for me, the minister has been a good friend personally and a good friend of the united states for many years. and i have long wanted to have the opportunity to host him here and i'm delighted he's agreeed to do so. the minister has a distinguished career in diplomacy, but it

didn't start out that way. he was a professor of microeconomics at the university of paris, then became research fellow at the french i.n.s. actuality ut of international relations. before he joined the planning direct rat in the ministry of planning, the kingdom of morocco. from 9-86 to 9-89, he served with the european community. at the foreign ministry. and then was dominated as secretary of state for foreign affairs and corporation in 1993 by the late king hassan ii. he served in successive governments and then his majesty, king muhammad vi, appointed him to the position of

minister of foreign affairs and corporation. as some of you may know, king hassan made a king's speech a couple weeks ago. it did not get a lot of attention here, but king muhammad announced sweeping reforms, political reforms. as ken was pointing out last night, we have in north africa today an amazing set of phenomena. on the one side muammar gaddafi using brutal force to suppress the aspirations of the libyan people. on the other side we have chew needsa where a revolution has

taken place and long-time leader has been overthrown in three days and left the country. a process of transition to democracy now under way. then we have what ken was calling the third way. the way that king muhammad ii has announced for morocco. and it's that way that i have asked the foreign minister to explain to us this morning. so, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming taieb fassi fihri. >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you, thank you very much, martin, for this introduction. but maybe you have to add that my english is still today, but i

will try, i will try to say some -- to express observations about what happened in our area. we can first have some conlution and -- conclusion and i think the first conclusion is that there is no arab exceptions for the universal principles for democracy. and hopefully the arab citizens like others wants better life and wants to live in the context of freedom, democratic, multiparties.

then no one can progress, including in our area, without working on the -- walking on the two legs. economic development and political progress. the second lesson is that even as a -- even if there is economy growth, this economy growth has to be shared by all people in the country. shared in different area of the country, but also shared by all people. and i think that the egyptians and two nearbyans case -- two nearbyians -- tunisians case is observation is that what's happened in some countries in terms of revolution when we look to the tunisian and egyptian

case we see the regime maybe was , i don't know if we said that in english, scler rotic -- sclerotic. it's better in french. and remember that when the president was re-elected in november, 2009, some weeks after there was mobilization from many people to -- a new candidate in 2014. imagine this people, young people, opened their eyes under the regime and we said to them that we have to live under the same system with the same values, with the same injustice

until 2019. and i think that is also the case for the egypt hosni mubarak , then we can say there are many hopes in these countries and that the arab group is not a monolitical group and the regime in bahrain is totally different, an algeria, or tunisia or morocco an yemen. monarchies here, monarchies there. military power, and the specific

power in libya. it means that the change will happen hopefully. because we are face -- facing the same challenges. same challenges in terms of employment. same challenges in terms of investing people. because more than 50% of our societies are less than 25 years old. and how to response to am digses, natural ambitions, and legitimate ambitions of our youth. facing the same challenges, probably going forward in terms of evolution, but there will be no impact in the situation because each country have its own specific itinerary because each country have its own political system.

but between revolution and evolution, respect is large and i hope that each country can progress and response to this legitimate aspiration of people and mainly of youth people. what about morocco? i can say that first morocco refuse the unic party since the beginning and it was not easy. a monarchy expressed clearly that we want multiparties. and people work and political parties work together and hopefully we have the system and

the multiparties was concentrated in the first constitution in 1962. and when i read some days ago the proposal, the new constitution in egypt, i think that we have to be proud as morocco that in 1962 we have this constitution. and this constitution was amended four times. then it's expressed that morocco progress and progress looking to the evolution of our society, but also of our alignment regionally and internationally. we have also integrate the friendship of france. in 1998 for the first time the

opposition came to power. we also tried since this time with the king, muhammad vi, to continue thanks to some efforts to progress on our two legs. on human development, fighting against poverty, and the other thing is the fighting against corruption, creating business environment possible, and in this context we negotiate and conclude and f.t.a. with u.s.a. but beyond the trades or business or investments aspect,

what we are interested at this time is to take a strong commitment for better environment for business. when we talk about environment for business, we talk about the necessaryity to have transparency, the necessaryity to have transparent rules of game in morocco. and with it the same with european union. probably you know that morocco since many years asked for specific status with european union, and european union don't offer to us because, for morocco advanced status and this status for us is testimony that morocco walk on the two legs and he will

continue to walk on these two legs and we are very happy and satisfied to note that the same status just given to jordan. recently. what happened in the arab world then, taking account the evolution in morocco, i want to insist on as martin said this new step taken by morocco an people of morocco. and when the king propose and advanced organization in november, 2009, then before the air raabe spring, saying that it's time for morocco to have this -- not only this organization but more of that because the democracy start first at the local level. when we present that and ole

political parties, all n.g.o.'s part -- participate to the debate about the regionalization and to report presented to the king during the last month, then the king said, ok, for this important step, but maybe we have to take this opportunity to go forward deeply and to not go to constitutional reform overwhelm for organization. let us take this momentum, let us take this possibility and opportunity, listen to what's happened in our own society, but also looking to what happened around us. not only in the arab world, but also in europe and in other countries. and what it was now it's an

inclusive debate for the best constitution we can have during this year. the king ask to have the reform before the end of june -- proposal for reform before the end of june and the process, as i said, start with all political parties, with all n.g.o.'s, with all trade unions, including youth organizations. and the goal is to have total independence of powers and powers body. executive, parliamentary, and justice. in morocco justice is still today an administration. it will be before the end of the

year an independent, totally independent body. i am member of cabinet, elected cabinet, with a large coalition of political parties. but we will have a jump many here during the next month. elected government, yes, but with the prime minister we will have the best score in the elections. human rights, we just reform our mechanism of human rights. and i can say to you not as diplomat, not as member of the cabinet, that the system is maybe the best system for the supervision and guarantees of

human rights in our area with the best international -- with the new national council for human rights, with the new invigorate institution of mediator, and a new and energetic executive coordination among the government in connection with the international institutions and also international n.g.o.'s. then after same moment some protest -- at the same moment some protest continue, peaceful protest. and here, too, happy it's happened like this. i'll talk about inclusive debate . we have also to note that the

process in the street, because there is the freedom for protest when it's peaceful. and i am sure that in some month morocco will continue. i don't appreciate the term exception or the leaders of reform in the region, but because we do that for us first, not only to come to washington and to say my country's the best in the region, no. because we want to see our people progress and our people taking opportunities for their own benefit. in conclusion the arab spring is here.

we are not sure the summer will succeed to the current spring. and maybe, we can talk, maybe we will go directly, toward a dark winter like it happened in our area in iran in 1979, like when we see the counterrevolutions are still dynamic in tunisia or egypt, and when we see that we'll probably take this opportunity to create the atmosphere because al qaeda needs large space more than only the sahara region, but they are very active now in all west

africa and maybe they will take this -- maybe evolution in this country, then we have to be very careful, very prudent, and we have all u.s.a., european union, arab countries have to work together to protect this positive evolution. this transition and to be sure that the legitimate aspiration of people will not -- were not kept by others and to come back to autocratic systems. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. we are going to have a bit of a conversation here first and then we'll take -- the minister will

take your questions. i wonder if i can start with the political reform process and just get you to elaborate on a couple things. your presentation was very clear, but i suspect not everybody has had a chance to read the king's speech. there are a couple of things that i wanted to just have you elaborate on. the first is the parliament. you said you had political parties. you had rotation, opposition leader and party has become the government in the past. the difference now as i understand it is that the king will not appoint the prime minister. the prime minister will be the leader of the largest party in the parliament, is that correct? >> exactly. it's important. it's happened. the current prime minister is the leader of the party who has

the best results. but naturally it need coalition. but his majesty like in other countries, democratic countries, will ask the best results party to lead the government. and it would be in the constitution. >> i don't know whether you can answer this question, because as a constitutional process as you describe it, what do you imagine will be the reserve powers of the king under this arrangement? will he -- what powers will he retain? >> first, the monarchy in morocco is the -- one of the oldest monarchy in the world. monarchy play a key role in terms of guarantee of the unity,

because morocco are naturally, arab country, we are not only arab, we are muslim, jews, we are african country, and it's mixed. needs, different source of our identity are expressed by this monarchy system of the the king is also commander, and in morocco the political area and the religious area are totally independent but they are joined only at one point, the level of the monarch. then it's important and everyone in morocco prefer to live in this -- under this umbrella. but now in terms of executive

decisions, the role of the government will be enlarged significantly, and as much as it's opened now to delegate many of its current power to the government. and this government will take its responsibility to parliament. when i say for you it's normal, but let us come back to what happened in our area to take note that it's very important and significant step. >> foreign policy and defense will remain in the hands of the king? >> like in all democratic countries, it's the guarantee of the unity, it's a shared power, but the head of state will

continue to lead the foreign policy. >> so as foreign minister you'll be a member of the executive branch of the government. >> i have only visibility -- after the reform then many thing will change with the implementation of the next constitution. . >> i did not mean to make it personal. the foreign minister is a member of the executive branch. >> in many countries, the foreign minister is not necessarily -- it is open. i hope for morocco that it will be the best possible foreign minister. >> you mentioned this new

regionalization arrangement. what will be the powers of the regional governments? >> that is an important point. it will be a real revolution. a revolution in morocco, because today, at the level of the region, we have people appointed by the government, the national government, but today, we will have an elected council with a president with all -- for the local government. and then, the elected people will have the power to manage the region. it is not -- this is not easy because the elected people means

that the political party can have a program and can manage that. we take the experience of some countries like mexico or tunisia, to have success in this important step. important because we have many regions in morocco. in each region, we have disparities, socially, economically, that will create and within each region, the best possibility in housing and education, health and roads. that will be for the local government. >> the independence of the judiciary will be a new development.

presumably that will be guaranteed under the constitution. and so the judiciary will function independently of the king, as well as the parliament? >> no. the executive. the justice will have its own law. an independent power -- and independent power. this will be expressed by the king. >> he will appoint the judges. >> we will have an independent body. think in terms of -- in morocco, first we have our own justice principles.

but we have the legacy of the latin law and the code. will have -- we will have what is important. it is not ready today. and because some -- time to time, the justice department, but now we want to ensure this development. >> can i ask you a couple of questions about foreign policy? your region in north africa is now considerable turmoil. do you feel it in morocco? is the trouble in libya going to affect life in morocco in any way? >> in terms of condition, yes,

.ecause we have the treaty - this treaty -- we have difficulties with our brother, nigeria. but we have the ambition to bring this important integration among the five member states. nigeria, morocco. we demonstrate maybe we have to wait more. that what is sure is that when we talk about north africa, revolutions from tunisia, the libyan case is maybe very complicated, and the think that no one can today say clearly

what will happen. there is, maybe for the first time, a strong expression of real consensus from the arab league. we have to notes that the arab league did not succeed in terms of economic integration short in terms of shedding the same values, or in terms of crisis management. and i hope that taking the opportunity of these -- we can rest and we can give to our common house. but the arab league is our common house with many windows, many from time to time national

position is stronger than the common decisions. but we note that the arab league claimed the first for the -- in libya. with some reservation in syria and algeria. and mauritania. my colleague changed this morning, maybe do to that. i do not know. it changed -- >> against or in support? >> no, it changed. a new foreign minister this morning. this coming from the region -- , the international community. today, we have a resolution, a security council, which might

give to us all international community and all countries. we are in the chapter 7. and this resolution, it is not the resolution of france. it is our common resolution. each country can say i am interested by this or like that. the resolution is comment. the resolution talks about -- it takes about four weeks. first, a cease-fire. second, to protect civilians taking all necessary measures. third, human -- actions. first quarter, a political process. some countries decide that to protect the civilians, they have

to intervene against the army which killed the civilians. and then i cannot say that is illegal. i note there is a large coalition of countries saying that is the best way. i have to respect this point of view. but morocco said at the same time, the resolution is wider, in some countries have to prepare themselves for a contribution for each human actions or the real, deep, frank dialogue. between people in libya. between people. >> does that include colonel khadafy? >> all the expression of something.

be sure there are many groups saying many things, asking for a change. these people will watch on tv disagree. but we have some experience in the past. >> so at morocco is part of the coalition, but -- >> morocco participated at the paris summit. we were invited. the resolution inviting us together. i participated in the summit. with with my colleague of jordan and from qatar and with my colleague from iraq. and they were -- the current

president from the arab league. and we discussed and i said what i said now. morocco is member of coalition, trying to the best implementation of the resolution. >> we have a saying here. i do not know how will it translate to a french or arabic. we say what happens in vegas stays in vegas. [laughter] the question is as follows. does what happened in libya stay in libya, or does it have a ripple effect through the region? we can see what happens in egypt has a powerful impact on the rest of the region. explain. is live be a different to that?

-- is libya it different to that? >> no. the heart of north africa, the heart of the south mediterranean. but also in connection with many countries. >> african countries. >> african countries. i'm sure it will have a real impact. al qaeda is present in the south of -- in niger, in chad. and we want to link between al qaeda and the activities in the east of africa, somalia, and others.

and when muammar gaddafi said it will have an impact, we have to take account of this. >> is he exaggerating al qaeda's role at the moment? >> i cannot -- i do not know i can say to all people in libya and benghazi or from al qaeda. probably not. what is sure is that al qaeda will move, will try, will test. taking the opportunity of this question. al qaeda loves the space where there is no strong and democratic national power. >> why don't we go to the

audience now for questions. i did not recognize at the beginning, we have some distinguished guests in the audience. the ambassador to jordan. and your excellent ambassador. welcome to all of you. let's take some questions. wait for the microphone. identify yourself to the foreign minister. please make sure there is a question mark and the end of your -- yes, here. >> good morning, mr. fihri. i am a senior at georgetown. what role for morocco in the future? i like to believe we could be a model for the region. thank you. >> the answer is simple.

express what you want to express do do what you want to and contribute to the debate. it is open. morocco needs all -- >> how would he participate in the debate? >> there is a mechanism. you can send your contribution to the internet, articles. we have more in morocco, more internet, internet. >> internet. >> then vultures.

true.it is it is true. we have this fresh -- the last elections, less than 40% of citizens participated in the elections. these elections were free, totally free. but some people said, why go to vote? your voice is important. >> right up to back there. >> i am a graduate student. you talk about a multi-party system. with that include the islamic parties -- will that include the islamic parties? >> they have been banned. >> tee tee difficult -- it is

difficult to say. islam is the radical spehre -- sphere of environment. they said, ok for constitutional monarchy for many years. we have some -- in the parliament that if they want to be in the party, are welcome. if they want to say no, i will not participate, i am waiting for -- i do not know which element. but everyone is associated -- is invited to participate to this debate.

and i love the conscription of a new constitution. >> ken? >> thank you, mr. foreign minister. we're honored to have you here. i assume it is not coincidental you decided to come to the united states to a library on the king's vision. there is a desire for some kind of american role. americans looking at the region, we understand that changes need to be made in the region. people want ownership of those changes. what the king is proposing is exactly what some money americans wanted to see more of in the region. how can the united states help? we want to see the vision to succeed. what can the united states do? >> i think the question is maybe

more larger. when we compare what is happening in the arab world of what happened in central and eastern europe between 1989 and 1992. it showed that the evolution or revolution changed from a problem to -- check slovakia -- czechoslovakia. i am impressed by nato the european bank. it was easy to do that. it was important. usa contributed. the european union and the g-8

members and mainly usa. the three together. and i hope they act together in a complementary effort, to help this transition. to respect the change -- including the condition -- you what progress? i can help you. the marshall plan, ok. don't forget that the marshall plan, there was some conditionality. i think it's logical if the u.s.a. and others say, ok, we're interested by your process. europe -- by the progress of tunisia. if there is this possibility, i

am sure we can win together. it means that we need some new initiative. new speech by president obama. maybe. i am not taking notes of all this. new meeting for future. the g-8 effort, and it will be now maybe more successful, because before the egyptians, the two nations and others were unisians andwo na others -- there is the possibility to create, to take note of this evolution.

the transitions and to create a new arab world. everyone said in washington or in paris, we do not want to impose. we just want to -- i do not know the difference. what is important -- to have ownership in the definitions of the global end in the implementations of the means. >> a question. >> thank you, minister. i would like to congratulate morocco's progress of reform on human rights. >> which you identify yourself

-- would you identify yourself? >> i am from george washington university. >> it is important. the justice is the best -- the best for the society in progress. and the king said now five years and ask the government to propose a real and deep reform system. some proposal, some projects are rated. there will be adopted during the next week or month. what is more important is not only code or new text is the spirit, and the spirit is that there is a colorado -- there is

a law. no more, but no less. >> it occurs to meet as you're talking that -- palestine has not come up yet. >> yet. >> i think that is interesting in itself. >> which palestine to prefer, gaza or in the west bank? >> i am asking the questions. >> how is it likely to impact on the palestinian issue and the prospects for resolving it? >> many people talk about the capacity of the government of -- to create or to prepare the future of the independent state.

and some people talk about justice, but i am sure that it will have an impact and we see the west bank, some protests expressed an strong desire to have a better life. i note also that -- they tried to reach some new success. not in the political process, because -- but all around the world is the recognition of an independent palestinian state for us is important. but i hope globally that quickly and quicker will be better to create once again this

negotiation process. it has to start again. and maybe including some new elements, some new elements. ok? at which independent states. how to be sure we will go directly to this democratic palestinian state, with the constitution, which won? it is important for palestinians to listen to what is happening and to talk also with the brothers in gaza. we heard about the reconciliations and we know it is not an easy mission. but the arab conflict is still here. and if we forget it, unfortunate

what happened this morning in jerusalem, here to talk to us together, to the arabs and two others -- and to otherrs. s. >> thank you. mr. prime minister, i like to ask you for your views on how the new government will approach the existence of a national government in the market, and at the same time the regions to which referred and in terms of how these regions will be structured, because they will contain some of the several communities that comprise the

nation. and as these committees will be distributed in different regions or may be concentrated in " art two of several reasons, how will a balance be maintained in the new government to represent all of the religious and ethnic populations? thank you. >> first, we have to house -- we have the senate, and the senate will change. participation in the senate will be the results of the elections at the original level. in terms respect, the problem in morocco, we don't have this problem because we're all moroccans.

moroccans first. after that, we're from the north, the east, and the south. it is important question because we have a problem, and the name is the western sahara. we present a proposal to resolve this dispute between us and moroccan nigeria. it was welcomed by the international community. with that, it negotiates -- the security council said we have to negotiate, taking into account the air force and the realistic approach. but we cannot wait for the final solution of this problem. that is why we think and we

strongly believe that we have to move forward. then it will respect all the inhabitants of the beach area. the national rules protection of freedom of religions, we have no problem in morocco because we have jews and muslims living together since many centuries. some jews are more -- not more but -- longer american than others. arabs came from morocco 14 centuries ago. jews are a reality. this is an interesting mix of

people. each sensitivity will be protected in the complex of national law. >> he said last night -- you told the associated press last night that arab strength could end. this does not lead to real democracy. how long do you think the people in the street will be comfortable waiting? their expectations are high. they must be puffed up. how long the you think they can sustain this enthusiasm without a real change in governance in those two countries? do you think it will come quickly? you do not expect this to happen in six months, do you? >> i think the transition is

important and the time for this transition is also important. like you, we heard the for the best and fair and fruitful elections in tunisia, general elections, we need time, citizen time for the organization of the new parties to be included. but not too much time to not give it to some islamic radicals to have more -- and i am sure that the elections have to be over night in tunisia and egypt after september for egypt and after november 4

tunisia. -- for tunisia. if we ask the g-8 and some arab countries to help this transition, we need some appropriate time. because youth needs youth -- youth and others need political change. at the same time, this society needs some concrete results in terms of employment, in terms of subsidies. the transition has to combine between the political reforms and the economic and social needs. it is not easy. impact, investment. the comet has to continue to produce and distribute -- the

economy has to continue to produce and distribute. >> i am a representative of the moroccan democrats. here is my question. what are the implications of this new reality in the arab world on the u.s. policy in the middle east? thank you. frank.s be very the bush administration asked for a revolution in the arab world. after 11 september. and there were largely -- to impose the change, to help or to

continue to talk with this country, but let them organize. now, with the current administration, we continue this effort. but with different approach. less imposition, but more ownership. the change happened in tunisia and egypt. it is more clear. the media will not know to what the outcome in yemen. the change will be quickly. and the u.s.a. has to realize that offer of the region -- i

know that maybe it will be difficult. intel in accordance with others, the total complementary to others, including the government opinion. >> over here. back there. you. come back to >> i am a photographer. i was encouraged when you made reference to the arab world and you kept making reference to it. there is a tendency here to divide the arab world up to say north africa to not see us as a unified group. with differences. arab nationalism is still very much alive, at least for the

people in the region. i was wondering, given that fact, i think when bad things happen in the arab world, here we have a tendency to demonize all arabs. but when things are happening that are frightening to us, maybe in a positive direction, we want it divided up somewhat. prison as aco's country that is seen as a positive country, not least of which hollywood has done a good job because people love to shoot film there and that is always a positive thing. what has happened as much as you can talk about it with the king speaking to some of these regional leaders behind the scenes? what kind of influence did you guys have in terms of -- not putting the screws, that is a

negative thing to say -- to encourage them to be seen as a more positive force, rather than bringing about all the negative stuff, which think is also encouraged because people do not really respect a lot of the other arab countries of the way in morocco is perhaps respected. >> she is referring to leaders across the region. >> i insist that each country will reach its own solution, if i can talk about a solution. that would ensure is that i remember myself -- that what is sure is that i remember myself in 2002, 2003, the king made many speeches and participated in many summits and insisted on

the necessity to not just talk politics between the -- about the israeli conflict. it is important for the stability. the arab citizen needs to see this cooperation and the production from the arab league. we have not -- a free-trade zone -- some investments are shared with private initiative rather than a global arab economic charter, and also human development, because many arab countries can help. once again, we cannot compare it cut dark with egypt in terms of

human development. i think the most important cash think we can share among us as arabs -- the most important thing we can share is to concentrate more on the concrete operational issues, rather than to talk, talk, talk. principals from time to time are a contradiction with some national decisions. >> the sultan of oman came out with a similar program after the king's speech. i think this will have to be the last question. >> i'm peter from brookings. many people were quite surprised at the arab league approved

action against libya. what is the significance of that? does that portend a greater readiness, willingness, on the league and the member states to intervene domestically more than they have in the past, or how significant is this step? >> in 2009, i think, during a summit, we adopted a new code for progress. and it was at this time not imposed. but the dialogue with the u.s.a. and with the european union, our partners asked us to fix a resolution or an annex of our charter this modern concepts.

but nothing happened. nothing happened. how to modernize and how to be more liberal. now, we have the -- we have -- even from the ground, given to us as a member of the arab league an opportunity to creates a new common house with common vision, which is more importance, the same and shared rules -- how to conduct some domestic issues in this country have to be the same then in other countries. and i hope that is -- in french we say -- [speaking french]

>> springboard. >> springboard for arab world. and i hope that the next secretary of the arab league can work with the spirit. it will be a change. >> i want to thank you not only for your presentation today but for morocco's friendship with the united states and the leadership and role your country is playing now. we hope that flowers will bloom across the arab world as a result of the role that you are playing. thank you very much. [applause]

>> we have an update from the region. some of muammar gaddafi's missile sites have been

destroyed to date by missiles from f-15 fighter jets. nato warships have started patrolling off libya's coast. the move comes of the alliance appears set to take responsibility for the no-fly zone. we will get an update from the pentagon on the situation with the coalition. that will come out in about 50 minutes from now. noon eastern. -- 15 minutes now. that will be on c-span2. more about the unrest in the arab world. the president of the american university in cairo plowshare her perspective on the political changes. that will be at the carnegie endowment for international peace. that will be live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the c-span video library is now even more valuable for falling congress.

the c-span video library. find out more. read our blog and watch what you want when yuan. >> beginning april 1, we will feature the top winners of this year's c-span's student cam operation. focusing on a topic that will better help them understand the role of the federal government. what's the winning videos on c- span. stream all the winning videos studentcam.org. >> it has been almost a year since the oil real explosion in the gulf of mexico caused the largest spill in the american history. we have a focus on the safety and risk of offshore drilling. the discussion on the release of the report earlier this year.

you'll hear from environmental and journalistic perspective. this is from the james baker institute for public policy at rice university in houston. >> to my left is a partner. next to her is russell gold, an energy reporter. we have the president and ceo of the u.s. chamber of commerce institute for energy. and then the senior analyst of the national commission of the deepwater horizon oral spell -- oil spill. then a policy manager. the way this works is i have

several questions that i'm going to ask each panelist to address. then we'll open the floor to each of you. .here's a card in your seat i like you to write your question down and that will be brought to me. with that, i guess we will get started. we start with carol. this is a broad question. feel free to enter as broadly as you like. -- fell free to answer as broadly as you like. we heard in the morning session that the safety of the ecology of the gulf of mexico is something that was more in public awareness now. you have to ask the question -- how do we ensure the safety of our coastal economies and cannot

be done without sacrificing the benefits -- >> yes, i think it can be. i think that the way to ensure them -- ecology and the health of the gulf is to ensure that the operations in the gulf are well managed, well-planned, well implemented. and i think that industry is very capable of doing all of those things and has done them a very well for a long time. having a system with objectives, with performance standards and that is developed cooperatively between the regulators and the industry is what is needed. >> i think the jury is out because i do not think we have really fully understood yet what

the risk profile is for deepwater drilling derrick is such a new endeavor. one of the things we reported was the whole question of how many wells have been drilled. we know how many wells have been drilled, but is the risk one and 30,000 or 40,000, or was this something different? is the risk substantially higher? engineers have made that argument. until we have a better idea of what the risks are with deep water drilling in the type of high pressure reservoirs' that we saw, i don't think we're going to have a good answer as to whether we can do it in a repeatable matter. therefore, it is an open question as to whether the economy and the ecology of the gulf of mexico will be sustained over the long term. >> i think my answer might be different. my answer is that we have to

figure this out. if you look at the choices that were put up earlier, 7% of the over 90% are owned by state-owned oil companies or countries that don't have our best interest. we have to become more self- reliant. we have to figure this out. we have to wonder 50 million cars on the road in the united states. 4% -- we have to wonder 50 million cars -- 250 million cars. so we can produce them safely. i think we have to. we have to involve everybody so we have the public confidence that we can move forward. >> thank you. i have to say i am speaking on behalf of myself, not the commission or the federal

government. i am a federal employee. i did spend the last six or eight months working for the commission and looking at this pretty closely. i want to say that what the commission did include is that there is no reason for a stop to continue with offshore development in the gulf of mexico. the report has concluded that we need to take a proactive risc- based approach to regulating and overseeing these activities in the offshore. the overall conclusion of the report that has been widely reported is that there were management failures. there was a reliance on previous experience with technology and there is always the danger of a certain amount of complacency. when you become used to doing things, you forget to be afraid and you forget to be focused.

we need to focus in on the areas -- we need to focus on the risks and the specific activities, i should say. one of the main recommendations and i think this is the template that the director will speak to later, the notion that you have to have incompetent regulators with engineers and staff on the technical safety side who understand what is going on, how things have involved, understand the specific risks of a certain permit application. the well was more complex than others that may have come through the office. if we do that and we have the sort of office, sort of regulatory culture that interacts with the industry relative to the risks and types of activities that is presented with, we'll have more confidence from the public's standpoint

that we haven't overseer and we have an industry that is being properly challenged and is responding accordingly. there are risks. to redress and manage those risks as they arise. -- to address and manage those risks. >> i think we have to have a solution. the people of the northern gulf are directly into a dependent. in louisiana, it is not uncommon for refreshment to work for two weeks and then go onto a rig. it is part of the cultural identity of the gulf. all those elements are pieces of what makes the golf great. -- the gulf great. as we move into deeper wells and as we move off shore, it exposed

a need for change. it exposed a need for better oversight, more transparency, and much more clean look at front-end planning and response of all the people in the chain. i think the task force and others have done great first steps. it will lead into insuring that we continue to look towards doing that. i have been able to say from our communities, it seems like we are pulling in that direction to get it done. i think it will take oversight responsibility to make sure we do that responsibly. >> from each of you, i have heard we have to. i think that is widely recognized. i have heard there's a need for

change. public like you to address which matter of change would be acceptable, not only by industry but also by the public. we have to have buy in from all parties interested. >> i think what we need to look in -- do we have a collaborative process between the regulators who provide the oversight and the industry that works offshore. i would suggest that the responsible care program that the american chemical industry put in place over 20 years ago would be a very good model for what we need in the gulf of mexico. that is a model where industry has come together and voluntarily has developed processes and systems, and they have made sure that those are transparent with the regulators,

but more importantly with the communities that they were again. and they have independent third- party verification. i also think that we need to look to industry to be more vigorous in terms of being prepared in the event of a major accident. and we see what exxon mobil spearheaded in terms of the industry consortium to do that, an excellent approach. that sort of thing was done years ago with the marine spill response corp. but i think the funding fell by the way. what we need is to make sure that the public supports that voluntary industry response organization and the industry itself is vigorous in developing and putting it into place. >> i will take a different slant

on this. mostly because it is my job to be asking my fellow panelists about this question instead of offering my opinion. you talk about change. these questions are not being asked in a static environment. i did not attend. the companies involved or interested in pushing to the arctic, which has a whole different set of challenges. i think we need to realize and address that the questions we are asking is not being addressed in a static environment. in two or three years, one of these questions will be answered, the industry -- they

are already in greenland, alaska and overseas and we need to be aware of that. >> maybe i will take a different tack. we live in a time when this is perceived as a very adversarial relationship. when you have people in high places of power demonizing the industry and calling them out as yesterday's energy and dirty fuel and calling up the ceos in front of congress and invading people, that leads to the public saying that must be true. we have to lay down the spears. we have to make -- if we have to make it work by calling each other names all the time, you go back to kids in the classroom. we need to have a much more adult conversation because we have to. we're going to need these fuels and we need to have a much better understanding of how we can work together. it is incumbent upon the industry to be a lot more

transparent. look at what has happened since macondo and the hundreds of millions of dollars they have invested because they recognize there were weaknesses. they need to come forward and elaborate on that to instill public confidence, but we do need to good housekeeping seal of approval from the government because if exxon are chevron comes forward and says we are the best, it's hard for people to believe that. there needs to be a recognition that everybody has to realize the amount of advancement that will be made and should be made. it is not a static environment. technology will be needed to go into the arctic. companies have every incentive in the world if they need to be there. it's time to take a breath, lay down the spears, the adults about it so people have a better appreciation about the need for it and the advancements that have been made. >> my response will be rather predictable.

everything karen said about the industry is true. there has been an awful lot of hyperbole. there is a lot that is true but the government and the agency and i want to stand up for the employees of this agency. i worked for the senate back in the '90s and i have had a lot of experience interacting with mms and the staff there now. one of the challenges is to ensure that when you have the agency charged with the public trust -- the gulf of mexico is the public land. they are the landowner and the public -- and the department of the interior is the steward. you have dedicated civil servants with engineering, a geological, geophysical backgrounds. the only way these people can stay up to speed on what is going on in what has been a dramatically evolving industry

is to be out in the world, to have interchange with people. one of the things i spent time on in my role on the commission staff is to look at what happened since the industry went into deep water. what i saw and discovered from talking to many people is we had a lot of focus in the 90s on these critical deepwater production systems. the career staff of the agency came out in the not -- in 1988 and there was a lot of interchange developing deepwater operating plans. very much like the risk-based safety case you hear about in peer regulatory environments. we have not had problems. there have been structural issues, but those are the sorts of things everybody knew what happened and they were mindful. some of the things i've seen that have not been in the public is that career staff alike that focused on production. that was the right thing, but

the reality is they did not have the resources to expand their capacity. one of the things we focus on in the report is the budget. one of the challenges and i know director brown will speak to this, is the fact that the agency, in order to be conversant and understand the different risks and at aspects of these systems being put in place, or just challenges of exploratory drilling, they have to be more conversant on what the industry knows. i looked at the active participation of career staff in the offshore technology conference. if you go back to the '90s, the see a lot of joint papers. in the last 10 years, hardly anything. i had industry association's tell me that these to see a lot of mms staff at their technical

workshops and training class is. a reduced the fees for government employees and they were not able to participate. that is one way of saying what the public needs to know is that they've got a regulator. they've got a federal government that is up to the challenge. there are an awful lot of people on the staff now that want to be up to the challenge. they want the opportunity to get back to where they were before. they need to bring in more people because the challenges in deepwater are much greater. we heard earlier today and you'll hear in more detail the greater complexities in deep water and alter deep water. that means that now we are headed back into a severe budget environment, we have to recognize this cannot be another agency that gets a level budget and get stuck at a certain point saying this is what the taxpayer can pay for. the industry and public have to

recognize that where there is economic activity that poses these challenges, we have to step up and resources appropriately. if we do that, the agency's ability to protect the public interest with offshore development. >> the things i see from public perception -- i will go back, there are lines and areas you need to take a look at what the public wants in some of these deepwater drilling environments. in the northern gulf, the western gulf, oil is expected. in the arctic, there's a whole new series of challenges and issues that those persons may not desire. on the front end of the process, i think it is paramount to ring

gauge the public participation in the process in the areas we want to be. but also ensuring there is a process and transparency so that the process can move through the regulatory pieces. many things that have taken place at interior to create new sections are moving in that direction aggressively. the changes are rapid and they're listening and hearing what is going on. the other thing that is important is that we can do all we want, but we -- there has defunding and resources to make sure those regulators and that relationship can be there. the technology and exploration technology is -- the regulatory

staff need to be able to stay up to speed on that, but if the industry -- the industry should be willing to put up the planning and response capacity. once you get to a macondo, you are too late. there needs to be planning and response in place and a testing and running of those response plans, not just with -- with the state agencies and there are models that loo including locals and local hires and the planning process you can mitigate. insuring a regulatory system and the industry working together, they are stepped away enough they can achieve the goal. >> the regulatory and the

structure -- that can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. what i would like to ask, given robins presentation this morning, that we can rely on the fact that globally we are relying more and more on deepwater resources. this is not just a u.s.-centric issued in a broad sense. are there any lessons we can learn from other countries in terms of regulatory infrastructure? are there any takeaways from the lessons from the mistakes we have seen made not only here but abroad and are those being incorporated? what is the appropriate level of regulation? >> we have a heavily regulated society, not just in this industry. it's part of the fabric of our

lives. what we have come to expect as a public and also as an industry, cognizant it will be regulated in all sectors forever. in terms of one of the references made earlier to looking at other parts of the world and that talk that there has been about should we look to the making of the safety case, what has been done in the north sea, particularly in the u.k., that is certainly one option. but the difficulty with putting that sort of option in place is that it could become static and just be on the paper. and not be something that is internalized within the management of the company's working in the deepwater. that is what we're going to have to half.

the safety culture permeating the service industry as well as the operators in the offshore. one of the things that would be very useful was for those who work around the world, the work globally, to be looking at putting in the same standards in place when they operate in africa or brazil or the united states or the north sea so that all of the people who work in those areas are trained to those standards and they don't get trained to different standards in different places, that they have a higher level of standards that business -- that is necessary to achieve what is the objective of industry, and that is no accidents. zero accidents. >> i think you need to look at some of the data that is available. what the data tells us is that

the same companies that operate in the gulf of mexico, the north sea, and other places around the world, there are higher incidence rates and fatality rates in the gulf of mexico for the same operations. that gets us to the question of what is it about the operations in the gulf of mexico that have brought us to that point? another national oil spill commission to report to the president came to the conclusion that it's a collaboration between regulators and the industry is different here. that's what needs to change. the industry has shown us in other parts of the world can operate in a safer manner. that said, it is too easy to say did not -- to say mms did not to a good job regulating. i do not think the data shows that. we need to look at why it is the same companies and contractors operating in other parts of the

world have much better safety records than the gulf of mexico. the answer comes back to the relationship between the regulators and operators in the gulf of mexico. i think everyone agrees that has to change significantly. >> the answer should not be now that we have had this, we need more regulation. i think we need better regulation. if you think you're going to add something and gets safer, you're going to get something that is redundant. you get to the point where it is so burdensome to do business in the gulf that people go elsewhere. you are seeing rigs go to ecuador real guinea and elsewhere. we have to be awful that it is not more that is better in this case. -- we have to be careful that it is not more that is better in this case. it's not that i want to be more lax, but we have to recognize the scale and pace of technology

which is technology in deepwater has changed since macondo. industry has had a dedicated effort addressing issues that have not necessarily been addressed before. we have to make it in such a way that we can't accommodate excellence. if you regulate to the basement level, you never get to the second and third stories. we want to make sure we are always promoting excellence so the regulatory structure has to recognize we're mitigating against risk but not holding back on advancement. >> of to ask a follow-up to that because that's a good point he raised. >> we have to recognize the 50% of the players are big guys and that means 40% are not. we cannot have a structure in place where we put 40% of people in the gulf out of business overnight because they cannot comply. some of the most pioneering companies are the ones who would

have their annual christmas party in this room and that would be one-third full. there are a whole variety of companies -- it cannot all be about money and profits and redundant capacity. that is why it makes it hard. it is very complex. it has to be done with a way that we recognize the reality of the gulf in terms of the different players, the technology and that we do this smartly, not just with more regulation. >> is there a role for regulation in an industry that is incredibly competitive to make sure best practice technology and best technology is used by all operators in the gulf. >> we should look to the nuclear industry. the nuclear industry knows that with a single accident it puts the industry out of business. in the wake of three mile island, they had their wake-up

call. they got together and they have, for lack of a better term, there are not self regulated by any stretch of the imagination, but they have a peer industry group that not only shares best practices, but the judge each other every year. if you do not meet the bar, you have the dunce cap that year. it's a little more structured than that, but it is a very strictly enforced and very high expectation group. if you got an a in 2011, that is where you start from in 2012 for the grading. you have to do more to get an a in 2012. we need to continue to push best practices to be adopted so everyone's collective futures rise together. >> at the risk of filibustering this whole panel, i have to respond to a couple of comments.

the point about the reference of the safety case. we have a lot of discussion about that. that is a term used in the u.k. and australia. norway, maritime canada, under and fire -- other environments have an approach that is very risk-based. the international association drilling contractors started calling their model the safety case with the testified before congress, so that was adapted. the key is to look at whatever the activity is. if it is exploratory drilling in an area that is pretty well- known, the shallow water gulf, well-defined, there is a risk profile associated with it. if it is the far reaches of all tread deepwater, an exploratory well, that's different. adding onto what karen said, you cannot just have one size fits

all for everything. there is a danger with prescriptive regulations. that is one of the reasons why after the terrible experiences in the north sea in norway, the u.k., maritime canada, they had terrible fatalities and accidents that occurred in the 1980's. they went from a prescriptive- primarily approach to one that required baseline regulations. they know you need to do this because i learned from experience how to prevent fires and explosions. then you have to go beyond that. the thing that became apparent to us looking at the united states, because the parent -- because the president said not just look at the deepwater horizon, but offshore drilling in the future in the u.s. i came to the conclusion that we have at least four different environments in the u.s., which

is unusual in the world. we have the shallow water gulf, we have the shelf, we have the deep and alter deep water. they are two different environments. we have california and there are different circumstances, different dangers associated with that. then we have the arctic. we cannot have a regulator that takes a one-size-fits-all approach. on the issue of whether we regulate too much and have the right type of regulatory regime, it is interesting when we started looking more closely at this, i have to thank robin west for some of the work they provided in the early days, their work comparisons of the mms regulations verses norway and others and in some cases our regulations are less prescriptive and they forget to mention some of the

prescriptive parts of the regulations because they assume you have to have it. we have an environment where we need to reassess the regulations and that has been going on and we have it we have to give this agency a lot of credit. they have stepped up, they're working with industry, they're looking at how they need to change the existing regulations. we need to be careful about not putting things into statute that applies across the board. at the same time, one of the experiences and lessons from a blowout in australia was that the movement toward too much risk-based performance-based regulation went too far in that the regulations did not require adequate barriers in that case. we do need to have baseline regulations that need to be applied in the all circumstances. which ones fall into this area

is a challenge to the industry. on the issue of international standards, that is something -- we are in a different age that we were 10 or 15 years ago as the industry started going out into deep water where it is easier to share information. one thing we discovered was there is not a lot of information sharing. one of the transocean riggs had a similar experience in the north sea months before the macondo well. the montero blowout occurred in australia six or seven months before in an international industry. so there is the challenge for the industry to share information, for regulators to share information, and for everyone to look at what are truly the best practices. the international regulators a forum, which the u.s. was one of the founders of, norway, the u.k., brazil, and the world bank

now received calls from a number of west african countries seeking support to develop and understand what our best practices so that they can know what types of regimes to have in this country because the concern is they cannot just rely on the international accompanies given these last two major spills. the idea is raise the bar across the board but it means greater analysis of what has happened within the industry and on the part of regulators collectively in an international industry. >> what i am seeing that runs through this is the issue is yes, you want to use best practices. yes, the world is shrinking and we are in a global market. but as they start to look into that, we need to be looking at a more science-based front and approach to determine where are

the environmentally sensitive areas. it's not just drilling component, it's about the ecosystem, the ecology and the interface between the human element. if we would put a little more front and focus and look at the science-based processes of what would be needed in each of these deep water environments, utilize that and take the best model practices we have, we could create some standards that would work. at the end of the day, the point here is making sure we've got plans and processes in place that can be adapted to each one of these that are going to take place. we need to stick with the science-based approach to find out how that is and use that on the front end. but then also be reevaluating. we may be finding that the best practice model, the nuclear practice, each year you need to step up and reassert you are ready to that.

-- ready to do that. i think for most of the people in this room, we would like to maintain those jobs here and export the opportunity out. >> this will probably be a quick question. if you look across individual companies operating in the gulf and compares safety records, there is an obvious difference. there's a panel it's going to address this later, but want to get your thoughts because it's relevant to what is appropriate to regulation. how do you promote a safety culture across industry that has proven to be effective with in one particular company that may not be apparent in others? is there a way to do it without extensive government involvement?

>> i'm not going to say you are good, you are bad and here is your great. we don't want government in the border and saying here is what your corporate culture will be. i think a good corporate culture, a good safety culture, you are rewarded with the business, new leases, the revenue, etc. i don't think it's a place where government says this is what you must look like. we're not going to tell you and company were going to be, but here are the expectations you have to meet or exceed. look at the pharmaceutical industry. you have all different flavors and approaches. but we have to recognize many of these companies are multi- national. there are operating in brazil, in many different parts of the world. they have to operate, and many of them do, to the highest level. while the expectations might be

higher in one country or another, they're going to accept that and that is where we should concentrate our efforts, and everyone operating at the highest level of safety. we would be, we would do ourselves a disservice if we invite government into the boardroom. one of the things we're looking at in our country and the president has announced a regulatory review because there are lots of mundane and burdensome regulations on the table. i go back to smart regulation, not government management. we have to recognize against him these countries are competing. the chinese national company which is larger than exxon mobil has a very different relationship and different expectations than other companies. when they're going to compete for a lease in a certain company, they have a certain advantage.

they can overbid because they don't have the profit motivation other companies have that are dependent on shareholders. we have to be cognizant of the risks and competitive environment are companies are and and i think that is lost. it is not chevron verses exxon. it's these small set of companies operating against the chinese national oil companies that have very different cultures, very different expectations and a incredibly different business models. that puts the company's we like to see and have our values at a distinct disadvantage in many places around world. we certainly don't want to put them at an even bigger disadvantage. >> i would not disagree with anything karen just said. i would put a different perspective on it. one of the things i found out in talking to a number of people in industry, not just the operators, but the contractors and subcontractors, in the u.s.

and internationally, i talked to international regulators and people that work in different parts of the world. one of the things that is difficult in this environment when you have large companies that control cell much of the activity -- right now things are booming and companies can get jobs. the concern for a lot of these contractors is a need to be able to be called back and continue to work with these companies. what some countries have learned is the drilling rigs, the rig operators have gone and asked for separate certification. the norwegian regulator has spoken about this at length. if you are not aware of that history, some of the rigs felt like they were challenged with some of the operators to did not want to hold the standards they need to be the case in that particular environment, what ever the regulatory regime this.

safety culture is driven mostly by the company, but secondly by the regulatory regime and how much the regime exists on that. one of the things that has been lost in this whole discussion of what has happened here and the change i'm afraid we may not make has to do with the fact that we have too many the coast guard had responsibility for drilling on all offshore facilities. by law, technically they do. this is because of lack of resources. they transferred a lot of the responsibility over onto m.m.s. they took it on because they realize it was not being done by the coast guard. one thing that was mentioned by

the safety record, it is not because of the deep water horizon incident, but just lack of care relative to some of these other regimes. by that time in the north sea, canada, australia. in that case it is a different situation, but the bottom line is we do not have a single offshore regulator that focuses on safety. when you look at a drilling rig, the vast majority on the rig were not bp employees. most of them were trans ocean.

at the time of the explosion there were people from a dozen different companies on the rig. i do not want to go into great detail, there is the fact that you have to have regulators that is committed to safety culture. one of the things we discovered in the conclusion the commission came to is that you need to have a distinct entity responsible for the safety. we looked at m.m.s. as having geologists' and engineers and there were all in this one mix. the reason they have separated it all out is a separation where you have the leasing entity and biologists and the environmental scientist that accord to be doing all the work as you look at the areas where we should be developing or what special cautions there should be in the areas, but they need to have a separate office over here that really looks at the safety,

the integrity of the operation, whatever activities occur, and the people. that is the other side of this, because the bottom line is in the complex operations this apiculture is driven by the people, not the technology or the equipment. you need that counterpoint from a government perspective. i have not heard people talking about being in a board room, but one of the problems was a communication failure. i think that there should be minimum technology advancements that was in the report. there could have been things that would have automatically implemented plans to shut down the well as someone looking to hit a button. that said, the communication and coordination between the contractors and sub than all of the different regulators needs

to be known by everyone. there needs to be people looking at the safety and efficacy of the plan and operation as the results to the national resources and the infirm were there working in. no one knew that it was going to shut down the coast of louisiana and caused billions of ailments -- billions of dollars worth of damage, and still causing problems today. that is not a board room decision. at the end of the day there needs to be a review in process in place to insure the regional economies and coastal economies close have an ability to make sure there is a plan for the environment where there will be working so we can have long- term sustainability. i see safety, and clear, clean safety culture that is transparent and available in

known as promoting what a business once. that's i think is something that can be done. with technology changing it could take place a lot more efficiently. >> i would like to say it would not be good to have the government and the board rooms, but i think if you look at the safety rule that has come out in the last couple of months, you see a very significant development in that the regulations now are looking much more toward the prevention of the loan risk in the very high consequence type of accident. looking at putting in place and taking the recommended practices from a.p.i. and putting them in

regulation so the company will be putting into place systems that should lead to much higher levels of safety, but not the personal worker safety, which i think people have known how to do and they have really stressed in all different parts of the offshore industry, but rather into the system of the operations themselves so that you have written procedures, and so those are tested and you have management of change procedures, and the kinds of things that really come out of the processing the side of the business rather than the worker safety side. i would go back, just to answer your specific question, to what i said in an earlier answer, which this has to be not just of the board room, not just at the ceo level, but the house to go down through ranks, and be very much a part of the fabric of middle management so their

expectations of people below are clearly set and reinforce constantly that the procedures and the personal safety has to always be uppermost in the kind suited for the business. >> i would agree with what you just said. if you look at the different companies, and i have done some reporting on this, some companies walk the walk a lot better than others. you brought up management of change. there was plenty of management of change, they just did not do it effectively. it is not just about having the procedures in place, but they capture that everyone accepts it and has bought into it and understands their performance in their pay raise is all part dictated in part by how they're falling those types of procedures. >> i wanted to go back to the

distinction between process safety and personal safety. we were careful during the course of the discussion about this to focus on process safety, because that was the failure. the personal safety issue, we do have our problem in the united states. the statistics are not good compared to the other peer regulators. as carroll pointed out, and when you look at some of these companies, some of these major companies to have good safety records, but it is not true across the gulf. the fact that we do not have one, single unified safety regulator is a recognized challenge. in fact, in an earlier meeting m.m.s.me of the staff witof they said we are left filling in the gaps.

yes, this was not personal safety challenge, but the reality is we have a problem with personal injury rates and we just put out a sack paper here this week, and you will see a lot more detail from the statistics from the industry association and international association of drilling contractors and oil producers. relative to the fatality rates, and we have a higher fatality rate, but we have a lower interest rate reported to the regulator. does not hold when = = you look at the statistics. that raises a question in my mind and the commissioners have brought this up, there is a wreck for people who work for contractors and subcontractors. everybody reports prove

operator. the federal government does not have a direct relationship, not a very strong relationship with the drilling rigs and the contractors. the rigs are anders the jurisdiction of the coast guard for the most part. -- the rigs are under the jurisdiction of the coast guard for the most part. the drilling rigs and that the environment where you have so many people on and off, and then the smaller operations, and a lot of the most dangerous work offshore is in maintenance and in decomissionig and that is where we see a lot of the problems. i do not want to let that drop. we want to draw the distinction, but not lose the issue. >> i have received a lot of questions.

i am sure the panelists would like to talk to you about specific concerns after this panel. i'm going to end on one last concern. it really relates to whether we have the static for dynamic and prescriptive regulation. tied into that is how do we respond in case there is an accident? what role is there for regulation to actually addressed that, and in terms of accident prevention, and even active response -- how does the federal government did into the research and development picture? >> that was a lot of questions. >> they are all related. >> i will leave their research and development for someone else to answer, but i do think that as we have talked throughout the panel commons

that there is a role for prescriptive regulation, but that is just not all whole answer. i think we need to be looking much beyond that and be looking for continuous improvement that really is driven by the companies themselves to know what their technology is in to know what their capabilities are becoming, not just what they were five years ago. i think that is where having the regulators work with the industry groups and be very attuned to where the technology is growing and learning from the recommended practices as they have done over the past year, and putting those where they make a good fit into the regulations themselves is very much what is going to shape the

best types of regulatory programs and government and industry collaboration. at the end of the day, i think it is something we need to make sure is encouraged and continued forward in a very strong way. >> just to repeat something that has been said earlier, the technology have changed so fast and was so advanced that the government regulators were simply not able to stand toe to toe, and i do not think they are today. there have been issues of wondering -- funding and engaging people who can understand technology that is comparable to sending people to the moon in many cases. i think the other issue that needs to be addressed is there a lot of talk about partnerships. one of obvious partners here is the american petroleum institute. i think one of the issues is

they are very involved in regulation. they're also the lobbyists. i think that issue needs to be addressed. it is difficult to me to understand how they can do both effectively. i think in a partnership between the industry in the company, that is an issue that needs to be addressed going forward. >> i think we have focused on a very narrow portion. we have been talking about big things, but is the regulatory environment for investing in offshore united states? it starts with the policy. are they for it or against it? then it goes to are we going to have opportunities to actually access new resources? that goes to the department of interior five-year leasing plan. any company is not looking at a

five-year time horizon, they're looking at 20, 3050 year horizon. we have to find out if we will have a long-term sting ability in whatever region it is. then you get into the expectations in terms of safety. then it goes down to what will my taxes be? what is all of that? they have to put that all together and figure out whether that access, the fiscal environment in compliance come together in something that they can be successful in. it is a much bigger question that involves like 18 or 19 federal agencies. it is not does the department of interior or the coast guard. it takes many years to go through this process. there is a very deliberative process, and what we're doing, we're going to change the regulatory and arm in such a way

that we will clearly understand the expectations on the safety side, the oversight side. there will be new expectations of a response capability, and industry is stepping forward and demonstrating how they will be able to respond. the government also has an obligation not to change the rules every three years. we also do not want to say next year we're going to change the , because of abecomee sudden your business model goes out the window. we need some certainty so that we can actually invite investment into the gulf and alaska and other areas, rather than many boards of directors say put our money to the gulf or should we be going to fill in the blank. they are making those decisions. right now there is more opportunity than there is capital. is the golf destination for

investment or not? -- the gulf a destination for investment or not? we have to consider that. this of the much more interconnected effort that needs to be looked at in that way. it obviously has to be balanced, but we have to look at the entire chain of regulatory decisions -- regulatory issues that a company has to navigate and mitigate against. >> i think maybe what you are getting at is something i have seen on many of these companies. will the regulatory infrastructure be burdensome? i think it is weighing on a lot of people's minds. i am not sure many people could answer that right now. it is something i would like to address. >> maybe this is a rhetorical

question from my perspective, but what has the agency done in the way of new regulations that most of the companies have not said there were doing any way? this big safety rule that just about requiring everyone to have a safety and our mental management plan for their coordinating activities is something that had been voluntary since the 1990's. i cannot tell you how many companies came in and told us about their plan and our work and how they have been improving it over the years. there were other things that were more prescriptive that have not heard anyone complain about. i think what happened here, and let's go back to what i mentioned earlier, and we did see this -- i will not go through the trail of pointed out every regulatory issue that was pointed out over the last 15 years and where things were removed.

i will not speak to any of that. we have a situation where clearly there were issues that were not being adequately addressed under federal law. the current director is now trying to make sure they're checking off the boxes in going through the processes that have to to make sure they do not get sued when they go to issue permits. there are reports today that some environmentalists are thinking about bringing some suits for deep water permits over marine mammal permits. there are those challenges under federal law. i think a lot of people know the environmental community and others to view the gulf of mexico as a sacrifice zone. now i think as i heard director from which say pretty recently, and companies are starting to see this as well, we're going to

get back to a new normal. there may be more process involved in it, there will be more focus on what needs to happen from an environmental standpoint, especially of front, but want to get the permit you will be able to go forward in a modern, developed environment. i do work for the department of energy and secretary chu. he has spoken to that in a number of discussions with the commission and other places, as has dr. hunter who has just been appointed to the new federal advisory committee on offshore technology, and that is the industry really became extremely sophisticated and made dramatic advances in technology to exploit resources, but some of the equipment is really vintage in some of its instrumentation and control system. there is an existing program that is funded with some federal royalties that can be read

purpose to that, and the commission has recommended, and i think there will be support for funding for oil spill response research and development, but clearly there is a joint role for the federal government to make sure it is moving along and that the experiences of other industries are being brought to bear and applied to this industry. that is one of the interesting things that secretary chu and scientists pointed out. are all sorts of things we're doing over here that should be pointed out over here. there is a joint role but recognizing the federal government's resources will be limited. >> i would say that the research and development component, there should be a proportional insurance of the state to regulation and the need for doing that. and that there will also be a new -- and need overtime to utilize the expertise of these agencies to look at things like marine use, a coast guard come

at the national response plans when hurricanes hit in the gulf. >> on that note, surely mention boxes. we have boxed lunches across the way. so we will go across there. we will come back at 1:15. i really want to thank the panel, because i thought this was a terrific discussion. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> in new orleans this afternoon, the associated press is reporting that a thorough probe found a trapped piece of pipe prevented a blow pipe from properly ceiling. the blow up printer set at the wellhead of exploratory wells and are supposed to lock in place to prevent a spill in case of an explosion. we will hear more of this evening about offshore drilling and regulation. ich will bem whibromw speaking. we will show you his comments at 10:45 eastern. we expect to take you over to the carnegie endowment for international peace. they will hear from lisa anderson, president of the american university in cairo from her perspective on political changes in political

unrest in the arab world. that is coming up at 1:00 eastern on c-span. until then, part of this morning's "washington journal." host: rebecca adams is with us, the associateditor at cq healthbeat. we have a separate line for health care practitioners to call in on. 202-628-0184. we will get to the second bullet point in a little bit. but i want to stop on these health insurance exchanges. guest: in 2014, there will be new markets open for people who buy insurance on their own, who do not have employer sponsored coverage. these are people who get their care through individual or small

group markets now. these are going to be new insurance exchanges that have to meet federal guidelines. states can choose whether to run their own or the government can come in to create these marketplaces. people will be able to go to websites and see what is offered in their state, see what prices are. they will have pretty uniform benefits inhe health care law. host: they are only allowed to participate in their own states exchange, unless there state says that there will be part of the federal exchange? guest: there is law that would allow regional compacts to be up and running. most states will probably just have it within their own. host: have you heardbout other state performing a compact? would that beompetitive for the buyer? guest: we have not heard much. it is in the early planning stages. in the next year, state officials will be deciding, do

we want to run this ourselves, do we want the federal government to come in, what do we want the exchange to look like? host: so people do not have access to these exchanges yet, even though funding is beginning. how are states reacting to this? guest: it is interesting. we have heard a lot of complaints from the 29 republican governors out there, but not all of them are saying they want the government to come in. some would want control over their exchanges. we want it to reflect our values and what we want. so we are going to run it ourselves, regardless of our opposition to the health care law. host: we got a phone call earlier from abramoff collar, -- from a vermont caller, saying that ty are going that way of

single payer. guest: vermont has an interesting history. you remember there was quite an expansion of public programs in vermont any way through public programs. they want to build on that to have a state-run health care plan. host: let us talk about the cost. that has been critical. cbo came and with new numbers on how much this is going to cost. what did they say? guest: repealing the health care law would cost $210 billion, if the republicans were to succeed in that. that is something that republicans will disagree with. they say, cbo, we have to pay attention to what they say, but they are discounting the impacts because they do not believe all the savings will accrue to medicare from the cuts in the law. they also say the costs will be

higher than expected. sohere is a little bit of disagreement on whether the scores that are put forward, but estimates put forth by the cbo, are simply reflecting what is on paper or reflecting what will really happen. host: cdo on friday said this, according to "the wall street journal" -- guest: the cost of coverage in everything, that is what is included. but we have reductions also. when i was talking about the $210 billion cost, that is cuts to medicare, other programs, so that is when you end up with.

host: so they did not take into consideration payments to doctors, everything else, that will be revised? guest: not to the increased costs. host: mary is a democrat. good morning. guest: most people -- caller: most people do not realize these health care companies are on the stock market. their goal is to raise the stock price, paid executives. they make these huge salaries that are beyond comprehension. they do not prioritize real health care. this is what i see amongst most of the people that i know. if they realized this, they would have a different attitude towards the affordable health care plan. guest: she is correct. some of these insurers are bl