that is a fundamental problem. this topic was part of my dissertation and what i found in my interviews is that when civilians did challenge the military on specific issues, foreign affairs, or politicians, the military did back off. again, a constitutionalize the military in that sense. traditionally, there has been absolutely no consensus on democracy as the only mechanism to rule pakistan through. even the politicians, very interestingly, the 1990's this happen very frequently. went to the military and asked the military to help them pick out their opponents so they could have an election and come to power. so it is even on the part of the civilians in the past. and if you want to take away some space from an area, this is

hardly the way to achieve it. i was asked to talk specifically about some of the ministries and the dynamics. quickly, let me go over them. it is a civil and military, and military does everything. that is further exaggerated. on the civilian law enforcement side, military has very little to do with that, except the paramilitary forces. the police, airport security force, and more, the military basically has nothing to do with it. the interior ministry, i would argue, is the envy of the civilian institutions, because it is probably the strongest in terms of the space and power it has. let me also say a word about the isi. the narrative is isi is a rogue element and does whatever it feels like. i have never really got this argument. i have written quite a bit about this in my work, but the isi

basically took orders from the military chief at the time. it may have done a number of things, like jihad, which the cia and others were involved in, like the policy in kashmir, like the policy of the taliban in the 1990's, but the fact is, that was all pakistan state policy. so when you appoint a particular chief of your spy operation with a particular meaning, you already know what work he is going to do and what you want him to do. in the 1990's, at the direction was ideological. they believe in that right wing ideology. and now, we had the third isi chief, and there's a particular mandate to pull back from that and bring it back from that ideological framework. i think they have done fairly well. it will take time. there are a number of complications.

but this argument that the isi does what it wants, i am not sure. even isi's political meddling, which was formerly part of what had been done in the past, was really sanctioned by somebody. the isi chief never got up and said, look, let's figure out what to do. i think that partly has to change. yes, and number of things the isi does, we may not like, because it not be in the interest of somebody. but that does not amount to saying that this is an organization that lives on mars. quickly, how much time do i have -- ok, good. that is the benefit of being a resident scholar. on the nuclear issue, that is another one that bothered us. again, i personally think that -- no, the nuclear issue is interesting. there is the question of, how do you convince somebody?

the nuclear issue is one that i have probably worked most on. it turns out that they have a fairly organized mechanism, the strategic plans division, a functioning organization. although, definitely more military sort of presence than in an average country perhaps. but there's something called the nca, which is the overarching national command authority, which is headed by, first it was the president, and now is the prime minister. then you have civilian members and military presence. this is exactly the structure that every other country has for nuclear decision making. ok? so when i talk to somebody in the nuclear establishment, they will tell me, yes, this is the structure. the prime minister will decide what to do. the problem is, nobody believes that, because there is an internal civil military disconnect, and this anomalous

relationship leads many to believe that it is too much military. there is a structure there, which is the prime minister. that is what anybody would say. that is how it will be decided. whether we decide it actually not, time will tell. hopefully we never have to see the day when anybody has to make that decision. also here, interestingly, the prime ministers have in the past, had a major share on what we do on the nuclear program. classic example, 1998 nuclear desk. it was the prime minister at the time in the foreign office, which was more protesting in the army chief at the time. so a very interesting dynamic here. the military perhaps pulling back a bit in the prime minister going ahead with it. it is much more complicated than

we often hear. let me know quickly turned to the final part, which is the trends at the moment. overall, i would argue the trends are looking up in terms of looking in the right direction. it is very gradual, but i think the direction is the correct one. there is much more on the role of the military in pakistan itself. people write, people criticize. again, constitutionalize military, so you will see that debate continue as time goes on. it think the civilians also need to be given credit for having decided that they're not going to do with it did in the 1990's. they're not going to go to an army chief and say, can you please help us out? there is a document signed between the two major parties in pakistan, which clearly spells out this need for civilians to be mature, back off, and not try and use the military. that is positive as well. the defense budget, some of that

i mentioned already. i also find, in my experience in interviews, that the military -- and this is a major change, i think conceptually the military now realizes that a strong pakistani economy is critical for pakistan and for the military. so this idea of overstretch of the defense spending is also bothered the military. this idea that pakistan cannot keep up with india in terms of its arms procurement and build up is very clearly understood by the military as well. that is also positive. judicially, it was touched upon. it is a big deterrent now by any party, which is not in the constitutional framework. this activism is also something. see clearly institutions trying to stay away from confronting any other major institution in

pakistan. i think it is also a major positive sign. where is the disappointments? the disappointment is something that mr. abbas touched on. this surprised me quite a bit. this time now, post-2008, it is not about the military trying to keep space. it is about the civilians be getting bed space to the military. it is unheard of, in the initial days after 2008, that this is the best chance. the military chief was trying to pull back openly, saying we do not want to do anything with politics. musharraf was very unpopular. there was the death of pakistan's most popular political leader. the political parties were in a coalition government. and yet, the very first one to two briefings where the military apprise the civilian

leadership of the situation on the ground, basically received a response from civilian principles saying, good luck, do whatever you think is right. if you're talking of rebalancing, and if the civilians themselves are willing to advocate that responsibility, then there is hardly any other excuse that one needs to provide for what is happening in pakistan. let me end by saying how we may move forward, and this is where i actually become unpopular in pakistan, so be it. their two opinions. one is the military has no business in any thing about defending, so they need to back off and let the civilians to what they're doing. my answer is, great, that is idealistic. i started by saying remain in the pakistani context when talking about pakistan. the other thing is that the civilians create the space for themselves to be able to tackle

this issue effectively. if the civilians do not have this capacity, even an average pakistani will say i do not care who deals with it because i do not want more problems here. so if you're going to deal with them, let the military do it. there three or four specific things. one, the consensus not use the military for political reasons needs to be maintained. second, i think learning much more about security, building the expertise, getting the right people on the civilian political parties who understand this business and are not ideologues, either for or against the military. i think current structures, like the defense cabinet, the committee on defense, which has traditionally not been able to play the role that was envisioned. and most importantly, and i repeat, this is most important, the civilians have to perform in

their own governance tasks much better, to the point where there is a philosophical commitment to democracy in pakistan. the average man and woman on the street in pakistan's still did not see democracy as the only option. there is restlessness and impatience over time civilian governments fail. while i completely agree that the political process has to continue, i think the civilians have the major role in ensuring that that happens, by performing in terms of general governance to the point where people genuinely start trusting in the state and see them as the only real alternative. lastly, i think there needs to also be a discussion on how the pakistani military and the civilians can come together in the decisionmaking process. there is the idea from the security council, but we need to

study literature from other countries to see how things move. there is no change your idealism which worked. there are three points that came out of the turkey steady. witt -- there are three points that came out of the turkey study. number one, little conflict in the region. anything we can do to ameliorate pakistan and india conflict is critical. second, there is an external impetus. eu, in this case. so the regionalism needs to be promoted. finally, there's a constitutional mechanism for the military to have a say in securities sector decision making. it was a constitutional court in turkey. but something around the cabinet defense committee, were the two sides of means to sit down and talk together, rather than at each other. perhaps in the short run is sub optimal but a better solution.

this idealism keeps turning pakistan in the cycle of the civil and military route. thank you. >> i would like to thank the members of the panel for three very informative presentations. i would like to now move to the question and answer part of our program this morning, and also, i would like to welcome c-span, who is broadcasting live. the way we are going to do this, in order to capture people's questions for the television audience, is to ask you to move to one of the two stationery microphones that are in the room. one is back here. another is over here. if you have a question, please move to one of those microphones. that is the first request.

the second request is win u.s. aggression, if you would state your name -- when you ask a question, state your name and organization. and that you really do ask a question. we will try to get through everybody here. so, all right, i was going to ask a question, but i think it will not. i will start. i will ask our panelists to also be brief so we can get to everyone. let's start here. >> i write for the pakistani newspaper. i have a question for use of the pakistani military is not about making money, making dollars. can you tell me a single example of a general -- that was prosecuted, except for one he was prosecuted for corruption, because the other general hated him. that was the only reason. pakistani military is the most

corrupt and incompetent institution on earth. the military is correct. 99% of pakistani politicians are corrupt to their core. the pakistani military is the master there. they're the ones who make the politicians and break the politicians. >> can we have questions rather than speeches, please? >> i want to get to this. i am going step-by-step. pakistani military made millions of dollars. american generals are making millions of dollars because they are the ones controlling afghanistan. [unintelligible] because their main job is to give their life for the integrity of their country. in the third world country. they've learned something from kurdish law. >> can you please get to the question?

really, we have so many people here and so little time. >> than me give you the other example. the pakistani monastery -- [unintelligible] you compare the size of europe gdp and what used for defense. pakistan is the highest, at the top. israel is the second, but they control -- [unintelligible] you see, i have many points. >> please, please -- >> the pakistani military has the ability to give access, and she wanted to be in public. same thing with musharraf. i asked him the question in the presence of thousands of people, why he would have shameless prosecuting to washington. he said, i do not send them. he can do anything for the people, but he cannot stand against america. it is shameless.

to me, the pakistani generals and a sense of shame, unfortunately. [no audio] >> can we have the next question, please? and please, make it a question. >> thank you for the question. i am a fellow at the u.s. department of state. i have a question with regard to what has just taken place in pakistan. i understand there was a detonation of a nuclear device, warhead, today here it is this a small warhead that is only capable of going 60 kilometers. but the mobility of it, and this was just announced today in the news, and given the dynamics between the pakistan military and civilian government and our present military -- a believe admiral mullen is in the region,

what does this speak to the issues of pakistan's military in the area, the intent of the civilian government, the intent to the region and, indeed, india to detonate this? >> thank you. to not turn these microphones on. just speaking to the other ones. i think this is a small room. everybody can hear. >> there is no, god forbid, if there was a nuclear detonation, we probably would not be here. . it was a missile. this is regular. these are fairly regular exercises by pakistan, india, all countries which actually have missile technology. it is nothing more than pakistani's treating the missile program as are other countries. there was not any nuclear

element to this exercise. i cannot know if it is an mou, but there is an understanding with the country's notify each other of any such tests. >> i am not aware of this latest test, but in the last few years, pakistan has developed a new nuclear command and control system. historically, when the atomic energy commission and pakistan atomic energy commission and others were developing nuclear weapons, there was always a civilian confidante in the decisionmaking process. lately, it seems that all the major decisions about pakistan's nuclear policy, in terms of which tests have to be conducted, how many nuclear weapons you have, and reactors, which are important things for

our security interests, but my issue with that is that increasingly, all the decision making has come to love -- has been completely and the military system. despite the system with civilian leaders. it is entirely under the control of the military. my argument is that it is with a continuation of democracy, hopefully this civilian and military interaction about pakistan's nuclear policy will hopefully also increase. >> thank you. alabama to two questions and then have the panel respond. -- i would like to take two questions. >> i am with the pakistani american leadership center. thank you for a brilliant panel. all three of you are some of my favorite analyst from pakistan. it is interesting we are having this discussion today, because the general was in the area is today and said there would never be a military operation there

without expressed commission of the civilian government there. he was sitting with the chief minister from that area. what was interesting to me about that was he was actually at the inauguration of a government technological institute nearby. the last time he was there, i think he was inaugurating a marble pouring planned. this question that was raised is, i think, as political scientists, we would all like the civilian government to be in charge of this development. but is the army right now the best institution in pakistan to be doing some of these things, to be helping with marble development are education or the frontier works organization? is it really just the most effective organization? second, i recently met with a senior pakistani politician. i was surprised because her opinion was that in the united states, there is not complete civilian control of the cia. and there is this cia kind of running amok in pakistan, and the u.s. does not have complete

control of that. i do not think that is true, but is that a prominent perception in pakistan or not? >> thank you. >> i would like to ask all three about this question about the continuing tensions between the civil leadership and pakistani security forces. there was a column written in "newsweek" about assets and groups like blocks are tied up and more. there was testimony in congress. the fact that this is inevitable because of past mistakes by the u.s. in terms of withdrawal from afghanistan. question, in a sense, is, is this strategy still necessary? others have spoken about the deterrent factor that pakistan has in terms of its nuclear capability, india. so why is this still the perception that india is the

existential threat continues to manifest itself, despite the fact that these strategic assets like l-e-t or other groups are necessary when it that is there? >> thank you. >> the talk about afghan taliban in afghanistan through india. you make a strong case that nuclear deterrence has helped. >> those are two very good questions. >> in the first question about the role of the military or responsibilities, the capacity -- they also have to build. i think the military has that capacity, but we have seen that from the 1960's onwards, whenever military is invited to

give more rule, even if it is constructive and related to building roads are some like that, that creates problems ultimately, because they start thinking that if they are the only ones you're going to do that development sector work, then why should they not come and take over pakistan if there is public demand? yes, this is a positive thing. they should do it in the tribal areas. they're the only ones operating in that area. military has to focus only on what its prime focus is, security-related issues. related to this question, who control security issues? i would say, in respect of who controls, of the pakistani security forces would have been really doing their primary job, police, law enforcement,

military of counter-terrorism, or securing the country, i would give them that primary responsibility. all other aspects come second. that is a big challenge. the overall strategy of counter- terrorism, that is the real threat. everyone living in pakistan will be asked to forgive. the primary responsibility of these security forces are filled and completed, and that, unfortunately, i would argue at this time is not happening in the real sense. >> anybody else? >> let me add, briefly, the army or the military does not have the comparative advantage of running economic enterprises. this is something that resides in the civil and should reside

in the civil. but interestingly, the events he was talking about have some background that we're highlighting, that the army committed to this. in fact, the effort to was the army moving away from creating that in handed over all the buildings for civilian enterprises. some of the events that are being publicized now are part of that and it over to the civilians for civilian activities, the buildings and infrastructure that the military was reported to have set up for its own location of troops in their area. the point of the use of military approvalthe provinces' is the one i was referring to. that the military now seeks and will only move once it gets the

provincial governments requisition for the military to come. it this policies continue, i think this is a good thing for pakistan to develop. regarding the lashkar-e-taiba and strategic threats, you're mixing up a different idea of strategic threat submit lashkar tied up. with the role of these insurgent groups that not operating against the state in pakistan that are operating against neighboring states, is one that needs to be discussed much more openly in pakistan for there to be a clear understanding of how pakistan needs to move away from these activities. the previous government of president musharraf had created distance between itself and these groups. but the reality is that the group's are talking.

they haven't put it finances and it regional links and ties. even though there may be people in the intelligence agencies in pakistan who feel that they have control over them, i think over time, we have learned that those controls are fictional. >> we are experiencing a few technical problems this morning. we will stay with the microphone situation we have. >> let me make a couple of points. on the cia-isi, i do not know. the cia would know. i think by now -- by definition, no intelligence agencies completely under into buddy's control, even under the control of their own chief. otherwise, much of what happens probably would not happen. certainly, groups that,

whatever he was talking about was not being monitored, but intelligence agencies have funny ways of working. i think the perception in pakistan is perhaps just like the perception here. there needs to be some policy decision on that to find out what the truth is. with the strategies, i think part of the problem in pakistan and india is that both sides are complacent and think that in of the other side perfectly well. and they create their own narratives about that, and that keeps telling over and over. so strategic debt in pakistan as it existed in the 1990's is dead. but it is well alive and kicking in india. i think there needs to be, and this is why i am a big fan of dialogue matter what, because these are the kind of misunderstandings the need to be clarified. if india is still believes that

the 1990's strategies are there, then it will place the policies on the framework. i think there needs to be much more conversation to clear this up. >> thankconversation to clear t >> i think the fact that wikileaks brought this out again into the open where the ambassador was referring to it as a reality has further increased the paranoia inside pakistan. going to take two more questions and then we will have a response. >> i'm with the un development here in washington. what has been the impact of the floods and the relief operations following the floods and even the prospect of another round of floods on the civilian-military balance in the country or relationships with the outside

world and respect with to prestige and the outside world. >> [unintelligible] we have seen that the army has decided to build a new headquarters. have you noticed any significant changes the military has taken toward addressing the problem? has there been more cooperation to push for reforms? >> we are going to give him a chance to leave -- he -- going to give him a chance because he has to leave. >> i think the relationship and

coordination improved after the floods. the military came to the rescue and the coordination, especially the new institution which i am for getting the name which is led by an army officer. the floods -- i think the response to such national disasters, this time the civil military combination or coordination was much better than before. that is my comment. >> anybody else? >> on the economy -- this was

the last question -- i detect a much greater interest on the part of the military and the economy as i mentioned in my opening remarks. is goinghink the army ahead with plans to make a new general headquarters in jalalabad. that plan was shelved last year. -- in islamabad. the army chief made that decision and they are going to renovate and stay in the army headquarters. that has been there since before independence. on the floods, i think it is worth pointing out that this is one of those constitutional areas and they are always among the first responders. it did help them a great deal, but it has also hindered their ability to conduct

counterinsurgency operations because with the forces closer to the indian border, it has slowed down the rotation cycle of troops some of them -- so some of them are going to be as long as two years. this has an effect on the efficiency and effectiveness on the forces and the morale of the individuals. so that does have an effect. >> i would like to take that 3 m remaining questions. we would ask all the panel members to respond so we get their concluding remarks and answers to the questions and then we will wrap up a bit early because other panelists also have commitments they have made. so let's start here and go here for the last two.

>> and the president of the indian internal officers association in the usa. my question is very simple. could you please elaborate what is the interaction between the army and the i.s.i.? is the i.s.i. and extra- constitutional body? there is a case going on in the usa involving the i.s.i. chief and the army. also, the drone attacks, the

internal policy and defense in connection with i.s.i. >> i'm with reuters and my question -- that usa-pakistan, since 9/112002 -- since 9/11 2002, does pakistan need and expect this aid and do u.s. interests still continue in such a way that the u.s. needs to do this and do recent tensions over the raid davis case and did the drones have any impact on that?

>> and our final question. >> i would like to ask, you talked about the military but you did not talk about [unintelligible] we all know that the military is controlling the security forces in pakistan, but who is controlling the military? they're having a lot of work done who is benefiting, economically and socially from the military -- there is a book and the second thing -- you did not talk about the role of i.s.i. in pakistan politics. i can bring you examples, so the next question is you say the military is working within the constitution, within the system. but there was no constitution.

where was the constitution? there is no single civilian government that finished its term in office because of the military intervention. you basically legitimized the military's actions that because people wanted -- [unintelligible] i don't find many perspectives in these panels. it looks like all of you talk the same. >> thank you very much. let's let our panel respond to the question make their closing remarks. >> i would like to make my final

comments so that i can leave and be in new york in time to teach today. to the first question, i think the i.s.i. is not an extra- constitutional body. they respond to the prime minister. they have been issues and we all know about history, but currently, the i.s.i. and its chief are accountable to the army chief. it is not a body that is different or exclusive or operates independently than the military. there was also the point about the close interaction between the i.s.i. and the army. if you see people with different backgrounds, and we all have the same observations, it means we are all right.

[laughter] there were some very interesting and important and deep differences between three narratives in slightly different ways, but one point i want to refer to my dear friend -- the political leadership apparently lacks the capacity to make important decisions about defense issues. my response to that is the first person who really had a great insights was hanged by the military. benazir bhutto had a very good understanding about defense issues and was thrown out of government twice. i.s.i. and the military played an important role. [unintelligible]

some people depict him as a goofy character, which is partly true, but in case of their relationship with india, i think he had taken a very bold step in 1998. political leaders, when they get a chance, the policy toward the peace process, they have been making the case that we need to cut down on forces. you may not require a very large professional army. they cannot continue to afford the air force and navy the way they are doing now. this is a case political leadership is making. they are not making it effectively. they need more attractive between civil and military leadership. someone sitting in the

presidency are prime minister and everyone wants to dismantle the army. nobody wants that at all. i think political leadership in pakistan is mature. effective interaction will happen, but the basic point about capacity, i absolutely disagree. i may have interpreted it wrong. but i don't have time to listen. i look forward to that. >> before you leave the room, i will say something so we are clear. everything you say, i agree with. >> i don't think going to add to the relationship between the i.s.i. and the government. i think the question of drawn

attacks was mentioned. i don't know if this was in relation to the first question or not because i missed that connection. the government has been speaking against drawn attacks in the past even while the government was aware of the military and intelligence services were cooperating with the egg united states with intelligence that led to the drawn attacks. the dichotomy between that and the public stance has come out into the open some what. regarding the question of u.s. aid to pakistan, i should say when you look at the quantum of aid, you have to remove from that the coalition's support of funds which is the largest

single component because that is that reimbursement. it is not aid. that is to compensate pakistan for what it has spent and the costs as incurred in moving troops in response to the request from the united states to assist them in the border region. when you remove that, the quantum of aid over the extensive time comes much smaller. the relative proportion changes dramatically. in truth, the amount of assistance pakistan needed was not provided and that was not just in the financial side but the equipment needed to prosecute the war in the western border regions. the very simple reference to the lack of helicopters -- these details are available and i would be glad to share with you

the full details of all the equipment that has been provided since 9/11 so you can't reach your own conclusions. on who controls the military, it should be dead civilians. civilian supremacy is something that military excepts, but the reality is there has not been the preparation i would feel is necessary on the part of a civilian authorities to run government. when they are out of power, that is when they should be acquiring these skills so when they come into power, they can run that government. because of the lack of governance, the public tends to shift to that military because it is a disciplined institution. but once they come in, they

realize it is not the military's job. is not what they're trained for and the cycle repeats itself. we have to break out of the cycle. >> i think i covered this when i spoke and said the i.s.i. falls within the establishment. but it is part of the state apparatus and i have never seen it as a rogue operation. i find no evidence for that. in terms of who controls the military, i think that military controls the military. that was the basis of my entire argument. let me combine a couple of other comments on what was mentioned -- the army chief is probably

the main central person. [unintelligible] this is part of what i was saying, the civil military disconnected so much, you almost have to have a polarized view. rather than what i think is the ideal acceleration for pakistan, whenever that difference is, they have to overcome otherwise they will keep these parallel tracks. i am not sure what gave the impression that i said the military has never violated the constitution. when i use the term constitutionalized, it only

means day do not come out and say the bell was everything. even in the 1990's, we used constitutional methods to sabotage the government. it is very different than you see in other countries where they declared they are the ones and that comes from the british tradition. they want to do things -- they do it in ways that are hiding behind the scenes if you want pakistan to get out, the only way is to let the political process function. mistakes will be made. it will be messy. washington will not like it. but if you keep disrupting the system, it will never mature.

i still maintain i do not think the civilians have that kind of capacity in defense issues and security to push back the status quo power. i feel like this is an unpopular view but as a political scientist, i studied enough militaries that unless the other side challenges them through performance or whatever, they do not pull back. it has to be a political process. only after that will civilians become stronger and you see some stability. >> thank you very much. i would like to express my appreciation to the panel and i would ask you to join me in giving the same. [applause] this has been an extremely lively session. i would like to thank the audience for being here and staying with us for some

interesting and challenging questions. we have a table full of publications outside, so i will direct your attention there. thank you for coming. we hope to see you again soon. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> president obama today gave the first of several town hall meetings. this one in northern virginia community college. we'll bring you the entire event at just about 6:55.

then the president is off on three days and four stops with two more town hall meetings. one tomorrow at facebook headquarters in palo alto california. the president is also in nevada on thursday for another town hall meeting. today, the director of the bureau of ocean energy management outlined his energy -- his agency's goals for safety regulations. he says the goal is nothing less than a further set of enhancements that would increase drilling safety and to manage the risks of a major blowout. those comments came one day before the one-year anniversary of the deepwater horizon explosion which killed 11 workers and cost nearly 5 billion gallons of oil to leak into the gulf of mexico. these comments to date from the centers of the strategic for international studies are about one hour. >> we have held consecutive

sessions that look at energy technology and well design and international standards and best practices. at one point, we looked at the environmental impacts and what we could do better. we thought what we would do today, since we're almost at the anniversary of macondo, the tragic accident it was, we want to look forward. when you look at rising prices, unrest in the middle east, higher gasoline, it's no question we need to get back to the gulf of mexico, but we need to do better, smarter and safer. today, we have assembled free a panel discussion and we'll take you through energy research and technology. what has been done in terms of the task force and safety institute. we have the former nsc 00 of constellation energy, which you may find unusual. there has been so much discussion and whether the

safety organization -- that's a good model for offshore. the principal, it is. but there are some real differences with oil and gas offshore. robin west will join us as well. we will divide this section into two sections. we will reconvene with a panel discussion and presentations with the permission of our speakers and we will be -- will have that available on our website. since we are talking about safety, in the event we have to evacuate -- the stairwells are out the door and to your left. once you are there, you can go upstairs or downstairs. this would be a great time to

turn off your cell phones before we get started. it is my pleasure to have at the director with us here today. he was with us earlier when we talked about getting back to the gulf and we were taking bets about whether we were in the first or second quarter and now the permits are being let. the safety institute is being proposed and is up and running. all lot of activity has occurred and there's still a lot more work to do. we think this will be a work in progress. and that is a good thing because this is a one time event that you have to react to. hopefully you can minimize the danger that occurs again. michael bromwich has a distinguished career in the public and private sector. he has been a former inspector

general at the department of justice and in june of last year, he was sworn into his new job as director of the bureau of the ocean energy management regulation and enforcement. since we have a full agenda, it is my pleasure to give you michael bromwich [applause] . >> thank you very much and good morning. thank you for inviting me back to speak about the future of offshore oil and gas development in the u.s.. when i was here three months ago to participate in this same series, the national commission on the deepwater horizon had just issued its final report.

it was a time when no new permits had been approved since deepwater horizon. most of the questions here and elsewhere involved whether and when deepwater drilling would resume. much has happened since then. we have further a elaborated and implemented rules and regulations that enhance drilling and workplace safety. in addition, unlike one year ago, when we watched in agony as bp attempted to maintain the blowout, operators must now have a plan and the ability to shut in a deep water blowout and capture water -- captures the flow from a wild well. that is a huge advance. as we approach the first anniversary of the deepwater horizon, which is tomorrow, many people are asking what has changed since last april?

the answer is, these new safety regulations and much much more. these are some of the elements of the picture i want to paint today of the future of offshore energy development. but to talk intelligently about the future, i have to anchor it in the recent past and present. i will first focus on the progress of our agency reorganization, which i began outlining in january. i will bring you up-to-date on the status of offshore drilling, focusing specifically on the gulf of mexico and the developments of the past few months. i will describe some recent important international developments that suggest the importance of international cooperation and collaboration in the realm of offshore drilling. i will outline a comprehensive set of principles relating to the future of offshore drilling. one year ago tomorrow, the

deepwater horizon tragedy began to unfold in all its horror. the explosions and fire took the lives of 11 men on the rig and injured many others and resulted in the spill of close to 5 million barrels of oil into the gulf of mexico. in some ways, these events seem to of taken place a long time ago, but in other times they seem to occur far more recently. in the immediate aftermath, it served like an electric current, jolting the industry at a complacency and overconfidence that had developed over the proceeding decades while serving as a message that industry and government had to reexamine their practices. the memories of the 11 crew members have guided our work and the work of industry and have reinforced our determination to diminish the risk that such a blowout can occur again. when i was here last time, i outlined the blueprint for reorganizing the former mineral

management service in 23 strong separate agencies in the department of interior. one week later, the secretary and i outlined more specifics about the reorganization and described how the new structure would eliminate the conflicts from when they're responsible for enforcing safety regulations and maximizing revenues from offshore operations. the commission found these conflicts resulted in an agency guided for decades by a predominant interest in maximizing revenues for the treasury rather than promoting safety and rigorous oversight. that was unacceptable and that is why one of our guiding principles has been to eliminate those conflicts by separating and delineating missions across the three new agencies. the first stage took effect on october 1st of last year when the revenue collection of armor

became the office of natural resources revenue. now located in a separate part of interior, reporting through a completely separate chain of command. we are in the midst of implementing the reorganization, separating offshore from the safety enforcement programs. the steps we're taking now are more difficult but extremely important. on october 1st of this year, it will cease to exist and we will have to brand new agencies. we are creating the bureau of motion energy management which will be responsible for managing the development of the nation's offshore resources in an environmentally and he -- and ecologically responsible way. safetylso and for environmental regulations. in making the important design decisions shaping these new agencies, we relied on several

guiding principles, including a separating resource management from the safety oversight to allow permitting engineers and inspectors more budgetary economy and clearer leadership focus. the goal is to create an aggressive, tough-minded but fair regulator that can evaluate the risks of offshore drilling, promote offshore culture and keep pace with technological advances. second, ensuring we create a strong system that can carry out the critical safety functions central to the mission and that have been historically slighted and underfunded. third, providing an organizational structure that insures thorough analyses are conducted and the potential effects of proposed operations are given appropriate rate -- appropriate weight to management

decisions. we are placing the balance of our resources in this group to make sure the leasing activities are properly balanced and environmental considerations are fully taken into account. not after important resource decisions have already been made. but it takes more than good intentions to address the weaknesses of the past. it takes concrete and specific actions and that is what we are taking. to provide you with some examples, we are strengthening the role of environmental analysis and enforcement. many of the reviews over the year -- they came to the conclusion that in their rush to maximize revenues, the agency gave short shrift to

environmental consideration. in response, we are creating the brand new position of chief environmental officer to provide institutional assurance that environmental considerations will be given adequate consideration in resource development decisions, including the development of a five-year plan, leasing decisions and development plan reviews and other decisions that bear on resource management. we are recruiting nationally to fill this position and hoped to attract a scientist of national reputation that will serve as an important voice for environmental considerations in the agency and be a key player to develop a ocean policies while recognizing the role as not to arrest offshore energy development. we are also creating a new dedicated compliance program. when we least offshore, operators it agreed to certain stipulations to minimize adverse

impact on the environment. later on, when operators submit their development plans, they undertake to mitigate the effects of their activities. historically, our person of tried to determine whether those commitments in the form of stipulation and mitigation has been filled. but the agency has never had personnel specifically dedicated to the task. now, we will. we think this will make offshore development more environmentally responsible and provide opportunities for dedicated professionals interested in insuring the ocean and coastal environments are protected. as to our inspections programs which have been under resources, we are creating a national training center led by a training director who we are seeking through a nationwide search. our inspectors have learned how

to do their jobs through a combination of on-the-job training courses aimed at teaching of certain kinds of equipment work. the agency has never had a training center dedicated to training inspectors on how to do their jobs. now, we will. let me briefly discuss the important work going on within that agency to provide the tools and training and changes to culture to make sure the reorganization will have the results we are aiming for. as part of our efforts, we created a number of implementation teams which have been hard at work for several months and are the central focus to try to analyze the structures and processes and implement needed changes. these teams are integral to our reorganization and reform efforts. they are considering various recommendations for improvement have received from numerous resources, including the

resources i mentioned earlier. in the way we currently do business and the way the successor agencies will do business in the future. we are in the midst of reviewing the application for the national environmental policy act, including the use of categorical exclusion. we have obtained public comments and are analyzing these comments while working to develop a new from were designed to ensure environmental risks are thoroughly analyzed and appropriate protective measures are in place. in the meantime, we require site-specific environmental efforts as opposed to the categorical exclusion reviews performed in the past be conducted for all new and revised the exploration plans in deepwater. we have issued a tough new recusal policy that will reduce the potential for real or

perceived conflicts of interest. employees s, including permitting engineers and inspectors must notify supervisors of any potential conflict of interest and requests to be excused prague -- excused from performing any official duty where such a conflict exists. inspectors are required to recuse themselves of looking at former employers and must report any attempt to inappropriately influence, pressure or interfere with his or her official duties. soon, we will issue a broader version that applies the standards across the agency. i know this is presenting operational challenges for some in the gulf region where primary employers are offshore country -- offshore companies. but the need to define the rules is necessary and compelling. these rules are necessary to ensure the public that our

programs are effective, aggressive and independent. finally, we are continuing to staff our investigations and review unit. that is a unit i created immediately upon taking over the agency. this for professionals with law- enforcement backgrounds and it probably response to allegations of misconduct and unethical behavior by bureau employees and pursues allegations against oil and gas companies involved in the offshore energy projects. when there is credible -- credible evidence rules that been violated. we should the first major report which focused on alleged flaws with the atlantis platform in the gulf of mexico. in january, i discussed the reforms we were pursuing. these changes in safety and accident prevention were and continue to be substantial and

necessary. however, as the report makes clear, industry much springed -- industry must change as well. our agency has a clear and important role in helping to spur the change. we are doing so through the issuance of tough new regulations to bolster safety and enhance regulations. we have also introduced performance-based standards. operators are responsible for minimizing the risks associated with drilling operations. we have done all of this through the development and implementation of new rules that raise standards for operations on the outer continental shelf. the first rule is an emergency rule prompted by deepwater horizon, creating a tough new standards for casing and cementing and includes ball -- includes blowout preventers.

operators are required to obtain third party certification of the proposed program in process. in addition, blowout printers must meet new standards for testing and maintenance and are capable of severing the droll -- the drill pipe. second is the workplace safety rules that requires barriers and seeks to reduce human errors that lionheart of many spills. this was being developed prior to deepwater horizon, but it was deferred, delayed and blocked for many years. operators are required to develop a comprehensive safety and environmentally friendly program that foley had been defies the hazards and risk reduction strategies for all phases of activity, from well design and construction to operation made and and the

decommissioning of platforms. although many progressive, 4- looking countries -- companies have developed such systems in the past, many had not and our reviews demonstrated the percentage of operators that adopted such programs voluntarily was declining over time. in addition, we issued notices providing additional guidance to operators on complying with regulations. last summer, we required response plans to include a specific worst place scenario and also provide the assumptions behind these some areas. these were independently verified to insure we have an accurate picture of the spill potential of each well. follow the lifting of the moratorium, we issued a document establishing informational requirements, including a

mandatory corporate statement certifying it will conduct drilling operations in compliance with all applicable regulations, including the new safety rules. it also confirmed well by wall evaluations will be conducted as to whether the operator has demonstrated it has access to and can deploy containment resources that would be sufficient to promptly respond to a deepwater blowout or other loss of control. as i mentioned at the offset, operators must have a plan in advance to shut in a blowout and capture oil flowing from a wild well. they must have a plan and access to the equipment and must have an arrangement that show their ability to make use of that equipment. rather than at improvising a response on the fly with the inevitable hits and misses,

each operator needs to work through their containment plan in advance and we have to approve that plan. our regulatory changes have been sleeping and swift. especially compared to the historical pace of change. we have been asked many questions about how to comply. we worked through the policy issues diligently with frequent consultations both in the gulf of mexico and here in washington. the process was constructive and that in good faith. we made substantial progress in defining and clarifying issues for operators and the industry more generally. in fact, it was an example of appropriate engagement between government and industry. what was destructive, corrosive and not done in good faith was the sniping from public officials and trade organizations that claimed and some continue to assert that we

have imposed a defacto moratorium or create a permanent moratorium that has blocked the issues of drilling permits, not because applications had failed to meet requirements, which was the fact, but supposedly because we made politically motivated decisions not to issue them. that could not have been further from the trees, but it was repeated often enough that people who should have known better came to believe it. for example, a businessman from belize deanna said he understood we had permit applications sitting on our desk waiting for approval. he seemed surprised when i told him our district offices have that job and i have no role in making decisions on individual permits. in fact, the chief obstacle standing in the way of approving permits from the deepwater permit was lifted through the middle of february was the unavailability of resources to contain a seven-c

blowout. the absence of ready-made systems and advanced plans on how to deploy such system is what allowed the well to flow unabated for 87 days. last summer, major gas companies announced the formation of the marine will contain co. who had a mission of developing just such a thing in making it available to such operators. the helix will contain an group announced its intentions to build a separate containment system with similar capabilities. we encourage both but endorsed neither. during october through mid february, we had numerous meetings with containment companies and individual operators to the acknowledged no deep water permits could be issues until -- issued until they had been tested and reviewed. unfortunately, that failed to make much of an impression on those alleging a defect

moratorium. it would have been irrational and irresponsible to resume deepwater drilling before viable systems were available to contain it. in mid february, but he likes and the nwcc said they were ready to operate. there are tested in the presence of our engineers and the results were reviewed. secretary salazar went to houston, we went to -- and we reviewed the stacks. the availability of the containment systems is what led to the issuance of the first deepwater drilling permit cents deepwater horizon. we had to issue permits for 11 unique deepwater wells and we were able to do so because in each and every case, the applications complied fully with rigorous requirements and each demonstrated the ability to contain a sub-sea spill.

the requirement is solely that the resources be adequate to deal with the blood of that particular well with unique characteristics of water depth, well debt and other specific characteristics. this analysis is time intensive and labor intensive, but one that is crucial to ensuring adequate resources are available for each will that is drilled. as we move toward with appropriate speed, we continue to issue shallow water permits in every case where application requires with -- up -- complies with our standards. as of yesterday, we approved 49 drilling permits. our face -- our pace has been consistent for many months, averaging 6 per month since october, 2010. while the pace is slightly below

average, there is no backlog of pending applications. there are currently only five applications pending with the other four having been returned to the operator for more information. but such historical comparisons are beside the point. because we do not have a permit quotas or goals. our goal is to approve every fully compliant permitting application with an emphasis on bali compliance -- full compliance as promptly as we can with our limited resources. that brings us to the key issue of resources. when i was here in january, i addressed the shameful underfunding of the mineral management service. despite our important mission and revenues generated by offshore leasing, the agency was put on a starvation diet throughout its history, but especially in recent years. the unanimous conclusion was

that the central source of the problems with offshore energy development had been a lack of resources. even so, and financial support has been slow in coming. president obama submitted a supplemental request seeking an additional $100 million for that agency. until last week, that promise of a brighter future cannot be redeemed because congress had not acted. we were poised to hire additional inspectors and permitting personnel, but we did not have the funding. now least part of the request has been met because last week, congress passed and the president signed a continuing resolution providing department of interior $68 million above 2010 funding levels.

fifth that is far less than we need, but it's a significant sum especially in the constrained budget environment where the funding for most agencies is being cut. our funding needs have real- world implications. the spending bill will preserve our most essential functions for the remainder of the year and allow us to make incremental progress, but it will now -- will not allow us to do things in the way we think are desirable and necessary and the way others think are desirable and appropriate. we desperately need more engineers, inspectors and other safety personnel. we desperately need more environmental scientists and those to do environmental analysis. we desperately need more personnel to help with the permitting process. and much more. we have taken the first ups to ram pump our hirings in key areas.

last october and november, i visited five petroleum engineering schools. it was part of a drive to recruit engineers and inspectors to work for the agency. we generated more than 500 job applications in 10 days, but the hiring was clouded by the continuing uncertainty over funding. the week before last, we extended the drive to include environmental scientists. i visited nine top environmental science schools in five days and in response, we received more than 600 job applications would we are not yet assured of funding. now that we have it, we will be able to hire some of the enthusiastic environmental scientists that can help us perform our mission as well as some of the engineering students who applied last fall. we plan to visit a number of other schools in various regions around the country. but we are determined to not simply use these resources to do

more of what we have done before. we need to learn from our shortcomings, address witnesses and figure out more efficient methods of doing work. both on resource development as well as safety oversight and enforcement. we will be aided to a great extent by recommendations that will flow from the internal implementation teams i mentioned earlier. we will seek guidance from other sources as well. one is the ocean energy safety advisory committee. they met for the first time in washington yesterday. this committee includes representatives of federal agencies, industry, including charlie williams, academia, national labs and various resources organizations. this committee will work on a variety of issues related to offshore energy safety, including drilling and workplace safety, and spill response. this will be a key component to

address the technological needs and inherent risks associated with offshore drilling and deepwater drilling in particular. the advice of this committee will be welcomed by our agency and after october, by -- the safety institute which will be nurtured by the committee but requires congressional authorization will foster collaboration among all key stakeholders to increase energy safety. the institute will focus on a broad range of matters relating to offshore safety, including well intervention, containment and oil spill response. it will also spur collaborative resource development, training and execution in these and other areas. most importantly, the advisory committee is a key component of a long-term strategy to address on an ongoing basis the technological need and an heard

risks associated with offshore and deepwater drilling. how a final and very important part of our strategy includes continuing and strengthening our collaboration with our international counterparts. the recommendations since stressed the importance of sharing experiences across different international systems and establish best practices. we agree with that. offshore regulators have much to gain from collaborating to allow it -- to elevate safety and soundness of offshore operations around the world. last week, secretary salazar assisted ministers from 12 countries and the european union for a forum on offshore drilling containment. this was a historic meeting and lead to a fruitful dialogue about best practices and how to develop cutting edge safety technology. the meeting concluded with the unanimous recognition that the

dialogue should and must continue at the highest levels of government. we will continue to work to strengthen channels for international cooperation and sharing of past practices across different regulatory regimes. we will continue to engage international regulators. the offshore agencies of the u.s., u.k. and other countries and participate in this. these countries share information on technological advances, safety issues, accident investigation, regulatory policies, standards and conventions and research. members may exchange personnel and establish reciprocal agreements. it also continue to participate with this and the ministers forum. in addition to these efforts, it participates in a number of

government to government initiatives and works with regulatory agencies around the world to share best practices and built regulatory capacity through different initiatives. this is a multi-agency effort to provide a range of technological and capacity building assistance to countries expected to become emerging oil and gas producers. through this program, our experts have participated in needs assessments and have conducted workshops are on the world. in may, we will bring a team to uganda to discuss the specifics of oil and gas reserves classification and economic valuation for discovered and undiscovered resources. a separate team will conduct a workshop in managing the offshore sector. in addition to the state department initiative, we will continue as long term technical assistance with iraq and india. in february of 2011, we held a

second workshop focused on asset integrity management with our regulatory counterpart in india. we will participate with a team sponsored by the state department to provide technical assistance on oil and gas contracts to iraq, specifically the petroleum contract and licensing department. finally, and significantly, we are working with our counterparts in mexico toward an agreement that would define regulatory protocols for the oil and natural gas reservoirs in the gulf of mexico. the development of common standards in our shared waters of the gulf of mexico is a priority for my bureau and the department of interior as well as the administration and for the government of mexico as well. as a result of these engagements, we have increased the opportunities to establish long-term working relationships

and promote sound energy government -- sound energy governance. it's my hope we will continue to collaborate with our foreign counterparts in developing safer, more environmentally responsible drilling in the world's oceans. we have recognize there is no escaping the central fact that offshore drilling not only will continue, but that it will expand into ever more challenging areas of around the world, including deepwater and the arctic. the world demands energy and to increasing extent, the ocean is where we find it. we need global institutions and standards necessary to meet these challenges and insure safe, responsible resources around the world. offshore drilling in bed u.s. and around the world will never be the same as it was one year ago. that much is clear. the changes we have put into

place will endure because they are urgent, necessary and appropriate. more change will come, though not at the frantic pace of the past year. in fact, we are moving ahead right now. first, we will launch in the near future a major will making designed to further enhance offshore drilling safety. this process will be broad, an inclusive and ambitious. the goal is nothing less than a further set of enhancements that would increase drilling safety and diminish the risk of a major blowout. it will address weaknesses and improvements to blowout preventers and other issues. we genuinely hope be brought efforts undertaken by the industry in the wake of deepwater horizon will provide the basis for solid recommendations of best practices, including those yet to be included in prescriptive

or performance-based regulations. second, we will enhance the role we issued last fall by requiring third-party audits of these programs and other modifications and improvements. we are determined that this rule of up to its promise by causing operators to comprehensively and responsibly identify and reach mediate their risks of offshore drilling, especially risks associated with the conditions of deepwater drilling. while much has changed over the past year and we are continuing to improve drilling standards, i want to be absolutely clear about one thing. the process of making offshore energy development safe and sufficient to meet the nation and world's energy demands will never be complete. it is a continuing, ongoing, dynamic enterprise. those who ask the night and simplistic question, is offshore oil and gas regulations

fixed yet or is the agency fixed this the most important lessons of deepwater horizon. the central challenge that was exposed is the need to establish the institutions and systems and the processes of cultural change and improvement necessary to ensure neither government nor industry ever again become self satisfied to the point they would answer that question yes. . 's exactly that sort of complacency and overconfidence that set the stage for deepwater horizon. let me describe for you some of the key elements that my vision of the future of offshore energy and oversight development includes most of which flow directly from the issues i've just discussed. first, a well-funded and resourced offshore safety regulator that closely evaluates

the relevant risks associated with offshore drilling and other energy development activities in designing its regulations and compliance and enforcement programs. this includes the development of more sophisticated metrics for measuring risk and designing programs for evaluating those risks and assessing whether industry is managing those risks appropriately. second, industry performance standards, particularly for the highest risk operations in deepwater, and callenging chall as the arctic, that cause operatorto engage in rigorous and deeply self-critical evaluations. third, a regulatory agency with the tools and resources, technological and human, to hold all players involved in drilling to high standards and if there are safety or environmental violations or an accident, holds all responsible parties

accountable. this includes not only the companies that operate leases, the traditional subjects of agency regulation, but their contractors and service providers as well. such as the owners of drilling rigs. fourth, institutions that fcus on innovation on the area of risk assessment, technological advan advancements, and further improvements of sub c, oil spill response systems. fifth, a resource management agency that develops and takes advantage of all scientific information to support balanced decision making. and the benefits of offshore resource development. sixth, a regulatory system that is fective in striking balances and ensuring energy

development is conducted safely and in an environmentally responsible manner. and is more transparent d responsive than it has been. made available to try to provide for the country's energy needs. eighth. a set of common principles and standards by which companies drilling and producing in the oceans goench their conduct, regardless or where if the world they're operating. finally, an ocean energy program that includes not only the development of oil and gas resources but always the aggress i have and responsible development of renewable energy resources. the long-term solution must include power derived from clean and renewable sources. following deep water horizon, a broad consensus emerged that there was an urgent need to

update the safety rules and practices in the industry. far more quickly than any people anticipated, that gag began to weaken and fray. new rules were dwomed. new retirements were imposed. some offshore operators plainly recognized that deepwater horizon was a failure of the system and government. a systemic failure to make sure that safety kept pace with risky operations. as a result, they have supported our efforts and taken their own on. there have been others who, with surprising speed, have seemed all too ready to shrug off deep water horizon. they suggest that the steps tacken in response have been an

overreaction and were unnecessary. need necessaless to say, that'sy disappoi disappointing. we have to keep the cplacency from creeping back. regulators must continue to resist the fierce pressureso return to business as it used to be conducted. because down that path, lies another deepwater horizon. it has been a long year. and i have no expectation that it will get easier any time soon. but i din take this job because i thought it would be easy. i believe in the work that we're doing. i believe in the tangible results i have seen in meetings with industry, out on offshore rigs. and the interest in our work at places i have visited over the year on tours. people are watching our work around the world.

they're interested and invested in it. they know the stakes involved in whether we succeed. we can't afford to fail. we don't plan to. we're determined to succeed in creating a system that allows offshore development while ensures safety and environmental protection. thank you for your time and attention. i'm happy to take questions. [ applause ] . >> thank you, michael. you have a reputation for being candid and comprehensive. you continue to set that bar very high. it's extremely useful and important that we have that discussion. you talked about the ability to increase capability in january and today. and the current fiscal regime,

how do you extend offers to potential candidates and in lieu of that, is thereome trusted agent form that you would use in the interim to bridge the gap? >> that's a good question. we're exploring all of those alternatives. the funding didn't land until last week. we didn't have the funding until last week. and so the environmental science tour a took a week ago was a little bit of a wing and a player. we hadwowowo t played holders oe websi website. we told people if they applied, it would be on us to get back to them. the same is true with the engineering and inspections positions. we're coming up what we hope is a balced plan to hire people

in the areas where we need supplementation. including permits. we hope to come up with a balanced operating planned an a balanced menu foriring people in those areas. we're exploring all sorts of al tern tys in terms of filling short-term gaps. as i have anticipated a possible long jam in perm applications, i have reached out to oil and gas companies and asked them to pool their pool of recently retired engineers. that might be able to come on board and to supplement the work we're doing. now, we would have lots of safeguards and conflict of interest checks in place so that somebody from shell, for example, would not review a shell drilling application. but we think there is out there among the particularly the recently retired engineers in

industry, a potential pool of talented personnel. we're hoping to tap into their yearning for public service to come back and help us at least on an interim basis. we have nominations. we're going through the process and maybe bring them on board quickly. they'll be under the supervision and control of our people. our people make the final decisions. it's to fill a yawning gap in the number of available people we have to make certain important analyses in the process. >> in terms of public question, dr. bromwich will have a couple of questions. question have simple rules. wait for a microphone. identify yourself, pose your question in the form of a question. that would be appreciated. melissa, start on this end. work the way across.

>> jennifer, with the houon chronicle. you mentioned the reaction from industry. one of them was a lawsuit challenging the pace of permitting. some of the perts in that case have been issued, can you update on where that stands? >> it's a good question. the litigation continues to be pursued. i will marginally violent the rule. i don't see any lawyers from the interior department here. i'm going talk for a minute. the litigation as i understand it was designed to get the court's intervention to cause us to issue permits rapidly. it's a troubling suggestion that there be an incursion on authority to decide when those permits are eligible to be awarded.

but interestingly, the ensco litigation, we were on a rig last week that is an ensco rig that is going to be drilling the well where the permit we granted was. the first one we granted on february 28th. lo and behold, 78 ensco people were on board work. the lawsuit claims they haven't been able to get the work because we have had a defak tow moratorium. but the fact is that left to our own devices, not compelled by the court, we have issued permits and people, including ensco people, are back to work. so - it's -- it's strange that the lit gait gags continues to be pursued.

even though for some of the entities, we have already granted their permits. the troubles part to me is that what remaining in the lawsuit is a troubling assault on our new safety regulations. that if the relief grant sd given by the court, would tear away much of the fabric of the new safety rules we put in place. i think that would be tragic for the country, the industry, and for our agency. and i hope that doesn't succeed. >> bac up front here. >> thank you. john rickman with the energy daily. one year after e blowout, it appears there is no consensus among experts and officials as to whybp's bop that day failed. are you confident that your

investigators at bessie will have the technology make sure that the b.o.p.'s safety exams are accurate? >> the examinaon of the b.o.p. is a long-term project. we hired an outside investigator to conduct. they issued their report. we issued it publicly in late march. it was then subject to a set of hearings in louisiana. recently, that asked some very meaningful and good questions about that analysis. pp clearly, these are technical issues. we have trained our people recently to do the kinds of more searching examinations of b.o.p.s than they have before. to monitor the new categories of testing required under our rules. this will be a long-term process and project like everything

else. clearly, b.o.p.s will develop. clearly, the training of our inspectors and regulatory personnel will enhance. that needs to be a continuing and dynamic process moving forward. >> i think that dr. williams, in the next panel, will discuss that in the context of standards and new stacks. al? >> just a quick question on the arctic. can you comment on the discussions that you are having the u.s. is having with the russians to see what, in fact, cooperation may be possible in that part of the world? >> i'm not having any discussions with the russians. secretary salazar mentioned there's an arctic meeting in the near future. he's much more directly involved in those than i am.

but clearly, this goes back to one of the theems. i highlighted in the speech. just as the gulf of mexico is a shared body of water involving us, and mexico. and cuba, the arctic is as well a shared resource with a number of countries having the jurisdiction to permit or not offshore drilling. soy think theres a clearly a very pressing need, an urgency to inease the volume and the pace o collaborations between governments. that's one of the reasons we were so grat fid to see representatives of the rushing yan federation at our international spill containment forum last week. they were participants, encluz yastic ones, that welcome further meetings at this level. i think the dialogue has begun, not only in the containment

forum. i think that is a hopeful sign. >> multiple forums. >> right, right. >> back to the front. >> i'm bill, a retired foreign service officer. you mentiod that you had 500 applicants for engineering and 60 in environmental sciences. how do you find the quality and the level of educational achievement of these two groups of people? is the future of the united states okay? in terms of the education process? >> it's a good question. on the evidence of the applications, clearly the interest is there. and the truth is that the schools we went to have outstanding reputations. the ones i visited in october and november. for engineering and the once a couple of weekses ago in

environmental science. we won't know until we go through the process of sifting thank you those applications and trying to bring people on board. it's a huge problem with petroleum engineers, paying them enough to attct them and bring them on board. we've encountered problems with the people we tried to 'krut when they get into the process and find out what we pay, they're not interested. we have done our best to try to remedy that by applying to the office of personnel management for the ability to pay at rates that are different than the normal g.s. scale. most of my counterparts poll the salary out of the normal scale with the recognition that you're competing with industry, that can afford the pay far more.

so far, o.p.m. has taken the view we have not sup plied enough evidence justify the deferential. we'll continue to work with o.p.m. and with other agencies in the federal government to prove what i would hope is obvious, that there is a huge gap and we need to do what we can to bridge it. now, we're never going to equalize the salaries at any level. an important motive is one of public service, and secondarily, one of a different lestyle. people that work for major companies have to stay on platforms and facilities for weeks at a time. we don't require that. unless peems are interested in public service and serving the country, they're probably not going want to come work for us. i think there are many, judging

by the number of applations we receiv who are. we need to make things less difficult for them. >> you laid out an ambitious and necessary set of rule-makings and pgrams you hope to advance. how much do you need legislative cover for? >> we can do a lot of what we need to do internally and administratively. we need several things that would be helpful, legislatively. one is to get organic legislation that supports in broad terms the reganization that we're doing. right now, we're proceeding pursuant to orders. there's been proposals to expand the time that we get to review exploration plans from 30, some have extended to 60. some to 90. we need the extra time. because particularly when we have a large number of plans and

a limited number of personnel, we can't get them all done in 30 days. the bad choice we have the allowing the clock to run past 30 days or to return the plans to op racers for what i think are not good and sufficient reasons. and simply to restart the clock. and so, the box that we're in right now as we have two bad choices. and what i have encouraged our people to do is not affirmatively to violate the law. but to take the time necessary to review the applications. do it with all deliberate speed. so we have a measure of how long it takes to properly review the expiration plans. if it's 35 days hrks 40, 45, let's accumulate that in evidence. need other things besides the fine level, for example, for violations of our rules, $35,000

per day, per incident. that's laughable. given the amount of money that's at stake in the gulf and given the amount it takes to fund a rig in a single day. that needs to be changed legislatively. i mentioned the ocean energy safety institute. that would, carry on the work under the guidance and supervision of the advisory committee. we need legislative authorization for that. not a long list. but an important list. >> one more question. i promised michael we would get him back to his real job. >> thanks. renee from mcclatchy newspapers. we need the energy offshore. there will be drilling in the arctic. can you speak about the lack of

coast guard how you can be confident that containment would work up there? >> we emplace in principle that drilling in the arctic is possible. the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. a specific application that is made to us and determining if the containment and spill response capabilities are sufficient. as i think you know, shell had a program theyere planning to drill a single well in the beaufort sea this summer. they pulled that offthe table. they have announced plans to drill in the arctic in two seas. we have a wait, see, and evaluate approach. there are special challenges. a laj of infrastructure. not the same kind of coast guard presence we have in the gulf of mexico.

on the other side of the ledger, it's shallower water than the gulf of mexico. there is no doubt that there are special and unique challenges and that shell and other companies, and there are othe countries including stat oil and conoco-phillips that have expressed interest in drilling in the arctic by 2012, they have to have applications that satisfy us. that they have the containment capabilities and the spill response capabilitieca >> president obama this week doing a series of debt reduction plan. headed to california. a low all right. to and the quarters of facebook. live coverage here on c-span and

on thursday the president and another town hall. the last one of the week in reno, nevada. today with a townhall meeting in northern community virginia college, the president talked about as speblts of the plan calling for a raise in taxes on upper income earners while maintaining spending and today's town hall is about an hour. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states.

hello everybody. hello. hello everybody. thank you. thank you so much. everybody have a seat. have a seat. it's good to be back! good to be back and good to be back. how's everybody doing? [applause] >> i want to make a couple of knowledge meants. congre congressman jerry connelly is here. doctor george gabriel of northern virn gin you community college is here and the president bob telllen is here.

it is great to be back. i keep on coming back because joe biden keeps on telling me to keep coming back. i tend to listen to her. i always say vice president jill is jill. she's teaching all day and doesn't get class for anybody including the president of the united states. what i want the do is make a few quick remarks at the top and then i'll open up for questions. this give please a chance to get out of the mediate in viernof washington. i'm glad you took the time. last week, i plaid out a plan t

get america's finances in order. it was shared prosperity through shared sacrifice and shared responsibility. so before i take your questions, i want to talk about this plan briefly because it goes to the heart of what's happening at this campus. and schools like it all across america. and my plan does two big things. first, it cuts spending and it brings down the deficit. we all know how important that is. just like any student on a tight budget and i'm assuming there's a few here. see a show of and? any students an tight butt? yeabudget? yeah. i've been there just like you. america has to start living within it's means. for a long time washington acted

like deficits didn't matter? a lot of folks promised us a free lunch. everybody needs to recall we had a surplus back in 2000. 11 short years ago, but then we cut taxes for everybody including millionaires and billion theirs and we fought two wars and created a new expensive prescription drug program and we didn't pay for any of it. and as the saying goes, there's no such thing as a free lunch. so we were left with a big deficit. as i was coming into office and then we had the worst recession since the great depression and that made it worse because in the recession. two things happen. number one, the federal government helps out states and

localities to prevent teacher lay-off's and fire fighters and police officers from being laid off and all that costs money. it requires more money to provide additional help for people that have lost jobs or are in danger of losing their jobs the federal government is putting more money out but because of the recession, it's taking less money in, in tax revenues so that grows the depression or deficit further. now if we don't close this deficit, not now that the economy has pe gun to grow again. if we spend on more than we take it. it's going to cause serious damage to the economy. if people keep on financing

america's debt at a certain point they charge higher interest rates. we won't be able to afford investments in education or clean energy or all the things that we care about because we know it'll help drive our economy and create jobs. so we've got to tackle this challenge. and i believe the right way to do it is to live up to old fashion principal of shared responsibility. .

we are also going to have to find savings in places like the defense budget. [applause] as your commander in chief, i will not cut a penny if it undermines our national security, but over the last two years, secretary of defense bob gates has taken honda on wasteful spending -- taken on wasteful spending.

things the pentagon does not want but that congress keep stuffing into the budget. connected special interests get them in the budget, so we have begun to cut them out. secretary gates has found a lot o e-waste. -- a lot of ways. even in washington, that is a lot of money. we will also reduce health care spending and strengthen medicare and medicaid through common sense reforms that will get rid

of wasteful subsidies to insurance companies, reforms that actually improves care like helping providers managed care for the chronically ill more effectively, and we can reform the tax code so it is fair and simple, so the amount of taxes you paid does not to attend on whether you can hire a fancy accountant or not, and we have to end a tax cut for the wealthiest americans. [applause] this is not because we want to punish success. i suspect there are a bunch of young people in this gym that

are going to end up being wealthy, and that is good. we want you to be able to go start a business and create jobs and put other people to work. that is the american way, but we are going to have to ask everyone to sacrifice, and if we are asking community colleges to sacrifice, if we are asking people who are going to see potentially fewer services in their neighborhoods to make sacrifices, then we can ask millionaires and billionaires to make a little sacrifice. we cannot just tell the wealthiest among us, you do not have to do a thing. especially when we know the only way to pay for these health cuts for the wealthiest americans is

by asking seniors to pay thousands more for their health care or cutting children of of head start. we are doing away with health insurance for millions on medicaid or middle-class families who may have an autistic child. it is not a trade-off i am willing to make. that is not who we are as a country. here is the second part of the plan. we still have got to invest in

the future. we are going to have to save whatever we can. i will tell you what i am not going to do. we're not going to reduce the deficit by sacrificing investment in our infrastructure. we are not going to less our bridges and -- to let our bridges ago. we have got to make sure america is built to compete. we have to have the fastest

broadband networks. that is who we are. we have to look into medical research and medical science. we have always been the center of innovation and discovery. that is how we prosper. i want new technologies in the united states. i want people to invest right here. let's take energy as an example.

it is just another burden at a time when we're just coming out of recession. you see politicians going in front of the cameras, and they will say they have a plan for $2 a gallon gas. the truth is only real solution for helping families at dupont is a clean energy. ump is clean energy. we have to develop new technologies, including some

very unstable parts of the world, and that is why i think cutting clean energy investments by 70% would be such a mistake. finally, we are not going to reduce our deficit by cutting education. [applause] in a world where our students faced stiff competition from students with other -- from other countries, why would we make it harder for you to compete. we see why it matters right here. more than 10,000 students at this college are relying on telegraphs to help pay their

tuition. it is almost three students at this campus. how many of you in the audience grant toen a telpell ?elp pay your way gunma i know what this is like. scholarships make it possible for me and for michelle to go to college. i would not be president if it had not been for someone helping me being able to go to college. that is why i think it would be a huge mistake to balance the budget on the backs of students, forcing students to go without them altogether. i just spent the last two weeks -- two years making sure instead of giving subsidies to banks, we

were giving them to students in the form of more grants and better deals on their loans. i am not going to undo that. that is not a smart way to close our deficit. that is the bottom line. it would undermine our future to ignore the promise of students like you, young people who come to this school to get a degree in the hopes of living out of a better life, giving your children and grandchildren of a better life. but as the core of the debate we are having now. both democrats and republicans agree we should reduce the deficit. there is an agreement we need to cut spending by four trillion

dollars over the medium term, and when folks in washington agree on anything, that is to consign, so the debate is not about whether we reduce our deficit. the debate is about how we reduce our deficit. we need to live within our means wilson and and and and and not investing in our future, cutting where we can while investing in infrastructure and strengthening the safety net provided by programs like medicare so they are there for this generation and the next generation. [applause] here is the good news. i believe democrats and republicans can come together to get this done. it will not be easy. there are going to be some fears

disagreements. there will be some politics along the way. there are some who say we are too divided, but i am optimistic. both sides have come together before. i believe we can do it again. here is why it is important. ultimately, the debate is not just about numbers on the page. it is about making sure you can find a third jaunt -- a good job in a nation rich with opportunities for anyone willing to work hardened to get ahead. that is what i think about first thing when i get up in the morning, when i go to bed at night, and all the hours in between. that is why i am going to need your help.

i cannot afford to have all of you as bystanders in this debate. i want you to hold me accountable. i want you to hold all of washington accountable. there is a way to solve this in a way that is fair so we can share opportunity across america, but i cannot do that if the voices are not heard. they are going to want to reduce the deficit on your backs common and and if you are not heard, that is exactly what is going to happen. if you are hurt, we are going to make our country stronger and more prosperous than it has ever been before. i am going to take some

questions. thank you very much. [applause] we have got some people in the audience, and wonderful volunteers with microphones. when i call on you, if you can introduce yourself, wait for the microphone, and then introduce yourself, and tried to keep the question of relatively short, then i will try to keep my answers relatively short period -- relatively short period -- short. i am going to go boy, girl, boy, to make sure things are

fair. i am going to start with this lady right here. i will call on you, too. , and i a student here commo would like to know your plan to cut 4 trillion dollars. if any of that for the education but none -- education budget. >> we have said buckner -- we actually think spending on education should go a little bit. [applause] the reason is not that money solves all the problems in education. it does not, but money does make a difference if it is used

intelligently, so what we are during -- doing is we designed a program called race to the top. in addition to the usual money you get for disadvantaged kids, most of which is given in late former los, we are also going to have a little bit of money we save to give two decades region in to give to school districts that are doing the region -- that are digging deep to improve performance. if you are doing a good job of

recruiting teachers, if you are doing a good job of lifting of schools but are underperforming -- there are schools that are not doing the job, and if you say, we have a special glands -- a special plan, if you are doing things that need accountability and improve the excellence, we are going to give you extra money, so the difference is tying more money to improve performance for rigorous -- to improve performance. what we are doing at community college and university levels is

we have redesigned some of the programs triggered -- programs. it used to be with some projects even though they never had a guarantee from the government. we said let's give the money to the students. that would give us extra money to provide additional scholarships, higher levels for your telegram if, but we are also working with community colleges to see if the programs are as effective as they can be common -- can be, to provide the training and skills you need common and -- you need, so we are identifying where are the jobs in the future that we can get them to design curriculum

ahead of time, so young people if they are taking out loans and making big investments, they know there is going to be a job at the top. we need more money, but we also need more reform. we are having to make some cuts in other areas that are going to be difficult in some cases. there are certain aspects of the defense budget that i will not touch. for example, making sure the troops have what they need to make sure they are safe. [applause] making sure that when they come home, veterans are getting the help they need for posttraumatic stress disorder or to be able to go to college themselves, so

there are certain commitments we make two men and women in uniform that are sacred, but there are some weapons systems that do not work. there are some that we do not need. there are some we cannot afford, so we are going to have to make some difficult decisions on some of these issues. there are some programs that do not work. if you are progressive, you have to be willing to examine whether something you are paying for is actually working, because if is not working, that money could be used somewhere else to help people. we have to have a rigorous review of how effective various programs are.

some work, and some do not, and if they do not, we should eliminate them and put the money in programs that do. >> i have lived overseas for the last 15 years and often very good medical care, but now that i am back in the united states on medicare, i found out it will not pay for any expenses overseas. it has to be in this country, and that costs you money, and it costs me money. would you be interested in changing that. >> you raise an interesting point. first of all, medicare is one of the most important pillars of our social safety it network.

before i get to your specific point, i want to make sure everyone understands what the debate is, the goes you are going to need this as this debate unfolds over the next several months. the house republicans just passed a proposal, and the main plan to reduce long-term is to turn deabts medicare into a voucher program. right now you basically are getting the care you need, and medicare covers it for you. what would happen is you would

get a set amount of money. you could buy insurance, but if the voucher was for $6,000 or $7,000 and the insurance company said it is going to cost $12,000, you are going to have to make up the difference. it is estimated by the congressional budget office. they figure seniors would end up paying twice as much for health care as they are currently. more importantly, it would get worse over time, because health care inflation goes up a lot faster than regular inflation. health care costs keep going oup.

each year, more costs are coming from out of pocket. i think that is the wrong way to go. that would fundamentally change medicare as we know it, and i am not going to sign up for that. having said that, we are going to have to reform medicare to improved quality for the amount of money we spend, because we spend much more money in this country on health care than any other industrialized country, and that is what we started doing with health care reform next year. essentially what we said is less sure is not dumped the costs for seniors. it is not hard to save the government money if you say, you pay for it.

how do you actually make health care costs and lower overall death? that means we work with providers -- to make health care costs and lower overall endowment -- lower overall? 50% of the patience account for 80% of the costs. can we do a better job of monitoring those illnesses, preventing those illnesses, treating them in a comprehensive way so the overall cost of the system goes down. stop with five or six tests and give you one and have the results e-mail to everyone you need to deal with? that can save you money. there are a host of steps we can make that could make a

difference in reducing health- care costs overall. even if you are not on medicare common-law -- medicare, the overall costs are being driven up. you are paying about $1,000 per family in extra costs because of all the folks to show up at the emergency room, all of the errors that end up costing the system money as a whole, so we can squeeze those inefficiencies out of the health care system. we can maintain medicare but still reduce the cost to the federal government and to everybody in society. we did not need any health care, do we? to get to your question, my

preference would be that you do not have to travel to mexico or india to get cheap health care. i would like you to be able to get it in the united states of america of. before we went on the path of you can go somewhere else to get your health care, let's work to see if we can reduce the cost of health care right here in the united states of america. that is going to make a big difference, and medicare isn't good place to start, because medicare -- medicare is a good place to start, because medicare is a big purchaser. if we can change it, the entire system changes. one thing we want to do as part of our health care reform package is let's start doing a

better job of negotiating prices for prescription drugs here in the united states so you do not feel like you are getting cheated because you are paying 30% more than prescription drugs in canada or mexico. the importation is a measure a lot of seniors are resorting to drug hereshould a in the united states to end up being more expensive than in another country. we should change it, but that is going to make a huge difference. it's the young lady's turn. >> hi, mr. president, my name is vanita griffith. i'm a late student at northern

virginia community college. i'm in my second year now. my question is, in about 15 years, i'll be eligible for social security and i'm part of the baby boomer generation. and i don't know if there will be social security when i get ready to -- and i probably won't retire for another 25 years, i'm thinking. >> yeah, you look pretty young. you look like you've got a lot of career left in you. but, yeah, i figure another 25 years i'll be working and am afraid it won't be there when i need it. >> let me talk about social security. the big drivers of our deficit are health care costs. i mean, the thing we've really got to get control of is medicare and medicaid. that's what's skyrocketing really fast. because not only is the population getting older but health care costs are going up a lot faster than people's

wages and salaries, or tax revenues to the federal government. social security is a problem, but one that we can solve much more easily. so the first answer to your question is, social security will definitely be there when you retire. [applause] >> i'm absolutely confident about that. i am absolutely confident about that. now, here's the thing. if we don't do anything on social security, if we just don't -- if we don't touch it at all, then what would happen is by the time you retire, or maybe just a couple years after you retire, you might find that instead of getting every dollar that you were counting on, you're only getting 75 cents out of that dollar, because what's happening as the population is getting older,

there are more retirees per worker, and more money starts going out than is coming in. so we do have to stabilize social security's finances, but we can do that with some relatively modest changes, unlike health care where we've got to get in and work with providers and, you know, really get some much more substantial reforms with social security, it's just a matter of tweaking how it currently works. now, politically, it's hard to do. politically it's hard to do. for example, i'll just give you one example of a change that would make a difference in social security. right now, you only pay a social security tax up to a certain point of your income. so a little bit over $100,000, your social security, you don't pay social security tax. now, how many people are making

less than $100,000 a year? don't be bashful? the point is, for the vast majority of americans, every dime you earn, you're paying some in social security, but for warren buffett, he stops paying at a little bit over $100,000 and then the next $50 billion, he's not paying a dime in social security taxes. so if we just made a little bit of adjustment in terms of the cap on social security, that would do a significant amount to stabilize the system. and that's just an example of the kind of changes we can make. [applause] >> so we are going to have to make some changes in social security but it's not the major driver of our deficit, and what i have proposed is let's work on social security but let's not confuse that with this

major budget debate that we're having about how we deal with spending and revenues because that is the problem that is going to require some really hard work and some bipartisan cooperation. ok? all right. so, the gentleman in the white shirt in the middle. you have three in a row, i'm choosing the one in the middle. there you go. right there. >> mr. president, my name is mitchell holloman, a student at nova, electrical and computer engineering. i'm really concerned about the clean energy solutions because with the deficits we have, most of those solutions and alternatives are far more expensive than the things we have in place now. so how are we going to reduce the deficit and at the same time develop clean energy, alternative, as well as removing the current systems we have in place that are dependent on oil and other things from other countries [-- countries?

[applause] >> it's a great question. so let me start with gas prices because i know that's on everybody's minds. you can sit down. [laughter] >> i'll admit to you, it's been a while since i filled up at the tank, filled up at the pump. you know, secret service doesn't let me get out, and they don't let me drive anymore. but it wasn't that long ago. that i did have to fill up my gas tank, and i know that if you have a limited budget and you just watch that hard-earned money going away to oil companies that will once again probably make record profits this quarter, it's pretty

frustrating. and if you're driving out of necessity 50 miles a day to work, and you can't afford to buy some fancy new hybrid car, so you're stuck with the old beater getting you eight miles a gallon, that's pretty frustrating. now, i wish i could tell you that there was some easy, simple solution to this. it is true that a lot of what's driving oil prices up right now is not the lack of supply, there's enough supply, there is enough oil out there for world demand. the problem is that oil is sold on these world markets and speculators and people make various bets, and they say, you know what, we think that maybe there's a 20% chance that something might happen in the middle east that might disrupt

oil supplies, so we're going to bet that oil is going to go up real high and that spikes up prices significantly. we're now in a position where we can investigate if there's unfair speculation. we're going to be monitoring gas stations to make sure there isn't any price gouging that's taking advantage of consumers. but the truth is, that it is a world commodity, and when prices spike up like this, there aren't a lot of short-term solutions. what we have are medium and long-term solutions. now, one solution is making sure that we're increasing production of u.s. oil. and we have actually

continually increased u.s. production, so u.s. production is as high as it's ever been. the problem is we only have about 2% to 3% of the world's oil reserves and we use 25% of the world's oil. so when you say we should be using traditional sources, the problem is we have finite sources when it comes to oil. and that means we've got to find some replacements. there are a couple of alternatives. one are biofuels. i was down in brazil, a 1/3 of their cars are run on biofuels. mostly ethanol made out of sugar contain. -- sugar cane. we should be able to develop technologies where we are building more efficient biofuels than we're currently using. right now most of our ethanol comes from corn. it would be better if we can get farmers to work with industry to figure out whether

we can use wood chips or alge or, you know, switch grass or other, you know, other biomass that can create fuel that is competitive with gasoline. so that's point number one. point number two is we should be looking at electric cars. and how can we produce more effective electric cars, cheaper electric cars here in the united states? technologically, it's now feasible to get a car that runs on 150 miles a gallon, or maybe no gallons of gas, and you just get your car, you plug it in at night in your garage, whatever energy is stored in your car battery goes back into your house and then, you know, when you come back out at night, it's recharged and you're ready

to go. you're right, right now. hybrid cars and electric cars are more expensive, partly because we haven't increased demand enough for it, that the unit costs have gone down. and the more you produce something, the cheaper it gets. and remember what it used to cost you for a flat screen tv? or a laptop computer, but as volume picked up, technology improves and costs go down. so same could be true for electric cars. one thing we're going to do is increase demand on electric cars and turns out the federal government has a lot of cars. so we're saying let's have the federal government make sure 100% of our cars are energy efficient cars to create a better market for those cars that can help drive costs down.

we've also increased fuel efficiency in cars for the first time in 30 years. that will save about $1.8 billion barrels of oil. a billion barrels of oil. and we can now increase fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks, and that could make a huge difference because now consumers, whenever they go to buy a new car, by necessity, that car will have higher mileage standards standards before all that goes to demand and can reduce gas prices overall. there's one last component to this and you just pointed out, if we're going to still have electric cars, we'll still have to have electricity and how do you produce electricity? it's true that coal is something very plentiful in america. we're sort of the saudi arabia of coal. the challenge of coal is although it's very cheap, it's also dirty.

you've got asthma. ok. and so sucking that stuff in is not ideal. so let's invest in clean coal technology that eventually can capture some of these particulates and carbon dioxides going in the atmosphere. if we can do that in an energy efficient -- a cost efficient way, then that would be hugely helpful to us. but we also have to look at other ways of generating electricity. it's true that solar and wind right now are more expensive than coal, for example, or natural gas. but that doesn't mean that it will always be the case. it just means we haven't developed the technologies to

maximize our abilities to capture and store electricity through those means. i just mentioned natural gas, we have a lot of natural gas here in this country. the problem is that extracting it from the ground, the technologies aren't as developed as we'd like and so there are some concerns that it might create pollution in our ground water, for example. so if we're going to do it, we do it in a way that doesn't poison people. the point is there won't be a single silver bullet. we have to develop all these energy alternatives. all of them, though, will require some investment in new ways of thinking, new basic science, new research, and typically no single company is going to be making those investments because it's not profitable for them to do it. and that means the federal government historically has stepped in and said, you know

what, we'll make this investment in basic research and then let somebody else commercialize it and make money on it. that's how we invented the internet. that's how we invented the g.p.s. system. that's how we invented the bar code. those were all federal investments that eventually spread out throughout the economy and made everybody richer and better off. and that's what we've got to do with energy as well but that requires an investment and i'm prepared to make that investment and i think we all should be. all right. [applause] >> thank you. all right. it's the young lady's turn, right there. yeah respect, >> hi w mr. president, i'm dr. rebecca hayes, a history professor at manassas. my question is are you encouraged to she more of the bipartisanship like the gang of

six that's formed recently, addressing the various concerns you've mentioned, you think we'll see more of that or do you think you'll try and stay behind it. >> well, i am encouraged that over the last four or five months we've been able to strike some deals between democrats and republicans that a lot of people didn't expect us to be able to do. you know, our conflicts and disagreements tend to get more attention than our agreements. and the easiest way to be on tv is to call somebody a name. [laughter] >> all right. if you say something mean about somebody, that will get you on tv. if you say something nice about somebody, you figure that's boring, i'm not interested. so i think that there is a huge

opportunity for us to be able to work together, particularly on this deficit issue. as i said, we now agree that it's a problem. everybody agrees it's a problem. everybody agrees about how much we have to lower the deficit by over the medium term and that we've got to deal with long-term health care costs in order to get this under control. so it's pretty rare where washington says this is a problem, everybody agrees on that, and everybody agrees on about how much we need to do to solve the problem. the big question that is going to have to be resolved is how do we do it? and there is -- i don't want to lie to you. there is a big philosophical divide right now, i believe we've got to do it in a balanced way. i believe you've got to, yes, have spending cuts, but you

can't cut things like education or basic research, or infrastructure down to the bone. i believe that people who have been really blessed in the society like me and have, you know, a very, very, very good income can afford to pay a little bit more, nothing crazy, just go back to the rates that existed when bill clinton was president. that wasn't that long ago. [applause] that that's a fair thing to do. especially if it makes sure that seniors are still getting their medicare and kids are still going to head start. why wouldn't i want to make that sacrifice? look, and i think most wealthy americans feel the same way. i want to live in a society that's fair.

not just out of charitable reasons, but because it improves my life. if are there -- if there are young people out there and going to good schools and have opportunity, if i'm not, you know, driving by and seeing homeless folks on the streets, why wouldn't i want to have a society where i knew that the american dream was available for everybody? so the question is, how do we achieve the same goal, can we do it in a more balanced way? and house republican budget they put forward, they didn't just not ask the wealthy to pay more, they actually cut their taxes further. now, you know, we just had tax

day so nobody wants to pay taxes. let me tell you, i looked at my tax reform and thought, hmm, you know, there's a moment there where you look at the figure you're paying and say wow, let me think about my position on taxing the wealthy here. i understand that. [laughter] nobody volunteers and says boy, i'm just wild to pay more taxes. but it's a matter of values and where we prioritize. i certainly don't think my taxes should be even lower. you know, that's a -- i think america wants smart government, it wants a lean government, it wants a accountable government. but we don't want no government.

according to the republican budget that was passed, for example, we would have to eliminate transportation funding by a 1/3. we'd have to cut funding by a 1/3. remember when the bridge in minnesota collapsed with all those people on it? and there was a big cry, how could this happen in america? well, the national society of engineers, they've looked around and they give us a d when it comes to infrastructure. our roads, our bridges, our sewer systems are all deteriorating. we don't even have a serious high-speed rail infrastructure in this country. our broadband lines are slower that be places -- than places like south korea. so what, we cut transportation by another 1/3, and that's going to happen to america?

we're just going to have potholes everywhere? we're just going to have bridges collapsing everywhere? are we going to continue to have airports that are substandard? are we going to go to other countries and suddenly realize china and south korea and all of europe all have better infrastructure than we do? and we think businesses are going to come here and invest? where do we think at some point companies say, you know what, america's got a second-rate infrastructure and it costs us too much money because our trucks going over those potholes are getting messed up and so that is the choice that we're going to have to make. this debate is going to be very important, though. and as i said before, i'm going to need all of you involved in this debate. you've got to make your voices heard. and i would say, you know, i'm not just talking to democrats

here. republicans, i want you to be able to talk to your members of congress and say, yes, i'm serious about reducing the deficit, yes, i want limited government, yes, i want reductions in spending, but i do think that we've got to make investments in basic research and infrastructure and education, so let's do it in a balanced way. and if we do that, we can come up with a compromise that is effective, that puts america's fiscal house in order, but also allows us to win the future. that's my goal. i'm going to need your help, though. [applause] thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. thank you. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ senate

♪ should ♪ ♪

♪

♪ ♪