on june 27, 2003, i spoke to rich at 11:57 in the morning. our conversation was brief, and at the end, he said to me, "i love you, mom," and i said, "i love you too, rich." weeks after he died, we went to the apartment he shared. horrified to see merous drug spurred prescriptions in his room. the majority were for oxycontin. rich had been purchasing these drugs from his roommate. his roommate was healthy, active, and attending college,

while three -- while being prescribed these powerful medications. over those deaths is the irreparable at all to what negative results of a person's for church and drug misuse and abuse. to this day, my mind continues to wander back to those last month's richie's . my heart aches at the thought of my son wandering through a town, alone, and finally chairing the last precious hours of his existence with a person who cared not whether he lived or died, but rather who would provide the in come with each purchase that richieade. my heart pounds as i imagine richie's emotional state on his last day as i know it. his heart, speaking, his mind,

distorted, empty, loneliness, shame, self-loathing. this image i have is a very vivid. the image of an active attic is heart wrenching. i held his hand when he was 2 years old across the street. i held his hand when he was 10 when he had his tonsils out. i held his hand when he was 19 for three hours on the steps of the treatment center as we both cried, trying to get him admitted. i was not there to hold his hand on the day that he died. and that breaks my heart. >> thanks, karen.

for all us up here, thank you so much and we will take questions. some of you have media attacks on, so that will make it easier. >> i want to thank you for all of your efforts on this. we know a lot of lives have been lost from unintentional drug overdose. i did not hear it mentioned of a strategy, a very effected evidence-based prevention strategy, that has saved thousands of lives nationwide, 16 states for the last decade, and this is referring to the abuse of the rescue trainings, as well as wrapping up [unintelligible] 4 paramedics and first responders. i wanted to see how much you are

considering making more use of these an increase in supply as well as manufacturing, there is a lot of hurdles to that as well. >> i think we might just also deferred the question because there are a lot of things and the specifics that we will be going through to get everybody out here, administration is, and commissioners come they are very familiar with that, and there are a lot of other strategies. >> one comment. what is important about this strategy and its initiative and broader efforts to address the critical problem is there is no one solution involved, " really putting together strategies that address all of the many complexities that drivend asian and drug abuse and damage the lives of individuals and families as we have just so powerfully heard. the use of the lock zone is

critical. it is one component of a broader strategy. >>this is for doctor hamburg. a key element of the strategy is going to require the cooperation of congress. what is your outlook on that do you have somebody that is going to introduce legislation, and what do you think it is one to take to take that path? >> a very poor in question. i may not be the best one to ask, that this is not really within our jurisdiction. this training would be part of the dea licensing of physicians to prescribe this class of medications. i am optimistic. i think it is a notes-brainer in terms of the importance of adding this additional tool to ensurehat physicians who are

empowered to prescribe this powerful tribes have the training and hunters getting about her free use and the potential for misuse. i will turn to my colleague, administrator of leonhart, to talk about it more subtly. >> i believe you will see great interest from members of congress. on pressure from drugs, they have been behind us all away, for us passing the ryan hate bill, us to shut down rogue internet sites, which is a major source of bills been diverted. more recent, after the take-back in september, days later they passed the disposal act, which will allow us to come up with regulation for the safe disposal. so i know we share that they are

concerned. education is key, and we believe we will see action on their part. >> one question was -- with two parts. you mentioned there might be or there would be acres church and drug monitoring program for everstate. i want to find out whether or not that would be mandatory second, you mentioned gnatcatcher and drug monitoring programs which encourage the to communicate with each other. would that be mandatory as well? >> right now, within federal -- is money to start monitoring programs. there has been money to enhance monitoring programs, and we think the state cancer is by far the best. the states -- they work

closely with their boards of pharmacy and medical boards to make sure it is the right system for them, and that we encourage and recently kentucky and ohio sign a memorandum of agreement to exchange this information at your request of the doctors. the physicians we have spoke with seen this is a patient safety issue. under the legislation and under the money that is within the national institute of justice, these restrictions and requirements that these things be done, but we look at it as a best practice. we think if we can go from 35 states to 50 states and share information, we will be so much further ahead on this issue. next question. >> the fda advisory committee

and voted last sunday against us plan. -- this plan. they said it would not do enough to stem the abuse. are you planning this to go beyond what was planned last summer? >> this is a huge challenge in terms of what is the best approach, and a dynamic process in terms of the need to continue to put forth programs and activities and evaluate their effectiveness. we feel very strongly that what we are moving forward on today is important and will make a difference. the ability toeally help, enhance provide education, to make sure that they understand the issues of the appropriate patient selecon, risks of using these products, how to penetrate and monitor treatment

using these products, and how to counsel their patients about the risks and benefits and a curb reviews. also, the medication guide for patients that will be in a patient-friendly language and enable theto better understand safe use and also important way, how these activities fit into some of the others who have heard about, safe disposal, been one, -- being one. the and other elements in terms of requiring provider education dea licensure is fundamental because we want to reach health care providers as early as possible as they develop their prescribing practices to help them understand this issue in the broader context.

it is a surprise to many providers as it is to the public to understand that very damaging down sides of the use of these opioid drugs, and you heard is this is the day about -- you heard statistics today associated with misuse. we are very committed to moving forward as we are today, but continuing to elaborate our efforts, working in partnership, and working with the tools and authorities of the fda. >> [unintelligible] >> they will be prepared by the drug companies, but they will be carefully reviewed by the fda and will be approved by us prior to implementation so that we will keep be attuned to making

sure these materials are medically and scientifically that need to be addressed in terms of assuring her pripet comprehensive education. >> other questions? >> we're hearing the statistics that seven of the 10 people who misuse drugs get them from friends or family. that is a very large univee, and it includes people who may have taken one pill from a friend in the last year, presumably the number of people who have a real problem is a sub group and it is very different. do we know anything more about that sucker who, there are a couple things that trouble everybody here wh it comes to data, and data around the

drug abuse and drug treatment. that is when we have to " 2007 stistics. that's why the president's strategy released last may, theris an entire chapter trying to gather more relevant information across the whole spectrum. you do not want policymakers making these recommendations. you do not want congress been in the position of passing laws without more affirmation. we know a couple things. initiation of drug use by youth is occurring now faster from the medicine cabinet and it is from smoking marijuana. that is a significant concern. we know the number of deaths. we know the number of people going into treatment for overdoses and for addition to these. we know the number of people that, through the systems involving emergency departments, the number of people coming in.

all of this as a significant effect on health care issues. that is why there are a number of parts of the new health care law that actually making information more widely available as far as being able to deal with this problem is so helpful. electronic health records, been one particular example. next question. yes, sir. >> is theren overall amount ascribed to implementing this pl? >> here is a good news. i am actually serious. the good news on this. we have looked at and understood that if we come together as a group and we cool our assets and knowledge and resources, the ability that administrative

actions taken, the ability to use local law enforcement in this volunteer way across the country, 4000 places last year, but actually on april 30, you will even see more, all this is done in the spirit of cooperation. there's very little money involved, so we are coming back with a budget sheet that says here's how much if you're going to expect us to do this. frankly, in this austere budget, but, this is what taxpayers -- the american citizenry really expects of us, to be smart, to work together, be strategic. there's almost everything in this plan that can be accomplished and has a long time police chief i am said it all. i amncredibly optimistic that over this next year we are going to make a big dent in this problem. >> [unintelligible]

manufacturers have developed a training for clinicians. that is going to be required of the drug companies keep develop that, but that participation will be voluntary. >> mandatory. >> you are not talking about a law that you're going to try that, you're saying now it is mandatory? >> note is going to be mandatory. we have worked for a closely with a number of people to be prepared to put into place that will make this mandatory. this is the right thing to do. it has to be mandatory. >> right now, has lost and some are their estimates as to how many clinicians workers dissipate? >> every dea clinician would be required if this was enacted.

this is the right thing to do for physicians, the pharmaceutical industry, and the right thing to do for the american public. >> write in the back. >> thank you. for the hispanic community, what is the severity of this problem, and what part of this plan is designed to help minorities? >> there is data that has been gathered on the growing abuse issue, particularly in the latino community, and we a few months ago did a press release on that. i can provide you with some of those details, but we would not be talking about a national plan and an educational plan if we were not understand and reflective of the diversity of this country. it would make no sense for us to put that together and not make sure that we were making this widely understood, widely

available, to all of the different diverse populations that exist in the united states. thank you. that you all very much. -- thank you all very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] a look at the pentagon budget with kate brannen.

"washington journal" begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend on book tv, on c-span2, a recounting of paul and julia's career in the o.s.s. on world war ii a fresh look at the legend of america's first president and debunks several myths, some centuries old. also this weekend, an examination of the americanization of hawaii beginning with the arrival of new england missionaries in 1820. and on the complete schedule at booktv.org and sign up for book tv alert. >> now available, c-span's congressional directory. a complete guide to the first session of the 112th congress. inside, new and returning house and senate members with contact information, including twitter addresses, district maps, and committee assignments. and information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors.

order online at c-span.org/shop. cnn founder ted turner and energy entrepreneur t. boone pickens spoke about energy policy at the national press club today. the two billionaires talked about their renewable and alternative energy initiatives including solar and wind investments. mr. pickens also talked about his plan to convert the nation's heavy duty and long haul truck fleets from diesel to natural gas. this is an hour. >> my main concl of the human race. as important as i think queen and renewable energy is, as part of that, i don't put it as number 1. i say the existence and danger

of nuclear weapons is the greatest danger that w face and a top priority is to get rid of them as quickly as possible. i am not talking about nuclear power. that is a home other issue. i'm talking about the weapons like the one we dropped on hiroshima that killed 250,000 people in on day and later at nagasaki. we could get rid of those weapons. the security council of the un voted last year unanimously to get rid of them. we need implementations. we are lacking in that at the current time. it is complicated but it is real simple. get rid of all of them. that is the only way it will work. it will not work for us to have 2000 a clear weapons and iraq to have two. that will not work. we have to all get rid of them at the same time.

the second tremendous challenge that we face is the growth in human population numbers. there are just too many people in the world right now, 7 billion, 1 billion of us already live in under and deprivation. if we add, as is predicted, another 1 billion over the next 10 years and it goes up to 9 billion over the next 10 years after that, we will have 3 billion people that are starving. we just really have to get serious about family planning and it needs to be voluntary, in my opinion. if we cannot restrain our numbers voluntarily, maybe we don't deserve to be here if we have to have laws and penalties for having children. i don't think that would be good the third challenge that we face that is overwhelming is the

environment, the whole issue of the environment, not just the energy policy which is the most important thing right now under the environmental heading. the oceans are collapsing from over-fishing. the range land all over the angered andang end farming in an unsustainable way. we have to straighten out our care of the environment and cutting back on the growth in human numbers is the most important thing we can do. the more of us there are, the more pressure is put on the environment. next but very important is clean, renewable energy. i think we need to move very quicklyboone will talk about natural gas. i described as a bridge fuel,

particularly, i feel that the fracking situation, we have to feel better about that and make sure it is not to environmentally damaging. ean, renewable energy, i foresee 20 years from now, a world where there is no more fossil fuel being used. it served us well for several hundred years, since the industrial revolution but is time to move on to clean, renewable energy. for economic reasons, too. in the end, it will be the least expensive because it is basically free. as part of claim renewable energy, we need a modern grid. we need a modern energy system and that is clean renewals. bles.

we will have a world without pollution. that will be pretty amazing. our kids will not be getting as ma and it will be quiet. it will be a nice world and i hope i live long enough to see it. i hope you do, too. if we're not going to do it, we will not live very long anyway. we will either do it or we will diverted is present all. [laughter] thank you very much. >> i want to talk about energy security for america. we have gone 40 years in this country and we have had no energy plan, zero. we are the largest country in the world, the only country in the world without an energy plan. we have used more fuel than any

other country in the world. today, there is 88 million barrels of oil produced everywhere in the world and we are using 21 million of it. the oilmost 25% of all used every day and we have 4% of the population. if you look at that, we are using 25% with 4% of the population, we could be the cause of $100 oil. we are way out of balance with the rest of the world. we have no energy plan. 40 years, no plan. why? because we had cheap oil. that was it. neither party, republican or democrat, had an energy plan. somebody said that is an obvious bipartisan effort to not do anything. [laughter] and maybe so. nobody had time to tackle it. we are now at a critical point.

if we go forward 10 years like we have operated f the last 40 years, in 10 years from now, you will pay $400 per barrel for the oil and we will be importing 75% of our oil. today, we are importing 66% at $100 of oil tenures will be all it takes to get to that point because oil is a finite resource and it is running o. when we look at the fourth quarter this year, you will be able to check whether i know what i'm talking about, in the fourth quarter of this year, demand is projected for 90 million barrels per i don't think the world can produce that. if they can't, the only way you can kill the man does with price. price will go up. it will kill demand. we will go forward with demand

that will be in balance with supply. do we have resources in america to take care of it ourselves? absolutely. you've got the green ables, wind and solar they do not replace transportation fuel. 70% of all the oil used everywhere in the world goes to transportation fuel. you have to get something that will stand up with oil to reduce the importance of oil. we are paying $1,500 million per day for imported oil two-thirds of our trade deficit is not sustainable. nobody ever speak to that. if you go back over the president's from nixon ford, nixon said in 1970 that the end of the decade we will not seek -- import any oil. at that point, we imported 24%. at the end of the decade, we

imported 28%. he never spoke to the question again. you have one right after the other. they all say the same thing, he let me and we will be energy independent. nobody ever says you told us, like obama, in 10 years, we will not import any oil from the mideast. that was very clear. bob schieffer and i had lunch and i told him to ask how long we will import oil from the enemy. >> he did not know whether he could get away with that. they did ask about imported oil and obama said the same thing. in 10 years, we will not import any oil from the mideast. we are now three years into

that. . i have never seen anybody say that you said in 10 yea, how are we doing on your plan to cover oil from the mideast? nobody ever asked him the question it does not happen. i am in a place where i am talking to people in the press. one of you please, ask the president -- [applause] ok, can get it fixed? we can. we have lots of natural gas. that is 700 billions of barrels of oil equivalent. that is three times what the saudis have. we do not have one politician that has said that we may not be as bad off as we think we are on energy. we have plenty of energy here. we can take care of ourselves. it can happen. it can be fixed. natural gas is cleaner, cheaper, abundant, it is ours, why not?

we will use dir, imported oil from opec and now they are talking about exporting our natural gas. ok, we will send a clean, cheap, stuck out and take a dirty from the emy. we are starting to border on not looking very smart. [laughter] stupid is about where we are. we have resources that can solve the problem and we still do not have any movement. is this president's fault? it is the last 10 president's fault? not one had ever done anything. this president is starting to talk about natural gas. he even used my name in his last energy speech. he said this legendary oil man is working in this field. my wife should cancel the president -- my wife shook hands with the president and he

said to her that your husband is working hard for the energy problem that the united states faces. we a i communication, sort of. he never calls me but -- [laughter] i am always available. you have heard my problem. it is a security issue with us. ted is a little bit brighter green and i am. i am green. the epa must allow the test- if you gave me a saliva test, i would pass. my primary focus is on the energy security for america. i am all-american. i ll take anything here in america. c takeoal, anhing american and -- i will take coal, anything american in place of middle east oil. [applause] >> ted, did you have a an immediate response? >> we don't agree about

everything we agree mostly. >> why don't you tell us what you don't agree on. ? >> well, i am a little greener and a little cleaner. [laughter] >> that's right [laughter] >> i don't think we should export coal. we should capita and let it si there it whinnied hydrocarbons for plastics anyway. our children will ask why we burned up all are hydrocarbons. it will be valuable to build things than to burn. the sun is setting their free every day going to waste. solar works like a charm and the technology is already here and so is the winds technology. we spend more on research and

start implementing wind and solar and geothermal, we will develop a better technology like we have in computers and it will be even more efficient. >> on the cost of kilowatt-hour is, the most expensive is solar, $6,300 per kilowatt hour. second, because we have changed how we c inoal, it has moved up to 5300. then you drop to 2400 for went. then you drop to 1500 for natural gas. we are capitalists. we are trying to find the cheapest deal that we can make the most money off of it. that is what capitalism is. there's nothing wrong with that. if you are going to look at it

on cost, i tried to build the web -- biggest win farm ever built. the wind is priced of the margin. the price is natural gas perwind gets a natural gas price. natural gas at the time was $8. today, it is $4. $6 i have to have to finance that winfarm. i may deal with general electric four years ago. i bought the turbines and they are starting to be delivered in my -- and my garage is not big in [laughter] to take 500 turbines. i will build a wind farm in ontario, canada and minnesota. it will not be in the panhandle of texas where i wanted. i did n get the transmission

there. they promised transmission and they never delivered. i would like to leave you with this point -- one mcf of natural gas is $4 and is equal to. the only thing that will move an 18-wheeler will be either diesel or natural gas. a battery will not move an 18- wheeler. what are the options? that's it. the only one we have that will replace foreign oil to move the 18-wheeler is natural gas. one mcf of natural gas for $4 = $7 apiece -- of diesel. 7 gallons of diesel is $30. the cleaner, cheaper, cheaper, cheaper compared to the forum, dirty diesel, you are talking about the cost would be 25% very you have to do some

compression and there are other faors. if you had in 18 deaths wheeler today and you bought a natural gas one instead of going diesel, your fuel would be $1.50 cheaper. that is overpowering. if it is so cheap, why doesn't it work without h passingr 1380? because i want direction. i want this president to say this is where we are going. this is what we will do. we will get on our own resources and this is the way it will work. we'll takehe 8,000,018- wheelers -- we will take the 8 million 18-wheeler's. $5 million is a lot of money. we've got 8 million vehicles. they would go $60,000 for a tax credit because the incremental

difference in those vehicles is $60,000. don't make your truckers pay to be patriotic. it will be a hurry up program $8 billion per year will only get you, at the end of five years, 143,000 trucks. you don't even have enough money to do the job. i don't have to have the money to get it started very he give me the money to get started. give us the direction, mr. president. we will go in that direction because we are patriotic people and we are not stupid. we can save $1.50 per gallon and get help just to get kicked off. all this will happen ve. i made another speech, a starter [applause] >> how do you retool those trucks? >> infrastructure.

i have a model for everything i do by don't dor &d. r takes to in years andd takes 10 years and that puts me or the line. i oked at california because they dealt with air quality issues there for 20 or 30 years. cs -- the south coast air quality districts as air quality issues in southernalifornia and the guy that runs it is a smart guy. he now has to reduce his emissions in southern california. he asked who the biggest polluters are. trash trucks because there were 247 and i idol and they have an inefficient burned. what is the incremental cost differences? 50,000. on a sle that maris.

he said to give them $50,000 and when they buy a new one, they have to buy natural gas but they do not have to get rid of their diesel. when they do get rid of their diesel, one diesel taken off the streets and southern california is equal to 325 cars. one 18-wheeler taken off the highway is equal to 1600 cars. on emissions. it is that much cleaner. he said to do it. the southern california trash trucks, natural gas, all trash trucks built this year, 75% of them will be on natural gas. that was started by the california model seven years ago. i know it works. infrastructure will come with the trucks. that is a business in and of itself. you n't need to have a government building filling stations. can you imagine? go back to henry ford when he

said that everyone will have a model t ford. they asked if he realized that they have no filling stations. we cannot do it. [laughter] forget the idea. was a baidea. maybe a little inconvenience. what to the 8 million do for you? in seven years, it is 2.5 million barrels per day and it cuts opec in half. we get 5 million per day off them and we are paying for both sides of the war. there was a great op-ed piece april 9 of 2010. it said that we are paying for both sides of the war and i truly believe that is the case. we don't look very smart doing that. >> is there anything you have to

add? >> i don't like war either. for it andaying losing, what everyone in afghanistan and iraq and what we want in libya? the last time we won the war was world war two because that was the last time anybody surrendered to us. not even grenada surrendered. you don't win unless the other side admits they were beaten. >>i agree 100% on this point guard with to get those people out of afghanistan. >> that would save a lot of money right there a d themeamn right. [applause] >> next time send scientists and engineers and doctors and maybe a few lawyers over to help out rather than send soldiers. the bombs did not do any good. >> let me ask questions from the

audience. i will paraphrase in the interest of. time you are both essentially unhappy with the status quo. you say we're going back at least 40 years. have there been ructural or political impediments to getting these reforms in place? does it have to do with how campaigns are financed? why is it that it has taken until at least this year that we have not weaned ourselves off foreign oil? >> there are two reasons. by embracing an answer is, believe it or not. your leadership in washington did not understand the problem or did not feel it was important not to pursue and second, you had to boil. cheap oil is -- you had cheap

oil. i have had conversations with the saudis and they say to me that if you come with alternatives, we will lower the price of oil. they said that to me. i believe it. that is exactly what they do. we don't come up with anything. we could have some control over ou energy future if we just understood what the situation was. we don't have time to address that problem. we have cheap oil. >> what is keeping reform from happening? >> the oil and coal lobbies who have all the money have done a masterful job of confusing everybody. i go to bed at night praying for clean coal and i know there is no such thing but have seen so

many ads for it -- [laughter] they are persuading me that it is possible. , almost. if president obama had just taken the energy and climate change bill and put it first before health care, we have gotten it through. we were ready. he spent all this political capital and that was more contentious than we thought. then the call and the oil industry counterattacked with their ad campaign. the solar and wind industries ran out of money and could not match to them. which is got beat. we have to be really careful because this law that was just upheld that corporations can spend all the might want to on

political campaigns, that worries me that we may lose our democracy. we're close to losing it now. [applause] it really worries me. the government is supposed to serve the people but it is not. it is not serving the people's best interest it did, we would have clean energy now. we would be doing the smart thing rather than the dumb thing. i am really worried about it. i keep hoping that things will get better, but that law, letting the corporations spend anything they want to, it is likely koch brothers in kansas. they are smart guys. they are inhe oil business and they spend millions at the heritage foundation. they are kicking our butts.

we cannot continue to let it happen without serious negative consequences which we are already experiencing. >> the koch interest and the heritage foundation are not for me. >> i did not say they [laughter] word. were. >> i didn't say you are. >> those gs are not helping me. >> i am not happy with gas and our 18-wheelers. >> the major oil companies, see them for what they are. they are international oil companies. take exxon, is it a good company? of course it is. is it will run? absolutely. they work for shareholders. they do not work for america. they arenternational company. a 4% of the revenues come from offshore.

-- 84% of the revenues come from offshore. alas president bush, there were one of his biggest advisers on energy and make america. that is not who you go to for energy in america. you go to energy experts in america, not an international oil company agreed it does not make sense. [applause] >> another question to mr. pickens. a recent report from the cornell scholarsound that hydraulic fracturing for natural gas may result in excess greenhouse gas emissions, possibly worse than cold. al. how does this change the plan? >> those of the only figures i've heard a that says coal is cleaner than natural gas. there is no question that natural gas is cleaner variant natural gas was the fuel to clean up california.

some of you are old enough iam,, ted you're not. [laughter] you flew into los angeles and you could see it. they have a bad smog in los angeles. it was yellow/brown. that has all cleaned up with natural gas. 2800 buses in la mta . the largest bus company in the world is in beijing. paid cornell to do that. that guy has a half a dozen things in that report. i have never seen anybody and with those conclusions that he ends with in that deal. there will be people that will look at it.

m.i.t. responded d they did not think much of it. who paid him to do this study? that is the place to go. >>ted mentions that he wished the environmental downside of natural gas extraction could be better address. what about that? >> the firstfrack job i saw was in 1953. how did that with my first well. a 1957 until now, i have fracked over 3000 wells. he is talking about that the will -- well is drought -- drilled -- he is talking about that the well is drilled down. the hole is drilled to 1,000 feet, they run a string casing and close it off.

i work in an area where sand of aquafer.stfe korf we were conscious of this. we put in cement and rolled down to 15,000 feet. you complete the well there. you are 2-3 miles below the freshwater sand. you tell me how they frack job to me down can get back up into the fresh water sand. i never had it happen and i know nobody else where it happens. all the complaints are coming from pennsylvania. that is a m inhearcellus. they have drilled or 800,000 wells in oklahoma, kansas, and texas.

i do not know of any losses or any complaint or anything else. why is it all right there in pennsylvania and western new york? they have now said that you will frack these wells in the watershed. that is where it rains. but don't know what that is. it rains and the watershed and runs into a lake. frack the lake or the watershed. you go to a thousand miles under the surface. they don't know what will happen to the water in new york. they need someone intelligent, a leader to say this is what the deal is. don't worry, watch what i am telling you. check the facts. that is all you have to do. it is not complicated. it is very simple.

they want me to feel guilty. i feel like i did yesterday. [laughter] >> are you as confident about the environmeal implications? >> he knows more about it. he is an oil man. i was a tv and [laughter] man. >> i trust to godte is,d. do you trust us? [laughter] >> do you -- do you believe the climate change is a natural phenomenon? fewer americans believe to be a real problem. >> your than what? it before? >> i don't know. how serious do you believe the problem ? >> i think it is a life or death issue.

i am a real expert when it comes to nature and of the temperature goes up six degrees fahrenheit, it will make life on earth very difficult for most of the crtures including humans. >> how do you feel about it? >> i made geologist and we can take you back in time were you had drought that would extend over maybe 1 million years. we have had ice ages that were hundreds of thousands of years. we know the temperature can remain constant or fluctuate or whever. believe it or not, i am one of the few geologists that believes in climate change. [applause] i think all of us skirred up a lot of what -- i think a lot of

us screw up what we emit into the atmosphere. i don't think it will happen real quick. it is like a problem with energy and america. you had a cheap oil. you have climate change but if you're cheap oil had run up to $200 per barrel, something would have happened. somebody would have figured out a better way. on climate change, it does not go up fast enough. it goes along and some people think that as part of the change. i am ready to take measures to restrict emissions into the atmosphere. if im long, i did not heard myself. -- a did nothurt myself.

if we find it in 20 years that there is no climate change, i did not do something that hurt. i did not do anything wrong, but if i go out 20 years and i keep saying there is no climate change, and then i say that it did mean something, and if i did not do anything about it, that is bad. high pay to set up things that make all of us look stupid. i feel stupid sometimes about the way things go. why do we let it happen? i am not in the role of leadership. i cannot stop these things. ted is a leader. he stepped up. [laughter] he says $62 million, i spent $82

million on this. that will get to something. have i got my money's worth? i will win i pass hr 1830. ted has been on this. i did not agree with him and we talked at 10 years ago and i said i am not going for the climate change stop but i do now. i am ready to throw in. [applause] >> other than talking to ted, what changed your mind a [laughter] ? >> i am interested in polar bears, too. but icecap is sure disappearing fast. i don't go for the funny whether. i can remember whene had tornadoes and flooding and all kinds of things. the way the ice is disappearing

fast, i had some experience with of the glaciers and you can see what is happening there. it is getting warm where the ice is. that is not normal, i don't think. >> here's a question for mr. turner. you have a partnership to build solar power. do you plan to do without federal subsidies? >> it dependsn the situation. there needs to be some subsidies. we are now subsidized coal and oil big time. over the years, they have been the source of economic subsidies. wind and solar and geothermal are not being subsidized because they were not here to get in line to get their spot at the feed trough.

levelingally playing field, wind and solar have a better chance with subsidies stacked against them on the fossil fuel industry. we are subdizing the wrong thing but we did it over 200 years of the industrial revolution. we have been giving them breaks all the way along. not having the polluting companies paid health care, i think the polluters suld do the paying. if they were, claim renewable energy would be competitive. [applause] >> if you look at where the most

wind energy and solar energy is, do you know wre it is? >> in the midwest germany. terminate they don't have wind or saw [laughter] on. they're really down. germanyey really don't gets their natural gas from russia. i was young but i remember stalingrad and leningrad and there were 5 million people killed there. there were about 3 million germans and 2 million russians. those people in russia and germany remember that. the germans do not want to get dependent on the russians. they take gas from them but they went in and subsidized wind and solar and paid a hell of a price for it but that is what they

thought of as security. that is my pitch here. we have a security issue with opec oil. we don't even address the but they did. we ran some of those ads is that you may remember this show the globe and the lights are on and said ", and then one day one person does not ha gas it clicked off eastern europe pic." guess who came to see made? e? they sat on the ad, you are cutting off our service area. i know, i meant to. they don't like it. they watch this stuff that i put up. two weeks after we launched the

pickens plan, i was at the democratic convention. was aon't remember i letter this -- that i was a republican. i get out politics and went to the democratic convention. that surprised many people. i had never been to one in my life. they are a bunch of nice people. [laughter] i am their and my wife who was born in ira and her mother is lebanese and their father is english and emigrated to the united states when she was 18 years old. she has friends from that part of the world and she got a call at my friend and wanted us to go to dinner. we went to dinner and i thought it would be 15 or 20 people. it was five people. the first question was asked of

me. what is your pickens' plan? i said i want to get off of your oil. i smiled when i said it. but we are friends. i said i know we need to get on our own resources. they're watching that close. in two weeks, there were asking me what this plan was. they could see what i was going to do. i was going to get on our resours in -- and get off of their oil. that's what it was. [alause] >> you bot earlier talked about the inability of our policy makers and leaders to forge an effective energy policy. just yesterday, there is a headline that standard and

poor's essentially warned that the u.s. is at risk of not forcing an adequate solution to the deficit and in the near term, the debt ceiling is looming. how do you feel about how washington is managing the financial situation in the united states right now? >> i'm not happy with it. i am concerned when your credit rating is downgraded and that is at happened yesterday, that is not good. >> they warned on the outlook which was longer term. they said it was along the road to downgrading the credit rating. do you think republicans and democrats can come together and find a solution? >> i am not comfortable with the way the parties are getting along with each other. i am concerned about our ability to compromise and run our

country in an intelligent, forward-thinking manner. >> what do you think? >> i think they are doing a fabulousob. [laughter] they are working so well together and act like they're not but i know they really are. do you feel that way? no >>. >> i am not here to express my opinion bit. >> i'm not a fool. i agree with ted. i try to let myself to my subject. i feel like i can represent that i am five-feet wide and 50 feet deep on one subject i think congress has accepted me that way. they realize i am a serious person with a serious plan. i have both sides that call me and ask me about energy. question s.

i made a speech last week in california. there -- in this county, people are very liberal. they asked how i think they've view me. >i said i think they view me as a patriotic old man with a good idea and i got big applause. i think i am viewed that waynd that is the way i want to be. pplause] >> ted, everybody knows originallys that c founder cnn.he founder of how you feel about that as an enterprise today? >> they went in for more serious news and more international news like they used to. i am an old geezer, too.

i am not there anymore. there's nothing worse than asking somebody in my position what they think of the company based thereon is being run today. that is not really fair. >> i wrote ted a note any probably doesn't remember. i said you have done more to open up the world than anybody i have ever seen. [applause] you showed peoe all over the world how we lived and what opportunities they would have if they had a democracy. you are the guy that showed the world what the world really look like. >> what you think about that? >> it makes me feel good. [laughter] >> on the other side of the television equation, you have not always had kind words about

the perceived competition which includes fox news. do you sample across the media landscape? how you feel about rupert murdochnd news corp. and aob at fox news does? >> i think he has done a real good job with "the wall street journal." he is a little far right for me on television. with fox news. that is me. i think they have every right to do it. it does not seem to be irresponsible >> since you gentlemen are no strangers to the news business and this was a return trip to the national press club, how do you feel like you are treated by the news? >> i feel fine. [laughter] >> we are glad to hear that. >> if i could write the

articles, i would write tm a different light. [lauter] having said that, i think they treat me very fairly. they are better as i have gotten older. the use to jump on my ass pretty bad. [laughter] i have gotten older. they introduce me as legendary oil man. most articles say t. boone pickens, legendary oil men. what does that mean? [laughter] that is a guy 75 years old and still has a job. [laughter] i am 82, though. >> we are almost out of time. before we ask the last question, a couple of housekeeping things to take care of. i would like to remind our guests about upcoming luncheon speakers. on may 16, general james jones, the former national security adviser and marine corps

commandant will be our speaker. on may 20, t richardrumka will speak. we will have a fox news contributor. juan williams will deliver a rebuttal on the npr issue. next up on our regular business, i like to present both of our guests with the traditional npc coffee mug. [applause] you are collecting a set. we are grateful for that. next is the last question. there's another wealthy individual these days making the rounds and that is donald trump. he seems to be flirting with the notion of running for president. what advice would you give him? >> good luck.

[laughter] the more the merrier. maybe we will find somebody that will shake things up. >> would you voteor him? >> i know him. [laughter] i kinda like him, to tell you the truth. he is colorful very [laughter] >> you have that uncommon. >> i know him, too. was oncnbc and he was talking about how to solve the energy problem. he said t way to handle the zero pack crowd is you tell them what you will pay them for the oil. -- he said the way to handle the opec crowd is you tell them what

you'll pay for the oil. >> came on after him and i said i'll tell you what, if you won't say any more about energy, i won't ever mention real estate. [laughter] [applause] >> how about a round of applause for our speakers today? thank you. [applause] thank you for coming today. i would like to thank the national press club's staff including our library and broadcast center. you can find more information and>> "washington journal"

continues. host: we are back from new york. john fund is a columnist with "the wall street journal." let's begin with what s&p said yesterday. the lower the u.s. debt from stable set negative. they said there's a one in three chance the u.s. could lose its aaa rating in two years. they expressed little confidence washington could come together on some sort of agreement before the 2012 election. what does this mean? can you explain that to begin

with? guest: it is a wake-up call and if we do not heed the warning, we will sink into deep trouble. the kind of debt trap that was described earlier in the program. what s&p said was a political statement after president obama's speech last week. the concluded there's very little chance on an agreement towards fiscal sanity between congress and the white house before the 2012 election. in a sense, the president began his reelection campaign. i do not think we have the luxury of debating this issue for the next year and half. i think we'll have to tackle this. s&p is saying political paralysis in washington for the next 18 months can do serious damage to the economy, of course this recovery, and plunges into

a kind of debt spiral that we've seen in europe. greece, portugal, ireland. this is not a prospect we should not welcome. host: there also pointing to republicans, looking to the budget proposal by paul ryan -- that there will be no new revenues coming in from taxes, no tax increases, and say that the two sides are too are part because one does not want to address spending and the other does not want to address tax increases. guest: in december, the president and congress came to agreement on taxes. they extended the tax cuts. both sides privately agreed -- and i talked to both sides -- if you raise taxes in a recession, you are going to hurt the economy. there's no school of economic thought. i do not care if it is marxism, tenzing as some, or

vegetarianism. it will only hurt job creation. that's what the american people are worried about. host: do republicans need to take responsibility for this morning from s&p for the tenure of the bush administration? the tax increases than that many say were not paid for and then the medicare prescription drug part d program that many say is not paid for. do republicans need to take responsibility for this morning that s&p put out yesterday? guest: we had a horrible decade of public policy in many respects in the last 10 years. the bush administration had a horrible mistake in trying to expand the entitlements with prescription drug benefits that were not paid for. the wars were certainly a drain on our fiscal future. obviously, president obama and

here today very bad situation and the economy was very weak. the bush administration made many mistakes. since then, president obama has had two and half years, and i think he has only compounded the mistakes. the debt has gone from $7.9 trillion to over $14 trillion. the stimulus spending has been universally acknowledged to not have accomplished its goals. it raised the stakes dramatically by trying to extend coverage for health insurance. it is a laudable goal, but we cannot afford it. half of the people will be dumped into our medicaid program, which is substandard medicine. i think the president has taken a bad hand that he was dealt and made it much worse for all americans.

host: how did wall street reacts yesterday to this news from s&p? caller: -- guest: it dropped 140 points. i think it recognized that this was a signal that the economic recovery can be aborted because of political paralysis and the refusal to try to change our policies to make us more competitive with the world. a lot of people say we have shifted jobs overseas. a lot of people say we have a weak manufacturing sector. i'm not here to debate that. the way to solve that is for us to become more competitive. we have, for example, the second highest corporate tax rate of any nation world, other than japan. japan is not doing so well, frankly, even before the horrible tsunami of last month. s&p downgraded japan's bond rating in january. i think we need to make some changes that can increase the chances of an economic recovery taking hold and we start to create jobs. we have not done that.

i think both parties need to come to the table and we need to figure out in a bipartisan way what are the few things that the two parties can agree on that will make this recovery better and not wait to simply have bickering for the next 18 months? host: our tax increases on the table in your opinion? guest: i'm sure that will be part of the negotiation. in december, both parties agreed that tax increases in a weak economy does not help the economy. if you can bring me the school of economic thought that says you raise taxes in a weak economy and that will improve things, i will send you a check to your favorite charity. such a school of economics does not exist. host: paul krugman wrote yesterday on his blog.

guest: markets respond to signals. the fact that it looks as if the president and the congress will be in a stalemate for the next 18 months, that cost s&p to do the downgrade. because the market to drop. the dollar continues to weaken. i disagree with that. i think waiting for another 18 months only makes matters worse. i do not think we have that much time. greece, portugal, and ireland but they have all the time in the world. when they lost credibility in the markets and people with ninth -- and people would not buy their bonds, we was out very quickly. we are not immune to these

pressures. even though we are the greatest nation via world, laws of economics apply to us. host: some said the market was comforted that washington could come together on some sort of an agreement. guest: of course, you do not look at any one-day or two-day or three-day fluctuation in the market and try to override what that means. clearly, the markets are nervous. some have said that s&p could be followed by moody's. the international monetary fund, which is the institution that normally jumps in to try to help troubled economies, they reported just a couple of months ago that since the u.s. deficit is likely to hit a 11% of our total gross national product, that this was a real warning signal. s&p is a lagging indicator. all of the serious economic observers are looking at this

and saying we're in real trouble. s&p is late to the game. host: let's go to our first phone call for john fund. ruth is a democrat in memphis, tenn.. go ahead. caller: i'm so profoundly disappointed in c-span for introducing this man as a journalist. host: columnist. caller: the headline said journalist. he has been called a journalist. he's been a spokesperson for the republican party's for years. i'm seeing strategy -- this whole thing is exactly what the star of the beast -- starve the beast strategy wanted to accomplish. it is just crazy. everybody remembers -- deficits do not matter.

host: let's get a response to that, john fund. guest: if the caller was listening, they heard me criticize the bush administration on its management of the economy and spending that went out of control. secondly, i spent 25 years observing washington politicians. i can never sure you -- i can assure you i've looked at both democrats and republicans. it is just that republicans might feel a little more guilty about it. i think republicans have often abandoned their principles. i've been critical of republicans. i forced a couple out of office because of corruption and malfeasance and other issues. if the caller listened carefully, she might have heard some very stern criticism of the bush administration. host: let's go to st. joseph, missouri. maggie, a republican, go ahead.

caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: in this country, we have far too many people that are not educated enough to understand the way the economy slows and the deficits and taxes. what we have is we have been democrats using scare tactics in order to keep their big agenda going. we have a president who shamelessly intends to crash our economy. everywhere you look from oil drilling to epa regulations, all he does is throw roadblocks and undermines our economy, our growth. he has escalated any kind of problems that he had when he came into office three he has far exhilarated us down the road -- he has accelerated us down the road to destruction. host: kent, go ahead.

caller: good morning. i'm glad for the job c-span does this morning and every morning. what i would like to ask your guest is, where were these red- flag raising agencies when the mortgage crisis was heating up and all the money was pouring in to make places like aig too big to fail? why don't guest: first of all, the caller before this one, it is unfair to say that obama wants to crash the economy. i think there's a fundamental disagreement as to whether or not what he is doing is working. as to your current caller, the reason why we should worry about

what the s and p adjusted its that -- the bond rating agencies are often wearing the gas mask. when it kills over, you know you are really in trouble. if you look at all of the state's municipal debt disasters, often the bond rating agencies went way too long to warn about the dangers of public pension obligations that for going out of control. the reason the warning is very appropriate from the s&p is they are the people to make this call first. many have been warning about this for a long time. that is why the rating agencies have a finally woken up. host: what will happen

throughout the day? guest: i think the markets will continue with a narrow band of gains into losses. there is a lack of confidence in this economy. there is a couple of trillion dollars of capital sitting on the sidelines that is not being invested in jobs, because of the uncertainty of the economic conditions that we now have. these are real. so much uncertainty about what the tax policy will be, new regulations that will be heaped onto the economy. the democratic congress chose not to do that. i think we have to be worried. if right now, the former budget director that has become a liberal on many policies, he was

on c-span last night. if right now we had $2 trillion in capital sitting there, not being invested in jobs, it would be invested overseas. places like that, where they have economic policies that are much more stable. our competitors are not waiting for our -- not waiting for us to get our house in order. they are building new factories. the face that we are so stagnant in this country should tell us that we have to take steps to improve our competitiveness as fast as possible. we cannot stand still. host: what is your reaction to this line? what do you think? guest: the other nations do not

want to see a debt crisis. i think it is rallying around the flag. there is not in immediate short- term crisis. this is a warning sign that we do not have a 18 months to wait. the consensus from the economic experts that i spoke to is that we could be two or three years away from a debt crisis like the one we saw in portugal and greece. we should not wait to take serious steps to try to improve our competitive position and tried to get some of that trillions of dollars in capital waiting on the sideline into productive jobs. i think unemployment is still almost as 9% because of this. host: if the s&p says we will down grade the aaa rating of the u.s. in six months, what will happen?

guest: it will be a signal to the rest of the world that we are not serious about dealing with our debt crisis. i was in japan in january. it was a couple of months before the tsunami. they have had two lost a decade of economic growth. visit to japan, it is a normal society. there are many things in the shops. life goes on. there is a growing sense among young people that japan's future has slipped away from it. this was an economy that was supposed to be the world's preeminent, and it slipped into the second, third, fourth slot of economic growth. i do not want that to happen to us. i think we are the most growth oriented and optimistic country in the world. i want that to remain so. just because we will not slip into a depression, does not mean

that we do not have something to worry about. our optimism, our strength, and a person born in america for many decades has a better chance of entering the middle class, even if they came from modest circumstances. all of those things are in jeopardy if we do not return to economic growth and economic opportunity policies that made this country great. host:here is a tweet. guest: i will just say that we had the slowest economic recovery that i can remember in my lifetime. probably the slowest since world war ii. we are almost two years in the economic recovery. before we would have seen

unemployment at 6%. we have not the last -- lost as much money from the highs of 2007, but the average person is not in the stock market. they need a job. they want to work 40 hours a week, but their employer will only give them 30 hours a week. for the average american, it is whether or not they have a job and have to worry about losing it. it is about having work been made available to them. host: that go to the democrat line. caller: it is like nobody understands what happened to america's economy. president eisenhower said there is a secret organization in the industrial field, which is trying to bring us down. nobody listened. kennedy and reagan sounded out.

even george bush, when he tried to do his thing, paying for the war with iraq and the oil, and all of the money that they found over there -- where did it go? if they use that money and put it to the economy, we would not be in this trouble. guest: i remember president eisenhower's farewell address very well. he talked about the military industrial complex and it was a concern. he never said it was a secret. i do not know what the caller is saying about what kennedy learned and reagan learned about the military industrial complex. both were fighting a cold war and put an enormous amount of resources into our military. i am sure there was waste.

we won the cold war without firing a shot. what they did a ultimately prevailed. host: republican line. caller: i want to ask you a question. would you say that if we were to raise taxes on the wealthy, say 90%, would that into the government create jobs, rather than waiting on the super rich people to create jobs, which we know they have not done over the past 8-10 years, would you say that would help the economy? guest: we ran an editorial in yesterday's.

-- yesterday. if you tax them 100%, it would bring in 1.9 trillion dollars a year -- $1.90 trillion a year. it would not pay for anything that the government spends money on. it would barely cover the cost of medicare and medicaid and social security. those costs are going up so much that all of the money collected from them, it would not pay the bill for those three programs by 2016. the sad part is that even though the top 1% top income earners pay 30% and moderate income people pay lot in other taxes -- the sad part is that there are not enough rich people out there. we cannot pay our bills with them. if anyone says they want to tax the rich, they are talking

about taxing the middle class as well. host:mike, go ahead. caller: i want to take it a little bit different. i want to say that when you have kids -- when we were kids, the adults say, shut up in the station a child plays. when we become an adult, everyone says, let's not talk about it and hope it goes away. the real problem is that there is no right accountability. the republicans and the rich, they take advantage of people. obama came in there being a humble man. they broke his hamas, took him from the church. himrokenhumbleness and took

from the church. he cannot do anything when people around him say he is the wrong color to fix things. then you have other people screaming, we would rather vote for rich people who are our color and they will do a bad job, even though obama has tried to [inaudible] we went through everything and tried our best, but it seems like everybody looks past that. host: any thoughts and reactions to his comments? guest: one of the things that the election of obama proved is that while we still have a long ways to go, we have still made progress in this country. millions of americans of all colors voted for obama. they voted for change.

i have relatives that voted for him. ultimately, we judge people by the content of their character and their policies as president, not their color. his approval rating is 41%. his approval rating among hispanics has fallen. this is a report card not based on his race, but his performance. after about 2.5 years in office, you have to be judged by your own policies and not blame your predecessors, even though there is much to blame their. host: here is a comment to an earlier tweet. do you agree with that? guest: several people have left the federal reserve board of

governors and express their public distain for this qualitative easing, which is basically printing money. a lot of this economic recovery that we see may have been sustained from just printing money. we are seeing inflation -- not just in gasoline. go to your local supermarket. you see how much food is going up. the economic stability at the price of long-term inflation -- if we continue with these policies, we suffer a danger that we may see what we saw in the 1970's. we had stagnation in the economy, low job creation, and inflation. rising prices destroys people's savings. that was one of the worst things that ever happened. i do not want to have that happen. the fed policies are miss kate

-- misguided. host: some republicans and comment tea party members of congress say they will not vote for it unless it includes a long-term fiscal plan to address the debt and deficit. should that be part of the condition before republicans agreed to vote yes? guest: something has to be attached to the debt limit. this is not the time to negotiate dramatic budget cuts. there are a few things we should certainly do. we should into this game but if you fail to raise the debt limit, it will hurt the credit worthiness of the united states.

if the dead sea's -- ceiling is not race, the money thief -- raised, the money that the federal government takes in will go to covering the bonds. the states are putting pressure on the federal government to bail them out or their financial mistakes. i think the federal government, which [inaudible] we should demand a full transparency from the state. there are all kinds of reforms. some think we should look to a two year budget. many states have that. the first year they decide where to spend the money. the second year is oversight. figuring out how the taxpayers' money is spent and if it is

spent wisely. there is transparency. obama teamed up with coburn for the transparency bill when he was a senator. they put the records in budgets on the web, so people could find out where the money is being spent. that bill dropped off of the radar screen when obama ran for president. i think that was a great idea, and we should bring that back. i would think bill -- obama would feel compelled to sign it, since it was his bill. host: there is debate on whether or not to vote for a bill that would raise the debt ceiling. here is what they said.

guest: i agree with the first part of his analysis. i think there has been way too much uncertainty. everyone has frozen of that capital on the sidelines and has not been invested into job creation. not having the debt ceiling raised would have some bad signals. i think it is a game of chicken, similar to what we saw with the lame duck session. i do not think that wall street for anyone else is going to

allow the debt ceiling not to be raised. should we take prudent steps to attach realistic reforms that most people can't agree on such as transparency -- can agree on, such as transparency? the answer is yes. should it be a showdown over future spending? i do not think so. there will be political, a round of the debt ceiling. -- around the debt ceiling. both sides i think are playing this for all political worth. host:nick in michigan. caller: did the president know

and it congress know when they spent the money that it was. to require an increase in the debt ceiling now? did we know that -- that it was going to require an increase in the debt ceiling now? did we know that? guest: the debt ceiling has been raised something like 18 times in the past few years. it has happened on a bickering basis. barack obama -- on a recurring basis. many have used the debt ceiling as a political football. the stimulus package was a down payment on what we ran up spending the last few years. they knew what they patrolling. they probably should have done something different. we have to deal with the hand that has been dealt us. host: independent mind, ed.

-- line, ed. caller: i am tired of the infighting going on. we have to stop this class war. we have to save our country. i am 62 years old. i would hate to see us going down this road. host: i want to ask you about cover debt and how much we spend on defense, since he said you were in the military and an expert on airplanes. the money that we spent on military and equipment is part of the debate. should there be spending cuts for the pentagon?

caller: a lot of the money goes towards retirement and people hurt overseas. a lot of the money goes to research and development. we have tankers that cost billions of dollars. maybe we have too many carriers. a lot of our money goes toward paying retirement, disability, and a host of other things. i do not want to see the military pay the price for cuts. guest: a, from a military family. there is waste -- i come from a military family. certainly, there is waste. my father was stationed in germany. we still have a 50,000 troops in germany.

we may be able to reduce that amount to some extent. we have military bases in many countries. the real money are the promises we have made to future generations in medicare, medicaid, social security. it has been a cruel hoax from many people. singing they cannot meet the pension obligations that they promised people -- saying they cannot meet the pension obligations that they promise people -- we need to reform this. we have to update these changes for the 20% century. medicare was -- 21st century. medicare was a gold standard for 1965. it has not changed much since the prescription drug benefit. we need to figure out which health outcomes can be altered

for the better. we do not need to abolish these programs, but make them relevant for future generations. there is not a single part of the private sector that has stayed the same from 1965. we need to learn from the knowledge from the private sector and apply it to the public sector. host: to use support paul reince plan for medicare and medicaid? plan for medicare and medicaid? guest: i do not support every part of it. many medicare patients can go out and shop from many different plans. politically, we are not one to change this plan for anyone under the age of 55. we will give them all kinds of options.

it can be a better plan, because it can bring the forces of competition to play. in the federal government, we say we should give people the same kind of health benefits the federal government has. they have a range of choices. we should give the same range of choices to medicare patients, so they can buy plants that are better suited to their circumstances. host: there is an opinion piece in your paper, the wall street journal, called reverse robin hood. what is your reaction? guest: price controls -- nearly

half the positions -- physicians will see medicaid patients. the status quo is unsustainable. the basis of what paul ryan has proposed was endorsed by a bipartisan commission set up by bill clinton. it had a couple of democratic senators on it. since then, the budget director has endorsed the basic concept behind the ryan plan. there is a support on this because of the partisanship. we have to change something about medicare to update it for the future. supporting the status quo and taking pot shots at anything that is presented as an alternative is not responsible. what is your alternative other than price controls? i have lived in countries with

nationalized health insurance. rationing is not good for old people. you wait nine months for a hip replacement treatment. you wait nine months for procedures. some people die because they are waiting to long. that is a scene in canada. the wait list -- seen in canada. the way this is so long that people died waiting on it. host: we will look at the bipartisan deficit commission and aspects of its leader. today we will look at medicare and medicaid. each day we are looking at different things. wednesday will be defense and security spending. thursday, overhauling the tax policy. friday, a look at social security and what the bipartisan commission proposed on that. michigan, a democrat line.

host: i want to thank c-span. i want to make a request before a comment. would you in the future do something on all of these think tanks that are across the united states that are preparing this extremist, right rwing legislation? i will send an e-mail, but i would hope that you consider doing that. mr. fund, as i have listened to you, i have made a long list. so security has not caused this deficit. it will be solvent for years in the years to come. when you speak of ireland and other countries of a symbol of

what could happen to us -- you were pricing -- praising ireland. they followed your business model. they collapsed because of it. now they are falling in an austerity plan. china is investing. you are praising china now. china is investing in high-speed rail and developing their country and improving their roads, improving their education. host: we are running late. we got your point. guest: we have neglected our infrastructure in many parts of the country for a long time, because we treated to new programs and entitlements like obama care. if we did not create so many entitlements, maybe we would have money to repair our conver]

>> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states.

[cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> hello, everybody. hello. [cheers and applause] hello, everybody. thank you. [cheers and applause] thank you so much. everybody have a seat. it's good to be back. good to be back in annandale. good to be back in nova. how's everybody doing? [cheers and applause] i want to make a couple of acknowledgments. first of all congressmen jerry connelly is here.

dr. george gabriel, the provost of northern virginia community college is here. and the president, bob templin is here. [cheers and applause] it is great to be back. i keep on coming back because jill biden keeps on telling me to come back. [cheers and applause] i tend to listen to her. either we say vice president joe biden's best quality is of the. so jill couldn't be here today because she is teaching on day and she does not skip past for anybody, including the president of the united states. [laughter] what they want to do is make a quick remark at the top of that i'm just going to open up for questions. this gives me a chance to get out of the immediate environment of washington and hear directly

from voters in every conversation with them. i am grateful of the tip time. you know, last week i laid out a plan to get america's finances in order. it was a planned for shared prosperity for shared sacrifice. and shared responsibility. so before i take your questions, i want to talk a little bit about this plan briefly because it goes to the heart of what is happening at this campus and schools like it all across america. and my plan does things. first, it cut spending and brings down the deficit. we all know how important that is. just like any student on a tight budget, i'm assuming there's accused units on a tight budget

year. what do you show of hands as units on the tape which it. last back i've been there. just like you, america has to start living within it means. for a long time, washington that it's like the death if it didn't matter. a lot of folks promised us a free lunch. so i think everybody needs to recall we had a surplus back in 2000. 11 short years ago. the democrat taxes for everybody, including millionaires and billionaires, fought two wars and created a new and expensive prescription drug program and we didn't pay for any of it. and as the saying goes, there is no such thing as a real lunch. so we were left with a big deficit. as i was coming into office we

had the worst recession since the great depression and that made it worse because in a recession two things happen. number one, the federal federal government helps out the date, localities to prevent teacher layoffs and firefighters and police officers have been laid off and all of that cost money. it requires more money to provide additional help to people who have lost their jobs were in danger of losing their homes. the federal government puts more money out but because the recession is taking less money and in tax revenues, so that poses the deficit question. now, if we don't close this deficit now that the economy has begun to grow, if we keep on sending more than we take in, it is going to cause serious damage to our economy.

companies might be less likely to set up shop here in the united states of america. it could end up costing you more to take out a loan for a home or for a car because if people keep on having to finance america's debt, and a certain point they have to start charging higher interest rates. we won't be able to afford investments in education for clean energy for all the things we care about because we know it would 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 a to an old-fashioned principle of shared responsibility. that means everybody has either part. so if my plan does is it starts with calming the budget for

savings wherever we can find it. we had a good start a few weeks ago when both righties came together around a compromise that cut spending, but also kept the government open and kept vital investment in things that we care about. we need to build on those. and i'm not going to quit until we find every single time of waste and misspent money. we don't have enough money to waste right now. i promise you we'll check on a cushion. you name it. the finding savings in our domestic and it only gets you so far. we're also going to have to find savings in places like the defense budget. [applause] is your commander-in-chief, i will not cut a penny if it undermines their national

security. over the last two years come of that great defense, bob gates, has taken on wasteful spending that doesn't protect their troops, doesn't protect our nation. old weapons systems, for example, that the pentagon doesn't want the congress sometimes keep on stepping into the budget. well-connected special-interest to get this program stuck in the budget even in the pentagon says we don't need this particular weapon systems. secretary gates has found a lot of ways like that and has been able to save us $400 billion so far. i believe we can do that again. $400 billion even in washington that's real money. that funds a lot of pell grants. that funds a lot of assistant for communities like this one.

[applause] will also reduce posters and name and strengthen medicare and medicaid through some commonsense reforms that will get rid of, for example, wasteful subsidies to insurance companies, reforms that can improve care like make it easier for folks to buy generic drugs for helping providers manage care for the chronically though more effectively. it can reform the tax total so it's fair and simple, so that the amount -- [applause] said the amount of taxes you paid doesn't depend on whether you can hire an accountant or not. and we've also got to end tax cuts for the wealthiest

americans. [applause] let me say, this is not because we want to punish success. i suspect they're a bunch of young people in this gym that are going to end up being wealthy and that's good. we want you to. we want you to go out there and start a business and create jobs and put other people to work. that's the american way. we are going to have to ask everybody to sacrifice and were asking community college to sacrifice. we're asking people who are going to see potentially fewer services in their neighborhood to make a little sacrifice than we can ask millionaires and billionaires to make a little sacrifice.

[applause] we can't just tell the wealthiest, you don't have to do a thing. you just sit there and relax and we're going to solve this problem, especially when we know the only way to pay for these tax cuts for the wealthiest americans is by asking seniors to pay thousands of dollars more for their health care for cutting children of head start or doing away with health insurance for millions of americans on medicaid, seniors in nursing homes or poor children or middle-class families who may have a disabled child, and not just a child. this is not a trade-off but i'm willing to make. it is not a trade-off i think most americans think it's fair, no matter what party you belong to. that is not who we are as a country. we're better than that. so that's the first part of the

plan, cutting spending and a way that is shared for us or shared responsibility. but here's the second part of the planned and that's why i'm here at this campus today. even if for making sure the government lives within its means, we still have to invest in the future. we've still got to invest in use. we sought to strengthen middle-class growth economy. we'll have to save whatever we can until my proposal makes them tough cut to some worthy programs and services that we were in better times they continue to fund. but i'll tell you what i'm not going to do. we're not going to reduce the deficit by sacrificing investment in our infrastructure. we're not going to allow our roads and bridges to grow more and more congested while places like china are building new roads and new airport and thousands of miles of high-speed

rail. we want businesses to locate here in the united states of america and create jobs here. we want to make sure america is both to compete. we've got to have the best roles. we've got to have the quickest and the fastest route in networks. that's who we are. we've got to invest governments we've got to invest governments we've got to invest governments for basic science. that's not a viable choice. america has always in the world engine of innovation and every. that's who we are. that's how we prosper. i don't want other countries to lead in the industries of tomorrow. i want new technologies invented here in the united states. i want new solar panels and wind turbines in fuel-efficient cars and advanced batteries all to be made right here in the united

states of america. i want to invest it right here. [applause] i mean, let's just take energy as an example. folks are out there dealing with gas at four bucks a gallon. it's just another hardship and another burden at a time when we're just coming out of recession that things are already pretty tight for folks. now, whenever this happens, just like clockwork, you see politicians go in front of the cameras. both say they've got a three-point plan for two buck a gallon gas. the truth is the only real solution to helping families that pump in the medium and long-term as clean energy. as i will save families running and reduce dependence on foreign

oil. we've got to develop new to allergies to lessen our reliance on a fuel that is finite in the we've got to import from other countries, including some very unstable parts of the world. and that's why i think that cutting clean energy investments by 70% -- 70%, which has been proposed by some in congress would be such a mistake. finally, and i know this is near and dear to your heart. we're not going to reduce deficit by cutting education. [cheers and applause] in a world where our students face stiff competition and students from other countries. why would remake it harder for you to compete?

we see why it matters right here. more than 10,000 students at this college, at this college a lot are relying on l. grant to help pay their tuition. it's almost 3000 students at the annandale campus alone. 3000 didn't just at this campus. how many of you in the audience have gotten a pell grant to help you pay your way? how many of you can't afford to pay another $1000 to go to school? i know what this is like. scholarships help make it possible for me and for michelle to go to college. it's fair to say i wouldn't be president if it hadn't been for somebody helping me be able to afford college. that's why you think would be such a huge mistake to ballot the budget on the backs of

students by cutting scholarships by as much as a thousand dollars, forcing students to go without them altogether. i just spent the last two years meek insurance that is giving subsidies to banks, we were giving that money directly to student in the form of more grants and better grants on their loans. all the work we've done over the last two years. that's not a smart way to close our deficit. [applause] so that the bottom line. just as it would undermine our future to ignore our deficit, you would also undermine our future to ignore the promise of students like you. can people come to the school to get a degree in the hopes of living a better life, giving your children and grandchildren the better life.

that's the core of the debate were having right now. both democrats and republicans agree that we should reduce the deficit. in fact, there is general agreement we need to cut spending by about $4 trillion over the medium term. and when folks in washington agree on many income and that's a good sign. so the debate isn't about whether we reduce our deficit. the debate is about how we reduce our deficit. my view is we need to live within our means while still investing our future, cutting where he can while investing in education, investing in infrastructure and strengthening the safety net provided by programs like medicare so they are there for this generation and next generation.

[applause] and here's the good news. i believe democrats and republicans can come together. it won't be easy there's going to be fierce disagreements. shockingly enough there will be some politics but along the way. there'll be those who say that word too divided, that the partisanship is too stark but i'm optimistic. i am hopeful. both sides have come together before. i believe we can do it again. and here is why this is important. ultimately this debate is not just about numbers on a page. it is about making sure you can meet the most of your futures, the you can find a good job and achieve the life you are studying for it in a nation that is prosperous and rich with opportunities for anyone who's willing to work hard to get ahead. that is my focus.

that's what i think about first thing i wake up in the morning and when i go to bed at night and that's what they think about all the hours in between. that's why i'm going to need your help. this is probably my most important message today. i'm going to need your help. i can't afford to have all of you as high standards in this debate. i want everybody to be in the game. i want you to hold me accountable. i want you to hold all of washington accountable. there is a way to solve this deficit problem in an intelligent way that is fair and shares the sacrifices that we can share opportunity all across america. but i can't do that if your voices are not heard. her powerful voices in washington, powerful voices in washington that will reduce. if you are not hurt, that's exactly what will happen. if you are hurt, then we're

going to meet this challenge. we are going to secure our future and make our country stronger and more prosperous than it's ever before. with that i want to take some questions. thank you very much, everybody. [applause] thank you. thank you. thank you. testing, there we go. we've got some people in the audience, our wonderful volunteers with microphones. when i calling you, if you could introduce yourself in the way for the microphone so we can all hear you the miniature juicier cells and try to keep the questions coming in no, relatively sure. i will try to keep my answers relatively short. and i'm going to go boy girl,

boy girl, just to make sure things are fair. all right, let me start with this young lady right there. that's right, you. yes, you. i'll call on you, too. go ahead. >> my name is added so and i'm i'm a student here at nova. i'd like to know your plan to cut $4 trillion in the next 12 years and is any of that towards the education budget? >> no, you know what we've done is we have actually said that even as we are making on this pending cuts, we actually think that education spending should go up a little bit. [applause] and the reason -- the reason is

not the money solves all the problems in education. it does that. but whether it's k-12 or higher education, money does make a difference if it's used intelligently. so for example, what were you doing at the k-12 level is we've designed a program called race to the top and it's a pretty straightforward program. but it says to school districts and states all across the country is in addition to the usual money you get for disadvantaged kids come the usual money you get for disabled kids have most of which that is given out of formulas, so it just depends how many kids are there and how many kids are disadvantaged or disabled, were also going to have a little bit of money that we save to give to schools and school districts

that are really digging deep to reform themselves and to find new ways to improve performance. so if you are doing a great job in recruiting and training new teachers, if you are doing a great job in lifting of schools that are underperforming and there are about 2000 schools in the country that are what are called dropout -- is. they're just not doing the job. so if ms to you say we've got a special plan to make sure those schools are doing a great job. if you've got innovative programs in math and science education, if you're doing some things that increase accountability, improve accelerants, then we're going to give you a little extra money, but you're going to have to reform to do it. so the idea is not just spending more money for it down, it's

time more money to improve performance in real reform. thus overturning k-12. now, what we're doing at the community college and university levels is we've redesigned some of the programs like i'll grant programs. it used to be that the student loan programs used to go through banks and they would skim billions of dollars in profits, even though they weren't taking any risk of the federal government was giving team loves. swingset lusciously's money directly to the students. that will give us an extra several billion dollars we can use to provide all of you additional scholarships, higher levels for programs, but were also working with community college to see, can we make sure the programs at the community colleges are a suspect it is they can be and provide the

training and skills you need to succeed. so for example, one of the things we're doing is identify where the jobs of the future? to make it the businesses to help design curriculums ahead of time so young people when they go through and taking out loans are making big investments, they know there's going to be a job at the end of the tunnel. so we need our money, but we also need more reform. and in order to provide more money for education, were having to make some cuts in some other areas that are going to be difficult in some cases. i just mentioned the defense budget, for sample. you know, there were certain aspects of the defense budget that i will not touch. for example come and make ensure troops have the equipment they need to be safe, making sure

that -- [applause] making sure that when they come home, veterans are getting the help they need for posttraumatic stress disorder were to be allowed to go to college themselves. there are certain commitments we make to our men and women in uniform that are sacred and we can't cut back on us. as i said, there's some weapon systems that just don't work. there are some that may work, but we don't need. there are some that we just can't afford. some are going to have to make some difficult decisions on some of those issues. and let's face it, there are also social service programs that don't work. one of the things they would say is if you're really progressive, you've got to be willing to examine whether something that

you are paying for is actually working. if it isn't working, the money could be used somewhere else still people. so we've got to have a much more rigorous review of how affect to the programs are. some work and some don't. if they don't work, we should eliminate it and put it into programs that do. okay? abbé, the gentleman's churn rate that they are. >> mr. president, i've lived overseas for the last 15 years in very good medical care, but now that i'm in the states and on medicare, i find something interesting in that is that medicare won't pay for any expenses overseas. it has to be here in this country and that costs you money, the government and cost me money, but it is of course for the health care industry. would you be interested in changing that?

>> well, i think you're raising an interest in point. first of all, medicare is one of the most important killers of our social safety. [applause] and so before i get to your specific point, i want everybody to understand what the debate right now about medicare is taking place between democrats and republicans is because you're going to need this as this debate unfolds with the next several months. the house republicans just passed a proposal and their main plan to reduce our long-term deficits and debt is to turn medicare into a voucher program. what would have been would be good right now seniors was there

on medicare, you basically are able to get the care that you need and medicare covers it for you. what happened on this proposal is to get a set amount of money. you can then go on private marketplace and his insurance, but if the voucher you were getting worse for six or $7000 the insurance company said it's going to cost you $12,000, well, you're going to have to make up the difference. and so it's estimated by the congressional budget office, which is an independent high partisan sort of referee in congress that determines these things, they figure seniors would end up paying twice as much for their health care as they are currently. at least twice as much.

and more importantly, it would get worse over time because health care inflation goes up a lot faster than regular inflation. so your health care costs keep going up and up in a period the voucher doesn't each year, more and more costs come out of pocket. now i think that is the wrong way to go. that would fundamentally change medicare as we know it and i'm not going to sign up for that. having said that, we are going to have to reform medicare and our entire health care system in order to improve quality for the amount of money we spend because we spend much more money in this country on health care than any any other industrialized country and our outcomes are better. and that's what we started doing

with health care reform last year. essentially what we said is let's not just dump these additional costs on seniors. i mean, it's not hard to save the government money if you're willing to say here, you pay for it. that's not a solution. the question is how do we make health care cost more overall? that means that we work with providers to say, how can you do a better job providing care to the chronically ill? about 15%, 20% of the patients account for 80% of the cost because they have chronic illnesses like diabetes, can we incentivize providers, doctors, hospitals to do a better job monitoring those illnesses, preventing illnesses, trypanosoma says in a comprehensive way because of the overall cost of the system to go down. can we stop with the five or six

tests, all of which cost money to be one test and have the results e-mailed to everybody you need to do with. i can see this money. so there are a whole host of steps that we can take that could make a big difference in reducing health care costs over well. keep in mind, even if you're not on medicare, the overall cost of health care are being driven up for you and even if you're on private health care, you're paying about a thousand dollars per family in extra costs because of all the uncompensated care that comes in, all the folks who show up at the emergency room, all the medical errors that take place in hospitals and end up costing money as a whole. if we can squeeze those inefficiencies out of the health care system, then we can maintain medicare as we know it, but still reduce the cost to the federal government and to everybody in society.

now, the we don't need any health care do we? [laughter] to get to your question then, my preference would be that you don't have to travel to mexico or india to get cheap health care. i'd like you to be able to get it right here in the united states of america, that's high quality. [applause] so 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 here in the united states of america. that's going to make a big difference. medicare is a good place to start because medicare's is such a big purchaser. and if we can start changing how the health care system works inside of medicare, then the

entire system changes. all doctors, hospitals will adapt these best practices. the same is true, by the way, for prescription drugs. one other thing we want to do as part of our health care reform package is let's start doing a better job of negotiating better prices for prescription drugs here in the united stated so that you don't feel like you're getting cheated because you are paying 30% more for 40% more than prescription drugs in canada or mexico. reimportation is a short-term solution that a lot of seniors are resorting to. but why should drugs invented here in the united states end up being more expensive in another country? reason is because track companies can get away with it to your and we should change some of those systems to make it cheaper for everybody here. that could make a huge difference in terms of reducing the deficit.

thank you. all right, the young ladies turn right here. hold on. can we get a makeover here or do i need to lend her my night? >> thank you, mr. president. i am in need of christ and, if a student here at northern virginia community college. i did my second career now. my question isn't about 15 years i'll be eligible for medved -- social security and i am part of the baby boomer generation and i don't know if there will be social security when i get ready. i probably will retire for another 25 years. >> yeah, you look pretty young. you look like you've got a lot of career left in you. >> yeah, so i think another 25 years i'll be working, but i don't know if it will be there when they need it and i'm concerned about that. >> when they talk about social

security. the big drivers of our deficit are health care costs. i mean, the thing that we've really got to get control of his medicare and medicaid. that is what is sky rocketing really fast is 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 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 am 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 touch it at all, then what would happen if by the time you

retire or maybe just a couple years that you retire, you might find incentives getting every dollar you were counting on, you are only getting 75 cents out of that dollar. because what is happening is the population is getting older and there's 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 fight to get into work with providers, you know, really get much more substantial reforms. the social security, it's just a matter of tweaking how it currently works. politically, it's hard to do. politically it's hard to do. for example, i'll give you an 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 in 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 are paying financials of security. but for warren buffett, he stops paying a little bit over $100,000 in the next 50 billion he's not paying a dime in social security taxes. so if we just made a little bit of an 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 kinds 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 when i proposed is, let's work on social security, but let's not confuse that with this major budget debate we are having about how we deal with both spending and revenues because that is the problem that is going to require some really hard work it's a bipartisan cooperation. all right, gentlemen -- gentlemen in the white shirt in the middle. three guys right road. >> mr. president, may challenge to mr. here at nova and i am really concerned about the clean energy solution because with the deficit we have, most of the

solution at alternatives are far more expensive than the things we have now. so how are we going to reduce the deficit and at the same time develop clean energy alternatives as well as removing the current system we have in place that are dependent on oil and other things from other countries? >> well, it's a great question. [applause] let me start with gas prices because i know that's on everybody's mind. 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. 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've got a limited budget and you just watch the hard-earned money going away, the oil companies will once again probably make record profits this quarter, it's pretty frustrating. if you're driving 50 miles a day to work and you can afford to buy some fancy new hybrid car, so you are stuck the old heater that is giving you eight miles a gallon, that's pretty frustrating. now, i wish i could tell you that there was an easy, simple solution is nice. it is true that a lot of what is driving oil prices up right now is not the lack of supply. there's enough supply. there is enough oil a year for world demand.

the problem is that we'll do is sold on world market and speculators and people make various bad and they say you know what, we think maybe there is a 20% chance that something might happen in the middle east that might disrupt oil supplies, so we're going to bed that oil is going to go up real high and that spikes up prices significantly. we are 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 taking advantage of consumers. but the truth is that it is a world commodity and when prices spiked up like this, there aren't a lot of short solutions.

but we have our medium and long-term solutions. now, one solution is making sure we are increasing production of u.s. oil. and we have actually continually increased u.s. production so u.s. production is as high as it ever been. the problem is we only have about 2% to 3% of the worlds oil reserves and we used diapers. so when you say we should be using traditional sources, the problem is we've got finite sources when it comes to oil. and that means we got to find some replacements. there are a couple of alternatives. one, are biofuels. i was down in brazil. a third of their cars are run on biofuels, mostly at the mall made out of sugarcane.

we should be able to develop to ologies where we are building more efficient i/o feels overcurrent using. right now we use most of our ethanol comes from corn. it would be better if we could get farmers to work with industry to figure out whether we can use wood chips or algae were switchgrass or other, you know, other biomass that could create fuel that is competitive with gasoline. so that's point number one. point number two is we should be looking to elect their cars and how can we produce more effect to the lack of cars, cheaper electric cars here in the united states. technologically it's not feasible to get a car that runs on 150 miles an hour or maybe no

gallons of gas and you just get your car, plug it in at night in your garage. whatever energy is stored in your car battery goes back into your house and when you come back out at night, it's recharged and you're ready to go. you are right right now that hybrid cars and electric cars are more expensive than electric cars, but partly because we have an increased demand, that the unit costs have gone down. the more you produce or something, the cheaper it gets. you remember what it used to cost you for a flatscreen tv or laptop computer, but is volume. that, technology improves, costs go down. well, the same thing to be true for electric cars. the things return to do is increase demand of electric cars.

it 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 cost down. we've also increased fuel efficiency cars for the first time in 30 years. that will save about 1.8 william gallons or barrels of oil, and billion barrels of oil. we can now increase fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks and that could make a huge difference because now consumers are just, whenever they go buy a new car, by necessity the car will have higher mileage standards. all that drives down demand and to reduce gas prices overall. but there is one last component that you just pointed out. if were going to have electric cars, we still have two of

electricity. and how do we produce electricity? now with true that paul was something that is very plentiful in america. we are sort of the saudi arabia of coal. the challenge with coal is although it's very cheap, it's also dirty and it can create the type of air pollution that not only is contributing to climate change, but also creating an asthma for kids nearby. now in that stuff in is not a deal. so what we said is let's invest in clean and cool technology that potentially can capture some of these particulars in the atmosphere. if we can do that in an energy and cost efficient way to my bed is usually to us.

but we also have to look at other ways of generating electricity. it is true that the learned with great power marks the death of coal, for example, or natural gas. but that doesn't mean it will always be the case. it means we haven't developed technology to maximize our ability 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 extracting it from the ground, technologies are developed as we like and so there are some concerns that it might create pollution in our groundwater, for example. so we have to make sure if we do it, we do it in a way that doesn't poison people. the point is there is not going to be any single silver bullet. we have to develop all these energy alternatives, all of them will require investment in new

ways of thinking, science, research and typically no single company will be making this the best because it's not profitable for them to do it. that means the federal government historically has said that it had come you know what, we'll make this an investment in basic research and make someone else commercialize. that's how we invented it. so we invented the gps system. and so invented the barcode. those rossetto investments but eventually spread out throughout the economy and made everybody richer and better off. and that's all you got to do with energy as well, but that requires investment prepared you think we all should be. [applause] thank you. all right, it's the young ladies turn right there.

>> hi, mr. president and dr. rebecca hayes, history professor. my question is, you incur should see more more of the bipartisanship like the gangs are increasingly addressing the concerns you've mentioned. you think we'll see more and are you going to try to 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 did next is best to be able to do. you know, our conflicts in our disagreements tend to give more attention than our agreements. and you know, the easiest way to be on tv is to call somebody a

name. i mean, if you say something mean about somebody, that will get you on tv. if you say something nice, you figure that's boring. i'm not interested. so i think that there is a huge opportunity for us to work together, particularly on the 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 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 you've got to do it in a balance world. i believe you've got to have spending cut, but she can't cut things like education or basic research for infrastructure down to the bone. i believe that people will have been well it last in a society like me and have come you know, a very, very good income can afford to pay a little bit more, nothing crazy, just go back to the race that existed when bill clinton was president. i wasn't that long ago. [applause] that is the fear and to do,

especially if it makes sure seniors are getting medicare and kids are still going ahead there. why wouldn't i want to make that sacrifice? look, i think most wealthy americans feel the same way. i want to live in a society that's fair, not just at a charitable reasons, but because it improves my life. if there are young people a year who are going to get close and have opportunity, if i'm not, you know, driving by feeding homeless folks on the street, you know, why wouldn't i want to have a society where he knew the american dream is available for everybody? so the question is, how do we achieve the same goal? can we do it in a more balanced

way? and the house republican budget that 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 taxi and nobody wants to pay taxes. tax form and i thought, you know, there was a moment there where you look at the figure you are paying it's a well, let me think about my position on taxing the wealthy here. [laughter] i understand that. nobody volunteers and so the boy, i'm just wild to pay more taxes. but it is a matter of values and that we prioritize and i certainly don't think that taxes should be even lower. you know, i think america wants

smart government. they want to leave government. it wants accountable government, but we don't want no government. according to the republican budget that was passed, for example, would have to eliminate transportation by a third. remember when that bridge in minnesota collapsed with all those people on it? and there was a big cry, how can this happen in america? well, the national society of engineers, dave looked around and they give us a d. when it to infrastructure. our roads, bridges, sewers systems are all deteriorating. we don't even have a serious

high-speed rail infrastructure in this country. our broad ban lancers lower than places like south korea. so what. we cut transportation by another third and what's going happen to america? were just going to have potholes everywhere? were just going to have bridges collapsing everywhere? are we going to canoe to have airports that are substandard or we going to other countries and suddenly realized that china and south korea in all of europe all have better infrastructure than we do everything businesses will come here in the best? or do we think at some point come me say, you know what, america has a second-grade infrastructure and it causes too much money because their trucks are going over the potholes and getting messed up.

.. 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

there. thank you, everybody. thank you. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ >> this appearance is the first of three town hall meetings the president will be holding to discuss the federal budget. he will visit facebook headquarters in california. up next on c-span, a talk by the head of the federal agency that regulates offshore oil drilling. in today's "washington journal." later, federal communications chairman julius genachowski at the washington club. >> today the ipod mini is no

more. no! what are you doing? >> i give you the ipod nono. >> in his monologue, mike daisey comments on the world that he sees it. his latest examines apple and america's love of technology. >> all of my monologues come out of my obsession. they sprang out of the obsession that have collisions with one another. >> find out more sunday night. you can also download podcasts. it is available c-span.org online. /podcast. >> we are already to get the country on the right track. >> the debate ahead of us is about more than spending levels. it is about the role of government itself.

>> with the current year spending resolved, lawmakers turn their attention to the 2012 budget in the nation's debt limit. watch the debate on capitol hill and around washington online anytime with the c-span video library. search, watch, clipped, and share. >> on tuesday, the director of the bureau of ocean energy management, michael bromwich, outlined his agency's goal for offshore oil drilling and safety regulations. he also talked of her agency's reorganization efforts. april 20 and marks the one-year anniversary of the deepwater horizon explosion which killed 11 workers and spilled nearly 5 million gallons of oil in the gulf of mexico. from the center for strategic and international studies in washington, this is an hour.

\ >> will looked at the environmental impacts, what we could do better. but we thought we would devote, since we are at the one-year anniversary of macondo, what is the path forward? when you look at higher gasoline, it is no question that we need to get back to the work in the gulf of mexico but better, smarter, and safer. we've assembled what we think is -- director bromwich will speak third, and then we will take you to a panel and then on the research side. we have a former coo of constellation energy which you might find unusual in this setting. there is so much discussion of npo, that is a good model for

the offshore. in principle it is. but there is some real differences with the oil and gas industry offshore. and then robin west will join us as well. we will divide the session into tw of separate sessions. director bromwich will speak first and will take questions. then we will convene a panel discussion, all the presentations with the permission of our speakers will be available on our website. a couple of administrative things that sense we are talking about safety. low probability but high impact events. in the event that we have to evacuate since it is warm in here, the stairwells are out the doors t your left in my right. you have two choices, go upstairs or downstairs. one level down brings you to the garage. take one level up, you are and the full-year -- you are in the

foyer on k street. it is my pleasure to have director bromwich here today. he was here earlier when we talked about this, and we are taking bets on whether we would be in the first or second quarter before activity got started again. now permits are being let. the safety institute is being proposed. bsee is up and running. there is a lot more work to do and we think that this will be a work in progress. and that is a good thing. this is an evolution, a one time event that you need to react to, but hopefully if you get things better, they will not occur again or you can minimize the danger. director bromwich, for those of you who do not know, as a distinguished career in the public and private sector. it was on the litigation team, a

former inspector general for the department of justice, and in june of last year he was sworn into his new job as director of the bureau of ocean energy management regulation and enforcement. i got the right this time. since we have a full agenda, which is in german, it is my pleasure to give you michael bromwich. [applause] >> thank you very much, frank. good morning. [inaudible] is that better? more? ok. 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 protest a bit in the same series, the national commission on the deepwater horizon oil spill and offshore drilling, the

president's commission, had just issued its final report. it was a time when no need to -- no new deepwater exploratory or development drilling permits had been approved since deepwater horizon. most of the questions involved whether and when deepwater drilling would resume. much has happened since then. we have further elaborated and implemented rules and regulations is substantially enhance drilling and workplace safety and strengthen environmental protection. in addition, unlike a year ago when we watched in agony as bp attempted to improvise a response to contain the macondo blowout, operators must now have a plan and the demonstrated ability to shut in a deepwater blowout and capture oil flowing from a wild well. that is a huge advance. and so as we approach the first anniversary of deepwater horizon, tomorrow, many people are asking the perfectly appropriate question -- what has

changed since last april? the answer is, these new safety regulations, the new containment requirements, 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 anger it in the recent past and in the present -- anchor it in the recent past and in the present. i will focus on the progress of our agency which i began outlining in january. i will bring you up-to-date on the status of offshore drilling in u.s. waters, specifically the gulf of mexico. how would describe some recent international developments that suggest the value and importance of international cooperation and collaboration in the realm of offshore drilling. finally i will outline a comprehensive set of guiding principles related to the future of offshore drilling. a year ago tomorrow, the

deepwater horizon tragedy began to unfold in all its human and environmental horror. the explosions and fire on the rig to the lives of 11, injured many others, and resulted in the spill of close to 5 million barrels of oil in the gulf of mexico. in some ways, these events seem like they took place a long time ago. in other ways, they seem to occurred far more recently. at that time and in the immediate aftermath, deepwater horizon served like an electric current, and jolting the energy out of a complacency and overconfidence that had developed over the preceding decade, while also serving as a clear message that both industry and government had to reexamine its practices. the memories of the 11 crew members have guided our work and the work of industry and a reinforced our determination to diminish the risks that such a catastrophic blowout can occur again. when i was here last time on january 13, i outlined in broad strokes the blueprint for

reorganizing the formal mineral management service into three strong separate agencies within the department of interior. zero weeks later, january 19, secretary salazar and i outlined more specifics. we described how the new structure would eliminate the inherent conflicts that existed when mms was responsible for promoting resource development, enforcing safety regulations, and maximizing revenues from offshore operations. found that these conflicts resulted in agency the was guided for decades by a predominant interest in maximizing revenue for the u.s. treasury, rather than promoting safety and rigorous oversight. dow was unacceptable, and that is why one of our guiding principles has been to eliminate those conflicts by separating and clearly delineating missions across the three new agencies. the first digit reorganization took effect on october 1 of last year, when the revenue collection arm of the former mms

became the office of natural resources revenue, now located in a superb -- a separate part of the department, reporting to a completely separate command -- chain of command. we're in the middle of implementing the second critically important stage of the reorganization, separating the offshore resource management from the safety and enforcement programs. on october 1, boemre will cease to exist. we will have two brand new agencies. we are treating the bureau of ocean energy management, but boem, which will be responsible for managing development of the nation's offshore resources in an environmentally and economically responsible way. we are also creating the new bureau of safety and environmental enforcement, bsee,

which will enforce safety environmental regulations. in making important changes, we have relied on several guiding principles. first, separating resource management from safety oversight to allow our permitting engineers and inspectors greater independence. the goal is to create an aggressive, tough-minded, but fair regulator cat -- that can effectively evaluate the risks of offshore drilling, promote the development of safety cultures, and keep pace with technological advancements. second, ensuring that we create a sufficiently strong and effective bsee so that it can properly carry out the critical safety and environmental protection functions that are central to its mission. third, providing an organizational structure that ensures that thorough environmental analyses are conducted and that the potential environmental effects of proposes -- a proposed

operations are given appropriate weight during decision-making related to resource management. we're placing the balance of our environmental science and environmental analysis resources in boem to ensure that leasing and plan approvals activities are properly balanced and that environmental considerations are fully taken into account at early stages of the process. it takes more than good intentions to address some of the institutional weaknesses of the past. it takes a concrete and specific action. that is what we are taking. to provide you with a few important examples, we are strengthening the role of environmental analysis and enforcement. many of the investigations and reviews of mms over the past year, whether by the president's commission, the safety oversight board commissioned by secretary of salazar, the department of interior inspector general, and the council on environmental quality, came to the conclusion that in the rush to maximize revenues, the agency

had given short shrift to environmental considerations. we are creating the brand new position of chief environmental officer in boem to provide institutional assurance that of normal considerations will be given adequate consideration in resource development decisions, including the development of five-year plans, leasing decisions, exploration and development plan reviews, and other decisions that bear on resource management. we are recruiting nationally to fill this important position now and hope to attract an environmental scientist of national rapid -- a reputation who will serve as an important voice for environmental considerations and the agency and be a key player in developing the nation's oceans policy, while at the same time recognizing that the role is not to arrest offshore and energy development. we are also creating a new environmental enforcement and compliance program. compliance program.