it is a criticism of the u.s. that the focus has been on law enforcement as opposed to consumption and curbing the consumption. it is always interesting to hear that perspective. he has explained that before that the war on drugs is not just about law enforcement and you need to go-- you need to gor consumption. no one at this stage has been able to answer, is the flow actually down? are they kidding more? >> certification as someone who covers this extensively, when they saw the problem in one border area, does that pop up in another area? >> you squeeze the balloon in one spot and then moves to the other spot. we have seen that over the years with the flow of people in particular. you stop in california, it moves to texas. it moves to arizona and so on

and so forth. to a degree, on matter of shifting their focus and selwyn. to the extent of the drug flow, it is still unclear. you never know what you are missing. that is always the question. we know where the drug hubs are, atlantic, phoenix, and they go out in the spoken wheels system. if they knew that, that would stop all of them. >> the situation in kentucky and georgia, we saw earlier this month the story about the rise of prescription drugs in communities in ohio that particularly devastated by the economy. >> i thought it was interesting how he underscored the in seriousness of the problem, that kentucky has been dealing with this issue for well over a decade. but much as she described in terms of the problems of the drug flow over the border, it is

happening with states across the border. there is a pill pipeline from florida up to kentucky. and states along that way have been affected to the extent it kentucky has been able to pass legislation and has worked hard to put in place monitoring program and states around kentucky, to the north and east of the state, who have not put those measures into place at had that same kind of overflows she is talking about. >> the white house is announcing an effort with regard to drug control policy. how will we be a will to measure whether it is working or not? >> that is an open-ended question that no one has really answered. prescription drug events -- abuse, we saw in suburban philadelphia with aussie cotton evasion as we described it at the time. -- oxycontin invasion as we

described it at the time. >> i completely agree. one of the things that think hit home in his conversation, one particular type of prescription drug is addressed. there seems to be something else on the horizon. that is tricky for people in his position. >> thank you both for being with us here today. >> thank you. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> sunday, look at how people have the ethical issues. that begins at 2:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> today the ipod mini is no more!

no! don't take it away! i'd give you the ipod nano! [laughter] >> in his monologue on, mike daisey comments on the world as he see it. the latest examines apple and americans' love of technology. >> all of my monologues come out of my obsessions. they spring out of these obsessions, and they are in collision with one another. >> find out more tonight. you get also download p odcasts. >> on wednesday, president obama continued his criticism of the house republican debt reduction plan during a town hall meeting at facebook headquarters in california. he was also asked about immigration and education. this is about an hour and 15

minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome cheryl sandberg. >> thanks. i do not know exactly where to stand. it is my honor to welcome everyone but here in person and those watching on line to our first-ever facebook town hall with president barack obama. [applause] >> we've been fortunate to work with this administration on many issues we care about, education, jobs, technology, and most recently the white house conference on bullying

prevention. today we have the president for the first time visiting us. but this is one of the most popular people on facebook, with 19 million likes. welcome home, mr. president. [applause] we have many special guests joining us. house minority leader nancy pelosi. [applause] there you are. our governor, calvinism. -- gavin newsom. in addis states represented -- united states representatives. [applause]

our own mayor in palo alto. [applause] president of the board of supervisors of santa clara county. [applause] and the assembly member. thank you all for being here. [applause] aboutwe're glad to talk the central challenges facing our country in the difficult decisions we all need to make together. president obama is quick to take questions both from the live audience and from people on line. if you're watching online, please submit your questions. even though it is facebook, no poking the president. [laughter] all like to call out mark zuckerberg, our ceo. he will be reading the questions use of met on-line. come on up, mark.

-- you subnet online. come on up, mark. [applause] >> so lot of people all the world use facebook to share a lot of things. things about their day, how things are with their family, their kids, and their views on things like politics. one more a lot of government officials and candidates and folks are also using facebook to share their views with the people who are following them. sorry, i am kind of nervous. that's the president of the united states here. [applause] so it is never has been busy the in the history of the world to have people have their voice

heard. just post something, comment, like, but it is good to complement that on-line dialogue with face time as well. what better way to do that by having a facebook live question and answer what the president? it is our honored to welcome to facebook, if the president of the united states, barack obama. [cheers and applause]

>> well, thank you so much, facebook, for hosting this, first of all. [applause] my name is barack obama, and i'm the guy who got mark to wear a jacket and tie. [applause] thank you. [laughter] i'm very proud of that. [laughter] >> second time. >> i know. [laughter] i will say -- and i hate to tell stories on mark, but the first time we had dinner together and he wore this jacket and tie, i'd say halfway through dinner he's starting to sweat a little bit. it's really uncomfortable for him. so i helped him out of his jacket. [laughter] and in fact, if you'd like, mark, we can take our jackets off. [applause] >> that's good. >> woo, that's better, isn't it?

>> yes, but you're a lot better at this stuff than me. [laughter] >> so, first of all, i just want to say thank you to all of you for taking the time -- not only people who are here in the audience, but also folks all over the country and some around the world who are watching this town hall. the main reason we wanted to do this is, first of all, because more and more people, especially young people, are getting their information through different media. and obviously what all of you have built together is helping to revolutionize how people get information, how they process information, how they're connecting with each other. and historically, part of what makes for a healthy democracy,

what is good politics, is when you've got citizens who are informed, who are engaged. and what facebook allows us to do is make sure this isn't just a one-way conversation, makes sure that not only am i speaking to you but you're also speaking back and we're in a conversation, were in a dialogue. so i love doing town hall meetings. this format and this company i think is an ideal means for us to be able to carry on this conversation. and as mark mentioned, obviously we're having a very serious debate right now about the future direction of our country. we are living through as tumultuous a time as certainly i've seen in my lifetime. admittedly, my lifetime is a lot longer than most of yours so far. this is a pretty young crowd. but we're seeing, domestically, a whole series of challenges,

starting with the worst recession we've had since the great depression. we're just now coming out of it. we've got all sorts of disruptions, technological disruptions that are taking place, most of which hold the promise of making our lives a lot better, but also mean that there are a lot of adjustments that people are having to make throughout the economy. we still have a very high unemployment rate that is starting to come down, but there are an awful lot of people who are being challenged out there, day in, day out, worrying about whether they can pay the bills, whether they can keep their home. internationally, we're seeing the sorts of changes that we haven't seen in a generation. we've got certain challenges like energy and climate change that no one nation can solve but we're going to have to solve together. and we don't yet have all the institutions that are in place

in order to do that. but what makes me incredibly optimistic -- and that's why being here at facebook is so exciting for me -- is that at every juncture in our history, whenever we face challenges like this, whether it's been the shift from a agricultural age to a industrial age, or whether it was facing the challenges of the cold war, or trying to figure out how we make this country more fair and more inclusive, at every juncture we've always been able to adapt. we've been able to change and we've been able to get ahead of the curve. and that's true today as well, and you guys are at the cutting edge of what's happening. and so i'm going to be interested in talking to all of you about why this debate that we're having around debt and our deficits is so important, because it's going to help

determine whether we can invest in our future and basic research and innovation and infrastructure that will allow us to compete in the 21st century and still preserve a safety net for the most vulnerable among us. but i'm also going to want to share ideas with you about how we can make our democracy work better and our politics work better -- because i don't think there's a problem out there that we can't solve if we decide that we're going to solve it together. and for that, i'm grateful for the opportunity to speak to you. and instead of just giving a lot of long speeches i want to make sure that we've got time for as many questions as possible. so, mark, i understand you got the first one. >> yes, let's start off. so let's start off with the conversation about the debt. so i understand that yesterday morning you had a town hall in virginia where you talked about your framework not only for resolving the short-term budget issues, but the longer-term debt. and you spent some time talking about tax reform and some cost cutting, but you also spent a lot of time talking about

things that you didn't think that we could cut -- in education, infrastructure and clean energy. so my question to kind of start off is -- what specifically do you think we should do, and what specifically do you think we can cut in order to make this all add up? >> well, let me, first of all, mark, share with you sort of the nature of the problem, because i think a lot of folks understand that it's a problem but aren't sure how it came about. in 2000, at the end of the clinton administration, we not only had a balanced budget but we actually had a surplus. and that was in part because of some tough decisions that had been made by president clinton, republican congresses, democratic congresses, and president george h.w. bush. and what they had said was let's make sure that we're spending wisely on the things that matter, let's spend less on things that don't matter, and

let's make sure that we're living within our means, that we're taking in enough revenue to pay for some of these basic obligations. what happened then was we went through 10 years where we forgot what had created the surplus in the first place. so we had a massive tax cut that wasn't offset by cuts in spending. we had two wars that weren't paid for. and this was the first time in history where we had gone to war and not asked for additional sacrifice from american citizens. we had a huge prescription drug plan that wasn't paid for. and so by the time i started office we already had about a trillion-dollar annual deficit and we had massive accumulated debt with interest payments to boot. then you have this huge recession. and so what happens is less revenue is coming in -- because

company sales are lower, individuals are making less money -- at the same time there's more need out there. so we're having to help states and we're having to help local governments. and that -- a lot of what the recovery was about was us making sure that the economy didn't tilt over into a depression by making sure that teachers weren't laid off and firefighters weren't laid off, and there was still construction for roads and so forth -- all of which was expensive. i mean, that added about another trillion dollars worth of debt. so now what we've got is a situation not only do we have this accumulated debt, but the baby boomers are just now starting to retire. and what's scary is not only that the baby boomers are retiring at a greater rate, which means they're making greater demands on social security, but primarily medicare and medicaid, but health care costs go up a lot faster than inflation and older populations use more health care costs. you put that all together, and we have an unsustainable

situation. so right now we face a critical time where we're going to have to make some decisions how do we bring down the debt in the short term, and how do we bring down the debt over the long term. in the short term, democrats and republicans now agree we've got to reduce the debt by about $4 trillion over the next 10 years. and i know that sounds like a lot of money -- it is. but it's doable if we do it in a balanced way. what i proposed was that about $2 trillion over 10 to 12 years is reduction in spending. government wastes, just like every other major institution does, and so there are things that we do that we can afford not to do. now, there are some things that i'd like to do, are fun to do, but we just can't afford them right now. so we've made cuts in every

area. a good example is pentagon spending, where congress oftentimes stuffs weapons systems in the pentagon budget that the pentagon itself says we don't need. but special interests and constituencies helped to bloat the pentagon budget. so we've already reduced the pentagon budget by about $400 billion. we think we can do about another $400 billion. so we've got to look at spending both on non-security issues as well as defense spending. and then what we've said is let's take another trillion of that that we raise through a reform in the tax system that allows people like me -- and, frankly, you, mark -- for paying a little more in taxes. [laughter] >> i'm cool with that. >> i know you're okay with that. [laughter] keep in mind, what we're

talking about is going back to the rates that existed when bill clinton was president. now, a lot of you were -- (laughter) -- i'm trying to say this delicately -- still in diapers at that time. [laughter] but for those of you who recall, the economy was booming, and wealthy people were getting wealthier. there wasn't a problem at that time. if we go back to those rates alone, that by itself would do a lot in terms of us reducing our overall spending. and if we can get a trillion dollars on the revenue side, $2 trillion in cutting spending, we can still make investments in basic research. we can still invest in something we call arpa-e, which is like darpa except just focused on energy, so that we can figure out what are the next breakthrough technologies that

can help us reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. we can still make investments in education, so we've already expanded the pell grant program so that more young people can go to college. we're investing more in stem education -- math and science and technology education. we can still make those investments. we can still rebuild our roads and our bridges, and invest in high-speed rail, and invest in the next generation of broadband and wireless, and make sure everybody has access to the internet. we can do all those things while still bringing down the deficit medium term. now, there's one last component of this -- and i know this is a long answer but i wanted to make sure everybody had the basic foundations for it. even if we get this $4 trillion, we do still have a long-term problem with medicare and medicaid, because health care costs, the inflation goes up so much faster than wages

and salaries. and this is where there's another big philosophical debate with the republicans, because what i've said is the best way for us to change it is to build on the health reform we had last year and start getting a better bang for our health care dollar. we waste so much on health care. we spend about 20% more than any other country on earth, and we have worse outcomes because we end up having multiple tests when we could just do one test and have it shared among physicians on facebook, for example. we could focus on the chronically ill. 20% of the patients account for 80% of the costs. so doing something simple like reimbursing hospitals and doctors for reducing their readmissions rate, and managing somebody with a chronic illness like diabetes so that they're

taking their meds on a regular basis so that they don't come to the emergency room, that saves huge amounts of money. so that's what health care reform was about last year or a year and a half ago, and what we want to do is build on that and continue to improve the system. what the republicans right now are saying is, number one, they can't agree to any increases in taxes, which means we'd have to cut out -- of that $4 trillion, all of it would come from education, transportation -- areas that i think are critical for our long-term future. so, for example, they proposed 70% cuts in clean energy. well, i don't know how we free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil -- and anybody who is paying gas prices knows that there's an economic component to this as well as an environmental component to it -- if we're not investing in the basic research and technology that allows solar, wind and others to thrive and develop.

at the same time, what they've said is let's make medicare into a voucher program, so that retirees, instead of knowing that they're always going to have health care, they're going to get a voucher that covers part of the cost, and whatever health care inflation comes up is all going to be on them. and if the health insurance companies don't sell you a policy that covers your illnesses, you're out of luck. i think it is very important for us to have a basic social safety net for families with kids with disabilities, for seniors, for folks who are in nursing homes, and i think it's important for us to invest in our basic research. we can do all those things, but we're only going to be able to do it by taking a balanced approach. and that's what this big debate is about -- all about right now. all right? >> all right, so -- sorry, don't mean to cut off the applause. [applause] >> no, no, no, no, no. >> that was a very thorough

answer. >> no, they were -- they were stunned by the length of that answer. [laughter] but it's complicated stuff. >> so the next question is from someone watching facebook live. jay aptine from williamsburg, virginia writes in and asks, "the housing crisis will not go away. the mortgage financing for new homebuyers with low to moderate income is becoming very difficult. as president, what can you do to relax the policies that are disqualifying qualified homebuyers from owning their first home? how can you assure the low to moderate homebuyers that they will have the opportunity to own their first home?" >> well, it's a good question. and i'll be honest with you, this is probably the biggest drag on the economy right now that we have -- along with i know the frustrations people have about gas prices. what we've really seen is the housing market, which was a bubble, had greatly over-

inflated in all regions of the country. and i know i probably don't get a lot of sympathy about that here because i can only imagine what rents and mortgages you guys are paying. it is a real drag in all sorts of ways. people, first of all, they feel poorer even if they still have a home or they've already purchased a home, because for a lot of folks their mortgage is now what's called underwater. the mortgage is more than the home is worth. and so if you feel like your most important asset is now worth less than your debt, that's going to constrain how you spend. people who want to move have a great deal of trouble selling, and people who want to buy, as you pointed out, are seeing terms a lot more restrictive. so we've put in place a bunch of programs to try to see if we can speed along the process of

reaching a new equilibrium. for example, what we did is we went to the mortgage lender and said, why don't you renegotiate with your mortgage -- with the person with the mortgage, renegotiate the terms of their mortgage so that their principal is a little bit lower, they can afford the payments, and that way homes don't get foreclosed on, there are fewer homes on the market, and that will raise prices and that will be good for everybody. and we've seen some significant progress on that front. the challenge we still have, as your questioner properly points out, is that a lot of people who bought a first home when credit was easy now are finding that credit is tough. and we've got to strike a balance. frankly, there's some folks who are probably better off renting. is what we don't want to do return to a situation where

people are putting no money down and they've got very easy payment terms at the front end and then it turns out five years from now, because they've got an adjustable rate mortgage, that they couldn't afford it and they lose their home. i think the regulators are trying to get that balance right. there are certain communities with high foreclosure rates where what we're trying to do is see if can we help state and local governments take over some of these homes and convert them and provide favorable terms to first-time home buyers. but, frankly, i think we've got to understand that the days where it was really easy to buy a house without any money down is probably over. and what we -- what i'm really concerned about is making sure that the housing market overall recovers enough that it's not such a huge drag on the economy, because if it isn't, then people will have more confidence, they'll spend more, more people will get hired, and

overall the economy will improve. but i recognize for a lot of folks who want to be first-time homebuyers it's still tough out there. it's getting better in certain areas, but in some places, particularly where there was a big housing bubble, it's not. >> so i think the next question is from a facebook employee in the room today. so lauren hale has a question. lauren, where are you from? >> hi -- over here. >> hey, lauren. >> hi, mr. president. thank you so much for joining us today. i am originally from detroit, michigan, and now i'm out here working at facebook. so my question for you kind of builds on some of the things we were just talking about. at the beginning of your term you spent a lot of time talking about job creation and the road to economic recovery, and one of the ways to do that would be substantially increasing federal investments in various areas as a way to fill the void left from consumer spending. since then, we've seen the conversation shift from that of

job creation and economic recovery to that of spending cuts and the deficit. so i would love to know your thoughts on how you're going to balance these two going forward, or even potentially shift the conversation back. >> well, you're exactly right that when i first came into office our number-one job was preventing us from getting into another great depression. and that was what the recovery act was all about. so we helped states make sure that they could minimize some of the layoffs and some of the difficult budget choices that they faced. we made sure that we had infrastructure spending all around the country. and, in fact, we made the biggest investment in infrastructure since dwight eisenhower built the interstate highway system. we made the largest investment in history in clean energy research, and it's really paying off. for example, when i came into office, we had about 2% of the

advanced battery manufacturing here in america. and as everybody here knows, what's really holding us back from my goal of a million electric vehicles on the road is that battery technology is still tough. it's clunky, it's heavy, it's expensive. and if we can make significant improvements in battery technology then i think the opportunities for electric vehicles, alternative vehicles that are much cheaper -- our opportunities are limitless. so those were all investments that we made in the first two years. now, the economy is now growing. it's not growing quite as fast as we would like, because after a financial crisis, typically there's a bigger drag on the economy for a longer period of time. but it is growing. and over the last year and a half we've seen almost 2 million jobs created in the private sector.

because this recession came at a time when we were already deeply in debt and it made the abt worse, if we don't have serious plan to tackle the debt and the deficit, that could actually end up being a bigger drag on the economy than anything else. if the markets start feeling that we're not serious about the problem, and if you start seeing investors feel uncertain about the future, then they could pull back right at the time when the economy is taking off. so you're right that it's tricky. folks around here are used to the hills in san francisco, and you've driven -- i don't know if they still have clutch cars around here. anybody every driven a clutch car? [laughter] i mean, you got to sort of tap and -- well, that's sort of what we faced in terms of the

economy, right? we got to hit the accelerator, but we've got to also make sure that we don't gun it. we can't let the car slip backwards. and so what we're trying to do then is put together a debt and deficit plan that doesn't slash spending so drastically that we can't still make investments in education, that we can't still make investments in infrastructure -- all of which would help the economy grow. in december, we passed a targeted tax cut for business investment, as well as the payroll tax that has a stimulus effect that helps to grow the economy. we can do those things and still grow the economy while having a plan in place to reduce the deficit, first by 2015, and then over the long term. so i think we can do both, but it does require the balanced approach that i was talking about. if all we're doing is spending cuts and we're not discriminating about it, if

we're using a machete instead of a scalpel and we're cutting out things that create jobs, then the deficit could actually get worse because we could slip back into another recession. and obviously for folks in detroit, where you're from, they know that our investments can make a difference because we essentially saved the u.s auto industry. we now have three auto companies here in america that are all turning a profit. g.m just announced that it's hiring back all of the workers that it was planning to lay off. and we did so, by the way, at the same time as we were able to increase fuel efficiency standards on cars for the first time in 30 years. so it can be done, but it takes a balanced approach. [applause] >> all right, so we have a question from the university of florida, where in february, you launched this initiative at whitehouse.gov, younger americans with this goal to have a hundred youth

roundtables across the country and a bunch of them are taking place right now, watching this facebook live. so cesar fernandez and elisa rectanas are participating in one of those roundtables, and they wanted to ask you this, 'mr. president, in your deficit reduction speech last week you spoke of the need to not only reduce government spending but to also increase federal revenue. in light of our nation's budget challenges, will your administration consider revisiting policies such as the dream act, which the congressional budget office estimates will reduce the deficit by $1.4 billion and increase the government revenue by $2.3 billion over the next 10 years?' [applause] >> let me talk about not only the dream act but about immigration policy generally. and i want to thank -- sheryl sandberg actually participated in a discussion that we had yesterday, bringing together business leaders and government officials and faith leaders, a broad cross-section of americans together to talk about

how do we finally fix an immigration system that's fundamentally broken. for those of you who aren't familiar, the dream act is -- deals with a particular portion of the population, kids who were brought here when they were young by their parents. their parents might have come here illegally -- the kids didn't do anything. they were just doing what kids do, which is follow their parents. they've grown up as americans. they went to school with us or with our kids. they think of themselves as americans, but many of them still don't have a legal status. and so what we've said is, especially for these young people who are our neighbors, our friends, our children's friends, if they are of good

character and going to school or joining our military, they want to be part of the american family, why wouldn't we want to embrace them? why wouldn't we want to make sure that -- [applause] makeouldn't we want to sure that they're contributing to our future? so that's the dream act. but that's just a small part of a broader challenge that we have. immigration in this country has always been complicated. the truth of the matter is that we are both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. sometimes the laws haven't been fair. sometimes the laws have been restrictive to certain ethnic groups. there have been quotas. sometimes our immigration policies have been arbitrary and have been determined by whether industry at a particular time was willing to bring in

workers on the cheap. but what's undeniable is america is a nation of immigrants. that's our history and that's what makes us stronger. because we've got ambitious people from all around the world who come here because they've got a new idea and they want to create the new big thing, or they just want a better future for their kids and their family, and that dynamism is part of what's propelled our progress and kept us young. now, i think most americans understand that and most americans agree with that. at the same time, i think most americans feel there should be an orderly process to do it. people shouldn't just be coming here and cutting in front of the line, essentially, and staying without having gone through the proper channels. so what we've said is let's fix the whole system.

first of all, let's make the legal immigration system more fair than it is and more efficient than it is. and that includes, by the way, something i know that is of great concern here in silicon valley. if we've got smart people who want to come here and start businesses and are phds in math and science and computer science, why don't we want them to say? [applause] i mean, why would we want to send them someplace else? [applause] so those are potential job creators. those are job generators. i think about somebody like an andy grove of intel. we want more andy groves here in the united states. we don't want them starting companies -- we don't want them

starting intel in china or starting it in france. we want them starting it here. so there's a lot that we can do for making sure that high- skilled immigrants who come here, study -- we've paid for their college degrees, we've given them scholarships, we've given them this training -- let's make sure that if they want to reinvest and make their future here in america that they can. so that's point number one. but point number two is you also have a lot of unskilled workers who are now here who are living in the shadows. they're contributing to our economy in all sorts of ways. they're working in the agricultural sector. they are in restaurants, and they're in communities all across the country looking after children and helping to building america. but they're scared, and they

feel as if they're locked out of their surroundings. and what i've said is they did break the law. they came here -- they have to take responsibility for that. they should pay a fine. they should learn english. they should go to the back of the line so that they don't automatically get citizenship. but there should be a pathway for them to get legalized in our society so they don't fear for themselves or their families, so that families aren't separated. at the same time, let's make sure we've got a secure border so that folks aren't wandering through the desert to get here. let's make the legal immigration system more efficient and more effective so there aren't huge backlogs. this is all part of what we call comprehensive immigration reform. and there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to achieve a system that is fair, is

equitable, is an economic engine for america that helps the people who are already here get acculturated, and make sure that our laws aren't being broken but we're still true to our traditions. but, as i mentioned to sheryl yesterday, i can't solve this problem by myself. nancy pelosi is a big champion of this. the democratic caucus in the house i think is prepared for -- a majority of them are prepared to advance comprehensive immigration reform. but we're going to have to have bipartisan support in order to make it happen. and all of you have to make sure your voices are heard, saying this is a priority, this is something important -- because if politicians don't hear from you, then it probably won't happen. i can't do it by myself. we're going to have to change the laws in congress, but i'm confident we can make it happen. [applause]

>> all right. so the next one is from a facebook employee, leo abraham. leo, where are you from? >> hey, leo. >> hi, hey. i'm from -- originally from san jose, california. my question is -- the 2012 budget plan proposed by paul ryan has been praised by many in the media as bold or brave. do you see this as a time that calls for boldness, and do you think that the plan you outlined last week demonstrated sufficient boldness, or is this just a media creation? >> no, it's a great question. look, here is what i'd say. the republican budget that was put forward i would say is fairly radical. i wouldn't call it particularly courageous.

i do think mr. ryan is sincere. i think he's a patriot. i think he wants to solve a real problem, which is our long- term deficit. but i think that what he and the other republicans in the house of representatives also want to do is change our social compact in a pretty fundamental way. their basic view is that no matter how successful i am, no matter how much i've taken from this country -- i wasn't born wealthy. i was raised by a single mom and my grandparents. i went to college on scholarships. there was a time when my mom was trying to get her phd, where for a short time she had to take food stamps. my grandparents relied on medicare and social security to

help supplement their income when they got old. so their notion is, despite the fact that i've benefited from all these investments -- my grandfather benefited from the gi bill after he fought in world war ii -- that somehow i now have no obligation to people who are less fortunate than me and i have no real obligation to future generations to make investments so that they have a better. so what his budget proposal does is not only hold income tax flat, he actually wants to further reduce taxes for the wealthy, further reduce taxes for corporations, not pay for those, and in order to make his numbers work, cut 70% out of our clean energy budget, cut 25%

out of our education budget, cut transportation budgets by a third. i guess you could call that bold. i would call it shortsighted. [applause] and then, as i said, there's a fundamental difference between how the republicans and i think about medicare and medicaid and our health care system. their basic theory is that if we just turn medicare into a voucher program and turn medicaid into block grant programs, then now you, a medicare recipient, will go out and you'll shop for the best insurance that you've got -- that you can find -- and that you're going to control costs because you're going to say to

the insurance company, this is all i can afford. that will control costs, except if you get sick and the policy that you bought doesn't cover what you've got. then either you're going to mortgage your house or you're going to go to the emergency room, in which case i, who do have insurance, are going to have to pay for it indirectly because the hospital is going to have uncompensated care. so they don't really want to make the health care system more efficient and cheaper. what they want to do is to push the costs of health care inflation on to you. ownthen you'll be on your trying to figure out in the marketplace how to make health care cheaper. the problem is, you're just one person. now, you work at facebook, it's a big enough company. facebook can probably negotiate with insurance companies and providers to get you a pretty good deal. but if you're a startup company, if you're an entrepreneur out there in the back of your garage, good luck

trying to get insurance on your own. you can't do it. if you're somebody who's older and has a preexisting condition, insurance companies won't take you. so what we've said is let's make sure instead of just pushing the costs off on to people who individually are not going to have any negotiating power or ability to change how providers operate, or how hospitals or doctors operate, how insurance companies operate, let's make sure that we have a system both for medicare but also for people who currently don't have health insurance where they can be part of a big pool. they can negotiate for changes in how the health care system works so that it's more efficient, so that it's more effective, so that you get better care, so that we have fewer infection rates, for example, in hospitals, so there

are fewer readmission rates, so that we're caring for the chronically ill more effectively, so that there are fewer unnecessary tests -- that's how you save money. the government will save money, but you'll also save money. so we think that's a better way of doing it. now, what they'll say is, well, you know what, that will never work because it's government imposed and it's bureaucracy and it's government takeover and there are death panels. i still don't entirely understand the whole 'death panel' concept. sayinguess what they're is somehow some remote bureaucrat will be deciding your health care for you. all we're saying is if we've got health care experts -- doctors and nurses and consumers -- who are helping to design how medicare works more intelligently, then we don't have to radically change medicare. so, yes, i think it's fair to say that their vision is radical.

no, i don't think it's particularly courageous. because the last point i'll make is this. nothing is easier than solving a problem on the backs of people who are poor or people who are powerless or don't have lobbyists or don't have clout. i don't think that's particularly courageous. [applause] >> all right, the next one is from the web. we've got a question from kwami simmons from orlando, florida. and he asks, 'i strongly believe that education is the greatest equalizer. with so many problems plaguing our current system, is it possible to examine a complete overhaul of the system so that it addresses the needs of modern students?' and before you jump in, i just want to say as someone who has spent a bunch of time researching education and who cares about this, i think the race to the top stuff that you guys have done is one of the most under-appreciated and most important things that your administration has done. [applause]

>> i appreciate that. this is an area where actually i think you've seen the parties actually come together. and there's some good bipartisan work being done. it used to be that the argument around education always revolved around the left saying we just need more money, and the right saying we should just blow up the system because public schools aren't doing a good job. and what you're now seeing is people recognizing we need both money and reform. it's not an either-or proposition. it's a both-and proposition. so what mark just mentioned, something called race to the top, pretty simple concept. most federal dollars are

allocated through a formula. if you've got a certain number of poor kids or you've got a certain number of disabled kids in your school district, there's a formula, and you get a certain amount of money. and every state and every school district gets that money according to the formula. what we did was we took about 1% of the total spending on education and we said, to get this 1%, show us that you're reforming the system. it's almost -- it's like a competition model. and so every state, every school district could apply. and you had to show us that you had a good plan to retrain teachers and recruit and do good professional development so we've got the best teacher possible. you had to have accountability. you had to show us that you were actually making progress in the schools, and that you were measuring through data the improvements that were being made, that you were reaching

into the schools that were hardest to reach -- because there are about 2,000 schools around the country that account for the majority of dropouts in our country. they're like dropout factories -- so show us a plan to go into those schools and really make a big difference. and what's happened is that over 40 states, in the process of competing for this extra money, ended up initiating probably the most meaningful reforms that we've seen in a generation. and so it's made a huge difference. even those states that didn't end up actually winning the competition still made changes that are improving the potential for good outcomes in the schools. so that's the kind of creative approach that you've seen some democrats and some republicans embrace. and our hope is we can build on that. a couple of things that we know work. the most important thing to a good education is making sure we've got a good teacher in front of that classroom.

and so providing more support for teachers, recruiting the best and brightest into teaching, making sure that they're compensated, but also making sure that they're performing, that's hugely important. the other thing is good data so that there's a constant feedback, not just a bunch of standardized tests that go into a drawer or that people may game in order not to get penalized. that's what happened under no child left behind. but instead, real good data that you can present to the teacher while they're still teaching that child and say, you know what, this child is falling behind in math, here are some ways to do it, to improve their performance. so we're starting to see real progress on the ground, and i'm optimistic that we can actually, before the 2012 election, potentially have a federal education law that will embody some of the best information that we have about how to

initiate good school reform. now, last point i'll make on this -- government alone can't do it. one of the things every time i come to silicon valley that i'm inspired by but i'm also frustrated by is how many smart people are here, but also frustrated that i always hear stories about how we can't find enough engineers, we can't find enough computer programmers. you know what, that means our education system is not working the way it should, and that's got to start early. and that's why we're emphasizing math and science. that's why we're emphasizing teaching girls math and science. [applause] emphasizinge're making sure that black and hispanic kids are getting math and science. [applause] betterot to do such a job when it comes to stem education. aand that's one of the reasons,

by the way, that we had our first science fair at the white house in a very long time, just because we want to start making science cool. [applause] i want people to feel the same way about the next big energy breakthrough or the next big internet breakthrough, i want people to feel the same way they felt about the moon launch -- that that's how we're going to stay competitive for the future. and that's why these investments in education are so important. but, as i said, government alone can't do it. there has got to be a shift in american culture, where once again we buckle down and we say this stuff is important and it's -- that's why, mark, the work you're doing in newark, for example, the work that the gates foundation are doing in

philanthropic investments, in best practices and education -- especially around math and science training -- are going to be so important. we've got to lift -- we've got to lift our game up when it comes to technology and math and science. that's, hopefully, one of the most important legacies that i can have as president of the united states. [applause] >> all right. so the next one is from another facebook employee. here's james mitchell. so, james mitchell, where are you from? >> here's james back here. >> hi, mr. president. >> hey, james. >> i'm james mitchell, born in chicago and raised out here in cupertino, california. i have yet another question for you about the debt and health care. >> go ahead. >> so the biggest threat we have fiscally is the rise in health care costs. unfortunately, a lot of the solutions we hear to medicare and medicaid don't involve actually slowing down the rise in health care costs. instead, they involve shifting costs to beneficiaries and states.

so my question is, can you talk a bit more about what provisions of the affordable health care act are designed to slow down the rise of health care costs, and what policies you'd like to see enacted in the future to continue to slow down the rise of health care costs? >> let me give you a couple of examples, because you're exactly right in how you describe it. i don't want to just shift the health care costs on to the american people, i want to actually reduce health care costs. let's take the example of health it. we're in silicon valley, so we can talk about it stuff. i'll try to sound like i know what i'm talking about. [laughter] the health care system is one of the few aspects of our society where a lot of stuff is still done on paper. the last time you guys went to a doctor's office or maybe to your dentist's office, how many

people still had, like, to fill out a form on a clipboard? right? and the reason for that is because a large chunk of our provider system is not automated. so what ends up happening is you may go to your primary care physician. he does some basic tests, he sees something of concern, he refers you to a specialist. you go to the specialist -- he'll do another test. you're getting charged, or your insurance company is getting charged, for both those tests, as opposed to the test that was taken by your primary care physician being emailed to the specialist. or better yet, if it turns out that there may be three or four

specialists involved, because it's a difficult diagnosis -- this is all hypothetical, you look very healthy. [laughter] but let's say there were a bunch of specialists. what would be ideal would be if you get all the specialists together with the primary care physician the first time you're seen so that you're not paying for multiple visits as well as multiple tests. that's not how it works right now. now, part of it is technology. so what we did in the affordable care act, building on what we did with the recovery act, is try to provide incentives to providers to start getting integrated, automated systems. and it's tough because the individual doctor may say to him or herself, i don't want to put out the initial capital outlay. that's expensive even though it may make my system more efficient later on. so providing some incentives, some help, for the front end investments for a community

hospital or for individual providers so that we can slowly get this system more effective, that's priority number one. we know it can be done, by the way. surprisingly enough, the health care system that is -- does the best job on this of anybody is actually the veterans administration, the va health care system, because it's a fully integrated system. everybody is working for the va, all the doctors, all the hospitals, all the providers, so they've been able to achieve huge cost savings just because everybody is on a single system. it's also, though, how we reimburse doctors and how we reimburse hospitals. so right now, what happens is, when you've taken those two tests, if you're old enough to qualify for medicare, well, each doctor sends their bill to medicare and medicare pays both bills.

up let's say that you end getting an operation. they'll send the bill for that, and medicare pays that. let's say they didn't do a very good job, or you got sick in the hospital, and you are readmitted and you have to be treated again and they have to do the operation all over again. medicare then gets billed for the second operation. i mean, imagine if that's how it worked when you bought a car. so you go, you buy your car. a week later, the car doesn't work. you go back to the dealer and they charged you to fix the bad job that they did in the first place. well, that's what medicare does all the time. so we don't provide incentives for performance. we just provide -- we just pay for the number of qualified items that were procedures that

were performed or tests that were performed by the provider. so what we want to do is to start changing how folks are reimbursed. let's take a hospital. we want to give -- this is sort of like race to the top, what mark was talking about in education. we want to be able to say to a hospital, if you do a really good job reducing infection rates in the hospital, which kill tens of thousands of people across america every year and are a huge cause for readmission rates, and we know that hospitals can drastically reduce those reinfection rates just by simple protocols of how employees are washing their hands and how they're moving from room to room and so forth -- there are hospitals who have done it -- if we can say to a hospital, you'll get a bonus for that, medicare will reimburse you for instituting these simple procedures, that saves the whole system money. and that's what we've tried to do in the affordable care act,

is to start institutionalizing these new systems. but it takes time because we've got a private sector system -- it's not like the va -- a bunch of individual doctors, individual hospitals spread out all across the country with private insurers. so it's not something that we can do overnight. our hope is, is that over the next five years, we're able to see significant savings through these mechanisms, and that will save everybody -- not just people who are on medicare and medicaid -- it will save everybody money including folks here at facebook. because i'm sure that you guys provide health insurance and i suspect if you look at your health insurance bills they don't make you happy. okay. [applause] >> so we have time for only one more question. >> all right. >> it's a question from terry atwater from houston, texas, 'if you had to do anything differently during your first four years, what would it be?'

>> well, it's only been two and a half, so i'm sure i'll make more mistakes in the next year and a half. the jury will still be out. [laughter] there are all sorts of day-to- day issues where i say to myself, oh, i didn't say that right, or i didn't explain this clearly enough, or maybe if i had sequenced this plan first as opposed to that one, maybe it would have gotten done quicker. health care obviously was a huge battle, and if it hadn't been for nancy pelosi and her leadership in the house and the great work that -- (applause) -- anna eshoo and mike honda and others did -- we wouldn't have gotten it done if it hadn't been for great work in congress.

but i do think that it was so complicated that at a certain point people just started saying, oh, this is typical washington bickering. and i've asked myself sometimes is there a way that we could have gotten it done more quickly and in a way that the american people wouldn't have been so frustrated by it? i'm not sure i could have because there's a reason why it hadn't gotten done in a hundred years. a is a -- it's hard to fix system as big as health care and as complicated as our health care system. i can tell you that -- i think the best way to answer the question is what do i feel i

still have to get done, where i still feel a huge sense of urgency. i've talked about a couple of things. getting our deficits and debt under control in a balanced way i feel needs to happen while i'm president. i don't want to leave it to the next president. immigration -- something i mentioned -- we have not gotten done. it's something i care deeply about. it's the right thing for the country. i want to get that done while i'm president. energy -- we haven't talked a lot about energy today, but first of all, $4-a-gallon gas really hurts a lot of people around this country. it's not because they're wasteful, but if you're driving 50 miles to work and that's the only job you can find, and you can't afford some hybrid so you're stuck with the old beater that you're driving around that gets eight miles a

gallon, these gas prices are killing you right now. and so this is the reason why i've said that it is so important for us to invest in new approaches to energy. we've got to have a long-term plan. it means investing in things like solar and wind, investing in biofuels, investing in clean car technology. it means converting the federal fleet 100% to fuel-efficient vehicles, because we're a huge market maker. obviously it turns out that i've got a lot of cars as president. [laughter] and if we're out there purchasing electric cars and hybrids, that can help boost

demand and drive down prices. continuing to increase fuel- efficiency standards on cars, increasing oil production but in an intelligent way. i mean, those are all hugely important. and by the way, we can pay for it. let me say this. we lose -- the treasury loses $4 billion a year on subsidies to oil companies. now, think about this. the top five oil companies have made somewhere between $75 billion and $125 billion every year for the last five years. nobody is doing better than exxon. nobody is doing better than shell or these other companies. they are doing great. they are making money hand over fist. well, maybe facebook is doing a little better. [laughter] but you get the idea.

they're doing really well. they don't need special tax breaks that cost us $4 billion. so what we've said is, why can't we eliminate the tax breaks for the oil companies who are doing great, and invest that in new energy sources that can help us save the planet? [applause] so when it comes to energy, when it comes to immigration, when it comes to getting our deficit under control in a balanced and smart way, when it comes to improving our math and science education, when it comes to reinvesting in our infrastructure, we've just got a lot more work to do. and i guess my closing comment, mark, would just be i hope that everybody here -- that you don't get frustrated and cynical about our democracy.

i mean it is frustrating. lord knows it's frustrating. [laughter] and i know that some of you who might have been involved in the campaign or been energized back in 2008, you're frustrated that, gosh, it didn't get done fast enough and it seems like everybody is bickering all the time. just remember that we've been through tougher times before. we've always come out ascendant, we've always come out on top, because we've still got the best universities in the world, we've still got the most productive workers in the world, this is still the most dynamic, entrepreneurial culture in the world. if we come together, we can solve all these problems. but i can't do it by myself. the only way it happens is if all of you still get involved, still get engaged. it hasn't been that long since election day, and we've gone

through some very, very tough times and we've still gotten a lot done. we've still been able to get this economy recovering. we've still been able to get health care passed. we've still been able to invest in clean energy. we've still been able to make sure that we overturn 'don't ask, don't tell.' we still made sure that we got two women on the supreme court. we've made progress. [applause] so rather than be discouraged, i hope everybody is willing to double down and work even harder. regardless of your political affiliation, you've got to be involved, especially the young people here, your generation. if you don't give us a shove, if you don't give the system a push, it's just not going to change. and you're going to be the ones who end up suffering the consequences. but if you are behind it, if you put the same energy and imagination that you put into facebook into the political process, i guarantee you there's nothing we can't solve.

all right? thank you, mark. [applause] >> so i just want to thank you again. it's such an honor to have you here. >> we had a great time. >> and as a small token of our appreciation, in case for some reason you want to dress like me -- >> nice, nice. >> a facebook hoodie. [applause] >> this is a high-fashion statement right here. this is beautiful. thank you very much, everybody. appreciate you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> today, the daughter of george w. bush offers her memories of the white house during both her father at's and grandfather's terms, teaching in washington d.c. and interning in latin america for unicef. that's a 4:00 eastern here on c- span. >> on "newsmakers" ahead of drug policy for the white house talks about efforts to prevent prescription drug abuse and anti-drug efforts at the u.s.- mexico border. that's today at 6:00 eastern on c-span. >> two-thirds of the american people dependent on the network news of those three networks as their primary source of news and information about the president of the united states. all were hostile to richard nixon. >> go inside of a moment in american history online at the c-span video library. search, watch, clip and a share

with every c-span program from 1987 through today. it is washington your way. >> on tuesday, the director of the bureau of ocean energy management outlined his agency's goals for offshore oil drilling. he spoke at the center for strategic -- he talked about his efforts. he -- this marked the one-year anniversary of the massive oil leak in the gulf of mexico. this is just over one hour. >> we have held consecutive sessions that looked at energy technology, look at well design, looked at international standards and best practices. we looked at the environmental impacts and what we can do better. we saw what we would do today

is the vote, since we're almost at the entry of macondo, a tragic accident it was, we want to look forward. what is the path forward when you look at rising prices in the middle east -- we need to get back to work in the gulf of mexico will need to better, smarter and safer. today, we have a panel discussion and be will take you through energy research and technology, what has been done on the industry taught -- industry aside. we have a former ceo zero of constellation energy, which you may find unusual. it is a good model for offshore and in principle, and the nuclear side, there is some real difference between that and the well and gas industry offshore.

we will divide the session into two separate segment so the director will speak first and take questions after. we will reconvene with a panel discussion and the presentations with the permission of our speakers. we will have them available on our website. a couple of administrative things where we're talking about safety or have low probability but high impact events -- in the event we have to evacuate, the stairwells are out the doors and to your left, my right. once you are in the stairwell, you go upstairs or downstairs. if you take one level up, you are in the foyer on case street. this would be a great time to turn off your cell phones before we get started. it is my pleasure to have the director here today. he was here earlier when we talked about getting back to the

gulf and taking bets on whether or not we would be in the first for second quarter before activity was started again. now permits are being let. the safety institute is being proposed but there is still a lot of work to do anything this will be a work in progress. there's a lot more work to do and we think this will be a work in progress. and that's a good thing, because this is an evolution, a one-time event that you need to react to but hopefully if you get things better it won't occur again or minimize the danger that it occurs again. director bromwich has a distinguished career both in the public and private sector. he was on the litigation team at freed, frank and mayor brown and plat, a former inspector general of the department of justice and in june sworn in the director of

the bureau of ocean energy management and regulation enforcement. i got that right this time. since we have a full agen it's my pleasure to give you michael bromwich. [ applause ] >> thanks very much, frank, and good morning. is that better? more. is that better? okay. okay. thanks for inviting me back to csis to speak about the future of offshore oil and gas development in the u.s. when i was here three months ago in mid-january to participate in the me gulf oil series, the national commission on the deepwater horizon oil spill in offshore drilling, the president's commission had just issued its final report. it was a time when no new deepwater exploratory or development drilling permits had

been approved since deepwater horizon. most of the questions here and elsewhere a that time involved whether and when deepwater drilling would resume. much has happened since then. we have further elaborated and implemented rules and regulations that substantially enhance ruling and workplace environmental protection. in addition unlike a year ago when we watched in agony as bp attempted to improvise a response to maintain mccondo blowout operators must have a plan and the demonstrated ability to capture oil flowing from a wild well. that is a huge advance. as we approach the first anniversaryof deepwater horizon, many people are asking the 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 anchor it in the recent past and in the present. and i'll do so by focusing first on the progress of our agency reorganization, which frank mentioned and which i began outlining for you in january. second, i'll bring you up-to-date on the status of offshore drilling in u.s. wanters, focusing sfeskcalpecif on theulf of mexico and the past few months. third, international developments that suggesthe value and importan of international cooperation and collaboration in the realm of offshore drilling and finally outline a comprehensive set of guidance and 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 took the liv of 11 men on

the rig, injured many others and resulted in thspill of close to 5 million barrels of oil into the gulf of mexico. in some ways, these events seem like they took place a long time ago, but in other ways they seem to have occurred far more recently. at the time, and in the immediate aftermath, deepwater horizon served like an electric current, jolting the industry out of a complacency and overconfidence that had developed over the preceding decades, while also serving as a clear message that both industry and government had to reexamine their practices. the memories of the 11 crew members have guided our work and i think the work of industry and reinforced our determination to diminish the risk that such a catastrophic blowout can occur again. when i was here last time on january 13th i outlined in broad strokes the blueprint for reorganizing the form minimals management service into three strong separate agencies within the department of the interior. a week later on january 19th,

secretary salazar and i outlined more specifics about the reorganization. we described how the new instruct too would eliminate the inherent conflicts that ested when mms was responsible for promoting resource development, enforcing safety regulations and maximizing revenues from offshore operations. the president's commission found that these conflicts resulted in an agency that was guided for decades by a predominant interest in maximizing revenues for the u.s. treasury rather than promoting safety and rigorous oversight. that was unacceptable. and that is why one of our guiding principles has been to eliminate those conflicts by separating and clearly delineating missions across the three new agencies. the first stage of reorganizati took effect on october 1st of last year, when the revenue collection arm of the former mms became the office of natural resources revenue, located in a separate partf the interior, reporting through

a completely separate chain of command. we're in the midst of implementing the second and critically important stage, separating the office of resource management from the safety programs. the steps we're taking are more difficult but extremely important. on october 1 of this year, bo bohmer will cease to exist. in its place two brand new agencies. we're creating the bureau of ocean energy management eoem, responsible for the nation's offshore resources in an economically and environmental way. we're also enforcing safety and environmental regulations. in making the important structural and design decisions shaping these two new agencies we have relied on several xwiding principles, these included first separating resource management from safety oversight to allow our permitting engineers and

inspecto greater independence, and clearer senior leadership focus. for bese the whole is to create an aggressive tough minded and fair regulator that can evaluate the ris of offshore drilling, promote the development of safety culture and keep pace with technological advances. second, ensuring that we create a sufficiently stronand effective bese so it can properly carry out the critical safety and environmental protection functions central to its mission and have been historically slighted and underfunded within mms. third, providing an organizational structure that ensures that thorough environmental analyses are conducted and the potential effects of proposed operation, given appropriate weight during decision making related to reurce management. now we're placing the balance of our environmental sciencend environmental analysis resources

in bboem to ensure leasing activities are properly balanced and invirn mental considerations are fully demean account at early stages of the process, not after important resource decisions have already been made, but it takes more than good intentions to address some of the institutional weaknesses of the past. takes a concrete and specific actions and that's what we're taking. to provide you with a few important exames, we are strengthening the role of environmental analysis and enforcement. many of the investigations and reviews of the mms over the past year, whether by the president's commission, the safety oversight board commissioned by secretary salazar, the department of interior's inspect general and counsel on environmental quality came to the conclusion that in the rush to maximize revenues the agency had given short shrift to environmental considerations. . response and among other things we're creating chief

environmental officer in boemo provide institutional insurance that environmental consideration also 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 the new position and hope to attract and environmental scientist of national reputation who will serve as a voice in the agency and be a key player in developing the nation's oceans policies wle at the same time recognizing the role is not to arrest offshore energy development. we are also creating in bese a new dedicated compliance prram. when we lease offshore, operators agree to certain stipulations to minimize adverse impact on the environment. later on in the process, when operators submit their exploration and development plans they undertake to mitigate

environmental effects produced by their activities. historically our overwork personnel have tried from time to time to determine whether those commitments in the form of stipulations and mitigations have been fulfilled but the agency has never had personnel specifically dedicated to that task. now we will. we think this will make offshore energy development more environmentally responsible and provide opportunities for dedicated professionals interested in ensuring that the ocean and coastal environments are protected. as to our inspections program, which has been underresourced and outmatched by industry, we are creating for the first time a national training center led by a training director whom we are also seeking throu a nationwide search. our inspectors have generally learned how to do their jobs through a combination of on-the-job training and industry courses aimed at teaching how

certain types of equipment work. the agency has never had a training center dedicated to training inspectors on how to do their jobs. now we will. let me briefly discuss the important substantive work going on within the agency to provide the tools, the traing and the changes to the culture to make sure that the reorganization will have the results that we are aiming for. as part of our broad and continuing reform efforts we created last fall a number of implementation teams which have been hard at work for several months. they are the central focus of our efforts to alyze critical aspects of oemer's structures, functions and processes and implement needed changes. these teams are integral to our reorganization and reform efforts. they are considering the various recommendations for improvement that we have received from numerous sources including the investigations i mentioned earlier. through their work, these teams are laying the foundation for lasting change in the way boemer

currently does business and the way boem and bese will do business in the future. we're also in the midst of reviewing our application of the ne. a, including the use of categorical exclusions. we have obtained public comments on our policy and reviewing and alyzing the comments while working with ceq to develop a new frame work designed to ensure that environmental risks are thoroughly analyzed and proep rah operate protective measures a implemented. we are requiring that site specific assessments be conducted for all new and revised exploration and development plans in deepwater. now to address conflicts of interest we issued a tough new recusal policy to reduce the potential for real or perceive conflicts of interest. employees in our district offices must notify supervisors

about any potential conflict of interest and request to be excused from performing any official duty in which such a conflict exists. oir inspectors are required to recuse themselves from former employers and also must report any attempt by industry or other boemer personnel to inappropriately influence pressure or interfere with his or her duties. i know that this is presenting some operational challenges f some of our district offices in the gulf region which are located in small communities where the primary employers are offshore companies but the need for tough rules defining the boundaries between regulators and the regulated is necessary and compelling. these rules are necessary to be sure the programs are aggressive, and independent. finally we are continuing to staff our investigations in

review unit, a unit i created immediately on taking over the agency. the unisit currently composed of professionals with law enforcement backgrounds promptly responds to allegations or evidence of misconduct or unethical behavior and also pursues allegations of misconduct by oil and gas company employees when there's credible evidence rules and regulations have been violated. earlier this year the first major report came out which focused on alleged flaws with the platform in the gulf of mexico. when i was here in january i discussed the reforms that we were pursuing to improve the effectiveness of government oversight of offshore energy development and drilling. these changes in safety and accident prevention blowout containment and spill response were and continue to be substantial and necessary. however, as the report of the president's commission makes apundantly clear, industry must change as well.

some of the work must be implemented and initiated by industry. our agency has a clear and important role in helping to spur that change and we're doing so through the issuance of tough new regulations to bolster safety and enhance the mitigation of environmental risks and al introduced performance based standards similar to those used by regulators in the north sea where operators are responsible for identifying and minimizing the risks associated with drilling operations. we have done all this through the development and implementation of the two new rules announced last fall that raise standards for the oil and gas industry's operations on the outer continental shelf. the first rule of the drilling safety rules and emergency rule prompted by deepwater horizon and it creates tough new standards for casing and cementing and well controlled procedures and equipment including blowout preventers. for the first time operators are now required to obtain independent third party inspection and certification of the proposed drilling process.

in addition an engineer must certify blowout preventers meet new testing and capable of severing the drill pipe. the second rule is the workplace safety rule which requires operators to systematically identify risks and establish barriers and seeks to reduce the human and organizational errors that lie at the heart of many zends in oilspills. this rule was being developed prior to deepwater horizon but its issuance was deferred, delayed and blocked for many years. under the workplace safety rules also known as the safety and environmental management rules operators are required to develop a safety program that fully identifies the hazard and risk reduction strategies for all failses of activity from we design andonstruction to operation and maintenance and decommissioning of platforms. many progressive forward-looking companies developed such systems

on a voluntary basis in the past, many have not and reviews demonstrated the percentage of operators that adopted such programs voluntarily was declining at the time. in addition to these important new rules we issued notices to lessees or ntls that provided additional guidance. last summer we issued ntl 6 which requires operators specifically include a well specific blowout and worst case discharge scenario and operators provide the assumptions and calculations behind the scenarios. our engs nears ensure we have an accurate picture of of each well. we issued ntl 10 a cument that establishes informational requirements including a mandatory corporate statemen from the operator, certiing it will conduct drilling operations in compliance with all

applicable agency regulations, including the new drilling safety rule. the ntl also confirms that boemer will be conducting well by wl evaluations as to whether the operator demonstrated it has access to and can deploy subsea containment resources that will be sufficient to promptly respond to a deepwater blowout or other loss of control. so as i mentioned at the outset, operators must have a plan in advance to shut in a deepwater blowout and capture water flowing from a live well. they in u.s. have a well and have arrangements, contractual or otherwise that show their ability to make use of the equipment. in this way rather than improvising a containment response on the fly with its inevitable hits and misses each operator needs to workhrough its containment plan in advance and we have to approve that

plan. our regulatory changes over the past year have been sweeping and swift, especially compared to the historical pals of change. we have been asked many questions from industry about how to comply. we worked through the changes diligently with frequent consultations in the gulf of mexico and here in washington. this proces was constructive, it was done in good faith and we made very substantial progress in further defining and clarifying issues for the operator and industry generally. it was an example of appropriate engagement between government and industry. what was destructive, corrive and not done in good faith was the sniping from certain public officials and industry trade associations. they claim ed claimed and someo to assert we have created a

permitotorium not because the applications hadn't failed to meet the requirements which was the fact but supposedly because we made politically motivated decisions not to issue them. that could not have been further from the truth but it was repeated often enough that people who should have known better came to believe it. so for example, a businessman from louisiana told me that he understood that we in washington had fully compliant permit applications sitting on our desks awaiting approval. he seemed surprised when i told him that our district offices in the gulf of mexico have that job and that i have no role in making decisions on individual permits. in fact, the chief obstacle standing in the way ofur approving deepwater drilling permits from october when the deepwater moratorium was lifted through february was the unability to contain a subsea

blowout. the absence of a pran is what allod the mccondo blow to flow for 87ays. a second industry group, the helix well containment group announced its intention to build a second system with similar capabilities. we encouraged both but enrsed neither. during the period from october through mid-february we had numerous meetings with the containment companies and with individual operators who acknowledged, they understood no deepwater permits could be issued until the capabilities had been developed, tested and reviewed. unfortunately that simple truth failed to make much of an impression. needless to say it would have been irrational and irresponsible to resume deepwater drilling before viable

containment systems were available. finally in mid-february they said their systems were ready to operate. the systems including t cappinstacks were tested in the presence of our engineers and the test results were reviewed. secretary salazar and i went down to houston, met with both groups and looked at the capping stacks. the availability of the containment systems is what led on february 28th to the issuance of the first new deepwater drilling permit since deepwater horizon. since february 28th we have issued drilling permits for 11 unique deepwater wells. we were able to do so because in each and every case the applications complied fully with our more rigorous safety and environmental requirements and each of them had demonstrated the ability to contain a subsea spill through enting into contractual arrangements with helix or the mwcc. the requirement is seally that the resources be adequate to

deal with the blowout of the particular well that has unique characteristics of water depth, well depth, pressure and other well-specific characteristics. this well by well analysis is a time intensive, labor intensive process but one that is crucial to ensuring that adequate containment resources are available for each deepwater well that's drilled. as we move forward, we continue to issue shallow water permits in every case where the application complies with all of the heightened standards that apply to shallow water operations. as of yeerday we approved 49 drilling permits for new wells and shallow water since last summer and our pace has been consistent for many months averaging six per month since october of 2010. while this pace is slightly below historical averages, there is not a backlog of pending permit applications, there are currently five shallow water permit applications pendg with

another four having been returned to the operator for more information. such historil comparisons are at some level besides the point. we don't have a permit quota or permitting goal. our goal is to approve every fully compliant permit application with the emphasis on fully compliant as promptly as we can with our limited resources. which brings us to the key of resources. i adessed the historical consistent and shameful underfunding of mms, when i was here in january. despite the missions and the revenues generated by offshore leasing, exploration and production the agency was put on a starvation diet throughout its history but especially in recent years. unanimous conclusion of the many reviews and investigations is that the central source of the multiple problems with the nation's oversight of offshore energy development has been the lack of resources.

even so, financial support has been slow in coming. president obama submitted a supplemental budget request last summer seeking an additional $100 million for the agency. until last week that promise of a brighter future could not be redeemed because congress ha not acted onthat request. we were poised to hire the additional inspectors, environmental scientists and permitting personnel that we have needed but we didn't have the funding. now at least a part of that request has been met, because last week, congress passed and the president has signed a continuing resolution tt provides the department of the interior a total of $68 million above fiscal year 2010 funding levels for boemer and the office of natural resources revenue. boemer will receive approximately $47 million of that $68 million. that is less, far less than what we need, but it is a significant sum, especially in a constrained budget environment where the

funding of most other agencies are being cut. our fundings have real world implications. the 2011 funding bill will preserve our most essential functions for the remainder of the year as the president prom illustrationed and it will allow us to make significant incremental progress but it won't allow us to improve operations for the future to the extent and in the ways that we think are desirable and necessary, and that others who have reviewed the agency's operations think are desirable and appropriate. we desperately need more engineers, inspectors and other safety personnel. we desperately need more environmental scien tipss and more personnel to do environmental analysis. we desperately need more personnel with help with the permitting process. we've taken steps to ramp up hiring. last october i visited schools in louisiana and texas as part of a drive to recruit engineers

and inspectors to work for the agency. we generated more than 500 job applications in ten days. but our hiring was clouded by the uncertainty of funding. we included tt to extend to environmental scientists. i visited nine schools on the west coast in five days and in response we've received more than 600 job applications. that was at a time when we were not yet assured of the funding. now that we have it, or some of it, we will be able to hire some of these enthusiastic environmental scientists who can help us perform our mission, as well as some of the engineering students who applied next fall. wee determined not to use these additional resources and person in el to do more of what we've done before. we need to learn from our shortcomings, address our

weaknesses and figure out better and more efficient methods for doing our work. we will be aided by the recommendations that will flow from the internal implementation teams i mentioned earlier and seek guidance from other sources as well. one of the sources is the new ocean energy saty advisory committee chaired by dr. tom hunter, which metaphor the first time in washington yesterday. this federal advisory committee includes representatives of federal agencies, industry, including charlie williams,ho you'll hear from next, academia, national labs and various research organizations. this 15-member committee will work on a variety of issues related to offshore energy safety including drilling and workplace safety, well intervention and containment and oil spill response. this will be a key component of a long-term strategy to address on an ongoing basis a technological needs and inherent risks associated with offshore drilling and deepwater drilling

in particular. the advice and recommendations of this distinguished advisory committee will be welcomed by our agency and after october by bese pe are e. the institute when it's formed will focus on a broad range of matters related to offshore energy safety including drilling and workplace safety, well intervention, containment and oil spill response. it will also help spur collaborative research and development, training and execution in tese and other areas relating to offshore energy safety. most importantly, the advisory committee in this institute are key components of a long-term strategy to address on an ongoing basis the technological needs and inherent risks associated with offshore drilling and deepwater drilling in particular. a final and very important part of our long-term strategy

includes continuing and strengthening our collaboration with our international counterparts. the recommendations of the president's commission stressed the importan of sharing experiences across different international systems and establishing global standards and best practices. we agree with that. offshore regulators have much to gain from collaborating to elevate the safety and invirn mental soundness of offshore operations around the world. to this end, last week, secretary salazar, deputy secretary david hayes and i hosted ministers and senior energy officials from 12 countries in the european union for the ministerial forum on offshore drilling containment. this was an historic meeting for the depament and led to a fruitful dialogue about best practices and how best to develop cutting edge effective safety and containment technologies. the meeting concluded with the unanimous recognition that this dialogue should continue at the highest levels of government. going forward we will continue to strength the channels for

international cooperation and the sharing of best practices across regulatory regimes. boemer will continue with an agency it helped to fun in 1994. the agencies of the u.s., uk, brazil, norway, canada,he netherland australia, new zealand and next coparticipate in the irf. these countries share information on technological advances, safety issues, accident investigations, regulatory policies, international standards and conventions, performance measurement and research. members may also exchange personnel and establish reciprocal agreements. and boemer will continue participation in this important forum as well as ministers forum. now in addition to these multilateral efforts, boemer participants in a number of government to government initiatives. we're working with more regulatory agencies around the world to share best practices

and build regulatory capacity through the department of states energy and capacity initiative, a multiagency global effort to provide a range of technical and capacity building assistance to the governments and institutions of countries that are expected to become emerging oil and gas producers. through this program our experts have participated in needs assessments and have conducted workshops in uganda, papua, new inea. a separate teamill visit giana to discuss managing the offshore oil and gas sector. in addition to the state department sponsored nirveive boemer continues discussio with iraq. in february, 011 we held a workshop in new delhi focused on asset integrity management in

india. in may we'll participate an interagency team sponsored by the state department to provide technical assistant on oil and gas contracts to the government of iraq, the ministry of the licensing department. finally an very significantly, we also are working with our counterparts in mexico toward an agreement that would define regulatory protocols for the potential development of transboundary oil and natural gas reservoirs in the gulf of mexico. the development of common standards for major deepwater operations in our shared waters of the gulf of mexico is a priority for my bureau and for the department of the interior as well as the administration and it is for the government of mexico as well. as a result of these government to government engagements we have embraced the opportunity to establish long-term working relationships and promote sound energy governance. going forward it's my hope that we will continue to collaborate with our foreign coterparts through bilateral government to

government assistance programs and through appropriate multilateral channels in developing safer, more environmentally responsible drilling in the world's oceans. we have recognized that there is no escaping the central fact that offshore drilling not only will continue but that it will expand into ever more challenging areas around the world, including deeper waters and specifically in the arctic. the world demands energy and to an increing extent the oceans are where we find it. we need the global institutions and standards necessary to meet these challenges and to ensure safe and responsible development offshore resources around the world. offshore drilling in the united states and indeed around the world will never be the same as it was a year ago. that much is clear. the changes that we have put in place will endure because they were urgent, necessary, and appropriate. and more change will surely come

although not at the frantic pace of the past year. in fact we are moving ahead right now. first bewill be launching in the very near future a major rule making designed to further enhance safety. this process will be broad, it will be inclusive and it will be ambitious. our goal will be nothing less than a further set of enhancements that will increase drilling safety and further diminish the risks of a major blowout. it will address weaknesses and necessary improvemts to blowout preventers as well as many other issues. we genuinely hope the broad efforts undertaken by the industry in the wake of deepwater horizon through its joint industry task foshss and recently announced cente for offshore safety as well as other vehicles will provide the basis for solid recmendations of best practices, including those that should be included within per descriptive or performance based regulations. secondly enhancing the sems rule

last fall by applying audits and modifications and improvements to the sems rule. we're determined this will live up to its promise, causing operators to identify, address and remediate the risks of offshore drilling especially those risks associated with the conditions of deepwater drilling. while much has changed over the past year, and as i discussed we are continuing to improve drilling standards, i want to be absolutely clear about something. the process of making offshore energy development both safe and sufficient to help meet the nations and world's energy demands will never be complete. it is a continuing, ongoing dynamic enterprise. those who ask the naive and simplistic question, is offshore oil and gas regulation fixed yet or is the agency fixed yet, miss the most important lessons of deepwater horizon. because the central challenge

that deepwater hizon exposed and highlighted is the need to establish the institution's end systems and the process of cultural change and improvement necessary to ensure thateither government nor industry ever again becomes self-satisfied to the point that they would answer that question "yes." it's exactly that sort of complacency and overconfidence that set the stage for deepwater horizon. let me describe for you some of the key elements that my vision of the future of offshore energy and oversight development includes most of which flow directly from the issues i've just discussed. first, a well-funded and resourced offshore fety regulator that closely evaluates the relevant risks associated with offshore drilling and other energy development activities in designing its regulations and compliance and enforcement programs. this includes the development of more sophisticated metrics for

measuring risk and designing programs for evaluating those risks and assessing whether industry is managing those risks appropriately. second, industry performance standards, particularly for the highest risk operations in deepwater, and challenging chal as the arctic, that cause operators to engage in rigorous and deeply self-critical evaluations. third, a regulatory agency with the tools and resources, technological and human, to hold all players involved in drilling to high standards and if there are safety or environmental violations or an accident, holds all responsible parties accountable. this includes not only the companies that operate leases, the traditional subjes of agency regulation, but their contractors and service

providers as well. such as the owners of drilling rigs. fourth, institutions that focus on innovation on the area of risk assessment, technological advan advancements, and further improvements of sub c, oil spill response systems. fth, a resource management agency that develops and takes advantage of a scientific information to support balanced decision making. and the benefits of offshore resource development. sixth, a regulatory system that is effective in striking balances and ensuring energy development is conducted safely and in an environmentally responsible manner. and is more transpart and

responsive than it has been. made available to try to provide for the country's energy needs. eighth. a set of common principles and standards by which companies drilling and producing in the oceans goench their conduct, regardless or where if the world ey're operating. finally, an ocean energy program that includesot only the development of oil and gas resources t always the aggress i have and responsible development of renewable energy resources. the long-term solution must include power derived from clean and renewable sources. following deep water horon, a broad consensus emerged that there was an urgent need to update the safety rules and practices in the industry. far more quickly than any people anticipated, that gag began to weaken and fray.

new rules were dwomed. new retirements were imposed. some offshore operators plainly recognized that deepwater horizon was a failure of the system and government. a systemic failure to make sure that safety kept pace with risky operations. as a result, they have supported our efforts and taken their own on. there have been others who, with surprising speed, have seemed all too ready to shrug off deep water horizon. they suggest that the steps tacken in response he been an overreaction and were unnecessary. need necessaless to say, that'sy

disappoi disappointing. we have to keep the complacency from creeping ba. regulators must continue to resist the fierce pressures to return to business as it used to be conducted. because down that path, lies another deepwater horizon. it has been a long year. and i have no expectation that it will get easier any time soon. but i dinlt take this job because i thought it would be easy. i believe in the work that we're doing. i believe in the tangible results i have seen in meetings with industry, out on offshore rigs. and the interest in our work at ples i have visited over the year on tours. people are watching our work around the world. they're interested and invested in it. they know the stakes involved in whether we succeed. we can't afford to fail. we don't plan to.

're determined to succeed in creating a system that allows offshore development while ensures safety and environmental protection. thank you for your time and attention. i'm happy to take questions. [ applause ] . >> thank you, michael. you have a reputation for being candid and comprehensive. you contue to set that bar very high. it's extremely useful and important that we have that discussion. you talked about the ability to increase capability in january and today. and the current fiscal regime, how do you extend offers to potential candidates and in lieu of that, is there some trusted

agent form that you would use in the interim to bridge the gap? >> that's a good question. we're exploring all of those alternatives. the funding didn't land until last week. we didn't have the funding until last week. and so the environmental science tour a took a week ago was a little bit of a wing and a player. we had two played holders on the websi website. we told people if they applied, it would be on us to get back to them. the same is true with the engineering and inspections positions. we're coming up what we hope is a balanced plan to hire people in the areas where we nd supplementation. including permits. we hope to come up with a balanced operating planned an a

balanced menu for hiring people in those areas. we're exploring all sorts o al tern tys in terms of filling short-term gaps. as i have anticipated a possible long jam in perm applications, i have reached out to oil and gas companies and asked them to pool their pool of recently retired engineers. that might be able to come on board and to supplement the work we're doing. now, we would have lots of safeguards and conflict of interest checks in place so that somebody from shell, for example, would not review a shell drilling application. but we think there is out there among the particularly the recently retired engineers in industry, a potential pool of talented personnel. we're hoping to tap into their arning for public service to come back and help us at least

on an interim basis. we have nominations. we're going through the process and maybe bring them on board quickly. they'll be under the supervision and control of our people. our people make the final decisions. it's to fill a yawning gap in the number of available people we have to make certain important analyses in the process. >> in terms of publicquestion, dr. bromwich will have a couple of questions. question have simple rules. wait for a microphone. identify yourself, pose your question in the form of a question. that would be appreciated. melissa, start on this end. work the way across. >> jennifer, with the houston chronicle. you mentioned the reaction from

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

that is going to be drilling the well where the permit we granted was. the first one we granted on february 28th. lo and behold, 78 ensco people were on board work. the lawsuit claims they haven't been able to get the work because we have had a defak tow moratorium. but the fact is that left to our own devices, not compelled by the court, we have issued permits and people, including ensco people, are back to work. so -- it's -- it's strange that the lit gait gags continues to be pursued. even though for some of the entities, we have already granted their permits. the troubl part to me is that what remaining in the lawsuit a troubling assault on our new

safety regulations. that if the relief grant sd given by the court, would tear away much of the fabric of the new safety rules we put in place. i think that would be tragic for the country, the industry, and for our agency. and i hopehat doesn't succeed. >> back up front here. >> thank you. john rickman with the energy daily. one year after the blowout, it appears there is no consensus among experts and officials as towhy bp's bop that day failed. are you confident that your investigators at bessie will have the technology make sure that the b.o.p.'s safety exams

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

inspectors and regulatory personnel will enhance. that needs to be a continuing and dynamic process moving forward. >> i think that dr. williams, in the next panel, will discuss that i the context of standards and new tacks. al? >> just a quick question on the arctic. can you comment on the discussions that you are having or the u.s. is having with the russians to see what, in fact, cooperation may be possible in that part of the world? >> i'm not having any discussions with therussians. secretary salazar mentioned there's an arctic meeting in the near future. he's much more directly involved in those than i am. but clearly, this goes back to one of the theems. i highlighted in the speech. just as the gulf of xico is a shared body of water involving us, and mexico.

and cuba, the arctic is as well a shared resource with a number of countries having the jurisdiction to permit or not offshore drilling. soy think there is a clearly a very pressing need, an urgency to increase the volume and the pace of collaborations between governments. that's one of the reasons we were so grat fid to see representatives of the rushing yan federation at our international spill containment forum last week. they were participants, encluz yastic ones, that welcome furtr meetings at this level. i think the dialogue has begun, not only in the containment forum. i think that is a hopeful sign. >> multiple forums. >> right, right.

>> back to the front. >> i'm bi, a retired foreign service officer. you mentioned that you had 500 applicants for engineering and 60 in environmental sciences. how do you find the quality and the level of educational achievement of these two groups of people? is the future of the united states okay? in terms of the education process? >> it's a good question. on the evidence of the applications, clearly the interest is there. and the truth is that the schools we went to have outstanding reputations. the ones i visited in october and november. for engineering and t once a couple of weekses ago in environmental science. we won't know until we go through the process of sifting thank you those applications and trying to bring people on board.

it's a huge problem with petroleum engineers, paying them enough to attract them and bring them on board. we've encountered problems with the people we tried to 'krut when they get into the process and find out what we pay, they're not inrested. we have done our best to try to remedy that by applying to the office of personnel management for the ability to pay at rates that are different than the normal g.s. scale. most of my counterparts poll the salary out of the normal scale with the recognion that you're competing with industry, that can afford the pay far more. so far, o.p.m. has taken the view we have not sup plied enough evidence justify the

deferential. we'll continue to work with o.p.m. and with other agencies in the federal government to prove what i would hope is obvious, that there is a huge gap and we need to do what we can to bridge it. now, we're never going to equalize the salaries at any level. an impornt motive is one of public serce, and secondarily, one of a different lifestyle. people that work for major companies have to stay on platforms and facilities for weeks at a time. we don't require that. unless peems are interested in public service and serving the countr they're probably not going to want to come work for us. i think there are many, judging by the number of applications we received who are. we need to make things less difficult for them. >> you laid out an ambitious and necessary set of rule-makings

and programs you hope to advance. how much do you need legislative cover for? >> we can do a lot of what we need to do internally and administratively. we nee several things that would be helpful, legislatively. one is to get organic legislation that supports in broad terms the reorganization that we're doing. right now, we're proceeding pursuant to orders. there's been proposals to expand the time that we get to review exploration plans from 30, some have extended to 60. some to 90. we need the extra time. because particularly when we have a large number of plans and a limited number of personnel, we can't get them all done in 30 days. the bad choice we have the

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

rig in a single day. that needs to be changed legislatively. i mentioned the ocean energy safety institute. that would, carry on the work under the guidance and supervision of the advisory committee. we need legislative authorization for that. not a long list. but an important list. >> one more question. i promised michael we would get him back to his real job. >> thanks. renee from mcclatchy newspapers. we need the energy offshore. there will be drilling in the arctic. can you speak about the lack of coast guard how you can be confident that containment would work up there? >> we emplace in principle that

drilling in the arctic is possible. the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. a spefic application that is made to us and determining if the containment and spill response pabilities are sufficient. as i think you know, shell had a program they were planning to drill a single well in the beaufort sea this summer. they pulled that off the table. they have announced plans to drill in therctic in two seas. we have a wait, see, and evaluate approach. there are specialchallees. a laj of infrastructure. not the same kind of coast guard presence we have in the gulf of mexico. on the other side of the ledger, it's shallower water than the gulf of mexico. there is no doubt that there are special and unique challenges and that shell and other companies, and there are other

countries including stat oil and conoco-phillips that have expressed interest in drilling in the arctic by 2012, they have to have applications that satisfy us. that they have the containment capabilities and the spill response capabilitieca [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> and the ethical issues by today's government workers beginning into a cocked 30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. -- beginning at 2:30 p.m.

>> i give you the ipod nano. >> he comments on the world as the season. his latest, the agony and ecstasy of steve jobs examining apple and american love of technology. >> all my monologues come out of my obsessions. >> find out more about his obsessions tonight on c-span's "q&a." you can download podcasts of " q&a," our signature interview program on c-span.org/podcast. >> earlier this month in washington, d.c., and memorial service to honor the life and career of "the washington post" political columnist david broder. mr. broder wrote won a pulitzer

in 1973 for his coverage of the watergate scandal. he died on march 9th and was 81 years old. this is one hour and 30 minutes. ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

>> ladies and gentlemen, please stand and put away yourself bonds. -- your cell phones. thank you very much.

>> welcome. david s. broder was a reporter. he knew that about himself from literally his young this days. he never reconsidered or wavered he never reconsidered or wavered in his