pass all the members of congress are piling on earmarks so everyone has a piece of the action. host: final thoughts on next weeks test? guest: we are thrilled that all of these teachers are prepping for this exam. we want students to make this a lifestyle, not just one day for the exam. guest: there is no greater title than a citizen. scores of young citizens will on tuesday. host: andrew conneen and daniel larsen both from satellite stevenson high school. there website is citizenu.org. thank you to the students with the good questions this morning. thank you for joining us. tomorrow on the program, we will hear from a reporter on

intelligence issues looking at the intelligence gained from the death of osama bin laden and how it is used on the war on terror. chris henick and eric hauser will come on to talk about electoral math. james zogby will join us from the arab-american institute considering the events of this week. also, your phone calls and a look at the papers. all starting tomorrow it 7:00 a.m. we will see you then. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> in a minute, president obama honors the 2011 national teacher of the year at the white house. after that, house floor debate on offshore oil drilling. and a discussion on journalism in the digital age. sunday, on "q & a," a former navy seal. he became a member of the seal team following his 1967 graduation from the u.s. naval academy. he now act as an adviser to the commander of the u.s. special operations command. we will talk to him at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend, former utah governor and former ambassador to china dilemmas the commencement address at the university of south carolina. south carolina is the first southern state to hold a presidential primary. what this sunday on c-span's

"road to the white house." >> president obama unearned day 2011 national teacher of the year at the white house. he honored michelle shearer at the white house. this is about 20 minutes. 1ú1d =x qmqopo

the president of the united states michelle shearer. >> thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you, everybody. please have a seat. what a beautiful day. a wonderful day to celebrate teachers and teaching. welcome this group of outstanding teachers behind me to be white house. they are the best of the best. even though we can never really thank teachers enough, today is a chance to offer them a small token of our appreciation for the difference they make in the lives of our children and the future of our country.

i want to start by acknowledging somebody who i think will end up being one of the greatest secretaries of education we have ever had. he could not be more passionate about making sure our young people get a great start in life. that is arne duncan. give him a great big round of applause. [applause] proud that we have got some wonderful members of congress who are here from the great state of maryland, who are pretty proud of you. [laughter] as i have said before, it is not just the winners of the super bowl who deserve to be celebrated. that is why i also want to welcome the team from the national science bowl who are here with us today. where are you? there you are. [applause]

secretary chu told me you did a great job this year. congratulations. finally, i want to grab -- i want to congratulate our state and national teachers of the year. it has been a while since i have been in school. i have not had to ask for a halt past for a few -- a hall pass for a few years. this is awful the script, but the teacher from hawaii -- teachers from the first school i ever went to in hawaii. [applause] i thought that was pretty cool. i went there in first grade. it is a wonderful school.

but even after all of this time, i still remember the special features that touched my life. we all do. we remember the way they challenged us, the way they made us feel, how they pushed us, the encouragement they gave us, the values they taught us, the way they helped us understand the world and analyze it and ask questions. they helped us become the people we are today. for me, one of those people was but it's great teacher -- my fifth grade teacher. when i walked into her classroom for the first time, i was a new kid who had been living overseas for a few years. i had a funny name nobody could pronounced. .

she did not let me withdraw into myself. she helped me believe i had something special to say. she made me feel special. she reinforced the sense of empathy and thoughtfulness that my mother and my grandparents had tried hard to instill in me. that is a lesson i still carry with me as president. she is no longer with us. i often think about her. and how much of a difference she made in my life. everybody has got a story like that, that teacher who may be extra effort to shape our lives in important ways. what people do not realize is how much work and sacrifice it takes to make that connection. my sister is a teacher. i have had the occasion of watching her preparing lesson

plans and go went out of her way to call that student who she thinks has the potential that is slipping away, working with parents who may not know how to support their kids. it is tiring work. how incredibly gratifying it must be. in the end, the most effective are the ones who are constantly striving to get better and help their students get better. those teachers who stay up late grading papers. the teachers who give up their afternoons and free periods to give students one on one help and spent evenings developing lesson plans and activities that do not just teaching material, but make it come alive. the teachers who see the potential in the students even when the students do not see that potential. the teacher standing next to me,

michelle shearer, is an example of that kind of teacher. she teaches ap teaches act urbana high school -- at urbana high school in maryland. she used to teach chemistry to the death. she got started by working with deaf students. she takes students who are normally under represented in science, minorities, students with disabilities, students who say equations and formal as are -- their thing. at the school for the deaf, she taught ap history for the first time in history using only their hands. when she suggested the students

sign up for a populace, she was met with some question in looks. -- students sign up for calculus, she was met with some questions. she taught planning and statistics to students who would not have taken those classes otherwise. when she moved to urbana high school in 2006, 11 students were enrolled in ap chemistry. some students have gone on to be tudor's themselves. -- tutors themselves. husband is a physics teacher. her father and mother are here.

her father taught chemistry. as a chemist. her mother was a music teacher. she had a little bit of a jump on this teaching thing. and besides being -- and this science thing. what an incredible testament when a teacher -- when a student tells you you made science and chemistry more interesting. america will only be stronger by the education we provide our students. our success as a nation is dependent on our ability to out educate other countries. we desperately need more michelle shearer out there -- more michelle shearers out there. to help teachers succeed, i have

called on congress to move quickly to fix no child left behind in a way that makes it more focused and more flexible. that means doing a better job in preparing teachers, doing a better job in the measuring their success in the classroom, helping them improve in providing professional development and holding them accountable. if we truly believe in the importance of teachers, we have to help teachers become more effective. in the words of one of my favorite poets, yeats, education is not be filling up a pail, but the lighting up a fire. teachers here today and thousands like them are surrounded every day by young people who will shape our future. it takes a special person to recognize that. it takes a special person to light that fire, to raise our children's expectations for themselves and never give up on them no matter how challenging it may be.

all of us are here because, at some point, somebody did that for us. we are honored to recognize these outstanding men and women and all the teachers who have had and continue to have such an important impact on our lives. with that, i would like to present michelle shearer with her apples. . [applause] get a good picture. >> thank you, mr. president, secretary duncan, distinguished guests and friends. what a privilege to be at the white house on national teacher day and to stand together with all of the teachers of the year as we represent america's

dedicated educators. i am, told to accept this honor. as we celebrate the success we have achieved in our classrooms, i see the faces of students. my 90 advanced placement chemistry students who took their exam yesterday. [laughter] students i talked over one day it ago who teach with me in the public schools. deaf and hard of hearing students and students with special needs who taught me to always see abilities, not disabilities, and students like my five year-old daughter, young children fall of promise and potential. -- full of promise and potential. as teachers of the year, we represent our colleagues. there are millions of teachers in america. pursuing different careers. to use our talents to benefit children in the

classroom. elementary teachers laid the foundation for a child's academic success. middle school students -- middle school teachers teach the skills that students need to become self-sufficient learners. high-school students take ownership of their education to prepare for college and careers. we teach creative thinking, collaboration, communication, independence, adaptability, self-confidence, and resilience. skills and habits of mind our students need to succeed in school and in light. -- in life. our passions include the arts, english language arts, history, social sciences, physical education, business education, science, technology, engineering, mathematics.

no matter what greater than subject we teach, it is a challenge to meet the needs of the first learners in our classrooms. are covered with students who are my daily inspiration to continue my commitment to teaching, a profession that requires a tremendous investment of personal energy and time, one that calls for love, compassion, and dedication. commitment to education must extend beyond the walls of the classroom. parents support and community involvement are essential to ensure the success of our students. resources and technology are essential to improve the quality of our schools. our students need innovative teachers and visionary leaders to move public education or by working together. we thank you, president obama, and secretary duncan, for your

leadership and your focus on education as a national priority. we look forward to working with you to promote the success of our students and what is best for our schools. my students will tell you that i love to give pep talks. friday was the last one before their chemistry exam. i told them, you are problem solvers. the matter how challenging the question, at companies and make progress toward solutions. likewise in education, no matter how challenging the issues, we must be problem solvers. as we continue to debate ideas, allocate resources, and implement change, we must make progress in a positive direction and always see the faces of our students. thank you. [applause]

>> i think you can see why she is teacher of the year. i think i will send her off to congress to give them a pep talk. thank you, everybody. this ends the ceremony. we are grateful to michele and all the teachers of the year. give them one great big round of applause. the united states of america. [applause] ♪

♪

♪

>> coming up, house floor debate on offshore oil drilling. and then a discussion of journalism in the digital age.

and prince charles speaks on organic food. monday on "q & a," dick couch, who became a member of the seal team following his 1967 graduation from the u.s. naval academy. he acts as an adviser to the u.s. special operations command. >> this weekend, former utah governor and former ambassador to china delivers the commencement address to the university of south carolina. south carolina is the first southern state to hold a presidential primary. what this sunday on c-span's "road to the white house." >> now a house debate dealing with two measures on offshore oil drilling.

this is one hour and 10 minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you ve much. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: the average price of gasoline has gone up 10 cents just in the last week and is now about a cent and a half nationally from $4 a gallon. my compare -- by comparison, the price was $1.84 a gallon when president obama was sworn into office. in my home district in central washington last week, i heard from farmers, the foundation of our region's economy, who are finding it harder and harder to pay these high energy prices. i have no doubt my colleagues from other parts of the country have heard similar stories. the pain is being exarbated by the actions of this administration. this administration who for the

past two years has repeatedly blocked, hindered and raised the cost to access our american energy resources. the house natural resources committee recently passed three bills, h.r. 1239, 1230 and 1231 , all of which reverse specific action taken by the obama administration to block offshore drilling they will increase energy production, create jobs and lower energy pices. these are the first of an array of bills that will be introduced by our committee as part of the american energy initiativehat will focus on expanding renewable energy, on shore production, and address offshore drilling revenue sharing an other needed reforms. today we are debating h.r. 1230, the restart american offshore drilling act.

this bill requires the secretary of the interior to conduct oil and natural gas lease sales in the gulf of mexico off the coast of virginia that have been delayed or canceled by this administration. the leas sale was supposed to otissue the lease sale was supposed to occur this year but because of the actions of the obama administration the earliest it could occur is 2013. i will note that very soon after this bill passed out of the committee with bipartisan support, the obama administration announced that it would move forward on one gulf lease sale. prior that sudden action, the obama administration was on course to make 2011, the -- 2011 the first year since 1958, since 1958, that the federal government would not have held

an offshore lease sale. squeezing one conveniently timed offshore lease sale was noundo the obama administration's record of blocking american energy production. this bill is necessary to hold their feet to the fire and ensure these sales move forward. americansnstinctively understand the pain inflicted by rising gasoline prices. but yet we ntinue to hear the same excuses on why we shouldn't act. let me give you several examples. my colleagues across the aisle will say that expanding drilling will do nothing to lower gasoline prices, the truth is, and this is the important part, it will send a strong signal to the world markets that the u.s. is serious about producing our own resources and bringing more production, american production, online. furthermore, this argument has been used by opponents to

american energy production for decades. we can no longer delay and prevent access to our own american resources. my colleagues will also propose increasing taxes on american energy production. let me repeat that, mr. chairman. they will also propose increasing taxes on american energy production. i have to ask, when has raising taxes lowered the price of anything? and of course the answer to that is never. and it won't happen with energy. whether it's raising american energy -- taxes american energy producers or proposing a cap and trade national energy tax, the democrat's plan will only further increase the price at the pump and ultimately cost jobs. we are also likely to hear my colleagues reiterate the old use it or lose it myth. claing that there are thousands of acres of nonproducing leas. mr. chairman, in reality, use

it or lose it is already the law of the land. the moment a company pays for and receives a lease, the clock starts ticking. leases have a timeline. if action doesn't occur on that lease, the lease is lost. according to the lease. in addition, and this is important too, only about a third of the leases contain oil or natural gas. one thing we can't do, sometimes you think we're very powerful, but one thing we can't do is mandate production where there is oil or natural gas. finally, i -- my colleagues will undoubtedly attempt to claim that these bills ignore the need to ensure safety in offshore drilling. nobody has forgotten the tragic deepwater horizon accident. i harr that -- i hear that especially from my members of the gulf and i heard that when i was down at the gull inform a hearing only two weeks ago.

however, we must not forget the fact the economic threat of high gasoline prices has to our economy and our need to move forward. the administration has slowly started to issue deep water permits in the gulf of mexico, which is in direct recognition that it can be done safely or responsibly, or they wouldn't have done it. yet my colleagues act as if nothing has changed at all as far as safety reforms. but by doing so, they are completely ignore regularality and the actions of their own parties -- party's adminiration. they are ignoring the fact that regulations have been enhanced and strengthened and new technologies have been developed, tested and deployed. an i might add, mr. chairman, we heard this at the hearing i attended in louisiana two weeks ago. furthermore, this bill makes

changes to current law, it requires at the secreta issue aer permito drill and requires that the secretary conduct a safety review. neither of those provisions are in current law today. in 2008, the last time gasoline prices reached $4 a gallon, congress stepped up to the challenge and took bold action to end decades-long ban on new offshore drilling. although this administration has effectively reimposed that ban, the american people are once again callg on congress to act. by passing h. reform 1230 today, congress can show the american people that we heard their concerns and that we are taking action. so i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill and -- that will lower gasoline problems, create jobs and create energy indepefpbles i reserve my time. .

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: one year ago today we were two weeks into the b.p. oil spill in the gulf of mexico. we were two weeks into what would ultimately become the worst environmental disaster in our nation's history. with more than four million barrels of oil spilling into the gulf. since that disaster we have learned many things about the safety of offshore drilling. we learned that the blowout, that the oil industry doubted as fail-safe, could be sure to fail if an actual blowout was under way. we learned that the only technology the oil industry had been relying upon in the event of a spill was a xerox machine. the spill response plans for major companies were so similar that they contained plans to evacuate walruses from the gulf of mexico even though the walruses had not called the gulf home in more than three million years. and they were such dead ringers for each other that they contained the same name and

phone number of the same long deceased expert. we learned that the oil companies had neither the resources nor the ability to stop a deep water blowout. b.p. spill response included an attempt to shoot golf balls an bits of rubber into the well. when we were told that the industry was relying on the most sophisticated technologies, we assumed that they meant technologies developed by m.i.t. and not the p.g.a. and we learned from an independent b.p. spill commission that the root causes of the deep water horizon disaster were systemic to the entire oil and gas industry. and yet here we are. debating legislation that would do nothing to improve the safety of offshore drilling and could actually make drilling less safe. the legiation before us represents a return to the prespill mentality of speed over safety. h.r. 1230 would force the interior department to rush to hold new lease sales in the gulf of mexico b deeming the shoddy

environmental analysis conducted by the bush administration's mineralanagement service before the b.p. spill as sufficient for future lease sales in the gulf. just looking at some of the conclusions contained within the bush administration's 2007 environmental analysis exposes the absurdity of deing this work as sufficient for new asing in the wake of the deep water horizon disast. in its 2007 multisale environmental impact statement, completed in april of 2007, the interior deptment determined, quote, the most likely signs of an offshore spl greater than or equal to 1,000 barrels that is predicted to occur is 4,600 barrels of oil. the b.p. deep water horizon disaster led to more than four million barrels spilling into the gulf. that's 1,000 times the size o

the largest spill this analysis concluded was likely to occur. in 2007, m.m.s. analysis concluded that the total volume of oil that would be spilled from all spills in the central and western gulf over the next 40 years would be roughly 47,000 baels of oil, that is less than what was spilled in the deep water horizon in one day. m.m.s. concluded in 2007 a worse case scenio, only 19 to 31 miles of gulf coastline would be impacted by a spill. the deep water horizon disaster resulted in oil reaching over 950 miles of gulf coastline. and m.m.s. determined that a deep water blowout would not present a cleanup problem because the oil would rise in the water column, surfacing almost directly over the source location, but in fact the oil spewing from the ocean floor remained an enormous subsurface

plumes that spread across the gulf. the obama administration is already moving forwardo hold these lease sales in the gulf later this year and early next year. and they are going to be more responsible. even the congressional budget office analysis of h.r. 1230 concludes, c.b.o. estimates that implementing the bill would have no significant impact on proceeds from lease sales in the gulf of mexico because the proposed schedule is similar to the plan included in the d.o.e.'s budget for 2011. so really all the majority is accomplishing with this legislation is ensuring that we don't do any new environmental review of the impacts of these lease sales. instead of actually reviewing the lesons of the b.p. spill, the majority wants to lessen the environmental review. and in addition, this legislation would force the department to moveorward with a lease off of the coast of virginia within one year. well, i have very bad news for the majority.

the overwhelming majority of the area that would comprise this lease sale would infringe on critical training areas forhe u.s. navy, the department of defense concluded that 78% of the area offered in the virginia lease sale would occur where military operations would be impeded by drilling structuring and related activities. moreover, much of the remaining area is comprised of a major shipping channel. this bill is really a solution in search of a problem. the bottom line is that the oil production is at its highest level in nearly a decade, and natural gas production is at record levels. we should instead be debating legislation that would protect the lives and the livelihoods of the people in the gulf and that could actually help consumers at the pump this summer. so at that point i would like to reserve the balance of my time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the

gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for 90 steckeds. mr. goodlatte: i rise to engage the chairman in a colloquy. mr. chairman, as you know i am committed to ensuring that revenue sharing of the benefits of o.c.s. development are returned to those coastal states where drilling is occurring or may occur, like virginia. can you share with me and other members of this body whether this will be addressed by the committee? i yield to the chairman. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the answer is we will be a focus and a priority. when i first introduced the bill before us today i stated these are only the first steps in this congress' efforts to increase american energy production. the coittee will continue to move on an array of bills that will introduced in advance as part of the american energy initiative. coming soon will be the bills focus on expanding offshore production, on shore production, crital minerals and revenue sharing. today only a few select states receive revenue sharing from o.c.s. activities. this committee will be working to reform those revenues to

ensure there is a fair treatment to all states that produce oil and gas in the o.c.s. revenue sharing will be a priority and action will be forthcoming. i yield back. mr. goodlatte: i thank the chairman for his comments. i commend him for this legislation and i thank him. mr. hastings: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the energy and commerce committ, the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for 90 seconds. mr. upton: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, most americans understand the concept of supply and demand and in fact a third of our oil now comes from the gulf. department of energy information agency tells us that last year's production in the gulf was 20% less than projected in 2007. and in 2012, we are going to be getting a half a million barrels a day decline in production from 2010. what happens when the production goes down an the demand goesp? the price goes up, way up.

add to that the uncertaintand unrest in the middle east, and there is no surprise that we have gas prices at $4 and $5 in this country and who knows where they are headed. this legislation, we pass it today, get it enacted, helps turn the key to unlocking the door on domestic energy production. this is not this legislation is not about new lease sales, it's simply catches up with the leases already approved. let's pass it. i yield my time back to the chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balancef his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield two minutes to the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. holt: mr. chairman, hank my friend from massachusetts. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1230. this is the first in the republican amnesia acts that ignores what happened last year

in the gulf of mexico. it would force the department of the interior to rush into holding new leases in the gulf of mexico and off the coast of virginia, not far from new jersey, i might add, even though congress has not enacted a single piece of legislation to improve the safety of offshore drilling. the president'spill commission reported that offshore drilling in u.s. waters is four times more deay than drilling elsewhere in the world, even for the same companies. clearly there's a safety problem that must be addressed. and i must emphasize because they have talked about it again and again, they are talking about high oilprices, high prices at the pump. we feel it. everybody in america feels it. do they address it? no, they do not address gasoline prices. it actually accelerates the handouts to big oil. this legislation does. and in addition to being silent on safety concerns, this prohibits any further

environmental review in the gulf based on the lessons learned in the deep water horizon last year. that tragedy exposed the woefully inadequate ways in which the environmental reviews had been done in the gulf of meco. need i remind the speaker or the majority that there are no walruses to protect in the gulf of mexico? as you heard from mr. markey, that's the level of quality in the environmental review that they want to apply from here on out. the analysis assumes the blowout preventers were capable of preventing blowouts. we now know, we have learned, they are ot. e post spill investigatio have clearly demonstrated the assumptions of the environmental review are not sufficient. i will offer an amendment shortly to drop the language that would deem this environmental review to be adequate. despite the poor and safety environmental record accumulated in the gulf, h.r. 1230

recklessly puts the atlantic coast -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional half minute. mr. holt: h.r. 1230 recklessly puts the atlantic coast at risk of experiencing an oil spill such as what we have seen before. that's why i call this the amnesia act. there are two more bills we will be seeing here on the floor that are similar. this is not in the interest of the u.s. consumer. it is not in the interest of fishermen. it is not in the interest of coastal residents. this is not in the interest of americ the chair: the gentleman yields back. thgentleman from washington. mr. hastgs: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this legislation. the chai the gentleman from colorado is recognized f two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this bill is the first step for republicans to bring a new energy policy to this country, the american energy initiative. mr. lamborn: look at this chart.

it says it all. under barack obama an had -- and his regulators, the average price of gasoline in this country has gone up from $1.84 a gallon when he took office, to just under $4. under his watch, gasoline has more than doubled. we need more supply and everyone agrees it should be our own engy not foreign. under the law of supply and demand, which my friends across the aisle have not found a way to repeal, more supply means lower prices. in addition, the thousands of more jobs for americans and billions of revenue dollars for the treasury. h.r.230 requires that four promising lease sale areas, three in the gulf and one off virginia, must be opened up for production. no more stonewalling by this administration and extreme environmentalists. after the spill came out of my subcommittee and the full natural resources committee, this administration belatedly

saidt would start acting on one of these four lease areas. if the only way we can get action is to shame them into it, republicans will do so. if the administration still refuses, we will do our best to force action by changing the law. this bill is the first step to get gasoline prices down. the american people deserve no less. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio. the chair: the gentleman oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. defazio: we are headed toward 425, $4.50 a gallon by memorial day. the usual memorial company run-up when the driving season starts of the the rushing dreams of american family, small business, and our economic recovery. hey, the profits are up. it's good. republicans say it's just supply

and demand. it's simple. so if we add a small increment to future domestic supply, five or 10 years from now, that will bring down the price. no, it won't. remember, it's a world price commodity. in fact, supply is up. u.s. has 12.6 million more barrels in storage than the five-year average. demand, it's down. americans can't afford the price and the economy is depressed. libyan lost production been made up by the saudis. every gallon of that has been made up. what's really going on? it's market manipulation, price gouging, profiteering, and speculation, but the republicans won't take on their benefactors from big oil and wall street. even goldman sachs says that $20 of a barrel is excessive speculation, $20 a barrel. that's 60 cents a gallon. we can stop that tomorrow. put a tax on speculators, or in

college the commodities future trading -- encourage the commodities future trading commission to try to block what you are doing. on the nigh next -- nymex exchange, 45% of the trades in one day were driven by computers, they traded twice the world's day oil consumption by computer in one day, driving up the price, and the republicans said, it's supply and demand. it's not supply and demand. it's market manipulation, it's price gouging, it's speculation. do something about it. those tools are before us. if you want to have a debate about future supply and future domestic supply from natural gas or offshoring drilling or biodiesel or whatever, let as have that dete. you want to get people relief this year, save our economic recovery, save american families, take on wall street, take on big il, take on the speculators. or, i guess you are afraid they won't contribute to the next campaign. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. the gentleman from washington. . mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: the majority of the american people an the majority of this house recognize it is long past time to put american energy and independence and prosperity first. by opening up these resources we assure energy abundance for the next generation, we begin to ares the rues now increase in prices at the pump, we assure productive, high-paying jobs, not only for the thousands of american workers directly employed in the industry, but for many times more. the employed in support and spinoff jobs. we ensure billions of dollars of oil royalties paid directly into this nation's treasury at a time when the treasury is empty. we assure that our growing reliance on foreign sources is

reversed. to those who were clamoring for more tax revenues, this is the healthy way to get them, by removing the impediments that have prevented a prosperous and expanding economy. it is prosperity and prosperity alone that creates tax revenues. with this msure we begin to change the policies that have produced the pathetic and self-inflicted spectacles. mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. mr. mcclintock p: of the most oil-rich nation in the world importing its energy. the speaker pro mpore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: we know our constituents are paying too much at the pump. but we also know where that money is going. almost $30 billion just in the last three months went to the top three oil companies, exxon, shell, and b.p. remember b.p.?

over $7 billion just this quarter. and in fact that's after the american taxpayer, which we say we're so concerned about, shelled out $5illion in subsidies to the oil and gas company. that's revenue of about $100 billion on an annual basis, more than that. that's where the money is going. and within that profit, not revenue, profit we're talking about, what do they do with it? 90% of it is for stock buy pbacks and dividends to enrich the executives and the shareholders. and to spend on tv advertising to convince the american public they're spending on just the opposite. 10%. 10% is going for drilling. now what this legislation would do is to bring us back to a period of even weaker regulation than we had before the gulf oil spill.

imagine it just happened, 200 million if gallons of oil spilled into the lf coast waters and now we want to repeal that, and we want to open up off the shore of virginia with thousands and thousands of jobs are dependent upon the naval operations offshore, which would not be able to be conducted. if we go ahead and drill on these properties. plus the remaining 22% is devoted to shipping lanes for two of our busiest commercial ports, hampton roads and baltimore. do we want to lose those jobs and the jobs in tourism, virginia beach. we should be about creating jobs, not jeopardizing jobs, defeat this bill. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i would note the two democrat senators from

virginia and the governor of the state are in favor of this legislation. with that, mr. chairman, i'm more than happy to yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: i rise today in strong support of the restoring american offshore leasing now act. last night, i had a telephone town hall with hundreds of anymy constituents. the overwhelming concern was the high price of gas. seniors, students, working families and small businesses want to know what we're doing to help lower fuel costs. they want us tstop being dependent on foreign energy and start really developing america's resources today -- resources. today we're doing that. unfortunately, our colleagues across the isle -- the aisle believe raising taxes on oil companies will lower the price of gas. this defies both logic and common sense. not only would raising tacks ensure job losses in america but it would result in the

increase of america's dependence on foreign sources of oil. raising taxes on american energy companies would give a competitive advantage to the russians, the chinese and opec countries that are operating without anti-growth and anti- self-sficient energy policies. mr. speaker, my constituents in southeastern and eastern ohio undstand the negative impacts these proposed tax increases -- mr. hastings: i yield 15 seconds to the gentleman. mr. johnson: that these proposed increases would have on gas prices and they oppose these efforts. i strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from santa barbara, california.

the chair: the gtlelady is recognized. mrs. capps: h r. 1230 is a collection of bad ideas. it's -- it mandates the administration offer new lease sales even though they're -- they say they're not prepared to oversee them. they act as if the worst oil spill in history never happened and it pushes billions of dollars into already overstuffed industry coffers. the only thing it adds up to is a false promise. the republican majority is hoping to delude the public that this rush to new offshore drilling will provide a quick fix to oil prices but the harsh reality is we will never control oil supply or gas prices through drilling. we don't have the supply. we have the ability to control prices by lowering our

consumption. that's what we're starting to do. for example, the e.i.a.'s latest report says we're lowering oil usage thanks in part to the president's fuel saving standards. we will be in yol of our energy future by making car cars that go further on a gallon of gas. if in 10 or 20 years oil and gas are still the focus of our energy debate, then we have miserably failed. we will have followed the path that george w. bush and dick cheney charted an we've seen where that leads. high gas prices and billions in oil company profits. it's about time we break free from our addiction to oil. so i urge a no vote on this misleading bill that accelerates new dirty an dangerous drilling. i yield back the plan of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. can i inquire how much time on both sides? the chair: thgentleman from

washington has 15 3/4 minutes, and he gentleman from massachusetts has 16 minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce. the chair: the gentleman is recognize. mr. pearce: i'm pleased to rise in support of h.r. 1230 to restart american jobs. the current five-year lse pln would have aloud for the sale of four leases off the coast of virginia and three in the gulf of mexico. the president and his agencies are continuing to block these sales. it's time to stop that blocking. we're talking about jobs, the nation is faced with 8% to 9% continuing unemployment. the jobs offshore are good, high-paying jobs, $400 a day, $50,000 a year. recently the preside had strong rhetoric to georgetown university, saying he's going to increase oil and gas production in america, yet the administration's actions are moving us the opposite direction.

tax increases kill jobs, that's an economic truth. our friends across the aisle want to kill american jobs by raising taxes at a time when unemployment is too high, when we're dependent on too much foreign oil. in a speech last month at georgetown, president obama sa the fact of the matter is that for quite some time, america is going to be still dependent on oil an making its economy work. we're exploring and assessing new frontiers for oil and gas developments from alaska to the south and mid atlantic stas. in this bill we are giving the president the bill he is saying he's going to implement. now let him sign it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield two minutes to the gentleman vermont, mr. rush. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. rush: i thank the gentleman. imagine what we could do for

the american consumer at the pump if we stop lobbing rhetorical grenades back and forth and decided to focus on the concrete things it is within our power to do today that would lower the price at the pump. there's three things. one, why are we giving tax breaks toil companies? you do have to wonder, $1 trillion in profits, nothing wrong with that, but do they need to reach into the pockets of the american consumer and get $40 billion on top of that? that's number one. number two, have the futures market be about protecting the consumer, not enriching the hedge fund wall street speculator. it is astonishing what's going on and it's so bad that even goldman sachs acknowledges that at least $27 on the price of $110barrel of oil is about speculation. why in the world do we allow that? because every time you and i go

to the pump, our constituents go to the pump, they're paying for wall street and they're paying for tax breaks to oil companies. the third thing we can do is we can do it short-term and that's going to the strategic petroleum reserve. two republicans presidents and one democratic president have done thatith great effe, wering the price 33%, 19%, and 9%. it gives immediate relief to the consumer at the pump. we can do this together. if we the agenda is about doing something fb your constituents an mine and not just having this political food fight. end speculation, end the tax breaks and foe into that asset belonging to all of us, the strategic petroleum reserve and bring prices down immediately. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan, a member of the natural resources committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. duncan: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. chairman, for your leadership on this issue. our friends across the aisle want us to use this debate to demagogue this issue and demonize oil producers. this administration's policy of drill there not here, has led us to what we face today. they have fueled overseas oil producers by shutting of domestic exploration. now today we hear the other party tell us that raising taxes on american energy production will somehow make prices go down. this is insane. mr. chairman, as any economist can tell you. we need to end the de facto moratorium on the gulf of mexico permit we need to reopen the st to exploration, we need to open up anwr for exploration, we need to allow american entrepreneurs to do the work of the free market and get this economy moving again this bill will begin the possess of releasing the

potential of american nrnl this means tens of thousands of american jobs producing american energy for american households an businesses. i urge us to pass this bill and put americans back to work producing american energy. god bless america and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three mines. mr. markey: this is the wrong debate to be having here today. the republicans are debating more drilling without more safe. even though the b.p. spill commission that examined what wept wrong last year concluded there is a stemic failure in our country to deal with the safety issues that confront the offshore drilling industry. in fact, they concluded that there are four times greater fay talities -- fatalities in drilling off-the-shores of europe than the united states. four times more fatalities.

we should be number one in drilling, but we should be number one in safety as well. what the republicans are doing here today is they are saying that they believe in all of the above, but the truth is, that with this bill they are saying once again it is really an agenda of oil above all. they have nothing out here on renewable energy resources, wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, plug-in hybrids,, all electric vehicles. none is part of that debate. they go back to the same old agenda of oil above all. do we need, do we need to give more to the oil industry? $10 billion in profits for exxonmobil in january, february, and march? $10 billion they made. shell, $8 billion. b.p. $7 billion. chevron, $6 billion. conoco phillips, $3 billion. shouldn't we talk a little bit about safety as we are talking about new drilling off our shore line? no, that's not the republican

agenda. should we be talking about taking away the tax breaks from the oil industry? the $40 billion which the american taxpayer gives to the oil industry. do we really need to have the oil industry in the consumer's pocket at the gas pump and then in their other pocket as taxpayers to give even more money to exxonmobil? that's what the republicans should bring out here for a debate. they do not do that. on the new york mercantile exchange, that's where they trade for oil prices. that's now 45% of the trading. on the commodities futures trading floor of the new york mercantile exchange. what do the republicans do to deal with the fact that it has turned into a crude oil casino? where gambling is going on, as the speculators of our country anti-world look at saudi arabia, look at libya as the price of oil sprokets, goldman sachs

concludes that $20 a barrel of the increase in the price of oil just comes from the speculation from the gambling that's going on and the nymex. you might as well put las vegas over the new york mercantile exchange. it is a crude oil casino, ladies and gentlemen. what do the republicans do? they have slashed the budget for the commodities futures trading commsion who are the cops on the beat. they are saying we need fewer cops to police these speculators. they slash the wind and solar budget by 70% in their budget that just passed last month. i yield myself an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: i thank you. this is their agenda. nothing on safety. nothing on wind and solar. nothing on corraling the speculators. and what do they say? what they say is, they are going to in fact go into the medicare budget of grandma and grandpa

and cut their program and then put an oil rig on top of it to suck out the money. like a pipeline out of the pockets of grandma or grandpa and put it into the profits of the oil industry by more tax breaks for them, even as they report the greatest profits in the history of any company in the history of the world. ladies and gentlemen, vote no on this legislation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the geneman is recognized tore two minutes. mr. hastings: sometimes i am absolutely baffled by the rhetoric that i hear here. let me remind myolleagues that 2 1/2 years ago in 2008 when gasoline prices went to $4 a gallon, we republicans came in to the house even though we weren't in session and talked about the potential resours that we have in this country to make america self-sufficient. and american people got it.

they got it and they said, you know, we ought to utilize those resources. they said we should drill. we should drill in the outer continental shelf, and we should drill on shore. the american people get it. and yet the rhetoric we hear here is entirely different from the economic issues that are facing us. here's the whole point. when america ended the moratoria on offshore drilling, the prices went down. it's never been explained by the other side, but it's pretty darn obvious. when you send a signal to the markets you are serious about becoming less dependent on foreign energy, the markets responded. and they responded 2 1/2 years ago and they will respond the same way. but all we hear from this side is you have to have a bogeyman, everybody's against us. baloney. the market is what drives this -- the price of oil and it's in our best interest in this

country to become less dependent on foreign energy, and that's what these three bills do. i reserve my time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. tonko: i thank the gentleman for yielding. let there be no doubt, americans that are worried about the price of gasoline, it's recent spike has once again put us on notice. this bill that relieves regulation provides the wrong tools. america knows we can do better. we cannot afford to mindlessly give billions of dollars to big oil companies while they make record profits. the short-term, we must ensure that speculators and wall street quit playing games with the price of oil. and finally, we must provide motorists with fueling options at the pump. it is unconscionable we would give $4 billion of taxpayer money to big oil companies this year alone while they are on trk to make nearly $100

billion in profits in 2011. with prices this high, does big oil really need even more ney? taxpayers know they don't. and taxpayers are hit twice with taxes on gasoline, once at the pump and once on tax day. this must end. we can help consumers at the pump by going after wall street speculators that drive up the cost of oil. we can increase mileage standards and it's reasonable that they could reach 60 miles per hour gallon by the year -- miles per gallon by 2025. and consumers can choose the lowest alternate. high gas prices are painful. they are painful to seniors living on a fixed income, and painful to small businesses. and the big oil subsidies accompanying them are paying for our nation's economy as it recovers from the bush recession. let's end these big oil give aways to some of the most profitable companies in the world and provide drivers with alternatives.

creating clean energy jobs of the future. i'd like to thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue and for yielding. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan, mr. benishek, a valuable member of the house natural resources committee. the chair: the gentleman fro michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. benishek: mr. chairman, this morning a gallon of gasoline in my hometown of iron river, michigan, was $4.29. and unfortunately most people are plagued with the fact they know that the prices are going to go up further in the next few weeks. i believe that we in congress know there is no silver bullet that's going to lower prices at the pump. however we have a responsibility here to craft policy and pass legislation that will increase the supply of crude oil which we will be -- which will be

produced here at home. as members of congress, it's our duty to take these actions to help lessen the pain of these prices on ou families. in michigan and throughout the country. mr. speaker, mr. chairman, we need to find a long-term solutiono high fuel prices, and i believe that our full day markup we have on committee last month was the first step. i believe that passing this bill today will be the next step. we have many further steps to take. i yield my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: mr. chairman, i'd like for us to hear now from mr. saanes of maryland, one of the most thoughul members of the natural resources committee. the chair: for how long? mr. holt: two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. sarbanes: i thankhe gentleman for yielding. i oppose the legislation that would really open in a wholesale fashion a very sense fifth areas to offshore drilling. we have to take a lot of care

when it comes to doing this offshore drilling. i don't think that this bill exercises that care. during the committee's consideration of the bill, i put forward an amendment that would strike that section of the bill that authorizes drilling off the coast of virginia. i did this because of myoncern about the potential impact of a spill on the chesapeake bay, which, of course, is a treasure for marylanders and all those who live in the chesapeake bay watershed. that chesapeake bay is really the soul of my state of maryland. it's a national treasure. in so many ways. the virginia lees parcel, 220, and it is a lease parcel which the republicans would like to put back into play with their bill, when you look att about 78% of that parcel, you have to immediately take off the table, because it would occur in areas where military operations would be impeded. i want to thank my colleague,

gerry connolly, from virginia, for putting forward an amendment on this bill which would shift the burden say the department of defense has to affirmatively conclude that you will not impede these kinds of military operations in order to drill. so you take that out of the equation, then you take another chunk of it out because you need to keep commercial shipng lanes opened, what you're left with is about 10% of the parcel that you could actually drill on. what you could get from that would overwhelm supply the demand of the country for one day. so you would be putting at risk this valuable, sensitive chesapeake bay a all the surrounding areas for getting one day's worth of energy production. that just doesn't make sense. i think it undermines the bill on a wholesale basis. it shows that this is not put forth in a way that is sensible. for that reason i oppose the legislation. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from virgini another valuable member of the natural resources committee, mr. wittman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. wittman:thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank thehairman also, for his leadership and work on making sure we address the energy needs of this nation. virginia has the opportunity to develop offshore energy in an environmentally friendly and responsible manner. like any industrial or commercial activity, energy production has its risks, however those risks have been significantly mitigated and offshore energy production can be conducted in a safe and responsible manner. unfortunately, the administration has halted any rther oil and gas development in the atlantic ocean. our economy continue to struggle and any further increase in energy prices will exacerbate that struggle. we are now working to regain our

footing, as unemployment hovers at 9%, with the unrest in the middle east and north africa, those issues continue to threaten this nation's energy security. failure to properly and promly address our energy needs cld negatively impact the u.s. economy and stall any recovery, and continue to affect national security. energy production offshore of the commonwealth could create thousands of jobs and generate much needed revenue to reduce the deficit. the department of interior has calculated virginia could produce 500 million barrels of oil and 2.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, natural gas being one of the most economically viable and environmentally friendly sources of fossil fuels. a recent study by i.c.f. international concluded that offshore energy production in virginia could create 1,888 new jobs and generate 19.5 billion

in federal, state, and local revenues. i can tell you in virginia as we struggle to find dollars to clean up the chesapeake bay, struggle to find dollars for transportation, that those dollars are much needed. virginia can lead the nation in improving our energy security and reducing our reliance on foreign oil, and to do that we must reinstate the planned offshore oil and natural gas lease sale. with that i urge my colleagues to support this measure. thank you,r. chairman. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mark: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia,. mr. connolly. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. connolly: thank you. i thank u, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, you know, i hate to say it, but what we are hearing here on the floor of the house of representatives in defense of this leslation is

snake oil. somehow the commuters, the hard-pressed commuters and consumers of gasoline in this country are supposed to believe that if today we unleash all possibility of oil drilling, gas drilling offshore, continental united states, we are going to be producing barrels of oil. false. we are going to reduce the price of oil today equally false. in fact, there's plenty of evidence that the market that drives oil is latively an elastic. we heard earlieroday on the floor of this house, driving is down. demand is down. supply is up. but so are prices. in fact, if you look at this chart, there's an erie -- eerie, correlation between oil profits and the spike in the price of gasoline charged to our hard-pressed consumers in the united states. .

the other side wants you to believe with a smoke screen that somehow their tax subsidies being cheaged or lifted would in fact further increase the price of oil. they have low tacks, low royalties, they have record profits, how has that worked out for the average driver in america? this is produced record gasoline prices. the republicapolicy that will be enshrined today in this legislation have produced these profits and those costs for the average consumer in america. it is wrong and to argue otherwise is selling snake oil. i urge the defeat of this legislation on behalf of the consumers of america and i yield back to the distinguished ranking member. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from washington state, mr. inslee. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. inslee: we should oppose this bill not because it is too strong but because it is too weak. americans do need relief from $4 a gallon gasoline and they are not going to get it from this bill either in the short-term or the long-term. the reason they won't get relief in the short-term is we're not drilling in the right places. we need to drill speculators, not just wells. even goldman sachs recognizes that a significant portion of this huge spike in prices is due to rampant speculation in the market. but this bill doesn't do a single thing about that short-term reason for this short-term price, we need to drill speculators t just wells. but secondly, in the long-term, this bill does not give us what we need. my friends across the aisle

told us they were ing to give us an all of the above energy strategy. they haven't given us an all of the above strategy. they have just given us an all of the below strategy. because the only thing they are thinking about are these archaic technologies of drilling holes in the ground. we use 25% the world's oil. we only have 3% of the world's oil supply. even if we drill in yellowstone national park. the dinosaurs just di't die underneath our feet. we needew supplies of energy of electricity, biofuels from targeted genetics in seattle, advanced form of algae biofuel from south fire energy and general atomics and other companies. we need new sources of energy not just below our feet but above our feet and in our minds where we get the intellectual capital to get these -- to invent these technologies. that's an all of the above strategy.

let's get real short-term relief. defeat this bill and get a real energy policy for this country. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm going to reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: can you please tl me how much time is remaining in the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has 3 1/2 minutes rain, the gentleman from the state of washington has 10 minutes remaining. mr. markey: i would ask the gentleman from washington state to please -- mr. hastings: i have a speaker coming to the floor right now. at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to e gentleman from arizona, mr. flake. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman for yielding, i won't take the full two minutes. i've been listening to this

discussion, when you see graphics with an oil rig sucking money out of social security or medicare or whatever that was, you know you've gone beyond the realm of what is logical for a debate or the real facts about what this legislation does. the bottom line is it will make it easier for us to become more energy independent. not completely energy independent. it can't go that far. but it will make us more independent than we were before. it'll create an environment where jobs can be created by the private sect. it will help over time lower the price of gasoline because it will create more supply in the end. that's what it does. it doesn't put a big oil rig on the top of medicare and suck money from our seniors. come on. this is just a measure to help the situation, to make it better. we've blocked off too many areas to oil drilling and we

not exploited our own supply enough to help breng down price and to help consumers out there everywhere. so that's all this does. i commend the gentleman for bringing it forward. i urge support for it and i yield back the mans of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachuset. mr. markey: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. holt: thank my friend, mr. markey. this is about big oil handouts, pure and simple. there are no lessons learned, no lessonned applied with regard -- lessons applied with regard to safety or the environment. if these companies were energy companies, ashey lake to say, they would invest more in producing sustainable, clean energy alternatives. in the long run, we all know it, we've got to face the facts, we've got to break our addiction ooil. and if the majority, the

authors of this legislation, really wanted to help the motorist the consumers, they would address speculation, they would enthe speculation. they would end the tax giveaway. they would use the strategic oil reserve to short circuit speculation. the oil companies are not energy companies. they are fleecing machines. the greatest profits of any corporation in history and you heard me say a few minutes ago that the biggest of them, exxon, had an effective tax rate of about .4%. this will not help the consumer. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. thgentleman from washington. mr. hastings: can i inquire of my freppeds -- if my nd from massachusetts is prepared to close. mr.arkey: i am prepared to close. mr. hastings: hold on just one

second there, i have one gentleman who wants to speak. i'm pleased to yieldwo minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. landry. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. landry: iran down here to thank my colleagues for doing what the american people have been asking them to do and to start the process of stopping to kick the energy problem can in this country down the road. finally, we're going to take the steps necessary to put people back to work and to start america down a path of affordable domestic energy. now, they say that we're robbing grandma and grandpa. grandma angrandpa hold stock in those nrnl companies. down in louisiana, grandma and

grandpa's grandsons and grandchildren work in an industry that provides that energy. right now, they don't have a job. they're being laid off or they're being stonet brazil or africa or the middle east to drill for oil out there. while we have spent over $1 trillion of taxpayer money funding the department of energy to wean us off of foreign oil. i just rise to say thank you, mr. chairman, thank you to my colleagues who have come today in support of this amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i would defer to the chairman of the committee, if he is the concluding speaker on his side, i'prepared to close on my side.

mr. hastings: at this time, i am theoncluding speaker so i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: would the chairman -- the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes. mr. markey: i yield myself the remaining time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: so he's where w are. the republicans take over. the republicans say they're ready to put together a plan for our country. it's one year after the b.p. catastrophe in the gulf of mexico, the worst environmental disaster in our nation's history. last year, the republicans blocked passage of any safety legislation that would lerp the lessons of what happened in the gulf of mexico. the b.p. spill commission has come back. they say fatalities on u.s. rigs are four times higher than those onuropean rigs. we should be number one in drilling and we should be number one in safety. the plups refuse to deal with

the endemic, systemic problems with safety identified in the american oil tri-. the oil tri-is now garnering the largest profits any corporations in the world have ever been able to enjoy. but the republicans refuse to bring out here legislation which will take away their tax breaks. they don't need to have tax breaks to do something they're doing anyway. it's like subsidizing a fish to swim or a bi to fly. we don't have to give them taxpayers' money. the ryan budget slashes benefits for grandma and grandpa, then takes that money and gives it away in tax breaks to millionaires and to the oil industry. do we really need to tell grandma we're cutting back on her mical benefits and taking her must be -- her money and giving it in tax breaks to the biggest companies in america?

and finally we should be talking about the stra teemic petroleum reserve. it was used by both president bushes, it was used by president clinton, it does work. the new york mercantile exchange is where oil futures are traded. it is a casino of cde oil right now. on one day two months ago, 45% of all the computer generated trades were in the oil industry. it was twice the value of all the oil in the world. that's what we need to do, to deal with those speculators and the way to do it is to deploy the strategic petroleum reserve, deploy it now, send the fear of losing fortunes into the hearts of those speculators and you'll see the price of oil drop like a rock. that's what we need to do. that's what consumers need as they head into the memorial diday weekend. that's what people are wondering what is going to happen to our economy.

10 of the last 11 recessions in our economy are -- in our country are tied to the price of oil. 10 of the last 11 recessions. but what we saw in 1990, president bush won the war in iraq in 1990 an 1991, but because he never deployed the strategic petroleum reserve until it was too late, a mini recession and president clinton was able to defeat him. let's learn this lesson about the price of oil. ignore this agenda of the republican party. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, how much time? the chair: the gentleman has seven minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of me time. -- of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: this is an interesting debate, there's been will the of rhetoric thrown around, some that opportunity apply whatsoever to the bill before us today. h.r. 1230 simply tells this

administration that to go through with the lease les already authorized by a previous administration, in other words, all these lease sales had gone through whatever process they had to go through, three of them were in the gulf of mexico, one on the coast of virming. we are simply ying, let's send a signal to the international markets that america is serious about becoming less dependent on foreign oil and we to that by saying, this administration should go through with these lease sales. which i might add, mr. chairman, we have heard about the loss of revenue from the other side of the aisle, these lease sales themselves would provide the general fund with $40 million other the next 10 years. so this is a very -- what we're doing, which is ironic, we're telling this administration to do something, it should be doing by law anyway.

that's what this is. i urge my colleagues to vote on this bill. we can have other discussion on the other bills in ensuing days. as far as the discussion talking about big oil, i don't know how many --ic probably count the number of colleagues on the other side of the aisle that didn't say something about big oil rather than those that did. but what is interesting, you would be led to believe that the only big oil in the world apparently are american companies. i would suggest that is entirely not true. in fact, when you talk about big oil, mr. chairman, really who you should be focusing on is opec. because crude oil is an international product, a global product, no question about that. and yet opec controls 45% of the market. it is a cartel, mr. chairman, there is no question about that. and we all know simple economics if there's a cartel on any commodity on any

commodity the way that you break the cartel is by increasing the supply. and that's what the combination of these threbills do, simply send a signal to the markets -- and i've said this over and over -- that we are serious about utilizing the resources that we have. now it's been said several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said the united states doesn't have any resources. well, nothing can be further from the truth because if you look at government data on what the potential resources are in the outer tenl shelf, and i am going to -- outer continental shelf, and i am going to say onshore, the potential resources for oil equivalent per barrel is in eess when you combine o.c.s. and onshore, the potential resources are in excess of two trillion barrels

of oil. that far exceeds what one of my colleagues earlier, dr. fleming from louisiana, said. far exceeds what they have in saudi arabia. in fact, inther opec nations. now, this rhetoric of trying to blame somebody when the issue really is something as basic as having a supply and -- out there that consumers can utilize. what we are saying here is two-fold. actually throw-fold. one rates directly to american jobs. energy sector jobs are good-paying jobs, so let's encourage the energy sector in this country to expand so we can have those gd-paying jobs. that's gd to get -- good to get the funk out of our economy. secondly, we become less dependent on foreign sources because energy is an important part of our growing economy. and if we have a stable source of that in the future, our

economy can grow with the assurity we will have a stable source of energy. but probably more important long term, mr. chairman, the reason why we should pass these bills, to send the signal to the market is the national security issue. we all know that -- in fact, i mentioned opec. there are some countries in opec that are outwardly hostile to the united states. one of them is south america, venezuela. why are we relying on them for the supply of our energy when we have these resources that i just pointed out to you in excess of two trillion equivalent barrels of oil? so, mr. chairman, this is the first step. this is the first step of starting the process of becoming less dependent on american -- on foreign oil and on foreign energy, i should say, and it is the first step to get our economy in recovery by creating go american jobs.

with that i urge my colleagues >> the house passed the bill with devoted to wonder 66-149. it will -- 266-149. the white house released a statement saying this would undermine the border city drilling reforms. two more republican-let bills will come of next week. none of them are expected to pass the senate. the house comes back on tuesday at 2:00 p.m. eastern. more on the effect of oil and gas prices this week on "newsmakers" with the president and ceo of the american petroleum institute, jack gerard. >> the message that congress needs to send is that help is on the way. these decisions should have been made two years ago.

the administration has done almost everything to delay and discourage the development of american oil and natural gas. those signals are taken in account in the marketplace. those were the. the long-term costs of energy are saying it appears the policy of the u.s. is to not produce their and energy sources and that is factored in to setting the price. one of the great things we can do now in the component of supply is to send a signal to the marketplace that we're serious about reducing american energy by americans for americans. >> you can see the entire interview on "newsmakers" sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., on a line, and on the application for your iphone. next, a discussion about journalism and new media. we start off with remarks from bob woodward. he is joined by a journalist from russia, morocco, and

pakistan. this is one hour, 25 minutes. >> welcome and good afternoon. i work for the united states department of state, a crowd sponsor. 40 years since bob woodward redefine the balance of power between press and state breaking a story that will lead to the resignation of a u.s. president. ness shows fearless niec that press freedom is an essential part in a modern democracy. his work has demonstrated that threats to freedom of the press, not just from thugs in russia

were dictators across africa but even from the corridors of the white house. together they had to do to witnesses -- they interviewed witnesses. you do not need to look hard to see his influence on his life and career. his book is now hard at work. he is only one of the thousands of journalists worldwide and has been shaped by bob woodward. in an age when blogger posts and

treating is ascendant, his steady stream of headline grabbing, page churning accounts of the most challenging episodes of american policy making are testament that whether it is first broken on line, on there, and in print, or in a bound volume that the most compelling insights that shape our discourse and a product of hard work, careful thought, and the most viewpoints. his latest book on the war in afghanistan which dominated chatter in the state department for weeks as another example about how his in-depth reporting can change your conversation. in an era of continuous messaging and span, bob woodward has set the standard as an arbiter of what can be believed, which should be questions, who is deciding, and what lies beneath the most complex policy

making. last night, we heard the breathtaking announcement that osama bin laden had been killed, there is still a lot we do not know. if we're lucky in the coming months and years, bob woodward will let us in. for these reasons, we cannot fathom a more proper person to leave this critical discussion on how the press freedom is being threatened, tested, and transformed by technology. it is my great honor to introduce bob woodward. [applause] >> i will talk less than 15 minutes. i just wanted to make a few random observations about the media, the press, and what is

going on in the context of the truly astonishing story of the killing of osama bin laden. the handbook that was given for this gathering said the following. digital media tools have fundamentally change the nature of reporting and the meaning of transparency. no. [laughter] i disagree strongly. the digital media toolkit has supplemented and the very significant way how we do our job. this handbook also said that citizens now have instant access to the source material the reporters used in their story. no. that is just not the case. some of the information, and again there is more data, but it

is just not so that there has been a total revelation or revolution in the way that we do the reporting. on what to take an example. "the new york times" last year when they started to publish the diplomatic cables that they got from wikileaks, and the a note to readers on november 28th, the editors said that there is an important public interest eliminating the goals, successes, and undermining american diplomacy in a way that other counts cannot match. no. that is not the case. the note went on in astonishing form to say -- and i would

agree with "the new york times. i thought they did a masterful job in sorting through the wikileaks material and presenting it. i think it is important and it adds a dimension of understanding, but like people in government or business, sometimes people in the media take a success and overstate that. this is in the note to readers that ran, "the more important reason to publish the articles about these documents is that the cables tell the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, decisions across the country most heavily in lies in money." no. that is not the case. if you look at the wikileaks document, they are mid-level classification documents and in many cases, their meeting with

the head of state and sending a secret cable saying that is what the head of state said. this is my interpretation, all valid important news, but if you understand the white house, which are have had to do, you understand those documents do not get to the white house and they have very little standing in the white house. the white house has their own intelligence channels in getting the information that is much more heavily in documented and authentic. there is the kind of raw information that is a top-secret or codeword documents that the wikileaks people at this point had. the fact is that i think we're not in a world of radical journalistic change and we still

have to rely on human sources. the best sources on contemporaneous notes, but human sources, people who are witnesses or participants in the biggest decisions, decisions across the country most heavily lies in money. sometimes those are in the documents but you really need the human sources. i want to tell a story of about what i think the problem has been in the business of journalism and the free press. this is going back decades and it still exists. this was a good number of years ago. my wife and dive were watching a panel that one of these

conferences on aging. because i am now 68, it is a subject that interests me a whole lot. i am really interested in aging. on the panel, they had physicians, psychologists, real experts. and there was james watson, the co-discoverer of dna. everyone spoke about aging accept him. after about one hour, you know the power of silence. here's a guy who won the nobel prize in conceivably knows a great deal about aging saying nothing. finally, the moderator said, "dr. watson, what do you think? what is the best way to deal with aging?" he said, "the best and only way to deal with aging is to stay away from old people."

[laughter] very good guys. after the panel, they handed out these sheets, kind of a self- scoring about your lifestyle. your answer the questions on how often do you exercise, how often do you eat red meat, did you ever smoked? it was quite extensive and you would then get points or not get points for certain answers. at the end, you would total the solid and it would tell you how many years you have left to live. now, i wish i had copies of this to hand out. it is an interesting exercise. else and i were sitting behind dr. henry kissinger, the

secretary of state and national security adviser for president nixon and ford. being believers in the free press, we got on our toes and looked at what dr. kissinger was doing. i tell you. this mattered to him. this was a big deal. he answered all the questions and told this all up the. it turned and he died eight years ago. [laughter] not happy. not happy at all. so what did kissinger do? he reached into his diplomatic tool back and got out his eraser and prescored. it turned out that he had not

eaten bread and meat since 1949. his exorcised several times per day. here scored all of this. at the end, it turned out after the restoring that he had eight years to live. that is what refi in journalism everywhere in the world, the restoring that takes place by people in governments, particularly in the business, the media and in working on my last book, i would interview people for sometimes hours, days after an event. then you would revisit the decision point and they would say, "my view would be -- ." four hours after the meeting you would say this. reif scoring. everyone is trying to restore

history and reality. that is what we are fighting against. it is an inherent in the white house, whether democrats or republicans. everywhere in the world, there is the restoring of history by people who made the decisions. journalists have to come in with a method that will provide a more authentic version of what occurred. i love the internet. i love all the information that we get from the new digital access and jewels. but it is about going to human beings and getting the honest story. when i was working on my fourth bush book, there was a general who would not talk to me. i would send emails, boris the

messages coming intermediaries, but radio silence. i found out where he lived. what is the best time of night to stop in on a general without an appointment? does anyone know? 8:15 p.m. the have not gone to bed, they served george w. bush. the evening is still kind of young. i knock on the door in the general opens the door and looks at me and says, "you? are you still doing this shit?" [laughter] i did not care for the characterization of what i do. i just stood there. and was obvious that i needed

information culminated his cooperation and he looked at me and i was eager going to get the door slammed in my face and finally after view seconds he said to come on in. three hours later, i had left with answers to the questions. questions are not -- these answers are not on the internet, not in the social media. they are in the experiences of firsthand witnesses. what is going on with the conclusion of the middle east and north africa and it may be the 9/11 for the world. it is something we have to figure out. the government has to figure it out. the media have to figure it out. there is truly the beginning of the emergence of a civil society in many of these

countries. the public consciousness, and the public conscience and we are learning that people discovered the nine dictatorships are often not that benign, if at all. the collective movements, if you look at al-jazeera, you see where they do one of the split screens, two or four screens, with the same slogan, the same ideas being expressed in countries that are not collective. how the report all of this? what is the challenge? one of the challenges is that the traditional elites do not matter as much. you're going to have to find the people, the opposition, the renegades, if you will come in these countries, the digital

media tools which are key, but the best dancers are going to come from human beings. as an example of using the new digital media tools, i got a google map of pakistan and this is where obama ordered the killing of osama bin laden. it is about 35 miles north of islamabad. about the same distance is where it turns out that pakistan keep their nuclear weapons. it is a sacred, well protected. about 15-20 miles from where osama bin laden was living. you look at this map and you ask the question -- it was anyone not curious? did anyone go up the route

labeled here and ask what is this house here that is different and more secure and more hidden? you just look at the geography of this and you realize that pakistanis have an immense amount to match a four. the last point is what should we worry about as journalists as we attempted to find out what is going on? my answer to that question is secret government. the secrecy of government, which is what nixon tried in the watergate, and not all of these administration's goal of the world and the government, too much unnecessary secrecy, however said it got it right that democracies die in the darkness. if we lose the means and the

capacity to really find out if those of us in the business of journalism do not have the lock and persistence to really get the story that we're going to miss out because the real story is not on the internet. it is often in the secret records of government and the secret memories of those who participate in making these decisions. thank you. [applause] >> i'm going to be the moderator of this afternoon for a discussion on forces and information in a digital world. dreamy is an award winning columnist and in -- and investigative reporter in the

pakistan and is currently the pakistan scholar at the woodrow wilson international center. among other things, the weekly column focuses on terrorism, foreign-policy, and international relations. she has had a very busy day today. she also has done a lot of reporting on things will talk about later which deal with the legal penalties that bloggers are facing. abdul abderrahim foukara is the bureau chief for al-jazeera here in washington. >> like baba. -- bob.

>> and elena milashina works for novaya gazeta. in 2009, she was awarded for berkshire ordinary activism. in 10 years, six of your colleagues at the gazeta have been killed. >> yes. during the putin era. >> in these are fellow journalists that your newspaper. >> yes, journalists and newspapers have been killed for their profession. >> and many more of your fellow activists. >> many more civil activists and journalists have been threatened, beaten, killed. the latest was probably the correspondents from kazakhstan.

regimes how putin's treats people, not only journalists, but those who actually tried to tell the truth. for all those in russia who are trying to do honest journalism, deal with the oppression of the bureaucracy, and they have paid for their lives. .

in 2000, there was a tragedy with the russian submarine which sanction with 18180 sailors on it. and i was investigating it. i was investigating it for several years and i knocked on the door of many generals and admirals, russian, and admirals who helped me who gave me interviews. and it wasn't a nice time for them because i asked questions and then very hard questions for them. the main thing of this story was that they never tried to save people who stayed alive on

the submarine and was not developed like it is now but even now i doubt that bloggers can ask questions which professional journalists ask and should ask. >> ladies and gentlemen, we also invite your questions. there is a microphone down here. please join the discussion. we hope you will. in your work in pakistan, you reported off and on national security matters. we were talking before about an instance where there had been executions carried out by pakistani special forces. is that a story -- and that's not a one off. that is something that has occurred in the past and has, but is extremely difficult to report. how were you able to report it in this instance? and what made the difference? >> what made the difference was

citizens because pakistani journalists work in extremely constrained environment. they can't say anything about the pakistan earl, they can't say anything about trarlingtse military organizations. they are working under the threat of their life. what happened with this instance of killings by soldiers was an anonymous video clip started circulating on the internet which showed the soldiers doing that. we still don't know what the source of that video was. but the job of the professional journalist became just to verify that video was genuine and hat nod been doctored or staged in any manner, who were the generals. so without that spark of citizen journalism where someone used a cell phone with a camera, we would not be able to talk about an ins stant like that even though many knew it was going on. but you don't critique the army if you want to stay alive. >> how did you verify? did you literally do facial recognition on these generals? >> i'm an editor with the group

as well so i was not a reporter on this piece. i was working with reporters. they tried their best to actually identify -- well, the first piece was to figure out where the video came from so you get all sorts of hackers and swlutesdzes trying to find addresses and sources of the video. when we were unable to do that we played a name game, who showed if video, who posted it. we tried to track back where the first piece came out from. came pretty close which helped us get a sense of location. and from there, -- and several news organizations were working on the story at the same time as international news organizations. so it becomes almost a collective intelligence piece where everyone is trying to figure out where the video comes from. we still don't know. so the art of doing this is not refined yet. but we were able to look at things like what weapons were the people scarerying and who has access to those weapons and so it pointed directly to the pakistani army.

analyzed what language, the terrain, the victims. it ended up being more of a tex tull analysis, by no means a refined process. but once you have a piece of video circulating and the pakistan army doesn't clamp down or provide evidence to show it's a fake, it's sparks interest in human rights violations. >> you said there was no substitute for shoe leather and personal contact. you just demonstrated a story where there's ample shoe leather even of a cyber variety. >> but some courageous general or major or somebody who had access to that video put it out. and it was a human being who did that. it wasn't technology. it wasn't an accident that it was put out. right? >> there's new media technologies are certainly the tools that people can use. you need to have the eye for the story if you're a citizen

journalist or need to want to have that piece of information circulate. and then this becomes convenient tools. i don't think technology has any determination. >> but in this case, it obviously was important but my thought in listening to both of these accounts is how much more guts it takes for you people to work in your countries when you know, when you are leaving an interview, when you are getting into this area where they don't want you to touch, that you're going to be killed. when i left the general's house in the case i'm talking about, i knew that i could go get in my car. i didn't have to run, i didn't have to hide. we are -- we have the luxury of a genuine free press. and if they killed the reporter in this country, it is half, the mob has done this a couple of times and so forth and there was talk during the nixon era

of assassinating jack anderson who was a columnist, but they didn't. so it is with a lot of gratitude and a lot of admiration that i salute you operating in your country, because what we do is a cake walk. >> absolutely. [applause] >> your work with al-jazeera, there came a moment when they were shut down. your broadcasting license, your right to broadcast from egypt was revoked and you essentially were made to go dark. what kind of challenges did that pose? and how did you get around them? >> it posed the obvious channel that we were covering for our audience principally before we were covering it for the rest of the world, a major story that was going to have serious

ramifications not just for egypt but for the entire region. and therefore to stop dead in your tracks while covering that story because you've been kicked out of the country by the government or because they've destroyed your infrastructure, whatever kind or shape that infrastructure may be, to do that you are obviously not only giving up your report to report on that story but you're putting the credibility of the station on the line where people would say they abandoned the story right in the middle of it. but luckily for us, in a place like egypt we had invested for over a decade in egypt in terms of the infrastructure to report, in terms of understanding the country, in terms of understanding the political regime and its instinctings. so when the decision came to first start harassing al-jazeera and others. it wasn't just al-jazeera.

harassing al-jazeera and others, we had a system in place and somehow we managed to dodge the secret police and to keep some of our reporters there in hiding but they kept during the job. and we kept getting the voice and we kept getting the picture of one kind or another. but obviously we relied on egyptians ordinary egyptians who were in the square and in alexandria and other cities in egypt not only to provide the background information but sometimes to provide the image, the picture. it's the picture ultimately that carried the day. you tube played a huge part bringing the story for us out of egypt. and as bob said, you could have had al-jazeera on the one hand and you tube and facebook not connected together. maybe things would not have happened the way they did. but the fact that we were able

to marry conventional television with social media on that scale in a place like egypt was obviously fundamental in bringing that stordwroy the outside world. >> and what do you say to those who have perhaps too glibly referred to what happened in egypt as the facebook revolution? >> i actually find that outrageous. i really do. because it really demeans the sacrifices that people in egypt and throughout the region have been making for decades. i mean, in the case of egypt, there were people who were imprisoned, who were tortured, who died in detention. there are labor movements who were harassed and given a hard time. there were all sorts of different players who played out in the revolution eventually in egypt. and, therefore, to say this is the facebook revolution or this is the twitter revolution, i

think that's rather a flippant and silly description. not to take away from the role that social media played in the upheavels in the middle east but i think to pin it down to facebook and say it's the facebook revolution. what about the gentleman who set himself on fire? what about the egyptian guy who was killed by the police is for no apparent reason at all? and there were so many different factors that actually contributed to that. there was a general atmosphere in the region. the region was just ripe to see what has been happening for the last few weeks happen. i would even add one more thing, which not a lot of people in the middle east at least agree with. and it is the role of the u.s. administration because bush went to iraq in 2003 and in the

eyes of a lot of people 2003 in iraq was a total fiasco. obama took over and he seemed to have renounced the freedom agenda of the bush administration at least in public. but we all know that the obama administration continued to work with civil society that bob referred to earlier. and it's that contact with civil society that provided one of the engines of what has happened in the middle east. civil society has played a very important role not just facebook. >> i think that's true. here's the question. what's the next bounce of what's going on in north africa, in the middle east? and there was this expectation well now everything is free in egypt that there is this wave of revolution that's unstoppable. and i remember, i hate to go back so far about 30 years ago,

this was 1981, being invited by the journalist association in poland which was under the thumb of the soviet union at that time. and going there, and they took me around to factories and you could just feel the solidarity movement and you -- they took the movie of the watergate coverage that carl bernstein and i did, all the president's men, and they showed it in downtown war saw and people were hanging from the balconies. this was a subversive act. and i came back and drafted an article saying freedom has come to poland and here we are in a very wise editor said, well, let's wait and see. six weeks later, the general clamped down with marshall law and it was six to eight years

before poland became really free. and i remember the editor coming around after finally the fall of what happened in eastern europe and the soviet union saying well that piece was accurate it was just eight or nine years too early. >> remarkably that an editor who remembers. >> and irmed and i took him to lunch. because he kept me from publishing a story that would have been premature. and the problem here in all of these countries, where does it go? >> well, the answer to where does it go takes me to the second component that i want to take issue with of the facebook revolution, because it seems to me that revolution in its broadest sense, let's take the french revolution, for example. it wasn't just about changing a political regime. it was about reassessing a whole mentality, a whole culture.

>> complete social upheavel. >> absolutely. and it went through ups and downs, trials and tribulations for at least 10 years. that's how we got this wonderful thing that people in the middle east are fighting for now, respect for human rights, for example. and so when you say revolution in the middle east, i would like to use a metaphor from the kitchen not because i'm hungry but because i think it feels that it does the trick. you have a microwave and you have an oven. and you throw food into the microwave and it cooks quickly. you throw turmoil in the middle east through facebook and you tube and whatever and something quick happens. the president of tunisia goes in 18, 23 days. mubarak goes in 18 or 23 days. when you're talking about revolution, you're talking about something much more

protracted than that. you're talking about cooking by oven. and i think the middle east is only beginning to think in places like tunisia and egypt because libya is not even in the microwave yet nor is syria. but in places like tunisia and egypt, people are beginning to think about, ok, now we've change it had political regime. >> they're asking more questions. >> what next? how do we go about effecting that total transformation of society and culture and the economy? and how do we rethink our relationship with the international monetary system and political system? >> just a reminder, ladies and gentlemen, we really want to have your questions but if we could ask you to make your way down to microphone.

>> can i ask you to tell us who you are? >> yes. i have a research foundation and i have actually figured out believe it or not, if you just google you will see i have 4,000 pages of it. i have two books. but my main question to everybody here is, can you teach a big table manners? -- pig table manners? so i want to ask you? >> what's the question? >> i think this is a met forcal question. >> yes. >> can you teach a pig table manners? >> i think for the purpose of -- >> let me ask another question. suppose you have brats. can you expect gold qualities from brats? >> so you're saying, the question you're asking is it depends on the basic material you begin with what can you make. >> yes. the main thing is whether there's been corruption, where

there's freedom of the press, anything. if a person's mind -- i've qualified the mind, also. minus one, plus one and plus two. if a mind is minus two, can you expect a mind to be plus two? it can be done. the only solution is emotional intelligence, education, compulsory subjects. >> thank you. i think the question here is a legitimate question. and the question is about the quality of information. and about knowing what it is that you are dealing with. in a situation where you have a lot of sources you may be operating blind. we've talked about one example where that's true. how -- and you've talked also about al-jazeera's need to sift through huge amounts of materials. we've heard world press freedom day discussions today. how do you find that gold in

all of that stuff that's out there? how do you know that you're not being led down a path by someone who is deliberately seeking to manipulate? we've heard stories about how governments are spending millions on cyber -- how do you know when you are sitting in a position of editorial authority operating a distance that what you've got is the real thing? >> well, the rule of thumb is that initially you don't. we were talking about this before the panel started. you get -- you have a live broadcast. you get somebody calling you and saying that they are a member of the opposition to the government in that country, for example, and that they are calling from a particular area of that country. let's say that is under the authority of the rebels. let's make it libya, for example. you don't -- you have absolutely no way of verifying

that what the caller is saying is true. but in the case of, let's say, the case that you mentioned in pakistan, you get this video, you put it on air, you don't know if the video had been doctored or not. the rule of thumb is that if you play it and you can get somebody from the government to comment on it, they will comment on it. if you can't get somebody from the government to comment on it because the government is boycotting you, you get somebody who is close to the government in the middle east there's a whole plethora of persons and news people who are willing to vouch for the government of that country. but ultimately there's a quite reasonable percentage that the video that you could go wrong with the video. and outlets including al-jazeera have gone wrong with the video that they received on you tube. but you do ultimately generate

debate live on television that -- with that particular piece of video. in the case of egypt and i wasn't being flippant before the panel when i said that ultimately you know that you got it wrong when mubarak steps down. obviously the assumption is that -- >> you've got it right. >> yes. >> when mubarak steps down. >> one or tw other. >> yes. >> he was still there. >> the [inaudible] >> the assumption is that you have well -- while getting it to safety, getting the story to sailtf safety, the assumption is that you have made many mistakes. but hopefully, because you got it to safety you haven't put your credibility on the line and you haven't botched the story more importantly. >> but the answer to part of this is multiple sources. can you call other people, talk to other people validating it? but this goes to the central

issue which we restle with in our business with all the time. how good is our product? and i would argue our product is only as good as the depth and comprehensiveness of our reporting and that you have to, as you know, so often, it's not that you gamble in journalism but you have to let instinct direct you to a certain extent and touf say, hmm, that sounds right. and the reporting you people did in egypt, it had -- it smelled right. it felt right. that wasn't proof. and you kept going and then there was more and more evidence and then as you point out the president stepped down. which is a monumental event. almost inconceiveable event. but i remember talking toal gore, the vice president for

clinton once and asking how much do we know about what goes on of consequence or interest. and this was after clinton left office. and he said we only know 1%. and my thought was, i must confess, is that 1%? is it possible there are that many women in the clinton white house we didn't know about? >> let's take another question, please. thank you very much. >> i work with global integrity here in washington. i wanted to ask the journalist from pakistan and also all the rest of the panelists. you mentioned before that criticizing or saying anything negative about the military or government officials can be dangerous for you. how do you know how far you can go when moves of the time reporting something a lot of times implies something anything snive and how has

social media really helped journalists? because a lot of work that i do with journalists in some cases seem to be daring more. they seem to be willing to go farther but they might not have all the information that the media has. and i will ask, do you think that maybe other countries where democracy is -- are far more difficult conditions social media might be more helpful there than here? so it might be hard tore discard than it would be here? >> thank you for that question. just to clarify you can't say anything about the pakistan army but you can abuse the politicians as much as you want. and the journalists do. i think that you hit the nail on the head. one of the advantages of having citizen journalism, social media is that professional journalists can start testing the bounds. and the way we do is we don't do the reporting. we talk about something on

line, we talked about something that someone tweeted. that way we can't be held responsible. and an anonymous blogger or someone with a twitter feed becomes the subject of some of that scrutiny. but because places like pakistan the government hasn't figured out the hacking ip address tracking skills just yet and we can talk a little bit later about how they're trying very hard to do that. so it has definitely opened the public atmosphere in the sort of realm of conversation that we sort of can have in the main stream media about several issues. and i've quickly gt another example. many people remember that there was a moment in 2009 when an extremist organization had taken over the swath valley and imposed law and no one knew, civil society wasn't mobilizing, the government sort of bowed down to this extremist group and their requirements.

and then again a video was released that showed them flogging a young girl for some alleged misconduct and again it was anonymous source captured on a noble foam distributed and picked up by the mainstream press. at that stage journalists were not able to go into that area because it was unsafe. but once the video came out we could immediately start the conversation. there was a rally cry saying if this is what's happening in there we're not going to take the time to verify but let's start talking about what we can do about this. so it has definitely allowed us to figure out what those boundaries could be for us. >> just before we turn to bob, the question that you raised about the risks that bloggers are taking, we were talking about this. that bloggers, you work in an environment where, which is clearly a dangerous environment where professional journalists get killed. >> this guy [inaudible] allow people to kill those, not just journalist bus those who

try to tell the truth, to criticize the source, to find out the information, which is not really conveent. >> do you see bloggers taking risks? >> it's kind of a strange situation. it's not typical for russia but it shows how what kind of problem we have with the piece of russia which is actually part of the russian federation. but at the same time, at least by its own laws the leader of the president of chechnya can allow things that nobody can else in russia. and i was talking about the blogger who was doing some thought which wasn't liked and this blogger was put on trial in moscow actually, he was from moscow.

and then he was brought to chechnya and put on trial again and now nobody knows what happened with him. >> he's disappeared. >> yeah. but more usual ways to deal with the people who are trying to work as civil journalist, and, is to tell him we have a special law which allows authorities to take people and put them in prison for creamism. and what also is discussed, they consider any criticism against them. >> if we had hah law in the united states, half the politicians would be in jail. >> and it's in russia and we're trying right now, probably internet would be the first in russia.

actually, i would say some words about russian internet. you're talking a lot those days about facebook and twitter. not the case for russia actually because what -- >> do you have equivalent? >> yeah. but social nets like russian social network. facebook is getting more popular in russia. twitter also. but what we have is like journals. that's why when talking about a civil journalist i'm calling them bloggers because those people who have their own blog on live journal platform and those things become really powerful in russia, because for the last two years the president of russia actually never paid attention on what the major newspapers wrote or

famous journalists, professional journalists said in their articles or tv. but he paid several times attention and showed reaction, very strong reaction to what the bloggers actually wrote in the internet. and this is amazing because the changes that happened with russian media for the last ten years, thanks to president putin, who actually killed the media in russia, free media. the internet now takes the role of this. and as i understand for several independent media sources, professional media sources is the only way to survive and to influence the life of russian people is to join with the internet, russian internet. and we have results. and the reason in fact on russian, on the effect of russian people. and this is amazing. but we have an investigation.

the bloggers or the civil journalists who are trying to investigate things, the investigation is very interesting thing. you never actually when you do it, you never know when to stop because you want to go to the end to find out what happens. to find the out reach. there is a risk and professional journalists understand it because -- there are those who are trying to investigate on themselves they don't know it and it's dangerous in those countries like russia or pakistan or any other not free countries. >> the question to you was a question about whether social media might have greater utility or be more useful in places where press freedoms are less developed. >> they both answered that and proven it. >> thank you. questions. >> hi.

how do you maintain a working relation with high government officials? do you take them for lunch? or do you just -- >> how do you mavent such excellent relations with high government officials, especially when you write things that are so critical? >> and how do you maintain in those authoritarian governments? and one last question. when should we expect a followup story about mo had? thank you. >> i just have the luxury of time to try to talk to everyone to get documentation contemporaneous notes, then go back and sift through it. and the goal probably never met is [inaudible] . i'm not carrying water for one party or one group of people.

and they may not like somebody coming in doing discussing obama's wars or bush's wars or whatever. but you get to a certain point where you've got so much information and i think that power here is the information, the detail on last wednesday you met and had this discussion and so and so said let's launch the operation poppy takeover, the invasion of mexico. that's only hypothetical by the way. but -- and the detail and the specificity and just convincing people, look, i want to describe what happened. and that with 18 months or two years to work on one of these

projects or one of these books is -- makes all the difference in the world. >> just before i turn, water gate took place over a period of many, many months. >> two years. >> do you think in thai's digital age where there is a demand indeed to put every bit of information, every bit of breaking news, out on the net, on your front page of the net as soon as you possibly can, do you think the kind of reporting that you did then would, a, be possible now? or b, would have the same impact? >> what drivers the media in this country two things. impatience and speed. and all i am is patient and i really am slow. and you just have to accept that and say, you know, we have

a saying at the "washington post" all good work is done in defiance of management. and in va you recognize that your organization, any organization, not just the news media. it's not break the law or break the rules. but it's pushing from below. this is what we need to cover. this is getting the little thread on the sock which is what that video was, what happened in egypt, what happens in russia, and just pulling on it and continuing. so you talk to journalism classes that i've done and people say, well, watergate. deep throat would be on the internet. no. he would not. not a chance. the confidential sources that you can develop are personal. you establish a relationship of trust hopefully. and it's not available to

anyone. and in fact, you are the only one who has it. and so you have to keep those relationships going. so it's -- what i was stumble towards saying, you know, the new digital media and everything that's going on, ostly it's creet a convelltion in the countries and in the news business. but the old technique still apply. it's just like when television came out and people said that's the end of movies. well, guess what, it's not. it's supplemental. it adds to it. in a very significant way. and you have all educated me specifically about in your countries how -- and i love the idea that anyone can say anything on an anonymous blog. then that gives you license to talk about it. do you ever go yourself and send in the questions?

>> you are there anonymously posting things that you've like to. >> i personally am not but i wonder whether my colleagues do. and if they o are not doing it, they should probably. >> but to turn to the question of sources. we've touched on it a little bit. the question of developing a source, of taking time. do you have that time? you and -- you and in the work that you do? do you have the luxury of time? >> well, actually, i'm on the side with bob. when he says that -- and it's a personal thing. that any story, i mean, not the big story but any story deserves to be researched from top to bottom. and as a journalist, i can take any time to get to the bottom of the story. the thing is not -- not every

story takes a lot of time. but two big stories i was covering in my life, the submarine which is still going on because i'm trying to sue the russian federation in the court of human rights and i'm not the only one who cares in russia about this national trend which the way we quote this tragedy back in august of 2000. >> do you worry they'll try to kill you for doing that? >> no. >> why not? >> not for the -- >> but are there other things? >> the most dangerous thing that i'm writing about is chechnya because probably the journalists don't write a lot about chechnya. one was killed in 2006 and from here out began this whole list

of journalists who were killed. and several of them were killed for chechnya and for their work on human rights and journalist work in chechnya. but the story what i want to tell is that the thing that this journalism, which is not practiced in eu but is practiced in russia and i would say the governments all around the world need the journalism which doesn't care about the things that scare about yesterday. >> we have a collective amnesia. >> yes. but digital media is more even. it doesn't give us a chance to stop to think what happened actually, what is the real reason, who is guilty, why are we -- we do not understand anything about the thing that happened, about the terrorist side that happened in russia. we forget about them the next

day. we go on with our lives without trying to understand what happened. and that which -- that's what kills, not the professional journalism, has killed journalism we are talking about, because we can't leave like yesterday [inaudible] france friends, parents, children, and life is going on. it just doesn't work. in this way. i feel it. because first of all, we have to be responsible. we as a journalist. and we need to bring our audience back to what happened and tell them what actually happened. >> that raise as really interesting point this question of what, with digital media not only the volume of information but the pace of information.

we talked a little bit about whether or not the demands might have been made on you reporting watergate to put everything out there the instant you had one tiny thing. the question i guess is whether or not this is like essentially like a cruising shark, can never really sleep. but also doesn't really give us time to grasp what goes on. >> well, this is -- >> but often what happens, i mean, back in watergate when we would get a piece of information quite frankly no one believed it. and the editors were skeptical. and it's the job of the editor to be very skeptical and it was that skepticism where ben bradley was the editor would say, you know, you don't have it yet. and it wasn't we're not going to ever publish this tory. it was get more sources, get more information. take your time. but this was in the almost 40

years ago when there were three networks and a few newspapers and -- >> telephone books. remember telephone books? >> i do. you remember things called typewriters? >> and telephone that is had cords attached to them. >> let me just have one more thing. i think that the luxury that in this particular instance that somebody like bob has is that he, first of all, you worked investigative journalism and secondly you worked in print. we work for a different beast. we have to keep on feeding the beast. it's the 24 hour news cycle. and television obviously does have a very useful purpose as we've seen in egypt and tunisia and elsewhere. but i do have moments when i feel that the most, the biggest men as to the truth is the 24 hour news cycle because you do

not have time to cultivate any of these sources that bob was talking about. that's number one. number two, i've lived in the u.s., i've lived in another country which has, for people in many other countries, is an absolute luxury. and that is stringent libel laws. in this country, 2349 united kingdom. for many countries, especially countries in the region where i come from obviously there came a time when governments were under so much pressure to reform and liberalize and therefore you started seeing new publications emerging like there's no tomorrow in an environment where there's actually little known about libel laws. so people are writing whatever they want to write, which is similar to the example that a blogger can write whatever they want to write. and that becomes a problem not just for the governments but also for the writers because the writers end up in jail or

they end up being tortured by their own governments. and finally, a quick final point. i attended a conference and the debate is all about is it good for us to be embedded, for journalists to be embedded with armies. as a foreign journalists i feel that i am embedded with the u.s. government whether i like it or not because i have to cultivate, i have to cultivate good contacts. i cannot be seen to be seeing the u.s. government as the enemy and the u.s. government is well aware of the fact that it cannot be seen by foreign journalists stationed in washington to be viewing them as the enemy. so we are embedded with each other. it's a relationship that we have to work on. it doesn't always give you the truth. but when it does, it pays off. a very good example, in 2005 got a tip that the u.s. was going to withdraw its ambassador for damascus from

somebody who had initially refused to work with me not just because i was a foreign journalists because i was a foreign journalist working with alza jeera. >> questions, please. >> the russian service. my question is for elena. there are many wonderful pieces of investigative journalism in russia and they are published by, for example, your newspaper. but then nothing happens. now, consequences for the subjects of these investigative pieces and something is broken in society. what is broken and why do you think it never works in russia? and what can be done? thank you? >> thank you for the question. >> when mr. puten became the president, we were the paper who were working about

criminals where he was a -- hero. i mean. yes. but now 11 years later, we have so many bloggers and so many people who consider to be a civil journalist who write about the corruption and high level russian authorities. and in some way right now when we don't feel ourselves only ones and when civil society becomes to join those bloggers and those and get this amount of information how -- how to reach our government, actually, i begin to feel that we can impact. for example, the reason, a very

famous russian website, it's about corruption in our government procurement process. it has documents about the state tenders, what state buys and what kind of money it pays for example cars, tables, chairs and so on. and this website began to be available where it is actually the first time for the history of russian internet that this collects for several days $30,000. it's a lot for russian internet and the person who deals with this, began to be a very popular person, a very popular

politician actually. and he managed to involve a lot of russian people. >> but do they ever fix anything? i think she was asking. does the government either out of embarrassment or fear. >> i was going to say they managed to push our government to close some tenders and they saved like about $35335 million rubles in this project. money which government was going to pay for gold chairs or something like that. so. >> so there is sometimes a sound when the tree falls in the forest? >> yes. right now when i said that the few independent professional media join with internet communities, we begin to feel that in some way we can't influence, we can't impact.

and of course there is a difference between president pute yin who doesn't know the word twitter and hates internet and the president actually tweets a lot of things and reads what people writes and actually even asks the prosecuteion office to use this information, to react on this information and i know it and we have so many small stories where the people who begin to write the blogs in the web. so there is a little hope right now. >> one quick question from our virtual audience. wikileaks and the law. this is for you, bob. what the s mr. woodward's

opinion on prosecuting wicki leaks? and how will it affect you? >> well, the government can do what they always do, investigate and try to stop the disemination and -- of mounds of information. i think that they're entitled to that. but it's the journalist's job to protect our sources. and at least at this point they are not going after journalists or news organization that is are publishing this information. i think that's very wise. and if you think about it pull back and it's always very hard. i don't think wikileaks goes down in the history books like the pentagon papers goes down in the history books. >> what's the difference? >> the difference is in the pentagon papers, they were top secret documents that show that

had the government had systemically lied about the vietnam war. and the supreme court in a landmark decision held that you cannot restrain the press, go to court. the government cannot go to court and say don't you dare publish that. we can publish what we want. and that is a very good thing. and if the government then wants to come after us, they are entitled to do that. but what the pentagon papers' decision did, and i've seen this for decades, is it opened the avenue to go to the government and say i have these secrets or these secret documents. what about -- what's going to happen? what's going to be the impact if i publish it? if you think it shouldn't be published, make your arguments. and they make their arguments readily and sometimes the press

agrees, sometimes the press does not. but the result is we get a -- you know, so much more information in the system. when i was doing obama's wars there was one thing that the government said if you publish this chaos will rein in a certain way. and they made very convincing rational arguments about why it should not be published. it's very important, interesting news worthy tale but it's not in the book for the reasons they gave. so i think there is a way to be aggressive. they never like all the stuff that's published but it's never, it seems to me, gone to the point where they say we're going to prosecute you. >> do you think this government will attempt to prosecute wick wicki leaks? >> well, we'll see. but they say they have found the source, this private.

it's like any government assertion i would put a big question mark behind it. let's see if they've got the right person and whether there is some violation of law. but you always have to ask the question and any of these countries, where is the madness? and the madness is giving somebody like this private access to hundreds of thousands of classified documents that can be of no possibly use to him in his job but this was the idea of, we're going to share all the information. so in a sense, they -- they're being hoisted by their own policy. >> please. >> my name is court reportery i'm the freedom of expression officer at freedom house and working on turning my dissertation into a book. and my question is, can you -- what is the definition of journalism these days and does the debate between our

bloggings and does it even make sense these days? in my position i've talked to governments around the world, talk to journalists where they don't get paid, they suffer from lack of professionalism. on the other hand, you have journalists who aren't building sources not every journalists writes stories based on sources. so i wonder, al-jazeera you just started a new show using social media as your source of information. so i guess my question is, how do you define journalism these days? bloggers are doing thing that is looks like journalism, sourcing, checking, eye witness accounts. how do you define that? and are we missing the point by debating what the difference between blogging and journalism is? >> maybe this particularly important in environments where journalists have fought and won for certain legal protections.

part of the question would be if everyone can be a journalist or if the definition of a jourblist is so broad as to include someone who posts a video to the web, posts pictures to the web, writes a blog are they entitled to proprotections? >> the honest answer is i don't know the answer to any of the questions that she asked. it seems to me that for us journalists we're not like policemen where the state can say only people who wear this particular uniform will be considered policemen in the eyes of the law. >> does it attempt to do essentially that in iraq for example where they're asking journalists to sign a contract? >> but that's precisely the kind of thing that we as journalists in the conventional sense of journalism but also others who are not journalists in the conventional sense are

trying not to have. they're trying to resist having governments to designate who is a journalist and who is not. in my own eyes i am a journalist. if a blogger comes to me and they say i am also a journalist, even if i didn't accept that i don't have a legal argument upon which to reject that designation that that person had chosen. but when he comes to actual story making, there are especially after egypt, there are very people -- very few people who would contest that the two now have to work together. whether we both call ourselves, whether me as a television journalist and a blogger, whether both of us call ourselves journalist ors not, i am forced, i have no other choice but to work with that blogger or the guy who sends me information on you tube or facebook or whatever. the verifying the story is not

always possible for me. so as she said when they churn out information, it's not always based on their sources. but i have to work with it. i don't have a choice whether i agree to call them a journalist or not. what mechanism do we have for agreeing on who is a journalist or not, i can't answer that question. >> i would have to agree. i think that there is a less utility in these distinctions and when they come to matter is when citizen journalist doss need protection, when they do need to be able to participate in unions and benefits and certain -- it does come down to legal protections and protocols in terms of who can get a press pass, who can attend a briefing. so i think the distinctions no longer remain in the community where we've all decided that it must be a simbotic relationship. but it does continue to exist in terms of protocol and the law. and you increasingly see

mainstream news organizations, for example, in a place like pakistan developing ties to bloggers or photo journalists. but this vague as yet not contractual understanding that look if you get into trouble we have your back. and i see that -- and it's because we see that there is this mutual benefit and that we can't ask them to go out on the line and not bring them into this loop of protection and community that journalists have. >> what we may be seeing that there's a mutual benefit, maybe we're doing the same job on different ways and giving ourselves different names, the courts in countries have having this discussion and sometimes reaching different decisions and where they are not extending protection to bloggers because they are not fitting into a technical definition of what a journalist is. should that be changed? >> i think we will have to change it. i think it might come down to the actual practice sort of going back to the basics of

what constitutes a journalistic act. i'm not a lawyer is i like you will say i don't have an answer to this question. but it's certainly evolving and i think the actual profession and practices have outstripped the law in many cases. >> but the word journalist is not in the u.s. constitution. the first amendment applies to everyone. congress will make no law to restrict freedom of the press. and i think it applies across the board. and i'm not -- i think these are labels somebody, a journalist or somebody a blogger or somebody. and i'm not sure it's significant. the question is, is there information accurate? can it be very fid? and does it have meaning in the lives of others? >> and perhaps it is significant in one at least one instance i can think of that's significant. when journalists go to report on a story somewhere, and they are detained by a particular

government, let me do a commercial for al-jazeera here. we had one of our reporters killed in libya. one is still being held. if you belong to a formal news organization, that can kick a fuss to get you released. if you're just a blogger, that may not always be. . .

>> this is a question for bob woodward. what do you do if you have good information and you need someone to back it up? >> you attempt to get others to verify it. sometimes, you have to go with the store. it involves instinct. it involves spirits. the journalism is not risk free. anyone who thinks it is should go do something else.

you embraced risk. you want to be on the cutting edge. you are suspicious about what these concentrations of power are doing, and you are right to be suspicious. you are living in a world of risk. when you have a good story, you go home with a lump in your stomach. part of it is pride. part of it is doubt. >> thank you very much. thank you to our audience. [applause] thank you very much. that was excellent. >> it was nice meeting you.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the pentagon is holding a background briefing for reporters on the killing of osama bin laden, how his body was identified and home movies that he made, including videos that he watched of himself on television news. we will have details on the information gathered at the briefing. you can watch c-span and log on to c-span.org and watch the briefings and hearings on the osama bin laden mission. the house authorized a bill to

speed up the drilling of oil and gas wells. on newsmakers, we will talk to the president of the american petroleum institute. >> the message that congress needs to send to the marketplace right now is that help is on the way. these decisions should have been made doochee -- made the two years ago. the administration has done everything to develop -- to discourage the development of american natural gas. those that are looking at long- term possibilities are saying, the policy of the united states is not to produce their own energy sources. one of the great things we can do now as a component of supply is to send a signal to the marketplace that we are serious about producing american energy by americans for americans. >> you can see the entire

interview on "newsmakers" sunday as 10:00 p.m. and at 6:00 p.m. on c-span. couch is a" dick counc former navy seal. since his retirement, he has been acting as a free -- as an adviser to the u.s. operation command. next, prince charles on the future of food production. he is known as a longtime advocate of organic farming. from georgetown university, this is almost one hour.

>> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to the stage his royal highness, prince charles, the prince of wales. [applause] >> your royal highness, distinguished guests, ladies and

gentlemen, welcome to join -- to georgetown university. we are honored to welcome the prince of wales, especially just five days after the joyjoyous occasion of the merits of his son, prince william. [applause] today, his royal highness will discuss a topic of global significance. environment -- environmental sustainability, global production. we strive to address the challenges of sustainability. it is an honor to be a part of today's larger conference on the future of food. leading thinkers have

contributed their knowledge and perspective to this important topic. georgetown last had the opportunity to host his royal highness when he participated in a seminar on social responsibility. since then, significant developments have been made in the field of sustainability with heightened focus placed today on responsible consumption of our world's shared resources. the prince of wales has been a visionary leader in addressing this issue. he has been one of the most admired advocate of ecosystem resilience and green energy sources. his leadership can be seen in numerous spheres, from his revolutionary decision to pursue only sustainable organic practices in the gardens and home farms, to his stewardship

of organizations committed to sustainability in the united kingdom to his book, "the elements of organic gardening," to his advocacy on a global scale to initiatives like international sustainability. his royal highness recently captured one of the primary issues driving today's dialogue on sustainable practices in a speech delivered to the parliament during the low carbon prosperity summit in february. he discussed the pressing need for a new framework to organize our approach to sustainability. he said, we need to meet the challenge of decoupling economic growth from increased consumption in such a way that the well-being of nature's ecology and our economic needs do not suffer. if we do not think about

creating such a framework and resolve that central dilemmas soon, i fear we are in for a rough ride indeed. the prince of wales' focus on sustainability and economic growth make this an inspirational approach and one that resonates deeply with our work here at georgetown. we understand that our actions as consumers have a direct impact on the physical and economic sustainability of this university. we developed an intense prioritizing this possible consumption in response. we have committed to cutting georgetown's carbon emissions by half by 2020, by developing standards for new construction and major innovations and joined other universities throughout the world to stein -- to sign the sustainable campus charter

and to report annually on meeting our sustainability goals. we have a shared responsibility to engage in questions and challenges posed on the origin need for a sustainable practices and to cultivate more resilient ecosystems. we must engage our students in learning and discoveries that will help them become agents of change capable of creating new frameworks for our future well- being. we must inspire our students to go on to provide innovative solutions that will allow all of us to live in harmony with our neighbors and our planet. your royal highness, we are honored that you have joined us this morning to speak with us about these challenges. welcome to georgetown. ladies and gentlemen, it is my privilege to introduce his royal highness the prince of wales. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, having such fond memories of my last visit here, it really is a great to join to be invited back to george town again to speak at this conference. -- to georgetown to speak at this conference. it is a change from making embarrassing speeches during a wedding reception and things like that. [laughter] i am afraid my one regret today is that i missed the first panel discussion shared by a man who has done so much to raise awareness of the key issues in

his important film and in his writing is. -- writings. the world is gradually waking up to the fact that creating sustainable food systems will become paramount in the future because of the enormous challenges now facing food production. the oxford english dictionary defines sustainability as keeping something going continuously. the need to keep things going for future generations, in other words, for all of you students and your families weather here at georgetown or elsewhere across this large country, is the reason i have made the long journey to washington. i am probably losing my voice

through jet lag. one or two of you may have noticed over the past few years that i am been turned into a dangerous -- venturing into dangerous territory by talking about the sustainability of food. it is a risky business. the only reason i have done so is for the sake of your generation and for the interrogation of nature itself. it is your future that concerns me and that of your grandchildren and bears, too. -- and theirs, too. i have no intention of being confronted by my grandchildren demanding what we did not do something about the problems

that existed when we knew what was going wrong. the threat of that question, the responsibility of its is precisely -- irresponsibility of it, is why i have challenged the assumption of our day. i urge you to do the same. we need to face up to asking whether how we produce our food is actually it for the purpose of the 21st century. we cannot ignore that question any longer. 30 years ago, i began talking about it. i realize i have to go further. i wanted to demonstrate how we might do things to secure food production for the future. also, to take care of the earth

that sustains us. if we do not do that and work within nature's system, nature will fail to be the continuously sustaining force she has always been. only by safeguarding nature's resilience can we hope to have a resilient form of food production and ensure food production in the long term. this is the challenge facing us. we have to maintain a supply of healthy food at affordable prices when there is mounting pressure on every element affecting the process. in some cases, we are pushing nature's life-support system. they are struggling to cope with what we are asking of them. demands for water is growing and the entire system is affected by

the fluctuating price of oil. when we talk about food production, we are talking about a complex and interrelated system. it is not possible to single out one objective like maximizing production without also assuring that the system that delivers those increased yields meet society's needs. these should include the maintenance of public health, the safeguarding of rural employment, the protection of the environment and contributing to the overall quality of life. ladies and gentlemen, i trust this conference will not shy away from the big questions, chiefly, how can we create a more sustainable approach to

agriculture while recognizing the wider and important social economic parameters, an approach that is capable of feeding the world with a global population headed for $9 -- headed for 9 billion. can we compete for demand for land in an increasingly volatile climate? as i see it, these pressures mean we have not much choice in the matter. we are going to have to take some hard steps. we will have to develop more sustainable and durable forms of food production. the way we have done things up to now are no longer as viable as they once appear to be. the more i talk to people about this issue, the more i realize

the general picture remains of the perilous state we are in. i feel i should offer you a quick sketch of the evidence that this is so. internationally, food insecurity is a grave problem. some think the global food system is on the way to being in crisis. crops are declining. they have dropped to 1%. that is worrying. that rate is less than the rate of population growth for the first time. all of this has to be set against the ravages caused by climate change.

already, yields are suffering in africa and india. their crops are failing to cope with ever increasing temperatures and fluctuating rates fall. we all remember the failure of last year's we harvest in russia and china. they have caused the cost of food to rise. social discontent in many countries, especially in the middle east -- the situation will become more of a tile as we suffered more natural disasters. -- more volatile as we suffer more natural disasters. there is an ever-growing demand for food. it is estimated that demand will rise by 70% between now and 2050. the curve is quite astonishing. the world has to find the means

of beating 219 adopting new mouths every day. that is about 450 cents i started talking. -- 450 since i started talking. there will also be more wealthy people to consume more. all of that extra livestock will compete for he did -- for feed we and in the sector that has expanded its need for biofuels. energyr feed with an engerg sector that has expanded its need for biofuels. the system is heavily dependent on fossil fuels and other forms

of diminishing capital. most forms of industrialized agriculture have a dependency on oil, on natural gas and other non-renewable resources. one study i read estimates that a person today is consuming one u.s. gallon of diesel every day if they are on a typical western diet. in the past decade, the cost of artificial nitrogen fertilizers has gone up four fold and the cost of a potash three times. you can see how costly the future will become if we do not reduced our dependency. that is not counting the impact of higher fuel prices or the other costs of production like processing, all of which are passed on to the consumer.

it is a vicious circle. add the supply of land into the equation. where do we grow all of the extra plants or graxe the extra -- graze the extra stock? 1 acre is lost to development every minute of every day. since 1982, an area the size of indiana has been built over. that is small compared to what is happening in places like india where they have to find a way of housing another 300 million people in the next 30 years. on top of this is the real problem of soil erosion. again, here in the united states, soil is being washed away 10 times faster than the

earth can replenish it. it is happening 40 times faster in china and india. 22,000 square miles of airable land is turned over every year. given these pressures, it seems likely that we will have to grow plants in more difficult terrain. the only sustainable way to do that would be by increasing the long term facility of the soil. achieving increased production using imported non renewable resources are not sustainable. there are other pressures on the way we produce our food. i would like to highlight one more before i move on to the possible solutions.

they are so important. it is the magical substance we have taken for granted for so long, water. in a country like the united states, 1/5 of all of your grain production is dependent upon irrigation. for every pound of beef produced, it takes 2,000 gallons of water. that is a lot of walter. -- water. there is evidence that the earth cannot keep up with the demand. aquifer on the great plains is the preteen by 1.3 trillion gallons that -- depleting by 1.3 trillion gallons faster than the earth can replenish it. there is not a lot left.

of the remaining 4%, nearly three/or up it is used in agriculture. of it ist =--- 3/4 used in agriculture. by 2013, it is estimated that the world's farmers will need 45% more water than today. because of irrigation, many of the world's largest rivers no longer reach the peak for part of the year, including the colorado and rio grande. or give me for be laboring these points. the impact of all of this is already emmons. over 1 billion people are hungry -- the impact of all this is already demands -- already

immense. on the reverse side of the coin, let us not forget the other tragic fact. over 1 billion people in the world are considered overweight or obese. in one way or another, half of the world finds itself on the wrong side of the food equations. you can see that in a global ecosystem that is under stress, our unbridled demand puts overwhelming pressure on our food system. i do not think i am alone in thinking the current model is not durable in the long term. it is not keeping everything going continuously. it is not sustainable.

what is a sustainable food production system? we should be clear about it or else we will end up with the same system we have now, but dipped in green wash. for me, it has to be a form of agriculture that does not exceed the capacity of its local ecosystem and recognizes that the soil is the planet's most renewables source. topsoil is the cornerstone of most prosperous nations. it acts as a buffer against drought and it is the primary source of all animals, plants, and people. if we degrade it as we are doing, mr.'s capital will news its resilience -- then nature's

capital will lose its resilience. try to look for a moment at what is probably not a sustainable form of agriculture for the long term. by that, i mean generations yet unborn. in my view, it is not dependent on the use of chemical pesticides or on artificial fertilizers. you would have thought it would be unlikely to create cultures that treat animals like machines. nor would you expect it to drink the earth dry, clock streams and

create enormous dead zones in the ocean. you would also think it might not lead to the destruction of whole cultures or the removal of many of the remaining small farmers around the world. nor would it destroyed by a diversity -- biodiversity and social diversity. sustainable farming maintains the resilience of the ecosystem by encouraging biodiversity in the soil in its water supply and wildlife. birds, insects maintain the health of the entire system. sustainable farming also recognizes the importance of planting trees and in protecting water catching systems. to do this, it must be a mixed

approach where animal waste is recycled an organic waste is composited to build the soil's resiliency. animal products are used to treat illnesses. you may think this is and idealized idea and it is not the gold standard. for production to be sustainable, you have to reduce the use of those substances bad are dangerous to health.

at the same time, you have to minimize the use of non renewable external fertilizers that do not come from renewable sources. there is a sustainable approach that comes down to giving back to nature as much as is taken out and recognizing that there are necessary limits to what the earth can do. equally, it includes the need for producers to receive a reasonable price for their labor above the price of production. that leads me to what i would like you to consider. having myself tried to firm for the last 26 years in england,

the best tried to farm for the last 26 years in england, -- had myself tried to farm for the next -- the last 26 years in england, a wide range of the tables and crops can be produced. and yet we are told ceaselessly that sustainable, organic agriculture cannot be the world. i by thisodd to understand the --i find this odd to understand when you consider the agricultural knowledge and technology study conducted in 2008 by the you can -- conducted in 19 -- conducted in 2008 by the u.n.

the report drew on evidence from more than 400 countries worldwide and concluded that small-scale farming systems adopting organic approaches work the most successful. this was a major study. and yet, for some strange reason, the conclusions of this exhaustive report seemed to have vanished without a trace. this is the heart of the problem. why is it that an industrialized system deeply dependent on fossil fuels and chemical treatment is promotes it asviable -- promoted as viable? the reasons lie in the anomalies

that exist behind the scenes. i would urge you to look at the slack in the system under the current unsustainable system in the developed world. we throw away 40% of the food we import. food is now much cheaper than it was. among the unexpected consequences of this is that we do not value it as much as we did. some of this problem could be avoided with better food education. you only have to consider the progress your first lady, mrs. obama has achieved by launching her "let's move" campaign. manufacturers are making a their helpweight -- their healthy weight commitment and pledging

to cut calories from their products. they will reduce their prices on healthy items like fresh fruits and vegetables. the first lady's big drive to improve healthy eating in schools and the help -- the excellent thought of having doctors write prescriptions for exercise is a marvelous idea and it will make a difference. in developing countries, approximately 40% of food is lost between farm and market. could that be remedied by better on a firm bank storage? it also--remember -- farm storage? most farmers in the developed world are receiving a fraction of what they would if they had improved water management. the big issue we need to

consider is how conventional at red industrial techniques are -- agriindustrial techniques are and how we measure that success. the well known commentator on food matters in this country said recently that the combined market for local and organic food in the united states and europe has only reached around 2% or 3% of total sales. the reason, he said, is quite simple. it is the difficulty in making sustainable farming more profitable for producers and sustainable food more affordable for consumers. with so much growing concern about this, my international sustainability unit which was

mentioned earlier carried out a study into why sustainable food production systems struggle to make a profit. and how it is that intensively produced food costs less. he added to the last question may seem obvious. but a study reveals a less apparent reason. it looked at 5 case studies and saw that the arm pain -- tj the farm techniques are reebok -- are responsible for the things i just outlined. consider what happens when pesticide into the water supply. at the moment, the water has to be cleaned up.

that is an enormous cost the consumer water bills. take the emissions from the manufacture and application of nitrogen fertilizer, which has greenhouse gases. they are not costed at source into the equation. this has led to a situation where farmers are better off using intensive met this and consumers who would prefer to buy sustainably produced who are unable to do so because of the price. there are many producers and consumers who want to do the right thing. but doing the right thing is penalized. this raises a difficult question. has the time of arrived when a long, hard look is needed at it with public subsidies are gear ed? and should be the calibration of that gearing be-- recalibration

of that gearing be reconsidered? environmental experts have called it the curiously perverse subsidy system. the point is to achieve a situation where the production of healthier food is rewarded and becomes more affordable and that the earth's capital is not so eroded. no one wants food prices to go up. if the present low price of intensively produce food in developed countries is an illusion made possible by -- the

cost of cleaning up pollution, could correcting these anomalies result in a more beneficial or arena where no one is worse off in net terms? it would be a more honest form of accounting that may make it more desirable for producers to operate more sustainable -- more sustainably, particularly if resources were aimed at benefiting production. these are questions we are considering. my concern is that we seek to produce the healthiest food possible from the healthiest in parliament possible for the long term. and to assure it is affordable for long -- affordable for ordinary consumers. there are already precedents for

these kind of measures. governments around the world have stimulated the development of sustainable methods. could what has been done for energy production be applied to food? is this worth considering? after all, it could have a chance formative effect on the market for sustainably produce food with benefits all around. certainly, the united nations' environment program inspires hope when it estimates that the greening of agriculture will increase economic doubt you buy 11%. overstretched of the northern each andbl led to aue fin t-- blue fin tuna is an example.

that is after having received $120 million in subsidies. it is worth bearing in mind that these sorts of policies, which in paris more diversity in terms of landscape, community, and products generate all sorts of other positive results. it is dependent on the relationship between food, energy, water, and economic security. policies that reward producers who base their farming systems on these principles simply because if we do not consider the whole picture and take steps for the -- steps with the help of the whole system in mind, we will suffer from rising food prices and see the ability of

our economy and our ecological and social systems becoming dangerously unstable. if we do take such important steps, we would have to question whether it is irresponsible in the longer term to have most of our food coming from highly centralized processing and distribution systems. raw materials are sourced millions of miles away from where we live. they are transported great distances before being sold. in light of the kind of event we are witnessing more frequency of late, such as the horrific was in pakistan last year and in australia a few months ago, it is easy to imagine that with systems concentrated in such intense and large-scale ways, the band could escalate into a global food crisis. we have to consider how we a

cheap food security in a world where commodity food prices will inevitably rise. could one way be to put more emphasis onre --put more emphasis on re localizing food production. just remember the point i made earlier. the fact that food production is part of a wider socio-economic landscape. we have to recognize that social and economic responsibility is built on back u.n. and supporting local communities. agriculture has a pivotal role. imagine if there was a global food shortage. it would become much harder to

import food in today's quantities. where would we turn to for stable food? is there not more resilience in a system where the necessary -- where it is necessary to produce food locally? not only can it be much more productive that it currently is, strengthening small firm production can be a major force in preserving the traditional knowledge and biodiversity that we lose at our peril. given the difficult situation we appear to be in, if we do look at regearing the way production works, we look at strengthening biodiversity. it is at the root of building resilience commodities -- resilience communities.

ladies and gentlemen, i am a story and not an economist. what i intend to do here is say it is time to grasp what of the --reassess what has become a fundamental aspect of our economic model. -- business --the measure we use for gdp only offers short- term relief. why? because we cannot maintain the approach in the long term if we continue to consume our planet as rapacious we as we have been doing. capitalism depends on capitol. our capital depends on nature's capital. whether we like it or not, the the two are inseparable.

there are ways in growing our food that would go a long way to resolving the problems we face. if they are under penned -- underpinned by larger ways of supporting them, they could strengthen our energy systems. we could ensure a means of supply that is capable of sustaining fluctuations on international markets that are bound to come our way as the price of oil goes up and the impact of accelerating production becomes greater. in essence, what i am is suggesting here is something simple. we need to include in the bottom line the true cost of food production, the true financial costs and the true cost to the

earth. it is what you would call accounting for sustainability, a name might bid to a project i said up six years ago to expand the accounting process to in "i read thenterconnec -- to incorporate the interconnected impact. what if accounting for sustainability was applied to the agricultural sector? the economics of ecosystems assessed the multi trillion dollar importance of the world's economy of the natural world and concluded that the present system of national accounts needs to be upgraded rapidly so that they include the health of natural capital and accurately reflect how the services offered

by the ecosystem are performed and paid for. to create a genuine market for such services in the same weight carbon market is created could make a substantial contribution to reducing property in the developing world. this is important if we hope to redress the markets failure that would otherwise blight the lives of future generations. we have to see that there is a direct relationship between the resilience of the planet's ecosystem and the resilience of our national economy. ladies and gentlemen, i hope you have begun to see my point. we have to do more today to avert a catastrophe as of tomorrow. we can only do that by reframing the way we approach the economic

problems we are confronted by. we have to put nature back into the heart of the situation. if we make our agricultural and marine systems resilient for the long term, we have to design policies that bring the true cost of environmental destruction to the fore and support an ecosystem-based approach and we have to nurture and support the communities of small family farmers. i trust that these thoughts will help to focus your thoughts for the rest of the conference. who knows? perhaps at the end of this we might be able to herald a new washington consensus. like the previous version of economic thinking, there could be a consensus that acknowledges the need for market and a world

for the private sector that embraces the need for a approach that recognizes the opportunities and trade-offs needed to build a coup system that ensures the resilience of economic capital. -- a food system that ensures the resilience of economic capital. we must address the challenges of making our food system more sustainable and secure. agriculture, not agri-industry public health to and the enhancement of the quality of life. such a new washington consensus might embrace the willingness of all aspects of society, the

public, and private, large corporations, smaller organizations to work together to build an economic model build on resilience and diversity which are the the two great characteristics of your mission. it will never be needed more. i am inspired by recent initiatives here in the united states. i cannot help but feel hopeful when such huge corporations like wal-mart back the local sourcing of food and decide to start sustainable approaches. industry is listening. everyone had to work together. we have to recognize the principle that mohammad gawdy observed when he said -- that got the observed when he said we have to utilize a -- gives up

observed. it is our apparent reluctance to recognize the into related nature of the problems and solutions that lie at the heart of our predicament and our ability to determine the future of food. how we deal with the figure in our thinking will define us as a civilization and determine our survival. ladies and gentlemen, let me end by reminding you of the words of one of your own on the honors and visionaries. it was george washington who entreated your forebears to raise a standard that the wise and honest can repair. the rest is in the hands of god. and as in the past, in the hands of our great country, the united states of america. [applause]

>> your royal highness, on behalf of all of those here for today's conference, i wish to express our appreciation to you for the inspiration of your

words and of your example and our gratitude for your presence here today. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in expressing our appreciation to his royal highness, the prince of wales. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please stay in your seats for a moment as the party's leave the floor. thank you. please stay in your seat until his royal highness has left the

building. >> the pentagon held a background briefing for reporters today on the killing of osama bin laden, releasing video that you see here, homemade movies showing osama bin laden as he watched himself on television news. the video was retrieved by navy seals and were shown to -- was shown to reporters during the briefing. it showed bin laden's life in the compound in pakistan. we will have details shortly on the information gathered at the pentagon briefing. he lo cang on to c-span.org for the latest on the briefing and the hearings on the osama bin laden mission.

next, homeland security secretary janet napolitano says americans must be vigilant after the killing of osama bin laden. she says we do not have specific or credible intelligence on the immediate danger of terrorism. she made these comments at a committee hearing on the obama administration's border security efforts. this is about doochee our . -- about two hours. -- about two hours.