of the world now. we have an outward moving interest in maintaining the american model for those who would like to imitate it. i think arias right. we should make an effort to sell it. -- i think arthur is right. we should make an effort to sell it. that does not mean lock, stock, and barrel. but it means things like what is being discussed here. they work. there a nations who are struggling to organize themselves. there are things here that work and poetry as a place and that. >> iould just add one more source for that poetry. that is lincoln and everything lincoln said and wrote. in lincoln, what we really get is that philosophy made public. it combines both of the two elements, the aspirational

relevant and the new bir of freedom. then when you secure the new birth of freedom, then we do stand as a force for the world. what we have today is a need to get back to that, to lincoln's task of the perpetration of our political institutions and to figure of in which ways we have parted from those institutions that might be vilified and destroyed. first of all, i will say to ourselves to be in good -- [laughter] i think that one part -- i am a little suspicious of national purpose in this discussion. but one element of to be the notion of frontier. this is one element of roosevelt that i think is enduring and timeless. i would be very critical in many ways, but he was a friend of turners and was very -- they were mutually influential.

let me put it this way. it is very interesting that, in europe, the word frontier is a- term. in america, it is a positive term -- in eope, the word frontier is a negative term. america, it has a positive term. it has something to do with possibility of the individual person, recognizing their individual possibility, irrespective of their conditions of their birth. maybe people have to put in a phrase -- equality of opportunity rather than equality of result. that notion of the frontier and its analog -- it is not for nothing that politicians repeatedly have tried to revive the notion of frontier, and most

notably john f. kennedy, the idea of space travel in french hearing. frontiering.hrin >> in closing, let me say that, first of all, poetry is stories and songs that we have included in this volume. more importantly, i want to thank the panelists. how want to thank the bradley foundation. and i want to thank you all for coming. [applause] >> in his weekly address, president obama talks about rising gas prices and his plan to increase oil production. he also calls for an end to test their subsidies of oil companies. then the republican address with freshman rep martha roby

who also comments on expansion of oil production. >> recently, there have been signs the economy is picking up steam. last month, we saw the strongest job growth in five years. we added more than three- quarters of a million private sector jobs in two months. but there are still too many americans looking for work or struggling to make the bills. paychecks are not getting bigger, but the cost of everything keeps on rising. without a doubt, one of the biggest burdens has been the price of gasoline. in many places, gas is more than $4 a gallon, meaning you could be paying more than $60 to fill up your tank. these gas prices are often temporary, and while there are no quick fixes, there are a few steps we should take that make good sense. first, we should make sure that no one is taking advantage of consumers at the pump.

that is why we have launched a task force led by the attorney general that has one job -- rooting out sources of fraud or manipulation in the markets that might affect gas prices. second, we should encourage safe and responsible oil production hero home. last year, will production reached its highest level since 2003, but i believe we should continue to expand even as we increase safety and environmental standards. to do this, i have directed the department of the interior to conduct leases in the national petroleum reserve, while respecting sensitive areas. we plan to lease new areas in the gulf of mexico as well and work to create new incentives for industry to develop the unused leases both on and off shore. we are also taking steps to give companies time to meet higher safety standards and it comes to exploration and drilling.

that is why my administration is studying areas in the gulf that were impacted by the temporary moratorium, as well as areas of the coast of alaska. i am establishing a new team to coordinate work on alaskan drilling co ordinance. finally, we should eliminate the taxpayer subsidies would pay to oil and gas companies. the biggest oil companies made about $4 billion in profit in the last two months each week, and yet they get $4 billion of taxpayer subsidies each year. $4 billion at a time when americans can barely fill up their tanks. $4 billion at a time when we are trying to reduce our deficit. this is unfair. it makes no sense. before i was president, the ceo's of these companies even admitted it did not make sense. next week, there is a vote in

congress to end this waste once and for all, and i hope democrats and republicans come together and get this done. the american people should not be subsidizing oil companies when they are making near-record profits. we should be investing in clean, renewable sources of energy. that is why we are investing in clean energy technology, making sure that our cars and trucks can go further on a tank of gas. it is a step that could save families as much as $3,000 at the pump. these are investments worth making, investments that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and protect the health and safety of our plans. that is what i will be fighting for in the days and weeks to come. thanks. >> hello. i am representative martha roby. it is an honor to speak to you about the challenges our country faces.

i do so not only as a representative of alabama's second congressional district, but also as a mother. i cannot begin to tell you how many times i have gone to the grocery store and found myself in a conversation about the price of gas, the cost of going to the doctor, or how hard it is to get a business going. the conclusion of these conversations is washington is part of the problem. it is failing to promote policies that will put our economy on a path to prosperity. the price of gas is a good example and a timely one, too. year after year, politicians talk about the pain at the pump, but they never act. the president promoted brazilian-made energy in brazil while the administration keeps our resources under lock and key. energy production can help address the soaring gas prices.

this is also important because when you're talking about energy, we are talking about jobs. the cost of energy is directly related to the cost of hiring workers and running a business. the cost of government is also affecting our economy. washington's failure to enact policies that promote long-term economic growth and balance the budget is creating uncertainty for employers and consumers alike. for years, washington kicked the can down the road without facing its spending addiction. not anymore. the american people reject the idea of giving washington a blank check of increasing the debt limit. the house is listening. republicans have made it clear there will be no increase in the national debt limit unless accompanied with significant

spending reforms that truly change this culture of spending in washington. everything should be on the table. everything. except tax increases. we cannot tax the same people we expect to create jobs. that is a recipe for keeping people out of work. the rules and regulations coming out of washington have employers sitting on their hands of the worst possible time. the republican budget ends the job-crushing tax hikes, and it also preserves critical programs like medicare. the greatest threat is doing nothing. if we do nothing, medicare will run out of money. without action, seniors benefits will be caught. under chairman ryan's plan, seniors 55 or older, they would not be affected in any way. that is an important point. for those of us under 55, we

have to take steps to make sure that medicare will still be around when we retire. it is time for washington to get serious about the challenges that face our country. this includes putting our fiscal house in order and addressing the soaring gas prices. the biggest threat to our economy and our children is to do nothing. we have to act. it is what we were sent to washington to do. i would like to thank all americans for the overwhelming support and prayers for the people of alabama in the wake of last week's devastating tornadoes. we have needed them. as have those in tennessee and all those along the mississippi dealing with this. it is heartbreaking to see our friends and neighbors go through this time, but people of our state are coming together to lend a helping hand to do what needs to be done. i am proud to represent people

who care so deeply about their community. their perseverance and strength only motivates me more as the representative in congress. i could not let this critical moment pass without acting to ensure the american dream is alive and well for our children and grandchildren. thank you for listening. john >> next, look at the legal challenges to the health care law men of oral arguments in one of those challenges. after that, the senate hearing for the coast guard 2012 budget. >> what series of choices do they make to become terrorists, to kill hundreds of thousands of other people? >> in his new book, "mastermind," he looks of the architecture of the 9/11 attacks. >> this is a man that,

understanding him, is a better understanding of the future of the war. >> inside the mind of a terrorist, sunday night on c- span's q&a. you can also download the podcast of q&a. it is one of our many signature programs online at c-span.org /podcast. >> next, a discussion on legal challenges to the health care law. from "washington journal" this is about 40 minutes. eter landers, washington editor for the "wall street journal." how have plans to president obama's health care law gone out so far? guest: so far three judges found it constitutional and two. or your pay a penalty to tch so

there's a real party stand still. host: so at the appeals court level on a couple of fronts, one dealt with virginia. can you tell us what happened. >> there was a hearing in two of the cases stemming from virginia one of which was found constitutional, the other wasn't. one of the issues that came up there was whether or not to state of virginia have standing to sue over the constitutionalty of this sflaw the three judges republican has the right, the standing to sue in this case. host: if he is argue, that the commonwealth does have a right, what's that?

guest: the individual mandate that says you have to be insured or can can and then inter -- simply failed to buy a product. that is not economic activity that can be regulated by congress. and they say congress has never been allowed to regulate inact. -- inactivety, so what was the construction you got from the three? >> the three all appointed by democratic presidents, seemed -- they were saying maybe it is activity if you refuse to have buy insurance. perhaps you're still participating in the health

care market just simply in another way. you're maybe paying yourself or you may go to the emergency room you get care for free and you don't pay. eventually somebody else has to bear that cost. so that's the government's argument and the three judges seem simple netic to it. they say everybody is involved in the health care system in some way according to the government so therefore, this is a proper thing for congress to rule on -- yes, they are making something of a statewide argument saying it's something the state can do and governor romney passed a law that has an individual mandate and they say it's ok for the states to do but congress hasn't given that power under constitution.

>> the three panels are all what was the process of that hearing in this case? >> totally random. the court is split along republican and democratic employees. the federal appeals court. >> nine and 3. guest: two of them were appointed by president obama. we can also see from the arguments and tenor of their questions, we can see where they are headed. but there are many other lawyers. host: how many cases like these are there currently in existence? guest: there are more than two dozen many were thrown out at the district level. i think there were four federal appeals court that were at some stage of hearing courses like this wufpblet and this is

perhaps the most important challenge to the law brought by 26 state attorneys general. mostly republicans. so that's the substantive challenge i would say to the law and where the opponents have the best chance at the appeals level. host: for those looking in on the legal -- there's not the consistency. what do these legal folks look at that and say about that product that you have so many -- guest: i think everybody sees this hanening. i would say we're somewhere in the middle of the lowell process. it began a little more than a year ago. the law was signed. i think we can probably expect a little more than year from now we'll have a final verdict

on the supreme court. and we're on the -- that level. congress can regulate interstate commerce, and everyone agrees about that. that power has been interpreted broadly over the years. used in the clean air act and americans with disabilities act. very important laws have been passed based on that power. going back to the late 1930's when the supreme court gave a very baud interpretation of that power. the question here is does it apply to buying health insurance? >> host: did they get -- guest: i think they will. they are going to see how the judges reasoned. certainly, if all the appeals

courts come down one way or the other, that's going to every team guest: they are going to be watching. host: what has been the white house's strategy while this appeals court process is going on? and the congress as well? guest: the white house sent their solicitting general to argue at the appeals level in virginia. . guest: it shows concern on their part. host: yes. they want their top guy in the courtroom. even at the appeals level they want their top guy in the courtroom arguing their case. host: that's at the congressional level? guest: well, we saw it earlier

in the year. republicans in the house actually passed their repeal of the health care law. that was in the house daint get anywhere in the senate and even if it passed the senate, the president would veto guest: osama bin laden and some other issues, so americans still say they want to repeal the health care law and replace it. but that effort has stadium for the moment, and i think the best effort of overturning it lies in the courts right now. host: our guest from the "wall street journal" serves as our washington editor fch. host: call on our lines, 2k do

journal@c-span.org is our email and you can send us a twitter message. fwoip the appeals court is hearing that in june. judge robert vincent in pensacola, florida delivered perhaps the strongest opinion against the colonial. . .

host: if the panel buys the argument of the torpe generals, does that overshadow the decisions that have been made? guest: for one thing it's possible in light of tuesday's action in richmond, virginia, it's possible that the challenge might be thrown out on procedural grounds, on the grounts that he doesn't have standing or the right to sue the government. and in that case, the focus would shift to this larger case. host: in florida. host: calls for you lining up. first one is from houston, texas for our guest. caller: good morning. first of all, the gentleman is on right now is from the "wall street journal" which is a division of news corps which is a division of fox news. so i take everything he says with a grain of salt. and also, two of the judges he keeps going on and on about the judges who declared the law to

be constitutional were democrats. two of the judges who have declared the law were unconstitutional were republicans of course. and one of the judges there was a direct conflict of interest because he has a vested interest in one of the insurance companies. he keeps going on and on about the mandate, it's unconstitutional. there's also a mandate in the ryan bill. i've never heard anybody talk about that. but the same law they're trying to overturn with the obama health care. and also the tea partiers who were so against the government inclusion have lobbyists on their staff. that was the first thing they did is hire lob wrists from different industries the guide them in how to legislate different things to make sure these companies stayed in business. in other words, they're looking out for the interests of corporations and not the interest of people they're supposed to be serving. guest: the caller made an interesting point about representative paul ryan. he has a health care plan that's part of his larger

budget plan. and it's interesting how the individual mandate works. as the caller says, it's not -- you don't have to have insurance. you have to carry insurance or pay a penalty. and by some definition that is may be a tax. this is one of the issues that's being liltgate. if it is a tax then it falls under congress' taxing power and perhaps the law is constitutional that way. but the way it was written, it was called a penalty. other people call it a fee. so maybe it doesn't fall under the taxing power. now, representatives ryan plan as i understand it flips that around and says that if you do carry insurance, you might get some sort of tax credit. and that seems to under his plan fall more squarely under congress' taxing power but there are those who say as the caller says that in effect the ryan plan is very similar in structure to the health care bill that was passed last year. so there is some question about

that point. host: washington, dave, independent line. caller: good morning. why don't you really talk a little about whether it's right or wrong to have the health care initiatives repealed or to move back from the state of which it is. we talk a lot about the -- host: caller's dropped. tennessee. jackie, democrat's line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i just had a question and a comment. first, i am so proud of our president for getting this law passed in the first place. when we work on the state levels as i do, we see that people actually need insurance. i have discovered for myself that eetsdz we are pay on the

frond end or we're going to pay on the back end. this is something all americans deserve because we need health care. i think this is one of the major reasons the health care costs in this country is so high is because most people use our emergency room for health care coverage. and i think that's all over this country. we need health care and i hope that congress somewhere recognizes that. and even if it gets into the courts, i hope the courts recognize that we need health care in this country. and i think everybody needs to pay their fair share. i mean, if you can't afford a lot, you can't afford to pay a lot. but i think this is one thing that if the courts get behind it and repeal this, this is just ashame and that's all i have to say. guest: i think that's an excellent expression of why the democrats pushed this health

care bill. they said that it's going to bring coverage to 32 million americans who don't have it now. and they saw the lack of coverage maybe some 50 million americans don't have health insurance coverage. they saw that as a very serious problem but among the points made by critics is whether the bill will actually reduce health care costs. in fact, if you have more people coming into the system maybe costs will rise. now, there are some cost control steps in the health care law that was passed last year but there is a question as whether they'll work as well as intended. and if they don't, how can the country afford these higher health care costs? to me the key issue going forward, assuming the courts ultimately do uphold this law, the question is how do we keep these costs under control if they're going up greater than inflation, that's something that eventually the country can't afford. host: maryland, sophia independent line.

caller: good morning. may i bring in just a little different view of this, please. now, i am 67 years old and i'm a retired federal employee. i have kaiser as my supplemental insurance. i have had to take medicare of course. so because i have medicare and i have kaiser, kaiser only pays 20% of my care. medicare pays 80%, which makes no sense to me. something needs to be done about that. now, my total costs for health care per month is 636. the government pays $391 to kaiser. i pay $135 to kaiser. and i also pay $110 or 115 for medicare. so all of these costs, something needs to be done.

i think we're overcharged and the main insurance that we really need is in my case would be kaiser. kaiser could cover everything that people over the age of 65 need or whatever insurance they might want. and the government might not have to do anything at all as far as we're concerned with medicare. guest: ultimately i mean somebody has to pay these medical costs and somebody has to be thinking about how to keep them under control if you -- there is a proposal as you know from representative ryan that was actually passed by the house of representatives under which people would get a voucher to buy private insurance. so you might get a voucher worth let's say $1,000 a month, i just made that number up, but you might get something like that. and you would buy that to buy private insurance from kaiser and medicare the government would not be involved at all apart from giving you that

money to help you buy insurance. so there is the proposal to make private insurance a much bigger part of the medical system for those over 65 such as yourself. but whoever is paying for it, there is going to be a cost. and of course for the elderly it's increasingly high costs. host: you can cast this question into the legal discussions that are going on. but this is out of austin, texas. guest: well, there is of course that's a point often made by supporters of this law. i drive in washington, d.c. and turf carry auto insurance. that's the law. however, it is a choice for me to buy a car and own a car. and if i make that choice to own a car then the states or the district of columbia or state of maryland, if i lived in maryland, can say that you also must carry auto insurance along with your car. where as critics would say in

this case you don't have any choice in the matter at all just by living and breather you must buy health insurance. and it's also something that the federal government is requiring in most cases i believe it would be a state that would tell you you must carry auto insurance. so there's a big different f difference between state and federal here and how much freedom you have to choose. host: so states saying you are imposing on the free will of the residents of our state by forcing them to buy the mandate insurance, that's the argument they're making. guest: exactly. that the states have all kinds of power. the states have police power that the federal government does not have. so even governor romney the other day was saying in his speech about how he said it's ok, he reiterated that he thought he did a good job in massachusetts by introducing a bill there, a law there that guarantees residents of that state to have insurance. and it does inclue a mandate but the governor says it's a

different story when you talk about the federal level. however, again supporters would say it's basically the same thing. you have to buy auto insurance. many people effectively have to have a car to conduct their lives. they have to have a car, they have to buy auto insurance. how is it so much different to have to buy health insurance? are host: are there similar cases of the supreme court that go to this kind of case as far as a federal statute that imposes against the will of the state? like virginia? guest: well, there are -- i mean, in general federal law is superior to the state law. the federal law is the one that's going to carry the day if it contradicts with the state law. but the precedent that everyone talks about is the case from 1942 calledry your versus silver. this is a farmer in ohio who wanted to grow wheat for his own use and there was a government quota program that

was going to fine him for doing so. and he said why am i englaging in interstate commerce? i'm growing wheat for my own consumption. how can you possibly fine me for going over a quota? where is the interstate commerce in that? and the supreme court ruled unanimously that he could be fined. that congress did have the power to set a quota even though it involved a crop that he was growing for his own use, a very expansive broad interpretation of the commerce power passed in 1942 that holds true today. this is a case that both sides are trying to cite. the supporters of the law in particular cited. the opponents of the law say it doesn't go as far as regulating inactivity. but this is a very important case that you see some tea partiers say was wrongly decided back in 1942. they would like to go back to the 1930s when that kind of thing was generally not permitted by the supreme court.

senator rand paul or kentucky's mike lee said was wrongly decided and the supreme court let congress go too far in regulating the activities of individuals. >> host: a lot of supreme court decisions end up at 5-4. could it be expected that this case could end up the same? guest: i think it's pretty clear that the four liberal justices generally seen as liberal on the supreme court will vote to uphold the law. i think there's pretty solid four justices on that side and probably justice thomas is seen as pretty solid voting against the law based on the way he's interpreted the commerce clause in the past. however, i wouldn't rule out the possibility of a 63-72 in favor. now, he is generally seen as conservative, of course appointed by president bush. but there's also a question of, as we've discussed, federal versus state power. and there is a sort of strain

of conservative legal thinking that does not want to restrict too much what the federal in this case congress can do. you see that in some decisions by chief justice roberts that don't involve the health care or commerce clause necessarily. so how -- it's not a given that chief justice roberts and perhaps justice alito would vote against this law even though they're seen as conservatives. if you ask them personally what do they think of a health care law like this as a political matter they might say we don't support it but as a legal matter it's not 100% sure that they would vote to overturn this law. in the middle of course is justice kennedy very often a swing vote and it's again if it is 5-4 he would be the one to swing one way or another. host: north carolina loice republican line. go ahead. caller: thank you, pedro. mr. landers, i'm an 80-year-old retired rn.

i retired when i was 69 years old. now, yungsville is just outside of raleigh, north carolina. we're some of the finest physicians in the world are. duke university, university of north carolina. i moved here three years ago from new jersey and when i came here i was shocked to find out i could not get a doctor. none of the doctors would accept patients with medicare. and i shopped around everywhere and couldn't find a doctor. i was even in tears in offices and on telephones. begging people to take me as a patient. i said, i spent my life taking care of other people, and now i just want someone to take care of me now that i'm old. and at the time i wasn't sick. here's the point that i'm making. doctors are like private business people. they do not have to accept you. the government can say you must

buy insurance to buy this product health care. however, the practitioners that provide the health care are not mandated to give it to you nor do i think that they should be mandated to give it to you. the only people that are mandated to provide health care for you are in hospitals and in emergency rooms and that's exactly the place that so expensive. and speaking of expensive, do you have any idea what doctors charge an hour? -- it blows my mind. host: what do they charge you? caller: over $100 an hour to see you. and if you can get to see a doctor for ten minutes face to face, you're in good shape. guest: that's an excellent point. you don't sound 80 years old so i congratulate you on what seems to be your good health.

but it is an increasing problem that we hear from people on medicare. they have trouble finding a doctor. and unfortunately it could get worse if the health care law goes into effect as planned. because we will have some 32 million people entering the system not only people on medicare but in this days people under 65 who will acquire health insurance and they may try to see a doctor. they may say now i have insurance i can go to a doctor. and the question is whether doctors will be available to see them. and you're right that the doctors they prefer to receive the higher payments from the private health insurers. they may restrict the number of medicare patients they see. and i think the question of how much doctors earn is is it too much? is it the right amount? that's going to become the increasing issue over the coming years. host: philadelphia, pennsylvania you are next.

caller: good morning. now, as far as the health care bill, that's what i want to talk about is the what you call the obama health care which is like driving a stake through the hearts of certain individuals. i think what the bill needs is to be tweaked. now, give me a minute to explain what i mean by tweaking the bill. since everyone is screaming and hollering about the mandates that you are mandated to buy the insurance, tweak that. where bi everywho wants to par take of this health care bill can buy into the insurance. everyone individual who is covered by their employer or paying their own insurance bill allow that to be accepted. and everyone who has no insurance who doesn't want to buy into it, when you arrive at the emergency room for an illness with yourself or your child, you will be forced to pay $100% of what is going to

happen in that emergency room. and if you have to, then be admitted to the hospital, then they take the information from you and you will have to pay in full at least 85% of it. and the remainder would be attached to anything that you own. that means property, bank accounts, or vehicles. and you will have 90 days to pay that in full. and that should solve that problem and stop all of these lawsuits. and since no one since you don't want to buy into it and you don't have health care then no one should be forced to have to pay your helts bill. guest: that's a tough point. i think that's an interesting proposal. we kind of have something like that right now. i mean, if you don't have insurance right now and you walk into the hospital it's true they have to take care of you in the er but anything else

is technically your responsibility if you don't have insurance. and in reality, it's difficult for people to be that tough-minded. it's good to say in practice you mentioned the possibility of someone coming into the emergency room with a child and they can't pay. maybe the child needs some surgery that isn't technically er and they have no insurance but would you really deny insurance or coverage or surgery to a child that needs it because the parents failed to get health coverage? now, you may criticize the parent for being irresponsible. i think that would be proper. on the other hand, how much are you going to punish somebody for being irresponsible? and that's a tension that we see throughout this law. and one solution foirt is an individual mandate that says you have to carry insurance or pay a penalty. that was the solution that was found. yours is a little tougher. it might work as well but i'm not sure if it would coin side with our feelings about what

should happen. host: there's a story about the governor of washington going forward with proposals as far as federal health care is concerned to set up state health insurance exchanges. guest: some of the states when judgments came out against the law they said they might hold off on implementation. but in reality some of the states are going forward. there's a number that we know by measures a thousand or how fine the print is 3,000 pages, so there are many provisions already going into effect and states are implementing those. the one you mentioned is exchanges. in 2014 there's supposed to be exchanges where people can comparison shop those who don't have insurance on the job or medicare. and states can set up those exchanges on their own under the law. or if they don't want to do it, the federal government will do it for them. so that is one political

decision that some states are making especially if they're led by conservatives who oppose the law. they say maybe we don't want to set up the exchange. that would suggest a level of cooperation that we don't want to show. other states say we'd better get ready now it's just a couple of years away. host: can the state tell the government we're not going to set up an exchange? guest: they can and in that case people would shop through a federal exchange. in reality if the law is uphe would most states are going to want their own that are suited to their own states' needs. host: does that affect every state? guest: yes, 2014, assuming the law is upheld every state will have their own exchange or everyone will be able to access their own exchange. host: kentucky, republican line. pat. guest: good morning. there were two states that tried to have everyone have health care. it bombed in tennessee also.

and when it was brought up to democrats, they said ours is better. we know everything. and i really disagreed with the people that say nothing was -- all of it was negative. there were facts, charts, et cetera that said that this isn't -- they need this now -- and they just plowed on. and i'm going off the line. guest: yes, it's true that tennessee did have a health care, an expanded medicaid program, if i recall, that did not work terribly well according to many people in that state and the costs went out of control and the expansion of medicaid in tennessee had to be scaled back. so i think that is a lesson for the national program, assuming it goes forward as we've talked about before, how do we keep the costs under control? more people, millions of people will have new access to health

coverage and if the spending just keeps going up like it has so far then that's going to be a problem for federal and state budgets. host: louisville, kentucky. democrat's line. caller: good morning. good morning, fox news. host: our guest is from the "wall street journal," ma'am. guest: that is fox news. i wanted to say if you really wanted to have an unbiased discussion about this law, we should have had an unbiased person, not fox news. i think we all know that all the cable owners of the board of directors for c-span and of course republicans so we know where all this is coming from. the other thing i wanted to say is i think doctors have a moral right to treat people, medicare or insurance, whatever. and i think we've all been aware that doctors choose the

specialty where they can make the most money. if you see how many specialists we now have, we'll know that they're making lots more money. for example, so many of the anthese ologists now are going into the specialty of pain management. i went in for a problem and was charged by former anesthesiologist $9,000 for two shots. and of course medicare rebuked that and did not give him that much but that was his charge, $9,000 for this shot. and i had two and ended up in a wheel chair. so i think these specialties are really paying off and that's where they make the money. and i think all of the republicans that hate this

health care law should be given the opportunity to give up their medicare. and their -- host: put a lot out there. you can respond. guest: yes. i think the incentives for doctors are a big issue in this country. costs are enormous. maybe that particular doctor didn't get $9,000 but the fact that he would even try to charge $9,000 for two shots is kind of outrageous. and i suppose you were paying, suppose you were under 65 and uninsured, how could you afford $9,000 for a treatment like that, assuming that's all that it consisted of. so somehow we have to get the incentives better for doctors so that more go into primary care and there isn't an incentive for some of these specialists to really overcharge for procedures that may not be necessary because increasingly we can't afford it. host: silver spring silver spring, maryland. thanks for holding on.

caller: good morning. first off, it seemed like the health care bill was rammed through. they're getting a lot of exemptions. i don't know what kind of state exemptions there are. medicare, the coding. didn't that lead to a lot of higher costs as far as processing paper work? i guess the health care providers adopt those codes. i always felt that if you had a mercorp volunteer or gave tax breaks to a lot of people who used to work in the medical field but if you could bring them in with tax breaks to pharmaceuticals and manufacturers, i think would bring up a lot of donations of services and equipment to people who need medical help. and i could probably say a lot more but i will drop there and listen to you. thank you. guest: thank you for that call. there are a variety of ways to save costs. there's a limit to how much volunteer although volume tirg

is very important in the health care system still with the amount of care needed probably that cannot be a solution in and of itself. one solution that i'm int interested in and i would like to know more about is use of nurses and nurse practitioners and others who don't have an md degree necessarily but may be able to fill some of the functions of doctors in cases where the care is suitable for that level of professional. so there's a lot of ways that i think we need to look at to keep those costs under control because the way it's going now, it's not going to be sustainable. host: reno, nevada you are up next. bill, independent line. caller: my point is pretty quick right here. the people that are out there complaining about not having health care and everything like that, and they want to get on this government program and everything, they've got to remember their neighbors who are working are paying taxes

for that health care. for them to get for free. doctors only receive from this medicare anyway $12, $18 in some cases per emergency room visit. and everybody that's on health care -- well most people run to the emergency room for every little sniffle and headache that they have and they're trying to get on these very expensive medications and we have a very, very big problem in this country with people misusing these pain medications and stuff. but you know, why don't they ask their neighbor who is working you know what, why don't you pay for my car? why don't you make my house payment for me? why don't you buy my food for me? you know, why do they always have to -- they've got to understand that government is paying for most people. we, the people, are the

government. and that's my main point right there. guest: i mean, health care is considered different in this country and in most developed countries from other things. i agree with you. i don't want to pay for my neighbor's car or my neighbor's clothing or her suit. but health care is thought to be different. and so in essence we do end up paying for our neighbors' health care in one fashion or another. i mean, even right now again as people have mentioned, you're titled to care when you go to the emergency room regardless of whether you have the ability to pay or not and that's once of the laws that weeveped developed because we feel we shouldn't deny people health care if they can't pay for it. and there's always going to be some strug toll figure out how can the rest of us pay for those who need the care. and of course it could be us the next day who doesn't have the money to afford the care

and we need to be taken care of by our neighbors. host: one more call for peter landers, richmond, virginia. caller: thanks for taking my call. i just want to make a few comments. number one is we know that the health care pass path that we're on is unsustainable and it's going to have to change. the questions is how does it change? number one, and number two is when we talk or we use the word penalty, it would be good if the guest can cite some information on what the penalties will be. . .

the word "penalty" is out there. if we can give some definition to what that is, people can make decisions based on the information. guest: many of the changes take effect in 2014. it is not right away. ultimately, the penalty is going to be on the order of $2,000 or $3,000 a year for those who fail to carry health coverage. it is not a huge sum for most people. if you feel like you do not want health insurance, you can pay

the penalty. you can go without health insurance if that is where you want. if you only make 25,000 letters a year, under the health care law, you would be eligible for an insurance plan that would cost you very little. the cost for those in the lower income brackets of having insurance would be heavily subsidized. you could probably get coverage for a low amount per year. it would be more advantageous for you than paying the penalty and going without coverage. that is one of the features of the plan. now whether you could find a doctor on your plan is another measure, -- and other matter, but he would have e some measure of insuran

>> tomorrow, political roundtable on the 2012 presidential election with democratic strategist karen finley and sherry to coalesce. cheri jacobus. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> of the obama administration faced its first appeals court challenge to the new health care law. they heard oral humans at liberty university. they're ready university is a religious college in lynchburg, virginia. it declared that mandating individuals to buy health care insurance is a violation. two other circuits have oral arguments scheduled.

this is one hour and 25 minutes. >> good morning. i am on behalf of the plaintiffs. we ask this court to find that the mandates are unconstitutional for two reasons. first, the clause does not give congress to pass the mandate turned suddenly, they violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. it is to promote an ideal that is humanitarian in nature. but it goes beyond the limits of the constitution by regulating the first time in history non- economic activity. congress has the authority to pass these mandates for three

reasons. congress lacks the authority to pass alonthe law. >> even in the first couple of minutes, you have said what i perceive to be two different things. want to make sure we're with you. is it your contention that congress lacks the authority to enact a statute? or is it your contention that congress lacks the authority to enact the mandates? >> our challenges to the mandate. >> so you do not question, in any way shape or form, the authority of congress to address

the challenge of health care and the costs facing the country. >> we do not concede that this entire act, the side they demanded, our constitutional of the commerce clause. the community rating system. it is a pervasive regulation that has never been before enacted. our challenge is really for the individual mandate, not for the entire other area. our challenge has always been and is today about the individual mandate. this act forces inactive bystanders into the stream of commerce. the act does not regulate the channels of commerce.

>> how do you define and activities? >> in every single case, your honor, that has dealt with the common problem, even with the whicker case, regarding the growing of marijuana, there is always some kind of act of the station on behalf of the individual. it is indicative, for example -- he could have employed regulation if he did not plant or cultivate or grow or harvest wheat. >> thank you for that transition. .

as thelooding hits a high mark in memphis. live coverage on c-span3. >> if y'all are ready. [ banging gavel ] >> good morning. i would like to call the subcommittee to order. the purpose of this meetinis to review the coast guard budget and priorities for the coming year. i welcome admiral robert papp to discuss these issues. i thank you, admiral, for being with us today. i'm joined by my ranking member,

senator coates and senator lautenberg. this is your first appearance before the subcommittee. welcome, and congratulations on your new role as commandant of the coast guard. the importance of the coast guard to our nation cannot be overstated. it's one of the five the branches of the military, responsible for the safety and security of the maritime interests in u.s. ports and on the high seas. we will never forget, particularly this senator, the heroic efforts of the coast guard men and whim who came to our aid after hurricanes katrina and rita and who rescued 33,000 citizens in the largest search and rescue operation in the

coast guard's history. last year, the coast guard was the first on the scene in haiti. coordinated the response to the deepwater horizon rig and subsequent oil spill, the largest of its kind in the history of our country. the coast guard gentleman i serve with has been extremely busy with missions along the southern part of our country and all over the united states. however, the coast guard's ability to fulfill its mission requirements has reached a critical juncture. the former commandant, admiral thad allen said with every passing year, ourperating xap blt erodes. puttin our people at risk and lessening our ability to fulfill

our duties. admiral papp said we may need to reduce the number of our capabilitie capabilities. there has been failure of the current and previous administrations. over the past five years, this subcommittee, with my spofrt, has increased the coast guard budget by $160 million annually, above the white house request levels. continuing uncreases may not be able to be fulfilled. this committee wants to eliminate the waste and the fat and focus on the central mission. however, we have been calling the coast guard to do more and more things with less and less. a at some point, things start t

deteriorate. with that in mind, we focus on the 2012 requests, a 1.1% increase over last ear. we'll be examing whether the coast guard is properly resourced. before turning to senator coates, i want to stress my concern about the status of the fema disaster relief fund. i have been pressing the white use or the need to submit to congress emergency funding requests. there's a $3 billion shortfall for 2012 currently. if the president does not seek emergency nding, it is likely this fund will be exhausted in the spring of 2012. stopping disaster recovery efforts in 49 states, including the states impacted by the devastating and historic recent tornadoes. again, primarily in the south, but in other states as well,

particularly in the state of alabama, that wias so hard hit. and states experiencing historic flooding on the mississippi, the depth and the width of our country. it makes no sense to cut funng to agencies that prepare for and fund future disasters to pay for the cost of past disasters. those are clearly emergencies. they're over the base amount that we allocate to the best of our judgment on a five-year average. we cannot predict. i cannot predictwhat the future storms will be. i cannot predict the tornadoes or the river flooding. all ki can do is budt a reasonable amount of money based on a five-year average and expect the president to send emergency requests when it truly is needed.

the evidence is in to suppo that action. following senator coatess' remarks, we'll go the vice chairman lautenberg. i want tthank my co-chair. >> thank you very much. admiral, thank you. first for your call a few weeks ago. and the opportunity to work with you. i did have the privilege of serving for ten years in the senate armed services committee. i always viewed the coast guard as the fifth armed service and as essential as the first four. i think since 9/11, you have taken on more responsibilities. i commend the coast guard. i wish you the bes on your leadership. i'm sure you breathed a short sigh of relief when congress finally gave you some direction on what your funding would be

for the remainder of 2011. unfortunately, we may be in a situation where the 2012 budget that, again, leaves some uncertainty in terms of just exactly what t funding will be. i'm sorry for that. i know it makes it difficult for planning and preparing your goals and meeting your goals. in any event, you're pretty much faced with a no-growth budget this year. i'm looking forward to your testimony in terms of outlining how you have to manage your priorities. as a result of that. and if you don't mind, i'll give you a little sh peel that i have said several times. i'm sure the chairman is tired of hearing this. we face the kind of debt and deficit situation today that think none of us had anticipated. it will require some pretty serious action in terms of how we deal with this.

my concern has been and continues to be that we are limited our focus to a small part of the overall budget. therefore, the discretionary, inclugd defense snding, is subject to taking a disproportional chair of the burden of addressing the debt and deficit problem. i've been trying to get a coalition of the discretionary that will encourage members of congress and the executive branch to broaden the look at the drivers of deficit and debt, and that's the mandatory spending. i know this isout side your jurisdicti jurisdiction. i know that you are the recipient of perhaps a

disproportionate chair of the burden. and lower funding than you need to accomplish some of your priorities because we have not yet come to a consensus on mandatory spending. it's continuing to be a focus on a slice of the budget of which you are a part. i just say that for the record. i'm not asking you to necessarily do anything about it. i look forwar to your testimony. madame chairman, you have more at stake with the coast guard than the state of indiana does. i want to state, for the record, that we do have a coast guard station in michigan city. we're glad to be a state that participates a little bit in the coast guard. >> thank you. nator lautenberg. >> thank you. and all of your colleges for the

wonderful service the coast guard gives the country. i think it's well known that in all of my years of the united states senate, that the coast guard has been a principal focus of my views ofhat we ought to do and take care of our security. take care of so many other responsibilities. that the coast guard has. whether it goes from fish, i don't know if it goes from fish to fowl, but it starts out with safeguarding our supplies of fish. of protectinghe quality of the water. of being there for -- it's just an amazing thing, madame chairman. it's one of those organizations that the more good they do, the less we give them. and it's -- it's -- the kind of contrast that gives me some

cause for concern. we are all so proud of wh our people did when they wnt to get osama bin laden. and proud of the president's decision, who had the courage to take that kind of a chance, because, obviously, great personal feeling goes along with putting people in harm's way. but there we are. we learned one thing. that when we put the resources into a mission, that we can succeed. and this is a mission, the attack on osama bin laden, was in the works for years. and so when i look at the things that we are asking the coast guard to do and see that prior to 9/11, coast guard invested only 2% of the operating budget in security activities. shifting the recourses after 9/11, spending approximately 59%

of the operating budget on security missions. there are lots of positive things. in the budget for the coast guard. including the funding to modern i ize. to respond to disasters. i'm pleased that the budget includes funding to rebuild the del dela delapidat delapidated pier in new jersey. i hope we can provide the resources, the training center desperately needs. and, may dam chairman, i asked unanimous consent in a fuller statement that i have goes into the record. >> whout objection. >> and just say, that, my respect for the coast guard continues to evolve.

i have looked out the window of my apartment inew rsey, and i see a small patrol both going around to make sure that things are all right in the hudson and the harbor. i can imagine what it's like to have to take care of all the ports and the security duties, the military duties that the coast guard is required to do. thank you, we're going work hard to make sure you have the resources. >> thank you, senator. senator cochran. >> i want to joinou and other members to welcome the commandant. the coast guard is front and center right now in everybody's mind. and on everybody's tv screen, with activities sech and rescue, protecting our coastlines, inland waterways. entrances into our country.

very complex challenge tat the coast guard is facing. from my vantage point, i have been pleased and impress with the leadership and hard work being devoted to the mission of the cost guard by everyone involved from the commandant throughout the corps of people so gallantly and impressively serving in the coast guard of today. i look forward to your comments and taking our questions that me may have. thank you. >> thank you. admiral, proceed, please. >> good morning, madame chairwoman and the senators. thank you for the opportunity to appear here today before you. and thank you for your unvaeferring support of the meer and women from the united states coast guard. it is my great honor and

privilege to lead these outstanding patriots. 90% of our goods arrive by or are shipped by sea. the safety and security of our maritime affects the daily lives of every american, whether they live on or near the water. in the past year, our citizens have witnessed the coast guard in action like never before. coast guard officers working to op drug traffic and illegal immigrants. then with the dust on their boots from haiti, they responded to the oil spill. these show our unique mare tim multimission and military capabilities. we surged to meet the challenge, was continued to complete other missions. in the flood-ravaged ohio and.

. river valleys, coast guard officials are there. on the great lakes, coast guard ice breakers freed the flow of commerce. facilitating the start of the 41st international shipping season into iiana harbor, allowing small businessmen, truckers to get back to work. th cutter midget, one of our high-endurance cutters interdicted a drug submarine, loaded with 6.6 tons of cocaine, worth $138 million. in the arabian gulf, we still serve. they're protecting the oil platforms that provide 85% of iraq's revenue. the coast guardsmen are deployed off the coast of africa. in alaska, coast guard helicopter crews deployed from

code yak to cordoba have rescued four people in two plane crashes just this week. the cutter campbell is off honduras. they've located 31 bales of cocaine on the boat. these coast guardsmen are working hirelessly to safe guard our maritime interests on our ports, on the hi seas, along our rivers. we find our coast guard today an a critical inflection point of the history. i'm aware ofhe nation's current budget challenges. decisions made today will either sustain a coast guard capable of meeting missions and responding to future disasters, and as madame chairman, you mentioned, we can't predict where and when they will happen.

it takes us in sufficient quantities to be prepared. the other result could be a coast guard that is less capable and diminished in force. your steadfast support enables us to continue to perform our challenging maritime missions at the level the nation demands. senator coates, you said i must have breathed a sigh of relief. i wanted to do a high five when i got this budget. it addresses the most pressing requirements. the major cutter recapitalization but fully funding cutter number five, you enabled us to deliver the ship up to one year earlier potentially saving taxpayers millionsf dollars. it was ironic that this morning, when i did my daily readings, there was a quote that said, when we pay later, the price is greater. when we buy it earlier, we get

it at a better price. we'll have savings for our taxpayers. gaps in funding are costly. they jeopardize our ability to protection the nation's high seas and coveragety. the 2012 budget request responds to the nation's budget challenges. i had to make tough trade-offs. i will reinvest savings of $140 million to sustaining our front line operations to rebuilding the coast guard and enhancing the maritime response and supporting our coast guard families. i'm requesting over $1.4 billion to continue our recapitalization effort. response boats, maritime patrol aircraft and sustainment of our aging ships and aircraft. i rently decommissioned two antiquated high-endurance

cutters, and our oldest, the queen of the fleet, the cutter acushna, which was almost 68 years old. i betoed the queen of the fleet status to another cutter, nearly 67 years old. at some point, it becomes unfair asking our crews to spend countless hours fixing old machinery. the american people deserve the capability of a modern eet. the good news is, because of your support, our recaptaization is starting to pay dividends. the first of our national security cutters is currently conducting its first alaska patrol. it marks the binning of decades of service that will be provided in the bering sea. the first of 58 fast response

cutters, our new patrol boat fleewas just launched in lockport, louisiana. it's a critical step in replacing the island class patrol boat fleet. the 2012 budget invests $22.7 million to ensure the safe flow of commerce and managing pollution incidents when they occur. finally, you need healthy families. this budget requests funding for military housing projects and increases access to child care services for coast guard families. as the maritime component of the department of homeland security, the budget will allow us to provide the vital maritime missions. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, admiral. i appreciate it. it's also, i think, appropriate

to note on the coast guard facts and figures available on the website, some of the extraordinary work you just touched on. in the average day what the coast guard accomplishes. just to say a few, it saved 13 lives, responds to 64 search and rescue cases. provides a presence in all major ports. screened 679 commercial vessels. i can go on and on. tracked 1,200 icebergs that drifted into the transatlantic shipping lanes last year. and other testimony you have put into the records. you had recently given a speak on on the capabilities. i have looked at it. it's quite amazing, admiral, the breadth of the services that you provide to our country. on daily basis. looking back over last year. so, again, we commend you. let me start with a few

questions, you have publicly expressed,despite your very positive statement this morning, you have expressed some concerns about the coast guard's ability to carry out its 11 statutory missions. recently, in february, you said we need to respond. we need to reduce the number and range of capabilities unless we're properly resourced. i know you're pleased with several aspects of the budget. can you elaborate? do you have -- you ordered a stem to stern review of coast guard capabilities? when will the review be completed? where would you invest the next dollar? three questions in one. elaborate on the capability shortfalls. you have ordered a review, when will that be completed? and when will the recommendations be reported to

the mmittee? and if additional resources would be available, where will you invest your next dollar? >> the first is the review of capabilities. do we need to cut back on some of those. i think we acknowledge across the board. prior to 9/11, the coast guard was underresourced. since 9/11, we have taken on other responsibilities. we're grateful for the congress in the increase in people. we gained about 6,000 people total, it's brought us back to where the service was in 1990. we have picked up additional duties. also, culturally, this service, blessed, has this attitude of can do. it's a blessing and a curse. as we have looked across the security responsibilities and the threats facing our country, often times, because of the can

do attitude, we do thinks that no one really asked us to do. rotary wing air intercept. we're straining the helicopr pilots to do. it intercepts low, slow threats that might approach a national security event. we're resourced to do that in the washington, d.c. area. we're not resourced to do it out and we're doing it. other tactical operations we have looked at, perceived a need, started doing on our own without the proper resources to do it. and, unfortunately, some accidents over the years a we have trained for these activities. it's given me cause for concern and to take a pause and to order this stem to stern review, that will look at all the capabilities out there, decide which ones are the highest prior

to priority, make sure we're proper will i trained to be the best possibl to do them. inevitably, we'll find gaps. if it's a job that the coast guard should be doing, it's my responsibility to identify that to the administration and congress and seek the proper resources to do it. if it's something that can be filled by another government agency, working through partnerships, i think it's reasonable to go out to other agencies and ask them to fill that void in cooperation with the coast guard. those are the first two questions, i think i have answered. the last, where would i invest my next dollar? clearly in recapitalization. we cannot continue to ask these young patriots to go out in 40-year-old ships, living in conditions that are world war ii conditions. berthing areas that have konden sags, darkness.

we need to give them the proper tools. new sensors, new radars. survivable ships that will take themut in the dangerous conditions, the bering sea, the gulf of alaska, the vast reaches of the pacific. we need to get those ships built as quickly as possible. >> the average age of a navy ship is 14 years. the average age of a coast guard ship is 40. is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. the high endurance ships were used as a model for the united states navy. they have all been decommissioned, we're still running our original 12 high-endurance cutts with the exception of the two we just decommissioned. >> one other question. we have any. the coast guard policy requires an incident specific

preparedness review. the review of 2010 was completed in march. however, it is reported that many lessons learned from prior stills, such as the 08 spill and the cape mohican spill 11 years earlier had not been addressed. now the deepwater horizon. after those two smaller spills. where are we in your review, of what it's going the take for this country, and i think it's a priority for the majority members of the senate, to get deep water drilling back up and operationain the gulf of mexico as soon as possible, recognizing there are additional safety requirements. where are we in that sk? could you explain the role of the coast guard in making sure that spills are prevented and

respond to properly. >> yes, ma'am. we did the isper for the deep water horizon spill. it's an introspective review that i order for us to look at the service and decide how we did the job, look at the problems, challenges, and sho shortfalls we may have. i just received the report. we're in the pross of going through it. our marine casualty investigation has just been wrapped up. we'll look across all those reports and come up with a comprehensive plan on what we need to do. we're not sitting back waiting on that. we're already moving ahead. the 22.7 million dollars that we put in the fy 12 budget builds on plan we are started after the

first spill you mentioned. it's a measured look making sure that we grow slowly to make sure we're going the right thing and the 2012 budget continues that process and in addition puts in their an incident management assist team that includes about 33 people that we will forward deploy with when an incident happens. the lack of capacity we have for a sustained operation was evident in the deep water horizon spill. we're not sitting back in terms of efforts. we have asked the captains to review the spill plans. we're working with our area committees to look at worst case scenarios and how we bring sfri and federal and state and local together to combat those things. all these things are in progress as we continue to evaluate.

>> and finally, when will you have that report to us? do you think it will be 30 days, 60 days in time for us to consider it in this budget cyclipsyccycl cycle? >> i think the report has been published. it's out there. the report itself went out. it has a number of recommendations. clearly, i can't do every recommendation in the report. we're going assign priorities. the report is available. >> as soon as you assign your priorities, let us know. >> admiral, tnks for the testimony. you mentioned tough trade-offs. garnering $140 million that you tried to reinvest in front line operations. give me some examples of those tough trade-offs. particularly that generated that $140 million. what did you have to take way? >> well, sir, back to the 2011

budget. i have to thank this committee for restoring money in the 2011 budget. we were facing rather drastic cuts in there, including maritime safety and security teams and cutters. that's a quick way to get savings but cuts back on the front line operations. as we went into the 2012 budget cycle, my first budget preparation to go forward, my guiding principle was we will sustain our front line operations. i don't want to lose any coast guard people or resources that deliver services to the american people. we looked at administrative overhead. some fat to caverve away. we didn't find much. most of sit operation nat nal support reductions. travel, things we would like to be doing because it helps us keep a healthy work force.

but the alternative is to cut back operations or aircraft and ships and i just don't want to do that. >> we have had a lot of interest re in strengthening border patrol regarding illegal immigration. there have been some successes at a cost. as we strength our border security and illegal immigration, there may be more attempts to cruise the oceans and the seas at entering points. is this something you have looked at? do you anticipate more responsibilities coming your way? >> yes, sir. it's like squeezing the balloon. if you make the border, the land border more secure, there's the possibility of going around it by going out to sea. we have that fairly well covered on the gulf and pacific sides of

the mexico-america border. we have patrol boats and larger cutters out to sea. most of our migrant vectors are down in terms of number of people. we have seen a slight rise in the last couple of months in hash yans. all those numbers are down. i believe everything points back to us having a persistent presence out there, maintaining the cutters and air kaft out there. and people know that and a policy ofeturning migrants to their home country when we pick them up. we're increasingly challenged because of the difficulty in keeping the old ships running out there and keeping them out on station. >> describe the process for me, if you would, you're in the gulf. you come across a makeshift boat. there's 45 illegal imgranmigran

trying to reach land. you intercept that. what happens from that point forward? in terms of those individuals. they're brought on the boat, brought on shore. where are they detained, how are they -- what's the process? >> that is the value of the multimission cutters that we have. flight decks for landing helicopters. we can accommodate large groups of migrants. it not unusual to find a group of 45. we bring them aboard. treat them humanely. we feed them, make sure they have facilities to protect them. we have agreements in place with cuba and haiti to repatriate them to their countries. we interview them to make sure there are not articulable

situations. we interview the people. if there's a threat or belief, then we will work with customs and border patrol and i.c.e. and they'll get further interviews. >> i'm new to the committee. i don't know the answer to this. when you repatriate those ill legal immigrants, you to take them back yourself? or they go through some process system on land before they're -- >> if they are interdicted at sea, we bring them on, treat them, and then we bring them directly back. for haiti, we take o ships into cap haitian. it's a delivery point. we turn them over to haitian

officials overseen by united nations people there. we have an agreement with cuba. we generally have to transfer them to a smaller cutter to return them to the port of cuba. we have two cubans, four cubans just this morning that were able to voice what they perceived as a threat. we took them around to guantanamo bay and delivered them there. we have a migrant holding facility there to do further interviews to decide what to do. >> i have more questions. but i think we'll do a second round? >> yes, we will. thank you. senator lautenberg? >> thank you, chairman. admiral, you're now a seasoned commandant. i can tell you that you have won respect for the kind of

leadership you have shown with the coast guard since the time you have become the commandant. we thank you for that. >> yes, sir. >> according to the fbi in new jersey -- it's home for the most at risk terrorist attack in the united states. the area has targets ranging from the port to the airports, chlorine and gas plants. an attack in this area could endanger 12 million people who live within a fairly short radius. with the administration's decreased budget requests, what, will any efforts in the port of new york-new jersey area be affected in terms of its supervision by the coast guard? >> no, senator. as i said earlier, my emphasis on the 2012 budget is sustaining

at the current level our operations in the field. delivering the services that the american citizens expect of our coast guard. new york is well covered. the sector new york, one of the most robust, located on staten island. we have basically doubled the number of boats and people at thstation in the last ten years. we have maritime safety team new york there to provide response to terrorist events or provide additional security when there are security events in process. the active partnerships are important as well. we bring today the state and local port partners plus industry. one of the biggest al lies are commissioner ray kelly of the city onew york. they have robust services. they're all complementary. i think new york is well

covered. >> cape may coast gartd training center is in bad shape. presents a safety hazard. the pier supports missions in the mid-atlantic region. your budget question includes $11 billion for the reconstruction of that pier. what kind of requirement might that contain? >> i have been up there. i have walk that peier, sir. we cannot take heavy i equipment out there. you need to take cranes out to do work on the ships when they're in port. you cannot move heavy equipment out there. so you have to move the ships in order to get any work done. i affects dale why work like

delivering supplies. getting that replaced and giving us the versatility to do pier-side work sand keep the cutters sustained that are in home port there and not have to put extra bursd on o people to have to move the ship if work is to be done, after they have already come in off of long patrols is a great benefit to us. >> you know the coast guard represents the u.s. before the international maritime organizations in our efforts to prevenand respond to acts of piracy. pirate attacks have risen in the last months. some are calling for increased use of arms on merchant ships. what ishe coast guard thinking about that? it sounds like our ships ought to be able to defend themselves. >> what we do know, sir, i think the pirates are 0 for 12 or 13

or 14 when they have tried to attack and take a ship that has a security team on board. we have evidence to validate that if you have a security team on board, you're most likely going to survive. how those teams are provide sd the real question. and some countries still prohibit the use of security teams on board ships that fly their flag. some shipping companies are changing the flag to other countries so ty can bring security teams on board. there seems to be a fairly robust activity out there. the shipping companies seem to be able to afford them. i encourage the use of security teams. we have other measures at work as well. including safe ty procedures. it's a full range of activities you can do.

ultimately, security team work. >> and, i close with this. i would hope that you wouldn't keep using the reference to as old as world war ii. there is some of the parts still remain functioning quite well. >> yes, sir. >> thank you, senator. senator cochran? >> welcome, again, commandant to our hearing. we appreciate the fact that in our state of mississippi, we're building coast guard vessels and we're very proud of the fact that shipbuilding has produced two cutters, i think, number 5 and 6. and they're looking to continue the construction of these cutters. and my question is, what is your

assessment of the workman contribution to this project? what are your assessments of the efficiencies gained by long lead pro curement of these vessels? >> sir, that's a great question. i have been out to san francisco, just a few weeks ago. i spent a full day riding nsc number 2, the waischi. it's an outstanding ship. i am almost willing to give up these stripes to get that job to be the captain of that ship. it's outstanding. but it's not extravagant. it gives us enhanced kab ed capabilities to carry out our mission in a longer range and speed and do it more economically with fewer crew

members, better fuel e fish sirks and better environmental conditions as ll. i was totally impressed with the smooth functioning of that ship and the capabiliti it brings to bear for all coast guard missions. proving it is another thing. and right now, the cutter bertoff, the first ship, is up in the bering sea. i read a report from its commanding officer, captain john prince just this morning. they're out in 20-foot seas. with up to 60 knots of wind and still able to launch and recover theihelicopter. unheard of in the past to be able to do that from one of our high endurance cutters on the bering sea. they're launching in more difficult conditions than they have in the past because of the stern launch capability. they're able to stay out there longer. the engines are more economical to run even at higher speeds.

we're doing it with about 40 people fewer in the crew. they're living better. the ship rides better because of segregated ball last tanks. you have a better, more stable ride. it's proving the solid design and all the work that went in and i couldn't be more pleased with these ships. number three, is nearing completion, the dorothy stratten. she'll be able to be used later this year. the generosity of the subcommittee, we have the money in the '11 budget to award the contract on number five. the final question on long lead materials, when ever we can keep a stable and predictable flow of funding going, the shiprd quan gains confidence, we gain confidence, prices are lower, we

save money in the long run. >> that's a very impressive report. it makes me very proud of the workers and the officials of engels and the coast guard that devoted such a strong and workmanlike performance in building the ships and getting them to sea. we need them operating there. there are plans to build additional cutters. and long lead time materials are need for those ships. are those requests contained in your budget request before the committee? or do we need to have a conference with you to see what you need and what you can use and what would be efficient and appropriate for the committee to support? >> sir, ultimately in my original plans and the joer all balance, we could have liked to

have requested funding for national security cutter number 6 in the budget that is going forward. we were confronted with a dishlt si difficult situation. we had a lead systems integrator. we ran into trouble there. we needed to negotiate a fixed-price contract for cutters 4 through 8. it took us a little long to hammer out that deal to get the fixed-price contract. i believe the shipyard, i think, is negotiating in very good faith on number five, which we'll see awarded here very soon. because we didn't have a price for number four, we were uncertain what it would cost, what number five would cost, and we thought we would need some additional money given our estimates for natnal security cutter number five. we could not fit that additional money plus the full cost of

number six in the 2012 budget. so i made what i thought was a reasonable decision at the time was just to ask for the additional money to complete national security number five, and we would defer the full funding, what i'm confronted with now is onb circular requires full funding, long lead production, and post production costs all in the same year. this is ahallenge for us because it eats up almost half our acquisition budget. so i can't fit that in until the 2013 budget. we did ask for $77 million in the 2012 budget to complete number five. you gave us the money within the 2011 budget. so that leaves a little bit of a bogie there in the '12 budget. >> what is -- >> a bogie is a target of target of opportunity or a problem.

because it sits the originally as the president's budget goes forward, it's $77 million to complete the funding for nsc funding number five. so it sits there with no assignment. >> i hope the committee can work with you and your team and the house -- our house counterparts to try to figure out the most efficient and effective thing we can do in this cycle. you're open to further consultation and discussion of this issue, i hope. >> yes, sir. >> madame chairman, i have other questions, but particularly i'm impressed just in passing if i have time to ask about the unmanned aerial systems. the coast guard has been analyzing various unmanned aerial systems. i wonder what the status is of potential requests for next year's budget or a supplemental request dealing with unmanned aerial assets. >> well, clearly when we devised

the system of unmanned aerial systems was a part of that to enhance the effectiveness of the system and to compensate for having fewer ships out there. right now, i am searching for room on where we might fit that in. plus, i have to look at other partnerships, as well, to see if we might leverage them. the navy is experimenting with a tactical ship launched uas fire scout, which ihink holds promise, but i don't have the money to move forward with that right now. so we're leveraging off the navy's work, and we're hopeful they will work with us to see if that's the direction to go. . . the other is more a predator type uas that would cover, which would do wide area coverage. and right now, customs of board protection is working with

predators, we're experimenting with them, using coast guard pilots to look at that system and how it might employ were our systems and cutters. ultimately we're doing better because the national security cutter gives us better sensors and coverage and working with our current manned aircraft, it makes us no less capable than we have been in the past,ut we would look forward to the future when we can identify the systems we need and work them into our budget. >> thank you. >> thank you. let me just follow up on that. because when you think about, i guess, the question is what is the most effective way to catch the bad guys? you know, is it with our ship patrols, unmanned support? i'm concerned about what i'm understanding are the increased reliability -- increased reliance by these major drug dealers to basicly build their own submarines.

without going into too much and looking at classified information, what is the coast guard's current response to some of these new and emerging and more sophisticated operations? >> well, they're clearly presenting us with achallenge, but the drug trafficking organizations are still using a wide range of conveyances. sometimes slow-fishing vessels sometimes go fast. also as you know using semisubmersibles and fully submersibles. it's basically a chess game. they will move to another new tactic and we have to react to that. when you ask what's the most effective, it's really a combination of all of those things. and another element which you didn't mention, which is intelligence. we can't do nearly as well as we do now if it was not for active intelligence working with our partners, bilateral and multi-lateral agreements that we have with south and central

american countries that allow us to work together and train together and also actually conduct operations together on the water and sometimes even allow us to go into other sovereign waters based upon the agreements we've come up with. so intelligence is probably one of the most important things for us because it will tell us often times not only where to go to, but what ship to look at and often times what compartment in that ship to look at. i'm not dulging. i'm talking in generality, that's our sophisticated our intelligence is, and it's a combination with our operational assets out there. >> i was recently down in guatemala on a trip focused on another issue but took the opportunity to get a security briefing. this is what they were talking about. the guatemalan government were very complimentary of the coast guard and your partnerships.

because i want this committee to know that we just can't stop drugs at the border along the wester border, they're coming through maritime channels and ship channels and oceans and bayous. and getting the right intelligence before they leave the ports or intercepting them well before they get into our ports is a smart strategy. but it's a combination of the right kind omaterials and platforms. but the intelligence aspect and the partnership with some of these governments of honduras, guatemala, nicaragua, and el salvador, extremely important. if you want to get one more comment on that and get one more question, i'll go to the senator. >> a quick one, as well. but another thing that i'd like to brag a little bit about is it's not just the united states coast guard cooperating with those south and central american countries, we also facilitate cooperation amongst federal agencies as well. one of my collateral duties is

the chairman of the committee where we bring together share and to work together to come up with strategies. our last meeting we brought in general frazier who is a commander, at the end of the day, you're absolutely right. we need to stop these drugs in the transit zone where we can pick it up before it gets ashore. broken down into thousands of packages to come across our border at various locations and across, of course, at fueling the violence that we're seeing down there in mexico. >> thank you. and one more question. since 2008, and touched on this, but i want to go a little deeper, 14 coast guard aviators have died in accidents while conducting routine missions. keeping the men and women of the

coast guard i'm sure is your highest priority. i understand the coast guard has reviewed the cause of these incidents and the adequacy of operation and maintenance, but what recommendations are you making in this budget or what have you made that we can support you in our efforts to keep tse men and women safe on these routine training missions? >> yes, ma'am, thank you for that. i was asked a couple of days ago what keeps me awake at night? and i said i sleep pretty good. we've got good coast guard people out there and good leaders getting the job done. but one of the sleepless nights i can count is the loss of our helicopter 6017 vy shortly after iecame commandant. fortunately we had already started our aviation safe thety study, and we are well along in terms -- and i want to thank the senator for calling me at the time and pointing us toward an investation that the army did on helicopter losses. what we found out was there was

not a connection. the army was mostly mechanical. what i mean by that is we've seen a lot of rapid cultural change within our aviation community over the last ten years. we've picked up additional new responsibilities, the air intercept i talked about, tactical vertical assertion, and other things other than search and rescue we didn't do ten years ago. you can't necessarily point it on just that either. we've also gone through a rapid progression of upgrades and instrument and equipment changes within our helicopters. so there's been change there. and then i think also, perhaps, a little bit of complacency that has slipped into our aviation culture across the coast guard. perhaps a diversion of focus away from safety concerns, leaders getting out on the flight deck and spending time with their young pilots and having them focused on their qualifications, crew management

within the cockpit. it's a whole collection of things that came together and resulted in what were very, very unfortunate accidents under very routine circumstances. and it was not mechanical, it was human failure. we're working very hard right now taking our most senior avtors going around to every air station, and we've got a number of other things in the works to improve upon aviation culture in the coast guard that has that produced the best maritime pils in the world and making them even better. there was no cost in the budget for this. it's something we have to take on as leaders. and we're about the business doing that. >> thank you. admiral, i'm aware that the navy has placed on every ship afloat and every sailor on that ship has a locating device that if there's a man overboard, woman

overboard, they have an instant alert and gps location. i mean, we all think of going out on a sunday on chesapeake bay, somebody falls overboard, the boat turns and picks them up. obviously that's not the case. in the open ocean. do you have a similar system in place? >> what we -- >> with regards -- >> well, i'm not sure if we have something similar because i'm not familiar with the system that the navy has employed. and i haven't read anything about that. there are a number of small personal systems that are out there on the market right now, in fact. we just did a rescue because this one i talked about in alaska where an airplane crashed, somebody was able to light off their personal device, which gave us an alert and vectored us into it. we put a number of what we call

personal protective equipment on our people whenever they're involved in dangerous operations. there are a full range of things from signaling devices to strobe lights and other things. what i'll have to do is look at a comparison of what the navy is issuing right now and see if there are any enhancements we can do for our people, as well. >> yeah, i don't even know the name of it or the company or what the market is. it's just that i -- i've run into someone who told me about it and indicated there's been a dramatic reduction in sailors lost at sea as a result of this. >> talk a little bit to me about your living conditions. what percent of your forces are married? >> we are one of the highe. and i don't have the exact figure, but my recollection is it's up close to 50%, which is -- we actually have the

highest ra of people that are married compared to the other services. >> and married with children, i assume? >> most of them, yes, sir. >> so you mentioned then your concerns about adequate housing and child care. where are you in that process? and where do you rank? we all know the air force has the best facilities, including golf courses. we all know that the navy does pretty well, and the army's improved dramatically. marines are happy with a slab of cement and a tarp, but where does the coast guard fit in this list of services here interms of what you would call the kind of housing that you're proud to have your people live in? are -- >> we're clearly at the bottom of the ladder, but what i have qualify that with is we are -- we have fewer people that live on big bas.

we are locally dispersed, and it's very hard to come up with coast ard housing because we're so many small stations around the country. so we look at government leases. housing allowances for all of our people. and one thing we've picked up. this is the year of the coast guard family. and my wife and i have travel around, she's met with literally thousands of coast guard people. and we've chosen to focus on those things we think we can make a difference on,hich is housing, child care, and spouses helping spouses. housing is a challenge for us because where we do have bases, cape may, new jersey, or kodiak, alaska, we have done okay in terms of trying to maintain them, but they're very costly. the other services we're facing the same challenges. and they got authorities and the

money to enter into a private -- public/private ventures. >> you have that authority? >> we do not have that authority. we've had it in the past, but it requires us to escrow a large amount omoney whichwe never are able to get in our budget. so what we've done is actually leveraged off the other services. out in hawaii, what we did was we seated some of our land that we have for our old housing to the army. they brought in their public/private authorities and built houses, which now our coast guard take part in. i live in a privatized house over boeing air space right now. we're selling the house which we owned for 40 years out at chevy chase because it costs a lot of money. and we do have authorities to take the proceeds from those sales and turn them back into housing for our service members.

we're selling the commandant's house, and i've moved into a house i pay rent on, and it up to air force standards, sir. but that's what we needo do for the rest of our workforce. what we're doing is we've got a mixture of coast guard supported housing. taking advantage of other authorities, and coming up with a comprehensive plan on the way ahead. >> i think you should keep us advised. morale and quality of service is directly related to quality of life that is provided for family and children. your out doing -- your people are out doing dangerous work and away from home. and they want -- they need to have some sense of comfort that their loved ones are being taken care of. >> yes, sir, absolutely. >> thank you. >> i'd like to follow up on that, as well. and i'll recognize the senator in a moment.

but i helped to lead the effort to privatize the army housing, which has been really successful with the family housing. at a one point, senators, it was estimated it would take nearly at the rate we were going 200 years or more to provide housing for some of our men and women in uniform according to what the budgets looked like. so we had to change the paradigm. and this private housing has been phenomenally successful. so perhaps, senator, you and i could work together on this committee on new strategies that we might be able to employ and other avenues to provide really stepped up housing opportunities for our men and women of the coast guard. and i'd like to commit to you to do that with your help and assistance. senator lautenberg? >> i'll tell you this, that for the -- for the people in the

guard, the coast guard who are at cape may, new jersey, it's a wonderful place to be. and if we could enlarge that facility, maybe we could take care of more. and then the summer that's right on the beach. so we could put upome tents and accommodate people. then the rest of the year. they deserve better, i can tell u that. and when i look at the deteriorated situation there now, it makes me unhappy. and i'm so proud that you're able to do the recruiting that you have tdo as mentioned earlier. i want to go on to something a little touchy. the recent report on the coast guard's response to the deepwater horizon oil spill und that the coast guard ability to respond to

environmental disasters at -- ani quote hee, atrophy over the past decade. how do you respond to that? and what can you do to improve the -- your plans for better security admissions? and the need to improve the environmental response? >> well, sir, i agree that it had atrophied overhe last decade to probably 20 years. and part of that is because we've been very good at prevention. you have prevention and response. you hope you don't have to respond because you've prevented the spills from happening in the first place. and we've been so good at the prevention side that i think -- i don't know whether we just became complacent. part of it's complacency, and once complacency slips in, perhaps you're not as looking as far forward in terms of new technology and other things that

you might be able to help you i the future for a response. i think the pollution act in 1990 placed most of the responsibility with private industry. and i don't think private industry has looked that far forward either or considered the implications of a worst-case scario spill like we experienced in deepwater horizon. i think it's incumbent upon us to look at what's e proper balance between federal and industry in terms of maintaining equipment and preparation, ultimately the answer is working together. the coast guard has already started. >> that include -- forgive the interrupon, does that include develop better specks for drilling and accident prevention. is that something the coast guard would be taking on? i don't know how you do the preventive side.

and make it the rule. >> organic to the coast guard, we do not have the expertise in terms of drilling. i think we all learned an awful lot through that. that falls on to the department of the interior right now. and what we're doing and wre working very close with the department of interior make sure that we collaborate as we go forward. the coast guard has expertise in fire fighting, stability, construction of the mobile platforms and other things. but we've got zero organic technical expertise in the drilling operations, particularly in the deep sea. i'm unwilling to volunteer to take on additional responsibilities to bring that organic to the coast guard. i think it exists within the department of interior. and what we need to do is making sure we do exactly what we do now is work very close with the federal partners. >> so you can encourage them to participate more actively on the

prevention side? >> yes, sir. >> i want to ask you this. that we've seen incredible changes in our marine ecology as a result of changing temperatures. does the coast guard have the ability to either recognize changes in marine functioning, fish, the undersea plants, those kinds of things that all make up part of the ecology? is there any awareness of the coast guard about what is taking place as a result of what is obviously the climate change that we're seeing? >> well, we're certainly interested in it. and no, we don't have organic expertise or staffs that are i p applied to that.

for instance, in the arctic, we have much more open water now. and the potential for a commerce and shipping to increase up in those areas. we rely upon noaa and other government agencies that do have that focus of the scientic study of our waters and the changes that are happening. the results of those changes are something that we have to deal with. >> it shows that you have so many peoe on the sea. and there are changes that are occurring, and i don't know whether you see these changes in makeup or quantity or things that just fall your way. i know when we put an embargo years ago and so forth, the coast guard -- maintaining the rule

and it worked wonrs. we replaced the quantity and improved and quality, as well. so i asked that because they're concerned about the -- what is taking place in the environment. and the climate change. and if there' any way that there's information flow witho atlantic, in the barring thanks very much. >> thank you. i think we're about complete. if you all would be be patient for one more question from me and then we're going to end the meeting. you recently released the draft -- i understand this is arguably the most important acquisition of these particular boats are the backbone of the guard.

it reaches almost 2.3 billion. you've never requested more than $1.4 billion in one year. can you briefly comment? and then we'll use that question to close the meeting? >> yes, ma'am. it's an interesting turn of events because i've watched commandants come up here for years and always beinged of not asking for what they need or not asking for enough. we're asking for what we need. and we need to be about the business of designing, selecting, and building the offshoreatrol cutters. 25 of them in our project baseline. the national security cutter the high end with most capabilities. it doesn't have a flight deck, is less capable. the opc, or offshore patrol cutter wl provide the connection between those two in

the -- in the outer zone of our defenses for security as you come to the country. it's got to be capable, though, of operating in the north atlantic, in the barring sea. they are not stout or capable enough of surviving those types of elements. we need something that's probably going to perform and be able to launch helicopters and recover boats in more challenging conditions. and the offshore patrol cutter is that ship. i've looked at the basic specks that we put out recently. i think it will be a very od ship to provide that to fill that gap. we also have to be mindful that ultimately with the cutters, that's 33 ships replacing the 41 that we have right now. so we're pressing ahead.

my job is to identify what we need on those years and they signed off on the capital investment plan, so i'm hopeful we'll follow through on that. >> thank you, admiral. and thank you for your testimony today, for your forthrightness for asking what you really need. we look forward to working with you. and thank you for what your men and women do. amazing work every day. meeting is adjourned. thank you.

. >> remarks by john hofmeister. your calls and comments on "washington journal." this week on news makers, the chairman of the energy and national resources committee discussing u.s. energy policy. today at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.

on friday, john hofmeister criticize the obama administration for not having a plan to reduce gas prices and the dependence on foreign oil. he also discussed the the elimination of tax breaks for oil companies. the event was hosted by the council of u.s.-arab relations. he is the founder and chief executive of citizens for affordable energy. this is about an hour and 20 minutes. >> but as investment counsel for a lot of hedge funds and private

equity funds. they are interested in investing in the energy sector. we are interested in the current development in the energy area. let me say that i have had the pleasure of listening to our speaker while i was at the gym while you are on cnn. you are a talking head. mostly that is all you get. not much is coming out. i must say, with respect to our guest, my observation would be that he has had a lot to say. he has been frank about it. he has not pulled punches. i am looking forward to the remarks and hearing some challenging things about energy and the energy issues that lie ahead. welcome to you what. thank you. [laughter]

[applause] >> thank you. it is not every law firm in the nation's capital that is as civic minded and public spirited to host events such as this where people can have reasoned argument and spirited debate. we are especially appreciative for your generosity. likewise to c-span and the service it provides to the united states and its viewers elsewhere. addressing issues at length and in-depth with a degree of specificity that is often lacking in some of the other televised formats that pass for conventional wisdom or established thought. but in many cases it falls short of all three. today, we are focusing on an

event at the national council on u.s.-arab relations. i am its chief executive officer. we are 28 years old. in terms of a vision, we imagine a strengthened u.s.-arab relationship. particularly in the fields of strategic issues, economic issues, political issues, commercial issues, trade and investment, as well as defense cooperation and people to people exchanges. in terms of how we envision this relationship, we see it as better in the future that has been. and better in the future that it is likely to be unless there are enough good people on both sides of dedicated to

accomplishing this vision. in terms of that mission, it is one word -- education. it is these kinds of events. it is an annual conference, the only one of its kind in the u.s. or elsewhere. this will be the 20th anniversary of the conference. there at the ronald reagan building. this year is october 27 and 28. we look at this relationship in terms of it not being a one-way street on any issue. that it will succeed only if it is mutually beneficial and reciprocally respectful of each other's legitimate need, concern, interest, and objectives. in terms of the means for this,

the development programs will put 2002 ended 50 americans -- 2250 americans through a leadership program in 15 sit -- cities around the united states. all of the junior staff are alumni of this program. we also take delegations to the region. there was an all women's delegation to saudi arabia earlier this year. we work closely with united states' central command. where they are specialists in inflicting their military might on the unwilling, they have not necessarily have been extensively or deeply immersed in arab and islamic culture. we take into the region to fulfil that boyd.

-- void. today could not be more timely to have mr. john hofmeister be a mentor on issues pertaining to that region and this region. indeed, we often say it is a region with two kinds of oil -- today he will be focusing largely on the other kind of oil. it is not unrelated to the first kind. in the sense of what has been happening in recent months and the issues that people have as to what links there are too rising gasoline prices here or the impact on policies, positions, attitudes, and actions on this vital commodity and resources. john hofmeister has come to this

position focusing as few presidents of major oil companies on human resources. if there is one aspect he has focused on, even though he deals with all of those involved in construction and design and infrastructure and efficiency, policy, education, and also the more pressing issues confronted by government about energy policies, security issues and usage. he comes with a background with a bachelor's and master's from kansas state university. he has served with three companies that just haven't been longtime supporters of the national council on u.s.-arab relations with shell in hague and houston.

and also with the general electric. he is chairman of the national urban -- also the greater houston partnership. he is on the board of the american petroleum institute and other institutions. john hofmeister. [applause] >> thank you. good afternoon, everyone. it is a pleasure to be here at this time. to talk about what i think our astounding issues that we have to deal with. i refer to this decade as the decade in which the chickens come home to roost. the western democracies of this world. what do i mean by the chickens coming home to roost?

we have some major issues, ladies and gentlemen, in the western democracies that some other parts of the world are watching and waiting to see how will these democracies deal with such difficult and challenging decisions that must be made and cannot be deferred. what i am referring to our decisions about sovereign deficits and how nations deal with having spent more than they take in for too long and what the implications of those are in democracies where parlements and congresses have difficult times making hard choices and what will happen to the economies and societies if this deficit grows and is not addressed in this decade. in the united states, the oldest western democracy, there is a

serious come to grips time with education. we are developing a nation of haves and have-nots. this has consequences. how do we come to grips with this? it has been going on. we are going through an enormous demographic change. as the baby boom generation, a post world war ii generation, fades into later life in which they have security and income needs that will further stress the budgets of western democracies. the whole question of welfare and medical care is something that is being addressed, or not,

depending on which country you talk about. collectively, it remains a major issue. then the issue of the military industrial complex. which president eisenhower warned about at the end of his second term. it has evolved as he predicted it should not. now it is such a major factor of our economic life, our political life, and our international life, that it, too, is one of the chickens that must be dealt with as it comes on to roost. in the midst of all this, there is the energy issue question, debate, concern, all of the above. i would say that the united states of america at the current time is upside down on energy. without fully a understanding or

realizing it. one of the reasons i wrote the book, why we hate the oil companies, is to try to shed light on what it is we are dealing with. yesterday in washington d.c., on the 12th of may, we had a repeat of a food fight that happened in november 2005. it happened in june 2008. i was there for six of the food fights between november 2005 and june 2008. six food fights in congress with house committees and senate committees in which nothing was resolved. companies were insulted. officials felt insulted. not a single thing was done. as a consequence, in terms of

resolving what is a huge energy dilemma for the united states, which is, where is the plant? where is the plan for energy? there is no plan for energy in the united states and there hasn't been. while eight presidents from nixon to obama have spoken about the importance of getting off foreign oil, or energy independence, not a one of them has put a plan forward that 19 congresses in that same time frame has dealt with. so we are living in this country and europe is living in it's a democracy with energy infrastructures that our products of the post-world war ii bill that -- build outs.

for much of the coal and hydro power infrastructure and oil and gas infrastructure that exists in this country. you know what, that 20th- century infrastructure is getting old. it is just plain getting old. matt simmons, the author of "twighlight in the desert," used to say that the existing infrastructure needs a 15 trillion dollar facelift to bring it to it's original standard. 15 trillion dollars. for which there is no plan to do that. that means it is deteriorating, ladies and gentlemen. with no plans to improve it, it

only gets older. the average rate of coal plants, 38-39 years. 100 coal plant projects have been put on the shelf and will not be built because of opposition. not because of lack of money or need, but because of opposition. it is not worth it to the boards of directors of the utilities involved to push forward with the plan for the new coal plant the spot -- it is too great. we have not built a new nuclear plant in 30 years. there will not be one built this decade. it is already too late. average age of licensing or permitting for a plant? 40 years. everett -- average age of nuclear plants? 40 years. coal plants are designed for 50 years. think about 10 years from now.

when the coal plant infrastructure and the nuclear plant infrastructure has come to the end of the design life. we can extend permits to keep the plants operating. how safe are they? how much risk are we invite king? continuing to operate plants that are at the end of their design life. meanwhile we are the edge of energy. we do little about it. not very much about alternative forms of energy. it is not ready for primetime. the inefficiency, the technology, the land, water requirements of the new energy such as wind and solar, we have not thought those through. where we build a wind farm, it

should be a thousand towers, not 100. imagine how much land. you're using roughly three actors -- acres per tower. you would need a hundred acre plot. talking 3,000 acres. the land use of wind, solar, the land use of biofuels, these things have not been taught -- thought through to the point we can scale up this kind of energy to the existing infrastructure. in the oil and gas case, the united states uses 20 million barrels a day every day. 10,000 gallons a second. we produced 10 million barrels

a day in the 1970's and 1980's. today we produce less than seven. that means we have to import two-thirds of the crude oil we consume every day. we have an administration that uses the past tense for oil. as the president has said, with respect to tax deferments for oil companies, why do we subsidized the past when we should be investing in the future? i have to say to the administration, using oil and gas in the past tense is domestically misleading and internationally dangerous. dangerous because our national security is ever more dependent upon a steady flow of foreign imports. where do those foreign imports come from? everywhere.

this is where the arab nations, the middle east, and opec are very important of our everyday life in america. rhetoric will not make oil in the past tense. reality is, we have spent 100 years building a hydro-carbon infrastructure. that infrastructure is not going to change quickly. the president can boast and can explain that by 2015 we will have 1 million new cars on the united states highways, hybrids, advanced hybrids, and battery cars. 1 million. that is progress. but against a base of two injured 50 million cars on the road today, with tens of millions of