the climate damage restoration agreement, and she was employed by trout unlimited from 2004 to 2007 but did not recuse herself from the project even in light of this apparent conflict of interest. i will ask again, a complete regarding her was in your list of complaints provided to the committee. what is that about? >> you have>> we can get back t. >> this is a significant matter that involves a proposal that has huge environmental, fiscal, an economic impact throughout the entire region, and you seem oblivious. i find that remarkable. mr. chairman, i would like to further this inquiry at a later time. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. that is of interest to the committee.

mr. sutherland? i'm sorry, i did not see the distinguished subcommittee chairman. >> not only a distinguished person, but a promotion. my wishful thinking. thank you for being here. in listening to this, it is not confusing, but astounding to me that as we debate what i think is a point, a semantic tool point, a moratorium, and we called the process right now the worst catastrophe -- worse than the catastrophe itself, even though that cost lives, and millions of dollars, we seem to skirt that issue by, as we try

to somehow nail down a semantic difference being the recalls of everything that happened. the safety oversight board reports that you issued to the secretary state that the will industry must make a widespread and long-term commitment to cultivating a serious approach to safety that sets the highest safety standards and needs them. alternately for new and robust safety cultures to take root and not only follow the rules, it must assume a meaningful leadership role. the majority of the committee has refused to invite the ceo's of the largest will companies to testify. one change they have made as industry leaders to improve the safety of all offshore drilling. the bp ceo has never testified before congress. do you not agree that the heads

of the largest oil companies should come before congress said the american people can hear what actions they have taken to assume the meaningful role in developing a new safety culture that was called for in the report? >> i would like to know if that's the culture has been instituted. i think it was important to the safety oversight board at the time that some of the responsibility placed on industry as opposed to primarily government being the oversight and the composer of responsibilities. >> in the report, it recommends also evaluating the structure of civil penalties and possibly initiating the legislative process to ensure that penalties are partly tied to the severity of the violation. right now the maximum fine the interior department can levy for oil companies that commit

violations offshore is $40,000. that is a slap on the wrist for most companies. the maximum of find that the department of interior could levy against b.p. for the oil spill would be $21 million. the former director of the agency and the director of -- have said congress should increase these penalties significantly to provide a sufficient financially to terrance the companies who violate the law. would you agree congress should look to raising these penalties significantly, as stated in the report? >> our recommendation was to work with congress to review how these penalties are imposed and but the caps are. if i recall correctly, and i do not have perfect recall at this point, there was some restriction that the department could not do this unilaterally and needed help from congress.

>> thank you. let me yield to the gentleman. >> thank you, i would like to bring this discussion back to earth. the other side said the question is, did the department of interior agree there should be a moratorium? there is no question that they deliberately said there should be a pause, suit we could spend all month or all year investigating whether pause equals moratoriums and whether we should ruin people's careers because of that difference. it is all based on a sad misunderstanding from the other side of the aisle here that somehow the moratorium is worse than the oil spill disaster. this moratorium -- and remember we now have 50% more floating

rigs in the gulf than we did -- and yets bill because of this bill, the dispersant's use, there is an enormous environmental damage, and economic damage, and there were lives lost. do not tell me pause or a moratorium is worse than the disaster. we should be investigating the disaster and the effects of that disaster and the steps to provide safety and public health and environmental protection into the future rather than yanking people before this committee to talk about whether they deliberately intoed the word "pause" moratorium. come on. >> my intention is to recognize

mr. sutherland, and after that we will break. we have two votes, and we will reconvene 10 minutes after the start of the last vote. as soon as the second vote starts, 10 minutes thereafter we will reconvene. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> thank you. i have to say i find its somewhat -- i find it somewhat disturbing that some of my colleagues claim that those of us who live on the gulf of mexico have completely forgotten this disaster. i think it is grotesque in their accusations when i lived each and every day with people who have been affected by this. my family has been affected by this, and is unbecoming of the position of the ranking member. i would like to say, i am concerned that in the past government officials have used

personal email accounts as a way to avoid scrutiny by congress and the public. i am concerned that sensitive law enforcement information would be treated so casually that it would be sent through unsecured means such as yahoo! or what ever. does the i.g. have a secure way to access secure email rudley? >> yes. >> what is the policy for using your personal email account rather than your ratheofficial . email account? >> we do not have a policy on that. >> we have our official email accounts as well. how often do you use your personal email account to conduct a professional business?

>> i use my personal e-mail fehr leaked regularly to send myself reminders to send work that i have worked on at home, but i do not sent any sensitive information that would need to be encrypted or have any other kind of protections. we do have a policy on that. >> so you limit your e-mail use of your personal email account to personal business or it is a reminder from you to your business email kaptur my view of stuff that needs to be done? >> yes, or to transmit draft letters back to this committee. >> as a part of the emails your office has provided, there are a number of official emails that appear to have been sent from your personal account as opposed to the i.g. account, and i would

ask at the desk, you can clearly see from the exhibit we have on the screen, we have an e-mail that was sent from stephen hargrove, to you, as a reminder, but it was sent from stephen yourthe i.g.'s office personal email account. at the bottom, the statement i have no problem working with the department on this, and the whole purpose was the safety oversight board that has been the center of discussion today. the statement i have no problem working with the department on this or other issues, i probably did not realize the majority of my staff understands it. so based on that this individual

who sent you an e-mail to your was he inaccount, violation of the policy by sending and corresponding with you on your personal account, and is it fair for us to be curious as to the use of your personal account that could be in violation of the i.g. policy you claim you have? >> i do not know the details of the policy other than for on sensitive and -- sensitive information needs to be encrypted. i do not know if in 2010 we had capacity to access to e-mail from home like this. we do now. i am not sure that we did at the time. >> can you provide us with copies of any internal i.g.

policies for use of personal e- mail on conducting business? >> is yes. we have a policy governing email. i do not know if we have a policy governing personal e- mail. >> i think it would be helpful for us to see that, and i think that would be -- obviously you can understand our concern if there are personal emails used, because when we need to do searches, and certainly a person in your position should understand that the conflict is there. is that fair? you understand my concern? >> i am not sure i do -- >> that is a bigger problem, and that is because a person in your position, you are paid significantly in your position.

you have tremendous authority. people under you. i find that a leader, which you are in a leadership position, you must at all times practice discretion and discernment born out of wisdom. at a minimum, that has been brought into question -- >> time of the gentleman has expired. >> i did not have an opportunity to finish my answer. >> real quickly, will give you 30 seconds. >> i do not understand the concern because we did provide, and a recent committee -- and the reason the committee knows i use my e-mail is i provided answers to your request. >> we will recess and reconvene 10 minutes after the start of the second vote. the committee stands recessed.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [unintelligible] >> i think the chairman. i was in my office and watching a bit of the hearing, and i am a bit puzzled of the demeanor of

some of the members here, like some crime has been committed. it appears that the question is the difference between the word "pause" and the word " moratorium." i looked up the words. there is no limit on a pause. a pause could be a decade. moratorium has a slightly different meaning, but there is no duration attached to the word, and in this report the number 6 was attached. you could have used the word pause. blowup prevented the not work. it was critical to know why the blowout preventer did not work because that is our last line of defense against catastrophic oil spills. it appears that the blowout

preventer was not capable of cutting 10% of the pipe, and there were other problems with its maintenance. that has all come out. it is prudent we took some time to figure out we have a fail safe here and it's failed. i would like to yield some time to the acting inspector general, if she has anything to say, because she has had little opportunity to respond to what has been going on here. do you have anything you would like to elucidate upon? was i inaccurate anything i have said? >> i have not looked up the differences between the words, so i appreciate that information. i appreciate the time. the thing that i would like to come back to is the focus of the investigation that we conducted. it was very focused, primarily because of the words from you,

mr. chairman, asking that we looked at how the executive summary was edited to suggest that the moratorium decision was peer reviewed. that is what we did. we had the information, the documentation that we needed. king down through these emails that had been sent in the early- morning hours between 11:38 and 2:13 a.m., where the editing had been done, and that is where the editing that was changed by the white house personnel went from suggesting that the moratorium which the secretary's decision to the moratorium had been peer reviewed. that was the only focus of our investigation. we got all the information we needed to make that determination, and we did so. i thank you for the time.

>> so some overzealous politically appointed white house staffer, of the junior level, made an edit that they thought added emphasis to the executive summary? >> there was no evidence in the exchange to suggest that was done intentionally. >> ok, over at the white house by some sort of editing -- >> the changes that occurred to make this distinction loss, is essentially, where the evidence that the white house did. >> perhaps you are not an expert, but they did recommend a pause, which i mentioned earlier. >> i do not know that. >> i believe they did, and that is why i feel the focus is on the difference between a six- month moratorium and pause, which could be dramatic, nonexistent, a pause could be longer. i appreciate the fact we have at

how many documents that you have provided? >> i cannot begin to count. >> hundreds, thousands? >> hundreds, perhaps thousands. >> and yet it seems there is a thirst to spend more time on this issue. again, i remain puzzled. i appreciate your service. and i hope that we move on to more important subjects. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before we get into questions with you, i want to respond to things that have been set earlier. said that the number of rigs is up 50%. that is false. the second thing is the ranking member called this hearing trivial. this is not a trivial hearing in

light of the administration's lack of transparency. this is not trivial when you have another cover-up called fast and furious. it is not trivial when you look at the department of labor rewrite -- it is not trivial when you look at abuse that is happening to the taxpayer dollars. i want to get that off the table. in a written statement you invited the committee to review the editing of the november, 200010, more current report, and i would like to take you up to that invitation. exhibit 5. ok. in exhibit 5, you struck out the original draft language that stated the i.g. could not evaluate that the emails were

complete and unedited. why did you strike out that sentence? >> i do not have a recollection of addressing that issue. my question would have been to the investigating agent, if i were asking the question today, what is it that we need to validate? we were provided with documents that focused on the question at hand, and that was how did this editing occur. >> one of the things that we need to know about the i.g.'s investigation and what the american people need to know about is was the scope so inherently reduced that the report is not worth the paper is written on? in this case, if you did a review, of the white house emails, and that is the case, correct, you did not review them? >> we did review the white house

emails, the ones that were exchanged between interior and a white house where the editing took place. >> none of the once internally? >> i am not sure what you are -- we only had access to those provided to us from them. >> not inside the white house. but our jurisdiction does not extend to the white house. >> don't you think the statement that extra, don't you think that would be informative when you look at the conclusions and why the assertion by steve black, that the peer review language edited?ntentionally adde >> what is your question, sir? >> don't you think it would be informative that where it says that the i.g. could not independently verified where the emails had been edited? >> it was not a question of the emails being added.

they were provided to us. there was nothing to indicate that they were not complete. >> this is a sense from what i understand, you have had to come back and clarified that you were not able to verify the witness statements. don't you think it would -- if you have left this and, you would not have to clarify that, correct? >> i am not sure what you're asking, sir. >> let's move on. let's move to exhibit 11. i am running out of time. in the last sentence of the report, it says we were not allowed to pursue the matter to the white house, but of course that is not mentioned in the report. don't you think that sentence would have been more transparent and would have prevented the secretary from

being able to correctly -- incorrectly claimed that there was no intent to mislead or avoid confusion about the report found -- about what the report found put the secretary is trying to hide behind your report and say nothing went wrong, but what york investigator is saying is i could not verify that. >> what he is saying is he could not pursue it to the white house because our jurisdiction does not extend their. >> i think it would have been better to say in the report that the scope was so reduced that the validity of the report was in question. i am out of time. thank you. >> if i may respond to this, mr. chairman, i will be brief, but the case agent wrote the first draft of the report, and he did not include any reference to this. it was not as if it was excluded. he did not put in. i want to make that clear. >> the chair recognizes the

gentle lady from coulguam. >> thank you, if he could be concise, because i have quite a few questions. after you finished editing, you sent your revisions back to the case agent and asked him if he had any issues with changes. he responded that your language was simpler then my son, but it's still clearly captured more fighting. is that correct? >> yes. >> if he had concerns, he did not communicate them to you. you were surprised when you read some of the emails that have come out in this investigation? >> yes. >> the agent speculated in an email the editing was intention, but there were no facts to back up his speculation. he repeated that the jury will always remain out.

also, the reader of the oig report will have to make their speculations on that topic. is that correct? >> that is correct, and that is what surprised me the most. >> going on, you have been acting inspector general for the last several years. >> 3 1/2. >> what work has oig done it that you are most proud of? >> all the work that the oig has done, but the most relevant to this was the review we did on the outer continental shelf, the comprehensive review, which today is still being implemented by what used to the minerals management services. >> did that work to achieve benefits for american people and taxpayers? >> i would say it was one of the most comprehensive and impact full documents we have issued in

a good number of years. >> i feel this is what the office of inspector general should be doing without being distracted by baseless requests from this committee, and members should understand the important work you do and what is at risk if we continue to consume your time on this frivolous investigation. i want to thank you for what you have done. >> thank you. >> the gentlelady yields? but yes. >> thank you. maybe it would be possible for you to elaborate more on what the benefits were from the work you have done in the last year's overseeing the department of interior, so there can be a more full understanding of the comprehensiveness of that. >> i will be at a loss to cite chapter and verse here, but i went back and took a look at the last five semi annual reports

that the oig issued, first under my signature up to the last. i was pleasantly surprised but surprise nonetheless with the incredible amount of work that our office accomplices every six months and the breadth of the word that we do. the department as nine peers and offices that have very diverse missions. we go from indians to minerals to lands to geological survey, and every day is something new. part of what is so rewarding about working in the office of inspector general for the department of the interior is the breadth. >> how much of a distraction is this investigation that this committee is trying to conduct thus far with no evidence at

all of that other work you are doing, which sounds it is critical to make sure we do weed out the deficiencies that exist? >> it has been a distraction to me. i have kept my eye on what else we are doing, but it has taken a considerable amount of time from me and my senior leaders and senior advisers. i cannot quantify it beyond that other than it has been considerable. >> thank you so much for your work. thank you for your contributions to our country. thank you for the job you and your staff play in providing oversight for this agency. again, i cannot raise enough time to this problem that we have, that this debate about whether or not there was a pause call for or moratorium, and secretary salazar is saying he called for the six-month

moratorium. the secretary himself. we should bring him here, that him explain. we will not hear about the spill, the damage, bp or halliburton or transition. none of that will ever come before this committee. that is not part of their agenda. they did not want to talk to the ceo's. they're talking about a semantic difference, a term a logical inexactitude that is built into this discussion that went on in the agency as if that is the real issue rather than this historic crime against the environment that was committed here in the country. >> the time has expired. >> if there is a member here who has had constituents affected by the moratorium, because we have many here who have been as in fact -- affected by the spill, is my constituent, the constituent that i serve, and you'd hear whether there were

layoffs. the reason there were not as many laos as you think is the people in south louisiana are not lazy. when you killed their jobs in the gulf of mexico, they have to leave their families and travel to africa to the north sea, the montana, because they know one thing is that the country they , andup in is goedd family work. they're not sitting in for the government to feel sorry for them. they could to work. it is sad when they have to good etiquette instead of working in the gulf. i do not understand, are you an investigative branch or a policy-making branch put them we are an audit and investigative branch. >> if i close my eyes, when i listen to you answer questions

from members of the other side, i could swear you are petitioning to become the secretary, because your answers are all about policy. they're not about investigation. we had a gentleman ask you whether or not you felt as the standards that the private industry was implementing were enough. that is not your scope. your scope is whether or not -- and just not yet entered a talk about how proud you were of the work that was done from moving from mms -- that is not your job either. i believe your testimony today has impeached you, as impeached your character, because earlier you said that you are interested in the job of the inspector general, because you are interim, and you need a president to appoint you if you want to get that job. why did you not to say i am interested in taking this job?

maybe you should appoint someone in the interim, and why should you go in our lobby for that job? then there would have been -- i am sure you are a bright lawyer. have been noould question about questioning your character or actions. why did you not just a step aside and say i want to run for the stock, apply for the stop, and let's appoint another interim who will have no bias as to whether what they job? >> i was asked to become acting inspector general, the inspector general at the time asked me to take over his role when he went to the recovery and oversight board. at the time i was not thinking --ut becoming thinking

the i.g. it was the natural progression. >> there comes a point in time --question of- conflict of interest. if somebody inside the department causes irreparable harm to an industry, is there a criminal statute that you can use to go after that person? if they intentionally caused harm on an industry, do you know a statute you could use to go after them? >> i do not know if there is a statute for that. >> do you think we should have one? >> intentional harm by itself may be a criminal violation. >> well, i see an email here from the case manager that says

salazar paz statement concludes that it was a mistake and unintentional is an attempt to spin a report. i believe editing was intentional. now, this is not about a pause, because the american academy of sciences says a 30-day pause which have been sufficient. a six month one, they did not stand by. would you say that anyone who intentionally altered the document caused irreparable harm to an industry? >> let me be clear that that was the case agent's opinion. the evidence did not support that. >> that is why we're here today, because no one will give us the rest of the evidence. >> i understand that. >> the time has expired. >> at you, mr. chairman, and i appreciate character you are

today with the type of questioning you are having to go through. we're here today because of the change of a word is what elicited today's conversation. and when we tell you that you have impeached your own character today, i am sorry, i am sorry that was said, because words matter. and because words that are, i have a dictionary here, i have webster's new dictionary. anyone is welcome to borrow it. as a matter of fact, have added tabs to say everybody time where paz and moratorium are in here. -- pause and moratorium are in here. they read the same thing. i would hope they would. maybe we should subpoena whoever

is working for mr. webster to ask him why they defined pause the way they did, moratorium on the way they did, to get to the bottom of this. what we should be talking about today and in the future, the moral question, 11 people's lives were taken. is that your understanding? but yes, sir. >> do you know how many gallons of oil were spilled in the gulf? >> i did not know. >> the number here, 4 million. look, if there was not a spill, we would not be here today. if the blowout preventer had

worked, we would not be here today. if that had not failed, we had not lost 11 lives, that is a catastrophic event. mr. chairman, sometimes when we try to get to the bottom of something, birds matter -- words matter. but why are we here? and when the president asked for a 30 day report to be put together, in 30 days, given the magnitude of what was talked about here, i think we all wanted to get to the bottom of this. there's not one of us who did not want to know what happened, and plug that, make sure that another life was not put in danger.

we all wanted that. i appreciated that genealogy all had during that time. i hope that that is where we can concentrate some of our efforts and see what we can do to get to the bottom of this as well. inspector general, one of the gentleman from texas ask you why do you did not investigate mr. lehrer before praising you to your face, criticizing your work to others. when some people, including me be someone on your committee, attack you for a taut -- for retaliating? are you in a catch-22 without responding to this? >> i feel if we were to investigate mr. lariby, there were beaten wreak -- repercussions from this committee. >> i yield, words matter, and sometimes the words we use matter. the words we use in debate matter. the words we used to describe

friends and as we did not agree with necessarily matter. i just hope we understand the magnitude of words sometimes with a kind of work that people are putting forward to sacrifice for themselves. i am not sure if the ranking member needs any time, but with that i yield back. am i thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. >> the question has been asked, why are we here today? we're here because an executive summary of a report led to the detrimental effect on lives. the gentleman from louisiana talks about the impact on his state that now have to go other places for employment. the report that led to the moratorium that kept our nation

unable to meet its energy needs. why are we here today? one day after the inauguration, the president promised a new era of openness in government. we worked together to ensure that trust and establish a system of transparency, participation, and collaboration. he wrote one of his first mms, saying opening this will promote efficiency and effectiveness in government. i look at your written statement and you say this is a unilateral approach to investigate me by requesting select documents from the office of the inspector general, drawing conclusions from those documents without the facts. we subpoenaed you and your agency because we want the facts. we asked for the facts and we can make and draw all our conclusions from the documents in those facts. that is what we are trying to do today. that is what we're trying to do, get to the bottom of what led to

this moratorium that affected the lives in louisiana and all along the gulf coast and affected the lives of people in my district who are paying higher gasoline prices sunday to drive to and from work. that is what this meeting is about here today, and i appreciate the chairman holding this hearing. the gentleman from florida delving into something before he ran out in the time, so i will yield the balance of my time to mr. sutherland from florida. ank tenement from south carolina. i was asking you questions regarding emails before we went to the floor to vote. i would ask you about providing for us i.g. policies and guidance. you said you were not aware of those and you said you were aware of those, but you would provide -- you are going to find

as for us if they do exist. i was going toward a more important issue relating to your desire to move forward. you claim you were seekinghe opportunity, perhaps, of a more permanent position. i think what we see here is drought the testimony today that it has been -- you either know what is going on through many of your answers and you have not perhaps answered those in a way that i find acceptable, or you are not aware of policy or you are not aware of things that happen referred or not referred to the attorney general. you do not have memory, and then you came back and said you do now remember. i am bothered by the fact that

you may not seem to be on top of these issues. >> the just say that i have a very talented staff that takes care of the case review group hoop reviews all of the allegations that come to the office of inspector general. i did not personally participate in that group. i cannot personally decide what should be or should not be investigated unless it is brought to my attention. i do not know everything going on in terms of referrals or investigations. once they are investigating as, i know about them because i am briefed regularly by a competent staff -- >> you claim there have been zero referrals made to the attorney general in the last three years. >> i said i think -- when you said zero or four roles for ethics violations -- many referrals.

>> i apologize if i and stood. the zero referrals for ethics violations. >> as far as i know. >> do you get a report on those? 13 is communicating with you on investigations and ethics probes. >> yes, i do. like to thank the chairman from south carolina. i yield back. >> there is interested in having another round. i think that interest should be observed, so we will start another round. i have a few questions, and i will recognize myself. first of all, let's establish again what this is all about. the bp spill was in deep water. that was in deep water. the moratorium was in shallow water, and the consequences of the moratorium had a huge effect

on the economy and individuals' lives. let's make sure that decision is made. -- distinction is made. i want to ask you, you mentioned you have no jurisdiction, and i agree, with the white house. is that correct? >> yes. >> is there anything that prevents you from asking a question of the white house? >> i did not think it would prevent me from asking a question paid >> you acknowledged that the candidate happened in the white house. would logic suggests you would ask the white house why and they make a determination whether they could answer or not? >> i did not knock on their door to ask a question. i inquired of the deputy secretary, who is in regular contact with the white house, saying it would be helpful --

>> why would you have to go through the deputy secretary? you are an independent inspector. if he thought it was important, and the evidence -- why did you not ask permission to ask? >> i did not ask for permission. >> nothing prevents you from asking the question. why didn't you ask? >> that was decision i made at the time. >> that is fine. i respect that. it was a wrong decision. do you think a 30-state report was a policy document? >> embarrassed to say this, sir, but i have never read the 30-day report. >> do you think the 30-day report was a policy document? >> it was much like the oig reports that contain -- >> if you cannot say it was not a policy document, do you think

the moratorium was a policy? >> the moratorium decision was a policy. >> ok, if the 30-day report derives to a moratorium, does that not suggest that the report was a mature -- was a policy document? it was a recommendation. >> it it came from the document. >> i do not know that. >> it came from the 30-day document. your report says it came from editing because of the white house. i find it hard to believe that you can say or suggest or agree that the moratorium was a policy decision, yet you cannot say that the 30-day report, which led to the moratorium, was a policy document.

i find that hard to believe. >> i cannot say what the 30-day report was or that it led to the moratorium. i did not read the report. i note the moratorium recommendation was contained only in the executive summary. >> based on that report. the deadline and the recent this came in the middle of the night was because the 30-day deadline of the 30-day report. you are seeing -- i have some real problems understand your logic on that, and i said that in my opening statement, and frankly that has been confirmed. i just want to go on one last -- i will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman. >> thank you. thank you for being here. in a may 23 article today --

this year, you're quoted saying i was an active listener, i was not an active participant in these meetings. is that correct what is the difference between an active listener and an active participant? >> i did not ask any questions. i was there to hear what was being said, to learn as much as i could about deepwater drilling and the things that attend to it so i could inform myself as a member of the safety oversight board, and lead the team that we had conducting the outer continental shelf the violation. -- evaluation. >> exhibit 9 -- >> the time of cinnamon has

expired. >> -- the time of the gentleman has expired. >> worse than the impacts of the worst desire -- environmental pastor in american history. the reality is there were not significant layoffs in the oil industry from the moratorium. why is that, you might ask? it is because president obama secured $20 billion from b.p. to aid the gulf and its people, because the president got bp to put up $100 million specifically to a in the oil rig workers affected, because that $100 million was expanded to help in the oil service and support companies, and it was because the oil companies knew that

drilling in the reverse -- in the gulf would resume in a safer manner under president obama. we now have 50% were floating rigs working in the gulf before this bill. these did not leave. these rigs kept their employees. they were compensated by the fund that president obama extract from bp, despite what the majority may claim, these are the facts. president obama and secretary sellers are took action -- secretary salazar of action to protect workers. the gulf had to be protected. that is but president obama did. to minimize the effect because of this bill and make sure we are drilling now more safely. the majority says they just want

to get to the bottom of this. they have gotten to the bottom of this, and there is no evidence of wrongdoing. the majority has gotten the answer. they do not like the answer. secretary salazar will sit here, if you ask him, he will tell you he made the decision. this woman should not be here today. you should have secretary cells are here and he will tell you he made the decision. you should have the ceo's of halliburton and bp and transition sit here. what you should be tried to do is get to the bottom of the ocean. you should be trying to find out what happened, why were those workers harmed, why the fishing industry was harmed?

bring them in here and set them up as examples, to let the world know it will never happen again in the united states. we will know you are serious, that you want to get to the bottom of the ocean when you have been sitting here. we are going to go to the whole two years and that is not going to happen. this woman sits here as just a diversion, a red herring. we might as well put an aquarium out here, you have so many red herrings floating around. this woman is just here, unfortunately, as part of your plan to have 149 of votes on the house floor for the oil and gas industry and none to help wind and solar, to have a vote on the house floor last year to keep all the loan guarantees, $18

billion for nuclear and coal, and to zero out all the loan guarantees for wind and solar, and each of you voted for that. you have solyndra made an example, why the united states and richmond corporation will continue to get $500 billion in a loan guarantee, exactly equal to what solyndra got, and is already in junk bond status. when is the republican party going to have hearings on what is really going wrong here? this woman, like the solar industry, is just part of not dealing with the real issue, and that is that the oil industry recklessly, in differently, came very close to destroying the livelihood of people in the gulf of mexico, and by far, that $20 billion that president obama extracted from that industry, there would have been devastation down there.

let's bring them in, let's bring in secretary salazar. he will tell you why he imposed the moratorium. the difference between a moratorium and a pause, a temporary inaction, a temporary delay, it is the same definition. you want to fight over that? you do that, but it is so clear, this innuendo, this attempt to divert, because you do not want to get to the central issues of what this committee should be all about. >> time has expired. >> could staff pleas puts exhibit 9 on the screen. we talked about this earlier. it says there in the red box to the left, this is steve black saying in an e-mail dated may 28 -- and thanks for the kind words and for your participation in so many of the meetings and interviews leading up to this

report. why should we not believe steve black when he says that you participated in the process? >> i attended. i did not participate in the process of the 30-day report. i did not participate in the development of the executive summary. i did not know how many times i can say that. that is the fact. >> steve black was not being accurate when he said this? >> he was talking about my attendance at the meeting. yes, and i told him that putting together those meetings was an enormously impressive effort. it was an effort to get people from industry, science, government -- >> my time is limited, so we will go on to exhibit a, please print this is the back again, and email dated may 17, thank you for participating on the call with the nae identified

experts. once again, he thanks you for participating. why should we not believe his words? but he thinks everybody for participating. it is his use of the word "participate." i listened. >> you participated on the call today. how do we even know you were there? >> i did not remember this call. i do not know if i participated on this call, quite frankly, but i was one of the invitees, and he thanks the invitees for participating. i cannot tell you if i was a part of that call. >> i will switch gears to the role of the apartment to turn over documents when there might be a privilege. if the department tells you or the i.g.'s office not to disclose office at the congress,

is it the policy of the inspector general to go along with that request without question? >> the committee has requested these documents for the department itself. the department has said they declined to provide them because they indicate important executive confidentiality interests. this is a term of art as a precursor to a claim of executive privilege, and the previous minister should use this in 2007 when the committee on government reform requested documents related to the 2004 death of an armigey ranger.

did the department ever exert executive privilege? >> snowe, the department has used this term, which, as i understand it, indicates its executive privilege in the process that is a long and complex process that i believe the committee is engaged with the department in and should continue to engage the department in. >> is it true that only the president of united states can exert can exert executive privilege? >> the president himself must exert a privilege but it is usually done through a department head. >> was that done in this case? >> it has not been done yet, no. >> but you went along with their position and did not disclose the documents to congress? >> explain the best i can to my committee in my letter responding to the subpoena and the reason why we did not turn over the documents. they are not our documents. the privileges not ours to

assert. the privileges not ours to waive. >> you said in an april 80 letter that promises of confidentiality are needed to ensure department officials cooperate with your office. are you suggesting that if they do not have that promise of confidentiality, then they will not cooperate as much? >> i'm suggesting we may not get these kinds of documents in the future if we did not abide by that promise of confidentiality. >> so they needed a promise of confidentiality to work with you better later? >> in regards to documents like this, i do not believe that if we released these documents, we would ever see them again, if we were investigating something. we would be back probably before this committee saying we cannot get these documents and we would all be in the same position as the committee is right now relative to the department, but we would not have had the department of seeing the

documents ourselves as the oversight body. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the in tuning of the witnesses character, her truthfulness in front of the committee is not the way to be conducting this hearing. more importantly, no basis for those accurate -- accusations. but we are doing all this based on the opinion of a case worker who praised the witness first and then communicated to other members in the department whatever concerns he had. while the majority wants us to

accept this as fact, question the witnesses character, but the case worker, the majority wants us to believe there has got to be a pillar of integrity, that there is no hidden political agenda, and that the motives of this case worker is pure as white snow. that the case worker is a bastion of truth. that is the premise by which we are here today. now, i do not want to impugn his case workers character, i would not doing that. but to ask us to proceed on that assumption, i think, is asking a lot. this hearing has been -- like without learning english in school, when we had to get the distinction between what is a pause, a moratorium, that would

help us with our diction, understanding what is an active participant, what is an observer? that was english class. this has nothing to do with this hearing. the gentlemen brought up what is the difference between active observer and active participant? i would suggest the audience here at this hearing are active observers. i was against the members of the committee are active participants. i think that is the distinction and difference. i want to ask one issue, if i may, ms. kendall, according to the safety board report, since 1982, leasing has increased by 200% and oil production has increased by 185%. however, staff and resources have decreased by 36% since 1930 -- 83.

the bp commission recommended a $10 million per year should be paid to oil and gas industry in inspection fees in order to fund department regulators. despite the majority's attempt to block an increase in the inspection fees charged to offshore oil and gas companies in the appropriations bill for the current fiscal year's the department was provided with the authority to collect inspection fees of up to $62 million to fund the agency. at the door will expire at the end of the year unless it is expanded. do you think we should give the department permanent authority to collect inspection fees on offshore operators to provide a steady, robust funding stream for offshore regulators? at the end of all this, we are still dealing with the possibility that -- we are still dealing with the worst environmental catastrophe that this country has seen.

we should not lose sight of that and the english lesson we are having today or in the attacks on the witness. do you believe that funding has to be permitted so that processes are in place and would be in place, in terms of staffing and procedures, continue to provide the safety oversight that we need? >> i am not familiar with that particular authority, but i do know that when the safety oversight board was looking at this issue, there absolutely is a need for more federal presence in terms of oversight inspection and enforcement of the regulations that are in place. if this is one of the vehicle by which that can be done, i would agree with you, yes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i have one quick question. the case agent in 1 e-mail to

oig colleagues saying he was dismayed at the thought of report not mentioning requesting interviews with the white house. in fact, his draft, that you edited, did not include language about interview the white house. i want to underscore it. the agent was complaining about things that demonstrably did not happen. is that correct? >> that is true. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. >> i know we find ourselves in a precarious situations from time to time. there are two things that need to be fat checked. no. 1, many of the victims who died, their families came here and begged for that moratorium not to be implemented. i think that is important, because it speaks volumes.

we like to make the victims out of victims' families. no. 2, no one in the oil and gas industry has access to that $20 billion fund. that is an incorrect statement by the gentleman from massachusetts. in fact, if you are in the oil and gas industry, you are prohibited from taking part of that $20 billion. that is a fact. i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from colorado. >> could we show exhibit one on the screen? ms. kendall, you are aware of this e-mail dated september 2010 from the general counsel of the office of the inspector general to mr. hargrove? >> i need to take a look at it,

sir. i do not recognize it. >> let me quote the highlighted portion. i did take the opportunity to explain "our position that they did not have a valid basis to keep the requested material from a loss as it could not fall under the executive privilege droctrine." the moratorium decision had already been made. the only this -- issue discussed is how to word executive summary. are you familiar with either this e-mail or the thinking contained in this e-mail? >> at the moment, no. obviously, i was not a recipient of this e-mail and i am not sure what this e-mail refers to. >> what is the role of mr. hardgrove?

>> he is our chief of staff. >> does he work for you? >> yes, he does. >> so apparently he knew about this. >> apparently. >> did you know about this? >> i told you, i do not know what this e-mail is about. >> well, if you look at the highlighted portion, according to mr. della plane, the position is they do not have a basis to keep the material from us as it would not fall under the executive privilege doctrine. >> i do not know what the requested material is he is referring to. >> i believe it is 13 documents that are at issue? >> i do not know that. this was back in 2010. i do not believe the 13 documents had been identified at that point. >> i believe these are the steve black e-mails? >> they may be.

i do not know. >> are you aware of the doctrine that after a decision has been made there is no ability by the executive branch to assert executive privilege? >> no, i am not. i do not know what this e-mail means, quite frankly. >> did mr. hardgrove talk to you about the contents of this? >> we have had some discussions, i do not know if you talk to me about this e-mail or the doctors relating to it. i cannot tell from this e-mail what is about. >> do you agree with this explanation of executive privilege? this is the general counsel of the office of the inspector general. >> i do not think it is -- i do not think it is talking about executive privilege. honestly, i am looking at this for the first time.

i am not sure what it is talking about. >> the moratorium decision had already been made. >> i see that. again, i do not know what documents we are talking about here. >> we access to this for months. is this the first time you believe you have seen this? >> yes, i believe it is the first time i have seen this e- mail. >> and you do not know the discussion going on here about executive privilege and when it ends once a decision has been made? >> no, i do not know what this is talking about. >> thank you. i yelled back. >> the chair recognizes the gentle lady from -- guam. >> thank you.

the case agent also wanted to interview secretary salazar. but that would be very unusual, is that correct? >> it would be. >> the secretary who was willing to be interviewed, do you know him? >> i do not know but there was no indication that the secretary had anything to do with the editing of the executive summary. >> mr. chairman, i want to follow up a little on what our ranking member markey was commenting on. i agree. if we wa to get to the bottom of something like this, we need to go to the top. ms. kendall, i admire your composure. you have been sitting here before us, being grilled under fire since 10:00 this morning. i certainly do not like to see anybody harassed like that, but i would like to hear from you, mr. chairman, did this

committee -- did you ever request testimony from secretary salazar? and why are we not hearing from him? >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> i had a conversation with the secretary but if anybody believes that i would not want a secretary here, you are mistaken. we had a hearing the week before last and i ask the secretary to come down onto the surface -- mining -- and the secretary did not. i advise the secretary that if he wanted to come, he should expect to be open for questions on a number of issues. not only confined to this issue but other issues, because we have subpoenaed him. there are many, including me,

that feels there has not been a response from the secretary. so i advised him. comedown but be prepared to potentially face questions regarding why you have not supplied the subpoenas and potentially issues of may be going into contempt, why you should not be held in contempt. that was a conversation i had with the secretary. that ended the conversation. there was no other discussion regarding to his coming here. yes, there was a discussion and it is as i just described to you. thank you for yielding. >> so mr. chairman, unofficially you had a conversation with him. this was not an official request to come to the committee to speak on several issues? >> the secretary offered that suggestion to me and i responded to him, as i mentioned.

that was the end of any further discussion on him coming in front of me. >> i understood here that we have not issued a subpoena, as you have said for the secretary to testify. it is my understanding that he is willing to appear. can we call him in? >> like i said, the conversation we had, the exchange we had with the secretary was that if he wants to come in, he should be prepared to have discussions far beyond here -- this issue only -- probably going to the surface mining issue. it would probably go to the issue of why there has not been a response to all of the subpoenas that have been issued by the secretary, and a discussion on whether he would

want to face questions that may lead to why he should not be held in contempt. those are all issues that i suggested to the secretary when he suggested he may come fourth. i left the conversation at that. that has been the end of that conversation. >> well, as a member of the committee, i am suggesting that we asking to appear. he is apparently willing. if i could make that request. secondly, we could ask the ceo's of oil companies to appear as well. have we done that? >> i find it ironic that that issue keeps coming up. i will mention to the gentle lady and members of the committee that we have had

executives of those companies in front of this committee. in fact, going back to the last congress. in the same vein, while we have not had the president -- committeealthough he has appeare the committee, we have gotten the cooperation. if you compare the information that we got from those committees -- from those companies, compare the information we have gotten from this administration, there is a huge divide as to what they have provided to us. i think the gentleman for yielding. >> one quick question. you said at the top, people. i'm talking about the ceo's. >> we have had the ceo's of companies come in here. >> i would suggest -- >> the jenna ladies time has expired. i was simply say this. because of a majority -- moratorium that dealt with shallow water, not deep water, where bp is -- there is a

distinction between the two. the chair recognizes the jal man from california mr. mechlin talk. >> thank you. i want to get back to the climate base. it is not insignificant. it is the loss of four hydroelectric dams, loss of a fish hatchery that produces 5 million salmon smolts the year. billions in repair costs. all driven, we are told, by the best available silence. we spent nearly all five minutes allocated to my first round of questioning -- ms. kendall, you denying knowing anything about a complete by the bureau of reclamation's scientific integrity officer documenting the intentional falsifications of scientific data related to the base and all to drive the decision to a predetermined to conclusion. in the final seconds of my allotted time you appear to have a recollection when i asked

about a scientific integrity case provided on your office's .n manifest in titled have we established that the scientific integrity case listed on your office's manifest involves a complaint by dr. hauser? >> i know it involves dr. hauser. i do not know if it involves -- >> the office of the inspector general then did know about his complaint. my next question to you is what did the inspector general's office due to investigate this most detailed complaint by the scientific integrity officer of the bureau of reclamation's? >> congress man, i would have to

get back to you on that. i do not know the answer to it. >> then obviously you cannot tell me what you discovered from this investigation, which is not an insignificant matter. dr. hauser's boss was on the manifest. when he raised these concerns internally, her response was to fire him. she was an employee of trout unlimited, an interested party into the basin. she did not recuse herself from being involved in these discussions. in fact, fired the whistleblower fired by the bureau of reclamation to ensure the scientific integrity of the data driving the entire proposal, her response was to fire him. don't you think -- doesn't it strike you as significant that the official who fired dr.

hauser is precisely the same official that he accused of official misconduct in falsifying test data and who had an obvious and glaring conflict of interest? >> congressman, i'm listening to what you are saying but it does not help me because i do not know about this case. >> you are the watchdog. you are responsible for ensuring the integrity of the scientific data that is driving these policy proposals. where is the outrage? >> i have many people on my staff that work on these issues on behalf of the office of inspector general. i apologize, i do not know the details about this. >> you have a row of folks behind you. do any of them know? >> congressman, we would be glad to get back to you and provide details. i simply do not know them today. >> i will tell you what i would ask for, all the documents related to dr. hauser's complaint. i would like to know why the case was closed.

why is there no report available? i assume you cannot provide the information on any of these questions? >> i do not have the infortion today, no. >> mr. chairman, i think this is significant enough and this omission is glaring enough to call for a separate hearing on the subject. as i said, is not an insignificant matter. it has huge fiscal and economic and environmental ramifications for the entire pacific northwest. it all hinges on what we are told is the best scientific data when the sides integrity officer has been blowing a whistle, warning us that the data has been deliberately corrected, and the inspector general, so far as i can tell, from this hearing, has done nothing. we need to look at it before any further activity is taken. i think we also ought to get in our position -- >> parliamentary inquiry.

>> the gentleman will state his inquiry. >> the rules of this committee require that members contain their question to the subject matter of the hearing. did your invitation, mr. chairman, to ms. kendall, notify her that this issue would be a topic for today? if not, i would ask that this line of questioning be ruled out of order because there is an implication being made by this gentleman that ms. kendall is not answering his questions, when she was invited here under the rules to answer a whole other set of subject materials, and under our rules, she was coming here knowing that other material could not be put

forward. i would just ask for a ruling on that? >> the down and ask for a parliamentary inquiry whether the gentleman from california's line of questioning was within the scope of this hearing. i would tell the gentleman from massachusetts that the title of the hearing is as such. oversight of the actions of independence and accountability of the ins -- acting inspector general of the department of interior. and in the invite letter, it goes on to talk about the conduct of the inspector general specifically for independence and effectiveness of the inspector general in acting capacity, and then later in the second paragraph, and other matters. the gentleman from california is

talking about other matters, so it falls within the scope of the hearing today. >> mr. chairman, because i still have time remaining before the town and from massachusetts interrupted me, point out that the basic issue was raised in the chairman's letter to ms. kendall dated may 30, 2012, and was referred to in her letter back to the chairman, dated july 20. this is not unexpected for her. was raised in the letter. she responded specifically on this issue in the letter back to the committee which i've already as to be entered into the record. i would ask the gentleman from massachusetts read his briefings mark carefully before he comes to meetings. >> i am anticipating he had approximately 30 seconds left in his time. in response to the ranking member, this false -- the line of questioning from the gentleman of california falls in

line with the invitation to active inspector general. the chair recognizes the chairman from northern areas. >> mr. chairman, going on four years that i have served on this committee, we take votes, we have hearings, there are times when i agree with the other side, there are times when i agree with my side. there are times when i take a bow. yesterdayhat we had was difficult for me because i wanted to vote no. i thought that there was still a chance to have more conversations with the department of interior, rather than issue the subpoena. i also did not think yesterday the extraordinary effort has been exhausted. the chairman knows i have a healthy respect for him, and i still do.

last night, before i went to bed, thinking about what we did yesterday, mr. chairman. i could not find comfort that we did that. we did take a vote. we are issuing subpoenas. i would also very much like to bring the secretary of interior here. if we need to have the answers, we need the secretary of interior to give us the answers. i encourage and urged the chairman, through the secretary. at this time, i yield my remaining time to the ranking member. >> i thank the gentleman very much. again, let me state for the record, we have not invited the or's of bp, transocean, halliburton to sit here. this is the greatest crime in the history of america against the environment. bringing in mid-level officials of these companies is not taking

this issue seriously. so, when you bring in the ceo's of these companies and you are staring them down and getting the answers, then it is serious. this is not serious. ms. kendall, -- by the way, the great chairman of this committee for so many years, chairman udall, used to say, everything has been set but not everybody has said it. on their side, they have said everything over and over again, you keep giving the answers, but they hate the answers. they hate the answers because, at this point, we still do not have any understanding of what it is they are saying went wrong. this is executive privilege, it is controlled by the president. everyone can have an opinion on

executive privilege. the president, secretary, they exercise the decision on executive privilege, not you. it is not your decision. the reply where you have to ask what the legal basis is for asking questions? are you familiar with the works of kafka? man is charged with a crime without being told the process, the trial, or even what is being charged with. you seem to be in a similar situation. at this point, i did not even know what we are being attacked for. is it that you are the inspector general? is in the river basin hydro-

project on related to this hearing? is it secretaries salazar's decision to issue the moratorium? is it just that barack obama is president, which is what i suspected that the heart of all this? for you to be sitting here hour after hour without anything thusfar that i can ascertain that is something they can point to you, i'm waiting for that sentence to be uttered without any evidence that has not been conclusively proven to not be true. this is the essence of what we have here, okay? those who are guilty, the ceo's of these companies, they are not here. those who have responsibility to make the decisions, we can bring

in the secretary. everything else is just a side show. let's have the real answers and let's have the real showdown here on what happens in the gulf of mexico with the ceos. until you invite them, this is not a serious investigation at all. >> the gentleman as time has expired. the chair recognizes mr. sullivan. >> along those lines right there, as far as ceos come and clearly the secretary of the interior is a ceo, the department issued over 700 citations to the owners of the macondo well. as the acting inspector general, can you tell me about the investigation on the department

after their in action after reassuring the 700 citations? >> i'm not sure what investigation your talking about. >> wait a minute. the department issued 700 citations. i want to make sure the ranking member catches this. 700 citations were issued to the owners of the deepwater horizon and the macondo well, and i asked you about an investigation into the inaction -- and you're telling me you are not aware of of an investigation? >> i am aware of a number of investigations. >> i'm talking specifically to the department for issuing 700 citation than not moving a step further.

>> i do not know about an investigation about that. >> mr. chairman, i find it absolutely amazing. the ranking member talks about bringing in ceos. i asked the department the interior, the ceo, last year t hat very question and was given no satisfaction that the department accepted an irresponsibility that it failed after you knew you had a problem, that there was no responsibility, no personal responsibility, no responsibility for the department. clearly there should have been one. we have seen webster's dictionary. the definition of incompetence is lacking the qualities needed for effective action.

inapt, unqualified, and abel, yet we have a department that i think has demonstrated that to perfection. 700 citations and we have an i.d. department that has not done an investigation. that is the very definition, according to webster. we tried. we brought in the ceo of the interior. that is not a smoking gun for this body. i find that i agree. they're not concerned. at no time when the secretary of the interior was here, not in one question from a minority looking into that issue and

undermine the validity and the purpose of trying to understand. we're not catching anything there. there should be more examination. that is your role. why would there not be? with my remaining time left, why would there not be? is that not problematic? >> after mms was split and either boem or antoher would be the appropriate body to conduct an internal investigation. i believe they're doing that as

we speak. >> thank you. i yield back. quite thank you for the member to yield back. i want conclude this hearing by thanking you, ms. kendall for being here. we'd that sit on this panel because of what we have chosen to do, that comes with the self governance. you're in a position with a great deal of importance. as i mentioned, i have some questions and members of this committee have questions about the independence which led to a decision which did cause economic harm. no one disputes that. no one disputes the fact that the initial incident cause

economic harm. we do think it's important that people get the facts. the simple fact that the executive summary caused such an immediate backlash from the peer review group where, in some cases, they felt that they were being used, i think it's very important that we get to the bottom of why this happened. that is what we're trying to ascertain. whether you like it or not, you were caught in that discussion. i think, as i have said several times, that independence was compromised and it's something this committee needed to look into. that was the reason for this hearing. i'm not sure we have gotten all

the answers. i certainly have some questions in my mind. i do very much appreciate your participation in the only thing i could offer you is that those of us, probably at some time in their political lives have faced similar situations, so there is empathy from us to you, but recognize that responsibility is part of your job. that is part of self-government. that is what makes it difficult. the committee will stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> coming up, remarks as a possible vice presidential candidate for mitt romney, comments from florida's senator mark rubio, ohio senator robert portman, minn. former governor tim pawlenty. the young america foundation is holding its 34th annual conference in washington.

this weekend, it will feature peter schweizer, "throw them all out." that will be at 7:45 p.m. eastern. >> i was beaten. i thought i was going to die. i thought i saw that. what's a 25-year-old john lewis taking part in the voting rights march on a route that would take them across the advent had this bridge. >> we became within distance of the troopers. the man identified himself and said he was an alabama state trooper and it was unlawful march and would not be allowed to continue. one of the young people walking beside me said major, give us a moment to kneel and pray. he said, "troopers, advance. >> author and congressman john

lewis on c-span's "q&a." >> this weekend, was the turning point of the civil war gettysburg or the battle for richmond? >> in george mcclellan's failure and robert e. lee's emergence as a successful field commander a decisive moment that profoundly shape the larger direction of the conflict. more and the contenders, looking at key political figures who ran for office and lost but changed political history. >> i would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no life.

>> very goldwater, the 1954 republican candidate who lost to lbj. american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> the head of the u.s. missile defense program, general formica, says the heart is the u.s. service members and the call for the proper tool to help them do their job. he spoke to the air force association this morning. >> on behalf of the air force reserve officers association of america,, i want to thank you for being here for the 26th of our seminars on missile defense, homeland security, and nuclear weapons. i also want to thank our friends from c-span here today as well as our friend from ms nbc for all the work he did to help us put this on. i also want to thank our friends

from the congressman's office to is here today representing hunts bill, alabama. i also want to thank our friends from a number of agencies, my friend from israel, from finland, russia, austria, that are all here today. september 11th is our next breakfast with a member of the strategic forces commission. on the 13th, we have completed a lineup with frank miller as our keynote speaker followed by senator conrad and a number of other members of the house and senate. it would then be followed by a panel of individuals including david tractenberg and following remarks of payne.

our final breakfast in september will be the deputy assistant secretary jim miller. we are honored today to have lieutenant general richard for my god who, as you know, the the commanding general for the missile command base in heinz bill. the generals from connecticut. he was commissioned in 1977 after the completion of rotc at providence college and graduated from bryant college. he went through basic and advanced courses. it is a graduate of the army command and general staff college with a master in military arts graduating from the national war college in 1997 with a master's in strategy.

there is a joint functional components command, integrative missile defense on december 15th on behalf of our corporate sponsors and on behalf of our organizational sponsors, thank you for coming here from hyattsville to share with us your thoughts on missile defense. would you please give a warm welcome to lieutenant general richard for mike up. -- formica. [applause] >> i came in from colorado springs last night we're going back to haunt bill this afternoon -- or this morning, i should say. good morning, everybody. i would like to thank the air force association reserve officers association and peter

for asking me to speak to you this morning. it's an honor to be here. i represent the men and women whose serve in the missile base command in the joint functional component demand for defense, which is a functional components to u.s. strap,. i will be talking about those commands and their missile defense contributions to strap, and the army -- stratcomm. they're developing their campaign plans. the global missions and capabilities nest within the army and strap, campaign. as are reported last year when i was here, but i will remind you, there are three court tasks. the first is to provide

capabilities to war fighters and to the nation. we say that is our operations function. those are the capabilities we provide today. the second is to build the future space and missile defense as give ability and it will provide those capabilities, we say, tomorrow. we also do space missile defense and other technologies. our command is uniquely organized to do those functions and we are geographically well- positioned in alabama and colorado springs with forces arrange the globally to do these tasks. as the army service component to strategic command, we provide

planning, integration, control and integration of the army forces and capabilities that we provide to support missions. we also serve as the force modernization component for space, high-altitude, global missile defense. our focus is to provide space and missile defense capabilities to the war fighter. last year, i talked about our deliverables in each of these tasks, so this is your thought i would highlight a few of the activities in the area of moussaoui defense. at any given day, we have more than 875 operational forces controlling space operations around the world. we have soldiers from the active army, army national guard, u.s. army reserve, army

civilians and contractors all providing timely and relevant space and missile defense capabilities to the army, and geographic combat command. soldiers are on points in alaska, california, and they are headquartered in colorado ready to defend our homeland against limited ballistic missile threats from a rogue nation. and also provides the forces for the forward base radar detection. these are part of a multi-phase radar approach and will enhance our capabilities. turkey, a nato partner, hosts one of our radars and i was able to see it firsthand the difficult environment our soldiers and contractors in door in a remote location in central turkey.

in winter, temperatures fell below freezing and they shared the hardship with their turkish allies. when i visited, not one soldier or contractor complained about the conditions in which they were serving. i love with a strong sense of urgency to help secure funding to improve the quality of life of the soldiers and support personnel who serve there. we appreciate the congressional support for the funding needed to improve the quality of life at that location. our space forces contribute to missile defense. these come from the first brigade and we bring space capabilities to theater commanders and missile defense forces. we manage five of these centers around the globe. they controlled the transmissions for the global

constellations. the joint tactical operations with missile defense capability by providing battle assessment and ensure direct missile warning for are deployed forces. in capability, this execute those activities of four wrote space and missile defense. our priorities are all about providing doctrine organization training education, personnel and facilities to support the army's current addition to of space and missile defense systems. as a provider in missile defense systems, the army is catching up on the battle aspects of the radar that are being fielded as part of a phase adaptive approach. we're working with army component commands in the region is to assure that they are

sufficiently manned and operated. we developed army force structure requirements and converted some of the contract positions to soldier. the missile defense agency is helping as synchronize the actions to better enable the reader to perform. we have worked on the documents to help our soldiers and we have worked closely with combat command to ensure that lessons are learned and are captured under future tactics, techniques, and procedures. we have adopted these into the capstone concepts. this year, we have done the institutional training for over 800 soldiers and civilians in 80 different courses. annually, we provide around 200 courses and train over 6000

students. we pride and local support to the joint functional component command for integrated defense, to the headquarters and to the defense organization here in washington. our work was key in performing operational decisions and informed of future defense capabilities. we work with theater command to secure adequate funding to improve the facility infrastructure, improve the quality of life for our soldiers and civilians were deployed. in our material development function, our technical center currently manages space missile defense, cyber, and some counter i.d. programs. i would like to highlight some of them. it is being developed to demonstrate the weapon system to

counter rockets, artillery, and mortar threat. it will include some systems on a tactical military vehicle to enhance the safety of deployed forces. we recently developed a research and development effort to supplement present flight test inventory and provide a low- cost target for missile defense systems. it successfully completed its initial flight test objectives in february. it also operates the ragan test site located in the marshall islands in the pacific. is a strategic asset for the nation and it is critical to testing of defense capabilities, ballistic missile assets and other testing requirements.

we also support the space situational awareness mission by conducting space surveillance. this it plans to execute operational objectives. the test will demonstrate regional ballistic ability and defend against simultaneous threats. defense assets will be on the island at our top side and it will contribute to the test. in november 2011, we successfully completed the first light of the hypersonic weapon as a part of the over-strike program. it was a result of the great team work of several organizations includinglabs, industry partners, all under the leadership and management under the secretary of the department

of defense for acquisition, technology, and the distance. for me, technology is important that we will never have enough missile defense capacity to protect against all the threats to the homeland and our regional interests. we need to ensure we use a full range of assets available to provide defensive capability to address the limited missile defense threat from rogue nations. that is a little bit about what is going on. let me shift gears to talk about joint functional components command and its role. the unique capabilities it offers benefits and we work hard to maintain a synergistic relationship between the two commands. let me talk about what is going on there.

it brings a global and operational perspective to the missile defense system. headquartered in colorado springs, is manned by army, navy, air force, marine, a civilian, and contractor personnel. we have five mission tasks from the u.s. stratcom responsibilities and department of defense guidance. they are nestled within the campaign plan. those five tasks are to conduct operational missile defense planning, security cooperation activities and global force management. corroboration support, asset management, and execution capabilities, to ride ballistic training, exercises, and tests. i will caveat that is an emerging task we are now developing.

four, advocacy, analysis, and tests. 5, to conduct security and support for the ballistic missile defense system. to accomplish these tasks, we maintain a close and collaborative relationship with combat commands, services, defense agencies, support staff, coalition allies come and our industry partners. amid talk about the efforts under way in for those five key tasks. as the designated joint functional manager for missile defense, we assist u.s. strategic command in developing recommendations on the allocation of these high demand, low density missile defense capabilities. in support of this, we have taken some initiatives. last year, in conjunction with its geographic combat command, we drafted framework and it

identifies force requirements to execute the mission within their campaign and it includes the courses that are allocated through the formal management process. this tool is not a substitute for the process. rather, if approved, it will serve as a senior leader decision support tool to articulate the risk to the allocation of high demand, low density capabilities. we are currently working with both the joint staff and services to get this concept approved. missile defense cannot be viewed in isolation from the larger mission. while it has designated a single integrated authority, our

responsibilities there have been limited to advocacy. as many high demand capabilities are shared access come we need to consider applications of our perspective, and we are assessing our strategic way ahead as we shift our efforts. we are completing effort to provide a global assessment of defense capabilities. with homeland defense as its priority and taking into consideration the development of the approaches, given the current allocation of capabilities, we are finalizing and our ability to execute the ballistic missile defense mission. we believe the united states is postured to protect the homeland against limited attacks.

we continue to balance the prioritization of assets for homeland parties and the regions. this offense threats will remain a challenge, and we recognize the demand from the geographic combatant commands will exceed the available capacity. our operational assessments have informed the missile defense agency and services as we seek to correct fiscal balance. active defense systems are one pillar of missile defense. they must be documented with passive defense attack operations to counter a threat from rogue nations. this integration of offense and defense as well as the overall ability to provide effective missile defenses is underpinned by our ability to properly received, process, and

disseminate indications and warnings, so persistent intelligence capabilities are keys to be effective homeland and regional missile defense. as the adapted purchase are developed, we expand our efforts to better integrate allies into the architecture. we leverage training exercises and war games to increased dialogue a partnership with allies. our system can role in that is an unclassified war game that we conduct on behalf of the u.s. stratcom. we just recently concluded a campaign of experimentation that involved 14 participating nations, nato, and had 10 observer nations. the war came enables us to examine issues such as command

and control , multinational offense-defense integration, and rules of engagement. we are designing the campaign which will likely add several new nations. we are excited about the growth in international missile defense engagement. as i indicated, a task we are preparing for is the development of joint ballistic training to fill the gap between the service level training and joint training that is operationally relevant for the system. as i indicated earlier, mda conduct the largest missile defense test in the fall. we pull together the war fighter does a patient, coordinating

with commands, and help to develop the objectives, to submitting requirements in the test plan, and we represent the war fighter in the development of the test concept and operations. the test when complete, we will use the results to assess engagement, to inform our operators on how to best use the systems, and provide feedback to the material developers. as i said we conduct computer network defense missions for the ballistic defense system in conjunction with stratcomm. we work with the agency to develop exercise and garments that facilitate training against potential adversary cyber attacks. we provide the integrated roll for missile defense across

multiple regions as we get new capabilities, deval those relationships, and reinforce missile defense partnerships. our defense capability continues to strengthen as more fighters gain increased confidence in the ballistic missile defense system. i would like to close with a short story that i tell frequently by a former ally and -- and why in congressman. hawaii -- you may have read the emails he sent out that went viral, and i do not know if you had a chance to read it. it talks about two soldiers, and his message was about what he learned about the character and heart of the soldiers and

civilians that are serving. he talked about two in particular. one told a story about a lieutenant, 24 years old, who stopped his platoon while on patrol at the bridge. they were supposed to go over the bridge, and the intelligence told them the bridge was clear. the lieutenant had a funny feeling. i'm not quite sure where a lieutenant, and for years old, tibullus battlefield instincts. he was attacked by an ied on that recon, and it killed him. his death and his instincts saved the lives of his patrol. the congressman also served with a staff sergeant who was leading a squad of soldiers when they picked up traffic of insurgents

in the area that were massing to ambush his troops. the sergeant knew they needed to find cover. he saw a ditch. the instincts were to check the ditch before he would expose his soldiers to it. he went over to make sure they could take cover in the ditch safely. he was attacked by an ied. he lived, but he went home missing both legs. it is for them that we serve. they are the war fighters, and the mission's success we achieve is a direct result of the dedication of a great team, partners in industry and academia, who served to deliver capabilities so they may live to see another day and come home with all the body parts that they went over there with. we often talk of the technology part, the ballistic defense missile system. i remain conscience that is

soldiers that the operate our systems that are truly of its missile defense capability. i thank you for your support to ou men and women in uniform, to their families. thank you. [applause] >now i have time for one question. [laughter] yes, sir. >> thank you for coming, general, and thank you for your service. i have heard concerns expressed about the vulnerability of the -- in turkey. it is close to a potential iranian threat. there is a lot of iranian

missiles that could be thrown at it. could you give us any kind of a in a short of the survivability of that radar? >> i will only go so far and talking about threats and capabilities. turks are responsible for and are providing external security for the radar, and i am confident we have the radar in the right place to meet the needs we have. >> those things that have surprised you in terms of capabilities of missile defense -- north of 800 and do not include the navy, and those challenges you face? >> the 800 i said were 875 soldiers and civilians any given day are out there doing their missile defense functions.

i am new to missile defense. i am not a physics guy. you say what surprised me? the fact that we can hit one of those missiles coming in and take that out, that surprises me, but i am confident in our capabilities and i am glad we got them. the biggest challenge is capacity. as we continue -- and i say we, missile defense agency is the predominant developer, as we continue to master the physics and get the interceptor capabilities right, i am very confident in our system, i think we will always be challenged by capacity. there is no end to the potential threats out there, and we will never be able to keep up with the many low-cost did not have to be particularly accurate missiles that come in, and capacity is probably the biggest challenge. yes, ma'am.

>> your effort to a new exercise. will you allow everett on that -- will you elaborate on terms of what you saw coming out of that and areas you need to focus on in the next couple of years? >> nimble tighten is one of the things i had tthe opportunity to see the capsule. it was a campaign that focused on regional aspects, and keys in on specific areas, and we have a capstone and that in the spring at the end of the second year. as i was preparing for command, i had an opportunity to observe the capstan concepts -- caps don't exercise for nimble titan 10 and participated in most of the nimble titan 12.

i was encouraged, and i realized it was a signature event that it is chartered to do. if has the support of the office of the secretary of defense and the department of state and joint staff and gets their particular -- participation. of the 14 participating nations, representatives from foreign ministries and ministries of defense and military staffs, all participate, and because it is an unclassified war came, it is an opportunity to talk in an international forum about the kinds of policies and capabilities that need to develop. we are not threatening to national positions because it is unclassified. it is a board game did it gives us an opportunity to talk about an export different policies and how they might impact the ballistic missile defense. what we found was those

representatives come together. we share discussions on concept, we learn lessons, and we -- they bring them back to the nation's and discussed those in their nations and see what their nations can and cannot and will and will not support, bring those backed to subsidize discussions, and the level of discourse gets richer as we do that. there is a tremendous opportunity. week focused, a european war came that focused on the development of the policy there, and we had an asia-pacific war game, and we brought the two together for capstone in the spring. it was a positive experience. we had 10 observer nations last year. we expect several of them to ask to be included as participating nations next year, and that gives us tremendous opportunities to continue to

expand the dialogue and to explore potential policy for missile defense. thank you. >> >you spoke about the challenges in capacity. you mention technology like the high-energy laser. could you speak to your views on how directive energy could fill the capability gaps or add capacity in a more cost- effective way? >> the high-energy work that we are involved in on the technical to the limit side, is specifically related to rocket artillery, and it is not a missile defense capability. if we can demonstrate that you can get a solid state laser on a mobile platform provides the amount of energy and ability to take out -- to counter rockets,

then i would like to develop that capability, see where that brings us, and i think it has the potential for fuel -- for future missile defense application. i am very encouraged by where we are headed in the application and working with boeing and looking for successes here in the next several months. continued success as, i will say. thank you. anybody else? >> [unintelligible] >> the defense strategy for the 21st century came out a few months ago, and i like to say if

you've read it you could almost accused somebody from the u.s. strategic command of having written it, because many of the global capabilities that u.s. strategic command is responsible for, are highlighted and featured in the defense strategy for the 21st century. the kinds of capabilities that are important for the future, space, cyber, missile defense, and the like, and so those are featured prominently in the strategy as the army's service component. we contributed the army forces for but the space and missile defense aspects of that. it is important as stratcom provide as its plan to subordinate that defense strategy, we identify the tasks we are responsible for to make sure it we are providing that capabilities required by that

strategy. >> have operations change because of that? >> what we are doing, and i would say, nobody is immune to the potential for cuts, but space and missile defense forces are in high demand, and are being resource at and a corporate level as a result of the emphasis and a strategy. >> thank you. >> thank you. [unintelligible] >> [unintelligible] >> the question is on the role and challenge. it is a european command exercised done in the theater. we have participated in it, but it is not an exercise we are

responsible for. we contribute to it, but its really a ucom exercise. two years ago it was tied to stratcom, said it was an opportunity for us, as we were doing our global responsibilities, to see how it links with regional commands. that is an important feature, and that tier one exercise programs, when of the things we learned is we cannot operate in a vacuum. the opportunity to exercise put together is important so you get the benefits of both global and regional capability. >> is it ok to keep the questions going? could you say because missile

defense is imperfect, that it is better to have no defense than any defense? when you look at the requests from your combatant commanders, what would it look like in a world where we had no missile defenses and your combatant commanders had the job to do? [laughter] >> i suppose that is like saying i am going to stand here and take all the punches and wait for the other capabilities to come up stop those punches. my view. missile defense is never going to be an end in and of itself. we will always be challenged by capacity and we will never have sufficient capacity to challenge all of the threats that are out there. it is an important component of our defense system, and i think when you look at all the different capabilities that the military can bring to bear, this

offense is a key and critical component to get, identified by those assets that are identified by the combat commander to defend, and then incorporate that into an overarching plan that brings to bear all of the capabilities available to a commander. i cannot imagine having no missile defense. do you follow up, wheat take away from the international cooperation? 10 and 15 years ago, we had japan and israel. we have a lot more countries now. can you give us a sense of how you see allied participation helping to contribute to our defense as well as we can shrink to theirs? >> i use nimble titan as my primary reference point, but my interaction as i go around,

traveling around, i am encouraged by the amount of interaction we have with our allies and coalition partners. they all share a common interest in developing missile defense capacity. all of us are balancing the need for missile defense, the capabilities that we need, the inherent risk, and fiscal realities, so there is recognition that we can do more in concert with one another than we would be able to do individually. the amount of interaction and the degree of interest by all of our allies inc according to the defense is encouraging to me, and i think that is represented by the growth we are talking about in nimble titan. there are varying degrees of how they contribute to the missile defense system. i am encouraged they are looking at different ways to do so. there are challenges for

disclosure, data sharing, and others that have to be resolved and dealt with, but my view is the more we can work in concert with one another, we can optimize the various systems, whether you are linking sensors and shooters across all our contracting allied partners. as we get down that road and we will be able to optimize the capabilities available to each of us. >> thank you, general. >> thank you so much. >> thank you all for coming, by the way. [unintelligible]

>> young america's foundation is having its annual student conference in washington. their annual dinner is this evening, and an author recently wrote a book entitled "throw them all out." that is live this evening at 7 pop 40 5:00 p.m. eastern. >> we did not begin as a city. there is a vague made the american region -- there is a vague native american region. we began in 1778 as a part of virginia. >> as we can, from louisville,

kentucky, saturday, noon eastern, literary life. kentucky's senior senator mitch mcconnell, and rebuilding america's politics, the internet revolution. then three weeks at farmington plantation in 1841 would be key in shaping lincoln's view of slavery. also, the heyday of the steamboat on the ohio river. take a look back on the city of louisville. once a month, the c-span content and vehicles. >> at the foot of that bridge i was beaten. i was bought -- i thought i was going to die. i thought i saw that. >> in 1965, john lewis took part in the voting rights march on a

route that would take them across the pettis bridge. >> we can within hearing distance of state troopers, and a man identified himself of the alabama state troopers you. this is an on lawful march and you will be not allowed to continue. another person said, give us a moment to kneel and pray, and the trooper said -- >> john lewis, sunday at 8:00. barack obama says new jobs figures released today showed there are too many people looking for work. the president urges congress to pass a tax cut extension for families making less than $250,000. the government reported that employers added 160,000 jobs in july, the based -- the best pace

of hiring in five months. matt romney on the campaign trail says congress and the president should delay a looming cut in military and domestic spending for least one year. congress approved the cuts as part of a deal to reduce the deficit. mr. romney says he wants lawmakers to work together to .ut together a year's runwayu this afternoon we featured interviews with a number of leaders featured as potential buys presidential candidates. coming up first, marco rubio. then rob portman, tim pawlenty, and paul ryan. senator rubio held a rally for mitt romney had an elementary school in las vegas, nevada. he talked about differences in the pauses between mr. romney and president obama and highlighted his onwn own

family in coming to america. [applause] >> that is our common heritage. those of us who have lived it just a generation ago at a special obligation to defend its. even as i stand here before you today in walking distance from the very place, there are people that at the jobs my parents once had. there are people who live the life he once led. within walking distance, there are people who walk the steps we now -- we once walked in. that is the chance we have in this election. i do a lot of speeches, but few

of them have made me as nervous as this one, because -- >> rubio for vice president! [cheers] >> that was not the kind of heckler i was appreciating. i love you, too. thank you for having me back. run for the supreme court? jeez. what elementary did you go to, sir? [unintelligible] so much of what i know to be true about the world are larger on the streets, just around this

very place. i understand now more than ever how special this country is and it is something we should never apologize for. it did not become that way back accident, by luck or by chance, it became that way because people chose that route. they chose to believe in the power of the individual. they chose to believe what a free people in pursuit of japanese could do together. they chose to believe in a country that was not your government or leaders who give you the you're right, it was their job to protect the rights that god has given you. those ideas made this country, but in so doing they also change the world. no matter where you live on this planet, there is someone just

like you that was able to accomplish here what they never would have accomplished in the nation of their own birth. it reminds you of how important the american miracle is, not just for us, but for all the world. two decades ago the merkel lived in my house, to the lives of a bartender and a maid who made it the mission of their life to give us the chance to do everything they could not. miracle -- that miracle finds itself and other houses these days. a bartender and a maid can still open doors for their children. it is the issue of this election, and it is what we will decide. we must either embrace the things that made as great or become like everybody else. i know in the depths of our heart, when times are tough, and your house is working -- is

worth less than once it was, when times are tough and people are worried, those are the times that asked us to abandon the principles of our greatness rear their heads, and they say the only way is to abandon our liberties and give them power to distribute our income and run our economy. that has never worked anywhere. every time we have tried it here it has made us poorer. now is not the time to go backwards to the dark days of human history, when what you are going to be in life was decided on to your parents were. now is the time to embrace what made a special, and that is what november is giving us a chance to do. up and down the ballot, across the state and country, in race

after race, the choice is between people that believe in things that made us different and those that ask you to apply policies that will make us just like everybody else -- you will decide those elections and your willingness to make those differences, and i promise i will do my part if you do yours. thank you. thank you. ♪

>> we will show you all those comments from marco rubio later in our program scheduled. next up, senator rob portman. that will be followed by tim pawlenty, congressman paul ryan, and john thune. senator portman campaigned for mitt romney on monday and told supporters that pennsylvania would be in the red column for mitt romney. here is a portion of that event. >> when the president bush's --

when the president pushed his health care law throug -- said it is going to be cheaper. that is what he said. he said the average cost for a family in america is going to be $2,500 less for health care premiums if you push this through. guess what we learned last week from the cbo -- and nonpartisan group -- it is $2,500 more, it is higher by $2,500, exactly the amount he said it would be cut. deal that in your family boss budget, don't you? i just talked to some business owners he said one reason they cannot create jobs is because health care costs and it is harder to provide health care

for their employees. they are looking for ways to bring people on, but they cannot because of health care. this law has not made it easier, it has made it harder, for families, for small businesses, and for our budget deficit. it is adding trillions of dollars of cost to the federal budget. when the president says look at my economic record, i hope people will look at it. they will find out it did not work. it is really no wonder. the president is out of touch. you recall when he said the private sector was doing just fine i just asked small business owners that. i almost got run out of the room when i said that. it is a joke, just kidding. the president said the private sector is doing just fine, but what else did he say? he also said all we need to do

is take your tax dollars, send them to washington, have washington to take a cut out of it, borrow a bunch more from places like china, and send it back to the states to the commonwealth can create more public sector jobs in pennsylvania. that is the solution that our economic problems. does that make sense to you? >> no! >> it is the private sector that creates jobs. if it was the government creating jobs, we could be doing just fine under this stimulus. it did not work. that is not how it works. we created the greatest economy on the face of the earth. we did it through hard work. we in debt through the small business owners i just met. one woman said my husband and i started a music business, we are

struggling, my husband jokes with me, it is great being a small business owner because you can choose which 16 hours to work at day. [laughter] the president says, if you have a business, you did not build it. someone else did. in that speech, it was about a government building it, and about the fact that those small businesses who think they built it should be paying more taxes because the government really built it. that did not make a lot of sense to the folks i was talking to. it does not make a lot of sense to me. when the president said that, you did not bill that business, somebody else did, i thought about all the small business owners i know in my hometown of cincinnati. i thought about my dad. my dad took a risk. when he was 40 years old, he was

a salesman, he gave up, and poured money from my mom's anut, and he believed in himself, the committee, workers, he believed in america, so he hired five people. my mom was a bookkeeper. they lost money the first year, the second year, the third year. my uncle began to wonder. they persevered, and he created a nice little business trips they did it too hard work and sweat. working seven days a week, mortgaging the house. this is happening all over america, to create opportunity, and get the president tells the people you did not do it. we should be holding those people up, telling them they are the backbone of the economy, that we respect them, that we

love what they do for our country. [applause] if you look at every recession we have had, there is always a recovery cing out of it. we're now living to the weakest recovery since the great depression. think about that. if you look at it closely you find out that it was not the big businesses that led us out of recessions. it tends to be the small businesses. the guy or woman willing to take a risk. this administration is going in the opposite direction. they say if you work hard, you will not get that reward the desert. we will raise your taxes, increase health care costs, increase the regulatory burden you face. i have a lot of stories to say about the regulatory burden. every single one of them as a

story that government is making it harder to create jobs. we need to turn that around, don't we, folks? let's give small businesses a break. we talked about epa, osha, the regulations that make it harder for a farmer to make ends meet, the reasons it is harder here in lancaster county and across the country to create " an opportunity, and the jobs we need to be able to lift people up, to get the dignity because of the government. not that the government helps, but that regulations make it harder. that is the reality. the unpredictability, uncertainty in the economy, regulations, higher taxes, the president saying he wants to raise them higher -- this is not how we turn things around. that we tell you why i am ultimately optimistic. we have been here before. america did go through a great depression. we have been through tough

times as a country. we always come out on top, because of the hard work and ingenuity of the american people. we trust the people, not the government, to get us out of this. that is the difference in this election, and we can do it again. [applause] onhaven't had a candidate the republican side who gets it. after all, he is from the private sector. he is a guy who took a risk, started a business, and created a bunch of jobs. not just a couple dozen jobs or a couple hundred jobs to. or couple thousand jobs tree he created that over 100,000 jobs in his businesses. he knows how to create jobs. he knows what the role of government is. he knows what it takes. i think we need people like that in government. do you agree with me?

some people say, can he lead in washington? absolutely, he can lead, because even as a business person, because that is what. where desperate for leadership right now. pat to me is working on the entitlement reforms we need, and growing the economy, but he will tell you we do not have leadership right now. in the executive branch with no leadership, things did not get done. we need to reform the tax code, need to regulatory relief we talked about earlier, still our natural resources in this country to create jobs. we need to get away from the dangerous dependency on foreign oil, and we can do that with the leadership. we need somebody to step up and say we need to take this on because it is immoral for future generations, because it impacts

our ability to create opportunities for today. mitt romney will do that. he has the experience, the background, and the public policy plans to change america in a positive way by showing the leadership we so desperately need. during the election in 2008, barack obama went around pennsylvania and ohio, both states he won pretty handily, and he had an interesting message. he would put his hands together and say we need to bring america together. to solve big problems. i would ask you, if you would talk to the folks that voted for president obama, and forget about the fact that the promises have not been kept, the fact that the economic record has been a failure. say to them, do you think he has brought the country together?

duke you think he has divided our country? do you think the class warfare and the notion we book about the country between democrats, republicans, conservatives, liberals, helps our country? no, it does not. need a president who understands not just have to create private- sector job and how to get the regulatory burden of business and its committees tax reform and dealing with the debt and deficit, but a president who has the record and the experience and the public policy plans to bring people together and solve big problems. you look at mitt romney's background. he coasted olympics, mired in scandal and that, but he turns that around. not about ego, but about bringing people together to solve problems. the private sector we talked about his successes. governor of massachusetts, they did not call it taxachusetts for no reason.

he cut taxes 19 times. he started off with a deficit, turned into a surplus. that is the kind of leadership we want, people who can bring people together and solve problems. again, i have a feeling, pennsylvania is going to be in the red, this year. he will paint the whole column in -- commonwealth re andd, in 2008 we made a mistake. america gave the ball to obama because he promised he was gone to turn things around, bring people together to solve problems. we gave him the ball and he fumbled the ball. it is time to get that ball to mitt romney to take this country forward to meet the promise of america. he can do it. our destiny can still be great.

this century can still beat the american century. we need new policies. thank you. got bless you. >> another possible mitt romney vice-presidential pick, tim pawlenty. still to come, paul ryan and south dakota senator john thune. mr. pawlenty was on the campaign trail last saturday and spoke with parents whose children ice skated at the polar ice house. >> how are you doing? the key for taking the time to be here. >> thank you. >> how are you? thank you for being part of this. you got some kids out here?

>> right over there. >> hockey players? thank you for coming out. thank you for being here. >> hi, nice to meet you. >> nice to meet you. >> appreciate it. it is an honor to be here. thank you for taking time out of your weekend. it is a beautiful summer day and you could be in lots of different places with her other commitments you have. we appreciate you being part of the rentable today. i am here on behalf of the running for president campaign the country and may -- and meet firsthand the people about how we can get america on a better track and a better path for. these are by of all discussions.

it is less of an opportunity for me to talk and more of an opportunity for you to shared her concerns and observations are about the economy or other issues. then we can engage in an informal dialogue. i will start with a few brief comments and ask each of you to go run the table and introduce yourself and if you're comfortable sharing something about your background, and then any ideas or concerns or north carolina, that i can take and report back to the governor and his team as he tries to advance his message and win this election and get the country moving again. from the governor's standpoint and from the campaign standpoint, one of the issues we have to adjust is getting the economy moving. governor romney has a tremendous background in the private sector, spent most of his life in the private sector, involved in trying to start businesses, growth businesses, get jobs moving the company's he was

involved with. he has a strong committed to getting the private sector moving. we have seen under the president made the commitment the government-centered approach is. we need to encourage private enterprise through governor romney as cited president obama had his chance, and it is not working, based on the numbers. we have 40 consecutive months of over 8% unemployment in the country, one of the longest streets of that elevated the level of unemployment in modern history. it is higher here in north carolina. more challenging for people in north carolina. we have the lowest rate of business formation in nearly 30 years in the country, which contributes to the fact that the economy is not growing. gdp numbers can out yesterday, another and the set of numbers

showing no growth in the economy. we have people who are 23 million of our fellow citizens who are either out of work, looking for work, or have given up looking for work. 23 million adult americans. it is challenging, and it is not just about statistics and numbers. you have seen people or no people or maybe you are in this position result of having lost a job or being underemployed or have a loved one or somebody who cannot find a job and in a difficult economic circumstance. for me, my background is i grew up in a meat packing town. might bad -- my dad was a truck driver. my mother was a homemaker. when the plant's shutdown, massive job losses and economic dislocation, and i saw what this means to lake community and families. my mom died when i was in 10th grade. my job losses job not long after

that. i experienced and saw some of this first hand. those are the kinds of worries i think people have, and as you talk to people, we hear what are your hopes and dreams. iople are focused on wam going to have a job, get my kids to college, and i going to be able to pay my mortgage, a health insurance premiums. we need policies that work. that is not what is happening under obama. he gives great speeches, but those words did not fill our gas tanks. his speech is to not pay the college tuition bills. his speeches do not pay the health insurance premiums. americans who need more , need more than speeches. we will present to the country that governor romney has a

better way, obama had his chance and did not work, and we need to get somebody in there who can get the economy going again. let me and with that, and maybe you will be so bold as to be willing to start. it is intimidating with the cameras. if you can speak loudly or if somebody could turn the microphone your way. if you are not comfortable, you can take a pass. >> my name is michael dickinson. i am a native of north carolina. i am a financial adviser. one of my biggest concerns, i have three children, this is a country has had a lot of job creation in the past 15 years to to the housing market, and that created elle lot -- that created a lot of jobs. you bought furniture, and this ripple out and created a lot of

commerce, and i feel we need a new catalyst for the economy for the next 15 years, and one of the only ones that appears to be viable is the energy industry. we need a plan for the next 10 years on energy infrastructure, and expiration, and all the things that it's all of that to get a lot of people back to work. then we can start to work on some of the harder issues. i think we need to have a good catalyst for the next 15 years and job creation and center into a rut energy exploration. >> a great point. the the it's between romney and obama in energy is striking, and obama has put and a moratorium on drilling, including offshore drilling. he shut down the expansion of the keystone pipeline. his epa and other regulatory arms have been hostile to

certain forms of american energy. romney said let's do all the above. american energy we can and bring it to the market, and we have massive market opportunities if we go after a. we have tremendous amounts of shale oil and shale gas that just three or five or 10 years ago people did not even understand how much of it we had picked there are new drilling techniques we did not understand a decade ago. now there is enough natural gas within the territorial which of the united states the power of the tower energy needs of the country 400 years or more. not to mention what we could do with natural gas on vehicles. that is one example of many, and yet you have the obama administration in many ways trying to discourage that process and criticize it. that is one example. we can get america to be -- and

we have the capability -- to be one of the world's leading producers of energy again, and the input costs for factories, businesses, will be lower and it will stimulate the economy, like you have suggested. a really good point. >> i also have three boys. 15, 12, and 9. you're busy. >> yes, and i'm concerned because i have always loved america, teaching my kids about that, and i find it very sad that we have for the first time ever a president who i cannot believe once america to stay the sovereign country in the world. i really feel that actions speak louder than words, and i think his actions, moving us into the socialist corrections, i do not think socialism has worked in

other countries. i do not know how -- frustrated watching this whole process because romney is very tight to its. he knows how to be successful and create jobs by the private sector. i do not think taking away democracy and moving toward socialism is the answer. i have been frustrated because there are so many ridiculous attacks on romney every day on the news. i would love to see him fight back a little bit. >> he is, every day, but those are great points, and we need to move toward free enterprise, a private economy, and we have a president who stood up recently in roanoke and said if you have a business, you did not build that. then he said something that was equally troubling, saying somebody else did. i have the queen runs a small business where i live now and he said i put a second mortgage on

my house to start my business. i work 80 hours a week. obviously, there is other factors, but i and the main one who built this business, and he was not just offended, but trouble and really insulted by the president's comments. you have small business owner saying you have the president of the night it's the same i did not build my business? i took out a second mortgage, took a big risk and had a dream, and now he is saying somebody else did that? it is not competing. >> i think the unemployment, being so high and staying so high under him, is an indication of his approach not working compared -- his approach not working. >> i was born and raised in

ohio. >> what part? , akron. we moved here 15 years ago. >> did you come for a job? family? >> a job. now i am a stay at home mom but have a part-time job. we have two kids. 15 and 13. i think my biggest concern about things right now is just the getting government out of our lives. it is like every aspect of our lives has government control in some manner -- education. i think we need to shrink it. which hopefully the budget will shrink. have less. >> there are about 6 million businesses in the country. most of the backbone of the

economy is small and medium- sized businesses. if you talk to the people who start and on those businesses, they all say it a little different but they basically say the same thing if you listen carefully. the taxes are too high and it is too expensive, some say the regulations are too difficult, burdensome. others say health care costs are too high. others say the economy is too slow. what they all say basically the same thing, that the burdens of government on their business is discouraging them, starting to price them out of the market where they do not feel like they can take a more -- take more risk or deploy more capital or invest in their businesses more. that is what is happening in the economy. some of our democrat friends, including president obama, say we are for jobs to. you cannot be pro jobs and anti --

>> his comment about the government being responsible for the business, almost bragging about what i do not like government. >> thank you for sharing that. >> she is my wife, by the way. we are on the same pace. i'm bob meyer. i am in the commercial construction industry. we have been fighting the last three years just to stay where we are. we have to let some folks go. it is because of this overregulation. and big government. does not work. drives me nuts. my brother in law says the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. government does not learn that if you give them more money -- they did not spend anything wisely.

getting them out of our lives and giving us more of our freedoms back is one of my biggest concerns. >> hi. my name is julie. i and the mom of 19-year old out there skating in addition to being a mom, i am an instructor at a local university. my professional field is special education. i am an advocate for people with disabilities. as i look at the future for my son and the people for which i advocate, i am so concerned about the affordable care act. i know we need to repeal it. that would be very good start. but i would like to see us replace it with a good plan. it president romney is creating this plan, what would it look like?

>> i can give you some of the elements of what he is thinking about and if you have some ideas or observations that would be helpful, time in. everybody knows governor romney as opposed to the affordable care act. otherwise known as obamacare in some circles. obviously it takes government in our view and get it into health care in a level that is interested. it begins to represent a more inefficient government centric model instead of a individual or market oriented model. some of the things governor romney like to do in terms of appealing obamacare is have a real medical malpractice reform so that we do not have doctors -- they do a lot of things because they are afraid of getting sued. although it may not be as necessary medically as it could be. number two, let's try to save our entitlement programs by reforming them.

he has a proposal on how you reform and protect medicare and medicaid and get them on the pathway to financial solvency rather than in solvency. part of that includes pushing the medicare program with reasonable increases for inflation, back to the states. he also talked quite frankly about getting consumers in power in the marketplace. trying to get good information in consumers' hands about price and quality and effectiveness. think it financial incentives to use this system wisely in the hands of the consumer. right now, i go to the doctor. i get this thing in the mail called this is not a bill. then it says would buy at the

bottom. my eyes go to what i know. i do not get anything that explains it beyond that. he talked about, it's fine -- if people need financial help, provided to the best of our ability. but let's put the hospital in the driving seat, rather than having the government dictate the scope of the services they need. do you have some suggestions? >> i was thinking that in turn will address the issue of the value of life. no one is going to evaluate child life more than their parents. the parent should be making the decision about care and treatment and ultimately what we are going to do for this precious individual. the thought of the government making that decision is a concern.

but the parents [inaudible] what's the government has programs with special needs children. i used to hear a lot of input from parents who used to say i appreciate the help but instead of saying you could use the number -- the money for this or that, whatever assistance you will give me, give it to me and let me decide how i can best use it to take care of my child as a parent. i think you would spend it pretty well or use it pretty well. it has gotten to the point

where in a short amount of time, i cannot remember when the pivot was, but when it comes to our first amendment, freedom of speech, i have actually felt intimidated to say yes, i am christian. and i believe that the traditional marriage. even just recently with the whole chick-fil-a bruh ha ha. >> i just had lunch there down the street. >> i was disappointed we did not have any leadership on the republican side that step forward. we had to wait days for bloomberg of all people to step forward and say time out.

we do not give business based on someone's political religious views. i thought we had to wait three days? then i am saying thank you michael bloomberg? i was really wishing that somebody in the republican party would have stepped forward. there seems to be a real lack of leadership. i'm hopeful. i am praying that if governor romney does win the election, we will be allowed to have civil debate in disagree with each other without feeling threatened or penalized. >> a profound observation. you probably all know what she is referring to but as one example of this intimidation, you have the person who is

principal at chick-fil-a who has a traditional view on his marriage and then you have government officials around the country including in chicago and boston saying explicitly we are going to deny you a land use permit based on your political views. now you have the police power of government intimidating and threatening people based on their free speech rights and their religious views. it is chilling. it is draw dropping. i think people need to say no, we do not do that in the united states. we can have several disagreements but we do not use the power of government to try to intimidate and retaliate against people for exercising their free-speech rights. that is outrageous. thank you for bringing it up.

good news is that the chick- fil-a down the street did not look like their business was being impacted by this. a really important point. thank you. >> my name is jay. i am from clayton, north carolina. for the past two years, my family has been on the movement the government needs to be on and that is getting our household out of debt. we have embraced an incredible system and gotten to where the things that we wanted need -- the things that we need are what we pay for. the things we want, they have to wait. it is just ridiculous that the government is, what is it, $4 billion a day that we go in more debt? it is insane that the government has to spend some much money.

i am thinking not about myself of my children. my grandchildren and where they will be. what this country will be like in 20, 30 years. if we continue to spend at the rate we're going now and expect 10% of the people to pay for it. it is insane. there really has to be something put in place, be it a balanced budget amendment are something, has got to go into place where we can get back to being financially and fiscally responsible. but the good news is governor romney has a good track record on getting budgets and businesses in shape. the federal government needs it badly. the governor of massachusetts balanced every budget when he was there. inherited a deficit and left the state in a positive financial position. to give you a quick math, for every dollar the federal government spends, they do not have 40 cents of it.

so there are different numbers to throw a around but think about that. what if for every dollar he spend in your house, you did not have 40 cents of it. it is irresponsible, it is unsustainable. we need to stop it. president obama has made it worse. when he came to office, he made a bunch of promises and broke almost all of them. he said he was going to cut the deficit in half in his first term. he did not cut it in half. he tripled it, or nearly so. you can set aside the rhetoric of one side or the other and look at it from the perspective of eighth grade math. the math does not work anymore. this may be the last election where we have a chance to get this thing turned around, short of an implosion of a dramatic nature. we have to get governor romney in there. the current president cannot, will not do it. is incapable of getting his

budget under control. >> we have lived here about seven years. we came from new jersey. we can now for a better life. one of the concerns i am faced with is, i will go back to small-business. i am looking to open a small business. i have put it on hold because i am concerned about how obama's tax plan will interfere with my business and how the health care plan will interfere. he says he is for helping small business. as somebody out there looking and trying to get things done, it is not what they tell you it is. it is difficult to try to do this. i do not think he is pro- business. we need somebody who will be focused on a pro-business.

>> are you waiting were still working on it? >> it is all in place. it is a matter of pulling the trigger. i am very concerned. the regulatory issues are a major factor for me. i will be bogged down so much with that i will not be able to grow the business. >> do you have something you want to add? >> we have twins, 14-year-old boys. they will go to high school next year. you worry about what will happen to them. are there going to be jobs? how much taxes will they have to pay? what will they have to handle? it worries me with things like that. >> i have two children, one in high school. you tell them things we learned

and things we believe in like if you work hard and study hard and do your best and play by the rules, there will be opportunities for you. sometimes i worry about if president obama gets elected if that will ring true. we have almost half of the high school and college graduates that cannot find work or are dramatically under employed. we make promises to our children about the american dream. we want to make sure it remains open. we have graduates that cannot find work or are under employed, as a parent it makes you feel like we have to find a way to keep that promise to our kids. >> when i worked for 30 years. you make money. you want to move forward and get promoted.

it makes you feel like you are evil because you make money. i am proud of what i have accomplished. according to obama we are evil. because we give our kids a good life. >> you explain it well. there is a limit to how much people can be kicked in the shins before they say i am discouraged and maybe it is now worth it. we want people to enjoy their retirement but we do not want entrepreneurs to say it is too hard. it is not worth the risk. >> we have been here for about 15 years. we came down from a virginia looking for a lower cost of living. i am a software engineer. i am concerned about jobs and the debt.

there is something more fundamental that concerns me, and that is the expansive powers of the executive branch that seems to be growing. i teach my doctors about checks and balances. they are in place so that one branch of government does not have too much power. i see an executive branch picking and choosing what laws to enforce be it any of the area's -- how does that sustained over time? i cannot imagine a system where the next president says there will enforce a different set of laws. what is the sustainability with powers going into the executive branch? look at the budget. we pass a huge budget and say dole them out as you see fit. the executive branch is not representative, congress is. how do we pull back in the

powers of the executive branch? >> you may have heard the president repealed some welfare reform. we did welfare reform in the 1990's. really good success and the progress of emphasizing work and getting people to train for work. he has relaxed standards, not by going to the congress but by issuing a direct. i think the answer is a couple of things. when congress passes laws we need members of congress who do not outsourced details to the bureaucracy. tell your members of congress to expect a loss that mean what they say and do not leave latitude for the bureaucracy to fill in. we should have a president that respects checks and balances and if there is an overstepping in that regard, there is the court system, which is the third

check and balance. i share your concern. if you have too much done, it starts to erode the checks and balances of the three institutional -- >> good point. it would help if they wrote them in more detail. members of congress do not go into the details so they say department of xyz, go to abc and we will check back and later. they have a lot of time on their hands. >> my name is debbie. i have been a home school mom for 10 years and i work for a start up that is bringing a free market solution to health care. i am excited to be a part of that. my concern is similar. the economy and jobs running on a limited government. the government reaching into areas it does not have the

constitutional authority to do so and to get involved in. in the name of solving problems are making things better, the mortgage industry or college education. so i guess as i look down the road again looking at the future and my kids and their kids, what does that mean for their freedoms and opportunities? what cost is it laying at their feet? >> history is often a good guide of how things might work out. when ec countries that have taken their government on spending or overreach on other ways, history shows what happens. parts of europe and you see governments that overspent, spent in manners that were not sustainable. have government involvements to such a degree that it becomes stifling and discouraging to

private enterprise and all the things you need. if you can see where they are heading if we do not get this back on track. the good news is the american people are pretty wise. if you ask them if the country is in the right direction, the majority say no. the wisdom shines through if we make sure we can do our work and how gov. romney get his message out and presented to the people. i think it is their conclusion governor mitt romney will have a better vision. the president does not have the country on the right direction. >> how are we doing on time? where is the time keeper? they are out skating. i want to go skating in a few minutes. did anybody bring their skates? will you go in your shorts? >> absolutely. >> i checked my luggage for the sole purpose of bringing a pair

of skates with me. how did the canes to this year? not so good. it is up and down. the wild had a tough year, too, but we grabbed a couple of free agents. are the panthers looking all right? who will stand out as an up and comers? >> cam newton. >> we had adrian petersen but he blew out his knee. everybody is keeping an eye out on how he is looking. jumping back to the economy, you have a high unemployment rate, of skates with me. over 9%. it is hard. i am sure you have felt the effects of that. if we can get the country moving, that will help north carolina as well. >> one of the things that was encouraging -- 1 romney came out and said on day one, i will

do this and i will do that. i think people want to hear more of that. it is enough for me that he is not obama. for some people who are afraid of any change want to know specifically what his plan is. will he repeal executive orders that obama sits down and -- obama has all but admitted he cannot work with anybody from a different party. that would be great if he is a king. and our country where we have a two party system. for he to be able to sit down and write a few executive orders and not be challenged, what would president romney do on the one?

>> that is a great question. i will give you some details. i know it is not just about words but specific action items. on the tax reform -- scott is giving me the -- >> i am sorry. [laughter] >> on tax reform, cut the corporate tax rate down to 25%. it detects a consistent with taxes for businesses with the rest of the businesses -- countries and the world. 20% across the board. most small businesses pay their taxes on the proceeds from small business on their individual returns. their partnerships or there are limited liability corporations or the like. let's make sure we have an

american energy policy aggressive vector's after the huge opportunity we have an american energy including shell oil and shell gas. north dakota, ohio and lots of other places. go after it aggressively and have a regulatory framework that protects consumers safety and picks up the tempo and ability to get the reserve. repeal obamacare bar replace the one of the lines we talked about earlier. replace the executive orders on other topics, as many as appropriate. then we have to do a number of other things. we have a situation involving the current president that is unfair with respect to the relationship between unions and businesses. he stacked it with people who are political operatives are politically biased. you saw when boeing wanted to

build a new facility in south carolina, he had the government tried to interfere and tell a private business they could not expand their business within the united states had a different location. another example of government over reach. that we have regulatory things we need to do. they are slow and expensive and heavy and confusing and contradictory. the whole system -- the tempo needs to be modernized. it needs to be something that encourages investment and job growth and business start-ups and makes it more difficult. i know that is a quick spin through but that is some of the checklist items we have to get down. we are getting the puck here. if you want to go skating, i would love to see you up there. thank you for taking the time out of your weekend. thank you for the hospitality in your lovely state.

i appreciate it. [applause] >> more from the mitt romney campaign trail coming up. next is wisconsin congressman paul ryan. he campaigned for mitt romney on saturday, july 29. he spoke at a rally outside the campaign bus. his comments are just under 10 minutes.

people like to cling to their guns and religion. every now and then, president drops his veil. he is not so coy about his ideology and he lets us know what he thinks. it is that kind of thinking that leads to the kind of government we are getting. it is that kind of thinking that is behind the idea of a government driven economy striving for a government centered society. it is no wonder we have the worst economic recovery since world war ii. it is no wonder we have the biggest deficits since world war two. it is no wonder we have the worst jobs quarter in two years. it is no wonder one out of six people are in poverty today. the highest rates in a generation. do you know what?

it does not have to be this way. help is on its way. [applause] we have in the man we have nominated to be our standard bearer and mitt romney, a man who understands the idea of america. our rights to not come from government, they come from nature and god. look at the declaration of independence. we are built on investment, taking risk, caring for each other and our communities, the american idea of an opportune society. that is what the american system of limited government, risk-taking, community solving, free enterprise, the british system ever designed in the world. [applause]

our country is so special it is done so many things for so many people. it is under arrest. if we stay on the path we are on, a nation in debt, in doubt, and a decline, we see a future where our children have a lower standard of living than the one we got, severing the legacy of leaving the next generation better off. it does not have to be that way. all we have to do is take the great principles that built this country and made a great, apply it to the problems today and save america. that is what mitt romney is about. he knows what it takes to get the economy growing. the man in the white house -- i rest my case. here is the deal. we have had a lot in wisconsin thrown at us.

we have lots of elections in wisconsin. we are winning these elections in wisconsin. come on. we are winning these. last summer they tried to take back our state legislature they failed. they tried to take the supreme court, they failed. they tried to recall our governor and they failed. [applause] on an june 5, we saved wisconsin. on november 6 wisconsin saves america. [applause] they have already conceded the state is up for grabs. we know what to do. we have just done it and we have to do it again. the reason we are doing this is because we have men and women of convictions going and doing what they said. we elected legislators to fix

these problems once and for all. there is no person that better embodies the idea then the guy standing behind me. [applause] the three of us are three does from oshkosh. we have seen what our state is capable of. we know we can turn it around. if we turn it around we can give this man a majority. we can have a president that can work and get it back on track. and we can have more people with courage and conviction like the man behind me. i am so proud to be working with this man. [cheers and applause] please join me in welcoming our man from oshkosh, senator ron johnson.

[cheers and applause] >> thank you. thank you. what paul said it is important. i am just a guy from oshkosh. that is what we need in this country. we need individuals who love america and who understand that america is in peril. its future hangs in the balance. you are the future. your kids of the future. it is utterly immoral and has to stop. you are the people that will stop -- what is right about

coming out here, people we have seen time and time again. i am seeing a lot more new faces. that is what is crucial. [applause] we need that. think about what you need to do. you need to talk to your friends, your family, your neighbors. every vote counts. you have more power than you can possibly a mansion. now it is time to put that into place. now it is time to exercise the power. we do have a phenomenal candid it. somebody who understands what made america great unlike the current occupant in the white house.

paul had a couple of quotes. i have a couple of more. remember, the president said the economy was doing fine. his policies are working. i do not think so. here is the most telling quote. he said in five days we will fundamentally change the united states of america. we do not need to fundamentally change the nation. we have the greatest nation in the history of mankind that. we need to make sure president obama is a one-term president. [cheers and applause] i know that you will go out there and you will work hard to make sure mitt romney is the next president of the united

states. [applause] get out there. god bless america. [cheers and applause] ♪ >> we have been showing you some of the possible candidates. we will look of some of the governor's being considered. the senator spoke to volunteers at the mitt romney campaign office in springfield, virginia. even during tedious work like making phone calls will help the mitt romney campaign.

the reason i am here today is because virginia is ground zero in this presidential campaign. it is going to be critical that we get the votes out. every phone call that you may is going to get us one step closer to making sure that mitt romney is the next president of the united states. . it cannot happen soon enough. you have already discussed,. when you have got 1.5% economic growth, a very sluggish economic growth, over 40 months of unemployment above 8%. fuel prices have doubled.

the federal debt has gone up by 49% in the 3.5 years that this president has been in office. we cannot change the direction of this country soon enough. what this president is doing, you know, he has not met with his jobs council in 191 days. you would think that with the state of the economy and unemployment in this country, the president would be focused like a laser on getting the economy growing and putting the country back to work. in the 190 days he has not met with the jobs council, he has held 119 fund-raisers and has played 10 rounds of golf. he has his priorities straight, but his priorities are a lot more about the election than the economy and the jobs of hard working americans. we need to change direction for this country. the only way we will do that is

to elect somebody at the presidential level who knows how to lead this country, knows how to fix the economy, knows how to put americans back to work. i endorse mitt romney last fall before the iowa caucuses. i campaigned with him across iowa because i believe profoundly that he has the skill set, the experience, and the know-how to turn this country around, get the economy growing, putting americans back to work. the reason i know that is that he has a record of doing it. he took distressed companies when he was a private businessman, turned them around, create jobs. he took the state of massachusetts that was swimming in red ink and turned it around and left it with a surplus and reduce taxes and cut the unemployment down and more people back to work. he took the olympics and turned that around. he has a record of taking tough situations and turning them around. we're a tough situation. it will take presidential

leadership. you cannot do big things in washington d.c. unless you have presidential leadership. i am one of 535 members of congress. even though there are people in congress to have good ideas about how to fix things, you have to have a leader in the white house who is willing to go to work and lead the american people, lead the united states congress on a pathway to get this country back on the right track. i am very excited about this election. it is a critical election year. the consequences could not be greater. the stakes could not be higher. that is why we need every single person doing everything they possibly can between now and november to make sure we turn out all our votes on election day. i lost my first election by 524 votes. i lost my senate race by a narrow margin. i cannot tell you how many people came to me afterwards and said, if i known -- if i had

known it was going to be that close, i would have voted. i am not sure why they wanted to admit that, but the point is that every single vote counts. there is no substitute for getting people out on election day, getting their orders out. that is what you are about, identifying those voters, figuring out who they are, hopefully persuading those undecided voters, people who have not made up their minds yet to get them to vote the right way in november. these types of activities, the blocking and tackling and executing of small things in campaigns that makes a difference. everybody can do their part. not everybody's name is on the ballot, but everybody can do their part to set a different course for the future of this country built around the fundamental concept and principle of freedom instead of the fundamental principle and concept of this administration, which is government. this is a choice in this election between whether we believe in the power of freedom

or the power of government. this president and his administration and his allies in congress have doubled down on growing government at the expense of the private economy. every single day the government gets bigger and we have more bureaucrats and more regulations and more taxes in washington, the american people have fewer and fewer freedoms. it is about freedom. that is what is at stake. it hangs in the balance. we can do our part to tip that balance in favor of freedom. whether it is pending in the yard signs or making phone calls or walking neighborhoods or contributing to the campaign, whatever you can do, i want to ask you to work as hard as you can between now and november. this is about the future of this country. there has never been a time in our nation's history -- pete is exactly right. every politician says in each election year that this is the most important election ever. we think is because we might be

running for something. but if you look across this country, this is the most important election in a very long time. i honestly believe that if we do not get it right this time, we are heading in a direction that will make us more like a western european social democracy and less like the exceptional, distinctive nation that our founders and the people in virginia had in mind when they created this great republic so many years ago. i am thankful to be here. i am thankful for what you are doing. i cannot thank you for your service to this great country -- all the veterans here today. we are very blessed because of the service and sacrifice of some americans who, every single day, put on their uniform and defend our interest here at home and around the world. that is also a stake. we have a president who i do not think understands really how to lead this country, not only when it comes to fixing the economy, but maintaining america's place in the world.

we will change that in november when we elect mitt romney as the next president of the united states and when we elect george allen to the united states senate and patrick murphy to the house of representatives. if we will give mitt romney an opportunity to the president, we have to make sure he has a team he can work within congress. giving us a majority in the senate and electing a quality candidate who shares your values like patrick murray will give us a team that can turn this country around, get people back to work, and make america great again. thank you very much. god bless you. [applause] [applause] >> folks, when it comes to mitt romney's choice for number two, we have a favorite son in virginia who is a solid

conservative, a proven track record, great head of hair. if for some reason, mitt romney does not select him, there might be someone else who fits that bill as well. thank you for all of your work. >> marco rubio, and other possible vice-presidential pick held a campaign rally at an elementary school and las vegas, nevada. he talked about differences in the economic policies between mitt romney and president obama. this is about 20 minutes. ♪

>> thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. you guys will tell me if anybody makes funny faces behind my back, right? thank you for having me. i am so glad to be back here. i am sorry it is so warm. i always love coming here in the winter. i went to school here from third grade until fifth grade. the good news is that the office is not open to days of the press cannot check my records. i won the marbles championship right out there on the lawn. remember 12 was my fourth grade class. -- room number 12 was my fourth grade class.

right outside on the other side was my fifth grade class. in here, we did all bar assemblies. i remember being in this very room the day the hostages came home from iran. we had a really good president that day. his name was ronald reagan. [applause] that is what we are working on getting back, a really good president in the white house. thank you. i see members of my family. i have more family and las vegas than i do in miami. they have more kids, too. anyway, we are doing our part. my wife is here today somewhere. where is my wife? there she is.

i told you i went to elementary school. she had doubts. i am honored to be here today on behalf of mitt romney and all of the other wonderful candidates. one of the reasons we have these events is to encourage people to get involved and engaged. i note it is warm so i do not want to take a lot of time. this election is important. i want to tell you why it matters. i think it begins by understanding who we are and why we are different. for much of human history, almost everyone on earth was poor. every country was a handful of really rich people and everybody else worked for them. people starved and suffered. it was truly the era of the haves and have nots.

that began to change about two centuries ago. the reason why a change because we did was because of this place called america. founded on a powerful principle. every single human being on your oath, it did not matter who you were, every person had certain rights given to them from god. [applause] chief among those rights was the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. what is happiness? what is happiness? happiness is the ability to do what you want for a living. it is the opportunity to raise your children. do have enough money to buy the things you like.

our political rights gets all of the press. our economic liberties are just as important. our economic liberties are real. you should have the freedoms to pursue happiness. economic happiness is the ability to earn your accomplishments. to earn them by opening up a business so you can feel the sense of accomplishment of building something. if you build a business, you build a business. keep clapping, i can drink some water while you do. if you are here to have called me today, if you could wait another five minutes. -- heckle me today, if you could wait another five minutes.

to get paid to do something you love for a living, that is economic happiness. it was the story of so many in my family. the opportunity to work somewhere that page you enough money so you could provide a better future for your children. why is that possible? what kind of system are those things possible? it is possible in a system where the economy is not run by government. this idea has worked so well for 200 years. the result is the free and most prosperous nation that the earth has ever known. despite its success, despite this extraordinary success of free enterprise, there have always been voices in america who do not believe in it. economists or professors or people with too much time on their hands. [laughter] probably, for the first time in

my lifetime, it also happens to be the president of the united states. he does not believe in the free enterprise system and he does not understand it. he does not believe in the free enterprise system. he thinks the free enterprise system is the only way you can get rich is by making some announce -- someone else poor. if you are successful at building a business, it is not because you were successful, it is because you got lucky. you need to share your success. he does not believe in the free enterprise system and he does not understand it. that is why this election is more than just a campaign between two men. it is a choice between two very different visions of the world. two very different views of what the government should -- the

role of government. mitt romney believes in the free enterprise system because he has seen it. all of our candidates. [applause] even and local office, i beg you will find people who believed in the free -- i bet people find people who believe in the free enterprise system. they understand how prosperity is created. someone makes some money. they use that money to start a new business or to grow that new business. as a result, they make some more money for themselves or they hire people to work for them. these people turn around and take the money and spend it. helping other people start businesses and provide for their

families. that is how prosperity works. [applause] what is the role of government? government has a role to play. write rules, rules of conduct. what is legal and what is not legal. so that everyone understands what the rules of the game are. provide for infrastructure, roads, national security, education at the state level. you cannot grow economically if we are being invaded. that is the role of government. that is the proper role of government. every time it does anything beyond that -- and provide a safety net.

as a way of helping those who cannot help themselves and as a way of help -- to help themselves that are trying to get back on their feet. what happens? what happens when people decide we want government to do more than that? the rules become unpredictable. they get crazy. the government starts changing the rules depending on what ever they think it is the right thing. people get scared to invest in countries like that. they get scared to start a business in a country where they have no idea what the rules will be tomorrow. those kinds of government are expensive. taxes have to go up. you ought to be able to pay for the things. what happens when taxes get too high?

here is what is worse, the government gets its money from somewhere. usually, it is out of the hands of the private sector. it is a dollar that is not available to start a business or to grow one. it also means less money that people have in their pockets to spend. this community depends heavily on tourism. tourism does not happen unless people have money in their pockets. every dollar you take out of their pockets in a new tax is a dollar they cannot spend here. there are certain things that government has to do, but if you go too far, that is money they cannot spend.

that hurts everyone. that is hurting you right now. that is what mitt romney understands. that is what this election is about. the role of america in the world. it matters, that is what you are working for. you are working to replace somebody would someone like mitt romney who understands what has made as prosperous in the past and understand what will make as prosperous in the future as well. [applause] i will close by reminding you that the you know who else believes in the free enterprise system? i do. coming unique here today, i am reminding -- coming in here

today, i am reminded why i believe in this so much. 25 years later, in search of that same quest, they came out last. my dad worked as a bartender and my mom as a maid. my parents never made that much money. they made just enough to buy us a home, not a big win, but a secure one. we were encouraged to dream and we knew that if we worked hard, the dreams that have been impossible for them would be possible for us. those dreams bring me here today. across two decades, i come back to the place where those dreams took flight. i am reminded of the special obligations those of us have to those that have those dreams now. now was not the time for us to go back to the ways of the old

world. now was not the time for us to go back and become like those countries that people come here to get away from. that was not the time for us to embrace the policies the trapped generations of people in poverty from which they could not escape. [applause] cannot ever be afraid to say that. the reason why we are better than the rest of the world is because we are the the rest of the world. america is not a race or religion. america is people from all of their work -- all over the world to build a life that was impossible.

that is why here in this country, the poor, the tired, the people who could not even succeed, they came and america, the single greatest nation in the history of all mankind. [applause] that is our common heritage. those of us who have lived it just a generation ago have the special obligation to defend it. even as i stand before you today, in walking distance from the very place, there are people who have the jobs my parents once had. there are people that live the life we once led. within walking distance of this very place, there are people who walk the steps we once walked in.

they deserve the same america that my parents and our grandparents gave to us. that is the chance that we have in this election. [applause] i got to tell you -- i do a lot of speeches, but very few of them have made me as nervous as this one. because -- [applause] that was not the kind of heckler i was expecting, but thank you for the water. i love you. thank you for having me back. run for the supreme court?

jesus. what elementary did you go to, sir? look. so much of what i know to be true about the world i learned, i know to be true around this very place. this is a special country, and it is something which should never apologize for. but it did not become that way by accident, by luck, or by chance. became that way because people chose to believe in the power of the individual, and what a free people in pursuit of happiness can do together. it was not government or your leaders that give you the right. it is the job of the government

to protect the rights that god has given you. those ideas made this country. in so doing, they also changed the world. no matter where you live on this planet, there is someone just like you but was able to accomplish here and what they never would have accomplished in the nation of their own birth. it reminds you of how important the american miracle is not just for us, but for all the world. two decades ago, the american miracle live in my house, in the lives of a bartender and a maid who made it their mission in life to give us everything they could not have. that repeats itself and other households. in this century, in this country, in this community, a bartender and a maid can still open doors for their children

that were closed for them. that is the issue of this election. it is what we decide. we must either embrace the things that made us great, or become just like everything else. i know that in the depths of our heart, no matter how scared we are, because times are tough -- when you are getting paid less and working harder, and your house is worth less than it was, and your kids cannot find a job, and people are worried, that is the time when they tell us that the only way we can have a better future is to abandon our liberty and freedom and give them the power to distribute our income and run our economy. that has never worked anywhere we have tried. every time we have tried it here, it has made us poorer. every country that ever tried it, it made them poorer. now is not the time to go

backward. the dark days of human history, when what you were going to be in life was decided by your parents and how connected they were, now is the time to embrace the things that make us different, better, and special. that is what november has given us the chance to do. that is what you are working for. up and down the ballot, in race after race, the choice between people who believe in the things that make us different, and those that have asked us to apply the policies that would make us like everybody else -- you will decide through your willingness to work and make a difference. i promise i will do my part if you will do yours. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> upcoming, we will bring you republican governors who have been mentioned as possible running mates for mitt romney. chris christie of new jersey, nikki haley of south carolina, bobby jindal of louisiana, and

scott walker of wisconsin were in aspen, colorado on wednesday, talking about a variety of issues their states are facing, and issues facing the country. some later joined mitt romney at a rally on thursday. we will show you those comments tonight at 8:00 eastern. earlier today, republican presidential candidate mitt romney was in north las vegas, where he called the increase in the unemployment rate "an extraordinary record of failure by president obama." he also talked about his five. plan for the middle class, unveiled yesterday in colorado. due to technical problems, here is a portion of this event. it is 20 minutes. >> i understand you declared a state of emergency, and declared this a disaster area under state law.

the president has not kept policies that put america's families back to work. i will get america working again. [applause] i mean -- you know this. these numbers are not just statistics. these are real people, really suffering, having hard times. 23 million americans out of work, or stopped looking for work, or way underemployed. the official unemployment number, 8.3%. that is the longest time, 42 months -- the longest time we have had unemployment above 8% in american history, since this has been recorded. this is an extraordinary record of failure.

the president's policies have not worked, because he thinks government makes america work. he is wrong. it is people that make america work. [applause] i hope the president understands. but all the businesses that the mccandless family organized were not built by government. they were built by people, not by government. and so the time has come for a plan that will actually get america's workers back to work, that will create more jobs and more take-home pay, and i know how to do that. this is not a mystery for me. this is not theory. this is practice. i have five things i am going to

do, five things i am going to do in my plan to help get the middle class working again, with more jobs and more take-home pay. putting them in place, it will get the economy going again, get higher incomes again. we are going to take advantage of energy -- oil, gas, coal. [applause] and when i say take advantage, let me tell you the gold. by the end of my second term, by the end of my second term -- [applause] you got that, did you? by the end of my second term, north america will be energy independent. will not be buying any oil from the middle east or venezuela.

number two. the american workers of today and tomorrow will have the skills to succeed in america. that means better schools, better job training. we cannot continue to allow our schools to perform at the bottom of the world. we need our schools to be the best in the world. we did it in my state. we can give our kids the future they need with great schools. [applause] number 3, we have to have a trade that works for america. that means if people cheat like china, we do not let them keep doing that. we open new markets, so we can sell our products to new places. i want to open up latin america, so we can sell more goods to latin america. we have language skills that will help us get there. i want to open up latin- american. number four, there is a problem

in a country that has too much debt. what happens is the people who have looked at the amount of debt the country has have shown that if you have too much debt, it slows down the rate of growth of businesses and job creators, and the overall economy. we are going to have to get serious about doing something politicians talk about, but do not do. that is cut spending, cut the deficit, and finally get america on track to have a balanced budget, and i will do it. that is number four. [applause] number 5, we finally have to champion small business in this country, instead of attacking it. almost everywhere i go, people who are in small business say,

"why does it feel like the government treats me like i am the enemy? the government is always on my back." the government now has a plan to raise taxes on small business, taking the tax rate from 35% teel 40%. the national foundation of independent businesses has said those tax policies will cost 700,000 jobs. we cannot afford to lose more jobs. rice university looked at my tax plan and said it will create millions of jobs. that is what we have to do to help small business. [applause] there are a lot of things hurting small business these days, but there is something else that has been a cloud. i was talking to a guy who owned a number of restaurants in the las vegas area. he said if obamacare goes through, i do not know how i can hold on to my businesses.

i am going to take out the cloud of obamacare and return it to personal responsibility. [applause] let me tell you what those five things will do. in just four years, in my first term, we will add 12 million new jobs to america. will have more jobs and take home pay. as employers are competing, they will have to raise wages and benefits. i want better -- better benefits, better wages, and more jobs for american middle-class citizens and their families. this is the course america has to take. the road we are on now, you will see bigger government and fewer jobs. that is not the right way. let us get america working again. [applause]

by the way, by the way, this five. plan is not based -- five point plan is not based on spending years in academics, coming up with theories. this is based on actually having had a job in the private sector. [applause] i started a business of my own, which started small and grew to become very large. i also was able to help invest in some other businesses that started up. you have heard some of those names. you have heard of staples, of course, but also the sports authority. my firm was able to help get it going. another is called bright horizons children's centers. each employs thousands of people today. when free individuals, when the free market -- when individuals encourage the start of a new

business, people are careful with their money and make sure every dollar is being spent as well as it possibly can be, for the right products, getting the customers, making sure your distribution is in place. staples, when we got going, we did not rent a fancy office building. we were brand new. the managers and our team said, "we are going to use the back of an old shopping center that has been abandoned." we got used furniture for the people who worked there. in the board room, we had a big table surrounded by used naugahyde chairs. these were so old that once you sat down, you had to be athletic to rise out of these things. i compare that with what happens with president obama's government giving hundreds of millions of dollars to some start up a country -- company like someone drove -- like

solyndra. the corporate headquarters looks like the taj mahal. i have been there. today, staples employs roughly 90,000 people. [applause] solyndra, i think you know how many people it employs. the president does not understand how the private sector works, how small business works, what it takes for a business person to say, "let us hire another person. let us invest in that person." these are the people who build enterprises, not government. you heard what he said the other day. i could not believe what he said. it may go down as the most famous "of his entire presidency. he said, "if you have a business, you did not build

that. someone did that for you." he does not understand that it is entrepreneurs of all kinds that have built this country, free individuals, reaching for excellence, reaching for achievement. it is kid saying, "i am going to study hard to make the honor roll." i appreciate the work of the bus driver who got them there. i love the bus driver. i want as many good bus drivers as possible. if that kid got the honor roll, it is because he or she earned it, not because the bus driver got them there. if somebody working in a factory or a shop like this decides, "i am going to get more skills, take more training to get a job promotion" -- to get those skills, he or she had to drive

their cars, which meant the dmv had to give them a license. but they deserve credit for that promotion, not the dmv. [applause] when john mccandless and his sons took the risk with the money they had saved, to start these businesses and hire other people -- if credit goes to them and the people they hired, the people they work here -- i appreciate government, but it did not build this. those people build this business. [applause] the prison and has been saying we are taking him out of context. you go look at the rest of his speech. it is on youtube. the context is worse than the " -- the quote.

he said, "a lot of people think they are smart, and think they are working hard." i do not know where he is going with this idea. we celebrate people who are smart and who work hard. we celebrate achievement in this country. we do not celebrate government. [applause] look. this goes back to the very beginning of america. this is something that is so fundamental to the american spirit that we are surprised as we hear the president talked about smart and hard work and

who built a business in the way that he did. it just seems so strange to us, because we know that when the founders wrote the declaration of independence, they saw something which was perhaps beyond their years and experience. they saw something perhaps inspired or brilliant. they said it was not government who gave us our rights. these rights were in doubt on us by our creator. -- endowed on us by our creator. among these rights were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. three people in this country have come here for centuries. people come here today, seeking these freedoms. the right to pursue happiness as they choose. that has made america the powerhouse we are, respected around the world. i just came back from overseas. i got the chance to meet a hero. i met like wallace of -- lech

wallesea. he said no to despots and oppression. i am always impressed by the power of one person to say no to people who would be oppressive, and to make a difference, and in some respects change their lives, the lives of their community, perhaps even the life of a nation. he said no to the tyrants from russia that were occupying his country, and the lead to a change that has brought freedom to millions of people. i think of rosa parks, who was on that bus. when the bus driver said, "give up your seat for this white man," she said no. [applause]

a fellow in tunisia was told by a government bureaucrat that he could not open his fruit stand. he, in protest, committed suicide by self immolation. from that came a revolution throughout the middle east that continues to roll. i think about the man who was leading his nation as a tyrant and a dictator, ceausescu. he got a crowd together, to tell them about the wonderful things he had done. 200,000 people came together. he stood up and began to speak to them, going through all the wonderful things he had done to make their life better. an older woman looked up and said, "lawyer." she said it again, "liar."

people around her began saying it. it spreads through the entire crowd. he tried to flee, and a soldier grabbed him. ultimately, he was executed. individuals make a statement of freedom and say no to oppression. they change the world. these are times for all americans to stand for the things we believe in most equally. i love this country because of the freedom of our people, of our ability to change the world. [applause] this is a time when the world needs american leadership. that is what like woolsey -- lech walesea told me. we need leadership in our homes, in our economy, in our military. a strong america is the best ally peace has ever known.

this is a time for choice for america. we are going to decide whether we are going to continue to have the policies of a president who has not had a job in the private sector, policies that have led america to have 42 straight months of unemployment above 8%, 23 million out of work. those policies lead to an america that is not as strong as it must be for ourselves, for our children, and for the world. we can instead take a course which i will represent, which is to keep america strong air, do the things that will get jobs again, make sure that people know their future is bright and their kids' future is bright. i love this country. i will do everything in my power to keep america strong. we will take back america, and keep america the hope of the earth. thank you so much. thank you.

>> following these remarks, mitt romney spoke about senator harry reid's recent comments that mitt romney had not paid his taxes, and said his pick for running mate would come before august 29. this is 15 minutes. >> good morning. sorry for the extra noise. if we did not have the air conditioner on, you probably could not stand here. i turn to you for any questions you might have. please.

this administration said, if they got there stimulus, they would hold unemployment below 8%. they said the measure and have not been below 8% since. with this number of middle-class families struggling, it is clear these policies have not worked. his team said that by now we would have unemployment at 5.5%. it is still above 8%, 8.3%. i am not going to look at every monthly statistic. but this continues a pattern of american families really struggling, having hard times. the president's policies are to blame for not having gotten the economy back on track. a lot of people are suffering in

this country. i think it is an extraordinary failure of policy, a failure of leadership. and i think it is a moral failure for a country as successful and prosperous as our own to go for years in a mode that feels too many people like a recession. some said that if you are unemployed, it is a depression. there are a lot of people having a hard time. the president's approach has not worked. we have listened to him give a major speech on his economic plans to get people working, and there was nothing new. just another stimulus. i have laid out a plan which will get americans working again, will create 12 million jobs, and perhaps more than that. i am confident we can get america working again. it will take not government stepping in, but government encouraging the private sector to take the lead in creating new businesses, starting the kind of employment opportunities that americans look for.

the economists will tell us what the future holds. we are all ready for the 23 million americans -- it is a recession for them, if not worse, if not a depression. >> we have heard about uncertainty for the private sector, based on government decisions. big issues you would have to deal with -- one is the cuts to the pentagon, the automatic sequester. how urgent is it to address that? what are your ideas? some people are also saying tax reform, which provides uncertainty and could take up to a year. what is your view of how long major tax reform would take, if you were elected president? >> the sequestration, i would like to see the president and congress come together and put a year-long run away from where we are now through the term of the next president. hopefully me, but if not me,

president obama. give me or the next president the capacity to reform our tax system and make sure our military plans are consistent with the needs of american leadership. i think the idea of massive cuts to our military is a terrible idea. it is going to cause layoffs. it is good to cause a sensation of various programs essential to american workers. -- it is going to cause a cessassion of various programs essential to american workers. clearly, the president should step forward and say these cuts are unacceptable. the cuts to the military are unacceptable. and the uncertainty caused by the tax changes -- some call it a tax cliff. these things do not help the american economy. we need stability. let us have at least a year of run with, or even six months after the new president is elected, so we can have the tax

reform and the military spending plans and budget plans consistent with that individual's leadership and views. my own view on tax reform is that we should make our tax code simpler. we should bring down rates. high income people are not going to pay a smaller share of taxes in america if i am president. i have been interested in seeing that the president continues to say things that are patently untrue. my tax policy will not reduce the taxes paid by high income americans. with regards to middle income americans, i want to lower the taxes paid. i know there are groups out there that put together assumptions and say different things, but my plan is clear. i will not raise taxes on the american people. i will not raise taxes on middle income americans.

assertions to the contrary are simply false. i am afraid the campaign knows that, and i hope members of the media focus on that. i want to bring down rates, limits deductions and exemptions for high income people. but when you finish going to my plan, and we scored it properly, i will not have a plan that lowers the share paid by high income folks, or that raises taxes on middle income americans. >> individuals are looking for some sense of a plan. if you are a president, with tax reform takes six months? a year? >> the length of time is dependent in part upon whether we elect republicans in the senate and house, and by what number, so i cannot give you a prediction of how long it would take to put in place a full tax reform program until we had those individuals in place. i can tell you i think one of the great opportunities for our nation was proposed when the tax

commission, the budget commission, came back. i am talking about some symbols -- simpson-bowles. why the president did not seize upon that -- if he thought some aspects needed to be adjusted, make some adjustments. instead, it just died. we need to have presidential leadership. we have not had presidential leadership on budget matters. with regards to the senate, we have gone three years without a budget. it is absolutely extraordinary that a nation like ours, by virtue of the failure of leadership, does not even have a budget in place. >> senator reed has said you did not pay taxes for 10 years. could you silence these remarks by disclosing more of your tax returns? >> harry reid really have to put up or shut up. who are your sources?

let us have him explain who that is. by the way, i understand what he is trying to do. he is tried to deflect the fact that jobs numbers are bad, that americans are out of work, and throw anything up on the screen that will grab attention from the fact that policies of the white house have not worked to put americans to work, and the senate does not even have a budget in place. let me say categorically i have paid taxes every year, and a lot of taxes. a lot of taxes. he is simply wrong. that is what i am anxious for him to give us the names of the people who put this forward. i would not be surprised to hear names from the white house or the obama campaign. like these other charges -- this is a time when i took the president at his word, when he called me. he said, "this is going to be an important campaign on the direction of the country, and a

debate for the direction of the country." i had hoped it would be a debate on the direction of the country. what we are seeing instead is an attack -- one attack after the other, misleading, false attacks. the advertisements saying i will raise taxes on the middle class. that is patently false. by the way, the president has raised taxes on the middle class, as determined by the supreme court. that being said, the president has advertisements on my stand on life, which are also wrong, and they know they are wrong. this is a time to have a debate on the direction of the country, not a series of attacks that are misguided, inaccurate, untrue, and detract from the real issues america faces. and those are important issues. i happen to believe that when we finally come to the debates and have a chance to talk about

these things, and the american people really focus on what is happening, that they will put aside this silliness. i think that are putting it aside now. they realize what it is -- politics at its worst. >> instead of going back and forth with harry reid, when not release the tax returns and put the issue to bed? >> you can go on our website and see my financial disclosure statements, going back to 2002. you can see the tax returns i put out for 2010. those are, i think, hundreds of pages of documents. i have already received an estimate for 2011. as soon as that is completed, we are waiting for information to complete that. as soon as that is completed, we will put up the most recent year. i have already learned, from harry reid and others, that the people on the other side of the aisle will try to go to anything we give them, to distort it, to

turn it into something it does not say, and to try to make political fodder. i am falling -- following the president of john mccain, putting out two years of income tax returns and our financial disclosure statements, as required by law. you'll be surprised to see the amazing amount of data associated with our disclosure on line. i do not know who has the microphone. >> the obama campaign filed suit in ohio to try to reduce early voting by a few days for military living overseas. your reaction to that? the you think it is just unfair, going after the military in that way? >> i have not seen that report, so i cannot comment on the specific filing that you describe. i can tell you that i believe our military and the men and women in uniform have an absolute right to speak in this election.

their lives are affected by what happens in policies here in this country, and the direction of america. every effort should be taken by the government of the united states of america to assure that every member of the military has the right to vote, and their vote is counted. any effort to impede the right of our military members overseas or domestically in voting would be an extraordinary violation of the trust we should have for those who serve so valiantly. >> there are culture fights in your party recently -- a battle about chick-fil-a and about the muslim brotherhood, with michele bachman and members of congress calling on an investigation of those in the federal government. the you think these are important things your party is talking about now? >> those are not things that are part of my campaign. >> as your party puts together

its platform, do you think auditing the senate should be part of that platform? >> my view is that we should audit the fed, and that the actions of the fed should be open for the review of congress and the understanding of the american people. >> your advisers have publicly hinted that you are close to making a decision about your running mate. why can't you address where you are in that process and whether you have made a decision? >> i will absolutely beside it and announce my running mate before the third day of the republican convention in august. other than that, i have nothing for you. please. >> than in the spotlight with the gsa. president obama cannot take a trip on the taxpayers' dime. what are your thoughts on coming to las vegas? we need the tourism dollars.

we need the convention. what is your take, locally? >> i go back to the experience of what happened with rudy giuliani, in the case of a real national disaster. he said, "please come to new york." if i am president of the united states, i will tell people to come help nevada. las vegas is having tough times. north las vegas has declared a state of emergency, a disaster. the level of unemployment, the home prices are severe. i hope people recognize that nevada is open for business, doing well. company meetings are welcome. it is a fabulous site for conventions. come and enjoy this environment of warmth and water and hospitality. i will certainly carry that message, and hope that people recognize this is a great place to come and visit. i know it is a great place to

live as well. thank you. >> president obama today urged congress to extend middle-class tax cuts for those making under $250,000 a year. the senate passed such a bill last week, but the house instead passed a bill that would extend the tax cuts for high-income earners as well. from the white house, this is 10 minutes. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you, everybody. good morning. thank you. thank you so much. thank you. have a seat. it is great to see all of you. i hope you're having a wonderful summer. i am joined here today by moms and dads, husbands and wives. middle-class americans who work hard every single day to provide for their families.

like most americans, they work hard and they don't ask for much. they do expect, however, that their hard work will pay off. they want to know that, if they put in enough expert, if they're acting responsibly, then they can afford to pay the bills, that they can afford to own a home that they call their own, that they can afford to secure their retirement and, most of all, that they can afford to give their kids greater opportunity, the other children and grandchildren can achieve things that they didn't even imagine. every single decision that i make is focused on giving them that chance. if we want to keep moving this country forward, these are the folks who will get us there. this morning, we learned that our businesses created 172,000 new jobs in the month of july.

that means that we have now created 4.5 million new jobs over the last 29 months. and 1.1 million new jobs this year. those are our neighbors and family members finding work. and the security that comes with work. but let's acknowledge that we still have too many folks out there who are looking for work. we have more work to do on their behalf. not only to reclaim all the jobs that were lost in the recession, but also to reclaim the kind of financial security that too many americans have felt has been slipping away from them for too long. and we knew, when i started in this job, that this would take some time. we have not had to come back from an economic crisis this before this painful since the 1930's. but we also knew that, if we were persistent, if we kept at it, and kept working, that we would gradually get to where we need to be.

here is the thing. we will not get there -- we will get to where we need to be if we go back to the policies that helped to create this mess in the first place. and the last thing that we should be doing is asking middle-class families who are still struggling to recover from this recession to pay more in taxes. the building a strong economy begins with rebuilding our middle-class. and what we should do right now is give middle-class families and small business owners a guarantee that their taxes will not go up next year. when families have the security of knowing that their taxes won't go up, they are more likely to spend and more likely to grow the economy. when small business owners have certainty on taxes and can plan ahead, they are more likely to hire and create new jobs. and that benefits all of us.

that is why, last week, i was pleasantly surprised -- i was glad to see the senate come together and extend tax cuts on the first $250,000 of every family's income. that means that 98% of americans will not see their taxes go up next year. that means that 97% of small businesses wouldn't see their income taxes go up next year, not a single dime. that would be important. that is why it is so disappointing that so far, at least, house republicans have refused to follow the senate's example and do the same thing. on wednesday, they bolted to hold these middle-class tax cuts hostage unless we also spend a trillion dollars over the next decade on tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of americans. in fact, it is worse than that

because their plan would actually raise taxes on 25 million hard-working american families by about $1,000 each. at a time when too many working families are already struggling to make ends meet, they want to give millionaires and billionaires and folks like me tax cuts that we don't need and that the country cannot afford, even if middle-class families have to pick up the tab for it. those are their priorities. this week, we learned that there are some in the republican party who do want to stop there. an independent nonpartisan study found that one plan at least would give more tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires and they would pay for those tax cuts by raising taxes on middle-class, an average tax hike of more than two thousand dollars for

families with children. i just think that we have our priorities skewed if the notion is that we give tax breaks to folks who don't need them and, to help pay for that, we tax folks who are already struggling to get by. that is not how you growing economy. you grow in economy from the middle up and from the bottom up. and the kind of approach that the house republicans are talking about is bad for families and bad for our economy. the people standing behind me should not have to pay more just so the wealthiest americans can payless. that is not just talk-down economics, but upside down economics. [laughter] instead of the middle class paying more, we should ask the wealthiest americans to pay a little more, a modest amount, so we can reduce our deficit and still make investments in things like education that help our economy grow. we are talking about folks like

me going back to the tax rates that existed under bill clinton. if you remember, that is when we created 23 million new jobs, we went from deficits to surplus, and most of the top did well, too, because, when middle class families have money in their pockets, they go out to buy that new car, the new appliance, the new computer for the kids come and go out where restaurant or, heaven forbid, they take a vacation every once in awhile. businesses do well because they have more customers. here is the thing. there are a lot of well-to-do americans, patriotic americans, who understand this and are willing to do the right thing, willing to do their part to make this country strong. for those of you who are keeping score at home, here's where we stand. we might have a whole bunch of disagreements with folks in the other party on whether it is a good idea to spend more money giving tax breaks to

millionaires were billionaires' and, frankly, that issue is probably not going to be resolved until after november. in the meantime, we say we all agree on extending tax cuts for middle-class families. the house says it agrees. the senate has already shown that it agrees. and i certainly agree. so let's at least work on what we agree on. let's keep taxes low for 98% of americans and we can argue about the other 2%. let's keep taxes low for the 97% of small-business owners and we can argue about the other 3%. if congress sends me a clean bill extending the tax cuts on the first $250,000 of every family's income, i will sign it right away. [applause]

i will sign it right away. there is no reason to wait. there is no reason to make families and small businesses anxious just so one party can score political points. go ahead and given that guarantee now that their taxes will go up next year. keep in mind one last point that i want to make. we are saying that nobody's income taxes go up on the first $250,000 of their income. even someone who makes more than that will still get a tax break on the first $250,000. do you understand? even somebody who is worth $200 million, on that first $250,000, your taxes will be lower. it is the right thing to do for our economy.

thosehouldn't be one of things we argue about for the next five years. [applause] let's do what the american people sent us here to do. let's work on those things we can agree on. let's make progress. let's do right by the people behind me and the millions of americans that they represent. i will be fighting every single day to make sure that you have opportunity. i expect and i hope that congress will do the same. thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. [applause] god bless america and have a great weekend. [applause]

>> a group of republican governors recently gathered in aspen, colorado to discuss education, immigration, and gun control. chris christie, bobby jindal, scott walker, bob mcdonnell, and nikki haley have also been mentioned as possible vice- presidential choices for mitt romney. the forum was held at the aspen institute. we will show it at 8:00 eastern, here on c-span. next, the former chief offshore drilling regulator warned that production increases in the gulf of mexico could "all come crashing down" in the event of another oil spill, and criticized congress for failing to pass any drilling registration -- legislation.

citibank has announced a tripling of energy production in the gulf by 2020. this is a little more than an hour. >> will get started. thanks for coming today. i am a member of the national press club newsmaker committee. i am a founding partner at the policy group at guiliani. i am pleased to be here, because i have lots of good friends on the panel. we have worked together on offshore drilling issues for a few years, because they have been in the news a little bit. i am going to introduce everybody really quickly. we are going to hear from each panelist individually. then, we'll take your questions after, and i will get to that when we get to the question and answer. we are live on c-span today, so welcome, those who are watching. we thank you for being here.

with us today to talk about offshore drilling and the politics of it -- this is going to focus more on the future. we are also going to look back on where we have been. we have a great panel, and i am excited to have them. to my immediate right is michael bromwich, the former director of the bureau of ocean and energy management and regulatory enforcement. did i get that right? he took over after the mid condo spill -- mikando spill and reorganize the agency. he now is with the bromwich group, which is a consulting firm. to his right is our favorite energy reporter. sorry, all you guys out here. jennifer dlouhy, of "the houston chronicle." she really does get the story

and has been great, and covered these issues very aggressively for the last two years, especially when we have had such a spotlight on it. welcome. to her right is doug wine steen -- -- weinstein, a longtime analyst on these issues and expert on many issues, from oil and gas development to master limited partnerships for renewals, which is a recent study of his, two things on call and utility issues. -- to things on coal and utility issues. finally, my good friend steve lavigne -- levine, who writes about the geopolitics of oil. he will focus more on some of the global impacts of what the

gulf means. i am pleased to have everybody here. i will turn it over to director bromwich to get it started. >> we will go from there. >> thank you for inviting me and for assembling this panel. let me talk about the recent past, present, and future of offshore drilling with the focus on the gulf of mexico. we begin with deepwater horizon, the fire and the spill and the 11 deaths at the 4.9 million barrels of oil. that popped the bubble of complacency on drilling for many years. it led to a comprehensive review of the accident itself and of the structure and the content of the regulation of offshore drilling.

it led to examination of ways, overhaul, the agency structure and it caused an intensive look at what new regulations were needed to regulate offshore and development. that led to the development of a number of reforms which we implemented while i was there. we enhanced prescriptive regulations through the drilling a safety rule which addressed casing issues and the certification of drilling programs and so forth. at the same time in 2010, the first performance-based set of regulations were implemented. that required the development of comprehensive programs to

minimize the risks in offshore operations. we did our best to enhance and foremost protections by eliminating categorical exclusions and more intensive analysis through site specific analysis. those were the reforms and we spent a tremendous amount of time for organizational reforms. we eliminated the structure of the former mmp and created a new structure that would eliminate the longstanding conflicts among the different missions of the old agency. we provided through the reorganization a new structure that allowed them to focus in a more single-minded way on their missions. one was balanced development of

offshore resources. and the regulation and enforcement function which had been starved of resources over the years. we did that and the new structure and the bureau of safety and environmental enforcement have accomplished what we have set out to do. one part was blown off with it a few months of my getting there. let's talk about the present. there was a slowing of the pace of permitting in terms of improving plans and permits. the chief cause in the leg was there were new rules that needed to be applied. there was some legitimate

confusion in the industry and the agency on how those requirements it should apply. and third, there was a lack of containment capabilities that existed. as we all remember, bp and others and the government struggled with the way to cap the well. it took 87 days to do it. there were not other resources available. an industry formed to consortium, but that equipment was not ready until many, months later. arguments suggesting the moratorium is extended beyond october of 2010 and it moved in to ignore the fact that until february 2011, there were no

adequate containment capabilities. if we had started permitting applications to drill without the containment capability being ready, i think there would have been a case for impeaching me. the pace picked up as soon as those contained capabilities were available in the spring of 2011. industry became more familiar with the regulatory rules and how they should be applied. and because the process started to move again. the pace has picked up substantially.

look at the current data on the website and there is a small current backlog and a low number of permit applications in the return category. and at this time, deep water permits are being granted roughly at the pace of eight to nine a month. i think everyone has to acknowledge that there has been remarkable progress. the number of deep water rigs is at or near those levels. the pace of permitting is at or near those levels. if you take the period before maconda, 67 new wells deepwater permits were approved. the take a similar period and 61 new permits were approved. the ability of the ad agency to continue processing the permits is dependent on a mainstream and that will be up to congress to maintain and continue. let's talk about the future.

i think based on the recent fails and the data on rigs that i've talked about, i think no one can deny the future looks bright. a successful sale in december, $338 million in high bids. 56 companies submitted almost 600 bids on for 450-plus tracks.

let me close with a sobering note. i think this could come crashing down in the event of another accident. how do we avoid that? there has to be continuing investments in safety and environment protection and they must keep pace with advanced technology and the ambition to move into frontier areas. those advances needed a place in prevention, containment, and in

the spill response. innovations in safety and environmental protection with each other and with the government. there needs to be research on the challenges posed by frontier environments. industry and government, again. there needs to be creative steps to bolster the technical expertise of government through exchange programs with other countries and with industry. that is something that needs to be looked at very carefully. there needs to be continued focus on recruitment of engineers with an adequate level of expertise and efforts to retain them in the government. if you don't have regulators with appropriate training, things will slow down. the needs to be a focus on insuring adequate funding for

the regulatory agency. additional substantial funding has been forthcoming. if that stops or slows, we are all in trouble. we do have a greater global cooperation on prevention, containment, and spill response issues. the advances that i talked about have all been done internally by the department of the interior. frequently it gets less credit than it deserves. it is noteworthy and extraordinary that two years after the spill there has been zero congressional action in response to the spill. thank you.

>> thank you, frank. good morning. we have seen an increase in domestic oil production despite the moratorium two years ago and the drop of production in the gulf of mexico. domestic oil production last year reached its highest level since 2003. i think there is more that we can do and i want to talk about that with specific reference to the gulf of mexico. overall crude oil output increased last year. output in the gulf of mexico has declined, down 230,000 barrels a day. that is about a 13% decline. the number of annual leases has declined.

as of july 1, according to baker-hughes, there were 19 active drilling rigs in the gulf of mexico. that is still short of pre- moratorium numbers. the gulf of mexico is an important energy source. there are tremendous reserves yet to be tapped. can reverse the trend of falling production, the better in terms of economic security and energy security.

in today's markets with growing demand despite the recession in europe and slowdowns in other parts of the world, growing demand for oil. why aren't more rigs currently operating in the gulf of mexico and offshore? one reason is the current regulatory regime. we have a new set of regulations. there's a learning curve and we need to understand these new regulations. piper's is not to criticize but to suggest there is room for improvements in the way we administer our offshore operations. the industry is committed to

safety and reliability in their offshore operations, i believe. macondo was a public-relations disaster. the containment facilities are available if there is another blowout and we hope that does not happen. i would also argue that president obama's energy strategy is critical link to what happens in the output of the gulf of mexico and other areas. you may have seen the study that we did examine the status of permitting and drilling activity in the gulf of mexico. the purpose of the study was not to be critical but to suggest there are some areas of improvement.

when an operator submits a plan to drill, the regulators must determine if it meets the initial criteria to be ready for review. first you have to review the plan and the plan has to reach a certain threshold. the next that this application for a permit to drill. the average number of days for a plan to move to final approval has risen from 50 days to 207 days at present. the amount of time to go through the seven phase has ballooned. another area that needs improving has to do with the way that permits to drill are

issued. currently there approved on a just-in-time basis. the problem is it hinders a company's ability to plan ahead. these rigs cost anywhere from half a billion dollars to $1 billion. the industry standard is the backlog of at least three approved drilling permits for each active rig. we kick it back there, that would help drillers get long- term contracts. if we have 19 active deep water rigs, inventories of approved permits should ideally be 57.

but there were only six approved permits. that is an area that needs attention so the drilling companies can line up business in advance and maintain their cash flow. i agree that we have made a lot of progress since macondo. the productivity of the gulf of mexico could be improved under a more transparent and predictable regulatory environment. >> i thought maybe steve could touch on the role of the gulf of mexico and its impact on the global markets. >> thank you for having me today, frank. i wanted to put the gulf of mexico into a global context and comment on what the previous speakers have said.

one thing going on that many of you have read about is that we are undergoing a very different narrative, global narrative involving gas. we were heading into an era of a scarcity. we were running out of oil and natural gas and have to develop alternatives in order to compensate for that. we have had a number of reports from wall street and think tanks and from consultants of a contrary nature and that is that we're headed into a flood, a global flood of oil supply for two or three decades, not just in the united states but around the world.

just starting in north america, the projections here is that by the year 2020, the united states -- north america including canada is not only self-sufficient in its oil and natural gas needs but has a surplus supply of 3 million barrels a day that either sits in the united states as spare capacity or gets exported. this surplus in the oil patch goes all the way down into south america. there is a boon in brazil and in french guiana and more drilling in that region. both coasts of africa are undergoing deep water drill

boons. and then up north in the east mediterranean. israel and cyprus are finding themselves suddenly petrol states. how does the gulf of mexico fit into this? citibank released projections for 2020. it is the most bullish of the investment banks, the one that projects the united states is producing 3 million barrels a day surplus that can be exported. gulf of mexico production

triples from 1.25 million barrels a day of to 3.75 million barrels a day. the gulf of mexico accounts for almost all of that surplus. what i see is a very different narrative from one that i am hearing -- that i have heard on the panel and that i hear on the outside. it is not that oil companies are standing on the sidelines or nervously biting their nails, "what are going to drill next?" oil companies have their hands full in what the world drill

around the world. the challenge for all oil companies is how they are going to drill next. it includes political temperaments that bud alluded to and a belief in part of the population that we should be shifting from fossil fuels and more towards renewalables. there's been an assessment that 22,000 skilled geo scientists and engineers on the oil patch will retire in the next three years. the number of college graduates and of pregnant employees in the oil services industry and in the oil companies to replace them or not there.

there is a current and impending skills crisis. the question of oil rigs was raised. there was a talk this year of a threat of a shortage of deepwater oil rigs, and there is and one. but there's also not a big surplus. it is sort of teetering. just to close out, if the federal government opened up every single possible acre in the gulf of mexico up and down the atlantic east coast today,

the scene would see would not be a big rush into those areas in order to explore them, if there is oil to drill there, would see a scene of long-term planning down the road down the road and also a big question mark, how will we drove those fields? >> thank you, steve. next i turned to our umpire calling balls and strikes. she is a reporter. there is a link to alaska. a lot of the drilling is in the gulf of mexico and alaska and hope you bring that into the discussion. >> offshore drilling is a hot- button issue before the oil

spill and two years later there is just as much heated discussion surrounding the issue. the politics of the issue can make it tough for anyone to get a good read on were things really stand. there have been policy decisions made during and after the spill that hurts the bottom line. smaller operators bear the brunt of regulatory risk. it exacerbated some of the financial problems of existing companies. there is the recent argument that's the moratorium was necessary, especially while oil

was flowing into the gulf of mexico. so much of what you're hearing today boils down to a balancing act between present and future production. there was uncertainty injected into the mix and it has taken some time for that to shakeout. in the aftermath of the spill and on some of these calculations, i have heard from some operators who said they were engaging with a real back- and-forth with the regulators. i don't think any of these folks relished the process.

they wanted to get back drilling. these folks acknowledge and there was a real attempt to get this right and an effort to help them figure out how they could satisfy what started out as vague requirements and benchmarks. they are figuring it out. they feel like they have a good sense of how to apply for permits and how to get their plans in order and to get an application submitted and the time to submit one has been shortened. that feeling of certainty along with the oil prices earlier this year is one reason why you do see rigs approaching pre-macondo levels. there are new rigs coming into

the gulf. one challenge for reporters is affecting how much of the changes since the 2010 spill are not just window dressing and meaningful. regulators are no longer doing categorical exclusions, exploration plans. there are those that will probably right way questions whether those analyses are more robust than what was done before and more than a check the box analysis. companies can contain deep water run away well. there was a successful test of

one of those systems. before that, the only fair test was done by people sitting around a table top. we have seen in history make changes to improve safety including metrics for process safety. there's a strong industry that industry is blinded by their hubris. i will remind you about a refrain we have heard over the past two years. there have been 50,000 wells in the gulf of mexico with one major accidents. deepwater drilling is far more riskier than shallow drilling.

deepwater drilling means dealing with incense pressure and combating incensed temperatures. that involves complex well designs. we should be considering there were 43 wells as complex as macondo that have been drilled without an accident. >> thank you. if none of you asked about alaska, i will. we will do questions. we will take questions from reporters first.

if we run out -- i doubt that we will -- we will give others a chance. state your name and try to speak loudly. c-span wants to capture the questions. i will start with the first question because i am the moderator. jen and mike, the talked-about new regulators and the people that are coming in. well-trained regulators are an important part of that. there has been an industry for many years which has been attacked by others but has been seen as a benefit by others. how was that going in terms of making sure that there is

expertise but it is not a bias or anything like that? >> the line in the wake of macondo is that there was a day too-cozy relationship and that probably overstated it. the benefit of the criticism is in reminded everybody of the need for there to be a business like but arm's length relationship between the regulators and the regulated. the regulators have a serious job to do, make sure all the jobs submitted meet the regulatory requirements. if they do not, they should not be approved. it is important that all regulators recognize the relationship that the need to have and maintain with the

regulated entities. it does mean there needs to be an arms-length relationship. there is a growing level of sophistication in the wells that are being drilled and the wells that industry wants to drill. that will require a higher level of sophistication to scrutinize the applications that are submitted. there have been problems recruiting senior engineers with the skills to give those applications a close look.

there are efforts on going including a pay increase for engineers which moves the ball forward, but more needs to be done. we need to think about those from other industries and other countries which would help regulators do their job in reviewing the applications they have to deal with. that is not a criticism. if there is a rush of new deepwater applications, i think it would be in no one's interest for the backlog to stack up. >> address some of the things that steve mentioned with programs aimed at that.

>> absolutely. >> anybody ee want to contribute to that? >> there is a brain drain or worry about technical expertise in the industry to satisfy the demand of energy and that makes the problem that much more difficult. >> the market to do work. you find at smu and other universities, there is a big uptick in the number of students that want to major in petroleum engineering and related fields. >> some questions from our reporter friends. andrew? >> you mentioned your frustration with the lack of

action in congress. they appear to be laser focused on this report on the gulf moratorium. they held several hearings on this. if you could weigh in on what the house has been doing. >> we are in a political season which means we're are in the silly season. house committees are engaged in passing legislation and focusing on issues that they know full well are not going anywhere because they will die in the senate or would be vetoed by the white house. it is unfortunate when there is such an unfinished save the agenda in terms of responding to the oil spill including ratifying the reorganization that we did at interior.

it is a shame that they are focusing on the drilling moratorium and the editing of a document that had no meaningful impact on the decisions that were made. that decision was made by secretary salazar because he thought a moratorium was necessary and appropriate. three days after a started at interior, the original drilling moratorium was overturned by a federal judge. one of my first tasks was to focus on what we should do. we concluded after a couple of weeks of intense review of the options that were available that reimposing the deepwater drilling moratorium was the right thing to do. there was no reliance on

engineers' recommendations. we thought it was the right thing to do. the problem is that people are not through the recent scrutiny given by the house looking at the logic and the meaning of the moratorium and why we thought it was necessary. it is bizarre they rejected secretary salazar's offer to testify about that and instead focusing on how a report may have been edited and maybe some of them supported a pause. take a step back and it is ridiculous that that was the focus rather than on substantive problems that this country should care about. >> you are finding that in other sectors.

i do think the shallow water drillers that have operated safely have felt caught in the net. maybe there was a logical explanation because they were caught in the net. how we could have avoided that or avoid it next time if something like this happens again? >> shallow water drilling was not affected by the moratorium. there were certain requirements that were imposed in june of 2010 that shallow water drillers had to observe. there was maybe the same uncertainty in the short term and that slowed things down. everybody in interior tried to provide the clearest guidance that they could. when

you're dealing with the aftermath of an event like deepwater horizon, nobody is ever going to get it right exactly the first time. cann't think anybody suggest there was a deliberate attempt to slow things down. i have heard that there was a grand plan to shut down the fossil fuel industry in this country. people realized that was preposterous but it got said over and over again. the reaction of the administration was to try as responsibly as possible impose new requirements and to work with industry so that they understood those. let's talk about permit approvals. that has improved recently

because of genuine confusion and uncertainty in the industry and also and the government. in terms for greater transparency, we did everything possible to increase that transparency. record meetings and workshops on plans and permits to enter the multitude of questions that existed on the part of operators about the new plan approval process. i think the slowdown is that we sought and some of the friction we saw was inevitable. >> i do need to disagreed with might shallow water drillers who were seriously affected after macondo. it was difficult for them to operate. it was all those committees of the texas-louisiana gulf coast

who service the offshore industry. they were hurt badly and many of these communities still have not recovered. >> i do not deny that for a moment. there were additional rules that have to be observed by shallow water colors. i know full well the devastating impact. >> go ahead, ray. >> you mentioned that this new deepwater drilling, there are 43 at the moment. the thing that has anything to do with that kind of skill set or technology? is there a link between those skills -- he said there was a shortage of skills there. is there any connection between the two?

>> for some time, cnpc, the other big chinese overseas oil company, had been attempting to sweep up oil and natural gas around the world, but where are the most important of these plays, the ones that have the biggest prospects, and they are in north america.

the play -- you mentioned skills -- is to obtain skills in shale gas and in deep water drilling. it does obtain both with this play. shale. shale. why is that? china has potentially the largest shale oil and shale gas supplies in the world, but they need to know how to get at it. they need the biggest expertise in drilling. the biggest plays of shale oil gas are in the united states. >> trying to tackle more complex wells. the mexican oil company has focused on shallow water and

now they want to do more deepwater exploration. some companies want to get a hold of new technology and expertise and move into new frontiers. >> we have all kind of interest in cuba and now it is going down. >> we were concerned a year ago -- we were interested in what was happening down there. wells drilled earlier this year were a bit of a bust. >> we do not know what will happen next. are the next set of wells going to be drilled? >> go ahead, david. >> we are three months away from the presidential elections.

what kind of role will the memory of macondo play in the election? we had delegates chanting, "drill, baby, drill." >> i do not know. i do not think anybody can know for sure. i have been surprised and troubled how quickly the memories of macondo have faded. all the discussions i hear on and off capitol hill are all about the pace of deepwater drilling and speeding up the drilling application approval process. very little discussion about safety and the need to advance

safety and the importance of companies investing in safety and sharing learnings about safety. that is all very disturbing. i wish there was more of a public outcry pushing for that. in our culture today, i think we generally have short memories and i think for getting about macondo sooner than one would think is a symptom of the. >> if i can broaden your question. what energy itself be an issue in the presidential campaign? three months ago, gasoline was over $4. the my aunt of the politicians and public was focused on energy. the candidates and members of congress were talking about energy. now nobody is talking about energy and i think that is unfortunate. we do not have what i would

consider a comprehensive energy policy in this country and we need one. >> just to differ on that one point. i think energy has been identified by a certain sector of the campaign and it is the american chamber of commerce but also the oil and gas industry in swing states, a number of the swing states there is a jobs push and it is identifying the development and the enhanced development of shale gas and shale oil in pennsylvania, ohio, and other states. i see energy as being front and

center in the campaign in the most important places, the swing states. >> i was down in the gulf region in 2010 just as much as anyone. a member of lsu said the gulf of mexico is a vibrant place and it can take a number of punches. he said there will not be much environmental impact because of the natural leakage and stuff like that. one reason people have forgotten is because we're seeing ads from bp about how great the tourism season is and we're eating shrimp and having what we want down there, fishing trips and things like that. you lose what happened in 2010 in that sense because we have

pushed around it. >> the administration is getting flak from a hill by not opening the atlantic to new leasing. was your input to the secretary of the five-year new leasing on the atlantic and what lessons did you draw from the gulf that makes the atlantic not appropriate to open up for the next five years? >> most of the development occurred after i left. i know that people including the secretary had not forgotten about deepwater horizon and i think that shaped their decision about wanted to move carefully and prudently.

there was a proven history of being able to extract the oil and gas that existed. i think that is the logic and reasoning that was used. reasonable people can differ. the bill that the house passed, they expanded lease sales to include parts of the country that had weighed in that they do not want them, including the northeast in new jersey and california. california does not want drilling off their shores again. >> regardless of the politics of today, the long-term trend is that there is a play, a deep water play that begins all the weight in the southern tip of south america and africa and

goes all the way up to canada. the belief is that there's a lot in different places. some of the biggest oilfield are along this play. over the medium and long term, these will be explored and they will be developed. >> that may well be true and interior will do it seismic work in the atlantic. >> you have a lot of democrats in virginia who are interested in trying to get some drilling. tim kaine the senators. that is a regional issue.

>> jim moran he will not allow drilling off the virginia coast as long as he is a member of congress. >> is it unsafe to drill in the atlantic anytime soon? >> i think it is wise and prudent to do the seismic work so we have a better idea of where it can be explored. >> i hope it is not too unsafe. >> we were invited to ask about the arctic. some of the senators from alaska have been saying that the window is getting shorter and they should consider making it longer. do you think the interior department should be open to extending that time period?

they have said they do not know much about the arctic and conditions are always changing. should the interior department be open to extending that time period? >> the outer boundary were done with knowledge of the historical conditions that exist there. everybody understands the very substantial dangerous cause of potential oil spills. i would think interior would be very cautious, prudent, and reluctant to expand that window. i believed it was based on reason and fax at the outset. the fact there have been a hoist -- a host of things that

have created delays in the process. some of them delays in getting things ready to be certified and approved by the coast guard and epa. i am not sure that is a sufficient reason to expand the window. >> they are interested in doing the -- is still have the opportunity to do topsoil and drilling where they are drilling above the starter wells and come back and finish it. shell is interested in pursuing this and they have gone back and looked at the drills that were drilled in the 1990's and said they could finish it the next year. that is also a possibility for exploratory work we could see later this year. >> what else was your impression of being up there?

as a person who has covered this issue for so long, did you get a sense they are ready to go and that interior is ready to go with them? >> i think it is fair to say there is a determination on the part of shell and certain people in the administration to get this going and underway. there have been a few recent setbacks. there have been problems -- a key piece of their response plan, the challenger certified by the coast guard. people are seeing this as all systems go. there has been some significant delays. there are questions about how quickly they will get up there even of mother nature cooperates. >> we have time port two more questions.

>> i am a political analyst with press tv out of tehran. there are a lot of people in florida that still have not been paid out by bp. a personal friend of mine about $1 million loss in revenue. i wanted to have the panel weighed in on people not being compensated for their businesses. the other centers around the solar industry. that is wildly successful in germany. why are we wasting money in failed companies -- $500 million coming out of the funded businesses in the u.s. >> let's talk about the compensation issues and whether you think people have not been

responded to. >> i do that know if anyone in the panel has detailed knowledge about what the structure was that was set up originally through mr. feinberg. the court has taken it over. i do not have the insight. >> i have not seen a lot of people really upset with a lot of the heartfelt efforts made by companies to reinvigorate the region. we are not always going to -- people were hurt by it. there are lots of other issues that are at play here. i think both the government and bp and the efforts jointly have been as i said earlier targeted on getting people back to the region and get the economy moving again. anybody else have a question? >> you mentioned that the

importance of funding from congress to continue processing applications. the energy it information administration has predicted a substantial increase in production in 10 years. can you comment on whether flat funding in and this time of austerity is enough to keep up with the expected pace of applications? maybe you can comment on whether the pending sequestration cuts would impact the drilling agencies. >> i think flat funding is insufficient. we are making up slowly on a 28 year deficit when there was inadequate funding for the full range of responsibilities. i think flat funding would be insufficient. i think they need to continue to ramp up the funding as congress

has done in the past couple of years. i have not looked at what the impact of sequestration would be specifically on the agency's we created through the reorganization, but i suspect it cannot be good. >> the only thing i would add is one of the things republicans did early on was a fully funded a lot of the new inspectors and things like that. it is quite opposite from some of the other things they were doing. i found that to be interesting. >> considering the billions of dollars oil and gas energy pays in taxes, you would think some of the revenue would enhance the regulatory oversight programs of the interior. >> i do not think interior cares where the money comes from, they just need the money.

>> how the treaty might affect that. bp and the arctic had affected u.s. thinking on that at all? >> the latest on the law of the sea treaty is, there is word it will come back in september after the recess. there will be some interesting discussions in the senate on that. >> i am not familiar with a lot of the sea debate, adjusted the comment -- i would be interesting to know what the time line is there. russia is going aggressively into the arctic. there are three big contracts that have been lead over the past six or eight months with the big players at an aggressive

pace in an environment where there are not the type of regulations we have here. the most optimistic prediction of a first oil is 2030. >> here is the last question for the panel. five years from now we are reconvening to have a discussion of the next five-year plan. what has happened in the last five years? give me your prediction. >> i think production in the gulf of mexico will be much higher than today. the oil industry will be complaining that they do not have access. >> that is a shocking prediction. >> i would hope five years from

now the oil and gas industry will have created another 700,000 jobs as they have a venture of the past five years. i think it is important to keep in mind if we look at the economy today, it is not back to where it was before the great recession. if you look at the oil and gas industry, the unemployment increase has been 700,000 since 2008. no other industry has come close. >> i think five years from now we will see there will be an increase in domestic oil and gas production due to what we are seeing in terms of shale. hearnk you'll still arguments about whether drilling off of virginia coast is allowed. >> i hope and think it is most likely this is the discussion we will be having a. i fear unless people focus on i fear unless people focus on