bipartisanship in the health care arena for the first time in a long time. and so it's unclear if that kills the doc fix for the year, which again is a huge goal in terms of a realigning the way medicare pays its physicians. host: what are the chance force this vote that happened in the house this week in the senate guest: they're nill. the senate won't entertain something that guts a major funding implement. they're back to square one. the policy is still there if they can come up with a pay for it. but delaying the individual mandate will never pass. host: 20 minutes left talking about the looming deadlines for the affordable care act to sign up on those insurance exchanges with kyle cheney, a health care reporter of politico. we're taking your comments on twitter. ou can also e-mail us as well.

kevin writes on our twitter page. et's go to diane in texas. caller: good morning. yesterday the president was saying that he has given the green light on the affordable care act. what i would like to know is how could anybody trust that man? he said admittedly on jay leno that he doesn't know math. he couldn't even help his daughter with math. how could he possibly fix an economy and get jobs created when he doesn't know math? he's ill lit rat in it. he should come out right now and explain to us the truth about what's going on. tell us that -- host: can i ask you what's your health care situation and does any of the affordable care act has it affected you? guest: oh, yes. host: how so? caller: you could ask cast row

here . host: how has it impacted you personally? caller: for 2-1/2 months all i did every day was go on the website. i called up the attorney general when it switched me over to expeerion. i went out of my mind. i -- a dope addict answered the phone. i couldn't believe it. and i called the attorney general. he had to call washington in the beginning to find out if we were supposed to call expeerion. there was no communications between washington and what was supposed to go on with the act. but obama's good at talking talking rhetoric. but just give us solutions. host: talking about her experience in san antonio, texas. we'll go to david in maryland on our line for those who are 35 and younger. a republican. thanks for calling in this morning. caller: thank you. i just wanted to talk to the gentleman. i'm 31 years old and going to the aca. once you turn 30, you cannot

have these quote/unquote catastrophic plans any more. i wanted to say the plan that i have currently with aetna, which they are currently going to leave the state of maryland, and i can't say it's because or not but my plan is 100% co-insurance with a 500 deductible. so the plans that are offered when the state, you know, the common ones are like a 6,000 deductible and would be 06%. even the platinum plans are only 90%. so essentially you could pay more up to a high deductible and then pay part of a cost of the actual coverage once you use the plan which currently i wouldn't pay now, plus it doesn't include anything like dental or vision where mine now covers dental. it's just so ludicrous that these people once they use these plans will realize that the plans are absolute garbage

compared to what quote/unquote is junk now. guest: you mentioned the idea about catastrophic plans which again the affordable care act allouse people under 30 as you mentioned to sign up for these certain really small-scale plans. but even some of those small-scale plans have new requirements in them about minimum standards of coverage. so if you were in a plan that didn't meet those that may not be available any more. because you're now over 30 you may not have access to the same kind of catastrophic level plan you described. although there are other exemptions in the health care law that would make you eligible for the plan. and then as you mentioned, too, some of these bronds plans are actually pretty bare-bones coverage. they come with new protections and benefits that may not have been available before the law. but because of the law, because the bronze plans themselves were meant to be sparor than some of the higher tears of coverage you may find yourself

with a higher deductible. host: on this st. patrick's day we'll go to irish ice. guest: partly has to do with if you're eligible for tax credits and subsidies from the government, they do a -- sort of a detailed financial check on you that includes through the i.r.s. and homents and other aspects of government where they can verify your records and insure that you truly are eligible for a tax credit. that's part of the process they're using to verify the people who get those tax credits are expected or eligible for them. host: we're talking with kyle cheney, health care reporter with politico. have about 15 minutes or so left to discuss the looming deadline for the affordable care act. would love to hear your experiences. we have a special line set up for those age 35 and younger.

the number is on your screen. let's go to david in minnesota on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. my comment is pretty simple. i'm a reasonably smart guy and i did the math. when i was working for corporate america i went back and looked it up. my monthly health charge through the company insurance was $460. i called in to the -- one of the affordable care lines and got an estimate. the amount of money that i would have to pay -- and this is personally per month -- is $470 a month. so i'm looking at a yearly bill of $5,600. i am amonged the group of people who have lived a healthy lifestyle. i go out every other morning like clockworks a two-mile walk. i haven't had even a cold for

10 years. so i do myself more as being more in the 35 and under group instead of the 55-year-old where i'm at. all i want from health care is pretty simple. pay for the medications that i need right now. 90-day supply of what i need is $100. i want regular checkups. i don't need anything else at this point in my life. as far as emergency care, i have the reagan health care reform from what was it 1998 that says no emergency room can turn me away. so at that point as opposed to the affordable care act, i am ctually saving myself over $3,000 a year. and if you add in the $700 fine per year from the i.r.s. for

not signing up for it, well, then it, it is still close to $3000 a year i am saving. host: your thoughts. sure -- the $700 fine. i think it varies depending on income. the first year, $95 or one percent of your income if you are supposed to get coverage and you don't. i wasn't clear from the caller if he has an employer-sponsored health land, and if the cost of that went up and if that was done by the employer may get a response to some changes. the callerre where would fit in in terms of having prices on theo exchange or tax credit availability and all of that. you do hear situations where people see their bills go up and immediately linked it to the affordable care act and if it is -- and if it is not clear whether the employer made. but the affordable care act

becomes -- i don't want to say scapegoat that the cause of concern about seeing premiums rise. host: little rock, arkansas. caller: i am an underwriter. i went through several of the aca classes here in arkansas. thecan tell by the way whole organization for this is put together that they did not bring in anybody who was an expert in any field of creating policies, such things, in the beginning. this think could not have been put together worse from word go. in the united states, insurance has been a regional animal because people make different incomes, have different health. to $6,000,table which is what most cannot afford but if you live in new york or isifornia, $6,000 adaptable probably what you will pay. you live in texas, kentucky,

--n south like that, you may not be able to get the money together. as far as people enroll now, we know at least 4 million, as many as 7 million people's insurance was canceled but normally would not so of the people who signed up, we don't know how many are replacement policies. and all the people they put on medicaid, the reason these emergency rooms are even more full is because most doctors will not take medicaid. as far as the whole thing put together, the people thought the little too much about themselves about they could put something together without bringing expert in on it. guest: an argument you hear a lot from critics of the affordable care act, which is the law itself, they basically call it a one-size-fits-all solution where you later these very complicated policies on a nation that is extremely complex. where again, you have states like new york and california that are extremely different than states in the midwest in terms of the cost of living and

the expected cost of health care. so when you later these national policies on top of the existing systems in those states and each state retains some form of autonomy over the insurance market, it can be very complicated and you can end up with a lot of states where they are resisting precisely because the affordable care act does not work on their state. host: you talk about critics of the affordable care act. some sit on the republican side of the aisle. on the house ways and means committee, that is where health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius found herself earlier this week answering questions from congressman kevin brady, republican congressman. here is a bit of that exchange. [video clip] >> madam secretary, when you were a for the committee april of last year you ensured there would be no more delays of the affordable care act. we have had eight delays since those assurances which brings the total of 35. for families at home, what other

delays can they expect? are you going to delay the mandate that individuals have to buy government approved health care or pay a tax? >> no, sir. >> are you going to delay the open enrollment beyond march 31 question for >> no, sir. >> is it correct that you don't have the authority to extend that deadline? position the centers for medicare and medicaid made, do you agree with that? >> i have not seen their statement, sir, but there is no delay beyond march 31. kyle cheney, how much concern is there that there will be further delays? said: the line of delays the narrative that the bill was not ready for crime -- prime time. they delayed pieces of the periodically. we are not getting a piece -- any signals that any core components of the law will be delayed, whether before the enrollment deadline or march 31

and no signal at all they will extend the deadline am a perhaps maybe for people who had last-minute glitches. i don't think you will see the sort of delays we have seen to this point, which is the big one being the delay of larger employers providing coverage and escaping penalties if they don't. number we have seen a today and republicans underscore that as we get closer to election season, the more they talk about delays and the more it emphasizes that parts of the law were not ready to go live when they were supposed to be. host: a special line for those 35 or younger. washington,re in dc. good morning. go ahead. i am about to turn 25 in april and i got a job. i moved down from new hampshire, like one of your previous callers. i decided to stay on my parents insurance. i was not making enough money -- i guess i am making not enough

money to get a subsidy -- i guess i am making enough money not to get a subsidy. i want to the website. i was totally refused to my dad talked me into staying on his insurance for another year because it was such a disaster area. host: and experience you have heard other people have? guest: one of the bright spots for the white house is the estimate around 3 million young adults stay on their parents' plans, and people who may not have that coverage of the wise and individual market or the jobs. when you hear white house talking about millions and rolled, they include a 3 million adults who are able to have covered to not because they stayed on the parents plan. through 26. peoplenot heard about transitioning away once they hit the 26th birthday and have to , those people as they have to -- they have to relearn

experiencing the marketplace. host: keith from evansville, indiana. good morning. colorcode good morning, gentlemen. yes, my comment is -- caller: good morning, gentlemen. yes, my comment is my feeling is that everything is being implemented all at one time. the health care, the immigration policy, the stopping of building , the scandal and all of that. it seems like all of this is one big conspiracy to break our country. to pile on so much stuff that there is no way we are going to get out from under it. my son works at a cemetery. he's got a children. and he was promised a job, a full-time job. now since this health care -- this health care thing is coming, he works 29 hours a week and he has to take care of eight kids. he works as but off digging

graves all and freezing, 18 degrees below zero, he's got to be there and do his job. help,he is not there to it puts all the work off of my wife. isust feel that all of this one big bill to break our country. this is just a feeling i have at this moment. i voted for president obama. is calling everybody a liar -- liar. all he has to do is call me and i can prove to him my son cannot have his job because of health care. about theerns health-care law cutting back on hours that people can work. guest: absolutely. that is one of the lines you will hear a lot more of year. republicans, in the many hopes to gut the law, actually focused of america,timing saying the law actually encourages companies to employ people fewer than 30 hours ago is that is the threshold that

employers need to provide full coverage. aboutave been talking pushing it up to 40 hours and even some democrats are sympathetic to that. although the administration argues there is no data that suggests employers are making that shift toward part-time. on ouroyce is in texas line for republicans. good morning. you are on "washington journal." caller: good morning. i am calling because my husband and i fall into a group -- we are self-employed. fluctuates from month to month, week to week. see abouted to insurance, because we never had insurance. but because we don't qualify for subsidies because sometimes we make more money and someone --

months we make less money, the insurance agent said that if we went above a certain amount, that we would have to repay any subsidies that we have qualify for before. so even looking at the bronze plan, the premium would have been $850 a month and then a $6,000 deductible per person. $850 is equal to my house payment. up.our income is not going i just wondered if there is anything that could be done for --ple who are self-employed we kind of seems to be left out of the equation. guest: at is true. the self-employed do not always fit into a neat box limit comes to health policy. one of the things you talk about that is a real field is real

fear that we will hear more of is the notion of reconciliation. receive aes if people tax credit and income during the year was higher than expected, they are actually required to pay back the amount that they shouldn't have received had they predicted the income accurately. when you talk about fluctuating income and whether you may be above or below a certain line for a tax credit, that is something we will hear a lot more about later in the year and it will impact the war self-employed. on the other side of the coin, you will hear from supporters of the law that people have more freedom to pursue their own business ventures and be self-employed because they are not locked into certain jobs where they are totally dependent on that job for their health care. so on the flip side, there are some aspects of the law that could free people up to pursue their own employment, their own business ideas, but then again, you are going to hear complications in terms of things like how do you receive subsidies. host: we talked about the tax penalty. another question from twitter --

is it true the tax penalty can only be elected from tax refunds refundyou go -- get no and do not buy insurance, how will the tax be collected? guest: it is correct. it is meant, when you file your taxes during tax season, the irs certifies whether or not you had health care during all the months you were required to have health care. essentially, if you had health for anything less than nine months of a year you are subject to a penalty and it varies based on your income. it is deducted from your return. i heard theories -- although i am not 100% -- not 100th uninsured -- if you did not receive return they have no mechanism of cannot -- of collecting it from you. host: kyle cheney from politico, health care reporter. he also covered previously when he worked at the statehouse news service in boston. guest: that correct. health care is a pretty big deal and everybody thinks of

massachusetts a precursor to obamacare. host: a couple of callers waiting for you. ham, north in dur carolina. caller: good morning. i wonder what health care would look like if democrats, republicans, independents, and americans all worked together. looking at some kind of alzheimer's disease. president obama, when he tried to pass health care, he had so much opposition, it would not have passed. theried to push single-payer system, and every republican went against that. g inthey are still callin this, talking about

the problems. but i wonder if we all worked together as americans what health care would look like question mark -- would look like? people a few years ago what it might look like if everyone worked together, you might have people describing the system like the one we have, at least if you talk to supporters of this law. they will say this is built on republican free-market ideas where you actually boost private sector insurance and preserved the system as opposed to what the democrats want, which is the single-payer system which would have totally scrapped everything that is there and disrupted -- been a lot more disruptive than even the admittedly disruptive system that is in place today. it will be interesting to see what it would be like in that sort of hypothetical world with everyone working together. but it may not be so far off from what we looking at today. host: concorde, new hampshire. the line for independents. you will be the last caller for the segment.

caller: good morning. this personal call from new hampshire earlier and talked about only one option, one insurance company. i've done research in this because i just have the time to and everybody says this is a federal takeover of health care, but what they forget is there are 50 insurance commissioners. i am happy kyl worked in issachusetts, because when worked in massachusetts and lived in new hampshire i had to get insurance under romneycare. the only problem was he was no good in new hampshire. i actually had to have two health insurance is, one when i was home and adding to my home state and one when i was at work. i insurance new hampshire would not cover me in math and my math insurance will not cover me in new hampshire. say thaterybody to obamacare made all these changes, better start looking at your own state insurance commission. host: kyle cheney, in the last minute.

guest: new hampshire is such an interesting situation, as the previous caller mentioned. you have one insurer in the exchange, mississippi has two. you hear a lot of situations where people are not thrilled with the options that are out there. there really aren't options. you are hearing republican starting to put together an alternative proposal to obamacare i wanted the features is the ability for insurers to sell policies across state lines -- one of the features is the ability for insurers to sell policies from across state lines. in a mess -- it is a messy situation where each state gets to control its own insurance market and you later obamacare on top of that and he creates these complexities and conflicts with state and federal law. host: that alternative proposal from republicans making news just this weekend as well. jacob exactly. "washington post" had a story about the principles they are outlined. they are familiar principles but they are at least 30 to but

>> then in a few minutes, a look , ande global energy supply then remarks from justice elena lawn at the georgetown center. >> for st. patrick's day we turn to the video library at c-span.org to see how u.s. presidents marked the holiday. this, too wanted me here. he thought it was only fitting someone dropped by who actually had known saint patrick, and that's true. i did know saint patrick. in fact, we both changed to the

same political party at about the same time. once you have had a glass of guinness with a man in ireland ,s i have with brian linehan you are friends. ♪ [applause] today more than 35 million irishans have an ancestor. america is richer for every murphy, kelly, and o sullivan. i should have said mccain. [applause]

well, i just did. happy st. patrick's day to everybody. tens of millions of americans trace back their roots to the emerald isles, and on st. patrick's day, many millions more claim to. [applause] >> president obama imposed .officialson russian an speaking from

must be respected. international law must be upheld. russia's decision to send troops into crimea has rightly drawn global condemnation. from the start, the united states has mobilized international community in support of ukraine. to isolate russia for its itsons and to reassure allies and partners. we sounds international unity again over the weekend, when russia stood alone at the un security council defending its actions in crimea. as a told resident putin yesterday, the referendum in crimea was a clear violation of the crimean constitution and international law. it will not be recognized by international

community. today, i'm announcing a series of measures that will continue to increase the pressure on russia. as authorized by the executive order i signed two weeks ago, we are holding sanctions on people responsible for undermining the sovereignty, territorial integrity of crimea. second, i have signed a new executive order that expands the scope of our sanctions. initial step, i am authorizing sanctions on russian officials, entities operating in the arms sector in russia, and individuals who provide material support to senior officials of the russian government. in theia continues ukraine, we stand ready to impose further sanctions. we continue our close consultations with our european

partners, who today in brussels moved ahead with their own sanctions against russia. tonight, president -- vice president biden departs to meet with our nato allies, poland, lots yet, lithuania. our message will be clear. as nato allies, we have a solemn commitment to their defense and we will uphold his commitment. fourth, we will continue to make clear to russia that further theocations will achieve -- international community will continue to stand together to oppose any violations of ukrainian sovereignty and taylor torrey l -- and territorial integrity. it will exact a greater toll on the russian economy. going forward, we can calibrate our response based on whether russia chooses to escalate or two de-escalate the situation.

abelieve there is still chance to is all the situation diplomatically. that includes russia pulling its forces in crimea back to their bases, supporting the deployment of additional international monitors in ukraine and engaging in dialogue with the ukrainian government. throughout this process, we're going to stand firm in our unwavering support for ukraine. as i told the prime minister last week, the united states stands with the people of ukraine and their right to determine their own destiny. we're going to keep working with congress and our international partners to offer ukraine economic support that it needs to weather this crisis and improve the daily lives of the ukrainian people. as we go forward, we will continue to look at the range of

ways we can help our ukrainian friends achieve their universal rights and the security, prosperity, and dignity that they deserve. thanks for a much. we will be available for questions. thank you. mode american medical association -- discusses the impact of the health care law on doctors. washington journal, live every morning at 7:00 eastern. >> now, a look at the global energy supply.

topics include oil prices, nuclear energy and renewable energy. >> let me welcome you to this particular event with admiral dennis blair and lord john browne on the strategic of the american oil boom. , weway we will proceed is

will have a conversation up here among the three of us for about a half an hour. then we will turn it over to you for comments and questions. at 2:00.nd promptly again, thank you for coming on this cold, wintry, new york afternoon. let me start, if i could, with you. we all read about fracking. not all of us are technologists in the energy industry. can you tell us what exactly is it? >> good afternoon. fracking was invented just after the american civil war by the colonel roberts torpedo company. it wasn't what we do today. it was using explosives to break up rock. revised by amoco

of bp.tion, now part it invented a way of forcing , propelled by water, into rocks that needed space to let the oil and gas that is in them flow out. it was creating pathways for flow. the big thing that happened that changed everything was when you combine that with something called horizontal drilling, which opened up more of the reservoir, the earth, as it were , so that when you frack it, you open up even more pathways for oil and gas to flow. now is what is commonly known as fracking. it is horizontal drilling with what is technically called ,ydraulic fracking, using water

hydraulic, under high pressure the sand in it to force out oil and gas. perhaps in the future it will be done with gas and no water. it used to be done with a cocktail of chemicals to make the water more slippery. nowadays it is not made with those sorts of chemicals anymore. it is pretty benign stuff. so it changes. >> thank you, john. has justmiral blair cochaired a national commission on this subject. how big a deal is this american energy boom? >> it is a huge deal. it concerns both gas and oil. oil in the last five years, in the united states, has increased its oil production using to get 3.5 million

barrels a day. it is the largest increase in recent history. entire set ofn construction that was done in the last several years to be able to bring liquid natural gas to the united states. we're going to be running out of gas. it is made that completely obsolete. this is hundreds of billions of dollars. the industry see this coming? i remember probably some of you do, 2, 7 years ago we were reading about shortages and so forth. we were reading about this boom in u.s. energy. why didn't the industry experts see it coming? >> when i was running bp, i was very disappointed that we lost the case. i think we eventually went to the suit cream court -- to the supreme court. about theghted outcome of that case in

retrospect. i think almost every pundit around said that the u.s. had to import a lot of natural gas because it was running out. principally, it was running out because the new areas where --rocarbons were found, mexico doesn't have much gas involved with oil. oil was ok, but there was no gas. everyone looked at the day and noted what mr. george mitchell was doing with hydraulic fracking. being a lot of engineers, they said, well, we will believe it when we see it. it was step-by-step, because it all looked very risky. conservatism set in and people said, well, really we better

ensure the future by importing gas. this is not the first time the energy industry has made a bit of a mess at forecasting the future. the recent ones were of course importing natural gas, which is no longer needed. the one just before that was peak oil. recall, we were going to run out of oil. i don't think we're going to do that, either. there were plenty of other similar themes which became fashionable. , quality of prediction of forecasting, very poor. i think it is probably to do with inmate conservatism. i think we should remember that perhaps we are going in the other direction now, but who knows? >> it does make one cautious about the forecast we read today . >> i think if we were to base ony important foreign-policy

single point forecasts, we would be making a very bad mistake. >> good. danny, why did it happen here, since i read that oughts of countries we -- we will get into have the capacity to develop shale gas and oil. why did it happen here? >> i think it was a combination of george mitchell's personal clear demand in the united states for gas, but technical are some that they gas people talk about. the below the ground and above the ground assets. you're right, lots of countries have tight gas and tight oil. above the ground you knew the right kind of companies, you need pipelines to get the gas out, if it is gas you're talking

about. you need to write regulatory structure. you need the right legal the gase as to who owns and oil itself below property owner on the surface. these things exist in the united states. to be seen whether they will be developed in other countries so that they can replicate what is being done here. >> where else is it, john? it that other countries will replicate what we are doing in this regard? >> one of the interesting things about the u.s. revolution in was conductedit not by exxon or bp or shalell, , very other companies small companies indeed. the reason for that is that they had local skills.

local skills and local relationship skills embodied in a set of people called land men. these are negotiators. all of whom were probably laid off by the big companies when the big companies thought that there were better things to do. local is very important. i also agree that there are tremendous incentives for local owners to assist in development because they take iger act economic interest in the success of the development. in the rest of the world there is a lot of shale. there is tremendous prospect of a for the future. the same technology can be applied. there are a couple of things. the first is underground. all shales are different. one size does not fit all. you have to spend time making it work. effectively, above ground all

the circumstances are different. the u.k. island like is not the same as the wide-open spaces in north dakota. just not. it has been at development for a long time. so, the technology above ground has to change as well. rather than drilling a forest of a time overt wide-open spaces, you have to drill them all from one little space. , aserving the above ground well as thinking about the low ground will make things happen. finally, you need to get incentives in place. history is dealt a different hand depending on where you are. i think most people realize that you have to spread around the benefits of any development in order to align a constituency.

that sort of activity is going to happen in a variety of possible ways, but there is time. there's plenty of potential and plenty of need for that potential. >> i was in oxfordshire over the weekend and was talking with my english friends over the weekend who were quite skeptical that the political will would be present in order to do it in england for the reasons that you mentioned, or in britain as a whole. are you pessimistic about that? >> no, because i'm a businessman and i am never pessimistic. if you are then you get nothing done at all. at the moment, the u.k. imports a lot of its gas. it is importing the gas to balance the payments on the energy accounts is huge. that money is going not only to also tond norway, but -- i think people understand

that. where they are concerned, and here's the good news and the bad news about the u.s.. the good news is it has opened up this great attentional for the world. the bad news is that amongst all the people who have done it very well, there are also some bad stories of people doing bad things in the u.s.. i think it is really true to say that good news always stays at home and bad news travels fast. elsewhere. the bad news has traveled, and so we are at the point in europe , generally, of meeting to resend the information in an independent way. no one is going to believe me, because i have a vested interest. but they might believe other people who can say we can do this safely and securely. again, a picture of north dakota

is not the same as you would see in europe. quite simply, you couldn't do it. a very different approach. the regulatory base, and all good things the regulation, the base is very good. i think it has learned from the u.s.. let's see if the combination of all those things, and i would say that all the political properties that are behind it, that may not be as good as it sounds. >> would you expect those countries to proceed along the has done? the u.s. if so, what does that timeline look like? >> obviously, in the western hemisphere, places like mexico and argentina have enormous lee

-- have enormous potential resources. -- woulduld be opening be open to making that effort. it would be very good for everybody. russia has a lot of shale potential. probably as much as anybody. ukraine does come up does, they all do. to say that ukraine would provide a stable source of gas in this area would be the wrong place to focus on. there are a lot of places in europe that can do it and should do it. economic, they're all

the more supply you have, the better off you are. .hat should never be forgotten intou have said this goes the millions. it would add more than two percent to the u.s. gdp over the next 10 years. a million and a half jobs to be created, high-paying jobs. is that the conventional wisdom? executive have that big an impact on the u.s. economy? >> those figures are about right. effect on the balance of payments right now. as recently as a couple of years ago, half of our overall balance paymentsts was due to to petroleum overseas on the order of $300 billion a year.

that comes down rapidly when you are doing it here. the availability of cheaper petrochemical feeds into chemical and other industries lowers prices, adds jobs, makes it more competitive. then there are all the spinoff jobs from that. it is really a tremendous benefit to the u.s. economy, which we are seeing war and more every year. >> john, you mentioned bad actors in minute ago. we worry about the environmental effects of this? there are critics of it who worry about those effects. first of all, with almost anything that looks at resources and resource development, you should always worry about the

environment. coal am a, gas, -- there is all -- there's always bad to good transition. best important to get the practice in the right places. ane badly, we could release lot of methane into the atmosphere. it shouldn't happen because operators know how to stop that happening. my personal experience in bp, we andt a year tightening up thinking about different ways of doing things. saving a lot of money and reducing the amount of methane going into the air. it is in very small amounts. it is about protecting water wells, so when you drill

through water table, you have to make sure you insulate the pipe from the water table. it is well known technology. cost of that. if you don't spend the money, you make a mistake. it is a few things like that. so having good regulation that stops freeloaders, people taking good practice is important. you can do this with minimal impact on the environment, and what is more, you're producing gas and sometimes oil. but gas which is like a forocarbon and is better under all circumstances. it is far better than coal as a source of energy for electricity. >> in the armed forces were spent about 35 years, we carry a lot of dangerous stuff around in small spaces all the time. we have extraordinary procedures to make sure we can do that

safely. , the keyssions happen to it are the independence of your regulators, the qualifications of your regulators, and the dog at following through on the checklist. there is no magic to it. every time we see and environmental damage caused by resource extraction, it turns out you have to follow the rules. it can be done. >> we do have to have a proper debate about what is information and what is pure made up activity. there's a lot of this stuff about gas coming out of pipes in kitchens and catching fire. the state of colorado

has demonstrated this is not on the base of shale gas is. it is basically things rotting in the water system. it is getting the information right here and having a debate, and saying, i think the industry has to say we agree, we want regulation, we want good regulation, we want independent supervision, and we want to be held to account. a question i think will affect everyone in the audience in a direct way, what is this oil boom in particular going to do for the price of oil? can reach for your cell phones to call your brokers here about whatever he has to say. >> i will take a shot at that. in this study, we basically took four different scenarios. when you look at the variables rolln the scenarios, you

the dice and choose which one will be more important. that welar trend is need more energy on the planet primarily driven by developments in china and india and other developing countries. the balance between that demand and the price of the fuels that produce it, traditional wells are fairly cheap. deepwater drilling, fracking and so on is much more expensive. that will play out in that area. were to make a bet on a price, i would hedge it heavily. >> you are not willing to name a number? $80-hundred get $20? >> i spent years trying to avoid this question. i don't think it will change too much. what is interesting is that

every time you think something is going to happen, of course unintended and unexpected events happen. today, and the world, there's a lot of oil which is shut in as a result of the issues to do with various countries in the world. are well aware of those issues. 3 million barrels were shut in because of issues to do with governments and war and conflict. there is probably a bit more available which is managed outside the system. it looks like there is a lot of oil around. in theory, it should reduce the price. in fact, it hasn't. and then there is a limit to the amount the price might drop because of the immediate needs of many countries who just produce hydrocarbons as their primary source of economic activity.

the so-called breakeven number is quite high for many countries, including russia, who spend a lot of the money they make exporting hydrocarbons. today's forecast is rice. you say well, there are so many things that will change. i do think for example the world will get better and more efficient at using energy. whether that efficiency will be used to reduce the amount they use or simply take efficiency , remains it elsewhere to be seen. whether there is a moment where there is no conflict in the world, that also remains to be seen. we have seen that recently. and whether there are more discoveries to be made, which makes even more oil available in the world, that also remains to be seen.

it is very important to remember proportions. the most important source of oil in the united states is the deepwater gulf of mexico, not shale oil. that is to be remembered. it looks like that is going to be the case for quite a long time. everything counts here. we focus on one thing, but actually a lot happens. i would always prompt for looking at today's price. it is not a bad number, at least for the short term. if you look at the literature , there is really a very wide spectrum of projections. note are, i would say, if the majority, at least a substantial number of the $70ous studies write about , 70-80. oil

there are so many imponderables here, as danny and john have danny, the united states is clearly a big winner in this technology. are there losers in the world? oilussia has to deal with at $70 a barrel, this is a different set of russian problems than they have now. one thinks that the saudi's and venezuelans and iranians, are there losers out there among the oil producers? are there winners, as you look forward? >> i don't think the big secular innds are sorting out losers hydrocarbon producers. political -- countries are

heavily hydrocarbon dependent certainly have an effect. barrel is pretty optimistic, based on being able to produce a lot of that conventional relatively inexpensive oil. that is almost all opec, middle east and north african producers. it is dependent on a rock coming online in a big way and then somebody who forecasts -- it is dependent on iraq coming online in a big way and somebody who forecasts others coming in as well. -- therehat the losers is a self-regulating system there that as the price goes down, the countries that are the

inng producers, primarily north africa, will do as he have in the past which is try to ratchet down on their variable ability to produce it in order to keep the price at what they need in order to make their developments? >> to me, the most important thing is natural gas. if you think about the u.s. situation with natural gas -- natural gas for unit of energy is 75% cheaper than the energy that comes out of oil. 5% discount.

this is dramatic. anyone who is dependent on expensive gas that is priced on the same basis as oil is actually spending three times as much as they could do as the u.s. does for gas. since gas is the fundamental driver for electricity and for chemicals in these sorts of things, it is a very biggest advantage not to have domestic supplies of that are big enough to compete to allow gas to compete with itself. i say that because i don't know how that will work out in the long-term. right now, it is getting huge advantages to gas that gives the manufacturing base in advantage

that is affecting europe's future at the moment. it is being disadvantaged by the cost of its energy. as to opec, opec is one of those things -- everyone has written the obituary of opec more often than i can remember. wishful thinking says we would like it to go away. indeed, one of the founding members is about to decouple its industry from control. i think the main point is for opec is not a well oiled machine but it certainly responds when things get tough for people whose livelihood is based on oil. from time to time, it comes into the frame to say enough is

enough. that is very much in the hands of saudi arabia primarily. i think it would be wrong to say it is dead. it has actually been in use for some time. >> let me ask you a final question and then we will ask our colleagues to chime in. i have read some commentary that suggests that with less or no american independence on energy from the middle east, retrenchment is possible, advisable even from there. what is your feeling about that? >> the study that we conducted addressed that exact question. he answer is even though american production of oil gives us more options, does not give us that option.

the oil market is still an international market. united states transportation sector is still 90% dependent on that. if there is a price spike, it could affect the u.s. economy. we saw in 2011 when libya's oil production went down. it's stalled the u.s. recovery from the recession that was going on. e plateaued until there was an agreement to release petroleum reserves in the resumption of production in other areas. the price went down and we got back on track. the united states has opportunities but until we can change the basis of the transportation sector from oil to natural gas and electricity which is based on a variety of

sources including natural gas, we will be subject to the international will market -- oil market and the swing producers will be in the middle east. we will have to pay attention to what is there. it is good news but it does not enable us to walk away from that area of the world. there are lots of things we can do to make our economy less susceptible in the medium-term and over the long term we should change the basis of our transportation sector away from oil. hen we are truly secure. >> i suppose we all think about the other issues having to do with the middle east. the terrorism which emanates from there. nuclear weapons, the state of srael and other regions.

i want to turn to you all and to invite members to join our conversation. just to remind you, this meeting is on the record. wait for the microphone, speaker directly into it, please stand, state your name, and affiliation and it you could actually ask a question, we would be grateful and perhaps only one. we will start here with this gentleman and that we will go back and forth around the room. sir. >> given the deeply integrated nature of the north american energy industry, shouldn't we really begin looking at these issues that you have raised in a orth american perspective? >> yes.

the entire energy market is interconnected worldwide much less within this country where we can run pipelines back and forth. in fact, the u.s. and canadian hydrocarbon resources are quite interconnected. hether they will be more interconnected, we will see. i think the bigger change would be with mexico and whether the changes in the governance of mexican national oil company will make a difference in terms of accepting other north american partners in order to do mechanical fracturing or the ther techniques. whether the financial and technical cooperation there can in fact bring mexico into a bigger role in north america.

>> over here. john go ahead. >> it is a question almost every government in the world is being asked and no one is being able to answer it which is what energy policy and strategy do ou have? the answer is we really want lots of choice. i think that probably is about the beginning and end of it. we want lots of choice and we either want to do it reducing carbon dioxide emissions or we don't care about them. other than that, there are very few things. it seems to me that cheaply as possible and secure as possible, you need as much interconnection as possible around the world. the u.s. is still heavily dependent on imports of products that are not made here and exports of products that are

made here that are not needed -- diesel. the u.s. is very dependent on electricity which comes from canada and indeed oil and gas from canada. i think we need to understand that these interconnections will get more complicated, not simpler. >> i want to pick up on something that mark brown raised which is all the fracturing, the ssue of water. you indicated there may be some opportunities in the future to use gas to propel as opposed to water. i understand there is enormous work going on in technology for recycling that water. i am wondering if that is going

to be one of the good effects of this technological breakthrough which will apply to other areas like agricultural irrigation as the oil and gas industry is better to able -- better to euse in clean water. >> the amount of water used is large. i think it is rivaled i the amount of water that is used to water golf courses. i think that is a rather large user of water. we need to get things into perspective here. you may all have a different iew. nonetheless, i think that is the case. recycling is critical. cleaning up and recycling and then substitution. i think the other area is the use of water by technologies which allow it to target the fracking into places more

accurately. over time, that is possible as well. i think it is an important consideration we should be dealt with responsibly. i don't believe it is a constraint if handled properly. >> right back here. > thank you. you mentioned, mr. browne, the energy content of natural gas is 5% of that of oil. how does that persist? what are the costs and what is the long-term outlook for that? >> first, we have to -- i think everyone has to believe will the relative pricing -- will it ast? people are always very uncertain bout that.

they are not prepared to commit to this lasting for a very long time. if they are, a lot has to happen to infrastructure. you can wish to have natural gas but the time it takes to get that to happen is very long. people will always worry about the capital expenditure required to make these changes. some of that is happening. some of it is happening over the long distance, but i think the arbitrage exist for quite a long ime because the market for the use of the different products re so separated. that is what has happened. i think it will last for some time. in the rest of the world, why are the markets failing that oil and gas are priced on the same formula? they used to be used in the same market.

they used to be put under the boiler to make electricity but that does not happen anymore. that is a question people are asking in places like europe and japan. why should we price gas on the same basis as oil? >> right here. > thank you. i am with rockwood holdings. it is obviously the stated policy of the u.s. government that they are not going to allow iran to have a nuclear eapon. in case the current negotiations

fail, it seems that the only option would be a military option. can you educate us that in such an event, what should be preferred? what do you think will happen? what should be -- what should we expect? can we keep this open? >> is this a price of oil question? is that what you have in mind? >> i am talking about the price of oil supply and the duration. is this something that can be contained in a month or six month event? >> the military situation is that enable coalition led by the united states could handle whatever iran would do to close that strait and physically keep it open. if you look at the history of events like that, as the political temperature heats up, there is a spike in oil because people fear what might happen. it happened in the late 980's.

it is clear that the rest of the world that depends on oil coming can keep it safe, insurance rates go down. i think we would see that again. i think that the scenarios that come out of the middle east that keep the price high are the series of events, reactions, and other events which give an uncertainty to the whole situation which is interconnected what happens in syria, iraq, iran. it is the frequency and size of

these individual military and political events in that part of the country to keep the price high and spiking. it would be of most concern over the long-term. if you look at an individual event, there are forces that take care of it pretty quickly. i think -- those are almost impossible to predict. that is where 50% of the world's oil comes from in all of its backup supply. >> over here. >> could we come back to ukraine for a minute? ukraine supposedly has huge reserves of shale gas. poland was supposed to have had huge reserves but it seems they didn't pan out.

i think the estimates went from 44 down to 9 trillion cubic feet in one year. is there any hope that ukraine can gain some kind of energy independence from russia in the near future? how do you see the whole ukraine dynamic playing out with europe? if we are talking about sanctions against russia, is there any prayer that europe could wean itself off russian as in the near future? >> i think we should take this together. let me start. ukraine clearly has potential shale gas. t has not been tested but it seems on most analysis that it has got a significant resource. poland has a resource.

it is unclear quite what size it is and i think it would be a little wrong to write off the scale of poland on the basis of 10 wells in the entire country. it is too much of a reaction. right now it is saying to keep n open mind. ukraine today, the worry about ukraine is that it takes a lot f gas from russia. russia can change the price of that easily. it is discounting it to ukraine. ukraine also is the conduit for gas in europe. that is much less than it used to be because of other pipelines

which has taken away the dependence of one ottleneck. that is the fact. i think the other factor is for he principal part of europe, europe as we know it has not had a gas interruption resulting from russian action. laces like georgia and the ukraine. as to the rest of europe, i think since 1975 -- i am not trying to be an apologist. i think there has been no interruption in gas supply. the question we have to ask ourselves is will there be one given this long track record over many different types of regimes? thirdly, europe has to open up

its shale gas resources. they could be very significant. they will take time. we are dealing with decades of time. whether you delay another year or not, you have to starve to get to the end. i think developing european shale gas is very important. europe has also developed a large number of import terminals which has diversified its sources and have a lot of domestic natural gas in norway, for example. the diversification is taking place in one way or another. i think it must not stop. we should continue to diversify sources because it will add to retention of currency.

it potentially, if there is enough gas, can help the price. >> i think that is quite comprehensive. there is one other aspect of diversity which is important, not just where you get the ifferent types of gas or oil. it is the diversity of how you can use energy sources for different purposes within the country. right now, the u.s. transportation sector is 90% dependent on oil. diversity within that mix of the transportation sector would be good in the united states as it would be good in any other ndustrialized country. if there is -- we cannot predict he future.

because things may get tight in one sector or in one type, you want to have as many different ways to work around that as you can. europe has been working to reduce its dependence on russian gas for a long time. it can also look at other ways to reduce its dependence on gas for heating in houses which is where it has the greatest effect. this internal diversity of energy use an external diversity of energy sources is the only key for region to be able to be proof against one of these political or economic events that tends to cause big roblems. >> it is unlikely that shale gas and ukraine is going to have any effect on the current crisis or the one that follows that or the one that follows that. in the long-term, as john and danny have said, it might substantially added to ukraine's capacity to defend itself over time. let me go back. the furthest one back. es, sir.

>> do either of you see any meaningful role for any of the green alternatives like solar or wind generation to play a major ole in providing energy? would it be sufficient without the major subsidization which it is currently receiving? >> i think most people -- it is worth looking at the global ata. as far as the world is concerned, more electricity is produced from renewable energy right now that it is nuclear energy. t is very important. sustainable production of electricity from renewable energy retires at to get cheaper -- requires it to get cheaper and that is what has to appen.

over the last five years, the price of electricity from solar has gone down by about 60% and from wind between 10% and 20%. there is a reason why that wouldn't happen again. it would be amazing if it did not given the trends in engineering. you expect renewable energy to get cheaper over time. we have to invest in the technology and you would expect the country's to have different levels of subsidy or not subsidy depending on its cost and their sense of security and so forth. in chile for example, alternative cost of energy is importing from what across the pacific ocean. they have a lot of wind and solar so it is obviously very eneficial.

think putting wind turbines with the wind hardly ever blows are you put solar panels where the sun hardly ever shines and you rely on subsidies to make up the difference is not a good idea. you have to get the resources right in the end. i think subsidies will really be taken not to what they should e. i think it is here to stay and i think it will become a bigger proportion of the world's energy use. i think it can be done. in my own experience, since i ran a very large renewable energy company -- you can do it and make it possible. >> i would add that, when you think about the role of government in the energy sector, we talk about regulation which s extremely important.

we just talked about the renewable energies in terms of security and in terms of the environment. i think there is a stronger government role available for security and ensuring this diversity of supplies that we have talked about. to simply say the market will handle it will lead to that results. it has to be smart action by the government. if you allow the market, as far as we can see it, to determine your gas and petroleum import picture, it will leave vulnerabilities. i think we need to look at the whole picture not just whether we can increase renewables at an affordable cost. > right here, sir.

>> my question concerns the transportation sector. in the future that you see for the all electric car, i see that mercedes and bmw is now producing electric car. nissan has one also and there is also the tesla. you see that this has a bright uture? is it going to make much difference in the energy balance considering that electricity has to be generated in some fashion? >> yes, i think they could make a tremendous difference. at price of energy has basically gone down unlike the price of oil which fuels our sector. with natural gas in abundant supply, united states will continue to be down. there is an economic rgument. the problems with electric vehicles are well known. the price and range. both of those have to do with batteries.

the batteries now are limited in their range. range depends on infrastructure, how fast they can recharge the car, and you can get back on the road. all of these are manageable roblems. we are not talking about going to the moon here. we're talking about setting up the structures right in order to et it there. the benefits are just tremendous. if you look from 2001 until 2012, the money that was returned to the american taxpayer in terms of tax rebates, payroll taxes and so on, was exactly matched by the amount of money the same american family had to pay for he gas overseas. the price spikes in oil has kicked our economy. the benefits are tremendous if we can get off of oil.

i would add that in addition to electrical vehicles which are the answer for light trucks and cars. either liquid natural gas or compressed natural gas itself could be a good fuel. e can do this. the benefits to the country both from a national security point of view and from an economic point of view are very ompelling. >> if i may, i have been involved in several ventures in this area. i think the problem is this -- most people don't buy mercedes or bmw or a tesla. they want a cheap, small car that is not too small that will work under all circumstances at ll places.

you basically buy it and turn it on and it works. getting to that point -- cheap, affordable, reliable, always ready is going to take some ime. it is unclear to me whether we will actually get there with electric cars or one with gas cars or whether the internal combustion engine will get so efficient that we will use only a fraction of the gasoline that we use today to drive a car. i think it will be a mix but right now, i am not sure what tesla is doing which is great is n indicator of the future. >> i am afraid we are near the end so perhaps one more question and then -- way in the back. we have not heard from this quadrant over here so way in the ack.

>> thank you. i am hoping you all can talk a little bit more about the social and environmental risks. we have mentioned smart regulation. we have mentioned hiring locally, getting good information out there. can we talk about what the smart regulation look like and from the corporate perspective, what do companies need to do to better integrate some of those considerations into how they go about their business? >> big question. two minutes. whoever wants to take that -- >> it seems to me the best regulation is one that is not written by industry, but one that is informed by industry ractice. it takes time to get right. i think all has to be around

economic trade-offs as well. there are no absolutes. since you mentioned your book, i will mention mine. i talk about the seven elements which is a very simple viewpoint in my experience across the mining and petroleum space. everything is bad and everything is good. what stacks the deck is the ability to contain it through reat regulation. >> i would add that based on mike's. based on my experience, we spent too much time on the egulation. the key to good regulation is good regulators. that means that these cannot be the castoffs from the industry who cannot get a job on the rig so they are hired to inspect.

you have to have -- you have to pay your regulators may be all for social service scale to get really good ones. you have to have a continual retraining capability. if they walked into a mine and find something is bad, they bring it to a halt and say they will be back next week to see if they have it back up to snuff. you can screw around with the $50,000 penalty and think you will get a response. i think the quality of the inspectors which means training and compensation and high teeth and the tools that are given to make sure best practices are being followed. >> we have reached the end. some of you are struck by the fact that we sit in this room often and walk away hearing disturbing, troubling, and worse news. we actually had a session today where we heard a lot of

optimistic news. i want to commend john browne's book. it is elegantly written. a very creative, interesting read. also, admiral blair's commission report which will tell you a lot ore about the subject. let us thank them and thank you all for coming. national captioning institute] able satellite corp. 2014]

a discussion on global change and fiscal austerity. nd we'll talk about a health insurance enrollment on "washington journal." congressional budget director, congressman chris van hollen and grover nordquist and others will talk about the state of the u.s. economy. join this event in progress tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. on c-span 2, there is talk about telecommunications policy. free state foundation. now supreme court justice kagan talks about her life, career and u.s. constitution. she sat down with the dean of the georgetown university law

enter. >> good afternoon and welcome everyone. this is our first dean's lecture to the graduating class and what we're going to do is in the years moving forward beginning with this year have a leading member of the bench and the bar talk to the graduating class about their insights based on their career and things you should know as you are starting out and graduating from law school and we could not have a better lecturer than justice kagan. welcome to georgetown. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. >> pleesh to be here.

and i thought today was going to be a snow day. i guess i'm glad you didn't cancel. >> today is a snow day and i want to particularly thank the justice for coming here. the federal government is closed today. >> i was in my office. i was ready for business. [laughter] >> so we thought the law school was closed until 1:00 and i have to say, i was a little concerned that the school was going to be closed for most of the day, that we may not be able to do you justice in terms of the crowd. as i look around and see every seat in the auditorium is filled. you are clearly a great draw. >> expectations are high. [laughter] to the idea behind this lectures is to reflect on your

career and offer people visas they're starting -- >> i'm supposed to be wise today. >> a lot of pressure. it's really unnecessary to run through your background but that's a requirement. justice kagan is from new york city. a graduate of hunter high school. princeton, oxford, harvard. clerked for two of the legends of the united states judiciary, on the d.c. court of appeals and then justice marshal. and then worked briefly at williams and connolly and went into teaching at the university of chicago and then left teaching to work in the clinton administration, first as an associate counsel and deputy

assistant to the president and then went to harvard and became dean from 2003 to 2009. and one of the reasons why i thought that it was really perfect that you would be our inaugural speaker, in addition o having a great career in cademics, you were famous on helping students. arranging from revising the curriculum at harvard to free coffee, which i would like to emulate. if there are any donors out there. and then really being one of the great dean of harvard law school, of any law school. in 2009, you were laminated -- nominated for solicitor general and became solicitor general in 2009. and then in 2010, you are named for the supreme court, succeeding in justice

stevens court on -- justice stevens's chair on the court. but you are very kind. when people used to go through my resume like that when they were introducing me for something, i used to get up to the podium and say, well, now you know my secret. i cannot keep a job. but i think my new job has solved that. so, no longer. >> very good. i'm relieved to hear that. >> >> so let's start again. when you were a kid, what were your first thoughts about what job you wanted to have when you grew up? >> i'm not sure i remember all that well. i had my years when i was going to be a famous tennis player and stuff like that. i was a voracious reader, so i

definitely thought i wanted -- being a writer seemed a good thing to me. being a lawyer, honestly, did not post out my father was a lawyer -- did not. my father was a lawyer. when i think about the kind of law that he practiced now, i very much understand why he had fun in the profession and why it was so meaningful to him, but i have to say that as a kid it did not seem that exciting to me. my colleague, justice soto mayor, talks about how when she was a kid she watched perry mason. this was before anyone in this room's time, but mason was this great trial lawyer and there were all of these are hot moments -- all of these a-ha moments when he solves these great cases and it was all very exciting. and she said that made her want to be a lawyer. and when she told me that, i said oh, i knew that our kissing law was never like that. my father went to work and he

never had those kinds of moments. he thought it was a terrible failure when he went to court. he had a small practice and just helped ordinary people solve heir problems. omeplace along the line. and i look now and see what he did and think, what a meaningful way to spend your time in the profession. but as a kid, it did not seem very exciting. >> when did you think that you wanted to become a lawyer? >> well, i never really did. i'm sure you were a dean. i was a dean. i spent so much time talking to prospective students and said, don't just go to law school

because you cannot think of anything else to do. there are all of the students who get out of college and they don't know what else to do and they think, well, i will go to law school because it will keep my options open, right? and for several years i said this to my students. and then i realized, that is why i went to law school, you know. where does this advice come from exactly? i went to law school and major in history in college. i thought about being an academic. by the time i got to the end of my academic experience and got through a year of the senior thesis, which was a very big project at the college i went to, i thought there was no way i'm going to be a historian. and i did not know what i wanted to do. i thought, i will go to law school and something will turn up. and that is why i went. but then instead, i went to law school and i fell into the lucky

group where, really, from the first day, i loved every moment of it. i thought, my gosh, what a lucky thing that i ended up here. >> what did you like at law school? >> i liked the combination of two things, i think. i liked that it was -- i liked just thinking about it intellectually. i liked the puzzle aspects of law. i was like one of these law students who always liked the technical classes. i liked thinking through really complicated problems. but i also liked the fact that it wasn't purely a puzzle and purely abstract. that there were ways that people could use the law to actually make a difference in the world. it seemed very practical and grounded to me, at the same time as it seemed intellectually fascinating. that is what i liked about

it. >> as you were going through law school, did you have a sense of what you wanted to do next? rex -- >> i think i played with a lot of different possibilities. i thought about being an academic, and that was definitely something that i contemplated. but i also had a professor who said, you know, you've never really known anything but school. you should go out and get some -- do some other things. get some other experiences before you decide you want to spend your life in an academic environment. so i tried to do that. think i thought about academia. i thought about private practice. i suppose, i knew that at some point in life, professional life, i would go into public service in some form. and i was lucky enough to have

this actually happen to me. i think i had hoped to have a career where i could experience a lot of different things, do a lot of different things, and during the course of my career. maybe because i have a short attention span, or maybe because i thought a lot of different things would probably be interesting. i had hoped to be a person who bopped back and forth among a different number of areas. >> how do you think about your career? do you focus on just your first job? do you focus on, this is where i want to be in 30 years? what advice do you have for people just starting out as they think about their career arc? >> definitely don't just think about your first job. try to be more holistic when you are thinking about the kinds of experiences you want to have and the kind of work you want to do during the whole course of your career.

but then also understand -- sometimes i think just saying that you should plan every step of the way, and i really don't think that. i actually think that law students tend to planned -- to plan too much. or at least, i don't want this to be like an anti-plan, that you should never she -- never plan anything. because you should. you should think about the different types of experiences that you want to have, but realize it will not all happen in the order you think or the order you want. different things are going on randomly, and will serendipitously present themselves. people who have the most fun legal careers are the people who are very open to serendipity in their lives. and who will be doing one thing and sort of thinking that is what they are going to do for a number of years, but then we'll see an opportunity and will seize that opportunity rather

than say, oh, i'm sorry, this does not exactly fit into the plan i have and i'm going to wait for that for another x number of years. i think a lot of life is sort of luck and opportunities presenting themselves in ways that you might not think that they would. and the people who end up, i think, with the great legal careers, they are the people who grabbed the things when they come. >> is that what happened with your career? is that how it was structured? >> i think i was lucky enough to do that. if you said to me, what was planned? almost nothing was, actually. different things presented themselves at different points in time. i was lucky enough, or maybe i knew enough to grab good things when they came up. >> you started by clerking. >> yes. that was a great experience.

i hope the clerks that i have love it. it is just a wonderful place to think about law for a little longer, but also to see it in action. a judge can be a great mentor, of course, if you are lucky enough to get the right one. and i was, i was lucky enough to get to great mentors, and to miraculous human beings. -- get two great mentors and two miraculous human beings. it was a great experience for a young person. for me, it was a great opportunity. >> what did you learn from them? >> all kinds of different things. first, i think i probably learned something just about the various kinds of nonlegal qualities and attributes that

people have. judge was one of the world's most generous men. and going through a year with somebody who had that sort of deep in his bones generosity and love for people was a great experience for me. justice marshall, of course, is an iconic figure. and that was one of the great experiences of my life. he was justice marshall by the time i clerked for him. he was relatively elderly. he had turned 80, but he was a little bit of an old 80 and he was looking back on his life at that point. and the clerks were lucky enough to be there with him at a time when he was really thinking about his life and what he had ccomplished. he was the world's greatest storyteller and raconteur. you would walk into his office

and, first, you would talk about the cases and do all of your work, and then at a certain time he would just flip over and start telling stories. they were unbelievable stories, because they were stories about some of the most important aspects of 20th century american history. and there you were. you are there, listening to this man who i believe was the finest lawyer of the 20th century, you know, tell about his cases and the way he approached his cases and the decisions he made, and the difficulties he confronted, the dangers he faced, including the physical dangers. it was an unbelievable experience. >> it must have been incredibly inspiring working for him. >> it was incredibly inspiring. if you are not inspired after a year of clerking for thurgood marshall, you are the dead to the world, honestly. but it was a lesson in what the law can accomplish. i think he is the greatest 20th-century american lawyer. he had all of these

incredible skills, and i don't think there was anybody who combined what he did in appellate courts with what he did in trial courts and all of that will stop but look, - and all of that. but look, if you are going to measure a person by the degree to which they promote justice in the world, which is one way, one important way to measure lives in law, i don't think there is anyone who approaches him in that. >> i think that is right. having the privilege of working for justice marshall, did that shape your career at all? did it affect the decisions you made? >> i think both he and judge mixa were good lessons about the way in which you ould help people and make a difference in the world. and for every individual,

that will mean a different thing. but i think there are very ew people who have really deep, fulfilling, meaningful legal careers without finding some way to make a difference to things little bit bigger than themselves. >> how important are mentors for a lawyer? >> they have been really important in my life, and i've been lucky enough to have them every place i went. i mean, i had them in law school and i had them in these two men that i clerks for. and i had them as a young academic, and when i was a young lawyer in practice. just each step of the way, people to learn from, and also people who make the next step

and the next step and the next step a little bit easier. one of the things i did a few worry -- a few years after clerking, i went to the university of chicago to teach. why did i get a job at the university of chicago? parley, it was my resume and transcript and all of that stuff, but partly it was judge mcglynn knew everybody in chicago. he had gone to the university of chicago and had very deep and close connections there. he picked up the phone and he talked to some people about me. i could say that about everything i've gotten in my life. honestly, i think most people can. it is partly because of the hard work that you have put in and because of what you have accomplished. but it is partly because there are other people who you have run into along the way, who are there to do a good turn for you, and you hope that you will be there to do a good turn for

somebody else. said that way, it can seem very self-serving, like, go find mentor so they can help you. but in truth, we all help each other. and in thinking about as you go through, especially the early years of a legal career, the people you are connecting with and how you can learn from them. but also, thinking a little bit about how you can make your way is a valuable thing. >> i think that is a very important point, particularly when people start law school. the reason why everybody gets admitted to georgetown, they are incredibly smart, and did very well academically. there is a tendency to focus on. intelligence as the key to success in a career.

but finding mentors, people you can learn from -- >> and you can find them, by the way, in your peers. i used to think about this when i was in law school. as you just said, adding a lot of people come to law school and they are very good students and they continue to focus on that port -- that part. and of course, you should. you should work hard. but iowa's felt that when you look at the law school and everybody just sort of putting their -- i always felt that when you look at the law school and everybody is just sort of putting their heads in a ook. and then you look at a business school where everybody is focused on making connections. there is something a little bit icky about all of this focus on just making connections. you know, so you can help

this person and that person can help you. but there is something that is great about it. it sort of vague knowledge is that you will not just be an individual -- it sort of acknowledges that you will not just be an individual in your legal career. you are part of teams and collectives. and the connections you've made with all the people that you work with, all the people that you study with when you are a student, are of really deep significance in somebody's career. >> and also, there are also -- they are also personally very affirming. >> absolutely. >> one of the things that you have done also in your career that i find really striking is promoting collegiality and encouraging people to work ogether. i think, when i look back at what you did at harvard law school, what you did was you really made the faculty, at least from the outside, feel like a community in a way that it had not before. and certainly, a lot of the press accounts indicate that the trajectory you are on -- were on in the court is similarly about

teambuilding. you know, when i think about justices across history who have been about getting people to think together, chief justice warren, justice brennan. that is something we don't normally teach in law school. how do you learn to get people to work together and how do you build teams? >> i make no claims for anything on the court. i'm still pretty young there and i'm still pretty new. i'm still finding my way, i'm sure. but i did take some degree of pride in this after law school. and you are extraordinary at it, dean traitor -- dean shrader. part of it is listening to people and getting them to focus on the institution as a whole

and how they can contribute to the institution as a whole and work together with other people, rather than just go their separate way, or even worse, fight with everybody, which was often the case at harvard in some parts of its history. i love thinking, actually, about institutions and how they operate, how they work. how you can get people to work together in them and make them succeed in ways that you didn't think you could. it is a little bit trial and error, and i think -- i don't think it came very naturally to me. it was something that i had to learn and think hard about. i think it involves really listening to other people and doing a lot more listening than talking often. in order to exercise leadership

and in order to move an institution. if there was anything that i was the free coffee -- [laughter] you know, i recommend you get that donor for. it was probably that. >> it really was remarkable. at harvard, it seemed like there was a time in which the faculty was really deadlocked. there was no -- there were -- there was very little new faculty hiring, and then you came in and transform the law school in a very short timeframe. there was curricular reform, a tremendous wave of faculty hiring. ing specific that people can think about listening, trying to get people to see across differences? >> listening, trying to get people to see across differences, picking out people