entity well known to be associated with aid work, and because of the publicity, it had a demonstration effect on all the other civilian aid. >> i think so. that's one of the reasons you want totize this and get the message out. that helps. >> just so i'm not accused of being left leaning, i'm going to the right for the next question, and they know i'll come to the others. >> thank you very much. i'm with the u.s. department of state. a couple of questions. stewart bohen on his exit was proposing called called the u.s. office of overcontingency operations. he had a grain of optimism that could perhaps be established. i don't see too much movement in that direction. but is something like that, whether in terms of a specific office or the capabilities that he was proposing, would that be

helpful in terms of look at future? and a related question is you determined they were established because of the tremendous amount of resources that were being put into these twop countries. is the role of the special inspector generals simply a kind of surge capability, or do you bring something to -- does a special inspector general bring something greater to this effort than the igs of the particularly agencies of the gao? >> okay. let mel quickly on the proposal that stewart bohen had and then i'll answer your question. the answer is yes to the last part of your request e. i'll go into more detail. stewart did make that recommendation. again, i gefr that i don't do policy, i do process. and so i don't really think it's

my position to recommend, and i haven't been asked, to recommend creating or not creating an entity such as stewart recommended. i will say this. this helps to answer your second question. i got enough authority, enough power, enough resources to do the job. i like temporary agencies. you know. there is a problem with creating another agency that will exist that never goes. i mean, i'm still waiting. i remember when i was working for sam nun. they finally abolished the tea tasting board, which had been established right after the revolution. okay? when you create an agency, it s never goes away. i don't know if you need it. special inspector generals are

great. i got the '78 act. i got my name in the legislation. my enabling legislation gives me more authority than the average i.g. has. i'm given unlimited hr authority. i can hire and fire at will. that's tremendous. and you need it for a temporary agency. my pay, i can give bonuses. i can do a lot of things. it's not outrageous, what we can do, but i can give hiring bonuses, which most of the government can't. i can pay retention bonuses. but the hiring and firing means that if i need somebody quickly, and i need somebody who has the fire in the belly, which is the way ai proech my staff, i ensure they have the fire in the belly. and when i took over the job, we had ha 60% attrition rate. 60%.

let me just back up. sigar was not always this aggressive. it was publicly attacked in a bipartisan fashion for its lack of aggressiveness, its inability to do its job. and we went through some hard times. when i took over it was 60% attrition rate. you can't operate at that. when i took over, we were only producing four products per quarter. we have cut that attrition rate for a temporary agency. it's down below half. we're producing 30 products per quarter. and part of the reason is because i can hire people, men and women, in afghanistan and here who are dedicated who have the same fire in the belly. i remember my former chief of

staff, who is now my head of audits wrote an e-mail saying uh-oh, it's a fitb type. it's the fire in the belly type. i basically tell people we're here for a limited amount of time. we got a mission. the white house said two things to me, fix it and fix it fast. so i don't have time for a ten-year engagement. we have to do something really quickly. that's what congress and the white house asked us to do. so i'm able to get people who have the fire in the belly. so i don't need a permanent home. everybody coming knows it's temporary. i like agencies that go out of existence. we will go out of existence when the amount of reconstruction

funds fall below $250 million a year. that's money in an authorized, appropriated, and not yet spent. so we go out of existence six months after that. i'll tell you, there's $20 billion still in the pipeline not yet spent, so we may be around for a while. but i don't think -- i do have unique powers. and if you look, and particularly my unique power is not only the hiring and firing capability, but we look at all reconstruction by any u.s. government agency. stewart bohen had certain pots of money he could look at. if you spend a dime on reconstruction. whether you are the state, dod, or the department of commerce, i own it. and that's one authority. if you look at my statute, it uses the term independent, like in every other paragraph.

so they really say independence. it specifically said no government agency does not cooperate with us. no government agency can stop any of our audits, investigations and inspections. so we have tremendous authority here. we are unique. we have unique authorities. we're also not housed in any one government agency. state is in state. we sort of sit above everything just looking at reconstruction. so if we can't help the taxpayer, then, you know, i don't know what else can. but i don't think a permanent entity is really niece at this time. we got the authority. >> thank you. inspector general we are running short of time. so i'm going to ask two persons to ask their questions together, if you don't mind. >> well, she's waiting.

the lady at the back, and then the gentleman here. and then if you can take these two together, we would appreciate that. >> mine is more comment rather than question. >> identify yourself, please. >> i've been a senior adviser to nato and the u.s. military. but i've also got a background as an aide worker both in iraq and afghanistan, which is probably why i was chosen. one of the biggest problems, sir, from my vantage point, and please remembers i just returned after 12 nonstop years in iraq and afghanistan has been the inaccessibility of for offices for sigar in iraq and afghanistan. the theory is fantastic, your housed with lots of security within the state department offices. how then is anyone who wishes to put in a complaint against

contractors, against government officials, against what have you, how are they supposed to come to you? in my own case, i would come back to america, to washington, to deal with the sigar offices, and i would give them the names of people who wished to talk to them. the sigar authorities were afraid that people's lives could be compromised if they were to be seen coming out of their offices in kandahar and baghdad. first of all, the offices need to be made more accessible. and where we have had successes, to answer a portion of your ten questions, it's when we've dealt with community professionals, lawyers, daughters, engineers, established business entities. not whom we awarded for whatever favors. et cetera, et cetera.

just a brief comment on what we were talking about. >> can we move to the gentleman in the front here and get his question? >> sure. and i promise to be short. >> i'm dr. hank from emeril planet tv. i have four best practices from within afghanistan that i would love to share with you that's been on our tv program. looking at the nuch and looking at the ngos, what is your prognosis as far as how easy or difficult that may be to work with local entities to expand green job training and to use the assets left behind by the u.s. military and others as we mover forward past 2014. and thank you for being here and your excellent report. >> thank you very much. let me answer the question about access to us. you can always access us on the internet. we get a lot of complaints, and a lot of contacts to our staff

because we have a hot line. i don't have ittized. by you can find it on our website. the other thing on getting access to us, we're also located, unlike most of the other agencies, we have the largest law enforcement presence in afghanistan. we're at five or six locations there. i have people outside the wire at the bases. but the point you raise is a serious one. it's hard to get outside the wire. it's hard to get afghans inside the wire to talk to. u.s. contractors, it hasn't been a problem. and a lot of u.s. contractors and government employees come back to the states and we see them there. we've never had a problem where people can't find us. they always do and are always nice and interesting places. i've met people under trees and

at night, behind buildings when i'm in the embassy. there are plalss where you can meet, so that's not a problem. in my staff i have interesting and devious ways of meeting people. so if you need to talk to us, we'll get a way to protect you, we're very serious about protecting people, whether you're afghan, u.s., or international coalition. the question about -- and i don't really fully understand, but the question about how to this get with ngos and work with them, it's -- we try to work with them all the time. i meet with a group of ngos every time i go there. my staff meet with them on a regular basis. they do get outside the wire. they are outside in the provinces. they give me a better feel, and actually get a better feel than the embassy gets. whether our government will be able to continue working with them, i don't know. it's going to be the difficulty of getting out there.

ch and that's a serious problem. that's why i so much encourage, you know, helping the ngos in afghanistan, whether it's on oversight or green issues, health issues. because they're the ones with the eyes and ears. they're out there. they're community based. that's what we're going to have to rely on. and we're toying with an idea to yutz the ngos. to be our eyes and ears to monitor programs. that's more difficult. tths not the gold standard. we have to, who is watching the watchdogs? who is going to watch the people, you know. so that's a whole process that we have to do. we have to deal with the ngos. we can't forget them. we cannot forget an independent press. let me just be clear here. the reason -- the reason chicago

organized crime and the al capons and the mafias did not only take over country is not only because of brave law enforcement, brave press. and it was the press. if you want to expose problems in afghanistan, we have to support the independent local press. those are the eyes and ears. and if we had more independent press in some countries, maybe we would have better rule of law in some countries. i low that out. >> thank you. i know that we're running over. and i appreciate you taking two more questions if we can. >> happy to do it. and i apologize. i talk too much. >> we have the lady in the front, and then in the third roud. if you could please ask your questions, one after the other, and keep them short. identify yourselves. >> my name is farrah stockman. i work with the boston globe. i've been to afghanistan several times. i'm wondering if you can say a

few words about the commander's emergency response and the military has been pushing so much to this be table to spend money quickly, is it a good idea? >> thank you, and then we go to the lady in the third row. and then maybe you can answer these two. >> thank you so much. i recently did research on governance. the major finding of that research was that corruption may not just be a political crisis, but also a cultural crisis. and by that i mean it may not just be a technical challenge that could be addressed by experts and policies and strategies. but may have adaptive elements to it, in which people would have a greater role to play, and the fact that afghans paid $1.25 billion in prescribes indicates a clear role that people have in maintaining the flow of

corruption. i was wondering if your findings did point towards clues to suggest corruption would have serious cultural roots to it. and if it did, what recommendations could you share on that? thank you. >> okay. let me deal with -- oh, is there another question? on the programs, we haven't done a full blown audit, we have concerns. we've touched on it. many of the programs we've identified that are very poorly done were funded. i think congress itself has has some problems. i think the amount has been decreasing. the bottom line is, control and oversight. and the funding was just for those of you who don't know, it was special funding set up for the commanders in the field to help them as part of the coin doctrine, another acronym. to try to win the hearts and minds. we've done some audits where we

found rather than winning the hearts and minds you've actually lost some of the hearts and minds because it was so poorly done. we're going to send a letter about the bridging solution in kandahar, part of a funding. a diesel power. but the power may go off. and then you've lost all their hearts and minds. with we've got briefed. there's a new bridging solution to the bridge bridging solution. really a solution to the fact that we haven't put the third turbine in. and so you know, it's a beautiful dam. i got a chance to get out there. surrounded by 200 well armed marines because of the security situation. but my god. we still haven't finished it. it's taken longer than it did

for the pharaohs to do the pyramids. we've been doing it since 1952. still isn't done. we don't know if it will ever be done. we issued a report saying we have some problems about funding this thing. all i'm saying is you have the to be careful. good idea, but you have to make certain it's done correctly. the problem is the troops who are monitoring change out every six months or nine months or maybe a year and nobody knows what the heck we did. so going back to the cultural roots, we haven't really focused on the cultural roots. i had -- and i won't mention the person by name because he's a presidential candidate. but i had a conversation with him some time ago, this gentleman. and he said, look. you know, this idea about

cultural. we're culturally more attuned to corruption. he said i spent time and i saw -- i remember reading the story of a truck overturning in manhattan and the back doors opened up and hundred dollar bills floated all over the place and everybody grabbed some. the americans are corrupt? if there's so much money floating around, it's natural. especially if you're very poor and you could make more money in one day than an entire year. it's going to change the culture, the economy, the value system. and that's something we have to look at. we have done an awe dilt on that. but a number of people have told me that. and that's the thing we really have to know. too much money, too little oversight and too short a time, what do you think is going to happen in any country?

i use my daughter every once in a while. and she hates this. you give her a $10 allowance every year -- every week. wow. i'm really cheap. every week you say, here's a thousand dollars. i'm going to give you a thousand dollars. what do you think is going to happen? i don't care if your kid is 13 or 20 or 7. bad things are going to happen. so let's stay instead i give you a $10,000 allowance this week. real bad things we know, as parents are going to happen. what did we do f in afghanistan? we didn't have much oversight. and the general's report. our reports, everybody who looked at it said bad things happened. we have to make certain that doesn't happen again. >> i thought you said you were an optimist.

>> i am. >> i would have said she invest it in a savings account. >> i have to talk to your daughter. >> he would have told that a pessimist is an optimist with experience. so i'm so sorry we weren't able to take all the other questions. i'm sure with this audience we could have spent another hour. but there's a limit on your time and on the time of our friends from c-span and the audience at home. so on behalf of my colleagues, i want to thank you for taking this time and being so candid and open with us. it's good to know that you have that $250 sml limit before the sunsets on this operation, and we hope that you will come back and on progress. particularly after the elections as we see things emerging. >> happy to do so. >> thank you very much.

[ applause ] >> thank you.

. .

in a way that is better for the country than it has been in the past. one of the pieces that will help grow the economy in the medium term is getting hold of your debt. something to avoid a crisis will in sure that you do not have a debt crisis from borrowing too long because you did not deal with that problem. the risks are significant. it does not mean you should not deal with all the other economic challenges. in washington, we these issues.ze we need a broad strategy instead of doing only that, only grows, only income inequality, only trade. they are interrelated. >> we basically gave you a huge buffet of issues to ask questions about. the first question is coming from right over here. i am aame is patrick,

washington lawyer. i was general counsel at the senate banking committee in the 1987-1988 period. we moved from stakeholder capitalism to shareholder capitalism. to feel theyuse had a responsibility to their workers, the country, and other things. then they began to squeeze pensions out and do other things to increase shareholder value. the other thing, as we entered the global economy, other countries saw what was going on and put in incentives -- underpriced currencies, subsidies, low labor costs, low environmental -- to make our companies increase profits for the shareholders by outsourcing production and shipping back. to thehen has led massive and ongoing trade deficit. the other point is that this

also feeds the budget deficit. when production that used to be here is out in china is not paying taxes here. workers who used to pay taxes here are unemployed, all this feeds. article ae a great couple years ago. maybe a couple months ago. problem we real should be focusing on is balancing trade. the trade deficit should be the focus. once you balance trade, warren buffett wrote a nautical about this, you force yourself to stop the outsourcing, put in tax policies, and set up production in the country. that will be the goal that will help us have a national strategy to rebuild this economy and help our people. >> thank you very much. do you want to respond? five i appreciate that, thank you. the picture you are painting, and the fact that i tend to

paint and/or colors, it is actually even a little worse than you suggest. ,n terms of outsourcing companies outsource to pop their stock, wall street likes hearing companies -- like the furniture industry. the other issue i wanted to tie -- it wasis that related to your comment -- we do have industrial policy in america, we just do not knowledge and. we have a subsidized financial services industry. it is so heavily subsidize it should not be considered a private industry. we should be regulating financial services companies like utilities. that is a subject you cannot indulge in, either. >> over here.

>> paula start of the stern group. committeeber of the on economic development. i want to talk about industrial policy and get back to jim's question. not talking -- not only about the health industry, but that of the role that the defense department and in particular, uspa has played in bringing out of the manufacturing economy and into the information age. and the role it has played in the private-public partnership has goneresearch that into semiconductors, the internet, smartphones, you name it. should we be thinking more about darpa model.on the ares to assure that when we

in a model where we are crypting, we are better -- better equipped to do so. on the trade issue, we have not even talked about energy. gas, oil, exports, what that will be doing to those numbers. i would not rely just on those numbers to provide the basis for good, washington-based policy for growth for this economy. >> thank you. first of all, on the energy issue, it has been reported by the institute for energy resource, a conservative leaning research group, that the value of oil and natural gas, under federal lands and federal waters, not including coal, is is $128 trillion.

that puts in perspective our anguishing. 100 trillion -- $120 trillion that we own. it is hard to think of a better place to spend that money on darpa. the longest-serving darpa director said that seven out of eight of our projects were total failures. one out of eight includes the internet and life-saving drone technology. at theaid something beginning he said this is boring stuff. it is actually kind of interesting. it is interesting anecdotes of how people did things. have states even figured out the economy of the internet? it is in the tens of trillions of dollars. that is up from zero.

thanks to people across the pentagon of the national science foundation and the private sector in silicon valley and everything else. is spectacular. there are plenty of others to be had. i support a regulatory regime and a tax policy that makes america more competitive. even now, in the ballooned economy we have. according to the washington -- according to the wall street journal, the household net worth -- $80.6million trillion. when i read that as a pool of capital, and then when i read in gizmodo, not on the cbo reenlist, that there is a new computer that is 100 times more than traditional computers.

there is a dimension to economic growth and scientific understanding that is lost in the silo of the washington budget game, much to our detriment. if this quantum computer proves noticerue, the cbo will that tax revenues have an creased here or in china or in japan. how do we make sure that the quantum computing benefits benefits every american. and as a consistent policy for acrossng manufacturing all 50 states. not only do i think that would be good politics, it would be good economics. the politician who took credit for ushering in a quantum computer for ohio would be a popular -- would deserve to be in the pantheon of people who, in previous years, digital

railroads -- did railroads or canals. record, i think the recovery is boring and the internet is cool. one last question. >> my name is martin. i think what you have all been saying is that we do not think long-term about. what we have essentially been all our intersecting short term thinking in a way that they conflict. up,issue that bill brought things that are most important, raising the issue of alzheimer's and other things. it tells us that good, fundamental research and good, fundamental technology can rebuild what we think we want to have. we still have to understand what the real problems are. alzheimer's will cost us $1 trillion in so many years.

but climate change could cost us much more, but we will not address that. other issues around the globe are the same kinds of things. we need to look at the whole of science and technology, the whole of our political system, and find ways for them to work the power toaving think long-term long enough so that we are not driven by the thinking we think we should be driven by. our corporate thinking is not quarterly because of shareholders. who are the shareholders? their computers. investinge are not for six months to a year and their corporations. computers are trading 90% of shares every day. think again about what you think you know. >> who wants to think again about what they think they know? please. bill, you need another bite at the apple here.

let me do this. it is a little off-base. i am probably the only one sitting up here as a cbo alumni, it was established in 1975. let me make one quick observation about cbo. there, other is people would do away with the senate budget committee and house budget committee. i love what you say. there is one thing that concerns me about dynamic scoring. i am all for dynamic scoring, i dm all for what martin talke about in terms of science-based applies toat i science-based research of what we're going to invest in. my problem is the ngos, the lobbyists. women andrun wic, fits in children. i was told if i invested one

dollar in wic, i would get three dollars in medicaid. there is not a lobbyist in this town that would not argue invest more. route,wn the tax policy we are going to increase revenues by cutting taxes, fine. what you are talking about is increasing spending because somebody is going to argue it is going to return as an investment. i am all for that, i just do not believe that policies established on compo hill -- on capitol hill are science-based decision.make a i am all for investment, i am at ie same time, with maya, think investments should be offset by a reduction in the long-term expenditures in the entire program. >> brief. tweetre, two, three,

length comments. >> this is a very inside washington comment. mistake to think that we can say and write rules that say here is the share of outlaysend of the two -- share of gdp weekend the vote -- devote twop we can outlays going for. there are people who want to lock in the historical outlays of 21%. climate change might make that a terrible idea for the kinds of investments and actions your question suggested. >> derek, i have got to get in here. >> i do not fall the -- i do not cbo for existing. they can do their little thing

and have a little numbers. "warisdom of talleyrand, is too important to be left to generals." statecraft is too important to be left to budgeteers. years, no one who is creating jobs across the country is sitting there thinking as he or she makes entrepreneurial aboutlations what the deficit is. they are thinking about regulations and capital and so on. there may be an indirect relationship between deficit and what they are doing in anytown, usa. have technology available and do they have animal spirits. a larger political vision, statecraft is too important to be left to budgeteers. it is america's history, back to

the boring subject, that makes us optimistic that if we invest in technology and infrastructure, we will get benefits we need. isa different conclusion that policymaking right now feels too important to me to be left to politicians. i really like you're pulling together, what we do not have in a long-term is a vision in any areas. a small observation, i am the first to defend cbo, it tries to do this. how do you build institutions that are more impartial and more removed from politics? it is why we do commissions. technocratsring in or experts to weigh in on what will help grow the economy the most and will be most beneficial to borrow for. the lack of trust in what politicians are defining as things that will work in certain ways that i think is one of the

biggest roadblocks. >> thank you. . have been given the red light we can have a spillover session and anyone who wants to watch them argue, please, right behind that exit sign. thank you so much for a really fun panel. [applause] >> white house budget director sylvia mathews burwell talks about the prospects for a deal with congress on deficit reduction in the 2015 budget. her remarks are 20 minutes. [cheers and applause] margarets about carlson? >> she is terrific. >> why? laste was the first and female columnist at "time." >> i like to bring scott appear to show how funny i am in contrast. i am just joking.

tribute to scott -- to margaret. we have sylvia mathews burwell coming up. we will richard trumka, be having a conversation. we will have a festive reception with the specialty cocktails, thelehman drop and whocitini, for all of those have the temerity to stay with us all day. let me invite to the stage, sylvia mathews burwell, director of the office and management and budget. and margaret carlson, columnist with bloomberg view. margaret, sylvia? >> good afternoon.

is this hunting? humming?s excuse the echo. sylvia mathews burwell is the , then that you will see picture of thehe financial team of the obama administration. we both decided to wear turquoise. sylvia, as director of the office of management -- >> is me your cell phone. >> it is not my cell phone. >> sorry to interrupt. >> i am a walking signal. andoffice of management dreaming. because the budget is a wish list of the obama administration in so many ways.

john boehner called it the most irresponsible budget yet. i am sure you know other things it has been called. billion over what was agreed to in january. what, if anything, is going to get passed? >> the first thing, we present a budget that has what we believe ryan-murray levels that were agreed upon. the appropriations process started the day we send the document to the hill. we gave them what they need to go forward. a budget is a representation of what your revision is. wasidea behind our budget to present what we believe should happen. we did what we could to support the process going forward. did do $56, we

billion with $28 million on the nondiscretionary side that was fully paid for. what we believe is that we will give you our priorities if you stay at this level. what we believe in terms of the health of the economy, something that was mentioned in the last session, we believe that is the right approach. that additional investments in the space of infrastructure, innovation, education, and our national security to give examples of the types of things that we would do when fully paid for. and yes, we believe some revenues and other kinds of cuts are a better approach to providing economic growth. so we believe the budget is within the context of the over arching lines that have been set. but we also wanted to make sure we expressed what we believe is the best fiscal policy for the nation. >> there is a little bit of wishing in there. one of the ways in which you are going to save money or cut

spending is closing tax loopholes. how likely does that look now? >> one of the things about the closing of the tax loopholes that i think is important -- i would make two points here. one is whether it is palm ryan's budget or our budget. there is an agreement that there are inefficiencies in our tax system that we can change. the question of what you do those efficiencies, whether it is lowering rates or applying to deficit, there is agreement -- there is disagreement there. the second thing i would reflect. in chairman camp's proposal that he presented, his tax proposal on the issue of tax reform, many of the same offsets or loophole closers were used. so it is good to know that there is a starting point on an overlap on some of these issues and then how do we move forward to get them done. as well as what they get used for. >> the dave camp proposal caused a lot of consternation among republicans.

it was not embraced. >> it is fair to say in this town right now, i am not sure that dead on arrival is a phrase that will be used for about anything. so i think the question is, when ideas are put out, when plans are put out in their whole form, that starts the conversation. >> one of my favorite things is the earned income tax credit. you expand this to young unmarrieds so that they can do a people use to do which is, when they are young, get a job and get married and produce new workers. there is an element among republicans, i do not want to o political, it seems to want to punish the poor. if you give a man a foodstamp,

he is going to stop working. the earned income tax credit gets around that because you have to be working. but there is a grudging philosophy about how the working poor will stop working or don't really want to work and it runs through the republican criticism of what has been put forward by the obama administration. >> in the example of the earned income tax credit, that is a program that has been supported by both republican and democrat administrations. it is even mentioned in paul ryan's recent document on poverty. it is what you said, it is work-based. this particular item tends to have a little more bipartisan support which is one of the reasons we are focused on it and emphasize it. but i think your broader point is important and true. across our agenda, what we are tried to do is make sure you are encouraging economic growth and jobs but also opportunities. those two things are often related. there are many proposals -- i

think no one -- i think the one you are raising is one we hope will get traction because of bipartisan support for it. >> i think it is the scarf. so now we are different. so what are the areas -- what are the areas of compromise. where are you and john boehner going to find common ground? >> one of the things i hope will happen is an appropriations process or the idea that you can move forward the creation of a budget for 2015 so we would not have continuing resolutions or the threat of shutdown or anything. i think that is a place where we can see progress. last year, what we did see when chairman ryan and chairman murray came together, we saw an ability to have an agreement and move forward. then the next step, you saw mikulski and chairman

rogers able to do something that has not happened since 1987. that is when all the bills had gotten done in one bill like that. >> the glory days. >> that has not happened in a long time. i think in the appropriations process this year, we will see hopefully bills start to move and some of that regular order return. >> so let me move -- is there somebody doing time cues here? oh good. i want to leave five minutes for questions. are there enough healthy young people signing up for obamacare? i know you are up to 5 million. we will slow the cost eventually and premiums will go down because everybody will be in. but that depends on people much younger than me and equally healthy. >> i think the question of the affordable care act and how the

interaction of risk and the risk pool with premiums is an important one and one that everyone is rightfully focused on in terms of making the numbers work and the system work. i think right now this is not concerned about in terms of where the numbers are with regard to the issues of youth and the total enrollment. i think it should be alright in getting the right risk pool to continue forward and do what the objective of the overall of affordable care act is. that is one thing that is pretty important, to take a step back and go what is this about. it is about improving access. it is about improving the quality of health care. so access, 5 million people have joined. it is about improving quality. as the implementation of the affordable care act has occurred, we have seen the number of repeat visits to hospitals go down. in certain places. number three, it is about cost. while the congressional budget

office from 2014 to 2020, their estimates of health care costs have gone down since the implementation of the affordable care act by $900 billion. is all of that attributable to the affordable care act? no. some of that is structural changes that were in place. but it does contribute. as we think about all these pieces, this is one we are keeping our eye on but not concerned as we are moving against those three major goals. >> let me admit to watching enough tv to be bombarded with cutting medicare advantage and seniors being furious. everyone wants to cut medicare costs. this one you have cut and you are not supposed to be doing it. the things that it is important even than the last conversation about entitlements. the cluster of how we approach our fiscal challenges in the byure that is driven both

health care costs as well as by the demographics of our nation. haves in administration, done changes to medicare advantage. during that period of time, we have seen medicare advantage enrollment grow even with the changes we have done. and premiums not be affected. the changes we are proposing, we hope, are along the same lines. we believe we do need to focus on health care costs and promote certain types of structural changes that will help us with our long-term fiscal health. >> someone must be really upset to be spending this much money on ads? it is like death panels, death mean, theappeared, i good part of the death panels. a your doctor to sit down with you and explain quality of life and end-of-life issues. there is a concerted effort out y ate, it seems, to tick awa

obamacare and the reforms. >> that is true. there are two separate issues. the question of the affordable care act overall and then there is the question of how we create health-care savings. one of the things, as senator gregg was saying, can you get a the to -- a big deal in long-term deficit reduction? budgets and deals are about choices. choices imply that it is not going to be positive for everyone. yes, there are choices, but we as a nation has to stand up and say which are our priorities and how do we think about funding? there will be opposition, but we are hopeful that in the end, the american people are presented with the facts and will understand and support the changes we are talking about. especially in terms of reduction of health care costs. >> to only about getting rid of ber, itulations and x num

should be 500 regulations and 500 days if you want a bumper sticker. didn't al gore try this with reinventing government? anreinventing government -- effort to improve overall management of the government -- something that vice president gore focused on deeply during those years. in 500 you are referring to this area. in the regulatory space, president obama asked for something that had never been done before, which is a regulatory look back. his apartmentsll to do it is, as they are moving forward on new regulations, can they concurrently put together a list of regulations that may ore been changed by events overtaken through time. for example, there was a reporting requirement that in this past summer, that the department of transportation got rid of.

it will save $1.5 billion. that was a regulation that was changed. we looked back and saw i was wrong. this is in, specifically, the regulatory space and something be president did through an executive order. mosthere is a list of 500, are not as large as the one i mentioned, to see if there are opportunities to take regulations off the books. click -- >> the koch brothers will be very happy. >> many people will be happy. you aree we get to q&a, in the "no drama obama" administration, yet there has been nothing but drama. government shutdown, sequestration, on and on. how does it feel to be in the belly of that beast? you have two children and a husband. >> a six year old and a four-year-old sometimes provide that drama.

it is an honor to serve, which is why my family and i decided to come back. i'm excited to be able to try, even in the challenging situation of the shutdown, to continue managing what was a ethical time -- what was a difficult time. also to work on things. i think we have seen progress, and the space of the ryan-murray agreement, seeing that we could get appropriations, we do have a farm bill. last year alone, the deficit declined by $400 billion in a one-year period. it is challenging in many ways. the part that is rewarding is when you start to see the progress. seattlere not in anymore, you are in the other washington. we have time for a couple quick questions. ?questio

>> throughout the budget, there is a threat of climate change resiliency. r other items., how is that paid for? the white house is hosting an event to follow through on that. >> the idea of climate resiliency, it is a concept that we think is an important one in terms of getting ahead of some of the challenges that we are facing as a nation the climate space. president'sf the overall climate action plan. this resiliency part is an important part of that. we do think -- you see a states and fund localities in their efforts to create resiliency. some of this is done at the local level. when some of the money from

hurricane sandy that was used for emergency afterwards, much of that has been dedicated as people are rebuilding to do it in resilience forums. we are hopeful that that kind of investment now will have pay off later. about issues like drought or wildfires or many of the things we are going to be facing again and again, they are fiscally challenging and often expensive. thinking about them ahead of time is one of the concepts us is about. and we are pursuing it through interagency working groups, through funding, through trying to work at the state level, too. >> one more quick question. >> daniel, business consultant. going back to 2000, we saw that bill clinton left about a 3.3 and -- a $3.5 billion budget surplus.

when president bush came in and went to war in 2003, that surplus quickly went away and we have been gaining a lot of debt that the republican party fails to address. given that, does president obama plan to end his second term with a surplus so that he can say specifically that he has accomplished something in his presidency? i would start by saying three of the four surpluses of the nation have -- i have had the opportunity to work on those budgets at omb. i have worked on budgets and the black and surpluses and think they are important. a budget surplus or a budget deficit, this question of the balance and that sort of thing, they are not an end in themselves. the much more important thing is how that fiscal policy relates to the health of the economy. is the economy growing? is it creating jobs? are we providing national

security for our nation and our we are properly representing our values and commitments we have made? that is the score that this president will be measured on at the end of his term. in the budget we just proposed, you see a declining deficit to gdp measure. right now it is in the 3's, it will go down to 1.6. you also see a stabilizing to declining debt to gdp measure. when you think about how you think about fiscal policy, the ncedthand of bala budget, deficit number, take that into the context of what it means for the economy. right now we have the steepest continued decline of deficit reduction since world war ii. economy that is growing not as fast as it should be, one needs to think very carefully in the next three years, do you

want the slope of that line to increase. or do you want the slope of that line to remain steady and the slope to increase in outer years when we have more growth. be judgedon we should by are the things that debts and deficits are means to an end, which is economic health and growth. glad you are in washington, thank you for joining us. [applause] next "washington journal," unity health care ceo vincent keane on the role of health centers. dr. andrea anderson discusses the variety of services provided by health centers. in the current and future impact of the affordable care act. "washington journal" begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. today, vice president joe

biden talks to the national association of community health centers. live coverage begins at 10:15 a.m. eastern on c-span. of mythe families mikeonal friends, ,elle judy, ron, christa mcauliffe, and greg. grace and i extend to you our thoughts and prayers to your families, your friends at the time of this hour of your loss. and our shared grief. space program has been a

marvelous program for america to expand its knowledge, its horizons. and it will continue to be so in the future. thirst as man has the for knowledge, we will continue to press outward. and in the process, there is risk. that risk is taken by each one of us, everyday. and that risk is understood by all the members of a crew that climb in to a loaded spaceship. beconcluding remarks would as we reflect upon this tragedy, a tragedy that this whole nation grieves in, let's remember the remarks by someone who knew something about risk. a gallant lady named helen

keller, when she spoke of risk and security. this is what she said. "security is mostly a superstition. it does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men, as a whole, experience it. avoiding the danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure." listen to what she ends with. "life is either a daring adventure or nothing." god bless and be with, and keep in the palm of his hand, our departed brothers and sisters, daring adventurers. god bless and comfort their families and friends.

>> more highlights from 35 years of house for coverage on our facebook page. america'seated by cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by her local cable or satellite provider. president obama today announced additional sanctions against russia for its annexation of crimea. target 20 more russian officials, businessmen, and a bank. the president made the announcement on the white house south lawn. >> good morning, everybody. i wanted to provide an update on the situation in ukraine and the steps the united states is taking in response. over the last several days, we have continued to be deeply concerned by events in ukraine. we have seen an illegal referendum in crimea, and

illegitimate move by the russians to annex crimea, and dangerous risks of escalation, including threats to ukrainian personnel in crimea and threats to southern and eastern ukraine as well. these are all choices the russian government has made. choices that have been rejected by the international community as well as the government of ukraine. because of these choices, the united states is today moving, as we said we would, to impose additional costs on russia. based on the executive order i assigned in response to russia's intervention in ukraine, we are imposing sanctions on more senior officials of the russian government. in addition, we are today sanctioning a number of other individuals with substantial resources and influence who provide material support to the russian leadership. as well as a bank that provides

material support to these individuals. we are taking these steps as a part of our response to what russia has done in crimea. at the same time, the world is watching with grave concern as russia has positioned its military in a way that could lead to further incursions into southern and eastern ukraine. for this reason, we have been working closely with our european partners to develop more severe actions that could be taken if russia continues to escalate the situation. as part of that process, i signed a new executive order today that gives us the authority to impose sanctions not just on individuals, but on key sectors of the russian economy. this is not our preferred outcome. these sanctions would not only have a significant impact on the russian economy but could also be disruptive to the global economy. however, russia must know that further escalation will only isolate it further from the

international community. the basic principles that govern relationships between nations in europe and around the world must be upheld in the 21st century. that includes respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. the notion that nations do not simply redraw borders or make decisions at the expense of their neighbors because they are larger or more powerful. one of our other top priorities continues to be providing assistance to the government of ukraine so it can stabilize its economy and meet the needs of the ukrainian people. as i travel to europe next week to meet with the g7 and other european and asian allies, i once again urge congress to pass legislation necessary to provide this assistance. and do it right away. expressions of support are not enough. we need action. i also hope the imf moves swiftly to provide a package of support for ukrainians as they pursue reforms.

in europe, i will be reinforcing a message vice president biden kerry to poland -- vice president biden carried to p oland and the baltic states this week. american support for our nato allies are unwavering. we are bound together by our article five commitment to defend each other and a set of shared values so many generations sacrificed for. we have increased support for our eastern european allies and we will strengthen nato's collective defense and step up our cooperation with europe on economic and energy issues as well. let me close by making a final point -- diplomacy between the united states and russia continues. we have emphasized russia still has a different path available, one that the escalate its -- one de escalates the

situation and one that involves russia pursuing a diplomatic solution with the government in kiev with the support of the international community. the russian people need to know in mr. putin needs to understand that the ukrainians should not have to choose between the west and russia. we want the ukrainian people to determine their own destiny and have good relations with the united states, russia, europe, with anyone they choose. that can only happen if russia also recognizes the rights of all ukrainian people to determine their future as free individuals and as a sovereign nation. rights that people in nations all around the world understand and support. thank you very much, everybody. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] russia responded to the new

u.s. sanctions with sanctions of its against several u.s. officials. barring them from travel to russia and freezing assets in russian financial institutions. john mccain was targeted and issued a statement saying "i guess this means my spring break in siberia is off." ukraine and russia are on the agenda for next week's european union summit, which president obama plans to offend. a panel at the center for strategic and international studies previewed this summit and look at how europe is reacting to russia's annexation of crimea. this is one hour 10 minutes. if there's a nirvana for european analysts i've been in it the last several

days to be surrounded by the people that i read, i listen to very closely to help me understand world events and they all came to williamsburg and we talked about the future of europe and we talked about the seismic events that occurred while we were discussing it. the annexation of crime crime by russia. so i can't begin to tell what you a pleasure and a delight it is i can share my nirvana with you this morning and we can share three incredibly, thoughtful, insightful journalist who is have agreed to be with us today. we have gideon rachman, the chief foreign affairs commentator and a weekly columnist for "the financial times." we have dr. joseph joffe, the editor of german weekly "die zeit".

and all having journalistic careers. when the president does a visit overseas we do a briefing for the press and tell them what is important and what to look out for. we'll do that with csis scholars tomorrow morning. i thought there could be no better opportunity to talk about the president's trip to europe next week with roger gideon and joe to get their insights what they think is important. i'm sure when the white house was planning this trip very long ago they had no idea that this trip would be this critical, this vital. i think they started out thinking yes, this third summit of the nuclear security summit an initiative president obama started this is part of a important legacy for him. he would visit brussels perhaps

to buttress criticism that he has never been to brussels as president. he made eight trips to europe but never visited the capital of europe and so hitting that as well. then he is off to rome i think for to see pope francis but now to meet the new italian prime minister, prime minister renzi. then he is off to saudi arabia for even more difficult conversation and even more difficult bilateral relationship. but now the world has changed and so this trip has changed. so i thought what we would do is talk, have a conversation with gideon, roger and joe about, not only what's at stake for this mission. i won't call it mission impossible but it will be a tough mission for the president, as he confronts this new challenge but i'd also love your take, the three, on really what the state state of the mood in . we had, this is the first time the president will travel after

the full and devastating impact of the nsa revelations particularly the impact on the german revelations. we have in two months the european parliament elections which will perhaps change europe how democratically they speak to the future of the e.u. there are lots going on. i can't think of three people who i want to listen and their thoughts. with that we'll start with gideon and go to joe and roger weill:up. we'll a clean up here and welcome you into the conversation. with that, gideon. thank you, again. >> thank you, heather, for a very kind introduction perhaps excessively kind but i'll take it. it was very nice of you and arranging the whole forum and it is a great time to be here in washington to figure out how the americans will react to this joint challenge that we now face after the crimea incursion and indeed annexation. i think we have one small thing to thank president putin for which is that he made what would have been a rather peculiarly

timed trip into a very well-timed trip. it was peculiarly timed to have a u.s.-e.u. summit now was a bit strange because as heather mentioned, the whole of the european establishment is about to change. we'll have european parliamentary elections. the commission is going to be reshuffled over the summer. so the people obama is meeting won't be there in a couple months time. i realize that is typical kind of european wind. you said for years you haven't come to brussels, you haven't come to brussels and he comes to brussels and you're coming at wrong time. he was sort of coming at the wrong time. now suddenly this is very relevant trip. the u.s.-ue -- e.u. summit is will have a g7 summit in the margins. the g7 is back. the g8 is no more. that will be an extremely important meeting. interestingly i saw originally

president putin was expected to come to the nuclear summit and finds himself otherwise engaged. leader of china will be there. and it will be almost a mini u.n. happening in the hague after the ue-e.u. summit. let's backtrack briefly and look at the u.s.-european agenda. what will obama and the leaders be talking about? it won't be just the commission. you will get the leaders of the european nations meeting. some of the old agenda, most of it will survive although recast in this new framework of the events that just happened in russia. i think one of the big questions is, will ptip, the effort to create a transatlantic free trade area, will it get a big boost because of what's happened in crimea? and theoretically one would imagine it would because it always had a kind of

geostrategic or geopolitical rationale behind it. of course people want an extra economic boost after the kind of tough types we've been through on both sides of the atlantic but there was also a sense maybe we on both sides of the atlantic kind of have to rediscover each other and create a large block, oddly not vis-a-vis russia but vis-a-vis china. you heard from both american officials and european officials if the west were to have a chance to continue to shape the global economic agenda and free trade framework, perhaps it was no longer enough to be the e.u. and the us. if we have a economic spin-off it would have political spin-offs. that political agenda has now been ramped up by what happened in russia. however i must say i'm skeptical i think you will see increase in the rhetoric how necessary it is. i don't see it enough to over come the entrenched obstacles which you have on both sides of

atlantic. will harry reid suddenly say i will give obama fast track? i doubt it. maybe americans no better. will the french farmers or other protectionist groups in europe suddenly say, because of what happened in russia we drop our objections to this treaty? i don't think so. so there might be a little boost to it but politics and political concerns are pretty entrenched. so, i doubt we're going to get a huge surge in ttip. heather referred to the nsa and how we will get over that. everyone i suspect will tiptoe a little bit around the issue. i don't think it is particularly in the americans interest to have a long, open discussion about it. i think the europeans having registered their disapproval don't want to turn this into an operatic larly now at this time. it has done damage to america's image as well as britain because we're complicit in the whole

thing and germany where this issue was taken seriously and merkel's phone being bug. i would add, i think that one of the central tasks of facing american foreign policy and obama in particular, and even more important now, in the context of what is going on with russia is to rebuild the german-u.s. relationship. which is the key relationship. and is in much worse shape than i think people realize. the bit they have seen is the rau over the nsa and the stuff in the german papers and cite crosby her standards, statements by angela merkel. i think even before that it was in disrepair because of a rau happened over syria where the germans, failed to sign a joint letter that the americans were putting together backing obama's position, about military action on syria but that provoked a really bitter rau between the principles in the white house

and chancellery which i can tell has not been mended. the fact these people don't get on with each other or speak to each other regularly is a problem and has to be fixed i think, now more than ever because what germany decides to do on sanctions will be almost as important as what the u.s. tries to do. the germans, as well as being the largest economic power are also at one end of the european debates what to do about russia. they have always for economic and political reasons, in another context we call constructive engagement with russia. they continue to have a big economic interests. not just pure, filthy lucre and dividends for energy companies. there are actually direct implications for the living standards of germans.

30% of their energy comes from russia. our colleague wolfgang who is with us, said to me in a conversation, if they don't get russian gas, germans will freeze because, we're going into the summer but this could be a long standoff. so it is really serious issue for merkel. so how the germans react will be very important. think one of the things that obama will swiftly discover, i'm sure he knows it already but he will see in person, there is as ever no single european position on this i think the europeans realize they have to be an effort at european unity. and the germans in particular will very much want to try to stay on the same page as the poles who are, you know, obviously neighbors. the eastern end of the e.u. but they represent the people who are most alarmed by russians and most keen on a tough response. and the at beginning of this

crisis you saw the polish and german foreign ministers together with france going to kiev together and i think people were very pleased with the symbolism of that because the two end of the european debate, the poles and the germans had a common position. whether that common position can survive this now much more prescient situation is going to be very important and i think the americans potentially can play a constructive role in trying to bring the sides together and to make sure that at least we don't display our divisions in public to the russians because that of course can only encourage them. trying to think how the europe and u.s. will react to this. we know issues they will talk about, sanctions and so on. i think nobody has any appetite for military response.

there will be some discussion about how tough you are and reiterating article five. whether you start moving military assets into the baltic states. whether you begin to offer the ukrainians something rather more substantial than a meal ready to eat as potential assistance. those issues will be very important. therethere will be this questio, what kind of sanctions and how can we make sure we all suffer equally because the, the odd thing about globalization or this economic relationship between developed with russia is that it does differentiate from the situation in the cold where where there wasn't an economic relationship. there weren't huge russian banks with stakes in the city of london and so on. that's changed and it give us leverage over them but it also gives them leverage over us. we have to work out, are we prepared, we can certainly