clean debt ceiling? >> look you're asking hypothetical. i tell you negotiations occur. .. >> visit our newly redesigned website. follow a set c-span.org.

>> coming up next, crude oil exports. and the senate environment committee on nuclear safety. >> of the members of the supreme court don't like something, it just reaches out and bring that into the cord and starts to pivot on that, which is of course contrary as anything could be. >> c-span radio begins a series of oral history interviews with supreme court justices. this week from 1971, former chiefs burrell and one on online

at c-span.org and xm satellite radio channel 120. >> a hearing on national security strategy, prime minister david cameron discusses the syrian civil war. the british defense budget and nsa documents leaked by edward snowden. the committee is made up of the house of commons and house of lords. this is about one hour and 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations]

>> i welcome people to the session. this is in the comments this evening. but hopefully we welcome you. >> thank you. it turns out that you are most welcome nevertheless. this committee is very supportive especially that we are very anxious to hear from you.

and what we hope today by having this passage. >> making sure that we analyze the threats including only analyzer programming better than that we plan across government better than that we make better decisions and i think that it has been a real success for getting together the relevant departments and we are considering a from a domestic perspective rather than an overseas perspective and making sure it plays together and it has proved itself across a number of subjects and i am hugely enthusiastic about this record. i think that works very well. it joins up with the champlin home secretary in a way that others have not been joined of in the past.

i think it is a reform that would endure. >> he say that it enables you to look at domestic ideas. my impression is that it's very foreign policy centered. >> we have a reasonable mixture. if we take 2011 we have 36 of the covered foreign policy topics in the 14 security related issues like counterterrorism and defense. and i think that as an argument we can do more domestic subjects and it's always key that we discuss more. the point that i would make is when we discussed the foreign-policy sectors and i think that is hugely helpful.

in two different ways. you're talking about syria as a foreign-policy issue, you also have to have the counterterrorism experts worry about the blowback from the radicalization that is being fostered there. and it's very good that you have and all the expertise. we can think about things like visas and border access. all those things that are important part of the relationship. >> we take it very simpers way.

and they're sort alongside each other. and this includes the national security strategy. including the other reviews. >> yes, i can see what you're referring to. and you know, and this sets the context what we want to deal. and the strategies are then and only then a part of considering the resources issues. i think that would be difficult. and you have to consider what is affordable alongside what is desirable. and as you say, strategy should inform the defense decisions that we make area. >> i take the point you're

making. in particular and that includes foreign policy to take them out the defense review. and we make investment in cybersecurity to spend more. >> and i just believe it is a proper strategic decision. >> there is one other issue that

i wanted to raise because referred to it in our first report. and the national security itself is part of a economic activity. and we are hearing you talk about enhancing the influence and expanding the influence. and when you say expanding the main expanding across the world? >> if you look across projections and that is the foremost international development and defense and trade. i think that you can assume the

person is actually doing more than we have been expanding our presence in india and china with every other nation. so there's no doubt in my mind that part of her strategy is that we want to link up with the fastest growing class in the world and being open and engaged power. and i would argue that even in the area of defense or the defense budget has come down in real terms, not a huge amount, but by a small amount. because we have made choices between drones in cyberand stability. i would argue that there is an a long-term reduction in person defense capabilities and our ability to stand up ourselves in

important ways around the world. and i also reject the idea of how engaged you are and successful your and projecting influenced by how much money you spend. we've got to make sure that we get as much into this as we can of our defense and i would argue that it has been pretty successful. again, i don't really accept the idea because we are spending a little bit less on defense and we cannot be as gaffigan and the defense class. >> isn't it embarrassing that we are spending more of the winter fuel in a constantly on the foreign phone markets? >> we are spending the right amount on the foreign market. it is to see and expanding and global network as it were. traveling all over the world and

trying to encourage investment and encourage exports and i we an amazing asset and i think that we have some brilliant diplomats and we have some fantastic teams around the world and the defense of the foreign office was well treated by the spending review and i think that we have more presence in india than any other and opening a new series of nations. >> it might be worth seeing this in the same light, roughly. when you talk about strategy, what you mean by strategy? two to me strategies about

setting out a clear series of goals that you want to me and making sure that you have sensible means for achieving those goals. i'd have to look at this. it is to tie us to the world and refresh the grid alliances that we have to tackle the threats that could threaten our country right across government and every single bit of government working together. that is a strategy. and maybe i'm too much of a sort of practical chap. i think really want to try to use government to make sure you are implementing the strategy. another one is to determine politics and agree with actions

and check out the we have done what we said we were going to do. so to me that is not misusing this and making it too much about implementation of the right use. and i find that people love sitting around talking about strategy beginning to do things and act and to complete the strategy is often a challenge. >> thank you. the next word is security. from having a healthy democracy with everything to be on track and it would be part of it. to talk about security? >> security is that you have to

take a wide definition because our nations security relies upon having strong defenses that we can protect ourselves. but it also means considering every risk to our security from pandemic diseases and floods and new threats like bullpen of corruption and all of these things. what we try to do with national security secretary at his bring together in one place like this under the leadership the teams that do all of these things. so security in the end is the ability to protect your country and your people and your interest so they can grow and prosper and in delivering security you have to deal with every threat from the biggest to the most unlikely and the point of making sure we have all of

this. >> it is a pretty standard definition with multinational companies. >> the heart of national security is restoring britain's economic strength and if you gain an acknowledged drink, many of the other things you're trying to do fall into place. if you lose it, you are in a much more delicate situation. at the heart of the national security, then if we can't properly raised taxes from businesses because technology has changed and they are not playing by the rules. that could be a threat to your security. >> i think what we have to do is have a hierarchy and we have a terrible list of acronyms with

planning and assumptions. attempting to trying to delineate risks of security. >> could you give me an example of this and how people are thinking we ought to do this but backlashes with the strategy. which is a good idea at the moment. >> i think a good example is probably more about balancing the interest in their issues like this but we decide about visa rules and visa waivers for countries. the prosperity agenda would be a security agenda and make sure you're making the right decision. i think that in the past these

are the decisions that were made by the home office and never the train show leave. we have talked about this on the table about well and important economic relations. frankly these are the restrictions that are getting in the way of the national security and we have a good good thing about it and we reach a decision you in terms of things that have been proposed total to the strategy chimes are going to think of one and these have a policy issue of which countries get visa preference in terms of this. >> thank you. >> mr. merkel? >> thank you, tara. would like to know a little bit more about how this works and operates. at the moment the committee has

some ideas and agendas based on names of countries and afghanistan and other areas of northern ireland. it doesn't indicate that we are getting any secrets away, how operational or long-term work strategic discussions might be. my experience is that we report the committee and we have a talk about it. >> is a lot more than that. because what this does is brings the ministers and we don't really allow this in their place and it's very important to find one of the most important meetings of the whole week. with the heads of the intelligence agency and the

chief of the defense staff is necessary with someone to do this with counterterrorism and you have the expert in the room as well as a politician and the form of the meetings is often a presentation rather than just a massive amount of paperwork and will often be given by leading foreign office officials to sit in front of the committee if the choices that we have to make. sometimes it is very operational and we want to have a proper look at the drawdown of plans that the ministry of defense has and is a committee we have to ask if that is the right aberrational plan for britain. and i think it is right but the government collectively decides these things and sometime tran-sevens we can be very strategic and we could have a discussion about relations of the emerging powers and it will be about how we best go about

seeking relationships with and how do we improve them. sometimes it can be a meeting where it really helps to have a collective discussion bringing together money from defense and one of affairs sticking around the table and saying we have got this money and how are we going to spend a and should our investments in what should they be going into. because obviously it is important and i think it is important to discuss this collectively as we can see the links between what we're doing of the fragile states that we are trying to help fix with related decisions. >> sometimes it is very operational sometimes very strategic. sometimes generally making operational decisions that have an impact. >> in terms of the more

strategic meetings that we could have, one thing we have noticed that sometimes they seemed to dry up and then they start again in october. what about having one or two of these extra more appropriately at things. at the same time they have sufficient outside expertise to give advice and knowledge and you think of that is just too much be part of the nfc? >> the nsc is serviced by the national security secretary at and you really feel that they are not a committee and has a proper team behind it that can

operationalize decisions. and we have on occasion brought this out and occasionally had seminars that members would attend an order to here am those. we had a particularly good session about afghanistan want some experts came. we have a special with syria and we had a whole series of experts to address those issues as well. if the criticism is that urgent operational part of meetings to discuss this and tends to crowd out these discussions, i think i

would probably plead guilty and i think that is inevitable when we have to talk about the most urgent thing and i would say that we have spent more time on the operational emergencies. thank you very much. >> we have talked about this greatly. >> thank you. i think it is important that the innovation of the national security council. allowing us to acknowledge this if they make a strategic decision that we usually practice that make the final decision. now we have this and can you think of an occasion when there has been a foreign policy defends decision where you have

taken the ultimate decision rather than the secretary of state. >> i am not sure that david blair would say that it is occasionally intervening. i think the history is more of a bilateral thing between a prime minister and the defense secretary. i think the good thing is that it is a more collective way of making decisions made by individual ministers. but we make this decision with how we can talk about the decisions we made in libya and syria. they were not generally discussed around the table with the ministers and the expert

advice and institutionalization of it to turn the tables and invest in his opinion on these things. they have come to a different decision than when they first walked into the room. >> we would like to ask questions on how this system actually works. so how did the national security strategy and how did you make the decisions? >> when we drew up the strategy

and we didn't have perfect foresight about what we had in the events of the arab spring and we have been relatively consistent. and i don't really -- the strategy always have to be adaptable and has to be changeable according to circumstances. and so you have to make sure that you can adapt what you have. especially to protect its interests and promote british values like democracy especially taking serious ideas.

>> what do you think it was about interior? >> and the arab spring has taken a general view that the advance of the building blocks of democracy is a good thing and there will always be bumps on the road and that is what we should have to be encouraging. >> what are we using for the use of force in all of us? use of force is weak with the issue of chemical weapons and i think that the debate ended up being a debate about what happened in the rock in what

some people feared might happen in syria and it wasn't really a debate so much about chemical weapons and we talked about a top global response and syria decided to give up its chemical and britain has a very important part of this and we continue to ask for development and we are taking it as to how we look and it is a growing president here. coming back to this issue of chemical weapons presumably you have this goal in mind.

what was it? was at regime change? >> the strategic goal with president obama before the debate in the house of congress is having set a red line on chemical weapons use we could not allow him to cross it with impunity. and the sort of military action was simply about chemical weapons. that it was important only in the context of syria but the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons has been of immense value to countries like britain in four decades. so it was worthwhile taking a strong stance on this issue because of the message you can

then to other dictators around the world. without military action being taken, which is they do look at it and that is what it was about. it was not about regime change. it was purely to provide that issue. >> further questions? >> i think the further questions are about the implications of the country in combat and with its technique and someone. and is that part of the security council? >> has come all the way through our discussions about syria come i think that syria has been talking about a really difficult challenge and policies all over the western world. because nobody wants to get involved in conflicts. on the other hand everyone can see right from the start that

this was a comp lit which was going to drive extremism and instability and huge problems in the region. every discussion we have had about her it was discussed with the dangers of bush people traveling to use syria and terrorist returning home in a link that it's extremely worrying on that front at the moment. and that is why we have been in the house of commons debating so we can take away from this the fact that people citizenships and securing the borders and working with allies to deal with the terrorist threat and people coming back and it's a very big focus. >> is that a decision from before? >> at something we have looked at in the security council and

the decisions that were taken without specific measure. she has been empowered to of these issues. >> okay, this isn't just about me and the elements to that. but there are other issues where people might say that we put 600 of them in a year in counterterrorism efforts. with a single intelligence account. it we have people at a moment on flood defense with 60 million rising from last year. including how to allocate resources with the different risks and if so how do you reach the conclusion? >> that's a very good question.

we will be habit which is a national risk assessment. as well as a national risk registry to try to assess these risks. we have discussed that and tried to make sure that we are dealing with risk in an appropriate way. and it's very difficult to try to measure up with the respective threats and there is not an exact science in it. but i would say these are all in a national security secretary and one part of them that are trying to measure all this up. >> you look at those resources? >> yes, we do. specifically in terms of intelligence. the budget comes in front of the nfc and we continue to see that

it is a good moment for the politicians to act as to how we got the balance right between the counterterrorism and please and the question you're asking is do you measure up the chance of terrorism on one hand to the other. there are all risks that are registered as a science or you can try to talk about the exact amount of money and place. >> you're bringing it together and you are looking at your potential weaknesses and you're trying to make sure that you are correctly identifying the gaps. >> we have a subcommittee in the context of the assessment and we have specific subcommittee that looks at hazards, both flooding has been dealt with through this

and i think it is a missed to configure dns me is entirely strategic and cobra is entirely operational. i do use cobra to address issues where you need this slightly wider than the national security council. and do you have that process a long-term plan for the impact of climate change? and have you considered this part of the infrastructure with rising sea levels? >> yes, we have. then we have this about climate change and we need to have another meeting before the next party is needed. but we also have a piece of work that has been done on critical infrastructure from floods and

rising sea levels and that has been considered. >> the critical of the structure works by the nss and it's very productive as well. >> coming back to something you mentioned the boy about the reorganization of the ministry of defense. mentioning the future of 2020, for example with the structure of the reserve including the national security council. you have a right to be concerned about that? >> i never want to criticize this. i think the national security council to discuss the structure before the announcement was ready. i don't want to give you the

impression this is outside. singapore by the secretary of state for defense? >> right, and i think that was very much done by the nmc in a piece that we sorted out later with the overall structure. i'm right in saying that the reserve work was commissioned by the nfc and then the result of that in the future structure that was discussed before was part of it. am i right? >> that's good to know. >> if you're saying that you should have done the whole thing, that honestly would have been sometimes taking a few innovations to get exactly right. >> thank you.

this puts it into perception. amongst the people indicate what we have here is incident which you outlined in which we would all agree with. so who is actually responsible for engaging the public so that it is not just a knee-jerk reaction to the latest problem and that when someone challenges as you are able to talk about the debate even in the house. so who in government is responsible for getting that kind of message?

>> builder by having a national security council people can see that these are forcing us to try to explain how we have looked at risks and what we are trying to do to keep this country safe. i think that science is probably held by informing the debate about risk and probabilities. and i think that that was how we are looking at a strategy and have you got enough consideration of this and how we look at these risks. so i think in the end the scientist can help by explaining some of the problems and that is probably the best you can do. and i think that people want to do everything possible to protect dwellings from flooding in that we have an investment program and all the rest of it. i think that people understand that there is severe weather

events that can affect your country do everything you can to mitigate. but in the end there are these appalling terrorist demands which can be so indiscriminate with such huge risks. including doing everything possible in the first place. >> you think of the recent problems we have seen about the edwards noted in revelations and the way in which they have been talked about by some people actually undermine public confidence due to agency? and if so, who is responsible for defending the agency? including some of these different decisions. >> i think first of all in

response to edwards noted, what we have to do is make sure that we are confident that the government procedures are robust and this includes intelligent security committees and things that happen under the law and i keep asking myself and what i think we have without trying to improve it. including hasn't dented public confidence and i haven't seen this in the opinion program. but my sense is that the public reaction as opposed to some of the media reaction is that it is in a dangerous world and we should support these intelligence services in the and the work that they do. and i think that the public reaction has been pretty robust. including defending and explaining what they do and i

have a responsibility and i feel that i'm responsible i am responsible to stand up for them and thank them publicly and to try to explain what we do and i'm done with some of that. i think that they are often best spokespeople for themselves and what they have recently talked about. i think that the speech in the head of this has helped us to face the threats. so i don't want to make a speech every week trade but i think actually they can help set the agenda and explain what they do better than anyone. >> you think that there is a potential danger that lacks public support for the government that might see this as essential and might be

undermined as best as they can? with what can be needed and the donations and shouldn't that be part of your planning that you are actually talking about not just about the economics but explaining it in this way? >> that's a very fair point. if you're saying to the prime minister on secretary is responsible for this bunch of should the three of us do want to explain and defend and give people a sense of why this work is important, yet am i think we should do that. if we are worried about damage, and i would encourage the newspapers to galleon this and think before they act because we are in danger of them having

less faith of his a result. but i think the public reaction has not been one of shock and horror but one that has been part of intelligence agencies. >> thank you. is there anything the think the nfc has missed? >> i think that there are some pacific subject with a technical nature that organizations like yours and others have talked about. and i think that that has been useful to give the politicians the ability to challenge this. have you got this in not covered. and i think that we need to go faster with this work with examining the plans, whether it

is a conflict of can we do more make this organization really drive policy rather than just strategy and i think we should probably do more on that. in terms of missing this, there's a lot of things that the pundits and experts have not foreseen. and it has been a development of global affairs and that is why you have to have a strategy that recognizes the need to adapt to changing circumstances. >> one thing that we commented on early on that we missed in the original because we about to go onto the next one, with was a question of the americans announcing this with enormous strategic consequences. that was not touched on at all in this particular situation.

>> when was the president obama speech. was was it 2010 or 2011? well, if you look at the amount of foreign office activity in southeast asia and the countries that i mentioned, what we are doing in china or india, there is a real evidence to focus this on the high-growth emerging powers and all the rest of it. and there's a whole set of countries and we have such a strong relation based upon defense relations we should really try to build on those relationships. so i think that we are doing our own thing and i think what we did in terms of moving us away and towards the future technologies and the rest of it,

initially push it we had done more and faster and i suppose this includes the foreign policies as well and i think that the prosperity and trade agenda, which is now being driven very hard across government. i would've liked to have done even more even sooner because i think that it is going to be part of our future national success if we can increase this and link up this with the countries and that is a big part of the future success story. and so getting the tanker to move, i wish that i had pushed it harder and faster. >> thank you. i'm going now to the next area of preparation. >> he told us it would take two

years to prepare this in the work on this -- can you tell us what it will be ready? >> it is part of the beginning of both nationalist purity and bsr. because we need to stop clamoring now. and you could argue forever about how long this will take. but i'm so keen on implementing that put more weight on that. maybe you move faster on the people that are trying to deliver what we need it to stop writing strategies and. >> we need to be fundamentally different and he won't be the

finish until the next government is in place. >> what we call vote. >> certainly. >> i think that is right. and we should be starting now. i think we need to refresh. i don't think it's going to be a complete overhaul. if i'm responsible for the outcome i think it will have that trade and prosperity agenda more strongly at heart. but i wouldn't expect a huge change and for instance a very difficult decision in this capacity is exciting. and we will have this in the high seas pretty soon.

and people in it. >> tummy some of the specifics and what about the european union, which was they will be a member of the european union and it's absolutely essential to most of our strategic decisions. specifically how will change we cease to be a member of the european union. >> my strategy is we didn't that we secured for britain a reform in the european union in a referendum and i want to recommend that we should remain a partner of reform and i plan this on the basis. we haven't dealt with some of the european issues on the council or government and i

expect this has important implications on the basis of what we want to achieve. >> when people go to vote the other way, there are strategic implications and so the government has admitted this out in this case. we do not do the same thing for the european union? >> and i think once it is it is part of the referendum were the part of this has decided about this. my judgment is if we use this to discuss the issues we are talking about a second reading debate and the actions necessary

to deliver it. >> we have heard in the past but essentially we are about three days away and we found that out. do you believe you have addressed enough about how some disruption could lead to this and is that something that is until to this strategy creating food shortages with a very short space of time? >> what we have done is we have threats to food supplies. you get a 2013 review of emergency planning and the security assessment 2010 as well. so it is critical with national

infrastructure plans that we have heard and you are definitely right that those that incorporate this and all the rest of it. whether volcanic ash or what have you does impact those rather quickly. but i'm satisfied that we have examined these issues when the infrastructure is threatened. >> prime minister, there was a sense of how government priority to introduce the program to preserve the security intelligence and law-enforcement agency to have access required and ends with changes to the

existing legislation that would require the ability. i understand that it could be part of our legislation and i wondered edwards noted in the leaked material if there is anything you could share with us about the position in the united kingdom. >> first welcome i agree with the reported that over time we are going to have to modernize the framework in practice when it comes to mutations data. it is obviously a contentious topic and i am not sure that we will make progress on it in the coming months in terms of the

legislation and i think that politicians and police chiefs and intelligence services have a role in explaining what this is all about. and i wouldn't go back to what i said earlier. and it inevitably raises questions about who has access to the data and why. but i'm absolutely convinced that proper rules for communications data is essential and i don't think we've got across to people yet the basis of the. which is most of the serious crimes like child abductions and where was the telephone at the time. but the communications data is absolutely vital and i think that we need the police chiefs explaining what this is about.

occluding there is hardly a crime drama without using the data of mobile communications devices. the problem that we have to explain to people is that as you move from the world of people having this skype and phones and the internet and all of that, if we do not modernize the practice and the law, over time we will have the mutations data on a shrinking proportion on the total use of devices. and that is a real problem for keeping people safe. but we have to make this explanation very cleanly really have to get it out to people and perhaps a case that is sensible to deal with this issue and i think it is possible that it will take a lot of work by

politicians to try to take that civil liberties concern seriously as we can make some progress. >> thank you, prime minister. i think we would all agree with that. and i take perhaps it is something to get it over to what you said over to the general public. >> the best attempt i've seen so far is one or two police chiefs that road and when they explained how much people are involved in child abduction cases and solving murders and serious crimes, in my work with security services and how vital it is to prevent terrorist attacks, i feel passionate because until the first responsibility of my job is to help keep people safe and i think the fact of using so much

crime is a very straightforward understandable thing. >> thank you. i wanted to give up something of to understand foreign investment and so on. sue has the nsc been a part of her critical infrastructure and i'm thinking of energy and water and so on. but it's reason to be concerned about whether or not there should be some red lines drawn about ownership. >> we do have a proper system in place for examining the investments in our national interest. and we are actually discussing earlier that there is a proper nsc consideration because we

have slightly different procedures with some slightly different parts of our infrastructure and it's good to have a proper discussion when it comes to networks and what have you that we have all the was that we need in place. we will do that. and when we have had a specific issue like a faraway issue that we have properly examined and responded to the report. i would not play the fact that britain is saying to we welcome the investment. and in two key parts of the of the structure. ..and railways and other things. and it also makes an enormous -- it's a very good message for britain going around the world. we are not embarrassed but

delighted that indian capital is rebuilding the british car industry. we're delighted that the chinese are going to own part of water, investing in heathrow. i think it's one of our calling cards that we are an open economy that encourages people to invest. so, yes, by all means, let's check if there were security issues we could act properly and appropriately and we will do, but don't lose the position as a great open economy. i was very struck by one of the large chinese investors, britain is better than all. i thought that was a good endorsement. >> thank you. >> prime minister, i think when you're saying you wish you could spend more time and effort on asia, some had a history >> you could even spend more time and efforts with the

commonwealth over to -- to render 300 years that why this would work but mr. gates made a comment could i put this to you cover it in support to of our security interest going now part of a crucialssar relationship of the united states navy we must guarantee we have hired capability to the necessary number. you stated, the prime minister, 21st of jittery jittery, to 30 year fixed budgets required middle term

growth of the years through 2015. it is a concern is a very rich your view of the intentions? and what that should mean for the future at all. where i take issue slightly with former secretary gates is i think actually if you look at the equipment program for our navy, it is absolutely a full spectrum equipment program. you have the two carriers under construction. you have the type 45 destroyers coming into action. you got the future frigate program that is there. you have the hunter-killer submarines. you have the trident submarines

and the pledge to renew them and the immense ability the royal marines. in terms of the navy it has a very bright future and it is a full spectrum capability from, you know, the nuclear deterrent at one end to, you know, smaller vessels right at the other end. so i don't accept that we are, you know, shrinking the navy or it's not a full spectrum capability. it absolutely is. as for what you say about asia, i completely agree. we've seen a big increase in our experts to china, for instance, but we're still only 1% of chinese exports. we can, you know, quite easily get to 2% which will be great for us without being a huge change. >> prime minister, there are some who would suggest having more at 26 frigates to meet the very ambitions you have been

talking about today will be more than useful. >> i have this debate with the navy all the time. because clearly what's been happening is that we are having fewer, more expensive ships, type 45's, you know, are pretty close to a billion pounds each. they are phenomenally expensive. they are the most modern, most effective. one of our type 45s that's doing more at the moment. i think it's getting quite a lot of attention. there is obviously a discussion we should have, is there a role for other sorts of vessels we should be using as well and what's the tradeoffs between these multipurpose ships that can do everything from drug interdiction in the caribbean right through carrier escorts or complex warfare, is it right to do that or should you try to have more ships that are carrying out more different

tasks? and i think it's a debate that will continue. up until now the answer is let's have the multirole ships that can do everything. >> let me switch a subject and that's the role of the n.s.c. and that's energy and energy policy. there are two aspects of it. you have the shorter term policy and the longer term policy. am i right in saying that the only real security strategy is the department of energy and climate change document which obviously leaves out foreign policy, planning and range of other issues and frankly looking 50 or 100 years ahead as to what we should be considering, is that something that almost at the top of the agenda in the years to come on long term?

i'll come back to short term in a moment. >> clearly energy security is vital. we were talking earlier about how do you define security? clearly energy security, the ability to power your economy, to power your homes and businesses, that's the key aspect of security and it is something taken seriously by the national security council. we have discussed it and taken papers on it. i would argue that we have a good strategy there. we are renewing our nucelar and we will follow next. we set out a very clear strategy so everyone knows what the rules and the costs are for investing in renewables. and we're moving ahead, not just with new gas plants as appropriate but also with onshore shale gas which i think could be a major industry for britain in the future. so i think we got a long-term plan.

and we've got to make sure that every piece of that is put in place. >> and i think our position does put us -- being reliant on so much. >> i think if you look at our energy penetration of imports compared with other countries, because of the north sea, we had a relatively good record. we got the interconnector with france. a potential interconnector with norway. if we make the most of shale gas, then as north sea gas runs down we'll have a new national resource. so when i look at our position in europe and look at, you know, how reliant we are on imports, i'm -- i think we're relatively secure position. we must keep up. that's why the relationship with gasa and others in terms of imported gas, the relationship with norway is fantastically important. making sure we get a decent contribution for renewables.

and making this program work. >> could i bring up the other thing that is a really serious problem? we believe our country is facing potentially a very serious crisis of supply and competitiveness at this very moment in time we speak. and are you prepared to set aside the targets in the 2008 climate change act in order to get through this period? if you're unable to act unilaterally, will you seek consensus with the major countries on behalf of the commitments? prime minister, what i ask with that is, do you accept now in retrospect these targets, those set by the former government but were endorsed by you, were a huge mistake that threatens the severely damaged and indeed our already damaging europe competitive and growth prospect in years to come?

>> prime minister, this view that he expressed may not be shared by -- >> of course. two questions in there. one is the climate change act framework, can that work for us in the long term? my answer is yes, it can. we set these budgets. we have to make sure they're achievable and deliverable. i supported the climate change act and i think we can make it work. the second part i think about the european targets which i think we are capable of meeting, i think you go back over the history and argue whether it was right to have as many specific targets, you might come to a different answer. europe is reviewing -- the e.u. is reviewing this at the moment about whether the specific targets are correct. but look, the question i ask and i got the energy industries, the

national grid and everybody else around the table, i checked that our situation was robust, is are we content with the rules we have in place and everything we have in place that we are energy secure in terms of our short, medium and long-term future or are there any changes we need to make about decommissioning coal plants, bringing on gas more quickly or anything else and the answer i got was that the rules and regulations and capacity mechanisms are in place so we have the energy security that we need. so the question you put is very important. but i don't think either the climate change act or our own situation is one that we ought to be concerned with but one

that i think we need to make major change. >> [inaudible] this is just not my view. it's head of the international energy agency based in paris and in london here today, we were discussing only the subject of deep, deep critical concern about europe's competitiveness. >> the european union -- they'll debate at the march council. they'll think very carefully about international competitiveness and prices. the united states has 10,000 shale gas wells. in europe we got about 100. and so i think we do need to think about the competitiveness picture. i completely agree with that. i don't think throwing out the window the concern about carbon emission reduction. what is the market in europe, that would be a very good thing. make sure we make use of shale gas.

we are committed to cheap green energy and keep driving down the price of these new technologies. if we do all those things we can be green and competitive. >> we are almost out of time. i just want to take you back for a moment. to something you said about the maritime -- about the navy. i am reminded about what was said recently, unless we change our current course, not enough people. to staff it. he said the royal navy was close to its critical mass. and i applaud what you said about the navy. >> well, i think -- to be fair, what was said, if spending reductions went further, there would be a danger of what was called hollowing out. if we were in danger of that happening with what we have.

the point i would make is that in the sdsr we made decisions with the chiefs of the defense staff around the table that we're about the future capabilities of the u.k. and a very strong argument was made, which i completely agree with, that we need to have a navy that is full spectrum, that's got everything from those submarines, the type 45's, to the future frigates and everything else. and that was a real priority. we've taken this gap in capability, which we'll refresh with the new carriers, and that's incredibly important. i don't see -- obviously want to do everything we can on value for money, on efficiency. i think if we do that i don't see any reason why we won't be able to properly run and crew these excellent assets. and also i think it's encouraging people to join the navy.

the opportunities when you got this absolutely world first- class equipment that's running out of our ship-yards at the moment, it is terrific to encourage people to join up. >> can i applaud what you just said about the gap being replaced by new carriers? [laughter] >> you have about two minutes. >> [inaudible] going back to the earlier question, in a public meeting, if the secretaries get their way and break scotland up from the kingdom, what are the national security implications of that? i think you stated publicly some of those implications but i wonder if you could elaborate a little bit more. >> in a nutshell, we are more secure together as well as more prosperous and all the rest of it. scotland makes an enormous

contribution to the u.k.'s defense. i will be making a speech soon which is it's very important everyone in the rest of the united kingdom emphasizes how much we benefit of scotland staying in the united kingdom and that's something i feel passionate about. >> we're grateful, prime minister. and i think we got through most of the things we wanted to get through. i think you would have gathered that we are very anxious about the national security strategy, anxious that the next one will be better. one point we have made repeatedly is how much we would like to see it drawn outside experts and other views. without any disrespect to the people we have. and a couple of times it's been suggested that the government might consult this committee and we very much hope that it will and we will do our best to be cooperative and helpful. >> thank you.

we are keen to hear the views of others. in the end, the government has got to own this document. so it's got to reflect our collective view. but the more input and also identifying gaps and weaknesses that your committee does frankly the better. >> very kind of you. thank you very much indeed. order, order. the meeting is now adjourned.

>> i was in a car wreck that i wrote about extensively in the the whole time by of was

in the hospital i had a broken ankle i was praying the other person in the car would be okay. via the person in the car was one of my best friends. i did not know that. i did not recognize that at the site of the crash but as i prayed over and over in and he wasn't. i thought god was not listening. for a long time i did not believe that prayers could be answered. it took me along time to come back to face.

emergency and natural -- energy -- reces >> the senate committee on energy and natural resources will come to order m. we will have a very busy morning today but i will start with a particularly exciting news. senator lay andrew will be having her first grandchild in a few hours she has been up most of the night. [applause] i'm not sure but have been conscious this morning but

her and her energy is with us and we are glad that she is ed to -- wanted -- to have this hearing because there is talk on whether extruding crude oil is in the natural interest of the people. i think it is fair to say this isn't going to be revolved over the next couple weeks. there is a lot of interest in this subject and that is why we are holding the hearing. i believe deeply in expanded trade. 1-6 jobs depends on international trade in my state and trade jobs play better on the non-trade jobs because they reflect a higher level of productivity which is often

required. i am asked to summarize my economic views, and i often say a goal is to help things grow, build and have revenue in america and then ship them somewhere. that is why today's debate is especially important. the fact is energy is not the same thing as blueberries. accordingly it is treated differently under federal law. the energy policy and conversation act allows for the export of crude oil only when doing so is in the natural interest. there is not that requirement for blueberries or other things. national security is involved when we talk about exporting energy. there are several armed

conflicts around the world that are being inflamed by fights to control oil. now, i will put blueberries up against anything, but the last time i looked no one is fighting a war over them. it is hard to believe that only a few years after campaigns, being dominated by slogans like drill, baby drill we have having the talks on excrudeing oil. now, our country is in the enviable position about having choices about the energy future. how can the boom create the greatest effort for america? can energy help create jobs?

of course. can it ease the pain at the pump? of course. can we reduce the dependence on fuel from countries that don't have our best interest in mind? of course. those are the easy questions. the harder question is how can you come up with policy with america can have it all? can we get the domestic benefits from export and retain a cost advantage for domestic consumers? that is my goal. but in an effort to keep the hearing under seven or eight hours we will have to have a focus. i want it understood for this hearing i have a particular interest in focusing on the consumer. in any energy debate it is never hard to find a voice for the various regions, industries and

points of view in america. consumers often don't have one however. the number of voices want to export oil. i want to hammer home the point this morning is for me the litmus test is how middle class families will be effected by changing the country's policy on oil exports. it isn't enough to say an algorithm determines this. american families and many businesses deserve to know what exports mean for their specific needs when they fill up at the pump. charging forward and hoping for the best isn't the best way to get the policy decisions. responsibility of the committee and we have worked on the issue

in a bipartisan way is to make sure consumers don't get hammered by the price of gas going up. i will wrap-up by saying there are important issues with respect to timing. there maybe a time when crude oil exports are appropriate. one of the questions we will have to explore is whether that time is now. when a conversation has begun on exporting crude oil, i am not hearing a similar conversation on ending imports. our country is importing about 40% of the crude oil including from those places that don't have our best interest in mind. every member of this committee understands the global commodity debate. a global price doesn't automatically mean a stable

price. if oil stops flowing from saudi arabia american consumers and businesses would feel it in a hurry. does real energy security mean being energy independent even if we never do it? i think most americans would think the government would chose not to import the oil if given the option. we will listen to the arguments pro/con and i need to hear more. i will not be making judgments today and i look forward to working with all of the colleagues so that our country can maximize what i think we all would say is a historic set of circumstances that we want to think through carefully about how to tap the potential of. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate you considered remarks and the opportunity to

bring up the issue before the committee. as you, and i, have noted over the past year we have not shown any interest in taking up the difficult issues when it comes to energy or energy production and export whether it is natural gas or oil. this is what people expect us to do: take up the hard issues and have considered debate and dialogue and where and when appropriate to act on that. my hope is that today's discussion is the beginning of many very considered and thoughtful discussions on what is a very timely issue given the position that the country is in when it comes to our dramatically increased oil production. i appreciate the opportunity to

discuss this today. i would note that it has generated a fair amount of discussion. we have not seen a full hearing room in a while. we have good representation on the committee so i am pleased to see that. mr. chairman, you will recall that you and i were speaking together at the center for strategic and international studies on unconventional gas production this time last year. during the q&a during the presentation, an attendee asked about the ban on crude oil and you answered the question in a thoughtful manner. my response was isn't it amazing you are able to ask the question and not be laughed out of the

room. a year prior to that it would not have been possible to have the discussion. so where we have come in just a year in recognizing, again, that as a nation when it comes to energy production on several different fronts, the landscape has changed dramatically and thanks to my colleague at the end here, what we are seeing coming from north dakota has changed dynamic. it has helped with our jobs and our opportunities. but it isn't just north dakota, it is in texas and california. we are not seeing it in alaska unfortunately and we will not see the opportunity for

exploreation this year. shell is not moving forward because of the decision by the 9th circuit. very troubling to me. let me get back to where i think we will take the conversation this morning. just a couple weeks ago, i addressed the brookings institution and presented a white paper on the energy trade and called for ending the prohibition on crude. i will tell you i have been gratified by the thoughtful responses. it hasn't been a knee jerk we cannot do it, the sky is falling. it is much more considered and thoughtful and i think that is where we need to be with these discussions. i want to prompt further discussion and debate on the issue. the analytical and trade winds

are blowing. the architecture of u.s. energy exports must be renovated if we are going to lead the world on issue of trade, environment and energy. the highest profile fact is the de-facto prohibition on crude oil. it threatens record-breaking oil production by creating gluts and distortions. it is my hope and expectation that the hearing continues all of the issues considering all sides and reaching conclusions so we can move forward rather than let the global energy markets pass us by around the world. having said that, i don't expect that we are going to either see the administration moving forward with a discussion next week or legislation coming forward from me or other members of the energy committee here.

what i am hoping is that we can advance this discussion so that it is clearly understood that from the consumers experience why exports make sense. timing is key here. i believe opening up world markets to crude oil will lower the global prices. the american consumers will benefit from this action. go-political impact is important here. the on-going talks with asia is

just being understood. we cannot let short-term thinking distract us from the long hall. gasoline prices will go up and down, there is going to be variations across different regions of the united states. this is do to variables like infrastructure and differing tax structures and other aspects of the distribution system. regional variations are ultimately variations on global prices. lifting the ban is about production and jobs. the international energy agency, iea, has warned that maintaining the man might result in shut-in production which would be against the livelihood.

so many things to chew on and kerry forward in discussions. we have a panel in front of us and i think mr. chairman is knowledgeable and poised to speak to the issues. i think we will gain from their input this morning and i thank them for being here and thank you for allowing us to have this opportunity. >> thank you for a thoughtful statement. without the committee being hit by one of those political facts, i am told this is the first hearing in the congress in 20 years on this topic. given the fact we have more than 10% of the senate here, a number of senators want to make short statements. franken did. >> i didn't want to interrupt the ranking member, but when she

was talking about where we came in oil production and thanked my colleague from north dakota, i wanted to point out while as governor he did all kinds of things to make sure it was developed there, he didn't discover the oil there. and i want to point that out but if you would please discover some oil in minnesota, it would be most welcome. >> you need to talk to our guest herald hamm. let me go back and forth. is there someone that would like to make a comment? is there a colleague on the other side who wants a minute or

two? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to welcome herald hamm. and senator franken isn't too far off, he didn't discover the oil, but discovered the methods and developing them in a way that made oil recovery in billions of barrels. it is leading an energy renaissance. so i am pleased to welcome and introduce herald hamm. >> i enjoyed my visit to north dakota as well. >> i think we have a great panel and i want to thank you for a thoughtful opening statement.

i will submit my statement for the record, but i want to say we are witnesses an energy revolution in the country today producing more energy at home here than we have in decade and translating that into numbers, the eia predicts 8.5 million barrels a day in production, is 1 million more than in 2013 and very near the record of 9.6 million barrels last achieved in 1970. that is why we are having the hearing and i think the testimony mr. hamm will show us that this will expand and the production companies and also the landowners and the oil

supply and gas suppliers and also the general manufactures that make products unrelated to gas and oil but employ americans. and they are experiencing the excitement about supply and stable and reasonable prices. i will put the rest of my statement in the record. for the refineries, we do need to get on the record what the refineries are positioned to process today and the kind of crude that is being produced. and the miss match that is there. we have to be very aware and sensitive of the investments that have been made by the refineries. i think we are going to hear some of that today. i am looking forward to the testimony particularly the users of it like delta airlines that use a tremendous amount of fuel.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> let's go to the other side. anyone on the other side who wants to make a brief comment? senator mansion was interested. >> i want to thank both of you for holding this historic hearing today. i just can't help but think that where we are today and we are thinking about this, which would have never had this a year or five years ago, it really speaks of the innovations and changes you have made. the l and g exports that we were going to import a couple years ago comes to mind. and senator, you said that sweet spot and i can only think about 100-150 years ago what the coal

industry did for us coming from west virginia gave us the life we have today. and what people are still depending on our state. where we would be if we had sent that product out of the market place. there is a balance to be had and i think we are able to find that. i will introduce my statement for the record. i am interested in this topic and discussion for us and the children and grandchildren and the security of the nation. >> thank you. senator barrasso. >> i read a book called "break out" and it is about pioneers of the future. it goes into the battle that is going to decide america's fate

and a lot has to do with energy resources, availability and production and the technology making it possible. so thank you for this and bringing this together. >> senator cantwell. >> thank you for the statement. there are two issues i would like to discuss and those are safety and price. i don't know if they will be discussed today. i am not saying you cannot have oil transported safely but we had a huge fire and a report is being released about the death and what happened from that. and we have had incidences of oil now if you think of the north dakota and the export opportunities on rail and what are the safety issues. that is an important issues to me. and secondly the issue of price.

i believe it is global market and global price. i definitely think we could do more to police the markets to make sure manipulation isn't effected. that is more about the banking figures and how many people have their fingers in the oil pot when they are not taking the end user. the price issue in the pacific northwest given the world market and being isolated, we have had some of the highest gas prices in the nation. when the congressional research gave an estimate on exports, it is saying that consumers could pay 5-10 cent more if '75 we ha

discussion but now we do because of the fracking and such. l and g exports issue was more controversy than it is now. we found ourselves in a

situation it looks like we can afford to export and help the manufactures in places like iowa achieve what is happening. it is as a revolution but it is more important as to the impact on jobs where manufactures are coming back and adding jobs because they are seeing there is a long term and stable price. on the issue of oil i would like to hear if the price at the pump is determined through there global market. we hear that what happens at the pump in ohio and around the country is affected by the global market place. and when there is an issue

overseas of no disruption but the potential the prices go up. so we would like to hear more about that. and since senator talked about the sweet spot, i would love to hear what could be done in terms of a swap specifically with mexico that has been suggested where we would export light sweet crude for heavy crude. so it might not lift the wholesale export ban, but might enhance or competitiveness and have the right balance of emergency resources in the context of the revolution that put us in the field across the board. >> we are going on a long time

so i will try to be brief. >> it has been 25 years. >> that is a good point. there is a lot of bottled up ideas. >> there are. >> i want to remind my colleagues that one of the reasons we are having this conversation and why the market is changing is because of this technology that has been developed. as you said, horizontal drilling and fractureing and much of the research came from the national laboratories and after several years of declining budgets, i think it is important to realize that things we consider mature and industries have been around for long time can be changed by our investments and research. we need to continue to make sure we don't loose sight of that. >> very good. other colleagues? senator scott. >> i would feel left out if i

didn't say something. >> not on our watch you wouldn't be left out. >> thank you. having the opportunity to go to midland texas and see the results and impact of hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling it is remarking where we find outselves. especially when you look back at people saying we were going to plateau and the end was coming soon. but yourself and mitchell invested resources to get us into a country where we should have a larger conversation about the impact of those export opportunities on national security. as we become more aggressive with the oil production and exporting hopefully, it puts our

middle east competitors to look at their own budgets and revenue. our's is positive, but it does more for national security than we articulated. >> senator baldwin. >> i wanted to talk about the context in which i am going to listen to the testimony and think about the input. i mentioned it at our hearing recently. this winter in wisconsin, families and business owners have had one issue on their minds and that is the cost and availability of propane. it is an especially cold winter in wisconsin. for many people who relied on a steady propane fuel, they are unable to find fuel to fill the

tanks and regional suppliers have been depleted. it is over $6 per gallon now and risen that much in three weeks. this is devastating and very frightening for people across the state. i am hopefully the committee will take a close look at how we can solve this problem and figure out how we can prevent it from ever happening again. but in addition to tight supplies, we have witnessed a dramatic increase in propane exports. midwestern supplies were dwindling but the export industry tripled. this crisis should give us pause and inform the larger discussion

about another fuel that is critical to our economy. consumer supply protection is a part of any serious debate. and let me add another issue as i don't know if i will get to stay long enough to ask questions. one of the major causes of the propane shortages is a result of infrastructure changes. pipelines are being repurposed to serve new oil fields. as oil production increases, the infrastructures will only increase. so part of what context i will be viewing the discussion, and again chairman and ranking member, i appreciate being able

to hear the testimony. >> i think we are ready to go the witnesses and guest. let's go forward then. mr. hamm is here. graham bernett and amy meyers jaffe is here as well. and daniel weiss, the senior fellow and director of climate at the center for american progress. we welcome all of you and will make your statements part of the record. there is great interest among the senators. mr. hamm go ahead.

[turning mike on] >>good morning. chairman wyden, ranking member murkowski and members of the committee: thank you for inviting me to testify before you today.

in october 2011, depa put a stake in the ground and predicted american energy independence by 2020.1 america's independent oil and gas producers have unlocked the technology and resources that make this a reality. as a result, we can today mark the recent 40th anniversary of the opec oil embargo by ending the era of oil scarcity in america and, along with it, ending the last of shortsighted regulations passed during that period. the federal laws passed in the 1970s artificially controlled the supply, demand, and price of u.s. energy and brought about unintended consequences. for example, one law even banned the use of natural gas as a boiler fuel and mandated u.s. power plants switch to a less

environmentally friendly alternative, coal. today america is still struggling to rectify the aftermath of this rash regulation. in the years since the enactment of these laws, our elected officials have recognized our global energy industry has changed dramatically.

>> week develop we can -- america now counts the natural gas supply in centuries and experts agree we will be energy independent within the decades. this was missed by the general c concensus. has to be asked, "why does the united states, a nation historically very supportive of free trade, continue to impose export barriers for domestic crude oil?" the fact is the supply and demand factors and "scarcity mentality" that

originally led to the creation of these export restrictions in no way reflect the economic reality of the global energy marketplace of today. we are entering a new era of energy abundance in america and the world. heretofore, we have only been able to extract hydrocarbons from reservoir-quality rock, primarily through vertical wells. but through technological breakthroughs in precision horizontal drilling, we can develop resources previously thought to be unattainable. america now counts our natural gas supply in centuries, and experts including raymond james,3 citi4 and the international energy agency5 all agree we will be energy independent in terms of crude oil within a decade or two. in deed crude oil is no different than any other commodity.

over the past 18 months, gas and diesel fuelss have been reduced by 18% due horizontal drilling. a release yesterday by the report by icf international states the cost can be reduced another $6.6 billion if the export ban is removed. the economy impact reaches far beyond consumer. it is adding jobs for millions of america and helping the chemical factories grow.

we have seen in cuba and other areas >>good morning. chairman wyden, ranking member murkowski and members of the committee: thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. my name is graeme burnett. i am the senior vice president for fuel optimization at delta air lines. in this position i manage delta' s jet fuel supply as well as serve as chairman of the board of monroe energy,the company that owns and operates delta's

refinery in trainer, pennsylvania. i have over 30 years experience in the petrochemical and refining sectors of the energy industry and, before coming to delta, i worked in various capacities in texas and across the globe for one of the top five oil companies. delta air lines is the largest non-military user of jet fuel in the world and, like all airlines, we participate in oil markets on a daily basis. jet fuel after all is our largest expense. it contributes to the price of an airplane ticket, influences the types of aircraft we purchase, and helps determine whether we serve certain routes. because of all this, we are uniquely situated - both as an end user of crude oil and as a refiner - to comment on the crude oil export ban and the current debate over whether