partnered with yahoo! we're racing to be part of the digital future. we can see that's where -- that's where it is going. that's something we embrace. we're not afraid of. >> the other thing too, i think as all this noise is going on i think one other trend i may be a polly anna about this -- [ inaudible ] -- for land and water. thank you. secretary jewell comes to this position with ideal background and experience for what is the nation's number one land stewardship responsibility. secretary jewell was an

engineer, a petroleum engineer early part of her career, then a banker for a good portion of her career, a chief executive of a publicly held company and lastly a mountain climber and a kayaker. i think the last two attributes that she brings to this job are probably going to be the most important attributes of washington climbing mountains and avoiding rocks in the rapids. so i think she is extraordinarily well credentialed for this position. i've had sometimes distressing experience and energy policy formation. i have a lot of -- i see bennett johnson in the background here. a lot of us have bruises that have lasted for years from that process. senator, good to see you.

bob frye, the late bob frye was the head of resources for the future, once testified before the committee i was on that the task of defining the energy future was to chart a safe, secure response environmentally responsible energy path that would sustain human progress for present and future generations. that was probably the most graceful articulation of what is, in my mind one of the more difficult balancing acts because as we know energy policy is derivative from our security, our environmental and our economic goals and responsibilities. and finding the balance point, among those goals, sometimes

conflicting goals, and they particularly come to a conflicting challenge in the department of interior's responsibilities finding that balance point has proved over the last 40 years that i've been involved in this area, an extraordinarily difficult challenge to policymaking. energy policy legislation often passed in the house or the senate by single vote margins. so it is a great challenge that secretary jewell has in her hands, and we welcome here to csis. it is common to refer to our cabinet secretaries and other officers and the executive as honorable. so i am pleased and honored in fact, to welcome the honorable secretary, sally jewell, to the

podium. [ applause ] >> thank you, charlie. thank you very much. bennett, where are you out there? there you are. bennett and i worked together on the second century commission of the national parks. and it was a wonderful experience. so it is great to see you here. and you're even more green than i am. so thanks charlie for that introduction. and thanks to the center for strategic and international studies for inviting me to be with you here today. i appreciate everything that this organization does to advance a bipartisan dialogue around some of the most pressing issues of our time. and thanks to those in the audience for being here today. it is great to see there is really no better way than to celebrate st. paddy's day than by talking about energy policy. so welcome. welcome to the best party this afternoon. so we had a breakthrough year

for the u.s. economy. as president obama reminded us in his state of the union address, companies are creating jobs faster than at any time since 1999. wages are climbing. deficits are shrinking. graduate rates are at record levels. our economy has emerged from recession with a stronger more stable foundation. and it is no coincidence that our economic recovery has been accompanied by the biggest energy transformation of our lifetimes. the energy revolution we experienced in these last six years helped spur the recovery. but it is also been accelerated by the policies our country put in place. so since 2008 american oil production has surged from 5 million to 9 million barrels a day. and our dependence on foreign oil has fallen to its lowest level in more than 30 years. the amount of solar energy has increased tenfold and wind

energy has tripled since 2008. that's been helped by more than $340 billion of private sector investment and a tax policy that helped move these investments off the sidelines. families are driving further than ever on a tank of gas. and with lower erer gas prices, the average household will have an extra $750 in their pockets in 2015. these shifts in the u.s. energy markets aren't marginal or temporary. they are tectonic shifts and from a business perspective, these changes are going to present both challenges risks and opportunities for industry. i can promise you that every ceo of an energy business out there is reassessing the plans they had on the books a year ago. they're asking, especially today, how do falling oil and gas prices affect us?

do we have the right projects in the pipeline or do we need to diversify? can we capitalize on consumers growing demand for smarter homes and cleaner cars? the tectonic shifts are forcing governments at every level to face questions of the same magnitude. can we adapt in this fast changing environment? not the fastest place is government, you know coming from the private sector. it is tough. how do we modernize our energy programs to anticipate the new energy future? are we doing what is needed for the u.s. to lead the world in energy? this is a speech about energy. but you can't talk about energy without talking about climate change and that's good. it is one of the reasons i left the private sector for this job. not just to talk about climate change and to do what you could do within the bounds of a country, but to do something about it on a much bigger scale. and i am proud to work for a

president who is taking had historic, meaningful steps to cut dangerous carbon pollution. so as a person entrusted with america's biggest land management portfolio, i ask myself questions like what are we doing to achieve a low carbon future? are we striking the right balance between conservation and development? what measures do we need in place for our land our water, our climate today to protect the families of tomorrow? so as ceo of rei and it is not a public company, are there members out there? probably a few. you own the company. it is a member owned cooperative. i need to pay attention to the current year's earnings and also make long-term decisions to make sure our business would be relevant and profitable, 10 20, 30 years down the line. i was chatting with frank and charlie about how my colleagues at rei and i did a study on what is impacting us over the

long-term and saw a csis study a couple of years later and they were almost completely aligned. you do as a business have to think long term. that's the same balance that i have to have as secretary of the interior. managing our resources to help drive our nation's economy, without taking our eye off the america we want to hand to our children. the fact is, i know we all share a desire for cleaner and more secure energy future. but getting there is a complex task. and many thoughtful people will disagree over the right path forward. right, charlie? so today i want to talk about the path we're forging at the department of the interior. put simply, our task by the end of this administration is to put in place common sense reforms that promote good government, and help to define the rules of the road for the energy future on the public lands. these reforms should help businesses produce energy more safely, and with more certainty.

they should encourage technological innovation, they should ensure american taxpayers are getting maximum benefit from their resources. and they should apply our values and our science to better protect and sustain our planet for future generations. after all as my colleague secretary kerry said just last week there is no planet b. thought that was clever too. that's good. over the past six years, the obama administration launched the most ambitious reform agenda in the department of the interior's history. we saw and inherited how a drill everywhere plan doesn't work very well if nearly half of the lease sales are challenged or later overturned in court. so we put in place on shore leasing reforms to front load engagement with the public about where it does or doesn't make sense to develop. through smarter planning, we're seeing reduced conflict in litigation and more certainty

for industry. in 2009, the renewable energy industry was knocking on our door to permit wind and solar projects. but there was no clear path forward. so my predecessor, ken salazar, stood up a strike team to get the most promising projects across the finish line and to establish an enduring renewable energy program at the department. and he did a great job. that legacy is the gift that keeps on giving. so in the span of six years we have now approved 52 commercial scale projects on public lands across the west. together that's 14,000 megawatts of renewable energy that when built would produce enough electricity to power over 4 million american homes. so let me put that in perspective. how many of you have visited the hoover dam? quite a few of you. 14,000 megawatts is equivalent to the clean hydro power, the

bureau of reclamation produces through 53 facilities built over the course of 100 years, including grand cooley, hoover dam, grand canyon dam and the other 50 dams we have in the reclamation portfolio. this is not minor. this is huge. off shore. we also made sweeping reforms, for safe and responsible development in the wake of the devastating deep water horizon oil spill. interior strengthened drilling and emergency response standards for oil and guess companies. we have raised the bar through new standards for well design, production systems blowout prevention and well control equipment. and we overhauled federal oversight by restructuring ourselves to provide independent regulatory agencies that have clear missions, and are better resourced to carry out their work while keeping pace with the rapidly evolving industry. but our work is not done. there is still areas where we need to change how we do business. so the united states can better

compete and lead the world when it comes to energy and climate change. a reform agenda over the next two years has three goals. safe and responsible energy development, good government, and encouraging innovation. i'll start with safe and responsible energy development. it is pretty simple. we don't have the right measures in place to protect the communities we live in the air we breathe and the water we drink, we all lose. i quote, the critical path to sustained and expanded resource development in north america includes effective regulation and a commitment of industry and regulators, industry and regulators to continuous improvement in practices to eliminate or minimize environmental risk. sounds like the interior department, right? but it wasn't. it was the national petroleum council, largely made up of industry. that's because many an industry get the effective regulations and independent oversight of

energy development not only help minimize risk but are absolutely critical to building the public confidence necessary to sustain our energy revolution. many of the regulations on the books haven't kept pace with the advances in technology. they're the same ones that were in place when i was working on drilling and fracking operations in oklahoma more than 30 years ago. 30-year-old regulations. it's why in the coming days we will release a final rule related to hydraulic fracturing or fracking on public lands. the rule will include measures to protect our nation's ground water, requiring operators to construct sound wells, to disclose the chemicals they use and to safely recover and handle fluids used in the process. some have already labeled these baseline proven standards as overly burdensome to industry. but i think most americans would call them common sense. standards only apply to activity on public and tribal lands,

where as a matter of geology, listening to my friends, about 25% of america's unconventional oil and gas sits. so you can all do the math. it means that three-quarters of the resources are found on state and private lands. so the responsibility for developing this energy safely must now be taken up in state capitals, in engineering labs, in board rooms all across the country. we owe it to our kids to get this right. if we do, we can continue to grow our economy just as we work to protect our water our air and our communities. interior will continue do its part in the coming months. we'll also propose standards to cut methane emissions and wasted gas. or leaky pipes like they had in this building apparently it smelled like natural gas in here a few hours ago. methane is the third largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. it traps more than 20 times as

much heat as carbon dioxide over the course of a century. but this powerful greenhouse gas is routinely released during energy development. in fact above northern new mexico, where there is more than 40,000 gas wells satellite images show a methane plume the size of delaware. so we'll be updating our dig adds old standards to encourage the kind of technology that companies i met with have demonstrated can reduce harmful emissions and capture the natural gases as a source of energy and revenue for the american people. and when i was last up at the balkan statoil showing me a device they were about to use to recover some of that natural gas right after a well had been completed, they just skid mounted it hasn't worked yet, i gather it is not only working but they ordered a couple more. that's a great illustration of industry doing its part to innovate. further addressing the impacts

of energy development we're also moving forward with a proposal to modernize the way coal mining operations protect community water sources and make sure that companies restore streams and forests to a healthy condition. in the gulf of mexico, exploration and development activity is booming, driven by new discoveries in deep waters and the expansion of existing fields. in the next two years 13 fields are expected to start up. an offshore production is to steadily increase reaching 1.6 million barrels a day in 2016. as we continue to make vast areas available for offshore oil and gas tomorrow i'm heading to new orleans where we're offering 41 million acres in the gulf of mexico. safety remains our top priority. can't forget the lessons of the deep water horizon tragedy. building on the sweeping reforms that i mentioned earlier will propose a rule in the coming weeks that raises the bar on a

blowout preventer and well control measures based on technological technological progress advanced by the industry. operators will be required to use best practices to protect against and respond to any loss of well control. and in the arctic we just released a proposal to make sure that any oil and gas exploration off shore alaska is subject to strong standards and specifically tailored to the region's challenging and unforgiving conditions. we know the arctic is a sensitive environment that has sustained alaska natives and their culture for thousands of years and we can't afford to get it wrong. when it comes to reforms, i recognize there will be pushback from various corners. no surprise. i also appreciate the importance of the oil and gas sector and i'm committed to its ongoing success. but i strongly believe that they're not only achievable with modern technology and science, but absolutely critical to

upholding public trust to responsibly develop our natural resources. we have got to update these regs. second, when it comes to reforms, we need to improve the way we do business as a federal government, plain and simple. part of that means ensuring the american taxpayer is getting a fair return for the use of natural resources on their public lands. i think most americans would be surprised to know that coal companies can make a winning bid for about $1 a ton to mine taxpayer owned coal. coal is going to continue to be an important part of our nation's energy mix in the future. the government accountability office, ur own inspector general agree that the federal coal program needs reform. so we need to ask ourselves, are taxpayers and local communities getting a fair return from the resources? how can we make the program more transparent and more competitive? how do we manage the program in

a way that is consistent with our climate change objectives? these are hard questions. but it is time for an honest and open conversation about modernizing the federal coal program. and we welcome that. in the coming weeks -- thanks. in the coming weeks, we'll take public comment on a proposal to give the flexibility to adjust royalty rates on the oil and gas resources that belong to all of us. this is important, especially given the dramatic growth of oil production on public and tribal lands. production has increased in each of the past six years and overall combined production from public and tribal land was up 81% in 2014 compared to 2008. not just about royalty rates. need smarter management too. in 2015, incredibly we're still processing a majority of our oil and gas permits by paper.

and we got about 150 inspectors out in the blm who are responsible for inspecting 100,000 oil and gas wells spread across millions of acres of public and tribal lands. that's a lot of territory and it means we're not able to do our job effectively. to carry out our mission, and to be a better partner to industry we need resources. repeated budget cuts have tested blm's ability to keep up with industry demand for new permits and to enforce safety and environmental standards. that's why the president's budget calls on congress to support a strong on shore inspection program partly funded through fees. this proposal takes a page from the offshore energy industry where industry pays fees for permits and inspections. which means we can keep pace with the work load and we don't have to divert funds from other programs to support permitting, leasing or inspection activities. coupled with the transition to a

new automated permitting system which is under way that eliminates paper applications these budget resources will strengthen the capacity to do its job well. that's a perfect example in the budget where congress needs to move beyond mindless austerity brought about by sequestration and i can tell you, my first year in this job was 2013. i thought i left the private sector for this? crazy budget. but this enables us to move beyond that sequestration, make a smart investment in the future, in infrastructure and innovation. that means investing in safe and responsible energy production, but also in our ability to protect our critical landscapes, our wildlife, and their habitats. so when it comes to good government, we're also working to provide predictability to industry, by identifying on a landscape level where does it make sense for them to develop and where does it make sense for them not to develop? so to that end we're taking a targeted leasing approach in

offshore frontier areas, we're also completing comprehensive oil and gas leasing plans on shore in places like moab, utah, to open up access to resources in the right places but recognize there is some places that we don't want to develop. we already have done that in the national petroleum reserve in alaska where we made nearly 12 million acres available for oil and gas development, while protecting sensitive habitat that is critical for species like the caribou. they're valuable oil and gas resources that companies can explore and bring to market and we're facilitating that. but to be clear predictability also means identifying places that are too special to drill. talking about places with rich cultural resources or key wildlife habitat, or awesome outdoor recreation opportunities, like you talked about, charlie. that all matters to our economy, and to our future. i'm also talking about places at the doorstep of utah's national parks, north dakota's theodore roosevelt national park, or the

coastal plain or the arctic national wildlife refuge. not only should we -- thank you. not only should we actively avoid damaging special or sensitive places, like the ones i mentioned, but we should permanently protect some areas for their conservation values. future generations of americans deserve to enjoy those incredible places just like we do. so we're using this comprehensive landscape level approach for renewable energy too. because all energy development has its consequences. we have to be thoughtful about it. so on shore we mapped out nearly 20 zones across the west, where solar potential is high and other conflicts are low. because of this early planning work companies will see faster permitting times for example, three solar projects in the pipeline in a solar zone in nevada were reviewed by the blm in a third of the time, nine

months, where previous project by project approvals often took two years to compete. offshore, we're identifying energy areas that will allow our nation to capture the huge potential of wind along the atlantic. it is windy along the atlantic. i've been there. didn't used to. we can do that without compromising fishing recreation national security, the environment, when we're smart about planning up-front. we already held four successful auctions where industry has competitively bid to develop offshore wind storms. we now have over 800,000 acres offshore under commercial lease and looking forward to seeing steel in the water in the coming years. the third and last reform i'll talk about today, is making sure that our country is positioned to encourage innovation and be competitive in a global economy. america is both blessed with diverse natural resources and more importantly the human

capital to develop new and better ways to harness them. just as the united states is a leader in unconventional oil extraction, it is now the world's top producer of natural gas. there is no reason why we shouldn't also be the top producer of solar power and wind power. why not? let's do it. the government has a role to play here. for example, a department of energy has for decades been a key player in research and development, things like directional drilling and tools to assess oil and gas potential. technologies that help spur our nation's recent energy boom. today, the doe is investing in innovative technologies that make our energy production cleaner, more efficient, and finding ways to make solar more cost effective. the government is also supported the development of a strong and profitable oil and gas industry through many tax credits and incentives that lower the cost of doing business. i worked with those incentives when i was a banker banking oil and gas companies and i was surprised to find out they're

still in place 35 years later. so the credits may have made sense at the time but i'm not sure they make sense for as mature as this industry has become. i think we need to look at that. instead, today, we should be investing in incentives for industries that are still getting a foot hold in our nation's sector like wind and solar energy. we need congress to make tax credits for renewable energy long-term and predictable. instead of allowing sunsets and stutter steps that create so much uncertainty for businesses and manufacturers. many enlightened states have spurred the growth of clean energy through renewable energy standards and incentives. when you talk about creating jobs, and growing the economy this is the kind of action that congress can take, that will move billions of dollars of capital investments into the clean energy economy. our nation's policies should accelerate american innovation and entrepreneurialism, not blunt them.

renewable energy tax credits, energy efficiency targets, carbon reduction targets, and thoughtful regulations, thoughtful regulations that incentivize clean technology are a few ways that we can get there. i've talked about our reform agenda, responsible for representing the interests of all of us taxpayers, on their public lands. but i'm also a grandmother. my responsibility to my grandchildren's generation is at the top of my mind with every decision we make. it is why i'm determined to help make energy development safer and more environmentally sound in the next two years. it is why i believe that new energy development should be matched with new protections for lands and waters. that's why we must, we must do more to cut greenhouse gas pollution that is warming our planet. i see the cost of a changing climate everywhere i go. recently i was in alaska

coastal erosion there threatens to wipe out an entire native village. and it is one of several that is in danger. in the marshall islands they have to sandbag the airport runway to keep the rising ocean from washing it away. i got an e-mail last night from assistant secretary for insular affairs who said that just king tides in some areas of the marshall islands are making parts of inhabited areas now uninhabitable. one storm and it could wipe out 15,000 people who share 80 acres with average elevation that is just a few feet. right here at home across this country, communities are facing more extreme wildfires. we saw some of them in the news last night. bigger storms. devastating droughts like california's experiencing. disappearing wildlife. and rising economic damages. these are not free. so for us at interior we're

already adjusting our land management strategies for the impacts of climate change. but we also need to do more and we can to address the causes of climate change. helping our nation cut carbon pollution should inform our decisions about where we develop, how we develop and what we develop. president obama has rightly described climate change as the single most pressing energy and environmental challenge of our time. but he's also right that we're in a moment of remarkable opportunity and promise, and the state of the union, he said we have risen from the recession, freer to write our own future than any other nation on earth. it is now up to us to choose who we want to be over the next 15 years and for decades to come. i share the president's belief that the u.s. should lead the world on energy, climate and conservation. and to accomplish this we need to encourage innovation, we need

to provide clear rules of the road and make balanced decisions. every day i think about this phrase. we don't inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. we don't inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. my job is to take the long view. it is what the american public expects of us. and that's what we all owe the next generation. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you, secretary jewell. excellent presentation. let me allay some of your fears. i'm frank verrastro senior vice president at the center and i have the schlesinger chair. the gas leak was at 17th and

elm, no panic. for our safety in the event we need to evacuate, the unlikely event, since we're on the second floor, down the stairway, out the front, across the street to the park. for those of you in front, out the back, where the signs are, takes you to an alley way, dumps you on elm street okay? >> should have said that in advance. >> we can get the crowd warmed up. madam secretary, i got my start in the federal government at the age of 4 in the interior department so i have an affinity for the oil and gas office there. you and charlie both talked about the trade-offs especially at interior where you're charged with resource development in a prudent way and environmental stewardship. but then as you expand that throughout the government to national security, foreign policy interests labor and economic interests how do you reconcile, what are the trade-offs and the balances because i'm not sure the public has a full appreciation for the deliberations that go on to get to a policy decision. >> i'd say that the american

public has an amazing capacity for the truth. and when you explain the trade-offs, when you engage communities in the process you actually end up with some pretty smart thinking about where we need to go. so as i was talking about we have done a fair amount of engaging with communities on landscape level planning. what are the areas they think make sense to develop, what are the areas too special to develop, the -- for the industry, what are the areas that has the greatest potential and how can we help steer development to the right places and avoid the wrong places? the worst thing i think we can do for industry as well as for the country is to make hasty decisions that aren't well thought through that just end up in court. slows everything down. and there was a fair amount of that that we inherited. in fact, my husband is not happy that all the lawsuits in the department of interior bear my last name. most of them.

our last name. because a lot of those are formed when you don't have the right kind of up-front discussion about what is the right balance and what is at stake? i think that we have made some really important progress in that area of engaging the public so that we're really -- they trust the decisions made more than before and recognize that there is balance and trade-offs. i think that enabled us to avoid some conflict but also, you know, building understanding for the very real conflicts that do exist out there. >> and you talked about in addition to the outreach, the technology moves it is an extraordinary time we have seen over the last five years, but as with budget, i'm sure you are keenly aware of the restrictions on budget availability, the notion that is there a better way to collaborate with industry and the private sector on research and technology and regulatory proposals so that the

regulations are lined up with the best thinking of the day and best practices as they are put in place? >> yeah i think that's -- we are doing that. i think it is very important. i mentioned that a lot of the regulations we're looking at upgrading now were created in the '80s. that's when i was in the early '80s is when i was in the oil and gas industry directly and they haven't changed. the technology has gone miles. it isn't easy to change regulation and maybe it shouldn't be easy but you want regulations that can adapt with new technologies and that's what we're doing in a lot of the -- the regulatory work that we're doing now to update these things. so i used the quick example of statoil and the skid mounted unit to capture natural gas and natural gas liquids right at the well head in the balkan when the pressures are really high right after they complete a well. and, you know we're listening to technologies like that as we formulate the methane capture strategies. for capturing methane, what you need is a gathering system and gas processing cleanse.

takes time to put those in place and you have pressure issues very complicated for an industry to deal with early on in that well's production life. this is innovation by industry. we want to learn from that. want to figure out what is practical, when it might apply you know, how practical is it to apply across the network likewise in offshore tremendous amount of work has been done post deep water horizon. that accident really hurt the oil and gas industry. it hurt every producer out there. it certainly hurt the gulf coast states. and i think it horrified the nation. but it inspired a lot of soul searching on what went wrong. a lot of human error involved. a lot of not paying attention to the technologies that were there, and that had to do to a certain extent with a safety culture. we can work with industry on enhancing that. we were not structured to provide the kind of support and focus on safety as distinct from leasing as distinct from

revenue. we have now split that into three parts. that's not technology. that's human capital and focus. and clarity of mission. so all of those things are factoring into how we are updating our regulations and when you look at the well control work we have done around blowout preventers, that's embracing industry technology and innovations at industries done in the gulf of mexico to say we need better well containment than we had. so they got two different organizations, both consortiums of oil and gas companies that pulled their resources to build new technologies to address well control. and those are the kinds of ways that we're working closely with industry so that regulations march what they're able to do and so they're able to progress over time. >> well and since we're coming up on the fifth year anniversary of mayondcondo, the opportunity that

presents for the united states in terms of leadership position, and also in the arctic. >> that's exactly right. and my colleague, mike conner, deputy secretary, is in new mexico now working on water but also working on energy. we have got for the first time ever a transboundary hydro carbon agreement which will take into account the oil and gas resources that know no international boundries but both countries want an opportunity to develop and we're working closely with them, sharing our practices, listening to their practices and making sure the gulf at large is protected in the future. learned a lot of painful lessons since the gulf oil spill and in the arctic and a lot more to learn because russia is developing, canada will be developing, china is poking around. we need to know what we're doing. >> the arctic, there is an mpc study coming out about the arctic. this whole other notion that if

other arctic nations develop their resource as well, does that put us at a disadvantage? sometimes more is more in terms of capability shore line, backup systems and staging areas, coast guard, defense capability as well. it is a bigger geopolitical issue as well as resource issue. >> i think that's exactly right. the u.s. will be chairing the arctic council coming up later on this year, the transition occurs. my colleague brian salerno brian came from the coast guard. we need to make sure that our arctic response capabilities, search and rescue capabilities safety, environment, all of those things are solid and in place. i think as has been well documented, through the challenges they had in the 2012 drilling season, we are talking about harsh conditions.

we're not talking about the gulf of mexico. we wanted to know how to do it right. i will also say that many of the companies that may be interested in developing the u.s. arctic are also the same companies that are developing in other parts of the arctic. exxonmobil i believe is doing work with russia. so we need to know what we're doing. to the extent there is development there and we believe there is strong potential, we want to make sure we do it right. we want to make sure the resources are there to drill a relief well to contain a spill if there is a spill. and, you know it is not a problem as much in the gulf, even though it was with deep water horizon. you have a lot of assets there. that's not true in the arctic. you have a much shorter season because of -- lots to learn and i think that we -- it is important that as companies show interest, as they have with the lease sales that have occurred that we do it right. >> talked a lot about climate change and the focus within the

administration as well as in the interior department. so when you look out on conventional or unconventional energy production or renewables, how do you weigh the average to decide where there are areas that should lease or you talked about primary spots where you think would be good for wind energy offshore? what is the process within the interior? >> first it starts with science. where are the areas that are consistently windy? and then where it is consistently windy, what other attributes might that area have? is it part of a critical bird fly way or bat fly way? is it close to transmission? is it right in somebody's view? we have to think about all of those things. offshore wind, 800,000 acres now under lease. and we deconflicted that before we put the acres up for lease so we said where is the -- where is the navy and coast guard activities where is the

merchant marine on the fishing activities, what are the critical recreation areas? can you see these -- these future wind turbines and is that going to bother anybody? yes. usually. >> short answer. >> so we need to deconflict and say these are the areas that have the lowest conflict and the highest potential. these may be areas with high potential but very high conflict. there are places, there are national parks with oil and gas resources. that's not the places we should be developing them. i don't believe we should develop oil and gas in the arctic national wildlife refuge. the president agrees. he made that point and that is a recommendation we make to congress. this is through applying science, understanding other uses of the land the impact of the energy development, and trying to chart a course forward that says let's go to the areas where there is limited or no

conflict. so we're doing that in moab, utah, with our master leasing plans, and we're engaging local communities and they're part of the effort, we're -- we have done it in the national petroleum reserve, doing it in the california desert, all kinds of areas off the coast of the atlantic and it is really working and the community is engaged. >> those are good solutions. when i was in the private sector, we were developing off the coast of california, there was one proposal to encase the offshore rigs with mirrors so they wouldn't be a visual pollutant. we thought that was a bad idea. let me just suggest, one of the reasons we invite you all is to participate and the secretary agreed to take some questions from the floor. we have a couple of simple rules, one is to wait for the microphone, number two is to -- to the extent you can pose your question in the form of a question, so that's a little voice inflexion at the end, and identify yourself and your affiliation if that's okay, please. so, any questions? wow.

you're good. okay. all the way in the back. >> my name is andrew. i'm with the biomass thermal energy council. i'm an intern there. i have a question about the department's initiatives in forest restoration and kind of energy opportunities. so lesser known energy opportunities and innovation at the forest edge. thank you. >> thank you very much for your question. so there is a lot of work going on in usda and u.s. forest service, not a part of the department of the interior but important potential. for example because of climate change, a few degrees difference have caused a proliferation of the mountain pine beetle. many of you are aware of this. if you're a westerner as i am you fly over or drive through the landscapes, it is astounding how much standing dead timber there is. there is fuel potential in that timber. this is something this tom

vilsack has been working on with his team. it is a matter of economics. how do you make it economic to harvest that for energy development or for manufacturing wood products or otherwise. it is a very important part of the equation. i'll also say i visited the national renewable energy lab and -- which is a doe facility and there is incredible research going on in biomass energy development. more of that is with materials like switch grass, but it also includes wood products. so there is potential of doing that and i think the research absolutely is critical to continue. it is not yet being done on an economic scale but, you know it is only a matter of time. it is a good illustration of where a little bit of incentive, the right kinds of tax incentives, as oil and gas industry, continues to enjoy and has for over 30 years. just the 30 year, 30-plus years since i've been in industry. we could take a few of those

incentives and move them to areas that are just getting their start, so that technology can bring the price down and we can learn a lot from the science and that's a big part of where i think we have an opportunity to go. >> so if i can just pull back on that a second, on the economic side, put yourself -- your rei hat back on and your government hat, in times of low prices and as fees or structures or economics change, for companies that are struggling but where you still want to get development, can you be flexible in how you encourage or disincentivize people from doing certain things in certain places? >> i got a great rei example for you. >> okay. >> i hope it answers your question directly. so rei was very concerned about you know being a company that supported human powered active outdoor recreation and yet having a carbon footprint ourselves. we wanted to go about understanding that carbon footprint and figuring out where

is the low hanging fruit to reduce it? and one of the areas was energy consumption. so we went about figuring out what were our dirtiest markets? in other words, where was high carbon producing sources of energy? so we took that, and then we married that with the potential that local utilities had for green power and we locked in green power supply contracts to give those utilities certainty that they had a market for that green power. we signed up for long-term contracts. those contracts were more expensive than buying conventional energy, but it was something we were committed to doing. but that was in 2007 when oil prices ran up. at the end of the day the contracts ended up being much better for us economically because we locked in several years at a time when oil and gas prices were high and associated

electricity rates went up if you were nied fosstied into fossil fuels. that's an illustration where we as a business could help support renewable energy. now, the states typically that had those renewable facilities were states where there was some kind of renewable energy standard. it wasn't a tax credit necessarily t was necessarily. it was an expectation that utilities have a certain percentage. it is a requirement they developed it. if you marry that incentive, if you will or expectation from a state, with a willing buyer and there are lots of willing buyers out there that want to reduce the carbon footprint, you have a situation that drives a cost down for those technologies because more people get into it. i got other examples actually with the company on where we put solar panels distributed solar on our roofs and which ones we use and which ones they went to and has everything to do with national and state incentives to support energy development.

and we accelerated. we did 11 stores one year because the tax credits would be expiring at end of the year which is a crazy way to do things, very difficult to plan that way, but that's how these stutter steps i talked about have worked with tax incentives around renewables. >> uncertainty doesn't help with planning. >> does not. >> i won't put you on the spot to say when a carbon tax gets put in place. we have a question here in the l

levels. call them. let me just bring you up to speed a little bit. there is a species that is under consideration for listing under the endangered species act. that's the minor part i want to talk about. the may jar part is we have ecosystems across the american west that are at risk of a number of different factors. we think about redwood forests in california as old growth forests. we think about my home state of washington olympic peninsula and the old growth trees there as incredible habitats worthy of protection but we have old growth sagebrush ecosystems throughout the great basin that

are equally important to 350 species, greater sage grass is one of them. but mule deer and prong horn antelope and hundreds of other species call these places home. and so when we have a wildfire that burns through range land we can wipe out in the space of a day or two hundreds of thousands of acres. hundreds of square miles just like that. and we don't think about it as being old growth in the way we do when you've got crowning fires running up through yosemite but it is very very important from a habitat standpoint so we have 11 states working together to say how do we strike the right balance between conservation and development. and in a state like wyoming, development, oil and gas resources typically, some coal resource development, is -- can be the biggest potential

disruptive to sage grass habitat. in the great basin wild land fire and invasive species like cheat grass is the biggest threat so we're coming to come up with comprehensive strategies across the landscape to understand the critical areas for these species and to protect those areas with the highest level of protection. we're using sound science. we're using the best available science we have. i haven't read spesk cli the letter that you reference but i will say that it is very complicated and there are states have done a lot of science. there's independent work. the work that we do scientifically is available and open to the public. some of the private science that's done by others or by states is not open to the public. we will take at the fish and wildlife service all of the science into account and we must do that because if we don't do that and we come out with a

decision on whether a listing is warranted or not. will it be defensive? we have to have our ducks in a row. but i will say that. that it is unprecedented to have 11 states, 11 governors, really the core, probably 7 governors where they have most of the habitat working so hard along the fish and wildlife service and land management and private landowners to protect the lands that help define the american west and the species that call it home. so, i am very very proud of the collaborative work that's happened with states, blm, fish and wildlife service and others. i'm confident we'll reach the right conclusion whether all the science is in. >> excellent. tommy's working on the answer right now. question charlie? >> charles from brookings

institution. madame secretary, i was wondering if you believe that with the taps pipeline in alaska and such serious jeopardy as to its flow levels whether any criteria when you have lease sales in alaska ought to take into consideration those that might be nearest taps of something was found and hence keep the pipeline alive. >> well, thank you for that question. you know, i actually worked on the alaska pipeline when i was a college student. solving little engineering problems like hot oil in a cold pipe and pipe moves and how do you keep insulation on it. it's a tricky place to do business and what's interesting is that i mean, when alaska achieved statehood alaska chose lands. federal government chose lands tribes up there, native corporations chose land, alaska chose widely.

they developed that very thoughtfully and it peaked in production in the '80s. so it's no surprise production's been going down and i will say that state of alaska is really hurting right now because of oil prices and sympathetic the situation that governor walker finds himself in and the whole state. we certainly support development in the national petroleum reserve in alaska. conoco phillips developed the cd-5 and the area around alpine. i have been out there personally myself. janet schneider for land and minerals has been out there. tommy's out there and a number of others. that's already hooked up to the pipeline. the network, the greatest unit which is the record of decision that we just reached on development with conoco phillips of that will tie in to the alpine facility and will be able to go straight into tap so it's our expectation that as a

national petroleum reserve is developed that that will help keep oil flowing through taps. the other thing i would say as we did all of the work to look at the national petroleum reserve and what are the areas that are critical habitat to not develop which is really critical habitat for caribou birds and other species, we thought about if there is exploration and ultimately production in the chukchu sea is there a way to move out the the reserve to the transalaska pipeline and if you look at the areas that we set aside for conservation and the areas we set aside for development you will see that it facilitates the ability to ultimately have a pipeline corridor that runs through there. taps is a national resource, very important to the state of oklahoma. it is certainly important to us and so we have every expectation

that we will facilitate making public lands available for oil and gas development. obviously, it will be up to industry to develop those resources and that's going to depend on a whole bunch of factors including economics but we will be supportive but doing it in the right ways and right places. >> excellent. one of the reasons we get folks like secretary jewel to join us is adhering to the time constraints because they have an active day outside of csis as hard as that is to believe. madame secretary, you have been candid, informative. it's great to have you here. i hope you do somecome back. we'll look for the proposals a eni think you are the right person at the right time so if you'll join me in thanking secretary jewel.

>> willing to entertain some press questions on the way out the door. thank you very much.

and if you missed any of this conversation, remarks by sally jewel, find them online at the video library at cspan.org. taking a look at the hill reporting on one of the items joseph clancy wants to fund for the secret service $8 million rep pli ka of the white house in the maryland suburbs to help train agents saying today before a homeland security subcommittee that it would be a more realistic environment than what they have now. part of a republican to deal with some of the major security lapses that have been happening at the white house. you can read more at the

hill.com. and irish prime minister kenny in washington, d.c. for the annual visit. they dyed the water in the fountain green for the day. meeting with president obama and vice president biden. and will be attending a white house reception this evening. and then a look at some of the live events you can find on c-span3. tomorrow morning at 10:00 eastern, defense secretary and the chair of joint chiefs of staff answering questions from the house arms services committee. tomorrow afternoon, federal communications commission chair tom wheeler talks about fcc policy. you can watch this live starting at 2:30. and then on thursday the house foreign affairs committee will be looking into negotiations with iran. deputy secretary of state tony blinkin is called to testify along with a treasury department official. thursday morning at 8:30 eastern.

this weekend the c-span city tour learning about the history and literary life of columbus, georgia. >> right here inside the museum is remains of a confederate ironclad the css jackson. this is an ironclad built here in columbus during the war. those oval shapes that you see are actually the gun ports of the jackson. and the jackson is armed with six brook rifles. the particular brook rifle that we're firing today is one of the guns built specifically for the jackson. it was cast at the selma naichl works in selma alabama. and completed in january of 1865. the real claim to fame is directly connected to the fact that there are only four ironclads from the civil war that we can study right now. and the jackson is right here and this is why this facility is

here. it's first and foremost to tell the story of this particular ironclad. and to show people that there are more than just one or two ironclads. there were many. >> watch all of our events from columbus saturday noon eastern and sunday afternoon on c-span3. south carolina senator lindsey graham made his first trip to new hampshire since announcing he's considering a presidential run at 2016. he's speaking at the politics & eggs breakfast at saint anselm college. this is just over an hour. >> thank you. well, i feel better already doing this free.

just remember you get what you pay for. the national guard i didn't know it was -- you could say it like you did but that's great. this has been a wonderful experience. if this is what it's like to run for president, it could be fun. where do i start? that panel you mentioned -- who was on it? barney and who else? [ inaudible ] >> so you didn't go to listen to barney because -- i wouldn't want to be on a panel with barney. he's smart. so, anybody been to south carolina? oh. come back, spend money. a little bit about politics and eggs. whose idea was this? >> frank coker. >> did you go into the wooden egg business before?

there's always a reason behind everything. but who comes next? ted? >> rick. >> okay. that will be $300 a plate. start charging after i leave. i don't know what i'm going to do yet but i know this. coming to new hampshire and thinking about running for president has been a ton of fun, steve. i've been here two days. the first i event i went to is the snow shoe hut. club. it's a hut but it's a club. so you got like 50 or 60 people who've asked me every question known to mankind. very informed. and they put me in front of a roaring fireplace. which was nice for about five minutes. i literally almost caught on fire. i thought the witch trials were

over. but i guess the trial by fire is what new hampshire's all about. at least it was for me. don't ever lose what you've got. i'll go into talking about politics in a minute but if it weren't for new hampshire and way and south carolina you could buy the presidency. you're an anecdote to big wedding. i'll do anything it takes to get known up here and everybody's expected to show up and ask hard questions. i hopefully in front of a roaring fire. there's no substitute for what you've created for the american people and it is a contest where you actually have to get to know the person who wants to be your commander in chief. i don't know what i'm going to do but i am compelled to at least look at it for a couple reasons. central south carolina anybody have any idea where that's at? the girl that went to clemson. my dad owned the liquor store

five miles from clemson. we met almost every clemson graduate. and we loved clemson. it was good for business. but she transferred from harvard to go to clemson. go tigers. as a small town in south carolina clear clemson university, it was a textile town. anybody have family members who grew up in the textile business? you know the northeast and the south had that in common. every plant that i knew growing up's just about closed now. we'll talk about that in a little bit but my dad owned a liquor store a poolroom and a restaurant. and everything i know about politics i learned in the poolroom. it was really good training. that's why i know the iranians are lying. people like the iranians came to the poolroom and you could not trust them. so at the end of the day, folks, this job of running for

president, being the united states senator, is something i never envisioned remotely possible for a guy like me. and one thing i want to tell you is that the first guy i met said, you wear a sweater to politics & eggs, he was a sweater salesman apparently. and a democrat. but i will -- the irs will come meet him. before this week's over. so i grew up in a back of the liquor store in one room with my parents and they went to work every day whether they felt good or not because if you don't open up you don't get paid. and it was a wonderful life. it was the neighborhood bar. and people would come in, you know, as the shifts change, full of cotton and lint and a lot of people had missing fingers. i'll never forget that as long as i live. and you get to know each other

pretty well. i had a lot of aunts and uncles, they were called our customers. and you learned diplomacy. i can remember fred, fred since passed, but his wife called one night when i was about 8 years old and i answered the phone in the back where we lived and his wife asked, is fred there? so i ran up and i said fred your wife wants the know if you're here. and he said, tell her i'm not here. >> so i went back and i said, he said he wasn't here. so i learned diplomacy at an early age. you don't have to repeat everything you're told. but running a small business is challenging and rewarding. my sister is nine years younger. i never went on a vacation i can remember until i was in high school. because you can't leave your business unless you can find somebody who won't steal you blind and that's pretty hard.

so things are rocking along pretty good. i'm at the university of south carolina. first guy in my family ever to go to college. lived in fear of failing. but i made it. and i'm a junior in college, things are going pretty good. i come home one weekend and my mom is diagnosed with hodgkin's disease and about six months later she passes. she was 17 years younger than my dad. we always thought she would be around and he would go first. what can i tell you? there's no script in life. so we got hit hard financially. we were under insured family. we had insurance to cover the four of us. and when it comes to health care reform, i promise you -- is that me? tell them we said, hey. >> sorry. >> it's that democratic guy calling.

we're going to run that guy down before it's over with. so anyway, we got wiped out financially. and i paid bills, health care bills until i got out of the air force. about 15 months later, my dad passed. i'm 22. my sister's just turned 14. my whole life turns upside down. there are people with stories far more compelling than this. but i just want to let you know we are a summation of our lives. and if it weren't for family, friends and faith i would not be standing here today. we moved in an aunt and uncle who worked in the textile plants over in ceneca. i know you know where ceneca's at. they never had children and they helped me raise my sister. try ied really hard to get through college before my mom passed but didn't quite make it. there are two things that mean something to me in life really. the ring that my mom bought me and the shotgun that my dad gave

me when i was 16. i've never been much of a material person. so when i my parents passed we moved in with my aunt and uncle. and he tried to run the liquor store for a while. i'd come home weekends to give him a break and i made it through college. if it weren't for social security survivor benefit checks coming the our family to my sister from my parent's contribution i don't know if we would have made it. where the aarp guys? we'll have a talk here in a minute about social security. when she wanted to go to college, darlene, i was just got started in the air force and college loans were there for her. if it weren't for a college loan program, my sister would not have gone to college. i'm a republican. proud of it. but we're one car wreck away

most of us from needing somebody to help us. and all i can tell you is that life is challenging and you will eventually get a curveball coming your way. so as i try to serve the people of south carolina and think about going to the next level i want to make sure that if you're knocked down in this country you have a chance to get back up. and the goal of getting you back up is to getting you a job and a rewarding career not to keep you on the couch. what i learned as a young man growing up in a rural part of south carolina is that i don't take much for granted. when it's all said and done, when we're in our last days if you're lucky enough to live a long life and die around the ones you love you're not going to be thinking about any bill that you passed or any speech you gave. i'll be thinking about those

that were there for me when i needed them the most and between now and when that day comes and if i can do the strom thurman thing, i have another 40 years and i'll miss a lot of you all. so -- steve, you've been a good friend but -- >> thanks, buddy. >> yep. you got to go, you got to go. so after i got out of the college i went into the air force and one of my best buddies in the air force, pete carry is here today. pete, could you stand up? he lives in new hampshire. [ applause ] he was the defense attorney in europe and i was the prosecutor. when we had trials in places like greece, his guys got incredibly good deals. because we drug that trial out as long as we could. where do you live now, pete? and you have a bed and breakfast? >> i do.

>> 10% off for anybody that signs up today! >> to the guy that w the sweater. >> who's your buddy that's on my promotion board? >> bob burzak. >> first time i met bob was today. he was on my promotion board. i told bob, that was before you had glasses apparently. so i went into the air force. i've been a prosecutor. i've been a defense attorney. i've been a military judge. i got to serve overseas with pete for four and a half years in the mid-'80s when ronald reagan was president. one of the reasons i became a republican is the first two years of being an air force officer i got a 25% pay raise and i said, i like ronald reagan. he rebuilt the military. wearing the uniform of an air force officer, being an air force lawyer is one of the great prides of my life. i've been to iraq and afghanistan as a reservist.

any of you have family or been in the service yourselves? thank you all for what you do. but being a part of the military has shaped me in a very positive way. i would give anything if the congress could act like a military unit for 30 seconds. in the military unit, you don't focus on the differences. you don't focus on your political differences. you don't focus on your religious differences. you don't focus on the fact you may support different baseball teams. you focus on the fact that the mission comes first. and you focus on the fact that you're not going to let your buddy down. in politics the mission does not come first. and it's not about protecting your buddy. it's about doing as much damage to the other side as you can. that's how you get 18 trillion dollars in debt. it takes both parties working

overtime to get us this far in debt. and it's going to take both parties working together to get us out. so, two things i want to talk to you about and i'll take questions. the biggest threat of our generation in my view is radical islam acquiring weapons of mass destruction. you're pretty close to new york. do you remember where you were on 9/11? i do. i was in washington getting ready to go to work. i was on the phone to my office. they said, turn on the tv. something's going on. and a few minutes later the second plane hit the towers. i had my staff come to my house off capitol hill because we didn't know where to go. we didn't have a plan. so i said just bring everybody down here. and we watched tv like you did all day and that night we walked

across the street, all members of congress, to go to the steps of the house. i stopped in the middle of the street by longworth office building and i looked down the street both ways and not a car on the road. every light was blinking yellow. not a plane in the sky. we went over as a group, the leadership of both parties spoke. and somebody behind me started singing "god bless america." i'll never forget that as long as i live. i'm going to try to do everything i can to make sure that never happens again to our country. radical islam is a movement that can't be appeased, compromised or negotiated with. it is a minority view of a great faith. and to those who think we brought this war on ourselves, you don't understand who we're

fighting. they're motivated by a twisted version of their religion. the islamic religion to purify their religion to convert or kill those who stand in the way and destroy the jewish state. the only reason 3,000 of us died on 9/11 and not 3 million is they could not get the weapons to kill 3 million of us. do you believe they would if they could? do you believe they would kill as many americans they could if they had the capability? my goal is to keep the war over there. and to fight as hard as i know how to never allow the marriage of islamic and weapons of mass destruction. this iranian negotiation is the most important decision we will make in my political lifetime. the iranians for the last 30 years have been wrecking havoc

throughout the region killing american soldiers in iraq and afghanistan and when they say they're not trying to build a nuclear weapon they are liars. how many of you think they've been trying to build a nuclear weapon? if you don't, believe that you should not be allowed to drive in new hampshire because you're a danger to yourself and others. i want to stop their nuclear ambitions through negotiations and i applaud the administration for trying. i'm going to issue a challenge today to every person wanting to be commander in chief. do not honor a deal with iran unless the congress approves it. i have legislation that would require any deal with iran's nuclear program to be approved by the congress before we relieve congressional sanctions that we created. why? i want as many eyes on this deal as possible before it becomes

binding. and i want you to know what's in it. do you feel like you know anything about the deal? you don't. and you deserve to know. if it is a good deal i will vote for it. if it is a bad deal i will stop it. and people ask me what is next. a bad deal is worse than no deal at all as often said but i honestly believe it. the worst -- ladies and gentlemen, is a north korean outcome where we negotiate with a rogue regime declare victory over controlling their nuclear ambitions, they cheat and one day you wake up with a nut job like we have in north korea with a bunch of nuclear weapons. the difference between north korea and iran is very ominous. sunni arabs have told me and senator mccain to our faces anything you give the iranians

we're going to want that and more. the worst possible outcome for the world at large is a nuclear arms race in the mideast. does that make sense to you? the last thing in the world we want is a bunch of nations in the midwest who have been fighting each other for 2,000 years to have the capability to kill millions of people in an instant. so a bad deal with iran is going to lead to a nuclear arms race in the mideast and that's the worst possible outcome. i'm not telling you. that's what the arabs tell us and i believe them. israel's thought to have nuclear weapons. but not one arab nation felt the need to get a nuclear weapon of their own to counter israel because they know israel's not going to wake up one day and blow them up. they don't feel that way about iran. iran as i speak toppled four capitals. they're disruptive to the mideast and if you gave them

more money under sanctions relief do you think they'd build hospitals and schools? they would invest in their military and their icbm program and be stronger. if we can't get a deal, i would tell the administration keep trying. try to get a better deal. to the iranians, if you want a peaceful nuclear power program you can have it. but you will not be allowed to have the ability to develop a weapon if that's what you really actually want. and if you try to break out we will stop you by the use of military force. if i were president i would tell them that. i would give them a way to get them what they say they want without putting our nation and israel at risk and if i saw a breakout coming i would stop it. and i would tell them the following. if you want a nuclear weapon and you're willing to go to war

to get that nuclear weapon a war you will have. and you will lose. that's the only thing they understand over there. our military is going to historic lows because of budget cuts. the next president of the united states needs to give us the capability to defend against iran or anybody else. that would threaten our shores. the last challenge i want to talk to you about is a $18 trillion crushing debt. that's growing over time. anybody here born between 1946 and '64? anybody born after 1964? good luck. we want our money. there are 80 million baby boomers about to retire in the next 20 years to my friends at

the aarp. somebody needs to deal with that. you could take everything the 1% in america own including their dog and not even come close to balancing the budget. you can't tax your way out of this problem folks. you could eliminate the department of defense and every other department we have on the discretionary side of budget and not balance the budget. two thirds of spending is entitlement spending plus interest on debt. by 2042 all the money you pay in taxes will go to pay the bills for medicare and social security and no men leftover because we're retiring in levels and numbers the system can't tolerate. when i was born in 1955 there were 16 workers for every retiree. how many are there today? three. how many will there be in 20

years? two. i'm the problem. i'm 59. i'm not married. i don't have any kids. you got to do two things quickly. come up with an immigration system to replace the retirement of the baby boomers. you got two choices. rational immigration system define workers throughout the world to supplement our economy and add value to our nation. or you can do what strom thurman did. have four kids after you're 67. do i have any volunteers for the second choice? i have one guy raise his hand but he didn't understand the question. so, if we don't have a -- like a baby boom of 60-year-olds, we better find people to work in this country outside this country. western europe's going through it. japan's going through it. everybody's going the same demographic shift. here's the good news for us. we're a land of immigrants.

this is really natural for us. we have people that talk funny. nothing personal. we have different accents. but we have shared values. and american is not a race or religion. it's an idea. so here's my idea. let's do what we need to now so that those coming after us will have the same hopes and dreams and ability to achieve those hopes and dreams that we did. tell me how you can save america from financial ruin without reforming entitlements. tell me how you can do it without democrats and republicans working together. tell me how you can save america without something like simpson bowles being done pretty soon. when i was a young man i needed every penny coming to my family from social security.

if i had to give up some cola increases because i make $175,000 a year, to make sure that people who needed the cola more than i do i would do it. i would ask younger people to work a little bit longer because we're all living so much longer and i'd give you a chance to do that. i would tell people that make $200,000 in retirement that we're no longer going to give you $109 a month subsidy to pay your part d prescription drugs under medicare. because we're having to borrow that $109 from your grand kids. i think most people would say, yes. but if you're not willing to ask america to sacrifice in a way that we can afford to our best days are behind us. since 9/11 1% of us have been sacrificing a lot.

they have come home broken. some have come home in boxes. so when they talk about political courage, put it in the context of what real courage is. real courage is leaving your family. going to far away place. and dealing with the craziest people on the planet to defend your nation. it doesn't take much courage to tell somebody, you got to reform entitlements to save america. it just takes a little bit of leadership. so to the business community here, we can talk about your business. we can talk about the tax code. we can talk about regulations. we'll talk about anything you want to talk about. but there's no way to save our economy and our future if you don't deal with the retirement of the baby boom. if you don't get that right. it's going to have the same affect on our economy as if the radicalist islamics had a nuclear weapon. we'll blow america up ourselves. and here's my promise.

if i got to be president, if i decided to run and i was blessed with the job, i'd go to bed every night and i'd wake up every day thinking about protecting our country and making it stronger for the next generation. that's the least i could do for a country who's been so good to me. thank you very much. >> a couple questions? >> always. >> delightful. >> we have time for a couple of questions. >> yeah. >> and people can just -- >> i'm trying to get that down to 20 minutes. sorry about this. >> so we know who you are. the exception of mr. duh pre--

>> no, no. >> people hear his name and cheer. >> would you talk about your views. you are in the gang of eight but how you would handle immigration -- >> immigration reform. the fast track forward in south carolina. six primary opponents over this issue. all right. have you ever met an illegal canadian? i hadn't either. you have? really? okay. i got to talk to you. you're the first guy i've ever met that says they know an illegal canadian. you're on the canadian border, right? most canadians come to myrtle beach in march and go swimming because nobody else wants to go swimming in march in south carolina. we treat them well. they turn blue and they go home. and they like the experience. we like having them. the people here illegally came from poor, corrupt countries and they come here to work. don't you think? it's an economic issue. you got two borders.

it's no accident that one is not a problem because the country on the other side has a rule of law nation and a sound economy. the people coming here come from very bad places steve. and how does a 11 million people come here illegally? don't you think a lot of us look the other way? anybody ever worked in a meat packing plant? anybody want to work in a meat packing plant? immigration is an economic issue, steve. and if you don't secure your border, you'll continue to have more people come. does that make sense? but if you don't control who gets a job, it doesn't matter how high the wall is. because they'll keep coming. to the employers in this room do you live in fear of hiring somebody illegal? trying to be honest. the system doesn't work very well. the only documents you need to

get a job in america is a social security card. anybody like ronald reagan? i can make you ronald reagan by midnight. i go down to boston or some place and get an illegal social security card. if you control who gets a job by having verifiable documents, something like e-verify, you'll cut off the flow in the future. if you don't increase legal immigration you're going to put every employer in a box. v-1-vs. the high-tech community needs workers because we're not producing enough engineers in america to service the high-tech community. if you run a meat packing plant you need workers because you can't find people to work in those jobs. i come from south carolina a big tourism state. we put on the pga in 2012 steve. we needed 600 service workers to service the tournament. under the law you have to advertise locally above minimum wage with health care benefits

before you can get somebody to come in as a guest worker. we advertised in the community. had 12 applications and 3 of them failed the drug test. we're 590-something workers short. i had to beg the department of labor to give us a waiver so jamaican maids cold come in and service the tournament. you need high skilled workers because we're not producing people to service the industry. agriculture doesn't move to mexico or some other place where you have abundant labor. you're not going to get what you want unless the other side gets something they want. to every business person in the room, when you come to washington, it seems so easy. well, why don't you just increase visas? because we have a shortage. we get the fact we have a shortage. but the hispanic caucus wants

something, too. they want a better life for the illegal immigrant. and until you deal with democrats on that issue you're not going to get better border security, more legal visas and a verifiable employment system because they're not going to give us all what we want. without getting something. and here's the good news. nobody wants criminals steve. if you're a gang member or a drug guy off you go. but i've come to conclude that the 11 million are not going to self deportd. does that make sense to you? to the republican party, the party of family values let me tell you how life is in america today. many have been here illegally for a generation. they've come here as young people. they have married. they have children. that are american citizens as much as anybody in this room. families are structured that way

all throughout this country. hispanics are the most patriotic people i've ever met. the largest percentage of minorities in the marine corps are hispanic. let me give you an example of the problem the republican party has. sergeant gonzalez and i'm just making up a name served two tours in afghanistan in the marines. he comes back home. he says, hey, where's grandma? she's illegal. you haven't heard? she's walking back to mexico. that's self deportation. drive his grand mom out. he's not going to let his grandmother walk back to mexico anymore than you would let your grandmother walk back to mexico. he's probably going to have a hard time listening to my economic plan for a revitalized america if he believes i'm the guy that wants his grandmother to walk back to mexico. i've got one goal steve.

fix this permanently. i don't want 11 million 20 years from now. our beloved ronald reagan gave 3 million people amnesty and they did not secure the border. they did not increase legal immigration or change how you control who gets a job. if you don't do these three things you'll have a wave after wave after wave. but if you do these things right, that will be the end of illegal immigration. to get a bill passed in the united states congress you have to deal with democrats if you're a republican and vice versa. i wish they would go away but i don't see that happening any time soon. so i've been in the gang of eight. the gang of six. any gang you want, i've been in it. i've been trying to solve this problem because it's a national security problem. it's one thing to put a roof on a house another thing to blow the roof off. 40% of the people here illegally never came across the border. all the hijackers overstayed

their visa and you have to fix that. it's a national security cultural and economic problem and if you can't access labor in the future our economy will die. and finally i want a merit-based immigration system to replace the current one that you get points toward a green card based on the ability to speak the language and the ability to provide a job skill in demand in america like most countries do. merit-based immigration. as to the 11 million if we allow you to stay if you're not a crook, here's the deal. you have to speak our language learn the english language as a condition of staying. as poorly as i speak it, it's helped me. you have to pay a tax -- excuse me a fine for the law you broke. you have to pay taxes. you don't get paid under the table anymore. and you have to wait ten years before you can apply for a green card as a punishment and when

you do you have to get in the back of the line of those who have been patiently waiting. it could take 15 to 18 years. but i don't want people staying in our country all of their lives without a chance to be part of who we are. the european experience has been a bad experience in europe. we're not the country of the hired help. i've been working on this since 2006. i hope the republican party can make some progress in 2015. but if america doesn't get immigration right our economy can't grow in the future. the hispanic vote in south carolina you could put in this room. the one thing i've tried to offer the people of south carolina, political leadership, not focused on my next election but focused on the next generation. thank you. >> another question? tim, northeastern university.

>> thanks very much for coming to new hampshire. i wonder if you could talk a little bit about sequestration. >> thank you. >> our folks who depend on research funding at universities, on education on the student loans you mentioned that you benefited from are very concerned about sequestration coming back. >> okay. sequestration. do you know what he's talking about? >> yep. >> yes latin for politicians doing really dumb things. so we're going to spend $47 trillion over the next decade of your money. the goal was to find $1.2 trillion in savings over a decade. a noble goal. do you agree? the punishment for the super committee's failure was called sequestration. it was to be so onerous that nobody would fail. now, why we thought the super committee would work when no other committees work i don't know. i guess calling it super was the key to it.

well they super fell short. so, so now we're in a budget across the board cutting exercise. the discretionary budget is about 35% of all federal budgets. we're on 2008 levels on the discretionary levels. if you don't deal with entitlements, you're never going to balance the budget. the nih, the cdc, the department of education are going to be at historic levels of spending by the end of the decade at a time when we need the nih and the cdc very badly. the fbi and the cia who defend us in another form are going to have budgets you would not believe how low they are and firing fbi agents and cia agents instead of hiring more as the enemy gets stronger. on the military side, half of sequestration sequestration, 600 billion out of the military. we have already cut 489 billion out of the military. by the end of the decade, under

sequestration, we'll be spending 2.3 brs of gdp on the military. the historical average is 3.5%. does it make sense to you to have the smallest army since 1940 and the smallest navy since 1915 by the end of this decade? does that make any sense at all given the threats we face? so how do you fix sequestration? kelly ott lindsey graham, roger wicker, three democrats and three republicans are trying to find a way to buy back the $540 billion left on sequestration to avoid destroying the student loan program and gutting the military. this is something in my view can't wait until the next presidential election. you've got to get republicans and democrats substituting the cuts. you need to close some loopholes in the tax code that benefit the few at the expense of the many

and take that money to buy back sequestration. you need to adjust entitlements in some fashion to get most of the money. to those who make over $200,000 a year and get a subsidy for medicaid part d, i would rather take that money and buy back sequestration because you can afford it and the military and other parts of the government need it. it's going to take a bipartisan mini simpson-bowles. to the republican party, i will not allow us to pass a budget that spends less on defense than barack obama. ronald reagan is rolling over in his grave now. because his republican party thought it was a good idea to put the defense department on a chopping block as a penalty if you could not find a budget agreement that would barely move the needle on the overall budget. only congress could find a way to cut this small amount of

money and destroy the defense department in the process. this is the single dumbest thing in congress to point out one thing is pretty hard to do. the single dumbest thing i have seen happen since i've been in congress. gutting the military at a time we need it the most to not achieve anything of substance in return in terms of dealing with the overall debt and putting the programs you and your families depend upon at risk. senator ayotte is a mother of two young children. she has become in my view one of the rising stars in the body. she has been at the table on immigration. she's at the table on finding a replacement to sequestration. thank you for sending her. gene she hand has been very good to work with. almost everybody in new hampshire is a woman in government. you got one guy in congress

right? new hampshire is isil's worst nightmare. women running the place. >> one question from aarp. bob? >> thank you senator, very much. great presentation. i -- your priorities are right. security of the country comes first, really. i'm bob denz's volunteer spokesperson for aarp. we talked a little bit before. i'm glad you mentioned about your sister 14 years old, was helped by social security. here in new hampshire, we have 18,000 children on social security. it does -- it's a challenge financially challenged. we all agree to that. we would like to know what's on the table for consideration in strengthening social security today. >> what would be on the table is making it solvent for 75 years.

so that the people coming after us would have it. how many of you have a 401(k) plan? how many of you worry about outliving your 401(k) plan? social security in the future will be as important to the american worker as it was in 1935. you could literally outlive your 401(k) plan and it is the only defined benefit plan really left in america unless you work for the government. 50% of today's seniors would be in poverty without a social security check. now, what would i do to save it? i would give up some of my future benefits through a means test to make sure it was there for people like my family in the future because i can give up some. i'm in a good spot to do it and i would do it in a new york minute. when it comes to cola increases, i would take a less of a cola increase because i can afford to do that and save money for

people who can't afford to give up any of their cola. changing cpi in a more measured way, i would do to make sure the benefit plan is going to survive the retirement of the baby boomers. doing nothing regarding social security means that in about 20 to 30 years you're going to either cut benl fitds across the board for everybody or you're going to have a massive tax increase to keep the system going. i will not let that happen as long as i'm in the senate and if i do run for president, and if i got to be president i'd get the aarp in a room. i'd get everybody that cares about social security in a room and we would lock the door until we got it right just like you do the pope. and it would be white smoke coming out of the thing. it would be the desire of my presidency if i were president to get this fixed once and for all so seniors don't have to live in fear of being without.

but to do nothing destroys social security. to do nothing increases taxes. and reduces benefits. to those who think we should do nothing, you're the author of the demise of social security. to those who think you can do this without asking some people to sacrifice i'm dying to know how because i can't figure it out myself. a little bit of leadership on this issue goes a long way. so i would achus the program to make sure that upper income americans would still get a check but think'd have to sacrifice a little bit to protect the people who need it the most. and i would keep it solvent as far as the eye can see getting us through the baby boom retirement. as to medicare we're going to have to adjust the age of retirement on the medicare side slowly but surely to harmonize it with social security. as to health care how many people think of obamacare may be stricten down this summer by the supreme court?

as to the republican party what is our substitute? i think the republican party should come up with a health care plan, a set of principles, and every republican running for every office in the land should say, i agree with these following principles. and the first principle would be, talk to democrats. we're not going to do to them what they did to us. the first principle would be take some of the things that work out of obamacare and keep it. nobody should be denied coverage because you've been sick before. i've been through that. and it's okay to have your children on your policy until you're 26. i'm okay with that. the american dream used to be you know getting, you know, your children having a better life than you have, right? the american dream now is getting your kids out of your house.

so the bottom line is, when it comes to health care reform more competition, buy across state lines medical malpractice reform, a few things i could go in great detail i won't. but the number one principle to fix obamacare is to require the parties to work together because they have ideas too. so the real challenge is social security. we could fix it on the back of a napkin. the real challenge is medicare. >> thank you senator. it's good to have you here in nn nn. with regard to the radical islamist threat, congress has the power to declare war. and that power is not limited to territorial states. what is your position with regard to having a clean declaration of war against isis and other radical islamist

groups? >> i'm sure you all got to go to work here in a few minutes. so this is a good one to end on. is that okay? all right. we'll have an authorization to use military force that is already there. the president of the united states has broad power as commander in chief to conduct war. i don't believe in 535 commander in chiefs. now, when it comes to being commander in chief, i find the current one lacking. next time you vote for president of the united states, make sure the guys or the gals at least run a lemonade stand or bought a car. enough about obama. the authorization to use military force is constructed in such a fashion, it will not allow us to degrade and destroy isil. it has a three-year time limit on it. it's probably not a good thing to go to war with a time limit. it has a limitation on ground

forces that i don't understand. i've been a judge advocate for 33 years. i retire in august. if i don't get court-martialed. i don't know how to inform a military commander what the rules much engajtment should be with a restriction saying no enduring offensive capability. what do you tell the commander? at what point in time can you shoot them before they shoot you? what is the prohibition of no enduring offensive capability mean? how do you translate it in terms of rules of engagement? but here's the fatal flaw in the current one. syria is the biggest problem of all. let's assume you get iraq put back together again and we can defeat isil in iraq. if you don't defeat them in syria, do you agree with me they'll just come right back? you can't win in iraq or syria without an american ground component. i hate to tell you, but we have to go back. the good news is we don't need 100,000 but if you don't have

some american ground forces on the ground in iraq and syria, we will lose. our arab friends i appreciate very much. but one reason we need to be on the ground is to make sure they don't start shooting each other. i'm not going to outsource our security to some mythical arab army that doesn't exist in syria and i'm sure as hell not going to depend on iraqis to defeat isil alone. so the first question to everybody in this audience, do you feel threatened by isil? 4,000 western passport holders will come here like they did in france if we don't watch it. so the sooner you beat these guys the better. and it is in our national security interest to defeat them, not just helping people over there. so you need an american ground component. i worry this would limit the size and scope of it. you're going to need air controllers, some apache helicopters, some american air power, logistical support. you're going to need people on the ground doing things they can't do for themselves to make

sure they win, because if they lose, we lose. then you go to syria. this idea of training the free syrian army made a lot of sense three years ago but they've been decimated. the number of people to be trained this year is 5,000. isil is recruiting faster than we can train the free syrian army. and i ask this question if we send a free syrian army unit into syria to fight isil on our behalf, and assad tries to blow them up through an air attack, because he knows it will turn on him one day, can we engage assad's air forces to protect the people we trained and they said no. this authorization does not allow us to provide air cover to the people we train to go in and fight isil on our behalf. it will fail because assad will kill them all. that's immoral. that's militarily unsound. so, i will not vote for an authorization to use military force that ties the military's hands so we can't win a war that -- we can't win the war we

must win. i am so sorry we have to go back. i am really sorry we have to go back. bush made tons of mistakes. he did self-correct. so at the end of the day, sir, the authorization to use military force would be very simple if i wrote it. do what you have to do to destroy isil. stay as long as you need to stay, go where you need to go to kill or capture these bastards. they represent the worst in humanity. they're on the rise. they're an army not just a terrorist organization. and we're running out of time. there are more terrorist organizations with more capability, with more weapons and more people and more safe havens to attack america than any time since 9/11.

if i were president, here's what i would do. they're large, they're entrenched and they're rich. if i was president they would be poor, small and on the run. and we would go back and we would stay this time. and we would stay till we get it right. and the day after you defeat isil in iraq and syria, all hell is going to break out. and if we don't stay behind, we'll never get these countries back on their feet. so if you're looking for someone to give you an easy way out of this mess, don't come to me. the only way we'll win this war is through a generational suggestle where we side with those who will live in peace with us. and the good news is, most people over there want to live in peace with us and everybody else, and they don't want to give their daughters to isil. they have the will to say no.

we have to give them the capacity to say no. we have to transfer to them military capability and the ability to run an economy and good governance, something we take for granted here. that is a generational struggle. to those in my party who say we need to get out of there, that's not the right answer. we need to stay over there so they don't come back over here. and i don't know how to defend america without having some of us over there. and i don't know how to beat radical islam without building up others who would do the fighting if they could. this is a generational struggle. and here's how it ends. we will win eventually. the only question is how many people must die before that day comes? this is the 1930s all over again. hitler wrote a book and nobody actually believed it. to our friends in israel, you are not the problem.

the problem is that israel is not the threat to america. to our friends in israel i will never, ever abandon you. to our friends in israel you stand for all the right things. you're not a perfect country. to our arab friends, you want a better life, i'll help you get there. so rad kam isical islamists, you will be defeated. god bless you. [ applause ]

>> we want to thank the senator for finding time out of his very busy schedule, the two days he's been here to stop by politics and eggs. we welcome him back. we have a feeling he may be spending a little more time in new hampshire. and if and when you make that -- >> well, this will be the new camp david. all we ask, senator, if you make that sdishgs you makedecision, you make it here at politics and eggs, to let you know what your plans are. >> i shall return. [ applause ] >> thanks, general. appreciate it. doesn't that just piss you off? we're going it to go back and get if right this time. we should have stayed. >> enjoyed the talk. >> thank you very much. >> i did have -- this is the thing you have to learn how to do, is assign these things.

>> yes. i did want to come back and talk to you. >> yeah my sister and brother-in-law used to live down in walterboro. >> right on 95. >> yes. >> thank you, sir, for coming. >> thank you for your position on immigration. i only wish the house would get on board. >> if they don't, we're in trouble. thank you, sir. >> thank you. you really have done something good for new hampshire politics. john mccain loved -- he was a -- he was a marine in korea. most people don't know he was an infantry officer. >> yes, sir. >> can i just get one more? >> here we go. >> get your egg. >> how did they decide to come to you? >> the eggs? >> politics and eggs?

>> i was helping bob dole, i was driving across from cleveland back to new hampshire after we had been out there and i thought, you know, the business community's not getting involved, so we -- they're too busy. and we had a subscription service. and everybody subscribed and the year ahead of time you'll see all the candidates, and they did. and it eventually morphed into this. we had the new england council involved from the beginning. and it has just taken off. >> it's become a must do. rea y has. >> can i get a picture of you and brian? >> good to see you. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> wouldn't declaration of deal with all these issues of putting -- >> great question. no, not really. i mean you can hold