captioning performed by vitac >> all right thank you very much governor. thank you very much to heidi for sending in that question. let's go back to our audience in the studio. we'll hear from mike. what is your question for governor pataki? >> governor good morning. what is your plan to protect our energy, economic and climate security? >> energy, economic and climate security? in 30 seconds. energy, first of all, we need to develop domestic resources. and we started doing that. we have just seen in spite of the federal government imposing barriers constantly and state government imposing barriers constantly, a tremendous increase in our oil and gas production. and this is a great thing for

america. and there are still barriers like in my state tragically and it gets back to the earlier question cynthia, about jobs. in new york state, we have the same shale gas resource that they do in pennsylvania. in pennsylvania, they have 60 to 80,000 jobs good paying jobs developing that domestic source of clean gas. in new york state, we have a moratorium we have nothing. and we need to develop resources like that. the second thing i do on energy is create an integrated north american concept of energy independence. canada developed massive resources. that was why the keystone pipeline was going to bring canadian oil to our gulf coast refineries, replacing oil from venezuela. i think that would have been a very good thing. mexico is just changed its rules so they can bring in american investment and technology to develop their oil and gas resources. so we can create a north american energy powerhouse that makes us not reliant at all on the middle east or unstable

overseas sources of oil and gas. i also am a great believer in green technology. when i was governor we put in place a lot of initiatives moving toward that area. and right now i think we're seeing where technologies like solar power are becoming economically competitive. as the technology improves, the costs come down, and the efficiency goes up. i think within the next decade we are going to see the ability in places like the southwest to have solar farms that can power a large part of this country with clean, renewable energy and i don't believe any more that we need massive federal subsidies like we had with solyndra. i think those days are past. i think what we can do is encourage market-based solutions. and one of the big impediments, whether wind power from the great plains or solar power from the southwest is transmission. you can't get the power from where it is generated to where the consumer needs it. and what i would do is empower

the federal government -- this is probably the only area where i want to give the federal government more power, and generally i want to take a lot of power away from the federal government to build interstate transmission, power transmission lines, so that we can can access that clean renewable domestic sources of energy. good for the economy. good for the environment. and good for our independence from foreign sources of fuel. i'm very excited about this. >> quickly governor i want to follow up on this before we move on. do you believe when it comes to climate change that humans have a responsibility to make that happen or responsible for it and how much of an issue should it be in -- >> josh, there is no question and i think everybody, regardless of what side you come down on the politics of it understands that human activity is putting co2 into the atmosphere and we're changing the makeup of the atmosphere. we should take reasonable steps consistent with our economic needs to reduce to the extent practical like things like solar

and wind power when it works economically to reduce the emissions we're putting into the atmosphere. >> governor, thank you. to our next question from the audience, this one from mary. >> good morning. >> good morning mary. >> i was wondering, during your time as governor of new york what were some of the hardest things you had to experience? >> well, no question, the hardest experience i had as governor during my 12 years was september 11th. you know, that was something that i just don't think anybody could have anticipated or thought would happen. and, you know, we all the whole country and the world actually experienced it and saw the horrors, but when you were down there, as rudy giuliani and i were down there on september 11th, and every day and every week and every month thereafter and we knew people who had been lost, it was -- it was just a very difficult time emotionally, but also very difficult time governmentally.

because we had to govern. we had to, first of all, do everything we could to recover those who were trapped. the second thing we had to do was we didn't know what would happen next. we didn't know if there were going to be follow on attacks or things. we had to make sure we did everything possible as quickly as possible to protect the bridges and the subways and the airports and the infrastructure of the city. and then longer term, we had to, i particularly had to do this as governor, give people confidence in the future of new york. because we lost 100 million square feet of office space that day. and the human loss was incalculable. but the economic loss was of the magnitude that i don't think is understood. and the mantra back then was decentralize. you couldn't have everybody concentrated together so companies wanted to leave new york. they didn't have their offices, they lost key people. we had to work very aggressively to bring that together.

but i just -- i could talk a lot longer, but i know there is a lot of questions. just one point we saw the worst of humanity september 11th. and we saw the best of america. and i saw the strength of just people from every walk of life rushing to that site, putting aside their concerns about their own lives, and trying to do everything in their power to help. and for months thereafter, we saw the best of america. because we are all united and it gets to what i was talking briefly about before. today, the politicians, the media keep saying, americans are so divided. i saw our strength when we stand together. when we as americans understand we have far more in common than what seems to divide us, on september 11th, we weren't republicans or democrats or black or white or young or old. we were americans who had been attacked and we were going to work together to move forward and we did. and we have to reclaim regain

that sense of unity for us to have the future we're entitled to have. >> quickly, we're just about out of time, yes or no, it is a difficult question governor and we'll continue the conversation online, is america a safer place than it was before 9/11? >> i can't say yes or no. i believe we're more at risk of an attack today than we have been since september 11th. >> the conversation does continue online. while we're signing off on tfbs television tonight, the conversation can be found on wmur.com. you'll find a full 30 minutes more of questions from the audience. for the tv portion of things, thanks very much for watching tonight. thanks to the governor. thanks to the studio audience. have a great night. >> thank you.

since 2010, at least ten states have seen their largest wildfires on record according to the national fire service. coming up on c-span3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern, a hearing on the government's role in wildfire management. and a little later in the morning at 11:00 eastern on c-span, mike huckabee will join the 2016 presidential field making his announcement in his hometown of hope arkansas. again, that's on c-span. new jersey governor chris christie will be in mississippi and louisiana today. these will be the first public events following the announcement of indictments against a former top aide and port authority appointee for what happened on the george

washington bridge lane closures. right now, we're going to show you the governor speaking about jobs and the economy in northern virginia last week just hours before the indictments were announced. >> thank you. thank you, all, very much. thank you. well thank you. gary announced i gave him permission to go off script. i turned to congressman harry and i said who am i to tell people not to go off script so can't be a hypocrite up here. so thank you, all, for inviting me. i'm happy to be back and i want to thank bobby kilburg and all the people here at nvtc for giving me the opportunity to come back and to address you, talk about some of the issues that i think are particularly important facing our country

right now, and to get some time to take some of your questions, which i enjoy doing the most. first, let's start off with the group of folks that i'm in front of this morning and this region. this is obviously an extraordinarily important region in our country's future. the technology industry here has provided an extraordinary amount of economic growth and jobs, great innovation for our citizens, and extraordinary promise for the future if -- if we decide to get our country moving in the right direction and do the things we need to do. this region, of course over time has become completely interwoven with the government. we understand that. but we also know that there has to be continued really robust growth of the private sector to

make sure that we don't have any region, this or any other one, become completely dependent upon government for your economic growth, your economic vitality. it needs to be a partnership and a partnership that works but that partnership is driven best when it is the private secretarysector that is driving growth and innovation and can offer that innovation and those ideas to government as a way to improve the services that government provides to the folks that we try to serve each and every day. and so i would urge you to continue to push the government to do the things that we all know common sense dictate but that all too often are left by the side of the road in the political carping and sniping that goes on most particularly in our nation's capital. but every once in a while in state capitals as well, like mine. i met one gentleman this morning who has a business in new jersey and told me that he was a

beneficiary of some of the tax incentive and tax credit programs that we put into place. and he told me this morning it literally saved his company. and that they're now growing, and they're hiring, and that's the kind of partnership i'm talking about. a partnership that frees up your ideas and your hard work to be able to succeed through the initial challenging times to be able to grow and expand and that helps every person in new jersey, not only the ones who wind up working there, but also the broader community that benefits from that company's involvement in the community philanthropic activity, and the money that they provide in salary and benefits helps to strengthen the fabric of our state and its people by making them feel good when they come home at night from a good paying job that brings meaning to their lives. to be able to provide for their spouse and for their children.

and to be able for them also to be an active involved member of the community. all of this is interconnected. and there are times that i grow frustrated about the fact that many leaders in government don't see the obvious things that need to be done in order to take advantage of the extraordinary resources that we have in this country, most particularly our human resources, to be able to make our country grow and be a better more prosperous place. i saw this in new jersey first hand through the type of policies that we now have seen in washington over the last six years. between 2000 and 2009 in new jersey we raised taxes and fees at the state level alone, 115 times. 115 times. and what were the results of that? we grew spending by 56% at the

state level over those eight years. what happened as a result new jersey had a jobless decade, that period of time we grew net zero private sector jobs. and that was during a period of time in that eight years when we did have national growth coming out of 9/11 prior to the recession of 2008. yet new jersey did not benefit from any of that. why depositidn't we benefit? because we put in policies at the state level that raised taxes, that increased spending, that extended regulation, to all types of new areas, and that made new jersey a place that became more expensive to do business more onerous to do business and people voted and they voted with their feet.

businesses left. or just decided they didn't want to take the risk that went along with growing a business in that type of environment. that's why in the five years now since we came into office we have grown 175,000 new private sector jobs. now, some people may say, well, that's good, but not great. i would like to do better too. but if light ofn light of the fact we had nearly ten years of zero private sector job growth we're fairly happy with the fact that we and our policies have been able to push that forward. how have we done it? first of all, we have done it by reducing government spending significantly in our state. think about this in the budget i just proposed for fiscal year 16 adopted at the end of next month, discretionary spending, which means spending on everything in state government other than pensions health care and debt service is $2.5 billion less than it was eight

years ago. not 2.5 billion less on the projection. not like they do it in washington. all right? and then call it a cut. this is actually less spending $2.5 billion in less spending at the state level. how do you do that? well, we have 8500 fewer employees today than the day i became governor. and we did it without any layoffs, all through attrition and being able to make government become more efficient and more effective. if you want to reduce spending the first place you have to start is reducing the payroll, the size of government. we put in $2.3 billion in business tax cuts and tax incentives. that has helped to spur growth in our state and have folks who were already there not only want to stay but want to grow as well, it has been extraordinarily important to our economy. as we mentioned, we did a number of other things in the tax

realm, but what we need to do on the national level is what we're continuing to do on the state level in terms of entitlements. and i spoke a couple of weeks ago in new hampshire about a vision for entitlement reform. and the fact is that we need to tell some truths to people. i've been talking about this since 2011. 71% of federal government spending is now in entitlement programs. 71%. to give you some perspective on the growth of that, when john kennedy was elected president in 1960, entitlement spending was 26% of the federal budget. it is now 71%. so you'll have lots of people who come before you, i'm sure, over the next number of months who want to talk to you and i will briefly this morning about national defense. and about education. about research and development. national institutes of health.

things that we need to invest in to make our country continue to be a cutting edge leader around the world. but if they do not first talk to you about how they're going to reform entitlements with all due respect you should just eat your breakfast and not pay any attention. because the fact is if you look at that 71% under control where are you getting the money? to be able to do the other things we need to do? and no one likes to talk about this. it is nasty business. talking about raising the social security retirement age two years over the next 25 years, brutal. absolutely brutal. talking about doing the same thing for medicare eligibility, two years over the next 25 years. fact is, though, we need to do

these things and why? well, you know, i'm not only here to bring you bad news this morning. i'm here to bring you good news. you're all living longer. congratulations. and not only are you living longer, but you're living better. we're living better longer into our lives, medical innovation pharmacological innovation allowed us to have a longer and better quality of life. this is something to be celebrated. the average age now of a woman in this country mortality age is 83. average for a man is 79. when these programs were developed, by the way i heard some of the women chuckling out there, but you should know, you should know in the last decade we're catching up. we're down four years now. we were down six years before. we're coming. laugh now.

but these programs were developed when mortality was in the 60s for both men and women. so we're living 15 to 20 years longer and expecting these systems to continue to support us through that length and time. the other thing i talked about i think is common sense is means testing as well. we already have some means testing of medicare. we need more means testing of medicare. i think on social security, and social security and the idea of it is to make sure our elderly -- none of our elderly ever grow old in their lives in poverty. now, let me ask you a question if there is somebody making $200,000 a year in retirement income, retirement income do they really need the social security check? you know, you know, everyone in this room knows if you're

getting retirement income that means you have $4 million $5 million socked away to throw off that kind of money and probably more. that social security check, is that really making the difference in the quality of your life? the same way it would make in the difference of the quality of life for a person who is living from social security check to social security check to pay their rent and buy food. people say i pay into the system and i should get it back out. i'm entitled. hence the names of the programs. there is lots of things that we pay for this we get nothing back for in return except a sense of security. i pay homeowners insurance. i'm sure you do too. we pay it every year because in case our house burns down we want to be able to rebuild our house. if you live there for 20 years, 30 years, paying homeowners insurance every month and then you go to sell the house, do you

go back to the insurance company and say, hey, by the way, looking good, right? no problems. house didn't burn down. i'd like that money back? you don't mind. i mean this is meant to ensure that people did not grow old in poverty. you know, i was talking to my friend mike zuckerberg about this entitlement reform idea. what do you mean by entitlement reform? and i said mark, if i get my way, it means you get nothing. and the fact is i think most people who have been extraordinarily successful in america will understand this. that we need to make choices in this country. you'll notice i just talked about means testing, social security and medicare raising retirement age and i have not been vaporized into the stage. this idea that this is the third rail of american politics and you can't talk about it has as

its underlying premise that people in my business don't trust the american people enough to tell them the truth. that may be true that there is lots of people in politics who don't trust the american people enough to tell them the truth. i do. i absolutely believe that not only should we but we must. because if we want this country to be the kind of place we need it to be for our children, and our grandchildren, we better start addressing this. i do not want to be a member of the first generation in this country's history to leave the next generation a weaker, poorer, less opportunity filled country. because we can't let go of the idea that we get everything that we want. that's not the way you run your businesses. and it is not the way your government should run this country.

and let me tell you we have lots of ways that that money could be utilized to help make this country grander, stronger better than we are today. we need to reform this tax system butoth at the individual and corporate level. it is owner ous. it is onerous compared to almost any system around the world and we need to get to that and get to it right away. second thing we need to do is reinvest in our national defense. the united states now, because of the conduct and my view of foreign and defense policy by this administration, can no longer be counted on by our allies and is no longer feared by our adversaries. that's 0 for 2, everybody. you have to be able to do both those things and we're doing neither. allies around the world are running from us. and pursuing their own course.

adversaries are showing new aggression everywhere. iran not only on their own, but through their sponsorship of hezbollah and hamas and other terrorist organizations. our inaction in syria has led to an exacerbation of the conduct of isis not only in the middle east, but in europe, and coming to a theater near you soon if we're not careful. mr. putin in russia, at least in my mind is clearly trying to put the old band back together. he's working and moving his way crimea ukraine, and if you're living in one of the baltic states today members of nato, do you really believe that that membership is a full membership or a junior membership? the conduct of our country has them nervous. has democracies like poland,

nervous. our allies are concerned. and our adversaries are emboldened. the only way for us to turn that around is not only through a more robust and a more direct and more honest foreign policy, where we draw lines and mean it. not say never mind when it gets a little difficult. and where we invest in a national defense that once again prevents conflict. we don't invest in national defense to have conflict. we invest in national defense to prevent conflict. but we should be investing in research and development and in new ways to lengthen our lives and improve the quality of our lives. but none of these things are possible to approve science and technology and engineering and math education for all of our children. but none of those things are possible if we don't get our house in order.

i've seen this in new jersey. where the canary in the coal mine, everybody. the mistakes that have been made over the past decades in new jersey take a lot of effort to try to fix. we don't want to place our country in the same position. and so i come to you this morning to let you know that the reason i'm telling you this is because if you all don't get it and start to fight for it, we have no hope. the people who are leading the technological revolution in this country, the thinkers, the doers, have to also be the leaders. it can't just be men and women in my business. it has to be men and women in yours. don't fall victim to the conventional wisdom that says if something is not politically popular, we shouldn't talk about it. because i don't want to be in old age and i don't think you do either looking back on the

missed opportunities that litter our lives rather than the fights we took on that were necessary to fight. so the message i bring to you this morning is born of the hard work of trying to dig a state that had been in awful difficulty out of it and from having traveled the country over the last year 106,000 miles, to 37 different states that is racked with anxiety, and that anxiety is not just economic anxiety, it is anxiety that comes along with watching a government that is not doing its job. we need to start doing our job again. that's what you pay us for. and that's what we need to get done. so i'm going to stop because i want to take your questions more than i want to hear myself talk anymore. so --

>> thank you so much, governor, for your candor and your vision and being here with this morning. now, we can take a few questions from the audience. if you have a question, please proceed to one of the two microphones in the center of the room. be prepared to identify yourself by your name and your company affiliation. and consistent with the normal practice at the nvtc, this is for people in business, it is not open to members of the media. you can listen, but not ask. so first question. i am -- i am going to ask the first question. unless i see somebody, which i do not. governor, i have a question you've talked -- there is -- you've talked about cutting entitlement spending, because mathematically it is something we must do i think it is pretty clear you're not going to raise taxes, so you have taxes and --

the only other area to make a difference is economic growth. what will you do for economic growth? >> i think the only way we solve our long-term debt problem is through economic growth, combined with the type of restriction of spending that i talked about. you're not going to be able to fix an $18 trillion problem with one or the other. and this is a place where i differ significantly from the president. the president believes that he should be the ones deciding who the winners and losers are. the government should decide. and that if you're a winner, he'll take some money from you and give it to people he would rather have do a little bit better. that's never the way this country succeeded. so the way to get economic growth as i mentioned and more to say about this next week is to fix the tax system. and the tax system is now a clear disincentive to growth. and we have seen it all over this country, the president is taking victory laps for 2% 2.5% gdp growth. it is the weakest recovery from a recession in modern times.

and the jobs that have been created have not been the type of really good paying jobs that we saw created in the '80s and the '90s. they're now jobs that are predominantly at the lower end of the wage scale, and many of them because of obamacare and other factors aren't even full time jobs. and so the way to do this is through growth and the first step in growth is to get a tax system that encourages people to repatriate money back to the united states to invest in greater job growth to lower tax system. the president thinks that the way to stop corporate inversions is to pass along its corporate inversions. he wants to treat the symptom rather than the disease. let's change the tax system so that no ceo feels it is their fiduciary duty to their shareholders to engage in corporate inversion to maximize their shares and they'll want to

stay in the united states. those are the first steps. >> thank you. todd? >> governor christie, todd stottlemyre, vice chair of nvtc. immigration has been a real friend to the technology industry. can you talk about your views on immigration reform? >> sure. you know i think the way we need to start this conversation in this country is to see if we can agree on two basic facts. fact number one is that people who are here and undocumented status are are not gonot going to self-deport. they're not leaving on their own. second, as someone who was the united states attorney in new jersey for seven years in the bush administration, i can tell you there are not enough law enforcement officers at the local, county, state and federal level to be able to forcibly deport people here in an undocumented status. if you start off agreeing with those two facts we then have at

least the beginnings of the outline of how we have to try to try to fix this problem. part of the reason i think it is so intractable in the country is the executive branch hasn't done what the executive branch is supposed to do and that's execute. and enforce the laws in this country. and so you have people believing and not wanting to engage in any common sense discussion of reform of the system because they don't believe that whatever changes are made in the law that they're going to actually be enforced. and quite frankly, employers are a huge part of this problem. i'm not a guy in favor of building a fence or wall along the entire length of america's southern border. it is too expensive. it is inefficient. i never found a wall or fence that people if they're filled with the human will can't find their way under, over or around. and so there may be spots where a wall or fence may make some sense and spots where enforcing border security can be used but in the end, there is a lot of undocumented folks in new

jersey. i've met many of them. and i will tell you that not one of them has ever come to me and said you know governor the reason i came here illegally to the united states is because i wanted to vote. none of them ever said that. every one of them said they came here because they wanted to work and wanted to support their families. so here's the thing. you know, if we know that, if we know that, let's start talking about the issues that really matter in this and not the ones that are just emotional. so the idea that employers, all employers shouldn't be subject to e-verify makes no sense to me. if we set up a system that people are then going to be willing to buy into, they need to know this is going to stop and we're not going to be back here 25 years later having the same conversation. and if folks know when they come here, they're not going to get a job, if they come here illegally, the incentive to come is going to be significantly less. and so we then will have an

opportunity to discuss the broader issue of how do you deal with the folks here already? and how do you deal with the issue of legal immigration and how do we make the quality tative and quantitative decisions on illegal immigration that we need to make. but until we have an honest conversation with the american people about the fact that the president of the united states is not going to look the other way on this issue but is going to enforce the laws and not just democrats, but republicans too, that the law is not only going to be enforced against edd against folks who sneak thure way ineir way in but the business community that allows that. until we have that conversation that agreement, we're going to continue to bicker and demonize and demagogue this issue because there is too much political capital in it to do otherwise. we need to force people to look at it in another way. >> next question. >> yes. following on the -- >> introduce yourself.

>> steve cooker with monster worldwide. governor following on the notion of immigration, there is another piece of it that really is at the center of the technology and in terms of bringing on qualified individuals, people who can really do the work, people that are professional and technical in nature. we see that we sometimes struggle with finding those types of individuals within our own backyard, and at the heart of that are all the stem initiatives that i think are growing up. the other side of that is those professionals that come from elsewhere and attracting them and keeping them here in the united states, can you talk to both sides of that, one is the what can we do to keep those people who want to immigrate into the united states here in a professional capacity, and the other side what can we do from

an education perspective in preparing our workforce for those types of jobs? >> i'll start with the last and go to the first. you know, this is one of those situations where reform of our education system is so incredibly important. what you're talking about and what most businesses want is an education system that produces results. i don't think the american people have shown any reluctance to invest significant monies in our educational system, from k to 12 to community colleges, to higher education and the four-year college and university space, and the graduate school. the problem is that you're still having the problem in finding enough people within our shores to be able to address the needs of your business as the premise of your question. we need to make sure that we have an educational system that is providing the type of results that we have. we have to work on the potential of children, not the comfort of adults. and unfortunately especially in

the k to 12 system, we're much more focused on the comfort of adults than we are the potential of children. that's the only explanation for not having a longer school day and longer school year in this country. the only explanation. i mean, our school calendar is ridiculous. it is based on the agrarian calendar. i can tell you even in the garden state kids are not leaving school in june to go and till the fields, everybody. not happening anymore. and the fact is why don't we then, like many of the other industrialized countries in the world, have a longer school day and longer school year? we don't because the power and the authority of the teachers unions. that's it. that's the only reason why. you want better stem education. those kids are in school from september to july, and they're in school until 5:00 or 6:00 rather than 2:00 or 2:30, and they're getting the type of exposure to all of the things that they need to do be able to improve those skills, that will

happen. just like in your business, when you work better and harder and longer. almost invariably your results are better. so we need to have a national conversation about how we -- how we educate our children. we're still educating our children the same way we did in the 1800s. 20, 25 chairs and desks, facing forward, to a white board or black board, with one person standing in front talking to them, for a limited period of time each day for a limited period of time in each year. everything else in american life has been improved, modernized, but education. at its core, yes we use computers now. a great moment when my 11-year-old daughter bridget started taking computers when she was 8 and she said dad, when you were 8, who did you have for computers? i said, no one. no one. the world has changed in that respect. but not much more in the world

of education. so my point to you in terms of you know, if you're ranked in the 20s in the industrialized world in math and science, what makes you believe that 10 or 15 years from now we'll still be the number one economy? hope? prayer? we have to change this. and secondly, on once you get a system that people are willing to buy into, you can start having the discussions about quantitative and qualitative choices in legal immigration. but until you get to the base problem of what we have permitted to happen over the last 20 to 25 years and the feeling among so many people in our country that we're not willing to enforce the law, why do they buy out to a whole new set of laws that they think the government would execute on. you're right. we have to have that conversation and the idea that if someone brings a particular quality, or set of qualities,

that would help our country even more, that's something that should be considered in the immigration process, it is an important idea to discuss. but if we don't get to the underlying problem first, we're not going to ever get there. and you're going to continue to be frustrated. so let's get to the underlying problem, fix it and then our frustrations will abate if not eliminate on this topic. >> next question. >> hi, governor. my name is carol corman with president. prism incorporated. i wanted to get your opinion on aca and how it is set up and reported. i'm baffled a little bit that even small certified businesses and we're all about small businesses growing, yet under the aca small businesses are classified as large businesses in some cases and i just wanted to get your opinion on that. >> well, listen, my opinion on the affordable care act is that it goes exactly in line with the philosophy i was talking earlier

in my remarks and the difference between myself and the president. you know let's look at my state of new jersey and let's pick the state of wyoming. what person in this room actually thinks that the health care challenges that i face for my population in new jersey of 8.9 million people in the most ethnically diverse state in the country and the most densely populated state in the country are the same as the health care challenges that are faced by governor matt mead in wyoming? just -- you don't have to know anything, right? anything about health care to know those two places are significantly different and face significantly different challenges. you understand that. i understand that. the president of the united states refuses to acknowledge it. the idea that you can have one national system that is going to appropriately, efficiently, effectively address the health care needs of the population in

new jersey and health care population in wyoming is ridiculous. and the core weakness of aca, beside the fact that you mentioned in terms of the way they -- the nondisparate treatment of businesses, the tax increases, the mandates all of those things, the core problem is that this just won't work. because the challenges i face in new jersey are so significantly different than other parts of the country and other states. we should be going to a system that is state-based. where governors work with the people in their state to say what is the best way to access health care in a state like ours? and, you know the way businesses will be affected by that is when governments closer to you making that decision you have much greater imnput. i know small business owners in my state. i work with them all the time, through our economic development

authority and they have access to policymakers. i'm a repeal and replace guy. i absolutely believe this obamacare is not salvageable and needs to go. we also can't be the party that says it needs to go and we'll get back to you in a couple of weeks about what actually we're going to do? american people will not go for that dodge. and so we need to come out and talk as a party about what we want to do and i will tell you that my inclination is towards going to a state-based system. because i just believe as a governor that, you know what gary herbert decides in utah versus what i decide in new jersey versus what matt mead decides in wyoming versus what phil bryant decides in mississippi, they're thins we know about our states and we get input from folks like you. that's my view on it. and the onerous nature of this is going to suffocate businesses, already suffocated jobs and we know that. the 30-hour workweek all these things that are going on now,

surrounding aca just suffocated economic growth and the president doesn't want to see it or acknowledge it because he believes in an omnipotent omnipresent federal government. i don't. >> thank you. >> three more questions. and that will be it. please keep the questions short and identify yourself first. >> great thanks governor. jim toland, as a follow-up, clearly obamacare hasn't been the most popular legislation or program with the republican party. and it does seem like there is people talk about repeal and replace, but there is much more focus on repeal. in the -- the question really is what is the replace? status quo wasn't working very well either. 50 million people uninsured. there has to be more than we'll do it at the state level. what is the -- what is the program to get a program that actually addresses the pathologies of the old system

without the baggage of the new? >> yeah, well, we should get there and talk about it, but take a deep breath. it is may 1st. >> yeah, but -- >> quite frankly, i think that all of us have to go about this in a responsible way. has there been more of an emphasis on repeal, sure. you can't replace until you do repeal. there has been more of an emphasis on repeal but the fact is that all of us who are responsible and for those of us who decide to run for president, it is going to be our job to come forward with a specific plan and ideas. and i -- what i'm trying to give you is a window to my approach. i'm not going to lay out my entire plan for replacing obamacare, with all due respect. we'll do that in a different setting. but what i'm telling you is the directional guidance i'm giving you is that i believe this is a problem that is much more appropriately dealt with at the state level than it is dealt with at the federal level and all you need to do is look at the growth of medicaid over the

course of the last number of years. last 25 years medicaid has grown over 800%. and the economy has grown 200%. so, you know this system where the state pays for half of the costs, but has almost no influence on the rules which is where we're headed and where we are with obama care i think it is a failure. and i think we're in the same spot, will be in the same spot with this kind of exponential growth if we allow obama care to continue. >> isn't that the same dodge -- >> this is not a time for discussion. next question, please. >> governor, my name is paul stide with effective communications in reston and a member of new jersey. >> there you go. >> two questions about superstorm sandy. how in your estimation is the

recovery going? and how has -- have the events of superstorm sandy shaped you as a man and shaped you as a leader? >> on the recovery the recovery is going very well. now, our businesses are back up and running, our jersey shore tourism last year set a record year in the second year after sandy, and most of the new jerseyians who lost their homes are back in their homes. now, whenever i say that i'm mindful of the people who are still not back in their homes. and there are some still not back in their homes. and so i always say to people you know, the recovery is going really well unless you're not back in your home. if you're not back in your home the recovery is going miserably. so one of the problems in the aftermath of katrina was that there was significant rampant fraud in louisiana.

and as a result the federal government does whatgovernments do all the time. they look at what happened and they made the rules on aid so onerous, not on the state necessarily, but on the individuals in terms of proof and paperwork that it held up a lot of what is going on. i think hud in particular has seen this over time, they have begun to loosen up on some things and it allowed us to get the people who are not in their homes at a much faster pace. we spent billions of dollars already. we have increased resiliency in our state so when the next storm comes, things will be better. i think overall the recovery has gone very well. when you think about this, when i woke up on the morning after sandy, 365,000 homes had been destroyed. in 24 hours. 365,000 homes. we had no power in more than two-thirds of the state.

we had 50 plus gas stations open and operational. most of the state highways were closed. all of the schools were closed. there was it was as big a disaster as any state that's ever had to sustain, and we're back on our feet, and people are back in their homes and businesses are back open and economic activity has resumed. and so i feel very good about that. in terms of me, i can only tell you that in 2011 there were lots of people who urged me to run for president. and when i made the decision not to, i said something that my political advisers told me i should never say. i was asked, of course as you would be when you say you're not running for president why. and i said because i'm not ready. and my advisers were like, no, no, no, no, no. that tape will last forever of you saying you're not ready to be president. you can't say that. i said, well, it's true.

sandy went a long way toward making me ready. when you sit around a table and you get the reports of that destruction and that level of pain and loss and then everybody, your cabinet your law enforcement, your national guard, all sit around the table. and after they report all that they then look at you and say okay, now what are we going to do? you get prepared as a leader in those moments like nothing else can prepare you. because you have a blank piece of paper in front of you. and human suffering all around you. and everybody. not just the people around that table, but everybody in the state is looking to you to say please fix this. please help. and that's why when i was going through sandy, i never spent more than half a day in the emergency operations center. from the day after sandy forward, i would spend half a day in the emergency operations center with all the different people i had to talk to and get briefed by and give instructions to. and i would always spend half of

the day in one of the towns that had been destroyed. to actually remind myself all the time about who i was doing this for and what they really were concerned about. and i can't tell you in the beginning how emotionally impactful that was. to walk into a town like belmar, which i did on the first day after the storm jersey shore town, and have a woman come up to me and grab me and begin to hug me and say into my ear, "i've lost everything. you're the only person who can help me." those are moments in my life that i'll never forget and have changed me as a person and have molded me as a leader. that in the end what people want is the truth. they want you to be decisive. they want you to be present. in their lives. when they feel as if their lives are at risk.

and so sandy has changed me in every way that sandy could change somebody that something like that could possibly do to both your mind and your heart. and i would have never wished that on my state ever, ever and hope and pray that it never happens to anybody again at that level of devastation. but we've learned from it. we're a better state because of it in the end. and once we get everybody back in their homes, i'll be able to breathe a sigh of relief and say, you know, mission accomplished. but until that time, you can't. so you just keep plugging every, every day. it's my pleasure. >> one more question. >> whatever you want. >> we have one final question. >> governor christie, this is ash aisha chadry a brokerage and risk management firm. and you talk about the importance of having honest

conversations with the american people. and i would like to know how you balance the receptivity of receiving that information from -- by the american people coming from politicians. >> well, you know, everybody approaches this business differently. i'm someone who always tries to err on the side of letting people know what i really think. and -- [ applause ] -- and this has much less to do with political calculation than it does have to do with how i was raised. you know, we're all a product of our parents, right? sometimes we're thrilled about that. sometimes we're not. i know my children will spend a significant time complaining to someone about something that i did that i really thought was good. when i did it. but obviously i was completely wrong, right? we're all a product of our parents. i grew up in a house with an

irish father and a sicilian mother. now, you all know what this means. this means that i became at a very young age, expert at conflict resolution. all right? i was the oldest son in that family. and it's not that my mom was argumentative. it's just that she never found an argument that wasn't worth having. in her view you know. and she used to tell us whatever was bothering her all the time, and we'd say like, mom, enough. we hear you. stop. and she'd say to me no, no, no no, no. i'm getting this off my chest right now, and you're going to listen. there will be no death bed confessions in this family. you're hearing it now. and i will tell you that you know, it forms who you are, right? i mean the ethic i was taught

was that if there's a problem, talk about it now. if there's an issue, get it off your chest. if you feel something, let people know it. and so it's hard then to get into politics and say, well, okay, i'm going to conduct myself completely differently. than the way i've conducted myself for the 40-plus years before i got involved in politics. my mom used to say to me all the time, christopher, be yourself. because then tomorrow you don't have to worry about trying to remember who you pretended to be yesterday. it's great advice. and i'll end with this to give you greater insight to the impact that this has on real lives, right? so i'm talking about my mom in the past tense because she passed away 11 years ago next week. and she is the formative figure in my life. and i tease my father all the time. he comes to my town hall meetings. when i describe him, i say to

understand my parents' relationship, in the automobile of life, my father was the passenger. and he really doesn't like that, but i do. so what the hell. so my mom, in february of 2004, was, on valentine's day, actually, was diagnosed with lung cancer. and she had been a lifetime smoker. and her disease progressed very quickly. and so by the end of april of 2004, i was at the u.s. attorney's national conference in san diego. and i got a call from my younger brother saying to me, "listen, mom's back in the hospital. it's really bad. if you want a chance to see her, you need to get home now." so i booked the red-eye flight home from san diego and flew back to new jersey. and i landed at newark airport and got in the car and drove to

the hospital where she was. and i got there and they had started to give her morphine. and any of you that have gone through this know that's kind of the last stages of what happens. and they're trying to manage her pain. so i sat there for a while waiting for her to wake, and she did. it was typical of my mother. she had not seen me for a week. and she woke up and she looked at me and she said, "what day is it?" i said "friday." she said "what time is it?" "9:30 in the morning." she said, "go to work." i said to her, you know, mom, i decided to take the day off. i just came back from california. i'm going to spend the day with us. she said, christopher, it is a work day. go to work. so i said, listen what are you afraid you're not going to get your taxpayer's money's worth? i'll make up the time. don't worry about it. and she reached over and grabbed my hand and said christopher, go to work. it's where you belong. there's nothing left unsaid between us. and you know what? she was right. because of the way she taught me

to conduct our lives. that's things she used to say all the time. you're going to hear it now. there are no death bed confessions in this family. she was right. there didn't need to be. i knew how much she loved me. i knew the things that she thought were great about me. i knew the things she wanted to change about me. but ran out of time. to do it. right? i knew all that. so i leaned over and i kissed her and i said okay, mom, i'm going to work. and i left and i never saw her again. but she let me go. if you want to understand the balance, in me the balance is when i'm thinking in here about what should i say and what shouldn't i say, i think of her. and i think if she were here now to watch the circus that my life has become she'd say two things to me. the first thing she'd say to me is remember, buddy, i changed

your diapers. don't act like a big shot with me. because she had said that when i was u.s. attorney. and second, so i can't imagine what she'd say now. it's probably mild. and secondly, she'd say to me these people have trusted you with the most important job that they can give you in the state where you were born and raised. let them know how you really feel. you owe them that. any trusting relationship, you owe the person that. and so that's where i come down on the balance. and it has nothing to do with political calculation and everything to do with who i am. and in the end, if you lose that, you have no business being a leader anyway. so be who you are. there are going to be some days that people like it. there will be some days when i may say some things which you know, maybe i might want to phrase differently upon reflection. but here's the one thing that all of you will learn about me. you're never going to have to wonder, is that what he really thinks? is that how he really feels?

and is that what he's really going to do? or does it really mean it when he says he's not going to? and if that's your cup of tea then that's great. and for two terms in new jersey, new jerseyians have said yeah, we like this guy. we'll vote for him. and if i ever decide to run for anything again, if people like that then that's what they'll get. and if they don't, you know, then i'll go home. but either way, i'm going to be who i am. and that's the way i make the balance in my head. >> i wish you luck. thank you. >> thank you, governor chris 'tis.christie. thank you for your honesty. thank you for coming today. >> presidential candidates often release books to introduce themselves to voters. here's a look at recent books

written by declared and potential candidates for president. former secretary of state hillary clinton looks back on her time serving in the obama administration in "hard choices." in "american dreams," florida senator marco rubio outlines his plan to restore economic opportunity. former arkansas governor hike huckabee gives his take on politics and culture in "god, guns grits and gravy." and in "blue collar conservatives," potential presidential candidate rick santorum says we must focus on the working class in order to take the white house. in "a fighting chance," elizabeth warren recounts the events in her life that shaped her career as an educator and politician. wisconsin governor scott walker argues republicans must offer bold solutions to fix the country and have the courage to implement them in "unintimidated." and kentucky senator rand paul who recently declared his candidacy calls for smaller government and more

bipartisanship in "taking a stand." more potential presidential candidates with recent books include former governor jeb bush in "immigration wars." he along with clint bolic argue for new immigration policies. in "stand for something," ohio governor john kasich calls for a return to traditional american values. former virginia senator james webb looks back on his time serving in the military and in the senate in "i heard my country calling." independent vermont senator bernie sanders recently announced his intention to seek the democratic nomination for president. his book, "the speech," is a printing of his eight-hour-long filibuster against tax cuts. and in "promises to keep," vice president joe biden looks back on his career in politics and explains his guiding principles. neurosurgeon ben carson calls for greater individual responsibility to preserve america's future in "one nation."

in "fed up!" former texas governor rick perry explains government has become too intrusive and must get out of the way. another politician who has expressed interest in running for president is former rhode island governor lincoln chaffee in "against the tide." he recounts his time serving as a republican in the senate. carly fiorina, former ceo of hewlett-packard, shares lessons she's learned from her difficulties and triumphs in "rising to the challenge." louisiana governor bobby jindal criticizes the obama administration and explains why conservative solutions are needed in washington in "leadership and crisis." and finally in "a time for truth," texas senator ted cruz recounts his journey from a cuban immigrant's son to the u.s. senate. look for his book in june. >> we're live from capitol hill this morning as we get set to hear from the senate. senate energy and natural

resources committee. as they examine the impacts of wildfire management on communities who are prone to such wildfires in arizona and california. and we'll also hear from fire management officials and thomas tidwell who is chief of the u.s. forest service. lisa murkowski chairs the committee. washington state senator maria cantwell, ranking member. live coverage expected to get under way in just a couple of moments here on c-span3.

good morning. we'll call to order the energy committee hearing this morning. welcome to everyone. we are discussing logistics here because we theoretically have a vote at 10:15. it's my intention to offer my opening statements and turn to the ranking member for hers. and if in fact, they have called it at that point in time, i think what we will do is just take a quick break, go vote, so that we can come back and hear the testimony from our witnesses this morning. obviously, a very important issue to all of us around the country.

we are here to examine our wildfire management policies including the impacts of wildfire on communities and our current fire operations. unfortunately, today may be a day where we struggle to find a whole lot that is positive about all of this. over the last 50 years we've seen a rapid escalation in the size frequency and severity of wildfires. the most often cited causes are severe drought a change in climate, hazardous fuel buildups due in part to decades of fire exclusion, insect and disease infestation and an explosion of non-native invasive species. these are big problems. they're daunting problems. and they are problems that are not easily going away. we've already seen the consequences unfold firsthand in my home state of alaska. last may we had the funny river fire just about this time actually, mid-may, burned through the national wildlife refuge, it spread smoke as far

away as fairbanks more than 500 miles away. the fire burned nearly 200,000 acres or 300 square miles before it was finally extinguished. it was the second largest ever recorded on the kenai peninsula. it threatened lower skilack lake forcing evacuations. we're all thankful there were no apparent fatalities. the funny river fire was likely started by human activity, but the area has also changed dramatically in the last 20 years due in part to mass spruce bark beetle kill. grasses have replaced forests and those grasses are simply more susceptible to fire. more than half of the peninsula's total forested land, nearly a million acres has been lost which is, of course, a worrisome sign for the future. already this year the concern back home is that we will have an aggressive fire season. we've had very low snowfall throughout the state. it's dry. i was in fairbanks this weekend. and i cannot recall a time on

the 1st of may when not only the rivers are out but there is no snow anywhere. no snow pack anywhere. so the same factors that we are seeing up north and in the peninsula that are increasing the size frequency and severity of wildfires are also driving up wildfire suppression costs both in actual dollars and as a portion of the total budget of the forest service. beyond that, the expansion of the wild urban interface, the wui and fire operation strategies and tactics can't be overlooked. according to a recent usda inspector general report, 50 to the 95% of forest service suppression costs were attributable to the defense of private property much of which is located in the urban interface. it is looking more and more like the forest service is morphing into an emergency fire service that throws everything that it has as every wildfire whether effective or not. last year was a good example there. the forest service spent $200

million more on suppression than it spent on average over the last ten years despite there being less than half the number of fires. less than half the number of acres burned and less than half the number of homes burned. we need to see a paradigm shift from fire control at all costs to actual fire management. so it's my hope that we can implement a wildfire policy that responsibly funds wildfire suppression needs, ends the unsustainable practice of fire borrowing, helps firewise our community, and makes the necessary investments in a full suite of fuel treatments. these will be my policy goals here in the committee. it won't be easy to achieve them, but if we do i think we create fire-resilient landscapes in which wildfires can occur without such devastating consequences for our lands, our communities, and for our budgets. so i look forward to the testimony of our witnesses here this morning. thank you all and senator cantwell we'll now turn to you for your comments. >> thank you madam chair, and thanks for calling this important hearing. and i, too, want to thank the

witnesses for joining us today. fire season is upon us. and we're looking to you as experts to tell us how we can better prepare for this year's fire season. for some time now, the committee has heard time and again that our fires are getting noticeably worse. we have extreme weather conditions. the amount of hazardous fuel in our forests, suboptimal management schemes and an increasing inner urban wildland interface, as the chair was saying, are combining to produce more lethal fires. so the people in my state are all too familiar with this and want to know what we can do to better prepare. throughout the country we saw fires, but i think washington -- the state of washington probably was most hard hit. i see chief tidwell nodding his head. more than twice the average of number of acres burned across the northwest. last july washington suffered the carlton complex fire. and we spent many time talking to people in the community. this fire alone burned 149,000

acres in a single day. it burned an average of five acres per second for 24 hours straight. so the combination of extreme weather combined with this fire over 353 homes were lost. so despite many efforts for people to coordinate and resources, the people in those towns lacked the power of communication for weeks because of downed telephone lines, homeowners were not able to call to warn about the continued encroaching fires, and instead police had to drive around from town to town, calling for evacuation from their vehicles using a megaphone. so one thing that i will be calling for is better coordination between the forest service and fema on communication responses during these natural disasters. if they are becoming worse, we need better memorandums of understanding that require communications be set up right away so that our communities can

continue to deal with these disasters. i know that we can get ahead of these issues. and as the chair mentioned we need more hazardous fuel reduction in the wildland inner urban -- the wildland urban interface, and we need to figure out how to use resulting biomass to offset these costs. i know we're going to hear some testimony about that today and i look forward to it. i'm also eager to hear from the witnesses on more prescribed fire burns also. we need to address fresh ideas on how to fund forest service efforts to protect our communities. senator wyden, as we know, has introduced legislation on this. and i'm happy to be a co-sponsor and look forward to discussing that. the science is clearly telling us that wildfires are not behaving the same way they have in the past decades. the witnesses will talk more about why this is, but i want to make sure that we discuss today what our response is going to be to this evolving problem. researchers from the forest service just last week published a major scientific report.

the report made it clear that if we are ever going to get ahead of the problem the forest service needs to respond to wildfires in a fundamentally different way. to quote the report, our modern wildfire problems derive themselves from self-reinforcing cycle of countereffective actions. end quote. we cannot keep using the same tired approaches that we have for the last 100 years. we need to make sure we're focusing on getting different results. common sense tells us that a response needs to be modified now that the problem is different. the forest service report does a great job of summing up what the forest service needs to do. the report says that altering the current trajectory will require a total system transformation. the report bluntly states that maintaining the status quo will actually increase wildland fires, increases the losses we suffer from wildfires and significantly affect the forest service's ability to meet its core mission. so we need new solutions.

i'm certainly going to work with the chair and my colleagues here on the committee over the next few months to find some of those solutions. i see four areas ripe for us to work on. first we need to do what we can to reduce the probability of catastrophic fires and we need to see that at least that we are doubling the amount of hazardous fuel treatments and double the amount of prescribed fire burn. second, we need to fight large wildland fires which are becoming very expensive. since 2000, the federal government has spent nearly $24 billion just fighting the large wildfires. so we need to ensure that federal agencies have the money necessary to protect our communities. and we need to treat large wildfires differently in our budget. third, we need to make sure that these fires are are -- and the management on the ground is being done to assure accountability. we've seen questions about spending practices in the media. and we need to make sure that we are incentivizing the right kind

of cost savings in the budget. and finally but most importantly, as i mentioned earlier, the assistance communities receive after the wildfire has started needs to be different. the assistance needs to show up quicker. the assistance needs to be tailored to these issues that are being raised. the federal government is responding to a new type of disaster where these events are blowing up in greater degree and reaching communities in unbelievable lightning speed. so we need to have a more proactive, up-front coordination with our federal agencies. the forest service and fema. for example, just in delivering realtime communications and making sure that the resources -- and i know the chief will address this -- are actually on the ground. the fire season forecast came out last week, and it's particularly troubling for our state. i hope people are ready to help and i hope fema will work to stage things like generators and

assistance equipment and things that are closer to these areas so they can respond more quickly. again, madam chair thank you so much for this hearing. i look forward to the witnesses and i look forward to working with our committee to try to institute some new approaches. >> thank you, senator cantwell. let's go ahead and get started with our witnesses. and depending on what happens with the vote we may just keep powering through. i may take a pause in the hearing. but i'd like to welcome all of our witnesses before the committee, particularly you chief tidwell. i appreciate your leadership at the u.s. forest service there. next to chief tidwell, we have dr. steven pine. he is a regents professor at the school of life sciences at arizona state university. dr. sharon hood is with us this morning, a postdoctoral researcher at college of forestry and conservation at university of montana.

we have mr. bob izelle. am i pronouncing that correct? eisele. he is the watershed and fire analyst at the county of san diego, california. i understand you're retired. great to have you with us. and finally mr. bruce hallen, who is the director of water rights and contracts at the salt river project. so chief, if we can begin with you for your five-minute comments, and to each of the witnesses, we'd ask that you try to limit your testimony to five minutes. your full -- your full statement will be included as part of the record. but we look forward to your comments and the opportunity to ask questions afterwards. chief, good morning. >> good morning. madam chair, ranking member, members of the committee thank you for giving us the opportunity to be here and especially with the other panel members today to be able to talk about not only our upcoming fire season, but the things that we're currently doing and the things that we need to continue to do to address this issue. as you both have already shared the predictions for this coming

fire season are similar to what we had last year with definitely a much more -- more than active fire season primarily out in the west. and as the summer develops that's going to just continue to expand up through the northwest and then over into parts of utah, idaho and even into montana. you know that being said, i can't stress enough that the fire seasons we're seeing today these are the normal fire seasons. and so we can look at and say yeah, they're more active than they were a decade ago, but it's important for us to understand that today this is the fire seasons we're going to continue to have. once again, we have the resources. we made sure that we're going to have an adequate number of large air tankers to respond to these fires. the helicopters that we have we already have 100 exclusive use and with our call, when needed we can bring up another 200 helicopters if we need that. we'll have our firefighters our type one crews over 900 engines

just from the forest service. and then as always, we have the airplanes from the air national guard and air force reserve that are ready to come on when we hit those surge times of the year. we are making a difference with the fuel treatments. when i look at the past the millions of acres that we've been treating in a combination of managing natural fire in the back country using prescribed fire and then our fields treatments primarily in the wildland inner urban space, we make a difference. this year we plan to treat 1.5 million acres of hazardous fuels and our budget is calling for that same level. and every year -- and i can point back to the slide fire from just last year -- where these field treatments are making a significant difference to allow our firefighters to more safely be able to suppress these fires.

it reduces the severity has less impact on the watershed and less impact on our communities. our challenge remains to be able to find more ways so that we can continue to increase the pace and scale of this work. i want to thank the committee for your support for our budget this year with that considerable increase in hazardous fields funding. if we can maintain that going forward, i think it will allow us to continue to increase its pace and scale along with the new authorities that we have with the farm bill as we move forward to be able to work closer and increase our coordination with the states and other partners to be able to get additional work accomplished. the other thing i need to stress -- and it was pointed out already -- the wildland urban interface. not only are our fire seasons longer, hotter and drier, there are another 60 to 80 days longer

than what they were just 15 years ago, we have over 50 million acres of wildland urban interface that we have to deal with. and madam chair as you pointed out in your statement, often this is the first thing we have to do with every fire is take the actions to be able to protect that community before we can even take on really suppressing these large wildfires. now, we continue to suppress 98% of the fires that we take initial attack on. that doesn't include the ones that we manage in the back country for the benefits. so i need to dress that. but even with 98%, there's that 1% to 2% that escape the ones that we see on the news, the ones that create the large costs. so once again, i appreciate the support for members of this committee to find a solution to deal with the cost of fire suppression. once again this year we're predicting, there's a 90% chance that we will not have enough money and we'll have to look at

transferring funds. it is really past time and i know some of you are tired of listening to me talk about this. but it's really past time for us to find a solution and to be able to move on and to stop this disruptive practice of shutting down operations in the fall to be able to transfer money. i think that it's no question that 1%, this concept of 1% of our fires should be considered natural disasters. and again, last year, the ten largest fires, the ten most costly fires equaled about over $320 million which really tracks with what we've been talking about, 1% 30% of the costs. so thank you again for having the opportunity to be here and thank you again for the support you're providing us not only to increase the work we're getting done, but also to find a solution to dealing with the cost of fire suppression. thank you. >> thank you, chief. i think if there is one thing that we would agree on as members of this committee is that we've got to figure out a

way to stop the fire borrowing because as we talk about all of the other things that go on within the forest service and the missions, it comes back to the fact that you don't have the funds if you're using all of your budget here to deal with these catastrophic fires. i think what i'd like to do in deference to the other members of the panel so that we can all hear your important testimony is just take a quick, like, three manufacture minutes. we're going to go vote. a minute and a half there and back. we stand adjourned for three minutes. three minutes. hurry.

so as you heard the senate energy and natural resources committee is taking a break as this hearing on wildfire management is in its earliest stages. senators now heading over to the senate chamber for a procedural vote on the house/senate compromise 2016 federal budget. lawmakers will be back in -- well, they said about three minutes. we think it's going to be a little longer, but we'll have live coverage when they do continue here on c-span3. real quick look at some of our other live coverage coming up today in about an hour or so on c-span. actually make that half an hour. former arkansas governor hike huckabee is expected to announce that he is running for the republican presidential nomination. it starts at 11:00 a.m. eastern. we plan to follow that announcement with your phone calls and comments. again, that is on c-span at 11:00.

also democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton is at a high school in las vegas today. she'll be talking about immigration policy. live coverage of that also on c-span. it starts at 5:45 p.m. eastern. and at noon, president obama is expected to nominate marine corps general joseph dunford replacing general martin dempsey who is stepping down this coming fall. we'll have the president's announcement, again at noon eastern on the c-span networks. waiting for the resumption of this senate hearing on wildlife management. continuing shortly. right now a discussion on the federal budget crafted by house and senate negotiators recently. >> executive director of the concord coalition. he joins us this morning to help us analyze the house and senate budget resolution passed by the house late last week. the senate expected to take an initial vote and take that up today. but first, robert bixby for those who aren't familiar what is the concord coalition?

>> well, it's a nonpartisan organization that focuses on the federal budget and advocates fiscal responsibility. it was founded by paul tsongas and warren rudman, one a democratic senator and one a republican. senator back in 1992. >> and with that goal in mind what do you think about the budget plan that's being pushed by republicans promises to balance the budget in ten years? is this something that the concord coalition can get behind? >> well, i think that the goal is a good one of trying to get back to a balanced budget at some point over the next ten years is i think a reasonable goal. i think that there are -- i think the path that's laid out for getting there is probably not realistic. but i think the goal is good. and what happens now is we'll see if the implementation can take place. >> not realistic. explain how republicans look to achieve that balance in this budget plan. >> well, it's -- it's all on

spending cuts. there's some very deep spending cuts. and, you know, some of them you know, aren't probably going to happen. for example, the biggest one is repeal of the president's affordable care act. obviously, were that to be done, it would -- he would veto that. so that probably isn't going to happen. some of the presumed savings in the domestic appropriations the nondefense appropriations, probably a little bit steeper than are likely to pass. and then there is just some other cuts and other entitlement programs mandatory spending. they're very, very deep. what the budget does show is that it tries to save about $5 trillion over ten years. and that's about what you need to get back to a balance. it chooses a particular path i don't think is terribly realistic, but it does show you know, it shows how difficult it would be to get that level of

savings. >> you mentioned some of the highlights balances the budget in ten years. $5 trillion in spending cuts over those ten years. it sticks to the $1 trillion sequestration budget in 2016, and it boosts department of defense budget by adding money through the overseas contingency operation fund. all aspects of the republican budget that was passed by the house last week that's going to be taken up by the senate this week. but first this budget resolution likely to get passed, it doesn't get signed by the president. it doesn't have the force of law. so explain why this is important. >> well, the important, but that's an important point that you make about the budget resolution. it's the first step in the process and probably the easiest one because it doesn't require the president's signature. and it doesn't require congress to set out how they would actually achieve these goals. it just sets out numbers. so it's a broad framework. and then congress then takes this framework and tries to pass

appropriations bills at -- they have to pass 12 appropriations bills during the course of the year. that's what keeps the government funded. and so this sets out what the spending total should be for the appropriations bills. and the budget resolution is also important because it sets so-called points of order. it sets the numbers by which points of order can be triggered if a budget -- if a bill exceeds the budget resolution numbers, it can be subject to a point of order. it contains certain procedural goals and, you know enforcement mechanisms as well. >> it's the rules that will be influencing the actual appropriations process. >> correct. >> for the rest of the year. >> right. and so it is very important. it also contains something called reconciliation. >> explain that. >> which is -- which is a special procedure which gives a bill fast track, basically,

through the senate. it doesn't have much application in the house. but in the senate if you have a reconciliation bill is not subject to a filibuster. to put it quickly. and so it applies to mandatory spending or revenues. it should be used to cut the deficit, although there's a pernicious little provision in the budget resolution this year that would allow it to be used for increasing the deficit. but anyway reconciliation bill is a favored thing that gets fast-track authority. in this budget resolution congress has said that the reconciliation process should be used only for repeal of the affordable care act. which is a little bit disappointing because they're going to -- they would probably need reconciliation to pass some of the other very ambitious spending cuts that they would like to do or tax reform.

and, you know, using it for repeal of the aca which is going to happen anyway because the president isn't going to sign it kind of gives away an important enforcement tool. >> go ahead. did you want to add -- >> no, i was going to say, there's a couple of things about the budget resolution you know, to keep in mind. i would call them gimmicks or kind of close to gimmicks. one is a straight-out gimmick, and you mentioned it before, and that's the oco, overseas contingency operations. basically, what they want to do is keep the defense cap in law but exceed it. and the way they can do that is by putting money into this overseas contingency operations account which is not subject to the cap. because it's supposed to be used just for war spending. but they've used it basically for basic defense spending. so it's pretty much a gimmick to spend more on defense. the other thing is the budget resolution assumes that the government is going to collect a

whole lot of revenue which this congress does not want to collect. so there's a little bit of an inconsistency there in that the revenue totals and the budget resolution do not reflect the policies that this congress has pursued. and so there's a gap there. >> we're talking about the republican budget resolution. it's been a big topic of conversation on capitol hill both last week, this week as well with the senate starting to take it up today. bob bixby is our guest. he's with the concord coalition. it's concordcoalition.org. you can join in our conversation if you have a question or comment about the budget resolution in this debate. democrats can call in at 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents 202-748-8002. on that line for independents, zach is calling in from arlington, texas. zach, good morning. you're on with bob bixby. >> caller: yeah, i was just

going to ask bixby, whenever you have a budget like that and everything is going under, you know, as far as international spending and domestic spending and growing our infrastructure and everything like that, why is it that everything comes into play as to what we can hurt instead of what we can grow by that definition? whenever you have a corporation, it's so much easier to say, you know you can have competitive effort. i can do this for this much cheaper. but whenever it comes to the domestic budget it's like, you know, we can do this, but we have to cut back on this. not we can do it cheaper by doing things differently this way. it just seems to be always whenever we try and cut our budget, it's not we can do it differently and still achieve the same results. but it's always we have to cut something else. why is it always we have to cut something else and instead we have to keep, you know, growing

the ceiling, so to speak? >> and zach is that your concern with just the republican budgets or budgets that you're hearing proposed by democrats as well? >> caller: actually, it's in both. as an independent both democratic and republican over the years. so it's in both budgets. it's in the same way with every budget that's been proposed over the past you know, 15 years. >> zach, thanks for the question. bob bixby. >> yeah, i think there's a couple of good points there. government doesn't look enough at doing things better. they look -- tend to look at budget totals and not review programs, do what's called oversight of programs. you know one of the things that we've advocated over the years is to do biennial budgeting and see if you can appropriate the money in one year and do oversight in the second year to see if the programs are actually working. because one way to do things to

save money is to do things better or cheaply, as you point out. the other point i would say is that it is important to try to find offsets if you're going to spend more in one area, you do want to find cuts in some other area or raise revenue. and sure, if part of that can be done through a more efficient administration of a particular program and you can find savings that way, that's fine. so i think you can really do both. i mean i think a blend of both is fine. >> how does the concord coalition feel about investments that may not have specific offsets? are you in favor of always finding those offsets? >> generally speaking, yes. but i think that there is -- there is a distinction to be made between money that's purely consumption and money that is investment. the federal budget does not have a specifically designated

investment budget. and maybe that's something to look at, a capital budget or something like that. but i think that we can -- within a balance, you don't need a balanced budget every year. you don't need one necessarily right now. you don't want one in a time of recession or slow economic growth. so there are times when it's perfectly appropriate to have a deficit. >> should it take a decade, though, to get back to a balanced budget? >> it's going to take some time. and i'll tell you, because that's how deep the hole is. and you really wouldn't want to do it that disruptively. i think you could get back. i mean, i think that the overall goal of getting back within ten years is achievable. but there's a dynamic at play that a lot of people don't focus on. the appropriations bills are determined one year at a time. congress can deal with those. those really aren't the problem. they're only about one-third of the budget. most of the budget about two-thirds of it is mandatory

spending which is things like social security, medicare, medicaid, interest on the debt. the major entitlement programs, the ones i just mentioned grow every year because the population is getting older. there are more beneficiaries, and health care tends to be an expensive thing to consume. so you have -- so those programs, if you look at the dynamics in the budget, that's what's growing. and so the discretionary programs even defense, really shrinks as a percentage of the economy. and our budgetary challenge is really the growth of the entitlement programs basically the ones having to do with health care and retirement on aging. and so when you talk about trying to get back to a balanced budget, every year that part of the budget is growing, growing, growing on autopilot, so it becomes more difficult. you know you're always bumping up against that headwind. so it's not a simple matter of looking at the appropriations bills every year and saying, you know, we can get back to a balance by just getting tough on

cracking down on this -- that or the other thing. if we ignore the entitlement programs and net interest on the debt. >> and do you think this congress is going to ignore that? do you think they'll address it this time around? >> i don't think there's going to be any big addressing of that. i think the next opportunity for that is probably going to be with the first budget of the next president. and that's why we're spending a lot of time in iowa and new hampshire with our friends at the campaign to fix the debt to hope that the presidential candidates will talk about this issue as well. so we've been doing a project called first budget for that very purpose. here in, you know for the upcoming year, i think they're probably going to focus on the appropriations bills. i think it's going to be difficult to pass those. if they pass them at the level that the republicans have recommended, the president has said he will veto them. so for those who enjoy government shutdowns, it could

be that something like that will happen again this year. but that might force a negotiation of some sort. >> let's go back to the phones. daniel is waiting in hastings michigan. line for democrats. daniel, good morning. >> caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i've got a question on the budget submitted by the republicans. it calls for the elimination of obamacare. and i was wondering why they're including the savings from it in their budget. thank you. i'll take my question off the air. >> why they're including the savings. >> well because that's -- i mean, they're including the savings from repealing obamacare in the budget $5 trillion worth of savings includes that because that's what they want to do. and that's their budget. and that's their plan. >> and does that budget factor in the costs of a replacement plan? >> no. it just -- it says that you know, it assumes that the gross

spending in obamacare would be repealed, which is the exchange subsidies and the medicaid expansion primarily. like i said before, one of the curiosities of this budget is that it assumes that the revenue increases of obamacare would remain, even though it says they will repeal them. >> let's go to dan in st. petersburg, florida. line for independents. dan, good morning. >> caller: yes, good morning. as far as finance reform, it just seems that a simple solution would be to make all contributions regardless of size anonymous. that would take away all the questions about propriety and who owes what to who. and i don't understand why people aren't talking about that. the other thing is i would give all politicians polygraph exams, and that will take away the problem of whether they're

telling the truth or not. you know most federal employees, even on the lower scale, have to take a lie detector test. so why shouldn't people in elected office do so also? >> talking about campaign finance reform. not really the topic that we're discussing. >> no. >> this morning. >> back to order here. that's three minutes in senate time. we apologize for that. but again i think there are enough members here who wanted to hear the testimony from all the witnesses. and as a courtesy to you, we've made you holdover for a little bit longer. so dr. pine, why don't we turn to you for your comments this morning. and again, thank you for your indulgence on time. >> well, good morning. and thank you for the opportunity to speak. after the great fires of 1910 we spent 50 years trying to remove fire from the land. call it a strategy of resistance. that sought to eliminate threats before they could become serious.

that doctrine failed because it excluded good fires as well as bad ones. we then tried to put good fire back in. call this a strategy of restoration. well, this strategy has now run its over 50-year course. and the prospects and problems of its foundational doctrine, fire by prescription, are better understood. which leads to a consideration of what might the next 50 years hold. the strategy seems to be congealing in the west that we might label resilience. it seeks to make the best of the hand we are being dealt. so let me consider these strategies in turn. resistance. there remains an old guard who would like to return to the former order. and there are more progressive thinkers who want to upgrade that tradition into an all-hazard emergency service model. effectively, urban fire departments in the woods. or in a national sense, a kind of coast guard for the interior. well, this makes sense in your primary land use is urban or

ex-urban, but it's expensive, and it has not shown it can manage fires. if it retains the strengths of fire suppression it also magnifies suppression's weaknesses. restoration. restoration, too has upgraded its mission from the simple hope that prescribed fire might substitute for wildfire. we now embrace as complex collaborations, supplements prescribed burning with other treatments, and tries to operate on the scale of landscapes. the determination endures however, to get ahead of the problem. yet the vision has proved costly not only in money but in political and social capital. there is little reason to believe that the country will muster the will to rehabilitate at the rate or the scale required the tens of millions of acres believed out of whack. resilience. in the west a strategy is emerging that accepts that we are unlikely to get ahead of the problems coming at us.

instead, it allows for the management of wildland fires to shift where feasible from attempts at direct control to more indirect reliance on confining and containing outbreaks. of course, there are some fires that simply bolt away from the moment of ignition, and there are some that threaten people or critical sites right from the onset. but many fires offer opportunities to back off and burn out. these are not let burns. rather fire officers concentrate their efforts at point protection where assets are most valuable. elsewhere, they will try to pick places draw boxes which they can hold with minimum expenses, risks and damages. well, this strategy is compatible with federal policy and in many respects moves in directions long urged by critics, though it can look like a mash-up. and the outcomes will be mixed because the fires are patchy. some patches will burn more severely than we would like.

some patches may hardly burn at all. but the rest will likely burn within a range of tolerance. such burnouts may well be the future of prescribed fire in the west. so without wishing to push an analogy too closely, we might liken the resistance strategy to iraq. the restoration strategy to scissors and the resilience strategy to paper. at any given time and place, one trumps another and is, in turn, trumped. we need all three. we need rocks around our prized assets and communities when they are threatened by going fires. we need scissors to buffer against bad burns and nudge toward good ones. and we need paper because the ideal can be the enemy of the good and a mixed strategy that includes boxing and burning may be the best that we can hope for. thank you. >> thank you, dr. pine. dr. hood. welcome.

>> good morning senator murkowski and other members of the committee. thank you for inviting me here today. my name is sharon hood. i'm a post-doctoral researcher at the university of montana. previously i worked as a forest service ecologist prior to earning my ph.d. at the university of montana in 2014. fire and native bark beetles have huge impacts on conifer forests across the country. my testimony focuses on fire and thinning can reese ponderosa pine resistance to mount pine beetle but also that thinning is not a substitute for fire. ponderosa pine is adapted to survive frequent low-severity fire, a type of fire that burns through the forest's understory but generally causes little mortality to larger trees. however, lack of fire since the late 1800s has increased tree density and changed species' composition in many areas. we continue to actively suppress the majority of wildfires today.

however, there is recent acknowledgment such as the 2014 national action plan for the national cohesive wildland fire management strategy that we must allow more fires to burn to promote healthy forests restill yant to wildfire, insects, disease and drought. to achieve the goal of allowing more fires to burn we must accept the critical role of fire as a natural ecological process. my research supports the need for frequent low-severity fire and ponderosa pine forest in three ways. one, low-severity fire increases resin ducts. these ducts are used by trees to make resin or pitch that helps resist bark beetle attacks. and trees with more ducts are more likely to survive attack. two, when frequent low-severity fires remove from ponderosa pine forests, resin duct defenses decline over time. and three, low-severity fire acts as a natural thinning agent to reduce forest density. this also promotes an increase in resin duct defenses that

increases resistance to mountain pine beetle. i examined the facts of thinning and fire on resistance to a mountain pine beetle outbreak at a long-term study site in western montana. these treatments were originally designed treatments were originally designed to study how to effectively restore ponderosa pine information rests and increase resilience to wildfire oig.rests and increase resilience to wildfire oig. resin dugts increased and remained higher than the control and bush only treatments throughout the length ever the study. mortality differed markedly and in the control 50% of the ponderosa pine was killed in the outbreak compared with 20% in the burn only and almost no mortality and the thin only and thin burn combination treatments. high levels of douglas fir in both the control and burn only treatments due to over 100 years of fire exclusion coupled with a high pine mortality has reduced

stand resilience beyond the ability to return to a penonderosa pine dominated facility. a forest type where there is strong scientific support that frequent low and mixa varity fires were someone's common. further research is needed to determine types throughout the u.s.. i found thinning with and without prescribed fire increased resistance greatly reducing tree mortality. in the long term however thinning with prescribed fire created the most resilient forest by stimulating tree defenses and through the beneficial effects of killing understory vegetation these and other critical ecological effects cannot be replicated by thinning alone. but thinning is a useful and oftentimes necessary restoration and management tool. fire is crucial for long term

maintenance of low to mid elevation fire. through both impacts on forest structure and composition and by stimulating defenses that can increase tree survival from bart beetle attacks. there is no one size fix all approach. proactive restoration treatments should aim to increase forest resilience to a multitude of stressors and foster conditions to burn under more natural tendencies. these findings are supported in other literature. thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today. >> thank you, dr. hood. mr. eisley, welcome. >> items an honor for me to be here today.an honor for me to be here today. i've been involved with fire my

entire life. started as a volunteer firefighter. i'd like to think of myself as a student of fire. i've learned in southern california that we will always have extreme fire weather, we will always have a drought but there will always be i gognitions and they are plentiful and random. so the driver of the entire system is fuel. young fuel does not burp very well or very fast even under extreme conditions. old fuel conversely burns extremely hot and extremely well and extremely fast. for example, the origin -- age of the origin of fires in san diego county the past -- since 1950, the average age of the fuel where the big fires start was 71 years.

we don't find any fire starting in fuels less than 20 years old that go to become major fires. next page. the fire problem in san diego county has gotten worse and it's kind of leading the nation again. california is not a good spot to be in the lead, but what we've seen in california in the past 50 years is becoming the norm in the western united states. so i see two main issues with the fire. fire and cost. we recognize that the fire problem is the fuels. we're now treating close to 2% of the hazardous fuels which is a 50 year rotation cycle which means that as we're doing a great job we're not even getting close. we need to be doubling at least our fuel treatment. and it has to be mechanical and fire because it is the force of overgrown to the point that the

fire will not thin them. it has to be thinned and then maintained thin with the fire. we need projects picked pie forest service multi-disciplinary teams, not just fire, but forest health people soeshciologists, riching assk assessments. we need to use our dollars wisely. we're on the fourth year for the 20,000 ager eis document. people are gaming the system on nepa. it's a good idea. we need to be doing it. but we're not building a shopping center. we're mitigating the damage to the forests. the budget process, i point out that there is a fema does a plan

for state and local and tribal governments when the fires meet a certain criteria. fema picks up 75% of the cost. seems like they could do that for the federal agencies also, or somewhat similar. we can reduce the cost of fires by managing them better and i think there is a technological asset here. we need to be al to have the guy on the ground with the laptop computer that can predict where the fire is going and then measure the results of what they're doing based on that. we need to know where the fire is. haurd hard to believe we don't know because we can't see them through the smoke and we can't map them. and they need to map them in the first day, no the threet three days later. so i believe that technology will go a long way to managing things like managing the fire and then managing the air assets. we can model where aircraft are good and effective and where

they're not so good. we can then let the fire managers make those kinds of decisions based on sound science. and a safety issue with our firefighters, every so often, we wind up having a disaster like yarnell hill. we need to know where the fire is, we need to know where the firefighters are and the people that are supervising those sffs need to have an app in their hand that shows them where everybody is on the ground. that's totally doable, it would have to be satellite based. but just knowing where they are doesn't help. it's the guy in charge needs to know where they are. so i've put a bunch of other suggestions inside my testimony and i appreciate the opportunity to comment today. >> thank you.

and last we'll question to mr. helen. welcome to the committee. >> members respect thank you, thank you for the opportunity to testify. my name is bruce hollin. for over 100 years, salt river project has provided a reliable water supply to metropolitan fee thiks phoenix. srp rating 7 dams, 1300 miles of canals and numerous ground water wells. we're also fend ebtdependent on the health of a 13,000 mile watershed and protecting these head waters has been a priority. around the turn of the 20th century, watershed protection efforts focused on ensuring development in timber harvests

were woreconducted in a way that reserved water supply. today it's causing catastrophic water fires that threaten the sustain ability and quality of tricking water for millions of arizona. this situation is not unique to arizona. we're working closely with the national water resources association and others who are facing similar threats to their head waters. catastrophic fire has severe and long term impacts to watersheds which are felt far beyond the area directly impacted by the fire. en like theunlike the low intensity fire seen in healthy forests the aftermath we're experiencing as a result of the unnatural forest conditions increased sediment loads and debris that reduced storage capacity at our reservoirs and affect the pre-difficult ability of runoff. water quality is deteriorate as a result of fire activity.ability of runoff. water quality is deteriorate as

a result of fire activity. increased organics have led to increased capital and operational costs at city water treatment plants. these treatment facilities have been upgraded to handle the increased levels at cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. we know from science and experience exactly what needs to be done to mitigate these impacts. we know that we need to act quickly to thin overcrowded and unhealthy forests. we know we need to establish a forest products industry to carry out treatments and create an economy around forest restoration. and we know we need public policy at all levels of government to facilitate and invest this forest restoration. srp is actively involved in efforts efforts in all of these areas through our engagement in public/private partnerships. for example, we have started a forest fund in partnership with the national forest foundation to raise funds and