pensions. and second, governments have not set aside enough money to pay for those pensions. the shortfall tpwaoepb -- the shortfall between the money promised and the money set aside is called underfunding. that is a sterile accounting term that means we don't have enough money to pay the bills. where i come from that's called being broke. it is bad enough when you go broke because you have been irresponsible with your own money. yet, it is a tragedy when governments go broke being irresponsible with taxpayer money. that is what i fear we are watching as this public pension crisis unfolds. there have been many studies in recent years of a public pension crisis. there is no question about whether this crisis exists. the only question is the magnitude of the crisis. one study by scholars at the

kellog university indicates underfunded plans are underfunded by $3 trillion. analysts at the brookings substitute said public pensions are $2.5 trillion in the red. a study found by itself california has a $240 billion pension shortfall. you heard that right. california alone has a pension debt of $250 billion. some estimated illinois is in even worse financial shape. if the states and localities do not act aggressively to address these shortfalls, then the question will not be whether the states will become insolvent but when. regardless of whose numbers and which study gets the closest to the mark, there is no denying that public employee pensions face a multitrillion-dollar shortfall in the aggregate. though none will deny this shortfall, some will seek to shift the blame and shirk responsibility for this crisis.

i want to nip in the bud one of the arguments of those interests that would prefer to ignore this crisis. they will argue that this is not a problem of too many pension promises and the underfunding of those promises. they will try to divert attention from the fact that public employee pensions have too often not been funded on a sound basis. instead they will say that the pension funding problem is owing to the 2008 economic crisis and the big businesses that they say caused it. this is way off the mark. but don't trust me. trust the numbers. this pension shortfall existed before the recession and an attempt to lay blame at the feet of wall street or big business or some other group is just blame shifting. one aspect of the problem is the governments have been slow and public employees have been resistent to transitioning to the types of retirement plans that private-sector workers have been living with for years. the rest of the world has moved

toward 401(k)-style plans called defined contribution plans. these plans, costs are lower and more predictable, and they fit well with an increasingly mobile and dynamic workforce. yet, governments have remained wedded to expensive traditional pension plans for far too long. these old-style traditional pension plans define benefit plans owe a monthly payment for life to each employee regardless of how much money the government has set aside. regardless of how well the pension assets have been invested and regardless of whether the ratio of active workers to retirees has remained stable. for most private companies, these plans proved simply unsustainable. and over time, they moved towards more flexible retirement plans for employees. as usual, government is slow. it is slow to innovate and slow

to adapt. so even though these defined benefit plans had the potential to cause enormous financial problems for governments, governments stuck with them. private companies learned long ago that traditional pension plans are too expensive for most businesses. in 1985, 80% of medium and large private companies had a traditional pension plan. today just 30% have a traditional plan. by contrast, 84% of state and local government workers are covered by high-cost traditional pension plans. and government is not just any employee -- employer. governments only exist because of taxpayers. ultimately taxpayers are the employers of government employees. yet, these governments are living in the past and playing irresponsibly with taxpayer money and leaving taxpayers to

foot the bill for too many lifetime pension promises. so why do these lifetime pension guarantees continue? there are many reasons. but at the top of the list is the unique character of government as an employer. private employers moved away from traditional pensions to more affordable 401(k)-style plans because they can't stay in business if they ignore economic reality. yet, governments have kept their unaffordable traditional plans often because public employee unions use taxpayer-funded union days to elect state and local politicians and ask the same politicians they just elected for costly pension deals. when a union bargains with a private employer, employer and employees has an interest in the business continuing as a viable enterprise. if the benefits are costly and

under controllable, the business goes under and everyone is out of a job. but where are -- where the interests are in a negotiation between a public employee union and the person they just helped to elect to office, where are those interests? union bosses are sitting across the table from the governor of the state. the governor they helped to elect with millions in campaign contributions and they ask them for a costly guaranteed lifetime retirement package often with little or no cost sharing by the public employee. what is a politician going to say? sorry, but i can't help you? i doubt. it i want to read you something from the "wall street journal" on october 22, 2010, prior to the last elections the journal carried a story about the roll of the -- was playing in that election. according to the journal --

quote -- "the american federation of state, county and municipal employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections. 1.6 million member is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the democrat's hold on congress. last week taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. the group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign dealings and other political efforts. we're the big dog said larry scanland, but we don't like to brag, unquote. we're the big dog? that about sums it up. and when the big dog back, it expects the people it helped elect to jump. why do you think they are spending all of this money? because public employment unions

care about global warming. richard trumpka, the head of the afl-cio, man who i respect, has said that he talks with the white house every day and visits a couple of times a week. why do people think he's doing that? playing pickup basketball with the president? he's talking about how to benefit his unions. and lately that means public employee unions. there were some recent reports suggesting that organizing for america, democratic national committee project, designed to reelect president obama, was helping to foment the protests in wisconsin. these unions are spending big-time money to elect politicians because they know the politicians will deliver big-time benefits. but the chickens are coming home to roost as we are seeing in state after state, the markets have something to say about these exclusive relationships

and the benefits they secure. the credit rating agencies have announced that they will begin factoring unfunded pension obligations into the calculations they use to rate the creditworthiness of states. this is significant because the total value of state bond debt is estimated to be aroun around $1 billion while pension debt is at least two or three times that amount. state credit ratings reveal another aspect of state budget crisis. the five states that prohibit collected bargaining over retirement benefits has moody's highest credit rating. california an illinois, which allow collective bargaining over retirement benefits for public employees have the lowest credit rating among the 50 states. the next four lowest states also allow collective bargaining. illinoii'll in the -- illinois'e

worst state of all. the illinois situation is so dire that for the last two years the state has had to borrow money just to make its pension contributions. and this year illinois had to pay a 2% higher interest rate just to borrow money to contribute to its pension program. now, this is madness and it cannot go on forever. 30 years ago the federal government moved away from an expensive, traditional pension plan. and setup a basic pension plan in combination with the 401(k) designed contribution plan. the system has worked well so far, although at some point we might need to reform federal pensions too. some forward-looking states have been moving to 401(k) style plans. in my home state of utah the traditional pension plan is being replaced. new employees are given a choice between a 401(k) style of plan

and hybrid plan with a combination of traditional and 401(k) style features. last year the governor of new jersey added a 401(k) plan for a portion of the new jersey workforce. in kansas the governor sam brownback and the kansas legislature are studying the possibility of converting their pension system into a 401(k) style plan. in wisconsin the governor asked the state study the feasibility of establishing a 401(k) style plan. there are many potential solutions to the public pension crisis and all of them should receive consideration. we should be encouraging these courageous governors own rather than demonizing them and demagoguing this issue. i would like to congratulate the governor of wisconsin for his issue on public employee benefits. the victory he secured last week is really significant.

he stood responsibly for long-term interest of his state rather than doing the easy thing and caving under the pressure of union-organized protests and the childish disrespectful lawmakers who fled the state. governor walker understands that our greater enemy is delay. the director of the pew center on the states has said while these problems are significant, they can be solved if we act now. but if we wait, the crisis will become unmanageable. mr. president, it is my intention as ranking member of the finance committee to find a way to address the public pension crises if state and local governments don't step up to the plate. ripe under no illusions that -- i'm under no illusions that this will be an easy task. there are many potential solutions that must be studied and some will not be pleasant.

some of my colleagues have a proposal to address the problem, and i will be working with them as well. i do not have all of the answers yet and i have not settled for what really are the best solutions, but we are working hard and talking to the experts about the best way to proceed. i'm sure of one thing, however, and i want to be 100% clear about this, there will be no federal bailout of any state or local government. let me just repeat that. no federal bailout. just last month, after illinois sold its high-interest bonds, the governor indicated that he plans to ask for a federal guarantee. governor, you can save your breath. the answer is no. we cut -- we cannot ask taxpayers and rest of the country to pay for underfunded pensions in illinois, california or any other state that made promises that it clearly cannot keep. to do so would be more than unfair. it would be immoral.

a federal bailout cannot help and it will not happen. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. kirk: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kirk: mr. president, i rise

today to speak about the deteriorating human rights situation in iran. we understand that isfahan ahram masiri, the iranian president of medicine -- mahmud ahmadinejed's chief of staff will be arriving in the united states as soon as tomorrow. he is a close friend and trusted advisor of president ahmadinejed. he is someone who has worked closely with president ahmadinejed since 1982 when ahmadinejed was governor in koy in west azerbaijan and the intelligence administrator appointed him as the security team for the kurdistan region next door. since then, masiri has been a member of the ahmadinejed inner circle. the world knows of president ahmadinejed's public incitement

against jews and israel. infamously, including his pledge to -- quote -- wipe israel off the face of the map, but the world may not know of the virulent anti-israel and antisemitic views of his trusted advisor. in 2008, mr. masiri told sudanese president bashir, -- quote -- "the corrupt and criminal zionist regime is harming not only the islamic world but humanity in its entirety. in order to save humanity from its different crises, there is no other way other than limiting of zionist influence on human society because the root and origin of most of the world's current crises are related to zionism. shortly after the discredited iranian presidential election of june, 2009, mr. mashaei was appointed as the presidential chief of staff after a very

brief and unsuccessful attempt to serve as the vice president of iran. since then, the persecution and repression of people in iran has steadily increased. thousands of peaceful protesters, dissidents and activists have been detained after mr. mashaei became chief of staff. now, let there be no doubt, mr. mashaei, like his president, is directly responsible for human rights abuses in iran. he should not be granted a visa to enter the united states of america, and he, like his president, should be designated under u.s. law as a human rights abuser in iran. mr. mashaei's visit will come just four days after the united nations secretary-general released an interim report on human rights in iran. the report states -- quote -- "the human rights situation in

iran has been marked by intensified crackdowns on human rights defenders. women's rights activists, journalists and government opponents. concerns about torture, arbitrary detentions and unfair trials continue to be raised by u.n. human rights mechanisms. additionally, they said discrimination persisted against minority groups, and in some cases amounting to persecution. they said a worrying trend is the increased number of cases in which political prisoners are accused of mohavrit. that is, amnity against god, an offense which under their law is punishable by death. at least 22 people charged with the mohavrit have been executed since january, 2010, underthey

are man's administration. journalists, bloggers, human rights defenders and lawyers continue to be arrested or subjected to travel bans. blogs and websites are restricted. and now there are more than ten national dailies that have been shut down and refused -- because they refused to toe the official line under this man. the concern remains over the lack of human rights due process rights and a failure to respect any of the rights of detainees, particularly the u.n. wrote there are concerns expressed at routine practice of incommunicado detention, the use of solitary confinement of individuals without any charge. finally they said -- quote -- "concerns were expressed in public about people sentenced to death, often who do not have access to any legal

representation. families and lawyers are not even informed of the execution." the report continues to detail iranian persecution of religious minorities, especially those of the baha'i faith. the report notes concern for six members of the baha'i community arrested by officials from the intelligence ministry in the months of june and july, 2010, and seven baha'i community leaders recently sentenced to ten years in prison. regarding iran's persecution of the kurdish minority, the report notes -- quote -- "members of the kurdish community have continued to be executed on various national security related charges, including mohavrit. at least nine kurdish political prisoners, including jafar kazemi, muhammad alagar and ali

saramei were executed since 2010, and several others remain at risk of execution. regarding iran's persecution of christians, we read -- the report also continues to be received about christians in particular, converts being subjected to arbitrary arrest and harassment. the secretary-general's report follows others by our own state department and human rights groups like amnesty international and human rights watch. while we expect the state department to release its 2010 country human rights report on march 25, here are a few highlights from their 2009 report on iran. they said -- quote -- "security forces were implicated in custodial debts and killings of election protesters and committed other acts of politically motivated violence, including torture, beatings and

rape." the state department wrote, "the government administered severely officially sanctioned punishments, including death by stoning, amputation and flogging." authorities responded to all demonstrations with raids on opposition activists' offices. they wrote, "some prison facilities, including the infamous evan prison in tehran, were notorious for cruel and prolonged torture of political opponents of the government." authorities also maintained -- quote -- unofficial, unquote, secret prisons and detention centers outside the national prison system where abuse regularly occurred. the government reportedly used torture, including prolonged solitary confinement and extreme sensory deprivation, especially on political prisoners, often in detention centers outside the

control of prison authorities, including section 209 of evan prison. the government threatened, harassed and arrested individuals who posted comments critical of the government on the internet, and in some cases it reportedly confiscated passports or arrested family members. these are all official comments by our own state department on the human rights situation in iran, just in 2009 as this man administered the chief of staff's office. but amnesty international also added its voice. the 2010 report on human rights in iran states with the following summary -- "an intensified clampdown on political protests preceded and also following the presidential election in june whose outcome was widely disputed, deepening the long-standing patterns of suppression. security forces, particularly

the paramilitary basij used excessive force against administrators. dozens of people were killed or fatally injured. authorities suppressed freedom of expression to an unprecedented level, blocking mobile and terrestial phone networks and internet communications. well over 5,000 people have been detained by the end of the year. many were tortured, including some who were alleged to have been raped in detention or otherwise ill treated. some died of their injuries. dozens were then prosecuted in grossly unfair mass show trials. most were sentenced to prison terms, but at least six were sentenced to death. amnesty goes on, the election-related violations occurred against a background of severe repression which persisted through 2009 and whose victims included members of ethnic and religious minorities, students, human rights defenders

and advocates of political reform. women continued to face severe discrimination under the law under the practice and women's rights campaigners were harassed, arrested and imprisoned. torture and other ill treatment of detainees remain rife, and at least 12 people died in custody. detainees were systematically denied access to lawyers, medical care and their families, and many faced unfair trials. now, other groups have weighed in, particularly human rights watch who wrote in their 2011 report, -- quote -- ," iran's human rights case crisis deepened as the government sought to consolidate its power following the 2009 disputed presidential election. public demonstrations waned after security forces used live ammunition to suppress protesters in late 2009, resulting in the death of at least seven protesters, and i

would add we all rather naida who was killed online. authorities announced their security forces had arrested more than 6,000 individuals after june, 2009. hundreds, including lawyers, rights defenders, journalists, civil society activists and opposition leaders, remain in detention without charge. since the election crackdown last year, well over a thousand people have fled iran to seek asylum in neighboring countries. interrogators used torture to extract confessions, and the judiciary relied on sentencing people to lofton prison terms and death sentences. restrictions on freedom of expression and association as well as religious and other gender-based discrimination continue unabated. the report continued, authorities systemically use torture to coerce confessions.

student activist abdullah mohmeni wrote to supreme leader ayatollah khomeini in september, describing the torture he suffered at the hands of jailers. at this writing, no high-level official has been prosecuted for torture, ill treatment and deaths of the three detainees held at kazrak detention center after june, 2009. we should not let these violations go unnoticed, nor can we continue to turn a blind eye to countless prisoners of conscience. fighting for basic human dignity under this brutal dictatorship. it's time we make a stand for people like nazrim situde, detained for her work as a human rights lawyer, human rights activist and defender of children who face capital charges. hussein rinagi mialik, who was

detained for his work as a blogger and human rights activist. he has been refused medical treatment despite kidney failure. firiba kalambati, jamal kanjani, said raji, tag akoli, and mavash sibet. these are all detained leaders of the baha'i community, jailed solely for their baha'i faith. now, as of today, the precise whereabouts of opposition leaders mahi karubi and mir hussein kasabi and their respective wives remain unknown following their arrests and detention in february. meanwhile, according to international human rights organizations, the whereabouts of hundreds of iranians, including journalists and

political activists arrested just before the february 14 opposition protest remain unknown. to each of them, i would echo president reagan's words. i came here to give you strength, but it is you who have strengthened me. now, as we approach iran's new year celebration of naruz, it's important for the president to demonstrate our administration's commitment to the human rights of the people of iran. we know that the iranian president mahmud ahmadinejed ahmadinejed and the iranian presidential chief of staff mashaei and other senior government officials are directly responsible and complicit in ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing the commission of serious human rights abuses against the people of iran on or after june 12, 2009. now, pursuant to executive order

13553 and the comprehensive iran sanctions accountability and divestment act of 2010, the president should designate these individuals as human rights abusers and affirm core american values of freedom, democracy and human rights. and i would just end by quoting from section 105 of the comprehensive iran sanctions accountability and divestment act of 2010, signed by the president into law last year. it requires that the executive branch produce a list of persons who are responsible or complicit in certain human rights abuses. it says not later than 90 days after the enactment of this act, the president shall submit to appropriate congressional committees a list of persons who are officials of the government of iran or persons acting on behalf of the government,

including members of paramilitary organizations such as ansar-e h. resolution and the bosi mohafin, that they determine based on credible evidence are responsible for, complicit in, responsible for ordering, controlling or otherwise directing the commission of serious human rights abuses against the citizens of iran or their family members on or after june 12, 2009, regardless of whether such abuses occurred in iran or not. clearly, this official, about to arrive in the united states, meets the standard under section 105 of sosada, and the u.s. administration should designate him as an abuser of human rights. he should not be admitted entry into the united states. and we should call it the way we see it, which is this is one of the most dangerous and human

rights abusing officials that we know of. comprehensive data now exists from human rights watch, from amnesty international, even from the united nations on what this man has directed. he should not be given a visa and he should be so listed under u.s. law. with that, i yield back. and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president, i i -- the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. a senator: mr. president, i move to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i rise to speak on an issue that i feel like i've spent a lot of time talking about in recent years but without much effect on either of the last two administrations.

mr. blunt: this is the issue of the iran sanction act -- sanctions act. congress has worked in a bipartisan way to strengthen and expand the iran sanctions act, but in spite of our repeated efforts, the administration just hasn't been willing to use the tools that the congress has given them. in my mind, and i'm sure in the minds of a great many of my colleagues, nothing would be more destabilizing to the mideast region and to the mild eastern security or global security than iran's development of a nuclear weapon. i won't spend a lost time here talking about why that is because i doubt there's any member of this body that isn't aware of how dangerous this situation is 0 or could be. which is why it's even more frustrating that we haven't been able to get the administration to push a more robust set of sanctions using the sanction policy and the sanction tools

that we've given them. during the 15 years between the time the iran and libya sanctions act was passed in 1996 and last year, no meaningful applications of these sanctions was ever adopted. from 1996 until last year, no meaningful application has ever been adopted. in 2006, i worked closely with the bush administration to pass a bill known as the iran freedom support act to improve the menu and the choices of sanctions available to that administration and future administrations. under that bill, congress codified some of the executive actions that president clinton and president bush appropriately took and ensured that these tools became more permanent. last year, alarmed again at the administration's disinterest in using the sanctions available to it, congress again acted to tighten our sanctions policy.

the congress sunsetted the state department's period of investigatory review to ensure that once an investigation is launched it has to be concluded. it's now up to the obama administration to pursue a vigorous sanctions policy that sends the message to iran that you are isolated in the world and the worlt world will not toe this nuclear program. on march 26, 2009, i sent a letter to secretary clinton asking for clarification on why the administration had not fully implemented sanctions against iran. i sent a similar letter to secretary rice in 2007, suggesting -- in fact stating that the bush administration was similarly delinquent in its enforcement efforts. we have given them the tools but simply these administrations in both cases have not used those tools. fortunately, we now see the first indications that we're

beginning to head in the right direction. last fall the state department announced sanctions against naftaran, a swiss subsidiary of the national iranian oil company. and in an appearance before the senate that i was at with secretary clinton just a few days ago, i was positive about my sense that this was a big step in the right direction but really only one step, since the iran sanctions act -- this is the first time ever, mr. president, that the act has been used. and i'm pleased it's been used, but remember it is the first time ever it's been used. this act, to make it even more important that it's being used and frustrating it hasn't been used, this act by the state department had immediate effect as i and many others have been suggesting that it would since the passage of these tools to

the administration. within days of the state department's actions against naftaran, and according to news reports at the time, european firms such as dutch, royal dutch shale, total, state oil and italy e.n.i. announced they would pull operations out of iran's energy sector. exactly the kind of that the congress hoped this would have. on december 29, 2010, deputy steinberg announced investigation into firms that had not yet announced the petroleum sefrpblgt while the full list of these firms remains classified, public reports suggest that list includes at least a dozen firms, many of which are chinese, including the

chinese national offshore oil company, chinese national petroleum company, and unipec. other firms come from germany, from turkey and from venezuela. the list also includes the industrial bank of china, the china construction bank, agricultural bank of china and the bank of china, which are reportedly providing financial services to iranian interest in violation of the comprehensive iran sanctions act. under the law that now governs our sanctions policy, the state department has six months to complete these investigations before announcing whether these entities will face sanctions. these notifications are due by march 29 of this year. i'm very hopeful that the state department report sends the right message on march 29. it's been a long time for those of us who have advocated that this kind of action would

produce the right kind of results. u.s. sanction policy should complement the international sanctions effort underway at the u.n. and other international venues. there is no reason we can't pursue a strategic sanctions policy that ensures that companies operating in the united states or affiliated with u.s. entities don't invest in iran's energy sector. it's time we demonstrated that we're really serious about this before it's too late. we have taken now the first step in the right direction. it's produced exactly the results we had hoped those steps would take. and now i and others anxiously await the report that will come out between now and march 29 to see what the next steps are and then we'll be looking carefully to see what the reaction to those actions are. i hope that we do continue to show that we're really serious,

that sanctions will only work if the nations involved, and particularly the united states, follows its own policies and uses its own tools. madam president, i notice the absence of a quorum as i conclude my remarks. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. murkowski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: i request proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you, madam president. i have come to the floor this evening to discuss america's tremendous natural resource potential and to again highlight the fact that if we choose to, we can absolutely produce more of our energy to meet more of our nation's needs. i also want to address an argument that is often made in opposition to new domestic production because i believe that each and every member of this chamber needs to know the facts and the consequences of our current approach. without a doubt, understanding how much energy we have is at

the very foundation of an energy policy. and, madam president, you sit on the energy committee with me, we talk about our nation's energy policy. we talk about an all of of the above, a balanced energy portfolio. so it is important to understand what it is that we have. for resources like wind and solar, it's pretty easy. they're renewable so we should never run out. but for conventional resources which make up about 83% of the energy that america consumes, it's a different story. oil and natural gas and coal aren't located on the surface of the earth, so we don't exactly know what it is that we have and where we have it. we've got to look around for it. finding and quantifying our resources is a tough enough task. adding to the complexity is the litany of the technical terms that are used to describe them.

they are proved resources, probable reserves, possible reserves, unproved reserves and our demonstrated reserve base. and then we move into the resources which are different from the reserves. and that list includes eight more categories. and every one of them means something different. and i'd imagine that most people don't have a great understanding of these terms. by and large, i suppose that's fine unless you happen to be a member of the united states senate, because we are tasked with helping to formulate our nation's energy policy. we need to know the details and the distinctions. before we make critical decisions that affect the price and the source of our energy supply, it's our responsibility to know what our experts think that we actually have in this country. to help gain a better understanding of our nation's energy base, senator inhofe of oklahoma and i requested a report from the congressional

research service. the report was first released back in october of 2009, and then just in november the c.r.s. experts updated that report, and it's entitled "u.s. fossil fuel resources terminology reporting and summary." fascinating, i'm sure. it actually is fascinating, and it should be required reading for each and every member of the senate. education is not the only reason that we released this report, though. we also hope that it will help to set the record straight. too many of the facts presented here, particularly about energy, are based upon foregone conclusions. and in some people's minds, we're supposedly, supposedly running out of oil, well, because we've always been running out of oil. so at our request, c.r.s. also surveyed existing government estimates to determine just

exactly how much conventional energy that we think we might really have. and i think most would find the results surprising. the truth is our experts don't believe that we are on the verge of running out of oil, out of natural gas or of coal. far from it. according to the government's own estimates, the united states actually has the largest fossil fuel endowment in the world. that's worth repeating. here in the united states we have the largest fossil fuel endowment in the world, larger than russia, far larger than countries like saudi arabia and china. and within our own endowment is an incredible source of oil, an estimated 163 billion barrels of technically recoverable resources. again, going back to that terminology. 163 billion barrels of

technically recoverable resources would be enough to maintain current production for more than 60 years. we have huge volumes of natural gas, potentially more than two thousand trillion cubic feet which would last for today's rate of consumption. madam president, our unrivaled. our supply will last for more than 200 years. i'll put up a -- a chart here that kind of speaks to what we're looking at in terms of proven reserves and -- and recoverable reserves. when we're talking about oil. back to the c.r.s. report, they found that we have a tremendous range of -- of sub economic resources that are not yet commercialized including an estimated 100 billion barrels of

heavy oil, more than 800 billion barrels of shale oil, and up to 320 quadrillion cubic feet of methane hydrates. for oil shale, that's over 100 years worth of conventional oil. for methane hig hydrates that cd be a million years of natural gas if we endeavor ways to find ways to produce . it -- produce it. looking at the chart, because i'm throwing out a lot of numbers, a lot of years, it's kind of tough to get your -- your arms around all of it, but if you look -- if you look to the share of proven reserves only within our country, it's about 28 billion barrels of oil, 17%. the rest of america's recoverable oil, or

135 billion barrels, 83% of what it is estimated that we have within this country, our reserves are for all intents and purposes off limits to us. so the share of proven reserves that we're talking about, the 20 -- excuse me the 17% versus the 83% of -- of recoverable oil that is off-limits to us, the numbers in the c.r.s. report are our best expert's best estimates on how much we have out there, how much oil, how much natural gas, how much coal and the unconventional fossil fuels that lie here within the united states, and these numbers can be obtained by anybody who works in congress, anybody who's capable of navigating on my website, go to senator inhofe's website. and i do hope that members here in the chamber will make good use of them. because not only does this

report provide objective figures for the senate to use, it also -- it also casts serious doubt on many of the false targets that are made against new domestic production. and so i think it's important to recognize, again, what it is that we have. this is -- this is not any classified secret. these are the -- these are the reserves that -- that we know that exist. i -- i want to give a couple of specifics here, if i might. when -- when we -- when we hear about some of the -- the language or the statements that are made and are accepted as -- as fact, there's a claim that's heard regularly here on the senate floor. i even heard it used by the president last week when he said that the united states has just 2% of the world's oil reserves, but consumes 25% of the world's oil. well, that line is designed

to -- to make its audience think that the united states is both running out of oil and also using oil at an unsustainable rate. but the truth is government officials have claimed that here in the united states we've been running out of oil since about 1919, but we're still the world's third largest producer behind russia, behind saudi arabia, but we're well ahead of everybody else. so if you think back to the categories that i named earlier, and i'm talking about the different categories of reserves, you can see why simply referring to reserves is misleading because those account for only a very small sliver of our total oil. so to classify -- classify a barrel of -- a barrel of oil as a reserve, you -- you literally have to drill and prove that it is there. and so by definition, that excludes all the lands that have never been explored.

so that's the big chunk of the pie here. it excludes a huge range of places where we believe there is oil and in the end it dramatically underestimates our nation's oil resources. consider this, the united states proved oil reserves, the share of proven reserves over here, the 17%, are proved -- our proved oil reserves have never exceeded 40 billion barrels. but over the past 110 years that the united states had been producing, we have managed to produce nearly 200 billion barrels of oil. so on the books we say there's only 40 billion barrels, but we've been producing nearly 200 billion barrels of oil over the past century. that alone should -- should show -- cast the doubt on -- on

the words of so many. so arguing that we have just 2% of the world's oil is like arguing that your -- your checking account, but -- your much larger savings account counts only towards your net worth. i'm only going to count what's in my checking account. i'm not going to count what's in my savings account. but, in reality, i have all of this. i have the whole -- the whole combination. the reality is if you've got money in both accounts, neither provides a a complete picture -- a complete picture by itself. oil is much the same way. between 2008 and 2009 our reserves actually rose by more than 8% even as we produced about two billion barrels of oil, and that was made possible by our substantial resource base. so why claim that america is running out of oil when it's not

the case? the easiest explanation is that it's an attempt to turn perception into reality. if americans can be convinced that we have no oil, we'll stop demanding that our government allow access to it instead of running out of oil, they'll simply stop producing it. and in some people's minds, regardless of the economic consequences, the end result will be the same. and the reason i'm so encouraged by this c.r.s. resource report and why i'm encouraging other members to review it, and the reason i'm so disappointed by continued claims that america has nearly exhausted its resource weth is that a true understanding of our potential points the way to a viable national policy. instead of locking up our lands, we need to open up, we need to bring more of our own resources to market and doing so will not only allow us to increase

domestic production, but also decrease domestic consumption. and these steps aren't mutually exclusive. given our energy and our fiscal challenges, they're actually dependent on one another. and let me put it into context a different way. for years alaska's congressional delegation has sought to allow 2,000 acres of the nonwilderness portion of anwr to be opened to development. and usually when we talk about anwr, we talk about how much new oil production could result probably somewhere between 800,000 and a million barrels a day. that would help us out at this time. but left out of that conversation are the tremendous revenues that would accrue to the federal government. according to c.r.s., those revenues would reach more than 150 billion. i'll repeat the number again because we're looking for dollars around here. 150 billion -- $150 billion at today's oil prices and if we use

those revenues wisely, -- if we use them wisely, we could make great progress on domestic production. right now there is a bill from the michigan delegation that would increase the incentives for electric vehicles by an estimated $19 billion. great idea. but the problem -- what's the problem? the reason the bill's not going to go anywhere because there's no way to pay for it right now. now, think about what would happen if we brought anwr into the conversation, we could fully fund invennives to -- incentives to put upwards of 20 million electric vehicle ons the road. we -- vehicles on the road. we could protect our most valuable resource, which is the american taxpayer. at the end of the day our decision to produce more of our own oil would be matched by oil

consumption thanked to advanced vehicle that's we deploy from the revenues from oil production. by holding back production, we hold back progress. and for far too long i believe that anti-production arguments have prevented congress from developing a coherent energy policy. we see them again today. they say, oh, it's the speculators or oh, producers aren't using the lands that are already leased. but today we're also seeing the consequences of those arguments. higher gasoline prices, a weaker economy, and a lot of international standing. and the longer our nation waits to develop its resources, the longer we wait to create new jobs, to improve our energy security, to pay down the debt, to invest in next generation technologies. the longer we decide it's acceptable to import oil instead of producing our own, the longer we will continue to export our wealth, export our jobs, and the

other benefits of production to other nations much c.r.s.'s new report on america's true energy potential should, i think, be an eye opener to us. and i intend to circulate a copy to every senate office. i encourage my colleagues to take a few minutes, look through this report, understand what it means for our energy policy and then join me to make sure that this congress takes advantage of the opportunity that it presents. madam president, i see that the majority leader is on the floor. i have a -- a short statement recognizing the phenomenal historical win of -- of the iditarod race, john baker, the first alaska native to win the iditarod in 35 years. the iditarod has been around for 39 years. he made it to nome on the

thousand-mile-plus iditarod trail. he made it to nome in record time. eight days, 19 hours, 46 minutes and 39 seconds on the trail. the fastest time in the iditarod history. we are exceptionally -- exceptionally proud of -- of john baker and i have a statement that i will submit in its entirety into the record. i had an opportunity to be with john baker and his phenomenal dog team as they were preparing to leave from anchorage two weeks ago. and john said it's -- it's my time, lisa, it's my time. and he has been in the top 10 for 11 tries now and we're exceptionally proud of him. not only proud of -- of john baker and his -- his approach to

care of his dogs and -- and his team, but we're proud of the canine athletes. he has a couple of lead dogs, velvet and snicker that are pretty incredible -- mr. reid: if my friend would yield. i got a call from one of the sects. why don't you give your state. i would be interested in it. murkowski i will share it with -- mrs. murkowski: i appreciate your indulgence. i, again, speak on behalf of not only john maker as a -- john baker as a great athlete, but his canine athletes. when the mushers lead out of the start in -- in willow, they leave with about 16 dogs on the team. and these are -- are remarkable animals who love nothing more than to be on the trail and to be mushing. and his team demonstrated a -- a

resolve and a commitment and just a dedication to -- to not only their musher, mr. baker, but just to what the whole sport of dog mushing is -- is all about. for those who follow the ey iditarod trail, you know this is not for the -- for the weak. this is -- this is over exceptionally rugged terrain, oftentimes in exceptionally rugged circumstances where you have arctic winds howling down off of the coast, blizzards that provide for -- for whiteouts, going down passes that -- that cause encounters that flip you over and break sleds an break bones. -- and break bones. it is not for the timid. but alaska brings out some exceptional individuals.

there were 62 teams that mushed from -- from willow to -- to nome this year and they're -- they're still out there on the trail as we speak. we wish those that are still coming in, we wish them well along the way. we had some -- some accidents, but there's never an iditarod that we don't seem to have mother nature intervening in one way or another. the good news for us is that those that have had happenstances whether it was a broken collarbone or a happenstance with a knife, those men are doing fine and the dogs, again, are coming in and doing fine. mr. reid: madam president, would my friend yield for a question? a senator: yes. mr. reid: they had a great piece on public radio before the race started. it was really very, very good about why the race takes place. i wanted to find out if what i

understood with that radio piece is valid. wherever the race winds up was a place they were in badly need of some kind of serum because there was an illness there, dip theorthere or whatever it was. i don't really remember. they had no way of getting the medicine there. some person decided that -- some person decided that what they could do without machines, they could do with dogs, and that they took the medicine there and saved all these lives. is that valid? ms. murkowski: you watched that report well. mr. reid: i listened to it well. it was on the radio. ms. murkowski: you listened to it well and you heard it right. it was an outbreak of diphtheria in nome, and there was no way to get the diphtheria serum to the residents of nome. there was a true and honest scare in the middle of the

winter, and the concern was that if they were to -- to take it through the -- a regular route during the winter months, it would not get there in time to save the residents of nome. the airfields were not sufficient, they could not travel by air because we didn't have the airfields back in the 1920's, and so it was a team of of -- of dogs that -- that did a relay across the -- the state, and they delivered the serum in time, saved the town, and this race has been resurrected, if you will, to commemorate the last great race to nome, is what it's called, but to commemorate the -- the delivery of the serum to act as -- as what would save that community. it's -- it's quite a remarkable story in our state's history. mr. reid: madam president, i hesitate saying this because i

will probably get in trouble, but this is a good reason why the house vote was bad today to disband public radio, because it was such a wonderful piece. i didn't know that. ms. murkowski: i, too, will take an opportunity to plug public radio, because you heard the piece on npr, but in my home state and in many of the villages that we're talking about where -- where these teams will go through on their way to nome, it -- it truly is the public broadcast system that is their means of communication. mr. reid: i've heard ted stevens talk about this. ms. murkowski: mukluk radio, mukluk telegraph is what we would call it. it was a way to convey birthday greetings to people in the next village. it was a way to say i made it -- i made it back from hunting camp safely. it's a way of communication.

people don't often recognize that in many parts of our state and certainly along parts of where these teams are traveling right now, we don't have a level of communication that we see here in washington, d.c., or in most parts of the country. so that's our plug for public radio. i appreciate that -- that -- mr. reid: the only radio station i can get in the daytime in search light is public radio. ms. murkowski: there you have it. madam president, i appreciate the indulgence of the majority leader, and again i send my -- my warmest well wishes to -- to john baker and his team. i will be greeting the mushers in nome on sunday at the mushers banquet, and i just can't wait. so i thank you for the time that you have given me and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 48, that the

nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. with no intervening action or debate. that no further motions be in order to the nomination, any statements to the nomination be printed in the record. that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that on monday, march 28, at 4:30 p.m., the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 40. that there be one hour for debate equally divided in the usual form. that upon use or yielding back of that time, the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on calendar number 40. the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order, that any related statements be printed in the record and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. that the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 51 and the senate now proceed to that

matter. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 51, recognizing the 190th anniversary of the independence of greece and celebrating greek and american democracy. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate and any statements relating to this matter be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask that we proceed to s. res. 105. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 105, to condemn the december 19, 2010, elections in belarus and to call for the immediate release of all political prisoners and for new elections that meet international standards. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: madam president, i now ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table,

there be no intervening action or debate and any statements relating to this matter be placed in the record as if given. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask that we proceed to s. res. 106. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 106, recognizing the 100th anniversary of the triangle shirtwaist company fire in new york city on march 25, 1911, and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, that any statements relating to this matter be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask that we proceed to s. res. 107. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 107, designating april 4, 2011, as national association of junior auction i willaries day. mr. reid: i ask unanimous

consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask, madam president, unanimous consent that we proceed to h. con. res. 30. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h. con. res. 30, providing for a conditional adjournment of the house of representatives and a conditional recess or adjournment of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate, that any statements relating to this matter be placed in the record as if given. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that during the adjournment of the senate, the majority leader, senator rockefeller and senator webb be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or resolutions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming recess or adjournment of the senate, the president of the senate, the president pro tempore of the senate, the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments

to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, and interparliamentary conference authorized by law, the concurrent action of the two houses or by order of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn under the provisions of h. con. res. 30 until 2:00 p.m. on march 28, which is a monday, following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for use later in the day. that following any leader remarks, there be a period of morning business until 3:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. following morning business, the senate resume consideration of s. 493, the small business jobs bill. finally, i ask that at 4:30 p.m., the senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of mae d'agostino, to be united states district judge for the northern district of new york as provided under a previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: so, madam president, 5:30 on the monday that we

return, there will be a vote on the confirmation of d'agostino. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned under the provisions of h. con. res. the provisions of h. con. res.

now stuff directors from the house and the senate transportation committee on congressional plans for a long term transportation funding bill. both republicans and democrats spoke at the american public transportation association legislative conference this week in washington. this is just under an hour and >> good afternoon, everybody. for those of you who don't know me my name is chris. for those of you who know me as being the voice of the mta for the last 21 years that's not the case this time. this is my 75th day dealing with government strategic partnerships for the general contractors association of new york, and i'm looking forward to a continuing relationships but also taking a new perspective and bringing a new perspective to the transit will and

discussion today based on my work of the general contractors. today we are joined by a really terrific panel, a group of folks many of you know having worked with them closely over the last few years. these are the folks that work on previous authorization bills and worked closely with us and listened to us and had i think constructive dialogue, and if we look forward to hearing from today in terms of where we are going and what to expect and what the dialogue would be in the future because things are hopefully going to heat up in the authorization world. so let me introduce the folks here today. to my right, you're left is mitch warren, the majority professional staff member of the senate committee on banking and urban affairs and next to mitch is shannon hynes, the minority professional staff member of the

senate come under urban affairs and the far end is word, the minority counsel for the house committee on the transportation infrastructure. joyce who is going to be with us called a little while ago and is stock and will not be able to be here, but we are going to ask ward to take the republican and democratic side of the house and vigorously against himself. so, all these staffers have tremendous experience in this area having written pieces of safety luke and even some bills before that how far back you go and how many dulce for, it's quite a few, so i'm not going to say how many years ago. today we are going to do is let each of them talked about what it is they are working on, but i would like to do is ask them to

give me their impressions in a different way, a different spin and very personal spin. at the general contractors i represent about 7,000 private-sector folks in the heavy construction industry, and in new york most of the heavy construction about 70% of it is transit construction, heavy tunneling, foundation work and so on and they generate an additional 20,000 per referral jobs in the area. their motto is we built new york and they've done that for over 100 years but there are general contracting organizations that build illinois projects, texas projects, florida projects, every state has the equivalent of what we had coming and these folks are people you know. they are your brother, your cousin, your friend.

maybe they are some of you. right now the thing people don't know is in the heavy construction industry which is part of the heavy transit family there is a much higher unemployment rate than the work force in general. and i surprised some folks when i asked how high the unemployment rate is. we are a of a 8.9% across the board in terms of the regular work force. in the construction industry of new york about 40% unemployment rate in new york and we are doing a lot of work in new york, long island but closer to 40%, hudson valley 40%. i think the numbers are similar in other places. the anxiety in the industry is that a lot of the work that has been done over the last few years is starting to dry up and what i mean is they want me to explain to them what is happening, why the pipeline is

drying up, and where we are going in the future because the one thing they provide aside from their hard work is they leave good stuff behind. they leave behind infrastructure that will be there for generations. in the context of that what i want to ask my panelist friend is to do is help me explain to my 7,000 heavy construction contractors with this means in layman's terms to them. so mitch, in five words or less can you do that? [laughter] anyway, so the first one just happens to be mitch and as i told you he's with the senate banking committee and is a veteran of the banking committee. he's done a lot of great work. he formerly worked on capitol hill in a variety of roles. he worked for senator lautenberg and he also worked in the private sector as the transportation consultant and

was actually acted on the the legislative committee in the washington area of transportation industry representatives group. so mitch, if you can kick off the discussion and then maybe when we are through all of our panel members will have time for questions from the audience. agreed. >> thank you for having me. i think most of you are aware that the banking committee has been going through a transition over the past couple of months from our former chairman senator chris dodd to the current chairman, senator ken johnson. i think under chairman johnson you will continue to see the banking committee be very supportive of the transit industry trying to help all of you do your job and providing the transit service to the millions of americans who depend on it. senator johnson certainly has seen at home and in south dakota the importance of the public transportation in rural areas and the smaller communities. and if you look at the roster members on the committee, people like senator chuck schumer from new york and senator menendez from new jersey, senator merkley

from oregon, the senator from colorado, cementer read from a violent, senator brown from ohio, there's a whole list that goes on of senators on the committee who represent larger metropolitan areas who really depend on transit and want to continue to see the committee make the transit a priority. as far as the reauthorization bill, i'm not going to make any news here. the honest answer is that nobody knows what's going to happen with that. i think that many of us especially in light of some of things crist said we would like to see a stronger long-term bill with substantial funding levels. it to the needs of their last year the fda this study that there was a backlog in transnet for $70 billion a projected that backlog is going to increase. especially if we don't have increases in transit funding.

and you look at the employment and the construction industry the numbers nationally are about 20% - which is incredible. you look at some of the bids coming in for our projects and they are consistently, we have heard coming in below the expectations. basically we have a situation where infrastructure is on a salary now and the prices are right. there's a lot of people out there who need jobs. we can create a good much needed short-term jobs, just short term but in the coming years while at the same time investing in the nation's future and investing in future economic growth over the long term for the country. that being said, as important as all this is, i feel we all recognize the challenging situation that we face in washington right now. we have a trust fund that seems to be consistently on the verge of bankruptcy these days.

we have a congress that is quite difficult to move the new spending and new revenue through, so there are challenges there. it is imperative upon all of us to continue to make the case for the transit. i think the discussions in the coming months on the budget will help to determine the length of the bill we can hope to pass. and in the meantime we have quit working on transit issues trying to work on the reauthorization proposal. last year we spent quite a bit of time drafting the public transportation safety act that was a bipartisan bill. we moved through the committee unfortunately and we were not able to move it through the senate, but we do conclude that in an authorization bill this year if we are able to move one. if we are not able to move one we will try to move that separately. we have made a lot of progress.

last year we had a symposium. we have leaders from the transit industry. i've seen many of those people here today come in and talk about the new process and some of their frustrations with the current process suggestions about how to improve it. in addition to the symposium we did many meetings with leaders from the industry and spent a lot of time working on streamlining the process. and we've put together a strong proposal there make it easier in the future for the communities and the transit agencies to move through the new process and to develop the new transit systems. so we are continuing to work another partisan basis on transit legislation so that when we are ready to move the bill we will have a good product and people to move forward. i think the bottom line that we all need to be looking at as we talk about transportation, as we talk about funding levels

there's a number of realities, and member trends that the nation is facing that highlight the importance of the public transportation. we are familiar with the transportation and for the the cut institute studies on the impact of congestion and some of the costs and the most recent one estimated 115 billion a year in lost time and fuel as a result of the congestion in the metropolitan areas and that's only projected to get worse and you combine that with projections of the population growth and we are going to have over 100 million new americans between now and 2015 and a lot of them are going to be in the same metropolitan areas that are suffering that congestion, so unless we do something sycophant on the transportation and particularly on the public transportation we are going to have problems. we need to increase the number of people using public transportation to share of people using publishers perdition if we are going to address the gridlock that's

coming. that gridlock is going to have negative consequences for future economic growth and people's quality-of-life and we need to do our best to make sure we are ahead of the curve. in the middle east have been facing it and it reminds us all of the important energy security and the unpredictability of the oil supply which are rising towards $4 a gallon right now, and i think we are all familiar with some of the studies that have been done that show the access to the public transportation can save households a lot of money in the transportation costs and that is particularly important as we do get to the $4 a gallon gasoline. we need to make sure as many people as possible have a good public transportation alternatives so that they can address the household budgets and some of the challenges they are going to be facing with the 4-dollar gasoline. if you look at the demographic trend, the aging of the population, the first of the

beebee boomers are hitting 65 and over the coming decades we are going to see the fastest-growing part of the population is people for 65, 75, 85, and a lot of the americans aren't going to be able to drive and are going to need to get medical care, going to need to go shopping and are going to need to live near public transportation. they would like to live within walking distance of public transportation so that's going to become increasingly important. the other side of the spectrum will get the millennial or the boomers the housing preferences and some of their predecessor generations, and it's clear that they want to live near transit. 81% of the millennials survey said they wanted to have a house near public transportation.

if you look at all of that together in the demand for the public transportation and for communities with good public transportation is increasing. so when you add up the rise of the millennial, the aging of the baby boomers, the growing metropolitan congestion, 70 billion-dollar backlog in the stated repair, 100 billion population increase, the importance of energy security, rising gas prices, concerns about climate change, it adds up to we need a lot more transit, investing transnet. we need to make progress if we are going to have the transit that people and the nation is going to demand. it's critical to get out there and make the case for the members of congress and about the transit in particular to make the case about the importance of investing and transportation more generally. we have fy 11 appropriations

process that's going on. the house proposal does make some fairly substantial cuts to the public transportation. let's hope the final product keeps the cut to a minimum. the fy 12 appropriations process is going to be another tough one. there's going to be pressure on spending. we need to try to protect the transit funding in that and obviously and we have to make the case for the importance of investing and public transportation, transportation in general in and transportation bills we can try to get a well funded long-term authorization bill done this congress. thank you for having us and for being here. keep up the work on your end and make the case and hopefully we will have some success. >> let me as our next speaker,

shannon is in unique position that she represents not only the ranking member in the senate banking committee, senator shelby but also senator shelby is a senior member of the appropriations committee. so she has got both sides of this issue, and as we know the guaranteed funding issue has kind of changed the dynamic in the last few months and from the authorizing side, so shannon, mitch said he worked closely together all this stuff and maybe get your perspective on where you guys are doing. >> we have been working very closely together, senator shelby is excited about chairman taking over the banking committee. he's worked closely over the years with senator sarbanes and

senator dodd and expect that cooperation will continue with senator johnson. the of the long history working together so we are excited about what's going to happen and we are going to be able to complete the reauthorization bill. but as we all know, there is a significant issue with respect to the funding, and that is just the biggest issue that's facing all of us and until we figure out how we're going to settle that we are in the position we've been in the past couple of years until we figure out how to move forward on the funding side as well as on the policy side. chris asked us to address a little bit about how he would explain to his members, so that kind of threw off the whole speech issue. [laughter] so i will try to explain and talk a little bit about how i would explain, and i would say first and foremost from senator

shall be's perspective, the administration sent a budget that has a significant increase in funding and for the presumably the next authorization bill. they've also shifted all of the transportation funding into the highway trust fund. as we all know, the trust fund has some issues with solvency and i'm not sure how we are going to shove that extra stuff into the trust fund plus as the categories and without any new revenue streams. so i think that is a significant shortcoming. and it's disappointing we have received a quote on quote reauthorization proposal without any need on the bones. ..

how we kidding greece the revenues into the trust fund and he strongly believes that we really need to look at the proposals whether it a vmt or some other kind of effort to bring more money in, into the trust fund. now that said senator shelby has also said he does not support a gas tax increase but it is difficult. the amount of money that you would have to raise and a gas tax to provide a significant level of funding, to provide a significant amount of infrastructure spending that folks are talking about could be devastating to the regular people, everyday people who drive in have to put gas in their cars to get to and from work or the babysitter or at the hospital or at the doctor or

whatever it is. so, he really believes we should look at as many options as are possible to try and figure out how to move forward. the other thing that senator shelby as many of you know have will -- has long advocated is this prospect of innovative financing and public credit partnership. public private partnerships have been senator shelby pot smoke touchdown for many years and i can see lots of people shaking their heads. i am now see many of you enough to know you would say to me public transformation can't be finances same way and we recognize that. public private partnerships don't work in all places just like toll roads still work in all places. you have to be willing to consider the option and public-private partnerships aren't just about capital investments. they are all across the board. you see in places all over the country where public companies have come in to run transit systems or do maintenance or any kind of cooperation with the

private sector is a public-private partnership. those efficiencies can work to maximize your dollar and make your dollar go further. and all that senator shelby is saying is that nothing should be at the table right now. when everybody is talking about cutting we have to be willing to consider all of the options to figure out how to make our dollars go further and so that is a really important component of any reauthorization bill to him and he recognizes that it is not the only way that you can pay for the bill. it is not going to solve all the problems. it is not a panacea. the other thing that is not a panacea is an infrastructure bank which a lot of folks have talked about. infrastructure bank is the way to go. it is the same set of issues. there have been a number of proposals the administration has had a couple of iterations of an infrastructure bank.

congresswoman delauro has a proposal, former senator dodd and hagel had an infrastructure proposal and now senator kerry. to date senator shelby has not supported any of the infrastructure bank proposals. we saw how that worked out with fannie and freddie and we don't need that again. and many of them re-create the wheel. and they don't really do enough to reinvest infrastructure. and so what he said is he is willing to talk but we need to figure out new and different ways to do this. if what you are going to do is re-create the wheel then just do a program. let's create a program. is working well. people finally know how to use it and that is not the -- infrastructures not the only way

you can promote muddy modalism. you provide access to all kinds of other transportation in you provide access to daycare and two hospitals, two bikes, two cars, trains, two buses. it is all there and it all works together. and we think in moving forward in considering the multimodal component in talking about infrastructure spending that folks need to look at public transportation. so that when we talk about building highways and access points and investing in these really large or even rural projects, that we need to bring all of the pieces to the table. a lot of what we talked about last year was livable communities. senator shelby has his doubts about livable communities.

if they are planned by the federal government but they work really well when they been planned at a local level. when they are are locally driven decision so bringing all of those pieces to the table helps maximize your dollars and helps bring economic development and all of the pieces and parts that you guys are used to doing and looking at so we encourage you to bring your ideas and ring your successes to us. how you have gone out and sought funding and how you have achieved the multimodal components, how you have gotten other participants and players to work with you so that we can try and form a program or a proposal that works so that we can figure out how to move ahead in the future with the limited resources that we have. i think that is generally it. hopefully we are going to move forward. >> i memorized all of that so i can tell the construction guys

back home exactly how this is but that is very good and an interesting bipartisan discussion about how to handle this issue and i think that is the one asset that we have in our part of the domestic budget world, is that both sides kind of work together nicely and that is why our next speaker is going to be able to discuss -- both sides without speaking out of both sides of his mouth. he is an old friend to me and to many of you. he has been with the committee for a long time although he has a new boss now, who is congressman joe rahall from west virginia but he has been with the t&i committee through congressman oberstar and perhaps some of his predecessors, and over the years has worked closely with with the republican side of the aisle now to mecca but we don't expect you to give joyce's presentation maybe you could give us a sense of what you are thinking from what you are hearing on listening tours

and all that kind of stuff and whatever else it is that i can bring back to my members. >> thank you very much for having me and it is great to be back. it has been several years for me. good to be back here and very much enjoying the conference so far. i think the short answer to chris's question of why is this taking so long and what can you tell your contractors is that at least from my perspective having been through a couple of these before is this one is different and it is harder. the revenue question we have never really faced in the same way that we face in this bill and i think it is hard for people to understand how difficult that is right now even under our current funding levels let alone to increase them. our committee kind of like the senate a little bit is very much in transition.

we have a new republican majority in the house with chairman mica now taking over the committee and also a new ranking member with mr. rahall. and, mr. mica has begun the process of reauthorization by doing listening sessions around the country in some field hearings which is where the focus has been so there has been a lot of travel particularly to our new members districts, new committee members districts, to learn about the transportation issues from their local side and i think that is the beginning of a process of the authorization. but we are not really in the same spot necessarily we were in the last congress in terms of developing a bill at this point. i am able to talk more about kind of where we have been with the past bill in the last congress and kind of where we are going. because it is really going to be more i think outgrowth of this listening to her and the

republican majority kind of laying the frame for how we are going to proceed. there are three critical issues that we included in the authorization proposal that the committee move forward on a bipartisan basis in 2009. consolidation and termination of programs, trying to take on highway and transit and research and across the board safety and each of the different areas, there is a panoply of programs and special initiatives and trying to really take those and consolidate them into a much smaller set of programs but then also as part of that to build and performance, both reform its metrics to assess them and transparency and accountability to ensure that we are achieving specific goals as an outgrowth of that. i will go into those issues briefly but on those two sets of issues i think there is probably

going to be similar agreement and overall concepts or at least principles that we should do both of those things. i think the third issue is investment. and that is where i see almost complete diversions at least from where the administration is and what they have proposed and at least the kind of discussion and rhetoric we have heard from the republican majority in the house at terms of how to proceed on that issue. so, first with regard to consolidation, we took all of the highway and transit programs and took what were more than -- we consolidated or eliminated more than 75 programs and basically set up for core highway programs and for court transit programs that would focus on the state of disrepair through the urban and rural formula, rail modernization, access and mobility and new start construction. those four major groupings some

minor programs on the side to deal that deal with specific issues. i don't know it will be set up the exact same way but i think there is definitely a consensus that we need to move in that direction. we have too many niche programs in the transit arena. on performance and accountability, to me the great thing we have seen so far as been the recovery act. we included an enormous number of new requirements, which i am sure all of you are aware of in terms of the reporting under the recovery act, in terms of the number of jobs created, greater transparency in that process, not really as much performance metrics at that time but more reporting to better understand how the funding was being used, whether it was being used, how many jobs it was creating. i think you are going to see the transportation programs across the board moved move very much in that direction. because i think there is a great deal of interest in better

understanding how the federal resources are being used. and then lastly on investment, i think the key thing that we have seen at this point, i guess first you would need to begin with the context of where we are right now with the transit program at about $10.7 billion, about 8.4 billion of that comes from the highway trust fund from the mass transit accounts of the trust funds. but the revenues are only 5.1 billion, so we are greatly exceeding the expenditures each year of the revenues that are coming in. and although we have kind of restored some funds to the trust fund over the last several years, we are basically at a point where all the restorations that i'm aware of are done and now if we are getting additional funds from the general fund it is truly just a transfer at this point. and so, the transit program

could probably go at the current levels without any increase for not just this coming fiscal year, fiscal 12, but at some point in fiscal year 2013 it will run into a cash balance problem. the highway program is likely to run into some trouble earlier than the transit account so it is likely that in some form, congress is going to have to address the issue at some point in the next probably two to three years. i think in that frame we see the president with an extraordinary proposal in terms of the investment. it is doubling the transit program and fiscal year 2012 to eight 22 billion-dollar program when you include the economic boost elements of what the president has proposed. with $119 billion over six years

that is even more than the 99.8 million dollars we have proposed in the last congress and i think it is hard to overstate how important that is in terms of moving this forward. i think the other element from the president standpoint is we heard it in the state of the union. union. we have heard it in different forums over the last couple of years. at a personal level, the president you know really seems to understand transportation and its importance both to the economy and to people's lives. i don't think we can easily say that about prior presidents. i have been doing this for about 20 years and every and every state of the union i listen for the were transportation and i never hear it. so that part of it has been very refreshing. i think i'm kind of the opposite trajectory in the house, with

the new republican majority i think one of the concerns that we have is there doesn't seem to be any difference or recognition that there is a difference between spending and investment. it it is simply all spending and so there is no, and in fact the idea of of the word investment is disparaged as kind of that is just another word for spending. i think our members on the transportation committee have always recognized that there is a difference between long-term capital investment that will improve the economic fortunes of the country and create jobs and those that are simple operating expenditures been some ongoing program. with that, we are seeing in h.r. 1 which was the republican proposal to finish up the fiscal year, enormous cuts in

infrastructure including about a billion dollars of cuts in transit. i think at this point we need to see as we go through these couple of weeks and continuations right now, to see how the house in the senate and the president get to an end game on those but i think we are hopeful that the senate and the president will push back against those cuts and that we won't see significant transportation cuts as part of that proposal. and with that, i think it leaves i guess very different approaches from where we are right now and i think we will be very interested to see how the senate moves forward because they will be a third voice in this. and that will really -- help push the debate one way or the other in terms of how we are going to proceed given the current revenues to the trust

fund, the financial difficulty it faces, it seems as if you are faced with a very small set of choices, none of which are particularly politically popular right now. one is to cut the programs by 40% so you are only meeting your current revenue levels. another is to begin to transfer funds from the general fund to pay for the ongoing purposes of the program, but then the whole highway trust fund will lose its user fee nature and its special status. third, to find a way to come to agreement on revenues. i think that discussion needs to continue and that is really why this will be harder than it has been in past bills. we haven't had a gas tax increase since the 1980s that was really increase for the

purposes of transportation. all the other increases that were done in 90 and 93, those were done initially at least as part of deficit reduction and then transferred at subsequent points into the highway trust fund. so i don't see the gas tax as the immediate solution given the current economic situation. the that doesn't seem to be something anyone is interested in personally, but kind of what the other possible financing options are is a very open question and i think from our standpoint we are hopeful that people are willing to have that dialogue. and then last, in terms of how will this process go, our committee is also doing the federal aviation administration reauthorization, which is much further along in terms of the process right now, the legislative process. the senate has already passed a

bill this congress. both the house and senate passed those last congress but didn't reach agreement. the house has moved one through committee and that will come to the floor and probably within the next month. so, that is going to -- i think be instructed to how quickly do the two bodies reach resolution on differences? some of which will be funding levels and how in the end into the reach those differences and i think that will be at least partially instructive to how things will move forward in the surface transportation reauthorization which is much harder because it faces revenue issues that the aviation programs don't. thank you. >> thank you, ward. i am going to actually kick off some discussion, further discussion but if there are questions from the audience and you want to start winding up to the mics, feel free to do that. we are going to and this may be at 20 after, 25 after but you

all touched on really good issues. of course the global issue is what do we do about the revenue side of this because we really wouldn't be having this same discussion if we knew what the answers were to that question. and, i think the frustration level out in the industry whether it is transit or it is highways is, who is going to sound the first volley in the serious discussion? we have a tremendous proposal from the demonstration in terms of 550 billion-dollar proposal. on the other end of the spectrum, the revenue that is in the trust fund, if that is all we have to support the program, you know, there's a huge gap in between there that perhaps can be filled if we have some rational discussion. obviously, deficiencies. we didn't really talk much about how you make the process really

more streamlined so we can get the money out and in constructing the things in building the equipment and so for that we need. ppp's which may be a shame is that part of the answer but not the entire answer. infrastructure banks and you know again, maybe not the full solution. who is going to kick off the discussion? who is going to be the first one who is going to say here is the range of things? safetea-lu had recommendations for two commissions. he mentioned there were recommendations that came out that senator shelby was looking at. there was a lot of stuff in there. do you think there will be a debate and will it start with appropriators? who will let's start with? the ways and means committee? finance committee? we are going to need everyone involved. who wants to take that general question? >> i think a lot of this will depend on big picture budget discussions.

you know this is tough stuff and we are talking depending on how you look at the trust fund, if you want to do a six-year bill or something like 60 or $70 billion short i think, somewhere in the 50 to 70 billion-dollar range, so that is tough. there is going to be discussions going on about the fy11 process. we have the debt limit debate coming up. there is this gang of six right now that is meeting in the bipartisan basis to talk about are there ways to look at spending entitlements, revenues to address the debt -- debt issue so i think some of those bigger picture discussions in the coming months will really help to lay the groundwork. i think it is just hard for one committee to solve that problem and it is a much bigger picture robin. >> are all of you then discussing these issues with those colleagues, hopefully?

it will take a lot of these folks who kind of make this work or than just the authorizing committee. >> i think the discussion has begun. i mean it started when the reports were issued. i mean it open to debate. how robust that debate is or becomes is really contingent upon folks interest in actually moving forward with the bill. we talk a lot about really wanting a conference in reauthorization bill with levels that are significantly above the previous bill because we recognize that there is a significant amount of infrastructure investment that folks want and that is needed. but how serious that debate becomes really i think frankly will be led a little by politics and part of a broader discussion like mitch said of the budget because you are going to have to figure out where their priorities are and you are going to have to kind of backend

stacks of the speak with those priorities are and where you are willing to make those investments. >> well i think back on the same point i think the idea of of the a first of all a -- there is an going to be a first volley. i think is more it's more likely that parties either the rape broader budget discussions or even just a discussion on this bill come together to try to reach some idea of how to do this. i think the first step will be to get the house to agree that we need to significantly increase the investment. and the house majority to do that. i think if we have that agreement, then i think you will have in the house and senate and the administration come to a consensus but i think as we saw what the president's budget i don't think there is a great willingness for anyone politically right now to come out with the here's the revenue solution because i think the fear is no matter what it is,

the politics of that are just, there is very little upside to it. speak good discussion. let's have our first question are. >> one quick comment in one question. jolt wilensky with -- your them them -- a happy year ago i was in a small meeting with the lord mayor of london a financier position and he was looking for more of those in the united states saying there were only 19 in the country and didn't new england there is 900. they use it for everything, schools and libraries in the name of. i am sure there are opportunities. he could help build more capital projects i suppose. my question is, this may be too transparent but i wonder if there is any legs possible behind the thought of taxing oil at the barrel instead of gas at the gas pump?

where people lineup every day, even though the price of gas may go up 50 cents. they grumble but they pay it but it is wow the tax went up 5 cents and that is the end of the world. you can tax us but if it were taxed at the barrel they wouldn't see the tax of the gas pump and yet the revenue could still be coming in for helping to fund more transportation. i know that would affect people getting home heating oil as well and i don't know if there would be a way of working around that but i'm just curious about what has already been discussed and dismissed or if there's any possibility? >> i think it has been discussed previously. i don't think anything has ever been off the table when you talk about gas taxes begin where you tax. what is the point of taxation? the reality is people will feel it. home heating oil and other sectors will feel it. it will get passed on in some way, shape or form. the company will show her people will recognize that the price point is has just been shifted so they are taxing you at the barrel versus at the pub.

a tax is a tax so i think we have to get past that in figure out how to move forward and increase the revenue stream versus just trying to hide ball so to speak and my boss would say that is hiding the ball. >> a question, no jokes please. >> thank you. charlie rhodes. john this morning talked about performance measurements and that it's has been mentioned this afternoon. how much of an increase in the small transit intensive tier system -- tier would you expect in a new authorization bill? >> it talk about a loaded question. [laughter] i think performance measures are things that everybody is looking

more towards. what are the measures, what are the goals? how do you implement it across the board with respect to the transit programs that we have in place? it seems to be the buzzword and it sounds really good. we have kind of struggled with what are we measuring and why? what are our -- what are the outcomes we are seeking? the program has worked. can you apply that across the board? speaking directly to your question about how much do we expected to be increased? i will turn that over to mitch. [laughter] >> the new formula tables. formulas are not something we have gotten to. is hard to do for me was when you have no idea what the level of funding is going to be. so that certainly the stick program is something that we will be discussing what to do with it. you know, it is a program that tries to look at need and how

much transit service are you delivering, but we haven't gotten there yet in terms of what we are doing on formulas. >> we haven't either. [laughter] that is into the weeds, but let me just suggest aside from the global issues that have to is interested in like a six-year bill at good levels. you know, we had a reauthorization proposal that was hashed out over two or three years that has a lot of good specifics in there so we will make sure --. >> as we pursue new technologies for new transportation, in december of 2009, there was legislation proposed to allow fda to mandate, to develop safety standards for subways. unfortunately, this apparently was not enacted into law.

is there any hope for safety standards to be developed by legislators or -- in the future? >> well they did work on the public transportation safety act last year. i mentioned that senator shelby and senator dodd and senator menendez joined forces to put that legislation together. we pass it on a bipartisan basis through the committee. it did get held up at the end of the year in the senate unfortunately, but we do plan to bring back back if we are authorizing legislation. we are going to seek to included in authorized legislation and it is important enough that we'll try to move that separately. >> thank you. >> that has been an issue from the house side. chairman mica has not been supportive of it.

he has not been supportive of at least the administration's proposal and in essence kind of the senate's senate's proposal on that issue. he has wanted to do it from kind of the other and which is more to this state and safety oversight existing program to be fed up some. but again, i don't know now is chairman and it will be dependent on what the senate passes on that but that has been an issue where he has been in the past at least very up front as to opposition. and i think from an industry perspective, and i can't speak for everyone, i think the concern in the industry is how onerous it is circling the context of having less resources available and what is the endgame and what is advantage you are providing to increase safety and so forth? but why don't we take the next question? >> gary, board member for seven

transitional -- gas tax, two-part question. we have heard that the administration is in support of transportation, transit and so forth. this administration is also in support of alternative energies as well as alternative energy sources such as electric and alternative fuel. how is electric going to pay their fair share first question? second question is indexing of the gas tax. how do you feel indexing might be more palatable to the consumer? thank you. >> i like that you look at me immediately. [laughter] >> i will take this one. and i will dodge it pretty well. [laughter] obviously we have a big hole in terms of revenue into the trust

fund and it is such a big hole that it is really going to take bipartisan discussion to come up with it so probably that is for that process not to be two out in front on specific revenue but to try to figure out when we can at the right time have this bipartisan discussion, hopefully sooner rather than later. this is not going to be a quick turnaround kind of thing but everyone is going to have to get together and if we agreed that we want to continue with a program that is tied to revenues and we want to have a program that is larger than we have today or even as big, we are going to need to come up with a way to pay for that and it is not going to be easy and it is going to take some serious bipartisan were. >> but i will kind of addressed the first part of your question which is how does the alternative energy sector pay their fair share which is frankly not something we have discussed a lot of. we have had a lot of discussions

about a gas tax and increasing clean fuels, usage and alternative energy sources and those kinds of things, but there has not been a lot of discussion about bringing those other parties to the table and ensuring that they are paying into the trust fund or whatever it becomes in order to ensure that the program maintains the level of investment that it has over the years. >> that segment more than any other segment kind of drives the user pays philosophy all over again. an interesting discussion and debate and this is really good as we have one more question that we can fit in and one more question here. >> susan binder, cambridge systematics. one thing i want to say is congratulations. you got us off the hook of the hand to mouth, week two two to week week month-to-month business with an extension through september and that was really good so now you can concentrate on all of this

challenge, so don't fall back to the hand to mouth ways. but having said that it is probably a question more for the senate folks than you have the luxury ward of having so much under the jurisdiction of your committee. is there any thought to, in order to get the work done that has to be done, quickly, this summer before we get into real presidential politics of a multi-committee and dare i say a multi-chamber strategy? i mean the idea, a lot of folks in this town are saying we have to get all of this stuff done before august. got to get all of this done before all of that hits the fan. so come any thought of how you might speed that up and have you worked with commerce or at dpw or dare i say finance to answer these questions? >> certainly we have had

conversations. i mean we are all facing very tough issues. and it is going to require that all these committees work together. is going to require that both hearties work together. ultimately it will require the senate, the house and the white house and the administration work together. these are as i mentioned earlier, the challenges are real. this is getting new spending and new revenues out of this congress with a particular time is not an easy task and i think these discussions will help demonstrate what is possible to do. i think it is in every one's best interest if we can do a bill that provides substantial resources and provides more than a few years of time, but what is possible? i wish i could say more and speak or definitively that it is just going to be a tough situation but i think it is critical that all the committees work together and have got to get much broader beyond those

committees. >> i think you know better than anybody that it is kind of unheard of for epw and banking and finance to sit down in a room together and write a bill so to speak. so i think i would have to say from my perspective i have been heard of anybody considering sitting down together to write. [inaudible] >> it could be. for all of us to work together towards a common goal, unified timeframe? you know. i know you laugh but it is congress, come on. [laughter] >> interestingly enough i think if we go out and we thought he and susan your point is well taken, what i find is we end up pollinating a lot of stuff too bringing people together. i think a good thing about our panel and i know if he you want to add any thing on this or escape will you still have the a chance, but we are very, we are very grateful to have three

professionals like these folks here, mitch, shannon and ward who to talk to each other and more importantly they talk to us. even though we don't have time for more questions today, the good thing is they are all accessible. anytime u.s. they make themselves available for further discussion so with that, if you would join me in thanking them for being here. [applause] and that will be the end of our session. thank you. [applause] >> thank you all very much.

>> i put my toe in the water and now it is up to my neck and the feedback we have gotten from people across this country, tens of thousands who are willing to volunteer. >> this sunday at 6:30 and 9:30 p.m. eastern and pacific. >> if you recall in the 60s and 70s we were writing off urban america. >> captain rob has the nonprofit partnership for new york city major business leaders on how new york regain that position. >> with wall street's reemergence, new york city was

really pulled into the global economy and became america's gateway to that economy and has really ross bird ever since. >> watch the rest of the interview sunday night on c-span's q&a. >> now you can listen to c-span signature programming on your mp3 player. there is a story of the day from c-span radio's washington today, the blaze books and authors on after words. people in the news on newsmakers and interesting conversations on q&a. listen to a variety of public affairs podcast whenever you want. everything you need to know is on line at c-span.org/podcast. >> with gas prices averaging more than $3.50 a gallon, house committee looked at those rising prices and ways u.s. energy policy may be changed address the issue including increases in domestic production. here is part of today's hearing.

>> the committee will come to order. the chair announces the presence of a quorum. today the committee on natural resources is meeting to hear testimony on harnessing american resources to create jobs and address rising gasoline prices. domestic resources and economic impact. under rule 4f statements are limited to the chairman of the ranking member of the committee so they can year, so we can hear from our witnesses more clearly clearly so i ask unanimous consent that and a member that desires to have an opening statement in the record shall be granted. without objection so ordered. the chair will recognize himself for an opening statement. every american is feeling the pain from rising gasoline prices. there is no escaping it. it cost more to drive to work and it cost more to run errands.

cost more to take the kids to school. even those who don't own a car are paying more for groceries and other goods because of the transportation cost to get products to market. the natural resources committee has jurisdiction over all federal lands, both onshore and offshore. this is where the majority of americans energy reserves are located and also where the obama administration has done the most to block energy production. the purpose of today's hearing is to examine how to harness these energy resources on federal lands to help create jobs and address the issue of rising gasoline prices. a recent report from the congressional research service detailed just how large our energy reserves are in the united states. our combined recoverable oil and natural gas and coal resources totaled 1.3 trillion barrels of oil equivalent. the largest in the world, more than saudi arabia, china and

iran. this figure doesn't even account for our vast oil shale reserves and the less which the u.s. geological survey estimates to be greater than 1.5 trillion barrels of oil. the best way for the united states to insulate themselves long-term from unpredictable world events and rising gasoline prices is to produce more energy here at home. we have the resources to produce their own energy and we have the best and latest technology to accomplish it safely. but for some baffling reason this administration is choosing not to do so. says the president earliest days in office, his administration has blocked, delayed, hindered and obstructed energy production across america from coast to coast on shore and offshore all the way to alaska. this administration has canceled leases in utah, delayed oil shale production in colorado,

imposed a de facto moratorium on the gulf of mexico, blocked offshore energy in both the atlantic and pacific coasts, retroactively withdrew a permit or a coal mine in west virginia, blocked energy production on tribal lands throughout the country, and impeded oath onshore and offshore production in alaska. the list goes on and on. all of these action cost american jobs and lead to higher gasoline and energy prices. incredibly the president and the white house been telling a very different story. but their rhetoric doesn't match reality. the white house is even been touting statistics on increased u.s. oil production but they are trying to claim credit for actions that took place long before president obama took office. an increase in oil production today is the result of pro-energy policies of previous administrations, not this one. less production, higher gasoline

prices, jobs being shipped overseas and deeper dependence on foreign countries, these are the real results of this administrations policies. i am a firm believer in expanding all types of american energy from solar and wind to hydroand biomass however, oil and natural gas and coal are integral parts of our daily lives and their use for far more than just fuel and transportation. they enable millions of americans to heat their homes in the winter. they are essential ingredients in producing plastics, tires, farm fertilizers, computers and other high-tech devices. even black areas and iphones that members and staff can never seem to put down are in this category. i announced yesterday my intention to introduce bills that will help produce more energy by putting people in the gulf back to work in reversing this president's offshore drilling ban. these will be the first of several bills that will be introduced. we are working on it were array of specific proposal that will be introduced as part of the

american energy institute. really it all comes down to one very simple choice. do we want to produce our energy here in america and create american jobs or do we want to jeopardize our national security by deepening our reliance on foreign countries for energy? to me, the answer is not a difficult one. so with that, since i see the minority has, they have -- some of their members are not here. in fact i now know why. one of the ranking members is on the floor of the house i see so moderate innovation has allowed me to see that. you don't see it but i see it. when he comes back, we will give him the opportunity to make his statement. i am it fights we are going to have votes here in a short as 10 minutes. that happens in this process but i want to call the first panel and i see they are seated.

it the honorable richard g. newell administrator of the u.s. information administration, ms. brenda priced energy resources coordinator for the u.s. geological survey, mr. jean witney manager of the energy research congressional research service, and dr. michelle foss, chief energy economist at the university of texas, mr. guy caruso senior adviser energy and national security center for strategic and international studies and mr. frank rusco. i had two choices and i missed the first one there. director of energy and science issues for the gao. we will proceed with our panel right now and i would like to recognize richard newell and i might mention that under the rule that we have here we have a timing mechanism there. your full statement will appear in the record but i would like to ask you if you would keep your oral testimony to five

minutes. when the green light is on, it means you have up to four minutes. with a yellow light goes on there are 30 seconds and when the red light goes on i ask you to close up your remarks if you could. mr. noel you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and the committee today. the energy information information administration is the statistical and analytical agency within the u.s. department of energy. eia does not promote or take positions on policy issues and its independence with respect to the information and analysis we provide. there for our view should not be construed as representing those of the department of energy or other federal agencies. starting with the near-term element for oil and gas markets eia expects continued tightening of world oil markets over the next two years. particularly in light of recent events in north africa and the middle east the world's largest oil-producing region. latest forecast issued earlier this month projects that regular

gasoline at the retail pump will average $3.70 per gallon this summer and $3.56 per gallon for the entire year which is about 77 cents per gallon higher than last year's level. there is significant regional variation in gasoline prices and there is also significant uncertainty surrounding these forecasts as discussed in my written testimony. and considering how energy markets might be affected by the issue being considered in this hearing it is important to recognize important differences in the markets for oil and natural gas. the prices of oil and gasoline produced from it generally reflect conditions on the world oil market including the global balance between supply and demand and concerns related to actual and potential supply disruptions. and contrast the price of natural gas is largely determined by the balance of supply and demand in north america. for this reason i will address natural gas and oil separately starting with natural gas.

in 2010 overall u.s. natural gas production increased while prices were generally stable. we expect these trends to continue although natural gas prices can be volatile often due to weather related events. the current u.s. natural gas marker reflects the tremendous growth in shale gas production was more than doubled between 2008 and 2010 and in 2010 represented 22% of total natural gas production in the united states. u.s. approved reserve of natural gas grew by over 63% in the last decade and have now reached the highest level since 1971. eia sees considerable potential for continued growth in shale gas production in shale gas projected his eye nearly half of u.s. natural gas production by 2035. eia's 2011 annual energy outlook reference case which assumes the continuance of current laws and regulations, projects a continued increase in natural gas production over the next 25 years. with u.s. net imports of natural

gas expected to fall from 11% of consumption and 2010 to only about 1% of consumption by 2035. because domestic shale gas resources are located primarily under private and state lands, we would not expect access issues on federal lands to have a major effect on our projections for u.s. natural gas production reserves were prices. let me now turn to issues surrounding oil production in markets. and considering the effects of changes in future oil production it is important to recognize that resource access is not typically translate into immediate or near term production. in addition the impact on market prices depends not only on the magnitude and timing of actual production flows but also the magnitude relative to global liquid supply which is currently about 88 million barrels per day. in the short-term oil markets react constantly too many competing factors in the global context and it is extremely

difficult to disentangle the near-term impact of mid-to long-term development in the context of oil markets is the typical daily price movements in the range of one to 2% and much higher fluctuations at times. long term we would not expect additional volumes of oil that could flow from resources on federal lands due to greater access to have a large impact on oil and gasoline prices. this is due to the globally integrated nature of the world oil market and the more significant long-term responsiveness of oil demand and supply to price movements compared to short-term responsiveness. given the increasing importance of opec supply in the global oil supply and demand balance and other key issue is how opec production would respond to any increase in non-opec supply potentially offsetting direct price effect of increased u.s. production. of course greater domestic crude oil production no matter what the cost he had increased development, higher resource potential or wider application

of advanced technology, what impact local economic activity and oil imports. my recent testimony provides additional information on projections. mr. chairman and members of the committee this concludes my testimony and i would be happy to answer any questions. >> that is absolutely perfect timing, mr. noel. if that is a template for how we are going to do this is going to be wonderful hearing. [laughter] thank you very much. now the pressure is on ms. spears. you are now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and members the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to discuss with you the u.s. geological survey role in setting understanding and assessing domestic energy resources. the usg is conduct scientific investigations and assessments of geologically-based energy resources including conventional and unconventional resources. the mission of the usgs energy resources program is to understand the critical

formation accumulation of occurrence and alteration of geologically-based energy resources to conduct scientifically robust assessments of those resources and to study the impact of energy resource occurrence and/or production on the use of both environmental and human health. the results from the scientific studies are used to evaluate the quality and distribution of energy resource accumulations and to assess the energy resource potential of the nation exclusive of the federal offshore waters and a petroleum resource potential of the world. one important goal of the usgs domestic energy activities to conduct research and assessments of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources of the united states exclusive of the federal outer continental shelf. the amount of undiscovered technically recoverable resources changes over time because of advances in jill lockett understanding changes in technology and industry practices and other factors. this necessitates resource assessments ap article is dated taken into account such advances for great examples include the

usgs assessment of the rock information in the u.s. portion of the wilson base. viciousness emitted three to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered technical or recoverable oil compared to the usgs 1995 bean estimate of 151 million barrels of oil. are geologic understanding has involved since 1995 and significant technological advances redefined was technically recoverable in 2008 compared to 1995. another example is usgs assessment of gas hydrates on the alaskan north slope. as a result advances our understanding of the emerging research the usgs assessment estimates the mean of 85 14000000000000 cubic feet of technically recoverable gas from gas hydrates on the alaskan north slope. research challenges remain to determine if this technically recoverable resource will be economically recoverable current multi-organizational including the usgs and multidisciplinary efforts focusing on overcoming these obstacles. the usgs is conducting a

systematic inventory of the technically and economically recoverable coal resources of the significant mineable coal beds in the united states to provide a comprehensive estimate of how much of the nation's coal and down that is actually accessible for development and available under certain market conditions and money constraints. differs basing being assessed as the powder river basin of wyoming and montana. the is just assessment of the basin will be the most their own conference of inventory the nation's most significant coal-based today. this inventory with the others on the schedule will provide policy decision-makers with important information valuable planning tools. the usgs evaluates renewable resources such as geothermal energy part of the usgs completed the national geothermal resource assessment the first one in more than 30 years. the usgs assessment results indicate full development of conventional identified systems could expand geothermal power production by 260% of the currently installed geothermal total in the united states. the estimate for enhanced

geothermal systems is more than an order of magnitude larger than the combined estimates of both identified and undiscovered conventional geothermal resources. it successfully -- they could provide a.g. of emerald capacity copeland to half the current electrical capacity of the u.s.. energy resources research and assessments are traditional strength of the usgs. as the nation's energy mix evolves and usgs will continue to seek ways to expand its research and assessment portfolio to include a conference of suite of energy resources. -ese resources assessment and research can provide valuable information for the public and government discourse about the energy's resource future of the nation. the usgs looks forward to working with these challenges and opportunities. thank you for this opportunity provides an overview of research assessment of geologically-based energy resources and i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you are a much.

this is an all-star panel, i will tell you. the president of the of believes we have to be looking very very closely at the events in japan and as we said before, we have to apply whatever lessons that can be and will be learned. >> energy secretary stephen chu the nuclear regulatory commission chairman gregory asko run capitol hill testifying on the energy department's fiscal year 2012 budget a nuclear power safety issues following the earthquake and tsunami in japan. watch the complete hearing now on line at c-span video library. search, watch clip and share. is washington your way. ..