members to make sure that they are, you know, developing a way that is important technically and important in the northwest. >> i also wanted to get your comments quickly. and i think that senator wyden is making his way back here.

i will be happy to work with you and your office on that. >> i know my colleague at the beginning of his statement had a chance to talk to you about renewable energy as part of the

mix and portfolio. d.c. an opportunity looking back at some of the full resources not we have been talking about as a way to better streamline when you look at the marketplace and the way things are being financed for clean energy solutions do you see a better way for us to make continued progress on cui and energy solutions and the development of the technology? >> i'm certainly aware and interested in a number of discussions about different approaches such as extension of limited partnerships to queen energy if those proved to be here in those purchase those are others that can help move a lot of private capital into the game

would be very interesting and i would love to work on those with the members. >> i was thinking more in the sense of the small business administration has been a catalyst for lowering private sector dollars and by coming up with a very cost-effective cheap capital to help secure the private sector investment my question we've had a lot of this committee on the loan guarantee department of energy to sign off on the project but when you think of something anymore turn key style where a little bit of federal dollars could be leveraged 20 to 30 times by the private sector the model would be simple and the context on the renewable energy and electricity is that you actually have a revenue source because of the

power that is being generated so i wonder if you had thoughts about that. >> i'm going to need to listen on that and get more good ideas. but again the general idea of finding mechanisms especially to leverage private resources would be very effective. >> thank you so much. senator portman. >> thank you madam chair. you are a good filibuster. thank you for your time today and for having the ability to join me yesterday to have some good discussions about many of these issues i appreciate what you said earlier with senator udall on the small nuclear modular reactors as you know as the program is important to our state and energy future and in terms of low carbon future certainly nuclear power needs to play a role synnott print ask

more questions but i would like you to answer to say you do support the deployment and moving forward with the understanding we need to look at the cost. you also talked about fracking and horizontal drilling and i was here for part of your testimony as well as responses and questions and it's critically important to our state you and i talked about the importance for the energy future but also about the economy and specifically the renaissance of manufacturing or a least the potential if we don't screw it up manning having the feedstock is important for petrochemical business but also having that a formal study supply of natural gas is critical for other energy intensive industries and we are seeing some exciting possibilities and the country's being able to relocate back in the states and adam pletka the critical time as we've seen in the numbers we need those jobs badly. those are not questions i'm going to ask that you agree with

me why that a high u.s. put in place regulations we want to be sure it is done in a safe way and i would appreciate your sensitivity to that as well. an issue that has come out today already is enriched uranium and one of my colleagues on the republican side asked a question about the agreement and related the so-called american centrifuge project those are unrelated. it has to do with the agreement on the cleanup and its ongoing with the diffusion plant which is an ohio. the cost is significant and the chartering of uranium from the

stockpile has been critical to keep the project alive and we should all be for that because it enables us to ensure there is adequate funding for the waste disposal which will save the taxpayers' money over time and we also i think need to be clear that the stokely offsets an equal amount of funds but would otherwise be used and i want to clarify on the record the agreement which i support is critical to our cleanup efforts at the portsmouth plant is the one related to the agreement not the centrifuge technology. let me ask a quick question on that to you intend to continue this program understanding the stockpiles are limited? >> i believe there's an agreement in place that already has the full limits and that is part of an overall geranium strategy and the cleanup

strategy and our ability to pay for it. >> with regard to the american centrifuge project i've been involved in this for the last decade and it's something that he is critical to the energy security certainly to have but it's critical for the national security and a few days one we need for the nuclear arsenal and you are an expert on this even encourages me that you are setting up to take on this role because i think we've rate now need to focus on that issue and second of course with regard to the nuclear proliferation. it's impossible for us to do that. finally the nuclear navy. the nuclear navy reactor program depends on the senate rich uranium. as you know we have this technology in the plant that is being phased out requires a lot

of energy it 60-years-old and outdated technology when acknowledges:. one, to agree with the secretary that testify in this as the assistant secretary that the united states must have technology for the full the domestic source of enriched uranium to support for the reactor program. >> is a requirement that we have an american origin technology for the enrichment. >> that is my understanding, yes. >> so, again i appreciate your interest and involvement and i know you visited the plant before and i told you yesterday extended the invitation to visit again there are about 120 centrifuges and a place moving forward in the program which has been supported by the doe the expect to have the program

completed by the end of this year and at that point they will be amending their application will you focus on the supplication to ensure this loan guarantee program gets the attention that it deserves? >> yes, sir i ebullient certainly via -- as you implied the next months will be important to demonstrate the cascade performance. >> thank you. the final thing i would guess about as efficiency. i know the chairman that has now returned to talk about because it's always good to talk in front of the chairman about something that he has said can't you might have a hearing on the bill but he's indicated his interest in moving forward on the hearing which is legislation a former member of the committee introduced last year and we plan on reintroducing it. we think will be broadly supported by a broad range of individuals and companies and trade associations including on

the energy efficiency side but also a lot of manufacturers who are interested in the technology so i would ask you today would you be willing to work with us on that to ensure that energy efficiency becomes a focus of this congress and continue to focus? >> i would be very eager to do so. it is just an absolutely central part of our strategy going forward. >> i am concerned a little bit about what i see happening under the current leadership with regard to the list yet fixed manufacturing office the direction of the department seems to revolve a lot and it's changing as i see the clean energy manufacturing and a shift in the manufacturing office is an example according to the website it focuses on.

such as the carbon fiber and manufacturing and to me this seems like a shift away from the role of providing energy efficiency deploying technology so it's rather than the deployment and i know that some in the industrial sector are concerned about that. is this the mission of the evidence to manufacturing office? it seems like it is more the mission of the office of science, basic science. is it the role of the evidence manufacturing office to invest in manufacturing on solar panels for instance or is it more for the deployment of the technology? >> i think i'm going to have to study that if i am confirmed and try to understand the various roles. i do think that is important somewhere in a the department

certainly to support the manufacturing process cease because it is an important part of cost reduction, and second i think it's important to also do what i think you referred to and what was done 15 years ago in the program called industries of the future which was convening our energy intensive industries for to understand the road map to improve efficiency and save money for them and make them more competitive as a result. >> i think if you wouldn't mind taking a look at that that would be a much appreciated and you will find the industry programs i think that is the more appropriate for that office not suggesting science and research shouldn't also be done in other offices that this office is the one that exclusively is involved in this deployment of the technology and provide the road map for efficiency to revive overstepped my balance in terms

of time but i appreciate your indulgence me and think you for the comments on efficiency. >> i think you and senator shaheen have really been a model for going after energy in a bipartisan way. my view of the energy efficiency believable get up as strongly as we can because this is a path forward and there is bipartisan support so i look forward to working closely with you. >> center for north dakota. >> i came back because i wanted to you the inside for the questions on the distinguished senator from ohio but also to greet the doctor have so many have said appreciate your very open congenial attitude and that will translate into the working relationship as welcome.

d.c. diffracting across the country as the same in other words as hydraulic fracturing in new york and pennsylvania as a messenger with factoring in north dakota the same as hydraulic fracturing in texas is settled just the same? >> the entel hydraulic and fracturing however the applications are quite different. they are quite different. >> would use eight one-size-fits-all approach is the right approach? if it is completely different across the country as a federal one-size-fits-all approach for every situation work? >> they are very high level what

is i think needs to be uniform as best practices being used everywhere across the country. but those are will vary by site and there is no question the questions will have a very important role. the physical realities call for the states to be heavily engaged. >> dalia understand obviously it is the primary regulator. your responsibility is to help us develop energy and do it with good stewardship and that's what we want and we look forward to working with you on that endeavor but we are talking of the fact hydraulic fracturing is different across the country and a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work then d.c. opportunity for the states to really take the lead role in the

devotees incredible resources safeguards making sure that we have transparency, and obviously there are some things that may be common across the country but is in there an opportunity here to build on the state's first approached? >> when you say things like transparency that this kind of ubiquitous. clearly the company's coming in our evidence in the process according to the local geology it continues to be addressed and there is no doubt in the d.o.t. will not be involved in regulation but in terms of the

technology does cannot be applied in different ways and certainly looking at the integrated use and disposal of water where there may be research development that is quite helpful in the french ecology. >> we have to find ways to in power investments and that takes some flexibility but the end of investment you drive the technology deployment that produces more energy with better environmental stewardship you will have a role in doing that. how do you intend to promote that role? >> using hydraulic fracturing of the amazing opportunity that we've had. >> how do you propose to do it? >> in general looking forward i must say it would be wonderful

to replicate the historical success when the policies come together to have takeoff and a major part of the energy sector come as a wife and those are the kind of areas i but like to work with you and others. >> would you be willing to work with me on the type of state first legislation that would empower more investment as i've described in things like hydraulic fracturing, carbon captured and sequestration and other energy development are you willing to work on that, not only the technology, but we have to do both to really get to the kind of energy security that we want. >> that really would not be appropriate for the department of energy to work on that legislation directly, however i

would note that one of the initiatives that we hope to move forward on the so-called quadrennial review which is exactly an environment in which all of the relevant agencies across the government will be coming together to try to advance a coherent policy i think in this particular sphere would try to address the issues that you've raised. >> if i may ask for just a couple of minutes, how do you see advancing clean coal technology and carbon capture and sequestration? you either got to reduce the cost or create revenue sources for both. how do you propose to do that? for example do you see working with mit and the environmental research center at north dakota is that a way to do it? right now we seem to be stalled. how do we get that ball rolling?

>> i would be reduced i guess it would have to be north dakota. i think there are various issues to be addressed to get it advanced. one as long term project of injecting large amounts of co2 monitoring it, etc.. that is essential for getting public confidence and getting a regulatory system in place. that we can accomplish by using some of the projects that have now been funded for the nearly $6 billion. on the cost reduction for the carbon captured it is i think and for the beneficial use of the co2 these are areas still and research i take any kind of

strange way comfort and have confidence that there is a lot of room to get this down because we haven't done very much yet in terms of novel approaches to the carbon capture flexible work utilization. the one exception to utilization is it has recovery and probably in your part of the world there may be opportunities there because i mentioned earlier already we are producing 300 to thousand barrels of oil per day from co2, and the estimates are maybe if ten more is possible. if we can do 3 million a day of enhanced oil recovery from co2 and pave the capture 20 or $30 a ton and have that cost godown, suddenly we have a very interesting situation. >> they take the cold and

produce synthetic methane and then capture and compress it and put it in the pipeline and to use it for oil recovery in the oilfields. there is a lot we can do in traditional and renewable sources. are you committed to helping us do that and finding ways to drive that ford? its win to keep pushing the envelope on some of these and getting people to come together from the renewable and traditional can't we are you willing to do it and how do you plan to do it? >> cheese and all of the above person. >> but in a practical way you can help drive the process? >> i would be happy to work with you on that, yes. >> the senator from north dakota nose and going to work with these issues and i'm coming to north dakota and looking at your communities that are addressing these questions. >> we appreciate that very much. >> on the point of best practices, there's an area you

will be able to help us if you're going to start natural gas workshops here next month. one of the will be on environmental issues particularly with respect to federal lands would be natural to have your expertise with regards to best practices and part of what you are addressing with the senator from north dakota so we will follow-up with you on that. >> let me ask about one other question quickly and then i want to turn over because we have the good fortune of having michael week senator cantwell even going to work very closely with her in the washington delegation of those issues but one question is the issue of energy storage and this has been a source of some frustration both for me and for the committee because as you know this is a field with great promise. this is a catalyst for expanding use of the renewables particularly when you're talking about solar and wind and these sources that are intermittent if we can get a serious effort under way in this country to promote energy storage, this

could really be a spark in the area that you and i have been talking about as extending renewables and also driving the cost down. and in the past five introduced as a member of finance committee tax legislation for example to catalyze investment in the private sector but what has been frustrating is trying to get the department to put in place an actual plan on energy storage and to kind of get all of those cubicles in the building down there together and work with the private sector and the research community to actually developed a technology plan for energy storage. we have been trying for three and a half years to get a response to this request. so my question to you as you note i support your candidacy here. will you commit within 30 days after you are confirmed to get

the committee an actual plan on energy storage? >> three c's and a half years. >> first of all, as you know i completely share your view the large scale is a key enablers and we should be pushing it and second, in my last go around and as you say looking across the tubercles was in fact a signature of what we did in terms of portfolio development and i will do that again. i will definitely push this plan aggressively. i'm reluctant on the 30 days to be honest. >> what's continue these discussions. i hope to see the sense of urgency here. and i wouldn't be pushing if it wasn't for the fact this is such

a promising field, it is strictly related to the area that you can buy a share which is capping the opportunity for driving down the cost of renewables, and we've been asking for three and a half years. >> we will continue the discussion and think about 60 days. >> i would say my only reservation and that is that i feel that it's very important to convene appropriate individuals not just from the building but from universities, laboratories, industries and that process may take a couple of months but i think expeditiously, yes. >> let's leave this -- gives us within 30 days the date that we will have at.

>> that wasn't water torture. let me turn to the question of hanford and as i said i've been talking to the washington colleague governor inslee, the chairman of the house and not a scientist and i have been digging into this hanford issue. the more you learn the more you actually know because it is obviously an extraordinary complicated topic. when you have the government forcibly out specifically what the problems are i want to ask unanimous consent to put into the record the analysis done and by the defense nuclear facilities safety board that was

done last week. without objection that will be done. as you know, you and i have gone through some of the thank and we have had a pretty spirited discussion about some of these challenges in this hearing room in 1997 when you were before us to be confirmed as undersecretary of energy. the problem obviously is documented by the defense nuclear safety board hasn't gone away and not only are the older single shell tanks leaking but now it is beginning to link and the board noted the generations of hydrogen gas and this is a problem that has gone on for decades. the board in their letter also outlines a long list of

unresolved design issues starting with the rest of hydrogen explosions in the waste treatment plants as well, lack of adequate information about the waste that is going to be processed, problems of the mixing system in the plant, problems of the potential erosion and the piping. the defined nuclear facilities safety board this isn't a bunch of people that just sort of double, these are independent experts. i'd like to let my colleague of the last word on this issue. does the department of energy status quo at hanford acceptable this year.

i have a number of other questions coming and. what is your assessment of what needs to be done recognizing that you are going in, but we also recognize that you have considerable expertise because you have got this history and let's get your take on what needs to be done and in particular, given the fact that a rise of the years have gone by, the price tag has gone up. billions of dollars involved what is your take about the department of energy need to do given that you have said the status quo is unacceptable? >> let me ask you first to say going back to the spirited discussions that you referred to that when i was undersecretary

you pointed out some issues that frankly i hadn't been aware of and i think we made some progress on. they range from science like really advancing to managing some of the issues that we had at that time. i think we for successful with moving in the fuel flexible away from the columbia river, and we also i think address at that time for lack of a better term the hydrogen problem on one of the tanks. the thoughtful letter that you requested and let me comment along the lines of the three areas that they bring out. i mentioned earlier to senator

cantwell upon confirmation assuming i am confirmed to go into this quite deeply. secretary, i mean obviously was very much looking into this and i might even a note that my first meeting with him the first issue that he raised was the head of the technical situation so i would really study this very hard first. second i will want to go out to the facility to the site and i will want to meet in a serious way with the dnb and we need to work together to get a plan put forward as soon as we can to go forward. on the three areas the first was with the tank and for example i mentioned that we did a result that the hydrogen issue then and we have a watch list but of

course hydrogen as constantly evolves in and in five of the double shell tanks are shoving these leases. i think that dnsb recommended in terms of the ventilation system and understanding the airflow individually through each tank to make sure that we are well below any risk level in the hydrogen and that is to be very important thing to understand in detail and to follow-up on. on the waste treatment facility plant, i am beginning to understand some of the challenges their and as far as i can see, the statements made by the dnsb and their letter regarding the technical issues are very much along the lines of what i heard in my initial release of the subject so they're seems to be an agreement at least on the major challenges

the characterization of the remans a challenge. that is an area that i went to natural down into very hard and make sure we understand what the options are to be the third is the safety culture and their the dnsb did say to the department to take in a number of positive steps in this direction. more work was to be done and i think we've to take the attitude that it is simply unacceptable not to have the safety culture in the place that we want it to be so those are the three key issues. as far as the technical path forward and the plan i suspect the second of those waste characterization and the feed into the waste into the pretreatment plant the issues of

the block cells, those that we will have to make sure that we are on the right track and then if we are, go do it. >> let me just spend a couple of minutes in each of those areas starting with a tank. >> it would call for the monitoring and the management of the tanks that risk the explosions and the department since declared what was on that watchlist was stabilized and now we have this recent announcement as many as 20 tanks may be linking. here's what has troubled me, and again, the senator and i have talked about this in terms of the role of the department. the department told the committee staff that it would take two years just to decide whether or not the tanks are going to be officially declared

as leaking tanks and it's going to take two years to determine whether the tanks look like they are leaking are in fact officially leaking. i want to stress the role of the department of energy i don't think that it's acceptable to just say we are going to take two years to make a determination when you look at that issue specifically and get back to me and all the members of the northwest congressional delegation goes right to the heart of the responsibilities of the department. >> going to roll of the department earlier this year the secretary expressed his confidence the construction could be restarted on some parts of the plant other than the

pretreatment facility and the department suggested that it can simply bypass the treatment facility and said radioactive waste directly to these glasses. the safety board going back to the role of the department points out that these other parts of the treatment plant were never designed for the direct fi. will you address these concerns and get back to us again? they come from the safety board and address the concerns about the design problems of the waste treatment plant. >> this issue of alternative strategies and the board raising potential problems with that.

>> it's critical because of the pretreatment plant. >> finally has you know there's been a great debate about the safety culture some weak this point and others make another point and i understand that. i met with the whistle-blowers' when i was at samford recently. will you commit to meeting with them as well. many instances i think what a guilaume way he would send a message you've told senator cantwell that you'd be out for a visit and would go a long way if he would say that he would personally meet with a group of the whistle-blowers and we can get to the names and the washington delegation can as well. >> i would be happy to and in addition to meeting of course with the contractor's etc and making it clear what the expectations are to the safety culture. >> let me see if the senator has

additional questions or comments. >> thank you mr. chairman. and i certainly welcome your leadership. i don't think i've been at a hearing where the cleanup has been mentioned so many times by the chairman of the committee. so, i certainly welcome the focus and welcome your visit to the pacific northwest and your visit at hanford. i as i've looked at this the complexity for the science side of this is an interest and as i said earlier people would come in as a new secretary for individuals under the secretary and proposed new ideas. there are some people that talk

about reprogramming dollars which is always a concern, or this not being able to understand or crack the science. i guess i'm asking you whether you think this is an issue of we don't know the answers on a scientific basis for yes these are problems but any project of this magnitude and size is going to have problems from a scientific perspective that we have to solve and so i guess my question is do we know what the issues are, are they solvable scientific problems and are you committed to making sure the department of energy put forward a budget that will help us solve these and a timely fashion so that we are not waiting for two years to find an answer. >> on the first question about the scientific situation, i mean

that's where i have to make my own mind up and go look at it carefully. my guess is i would come to the conclusion not with a key uncertainties are identified, there may still be some specifics where we will have to be a little more work. i no going back years tell different the understanding of the waste composition is in different tanks to make sure we'll understand how we can get those tanks, get the waste characterized adequately and may be mixed and the right way to be able to feed the pretreatment and the wpp said that as the loveless which i intend to look at this. i can answer your question today but i can assure you for one

thing i'm not out to invent a new series. i would like to be as pragmatic as i can to move the issue forward. obviously it's been a challenge. >> but i guess what i'm asking is to be i'm trying to separate the two different issues. one is whether we know enough about the science or the impossible scientific questions. i think that is a little more known quantity. in the entire world and not just the united states so the complexity of that process in my mind is a separate issue from the complexity of the science and trying to distinguish what are the big bumps in the road that need to be overcome from the process perspective being

different from the scientific question so why don't know. it's obviously hard before you dig in to give a concrete answer on the science. do you see anything on the first look at this that these are scientific questions that can't be answered? >> i don't know of anything at this stage that can't be answered by interest reserving. i would be very surprised if there were a question that could not be answered. i was thinking more and out it has been answered. >> okay. >> that's the issue. >> so you think these are challenges that can be met from a scientific perspective. to make sure the process goes smoothly i don't know if you have any thoughts given the magnitude and the scale of this project i've always questioned the challenge of how hard it is now given the size and scale

that we have to have an accurate assessment and plan in place but every set in the process obviously would find more information that we have to tackle. >> but i would call part of the process of certainty i don't know the level to which the systems engineering integration has been done to make sure all of the pieces are coming together. i think the resource efficiency is going to be important to try to move this in a most timely way. >> thank you, senator. we make a number of important points. let me if i might. i think it is understood that

there are tough calls to be made. i was struck at that time that i was up recently information about the tanks that had come out in the governor's board in washington, two very good governor is very much committed to improvements and reforms we ought to just give some new tanks and having talked on a bipartisan basis with the washington senators and the chairman hastings there was a general sense let's see if that is the best use of scarce dollars. the budget sequestration and programs for the vulnerabilities at state what we are trying into conveys the sense of urgency and i believe you have the scientific expertise to come in

particularly now since you said business as usual. the department of energy is unacceptable to you and i think that is a powerful statement, and i hope it will be regarded by all concerned that this is a time to really go forward in a thoughtful way but also in a manner that reflects the urgency of the situation. this is the most contaminated piece of federal property and adjoins the lifeblood of our region, the columbia river and we have to turn this around. that's why when i heard it was going to take two years to determine whether the tanks that look like they are leaking artificially leaking i said we've got to get the dr. moniz in there and something like that has to the address and we can't wait for two years.

that's not acceptable from a public health and public safety standpoint for the people of the northwest. finally, let me say that i've been pleased this morning at the breadth of encouraging words the you've gotten from senators on both sides of the nile. i heard one senator after another stay dr. moniz, i appreciate your reaching out and discussing the subject. and i think it's an indication that senators of both parties and all political philosophies recognize that this gridlock and this partisan bickering on the energy issue which has gone on now for months and months has got to give weight to some problem-solving and you have the expertise and it is clear the use build a lot of good will

with the senators on both sides of the aisle, and i plan to support your nomination. i hope that we can move expeditiously. let me also say as a procedural matter that all senators have until noon tomorrow to submit additional questions for the record and for you. with that, the committee on natural resources is adjourned. >> thank you pure net

talk about some of the people's movement, who were the people who most moved things was that malcolm x. was it john lewis. one of the ways in which i try to explain to students is rosa parks made martin luther king possible to get martin luther king didn't make rosa parks possible. if she hadn't done what she did by refusing to give free seat on the montgomery bus martin luther king would have been an articulate well meaning but this minister.

they have the qualities that they had to rise to the occasion >> they join other civil rights historians of the organization of american historians annual meeting in san francisco and solving the panel the professor takes your questions why and it all starts at nine thanks 30 a.m. on c-span3 urging the approval of the keystone pipeline they will leave with members of congress and environmental groups this week. president obama is expected to decide later this year whether to approve the line which would take oil from alberta to the gulf coast of texas. they spoke of the brookings institution for about an hour.

>> we are also delighted the ambassador and the other distinguished members of the canadian government and the alberta government who are here to join us and other distinguished guests. i am going to introduce the doctor to of course needs no introduction. he is the chairman of our advisory board for the energy security initiative. brookings, and we are delighted he was able to join us today. but before doing that, let me just give a note of thanks both to my own staff and the energy security initiative to have been instrumental in getting you all here today and also the close interaction we had with the alberta government in making this event happened and we are delighted to be able to be host today. as i say, he needs no real introduction. he is of course one of the most noteworthy and notable energy scholars around the world.

his books the prize and the quest art the texts used by many schools in the nation and by energy professionals as well. he of course received the pulitzer prize, and that because now been translated into some 17 different languages. i remember the first time i saw a copy of it sitting on the bookshelf and pulled aside and i said i can't read this. he also serves on the secretary of energy advisory board and chair to the u.s. department of energy task force on strategic energy and development. he's a trustee of the brookings institution and on the advisory board of the massachusetts institute of technology's energy initiative. it is with great pride that i introduced. [applause] thank you very much. by patricia get those words but i really praia's my association and activities here at brookings

both as a trustee and also as the co-chair of your energy security initiative which makes such a concretion. and it is under the auspices of the energy security initiative that we have this discussion today. i'm deeply is of course to have the premier alison redford of alberta. we have to return ministers with us today. diana mclane is a minister at dallas and the minister of inter-governmental affairs command of course in addition to the ambassador we are pleased with the u.s. ambassador to canada as well. the topic, the specific topic of course is the keystone pipeline which is most famous pipeline of the history of the world and all the more so that hasn't been built and it is quite an achievement. but also there's a larger energy

security aspect to this which is behind that the scale of the alberta energy producing country. it is 2.4 million barrels of oil a day output total equivalent to a major opec countries for instance through the same scale as venezuela which indicates the strategic importance of that resource, and on top of that, the 1.8 million barrels a day if that was a country unto itself would be the largest single source of u.s. oil imports. in other words, there is a lot of significance in the discussion that we are going to have today, and it's very valuable that we have the premier to guide us through the discussion. she graduated from the university of saskatchewan with a degree in law. she spent several years working in the federal government in iowa both as a primm minister and senior at pfizer to the minister for external affairs says the foreign minister of canada.

she turned in her career to focusing on human rights, and she worked on human rights education and policy legal reform in south africa and mozambique and other countries in africa in the balkans and a number of countries in asia. while doing that, she had the opportunity to work along side of nelson mandela after the apartheid in south africa if and then she was one of the four commissioners who organized afghanistan's first ever parliamentary elections in 2005. with that broad international experience she is deeply rooted in alberta where she practiced for a number of years. she was elected to the legislative assembly in 2008. she served as the justice minister for three years and then became the leader of the progressive conservative party and premier in october of 2011. she's very much at the forefront in her work on seeking the

balance and indeed the partnership between the energy development and environmental stewardship. so premier alison redford we are pleased to welcome you to brookings today. thank you. [applause] >> i forgot to tell you have cards on your seat we would be glad to get those answers during the course [inaudible] >> thank you very much for being here today and so much charlie and dam for hosting this event which for us is very exciting. at the brookings institution is a place where i've never spoken before credit is certainly an institution that is well known to many of us in canada and it's an honor to be here today with our canadian ambassador and with ambassador gibson, and i know that while there are those of us

in the room there's also a webcast so i welcome the people watching on line from the comfort of their own homes. it is a pleasure to be here coming to the level to have a discussion in this room which is truly representative of one of the most trusted think tanks and the united states because this institution has a tremendously distinguished record of promoting shared solutions and dialogue with respect to the issues that matter the most to us in north america. not just because of the focus that we might have in our own jurisdictions with respect to social policy and economic growth, with the fact that we share priorities. canada and the united states have had a long trading relation to the end of the priorities of energy and climate, energy security, global change from a growth through innovation are also the opportunities and shared values that we have in alberta. it's wonderful to be able to think about the opportunities that we have to change the way

that we talk about energy, social development and the environment. and every opportunity that we have to come together to do that i think allows us to better understand what our shared goals are and can be. so right now the reason that we are all here and the reason i am hearing your beautiful city is because we are involved in witnessing some pretty heated discussions about what progress on those priorities we talked about should look like. the beat over keystone xl illustrates this point. this is a candidate -- canada u.s. pipeline and as everyone knows it will further build the ties that we currently have between the united states and canada. and i want to emphasize that it is a joint canada u.s. pipeline. pipelines have beginnings and ends. they cross borders and jurisdictions and if we think about the energy infrastructure in the pipeline infrastructure that we have in north america,

clearly this pipeline is part of that system. we think it's important for all the fuss as north americans because it will bring a sizable amount of new supplies, not only from the oil sands to the united states but also a sizable amount of the new supplies from the balkan formation of north dakota to the united states agreed refining centers. we are seeing divergent views about the project in pact, the benefits that will bring and the weight that should be given to the needs of the environment and the economy and the suppose it cost of tilting towards one or the ever ..

>> we are talking about facts. it is a stark choice that opponents have put at the heart of the debate. many arguments that are deployed against keystone are far too far from reality. they proclaim that either you stand against were you right off the environment. that is completely wrong. i want to address the approach to the environment. because being responsible stewards of our resources is

upmost in alberta's minds. we know that our quality of life depends on our respect for the land that we live in. and we accept that we are global citizens with responsibility for the planet. we have to be forthright with respect to that. you wouldn't know that from the clamor of the debate. we have nothing to hide. we are at a democracy and transparent. i will start by acknowledging the most basic one. energy does come with an environmental cost. whether its production and its use. generating greenhouse gases that affect the climate.

it contributes 21% of the greenhouse gas emissions less than 0.15% of global initiatives. they produced less greenhouse gas emissions than the power plant in ohio and indiana and even less in the agricultural state of ottawa. and we are bringing our missions down as far as quickly as possible alberta became the first jurisdiction in north america to require large industries to curb greenhouse gas emissions through legislation. since 1990 come our energy industry has reduced greenhouse gas emissions per barrel of oil that is produced on average by 29%. our coal-fired power plants have

taken roughly 200 million cars off the wrote so that we can replace them with cleaner alternatives. the inclusion of alcohol and biodiesel is a requirement. we are also pushing ahead this plan to capture and store as much of the carbon as possible. the government is providing $1.3 billion in funding for two large-scale carbon capture and sequestration projects. these are major commitments for province of only 3.8 million people. smaller than the metropolitan dc area. but we are undertaking a because we know it's the right thing to do.

we are not just limiting pollution. we put a price on it. we put a price on carbon. since 2008, the legislative price on carbon helps us support 49 clean technology products that include electric biogas product generate renewable natural gas ones and digestion of organic waste, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and an oil pilot product that uses water to separate oil from sand and clay is that eliminates on-site greenhouse gas emissions. of course from our opponents focus has always been on oil. the government and the people of alberta hold everyone accountable for their actions in the oil industry. before any project begins, industry must develop and receive approval for closure plans that outline how affected areas will be reclaimed and then

they have to post a reclamation as a further guarantee. currently, government holds $1.1 billion in bonds from this industry. and companies can only get that money back after they meet those standards. reclamation means losing local plant species to target the return of local ecosystems. we monitor vegetation growth for at least 15 years. only after we are satisfied that the technology is returning to normal and energy firms apply received their bonds back. part of that, industry has planted 7.5 million trees. only 1.75% of alberta soil had been disturbed. by law from every inch of that must be reclaimed.

we don't stop there. we have brought in a plan which steps aside 5 million acres of soil for conservation. it is larger than connecticut, rhode island, and washington dc combined. critics point to that's what they byproduct of chemical separation process. and they point to those is the reason to deploy oil reserves. but their claims simply aren't backed up by the fact. 80% are acceptable only through methods involving separating this from the san underground and pumping it to the surface. the resulting land disturbance is only 10 to 15%, the size of a conventional mining operation. the companies who use this must completely have this by 2016.

and at the same rate that they are produced thereafter. reclamation of existing has begun. by the time it comes fully on stream in 2015, the system will include more samplings over a larger area, a longer list and increased testing frequency for biodiversity and land and for water quality. monitoring activities will be subject to external and independent peer review by internationally acclaimed

scientists so that anyone can access these results. we are examining the combined effects of the entire region. this is how we will ensure that we maintain our very important social lessons. i know all of this is a lot to take in at once. but we have a strong persuasive case to make. and the facts need to be on the table during the debate. we are responsible as an energy

producer and we are looking to develop or market in a sustainable and thoughtful way for the benefit of the buyer and seller. that is the real story. canada and the u.s. share an integrated trade relationship. after all, canada is the most important destination for 35 states. over 8 million depend on this. it remains a reality for a long time to come. there's a lot of talk about energy independence. the only realistic way to see this is a north american energy economy.

historically, that is what has allowed a partnership to be most successful. almost 30% of u.s. oil imports come from canada. there is no prospect of north american energy independence. your dollars go to support a free society. but it's one they don't come back to you. this is far more than the average opec country. many companies have equipment

parts and services. keystone would add an estimated $6.9 billion a year over the next 25 years and create or preserve more than 75,000 american jobs. we tilted to favor of venezuela, which would be the biggest beneficiary in the absence of keystone. but it is not canadian oil, that it will be venezuelan oil. it has the same carbon footprint. venezuela has little of the environmental policies to sustainable energy development.

many would like to have other options besides keystone. we know that we can get our product and we can sell to customers around the world. we want to achieve a higher level of deliverable products. as our perspective from alberta and canadians, this will prove vital to a growing strategy that will allow for the developing world to get access to what we produce. we know that the world is thirsty for energy.

we represent the cautions that alberta is taking. it allows us to echo recent remarks by president obama. we believe that north americans should never have to choose between jobs and economic growth and energy security and strong environmental protections. we want to be able to lead in those discussions. for our policies and options past and present and future, we will continue to demonstrate that alberta is the safest and most secure and most responsible energy supplier to the united states. i have to say that when i travel around the world, the best

opportunity for us is to partner together. making sure that we have a conversation on what and how. to make sure that it is based on real information and facts. one of the reasons we're so fortunate in alberta to have the economy that we do is because of historic partnership. those who have seen the potential of what north american energy can do. it is what has led to our great economic success. we share common values and beliefs that allow us to ensure that we are building infrastructure. this is what our relationship

has been about in our friendship has been about. building sustainable relationships. we are striving to overcome sustainable growth and development is like you are. in keystone, we have a solution at hand. we have a solution that is in full court with her economic and social and environmental values. it is a matter of putting facts into the dialogue and letting them speak for themselves. there is information that is available to people who want to understand the choices that we need to make in our life. the choices that we need to make in order to continue to have the quality of life that has led to our success. as we move ahead, i look forward to the question and answer session and the dialogue. at the end of the day, we have opportunity to change the conversation. i look forward to having that with you. thank you. [applause]

>> [inaudible] >> we will move this to the audience. you may submit your questions in writing. i thank you. >> okay, thank you very much. i think that you have talked about the environmental framework in a very comprehensive way. one question is that alberta has a carbon tax. can you tell us how that came about? >> it was first started in 2007. it is a system that monitors and

it monitors per year. it pays into a carbon fund. so what that allows us to do is put this into a technology fund which we then used to reinvest in technology that will allow for more sustainable development of conventional resources. we are taking another step as we move forward to put investment and what we think are important. for other technologies that allow for public transportation in that sort of thing. it is critically important for us that we see an actual impact. we have invested in 49 projects and some of them are not related

to this, but to longer-term environmental sustainability issues. from our perspective, that seems to make more sense than simply collecting a tax. >> yes, critics have not been particularly good for the pipelines. would you say to critics have for what might go wrong? >> we have to be honest about the fact that we do have energy development of really unfortunate incident happening. it impacts people's lives. we have a regulatory process and we have industries that are accountable. the other thing to take a look

at is a pipeline that is going to be a state-of-the-art technology. we probably don't realize what there is. the point is that we don't know it's there. because overall, these are very isolated incidents and they don't happen as often as people might suggest that they could. the other comment that i believe, and he you raised it in the context of railcars, it is a very important part of this. you end up with a lot more railcars and i think the risks get elevated. >> this is your fourth trip to washington premiere. how do you find the discussion.

what strikes you about the nature of these debates that are going on? >> this is a discussion that is going on right now. we know that the decision is getting closer and closer. people's minds are quite focused. i'm not sure that we are talking about what is different than what we have been talking about in the past. they have been talking about this production. but there is no doubt that there are no most people that know that there is a possibility of a decision coming. so it's a great opportunity for us to share that information as soon as possible. rick: >> since the first reduction of the pipeline last year, it has

continued unabated. from your perspective, how has this affected the debate around keystone. >> you know, it is interesting. we know that the united states has always been a very loyal customer candidate, as we have talked about for. 30% of exports are coming here. it's important that we have a conversation with respect to security and sustainability. we take a look at production of resources and it can be declined with respect to production. there are always different ways

and there is a lot of talk about self-sufficiency by 2020. in terms of the work that we see going on in the united states, it is incredible activity around production and i think we will see upgrading and refining options happen. we are an integrated transportation system and refining system. one that really allows for much more economic opportunities. >> in your marks, you talked about this going south in the united states and do those projects -- i mean, can you give us a discussion about this?

>> one thing that is always fascinating to me is that industry will always find markets. we have pipeline projects that have well been on the west coast and east coast for some time now. that is a pipeline that is almost completely built. a 100-mile section needs to be built. we have those medium and long-term opportunities and some even going north possibly to alaska or other orders.

they still have lots of opportunity. but we have projects that are in stages right now for the products. >> we want to go to the floor and is the second. let me ask another question, if i may. after the publication of the state department, which found that the pipeline would have minimal impact in the context of total emissions, environmental opponents are now focusing less on the quantitative and more on the symbolic dimension. they say the president obama has sent a message that he was serious about climate change and would demonstrate in taking some actions. how do you respond to that?

[inaudible] >> excuse the interruption. but i think that we see what we are talking about. >> i missed last part of question. >> okay. [applause] >> sorry. do not want the president to show that he is serious about climate change. >> i think that everyone needs to take action and we are proud of what we have been able to do. we know that in the united states there has been action taken should there be a place with carbon?

should we invest? we think it is important for political leadership to take steps. we have seen tremendous progress in the united states. i think that there could be more. even consumers can take different steps. but i don't think that one particular project needs to symbolize this. you can do all of those things and you can still allow the pipe to go ahead because the pipe will have such a significant impact on growth in the united states. building the keystone pipeline will only create these keystone

jobs. >> thank you it would run the pipeline and i actually thought the number was 100. but that does not speak to the conception in the midwest and refineries around chicago. that is a lot of jobs. this allows for people right across the united states to have economic growth and it has

certainly been the case in alberta. you have seen the result of these products. i think our numbers are closer to the truth. >> i'm not sure this is true, but the question is asking if you can confirm. what do you think we should do to take tougher steps? >> well, we think that it's very

important to have a place and we are very pleased with how that works. we ran almost once a month to make sure that we are creating a system that allows for real impacts. we are working very closely right now with the federal government. part of the dialogue is what can be done for technological development. that is part of our ongoing conversation. >> our view is that this is the federal government.

and we hagovernment. and we have an evolving process. again, we are getting reports of the confirmation hearings on the hill. one of the questions is the discussion seemed to be going towards it not being considered that way right now. i don't know if it will or won't be considered in the united states. but everyone is having these discussions right now. we are having them. >> one of the questions is if this will be exported from the united states.

and that is also something that others have asked about. >> i won't speak more about this. i think i have spoke to it with respect to how that is developed in place. i heard a radio advertisement about this and right now we have imported it from the refineries on the gulf coast. from our perspective, we think that the refineries that are currently in place -- what i have talked about historically to refine the product.

there is no reason to presume that all of that would be exploited. so some of it will be meeting resources, and upgraded and possibly exploited. refineries have been good whether that changes or not, it would be wrong to pursue what is supplied at the moment. what is the large expansion of refining in alberta in lieu of shipping to texas?

>> part of this is going back again to the fact that we have made a lot of sense. people have the skills and are interested in doing the work. we are supporting our resources and that makes economic sense for us. because it is the most effective way to transport the project. we do some refining. our approach is that most important to be able to provide the product that the customers have asked for. there's a tremendous amount that is produced particularly along the gulf coast. >> there has been significant investment of asian countries and canadian oil. obviously. that implies the pipeline route

to the west. can you give us a sense of the nature of the kind of physical discussion going on on pipelines and how you would assess this? >> welcome one thing that i will say before that is don't make the assumption that we have to go to asia. if you are exporting out of new brunswick, it is a shorter distance than if you export on the west coast. on shipping east, government increased the cost of transportation to getting the product significantly done. but in terms of the west coast pipeline, it is very different than a year ago.

this is going to have to be part of public discussion in washington dc about the same issues that we are talking about here. but we do think that it is imperative that people are part of that conversation. we think that this bill will go ahead. probably slightly delayed, but there are still opportunities for that. >> if we had had this at the west coast, is there any prospect that we could have that will be shipped to the refineries in california and have the capability to process this? >> you know, i think if anything is possible, that could be a

possibility. we are becoming a complicated scenario that doesn't really make economic sense at the end of the day. i just don't know the answer to that. >> okay, speaking of the east coast -- >> i know. >> this is a debate over keystone that is affecting the pace of development. this is a question that has come up. >> yes, what we are seeing is one of the think that the state department supports is we wouldn't really see much of a slowdown with respect to production. that is my sense in terms of

what you have mentioned, major investments are being made right now. we see capacity ramping up to probably 3 million barrels. we know that we will go to get private investors products to market. and it continues global demand for the product. we don't foresee any drop in production as a result of these discussions. >> okay. several questions here, they all relate to the question of public rejection of the pipeline affect the u.s. canadian diplomatic relations between the business community? >> we have many answers and comments about that.

i am glad that there is a second part of that process. something else to remember, and i didn't talk about it exactly, but there was economic opportunities that come as a result of the u.s. companies and what they have. i think that those are very tight relationships. everyone understands completely what the opportunities are. so i don't see much of a change there. they said that we shouldn't make the assumption and the decision was not receive his keystone. but that would simply mean that the matter fell off the table. we had experiences with partners before on issues were even

though there wasn't a dialogue going on with respect to the issues, they tended to come up again and again in other discussions and other bilateral discussions. we have had some of those discussions as well. it would be a lot more helpful to have this. it is a part of the ongoing conversation and that would be disappointing. because there are too many other issues that you need to discuss and be productive on. it would be a shame to let that be in the middle of it. >> it might be over $100 a barrel for alberta. and that is oil being produced in the center of the united states. what is going to happen with the budget?

>> well, we have had some challenging times it is really having an impact on our revenue. we expect that probably this year alone but because of that differential, we are probably seeing a 6 billion-dollar drop in revenues and that is why it is imperative. it is quite significant for us. but it is about whether you are producing it in alberta where this part of the united states, it is very important. >> it goes back to the fact that you have these incentives in the logistics aren't connected. >> that is correct.

what was your statistic? >> 180,000 miles of pipeline in the united states. keystone would add less than 1%. >> okay. >> there are a lot of gas pipelines as well. >> [inaudible] >> excuse the disturbance. [inaudible] >> this is why we are doing something about it. >> [inaudible] >> we would be delighted that you put a question in writing. >> [inaudible] >> we would be happy to answer the questions. here is what we believe.

okay, some of the people who may be close to the pipeline company might enjoy hearing premier tran-ones views on. what you have to say about any environmental damages that could occur with the transportation of the oil in the export of the oil. can you restore your priorities regarding conservation in light of the things? >> i think this is very important. the regulatory process is so important. we certainly have very vigorous regulatory framework.

these are shared values that we are to have with the united states. the united states also has very strong regulatory processes in place. that is one of the reasons we are going through all of this right now. we will continue to enhance the response. as i said, they don't happen often ,-com,-com ma but when they do, we want to make sure that we are partnering up on that. an industry dealing with those things as well. >> tell us how we are responding as well.

>> what does it stand for? >> [inaudible] >> thank you very much. it was something that started about two and a half years ago. they said, look, we know that there are issues that we need to deal with. we are talking about sustainable development, we don't want to be playing around with that and competing with each other around those technologies. it will be to share intellectual property with respect to the production and technique and sustainable development. it will have adverse impacts on the environment.

it really was led by industry or four years ago now. >> before proceeding, i would just like to say looking at this institution, i take great pride whenever the subject matter is being discussed. we do not have any endorsement of any panel. but we would hope that common courtesy would allow all people to submit legitimate questions to us and we will try to get this with the remaining time. let me ask the next question. i understand it you are one of three premiers working on a canadian energy strategy. could you talk about what that might be and how would this strategy include what could be

done in the united states? >> it's interesting because in canada each of our provinces have jurisdiction over and this. surprised to talk about it is very important. i don't think we can live in isolation. so a lot of people have put this in place. and people came together to talk about what's we were each doing around a number of issues. things about environmental sustainability, how we would develop a conventional resources, and how we would deal with the issues about environmental impact. and it would be concrete

examples of how to do a better job. for example, we are in elementary discussions for how to create investments that would allow for very large industries to come in and invest again. so that is important not only in terms of economic growth, but in terms of what we would like to do in creating an economy. the challenge in the united states is that energy is part of the federal jurisdiction but it is a real drive towards wanting to have a conversation and opportunities for policy

development. so i think it actually has jurisdiction and you have to have federal government and jurisdictions at the table to talk about how to connect in a way that makes sense for people in our communities. >> charlie talked about discussion and debate and sharing different perspectives. within that complex, what a lot of people here is not really well known. the extent and the rigor of the environmental regulation. does that seem strange about this part of the discussion?

>> well, people get very emotional about these issues. usually when that happens we end up reverting to the simple information that we have. i remember when i got involved by someone who is helping me get ready for a debate to me that you know that it is supposed to start answering this by saying that that is a complicated issue. but this is a complicated issue. [laughter] >> all of the things that we are doing are all part of what we have to do in order to make the economy grow and to make sure that people have jobs and to make sure that we develop things in a sustainable way. green jobs are important. they are important. we are using our technology funds to develop alternatives

and work on wind and solar. it is even money that has been invested to try to find better solutions around these issues. we are doing now. they are interconnected. we are using every opportunity that we have to talk about these issues. >> we have a question. beyond the impact on u.s. and canada, what is at stake for the rest of the world? one of the things we're talking about here is the impact and what it can be and will be in environmental sustainability and it's also about important economic growth.

we have obligations as leaders to demonstrate this. i also think it's important in terms of our overall economic performance we look at the contribution that we make as global citizens to other countries and the important role that we play in diplomatic relations. it is important for us to ensure that we can continue to play that role in the world. so that is a responsibility in terms of who we are as citizens. >> the pipeline would pick up oil in the sanctuary of the united states where we have seen such great growth. you have a dialogue about this?

>> [inaudible] there are certain people who spend more time traveling more than i do. i live down here about a month and a half ago -- i visited here in terms of not only keystone, but in terms of pipelines to the east. that is a pretty rational border in terms of infrastructure. that has probably been more predominant for sometime some time now. >> okay, we have a question. but i think it is essentially asking about the transport in

the refining. do we have any estimates of what is contributing to climate change by those various processes? >> we are starting to do very good work on that. it is an important question and part of where the dialogue needs to go. these integrated plans, we are taking a perspective on what is happening on water and on land and in the entire production. if we look at projects along the pipeline, i think we need to ask those questions about what industrial activity looks like

and it will have an impact. there is no doubt. it is as far as economic opportunities in the long run. >> okay, a question here. i think you answered it in your speech. but how can canada combat climate change? >> we have put in place technology funds. we have planning, we have been investing in is to make sure that we are taking this matter very seriously. not only are we able to achieve it, but we are taking action to do this. we hope that others will do the same as well. >> it may be confidential conversations, but we have a

question about her conversations with american officials. what do you feel are remaining reasons for continued delay about making an assessment one way or the other on the pipeline? >> we know that there is a regulatory process in place in the united states. citizens are taking it seriously. we are taking it seriously. they are having this dialogue to make sure that the information is available. i don't sit down and have that sort of detailed back-and-forth on those issues with the political representatives. because at the end of the day, fundamentally this has to be a decision that is made by citizens of the united states and their elected officials. i think it's making sure that the process is respected and that all steps are taken so that

when the decision is made, people can be satisfied one way or the other. >> okay. i want to thank the premiere for her frank discussions. we thank you all very much for coming. one more thing. >> okay. >> i have enjoyed it, thank you so much. [applause] >> coming up on the next "washington journal", peter welch of vermont discusses the 2015 budget and then more on the president's budget, the gun bill being debated in the senate and other issues with senator chuck grassley of iowa. and a look at the members who are looking for bipartisan

solutions on issues like the budget. 7:00 a.m. eastern every morning on c-span. >> it is important book. there are so few good books out there that explain the process. what are they saying to one another. what do they really think? you know, it is a book not just about capital punishment but ho= the court operates.======== >> when you dig into the notes== of the library of= congress, th= notes back and forth, i am not a lawyer. but i was just fascinated by the human element of it. in many cases, many have

reservations about capital punishment. >> sunday night at 9:00 o'clock on afterwords "after words" on c-span2. part of booktv. >> coming up shortly, vice president biden and attorney general holder on gun legislation. later, the white house's choice to have the energy department discussed the confirmation hearing. in a procedural vote on thursday. a number of senators have threatened to block the bill. here is senator chuck grassley talking about the measure. >> earlier today i met with

families from newtown, connecticut, to discuss legislation that we are currently debating. it is obviously very emotional. it is not an easy meeting to have. but it's a very necessary meaning to have when parents had children that were murdered. i think somebody from a family in which teachers were murdered, it is difficult for everybody. i want to thank them for sharing their stories of loved ones and their concerns with me. i hope many of my colleagues would consider this as well. i think each one of them had pictures of their loved ones. it makes it very personal what

they are going through, and here we are debating legislation that they are supporting. in my state of iowa, there is a lot of difference of opinion on a particular legislation that we might be considering. the feelings of these meetings. the meetings that they called for a debate on the legislation and right now we are in the process of having a debate. i imagine we are going to be able to move forward on this legislation. under new procedures available in the senate resolution 15, the majority leader can move to proceed and the vote on some amendments. a vote against a motion to proceed does not cut off the debate or vote on amendments under the new procedures in the united states senate.

nonetheless, madam president, we are in an unusual position of taking a leap into the unknown. we are being asked to proceed to an uncertain bill. that is not even a bill if the motion received is successful. the language on background checks would change. it has been my understanding and remarkably if the language changed, it would be replaced with language that does not now exist. and of course, the world's greatest could not operate in this fashion. all bills were considered separately. i think it is fair to say that there wasn't a consensus. three of them have now been compounded. and we are not ready to have

them be considered. they are not ready for consideration. at the time, the sponsor said that it was not ready. that is what he told us in the committee. there were numerous problems with that bill, he told us. from one law-abiding citizen to another. putting people in an impossible situation. this is true even though when this language was the subject of a hearing in the previous congress. a witness pointed out problems with it. but no changes have been made to address those issues. even unofficial from the aclu says that criminal laws to give more guidance to citizens are important. the bill operates in a way that would make gun safety more

difficult. and that does not make any sense. the bill requires recordkeeping for private sales. and this is a step towards gun registration and we heard testimony in the judiciary committee that universal background checks could not be effective without registration. and we are right to be concerned about privacy and the background check language presumptuous. the government would possess information concerning gun owners it is also pointed out that the bill contains none of the restrictions in current law that prevent other parts of the government from using the database for purposes beyond why

this was obtained. and it was also not ready for consideration for the background check because of the new felony that it creates. if a gun is lost or stolen, he or she is acquired to report lost or storm within 24 hours. at the markup, asked a number of questions of the bill's sponsor about how this would work. for instance, who would pay for the additional personnel that would take those calls? what were the citizens legal obligations if the gun were misplaced rather than lost. what would determine if a loss occurred that started a 24 hour time frame.

a time in which the guns being stolen have to be reported. the sponsor said that these issues would be terrifying. well, they have not been so far. so law-abiding citizens will not know whether they are acting in compliance with the law. if they are not in compliance, they are going to face a five-year jail sentence. the issues have not been clarified. that we were asked to proceed with the bill anyway. this criminalizes in action. that is a threat for freedom. except for filing tax returns, or registering for the draft, we do not punish inaction.

this punishes failure. and it only applies to those who own their guns. a criminal who has gun is stolen -- that gun could still be stolen. stolen a second time. with his this offense, law-abiding citizens can be turned into felons. but the phones cannot commit a crime. law-abiding citizens may be looking at five years in jail for what? for just doing nothing. all of that is necessary for them to be subject to a reporting requirement.

congress can rely on this. this is one of the categories that congress says we can do under the commerce clause. if commerce can do this, it can make people take all sorts of actions simply because they own the product. they can face jail time if they do not do what congress demands that they do. i do not think that 95% of americans would support this universal background check. especially if they had a chance to read the proposal. it also goes to a bill on gun

trafficking. i have ordered to report this bill to the senate floor. many changes were made and they were made at my suggestion. at the time i still expressed concerns even though i voted to bring the bill to the floor. we were hoping that this would be brought up before the bill was released. including the background provisions, which makes me

wonder if the effort to pass a bill on the subject really is a serious effort. we have agreed to proceed to it and it seems like that may be what we want to happen. if so, that is a very cynical way to treat a serious issue. even if sponsor admits it is not ready for consideration. >> ginger gibson is a reporter for political. >> yes, we had a cloture this evening on gun legislation.

we have this first level of gun legislation that we have to overcome. >> does he have the 60 votes needed to overcome this filibuster? >> we have admitted that he would lead a cloture vote with some conservative states. those that might not be able to continue on a cloture vote. those are supporting but they can move forward on us. so it appears that they might be able to get those votes needed in order to move into this. >> who were some of the senators that might have joined the democrats for cloture? >> we are not sure exactly which

ones. she is moving forward for a number of other republicans. >> we have seen discussions about democratic senator joe manchin of west virginia and working behind the scenes. >> from day one, senator manchin has been working to find compromise on background checks. we are looking at background checks in now he is trying to

come to a deal to get both sides on the board. with such bipartisan agreement that the public would have to be willing to take a. >> many have signed a letter saying that they will not support gun legislation and what are they asking for? >> well, it has been in a pill fight and stay one. there's a there is a larger groups that are trying to undermine these efforts. those don't want to see debate on amendments, that is what they are working to do. we are trying to get around that

process. if he is unable to get the 60 votes on cloture, he will still have each member of an individual bill one by one. >> okay, looking ahead, suppose he is successful. what if he does get the 60 required. >> the bill debate could last for a long time. we have opponents trying to have their amendments passed. some were very opposed to it. the bill was weekend and much less effective. if the bill comes out of the senate. will spend a lot of time in the house? >> he said that he was going to wait and see what the senate did.

some gun control has been unhappy with speaker boehner hasn't done this. but this could be one more thing of things that are being discussed and trying to give this a go. >> you can read her reporting on political.com. thank you for the update. >> the debate on gun violence. this occurred for 35 minutes. >> i have had the privilege to serve america as a senior and chief executive law enforcement officers and made the jurisdictions in washington dc and virginia and maryland for

more than 25 years. all of these assignments i have seen firsthand the devastation and trauma inflicted on victims, including the long-lasting effects the violence effects on family and friends and communities. in particular gun violence. i witnessed a seasoned police investigators when they recovered guns used in horrific crimes by people who would not have been allowed to have a firearm only background checks have been done at every point of acquisition. it would reduce people who have dangerous mental illness is to gain access

to these weapons. a pre-screening can improve law enforcement ability to identify people who are not qualified to safely possess firearms. and i believe that we now have a unique opportunity to overcome this weakness. we have comprehensive background checks and we can lay the groundwork and reduce gun violence. today, we must walk through this the door of opportunity and take a real step forward and prevent the pain and heartbreak that is so deeply felt in our country and our communities by many of our citizens whose lives have been forever changed by gun

violence. please join me in welcoming the attorney general of the united states, eric holder jenner. [applause] >> thank you for being here with us today. it is a pleasure to join with my favorite vice president, joe biden come to welcome you to the white house. it is a privilege to be here as we have been to discuss the national issue of gun violence. i am grateful for your willingness to lend your diverse perspectives for the critical discussion. i appreciate the organizations like the national law enforcement prevention and in

small towns across america. i thank you not only for your advocacy but for your service. in oak creek, wisconsin, newtown, connecticut, they were shocking reminders throughout our great nations. on a daily basis, these unspeakable tragedies are compounded by individual tragedies that take place on our city streets. they too often go unnoticed and i can frequently take the lives of our most vulnerable citizens. for me and my colleagues responding to this senseless violence constitutes a priority. that is why was honored to join with vice president biden and

the number of my fellow cabinet members to assemble to reduce gun violence and to make our neighborhoods and schools more secure. contrary to what our viewers have said, this plan, which president obama announced in january, is consistent with the second amendment. this includes a range of proposals that we have called upon without delay. along with a series of 23 executive actions and we have made significant access. we have strengthened the firearm background check system. this grant funding is intended to mental health information.

all federal agencies will require federal law enforcement to trace guns and investigation. the justice department is continuing to review gun safety technology innovation in the process of undertaking a review of all parameters. the senate will soon consider a number of gun violence reduction proposals. to give each and every one of these the timely and individual consideration that they deserve. each of these matters deserves a vote. the american people deserve the special interests and the lobbyists and what they are exerting on our elected

representatives. the expertise and the assistance of those in this room, we can take the commonsense that we need to prevent gun violence from falling into the wrong hands. there is no single prescription of confronting the underlying causes. victims and the survivors are depending on us. just days after the tragedy at sandy hook, i traveled to the uk. i saw the dried blood. i saw the horrific crime scene photos. i met with first responders just

after the first call came in. when these brave men and women asked me with broken hearts and tear stained faces to do whatever i could to prevent such a thing from happening again. i said that i would not rest until we had security and common sense that our nation needs. i promised them as i promised survivors from oak creek that i would never forget. in a way that you all would never forget. this afternoon i ask you to help us keep our promised to the american people and improve our nation's security. and protect the men and women who bravely serve in law enforcement and make safe our children's futures. at this time it is my privilege to introduce someone who has been at the forefront. a dear friend and vice president

of the united states, joe biden. [applause] >> general, thank you very much. we have been good friends for a long time. eric means what he said when he said that he made a promise to all the folks. ladies and gentlemen, you know and your colleagues know better than any group of americans the devastation that occurs to the social fabric when we go through these horrific tragedies. the fabric of the community. i went up later in newtown, and

i got to meet with the guys that were with me. there were a lot of smart warriors like all of you. i have been doing this a long time. i see a lot of familiar faces who have known me, i have been your ally my entire career and you have been my i'll live. and i have never seen the look that i saw on the faces of those troopers, a hollow look like they had seen what they had seen. something they will never ever forget. they will never be able to forget in their whole lives. you know, i thank you all for being here today. i thank you for every single day that you do what you do. you are on the frontlines.

in our cities and towns and you are the first ones to deal with the violence. what i don't think the public understands is it's not just your physical safety that is at stake when you are out there protecting us. but seeing things that will be enough to knock an average american offkilter and wonder whether this makes sense. i practice this morning on my home with 13 of the families, family members who newtown, connecticut. i have become friends and spent hours with the families.

i just wish that everybody in america could have eavesdropped -- let me be more precise. i wish that the members of congress have been able to eavesdrop under the discussion at my home today. a little after 11:00 o'clock, i missed the security meeting with the president. and i listened to these families. these individual members of families. talking about the toll that it has taken on them. one remarkable woman who has a background in psychology and psychiatry -- she said that, you know, how do they explain not

doing anything? my little bro was hiding in the bathroom and she got shot through the heart. she was hiding in the bathroom. she got shot through the heart. i haven't lost a child or a spouse. it was such a profound way of asserting. don't they understand. we are talking about filibustering. what are they doing? one of the fathers said -- i am not identifying him, i don't think it is appropriate for me.

but one of the father said to me that as we walked out, it is a beautiful day. and some of my staff members who were there were not at the table but were in the house, we talked about what a great day it is. as soon as i walked out the front door, i looked out on the front lawn and i saw two soccer balls and i thought oh, i should've hit those balls. i knew that i should have gotten him the night before. because i knew and you all know exactly what that beautiful day -- the most beautiful day since that december day that they have experienced. to opt out and see those soccer balls in the front yard with my grandkids, kicking it around and the dog chasing him.

as well as the teachers and parents, there was this handsome little boy in a soccer uniform. you guys know. ..

>> to break through the consciousness of the people on the hill? the public is so far beyond where congress is. so far ahead of the way they're talking. they do understand. they really don't understand these bright, accomplished, in this the mothers and fathers and husbands, one lost his wife. they do understand -- don't understand how we could even at this point* be debating this. the truce is -- the truth is

they don't see how 100 bright women and men don't get it. they know a simple proposition and things could be better. if we get more guns out of bad folks is -- hands. they know we are better off if we keep guns out of the hands of people who have demonstrated did they use those guns to do bad things including to their kids and other kids and things of the better, and maybe one of their children would be alive if we did not have a policy to buy a clipper magazine that housed 30 rounds or in aurora, 100 rounds. you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out.

the cops came into a half minutes at sandy hook he only had 10 clips you would have to change three times. somebody would be alive. they don't get how of release smart people don't get that. they don't get it. 01 mom said to me, how is it they don't understand? what should i say to them? they're all going up to the hill. it was a legitimate question as if they were going to speak to some ancient aztecs or somebody who speaks a different language. what do i say to them mr. vice president? you have spent time up there. think of the question.

what do i say to them. over the past 113-- since sandy hook 3,300 people have died at the hand of a gun and you have witnessed it or the aftermath. the cream of the crop law-enforcement in this room today you could tell me what is happening in your jurisdiction over the last 130 days. 30300 dead. a lot has changed in 113 days. first call all preliminary work has been done how to respond the president laid out the proposal the mechanism in the senate has gone to work and they said what they think we should do now is time for every man

and woman and senate to say yea or nay. i am for or against. it is time for them to say what they think. what should or should not be done to diminish the possibility of another sandy hook to reduce the next 113 days below 3,300. but it appears some senators still want to be counted but want to prevent anybody from being counted. it is almost mind boggling. i was in the senate 36 years in you have the minority of leader saying i will filibuster on dealing with this national tragedy. he won't even proceed.

maybe between now and the time as a mother would say say, maybe they will see the light. what an embarrassing thing to say. now seriously close your eyes and imagine the rest of the world follows everything we do. to travel almost 700,000 miles around the world of promise in the last four years, i promise with sophisticated capitals and less sophisticated capitals capitals, they all reported on sandy hook, aurora, what

do you think is being said today in those capitals about us? at least as of now you have leading senators, the most robust legislative body in the world to say be will not even talk about this? with a tragedy that traumatized a nation and the world and after all the discussion with the overwhelming majorities the american people thinking of the proposals the president put forward made sense but the climax could be that we will not even get a vote? imagine how this makes us look. i cannot believe the senate will actually do it. i am told by the staff that they will but at the end of

the day i cannot believe it will actually happen. they will follow the lead of the minority leader. i know too many people. i just don't believe it. the other thing that is happening is that the american people have overwhelmingly responded. you have heard me say it 50 times. there were 228 interest groups in america. nra to the brady group, law enforcement of governors, mayors, everybody. psychiatrist, school officials. there is hardly any difference of all the groups

with where we should plan to i understand what is at stake. by a majority in every category gun owners, a gun owners non gun owners or hunters they all think by the absolute majority that each things should be enacted by lot and we can do it and you know, better than any group of people without violating one scintilla of their bright of the second amendment. not even a little bit. one of the issues filibustered today is to expand -- expanding the background check. i thought we reached a consensus that convicted felons those adjudicated as

such fugitives, wife beaters, they should not own a gun. if i am not mistaken because ideas -- did this last time in 1984 everybody including the nra bought the background checks made sense. remember that good old days? keep the guns out of the hands of those folks. for the life of me i understand the logic of those who say i don't want to extend background checks to people and 40 percent of gun purchases are out of background check. i don't think we should extend to them but i think the system makes sense. how can that be? how can it make sense to have those decisions may

have today going to 40 percent of the people who purchased a gun don't do a background check? there is no constitutional arguments not even a convenience argument there is 58,000 federal licensed gun dealers in the united states of america. 58,000. and they can easily access to see who should be prohibited. they have already done that. since the system has been in place, the nra said criminals will go through it. 2 million people have gone to buy a gun and then we're rejected because they were felons, they have a serious mental problem.

a fall in the category of an abuser, and confident to own a weapon. you tell me 40 percent of the people who buy their guns somewhere else don't need a background check that the other 60% due? none of these are felons? wife beaters, a mentally incompetent? it makes no sense. it makes no sense. the american people get it. that is why of all my time this is the only issue i could think of where 90 percent of the american people agree. 90%. now the nra is engaging in a campaign of disinformation to scare people.

levy reid with a say. we want to put everyone on that transaction to keep those names and a massive federal registry. black helicopter crowd is really upset. but guess what? they want to save the universe of background checks are the unworkable universal federal by mayor mayor, bureaucracy the law-abiding system and even if we get the true universal background check it will not keep criminals from buying guns. none of this is true. let me explain once and for all how it works. you know, is standing on your head. you walked into the big sporting goods than they hand you a form.

they say philipp added your name, where you live, where you were born, gender, race born, gender, race, and if you want to make it even quicker, social security number which you do not have to give. then again to your picks up the phone or gets in his computer that goes directly into the system. 92% of the time that with in less than three minutes that in fact, the night or go forward. it does not say the knife because he is a wife beater

or mentally incompetent or because any reason. it just says denied. win the gun dealer calls the fbi are goes online he does not even say what type of gun the purchaser wants to buy. there's no record. within 24 hours of being told that you can sell the gun, the fbi must destroy the information. name, address, a country of birth, , etc.. it must be destroyed. there is no record kept in some big database.

no information. they don't even know if you purchased the gun. because you may say this is the guy and i want to buy and as you do the background check your wife says we cannot afford that. and you don't buy the gun but they don't know if you actually purchased it. all it says is if this person wants to buy a firearm in your store your allowed to sell it to them. period. but even if it is approved and workers for what is going you bought, no central registry come if the gun is

a project perches, the dealer gets the information about the gun and keeps the form in a file. they have to keep it 20 years. remember 58,000 of these and if we make this universal there'd be one headed 50,000 places where this has to be kept scattered all over the nation. no central registry for anything. no way of calcium can go find out if you owned a gun because many are about to to you take away your rights and you will swoop down to a cover-up every gun in america. it is bizarre. that is what is being sold

out there. we're suggesting to add whoses but to ready to once to buy a gun ought to give the seller the security they are not going to someone crazy. the community ought to note is not being sold to a felon. today, the background checks that anchor on the 60% the of there 40 percent are bought online, a private transactions, auction transactions, auction, onlin e, no idea if we sell to. look, the reason we call for this a does not violate anyone's constitutional right.

it doesn't have any impact on the second amendment right, it just doesn't do anything that is not already being done. nothing. not a thing. it makes me to walk in to lead the store to fill out the paperwork to get a shotgun. doesn't that make sense to buy what over to the good show they would have to do the same thing? what is the difference? what is the difference? what is the logic why should i be able to go online to buy the same gun but have to get a background check to bride.

word is the logic in that? frankness make she has chance to vote so that will diminish the of prospect senator boxer has a bill about school safety and a pastel of the committee. senator leahy has one that says to identify those who are selling illegal guns in both. senator schumer is said -- has a background check bill saying you have to get a background check there is no reason why these should not be coded on immediately and senator feinstein has an amendment the weapons of war sold on the streets should not be sold. no question of her

constitutionality. even justice the lea pointed out the government has the right to prohibit the sale of certain types of weapons. that is constitutionally committed. she has a determination to keep those weapons off the streets and not aimed at you. they all deserve a vote there's so much more we could talk about but more than i have today but it is time to stand up and for these guys to stand up and be counted. stand up to not only look the nra in the eye people say what do i say? would you going to say to the parents? look them in the high. till then you concluded there is nothing you can do? we have an obligation to try we know if we do what we're talking about we will save

lives. you have seen the urgency and know we have to do. that is why we need your voices to tell congress they need to act and in time. i am so convinced those folks who were trying to stop any action are in a time warp. just like immigration has moved beyond where 20 years ago and other things, it is moved from where we were five or 10 or three years ago. you are our most valuable assets the most respected people in the community. you are the ones i think congress wants to look in

the high. notice whenever they run they talk about how you love them and they love you and want to be seen with you. because of your credibility. thank you for being here. i urge you to go up on that hill in uniform and ask them, tell me why. -- whose rights are being violated? you know, the statistics -- statistics those of the universal background checks the number of domestic violence is down, a gun violence is down. it works. does not solve all the problems but it works. you have been here with us for every tough issue. i promise we will win this fight. we are going to win this fight. this is not going away.

not one of the boats they blocked a vote and we will go away. the american public will not stand for it. they will not stand for it. please make your voice is heard like you always do. again, thank you and may god protect you all in the line of duty. you are incredible people. thank you. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> the committee will come to order. the committee meets to consider the nomination of dr. ernest moniz to serve as secretary of the department of energy. this will put him at the center of the most pressing issues facing the u.s. economy and in firing how to manage accessible reserves of natural gas, combating climate change, and making our economy more efficient and supporting new energy technologies. i believe our country needs energy. to transition america to a lower carbon economy. and is built on three

pillars. strong economic growth growth, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and energy innovation. is no accident the early focus of this committee's agenda centers squarely on those matters. opposed -- the first hearing on natural gas technologically advances have allowed the country to tap into reserves that were previously un economic. now the resource to potential to give a lasting economic advantage for manufacturers and steel companies and families and businesses to save on their power bill. they can make a real difference with a tight budget climate. last week i visited the middle school from central organ that cut its energy bill by more than 35 percent over the past year due to

lower natural gas prices. "the washington post" reported european industry fox to the country to take a vantage of cheaper gas. that is just the latest of a wave of good news stories. to make crucial decisions how much of that goes abroad. the committee will inquire with the thoughts of how to preserve that for american consumers and businesses. just as important, natural gas has the potential to bolster america's standing on the issue of climate. the information agency reported carbon emissions last year dropped to those local since 1984 also to the rise of natural gas. but methane leaks in flames among others to fight can

have the base of power that gave its 50% fewer greenhouse gases than traditional fossil fuels. said it king give certainty to producers to maximize benefits with domestic shale guest. that is the short-term but long erm the country needs more renewable power. natural-gas plants could be the ideal partner like solar and wind they can come on line and power down quickly. we need to reduce our car been footprint. with the assessment dirt -- issued earlier this year you can expect the impact from the changing climatic -- climate where i live the sea is projected to rise by 2 feet by 2100. is als