capital and finance creation of the national infrastructure bank. today, american corporations hold over $1.5 frl in untaxed deferred diff tend payments overseas. while a similar holiday creates the 2004 american jobs creation act failed to generate domestic estimate los, a targeted program focused on infrastructure has the potential to deliver job creating and economy building projects for decades to come. directing the taxes into the infrastructure bank or else compelling corporations to invest a portion of the funds into a special class of bonds to support the institution, they encourage investment here in the time of political gridlock. depending on the specific goals for the infrastructure bank, capitalizing can occur in the flexible manner as well with levels ranging from 10-50 billion dollars. of course, there's real costs and hazards associated with any program; however, policymakers weigh concerns of those things

against the strategic and financial benefits of the well-functioning, strategic infrastructure bank. most of what i described here requires legislative action, possibly as part of the major tax reform bill or budget negotiations, but i think we can do this. madam vase chairman, it's not easy, but the time is right to invest in infrastructure projects that put us on the path to a productive and sustainable economy. thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today. >> thank you very much, mr. edwards. >> thank you very much, chair, members was committee, thank you for having me testify today. infrastructure is extremely important to the economy. we need to ensure that investments in infrastructure are sufficient as possible and we can do that with the infrastructure in washington as much as we can. think are more likely to make sound investments today, first

thing is the private sector provides five times the amount to the u.s. economy and pipelines and cell phone towers, added up, and 2 trillion of privet investment a year in infrastructure, five times of size of government infrastructure. the policy upshot from my point of view looking at that is we need to focus oven on things to improve infrastructure investment like tax reform. that said, government infrastructure is important to the economy, but i think it should be done as much as possible. the state and local level, not at the federal level. why do i say that? a number of reasons. federal infrastructure investments is misallocated from my opinion. look at amtrack investment, for example, in my opinion, it's based on political demands and not based on customer marketplace demands. federal infrastructure's not

operated efficiently or priced properly. for example, if you look at the bureau of reclay mages in the western united states, there's not market pricing. waiter is underpriced causing inefficiency. federal infrastructure is mismanaged with large cost overruns, and there's a poor record in terms of mismanagement, and cost overruns, and the key problem with federal intervention is that the federal government, when it steps in and reply kates mistakes across the country. states and private companies make mistakes, but when the federal government makes mistakes, that is duplicated everywhere. classic example of this is high-rise public housing everyone crees now was a disaster. it was duplicated in dozens of american cities because of federal subsidies in cities to do this very inefficient infrastructure investment. those are the sorts of short comes with government infrastructure are one reason there's growing interest in privatization in the united states and around the world.

i fully support p3's and patient privatization of infrastructure, and we should explore the opportunities, but look at full privatization where possible. airports, london is an example of that, there's a new 140 million bridge completed this virginia, owned, operated, and constructed, and air traffic control as pointed out is privatetized in canada, brit britain, and other places. i'm struck by the -- separate from government and has been a successful model. compare that to the faa, the faa

and we saw with the sequester cuts, and the solution is a separate nonprofit organization, and privatization, and not so much in the united states, so why not. there's a bunch of sort of built in hurdles that congress has to look at that are preventing more privettization in the united states. a key one is that the municipal bond tax exception faces that over private facilities, a barrier, and canada does not have the barrier, and muni bonds are not tax exempt, and private and public are on an even keel. if you want to set up an airport, they are taxed on the earnings, facing property taxes, and government facilities don't pay income or property taxes, and here's a key thing people overlook. federal aid or federal subsidies are viewed as a positive, but there is a negative crowd out

effect of the federal subsidies. this is what i mean. before the 1960s, the vast majority of urban transit, bus and railing in the united states is private. congress passed the act in 1964, that act gave transit sub subsis at the local level. there's entrepreneurs that private transit brought to america because of the federal subsidies. the federal subsidies work against priechtization at the state and local level. there's other issues. the governor mentioned interstate tolling requirements. i agree with them. we have to look at that. there are other federal regulations that stand in the way of privatization. to sum up, widespread regime, we need topnotch infrastructure, and the way forward is for the

federal government to reduce its control over the nation's infrastructure, state and local government should be encouraged to innovate with privatization and p3s to the fullest extent possible. let's get america's great entrepreneurs helping solve the infrastructure challenges. thank you very much. >> thank you very much to all of you. i'll get started here. i note the governor talk about the investment in europe, the $350 billion that you mentioned, and you talked about the fact that they have a history of investment with public-private partnerships, and could you describe what they are doing there and how they are started in a way to allow for infrastructure and what they can learn? >> well, i got started similar to what senator warner wanted to do. the e.u. put money in to begin to capitalize the fund, and now the fund makes loans, almost exclusively loans, and they make enough money on the repayment of the loans, not only to cover the entire administrative costs, but

to add money to the fund itself so it's been enormously successful. >> is it an infrastructure bank? >> infrastructure bank. it's an infrastructure bank that only loans moneys to the projects where there's going to be a rate of return. one thing i wanted to say to my folks from the foundation, i, for a democrat, am the strongest advocate for public-private partnerships in the country. let's not did deluded in thinking private-public partnerships or privatization solves all problems. the country has 66,000 structure ally deficient bridges, one of which regrettably was in minnesota. of the 66,000, my guess is no more than than 1500 could be tolled where there would be a reasonable rate of return to do work necessary. some yes, there's a bridge going from new jersey, if we toll the

bridge, we can expand from four lanes, to six lanes, with a side avenue for cars to go off. it would cut waiting time to 15 minutes in rush hour. we can afford to toll that, but the vast majority of bridges and roads, there's not a private sector return of investment, airports, yes. locks and dams, perhaps. there's some infrastructure that the government, whether it be state, local, or federal is going to have to step up. >> right. i appreciated the point that the simpson-bowles report, that group, that the work a lot of us have done on the budget like senator warner and others, we truly believe you have to invest at the same time, it's not exclusive. you invest in key things, and at the same time do a long term debt reduction making reforms talked about, and also looking

at doing other things. >> one of the problems with the way congress scores is there's never offsets. this investment has significant new federal tax revenue by jobs created, the corporate profits, ect.. when you start offsetting that and justify setting the economic benefits, i recommend your staffs to the cbo2008 report where cbo, again, not exactly a leftist, leaning organization says we can afford 185 billion dollar annual increase in infrastructure investments because of the economic and societal ben fifths to us. >> okay. mr. poole, the infrastructure bank included a version of it in the rebuild america's jobs agent, but also had increased significant investment on the government's side, and we got some support. we got a majority of the senators, but i led the bill

last year, and we were not able to get it through the filibuster, but could you talk about the infrastructure bank, how you see it working, and, by the way, how would rural projects be included? i get that question a whrot at home. >> rural projects, i have not looked into that. it's a good question. you could not do the same things you do in terms of robust revenues and other things in urbanized areas. infrastructure banks, i mean, i have been critical of most of the bank proposals that have come along because i really -- i fear they don't have the same kind of protections built in to have a dedicated revenue stream and invest in great bond ratings and things like that. that's why i draw a distinction between those and congressman delaney's new proposal that not put the -- and it's one thing in

the depression -- >> this is tieing it in? >> yes, with additional capitalization that comes basically from the private sector, not from the treasury. >> i think it's been pointed out, we tried this once, and people are open to looking at it again, but the rate has to be right so it brings in funding that we would need, and i think that's -- i know people in the administration, others are looking at it, but the rate is where i think that has to be determined to be the right point, so we actually are bringing in significant money. mr. puentes, you want to comment further on that? >> thank you, senator. i think that members here that we have to be careful about this net infrastructure bank that is not a silver bullet or address all the changes and all things the governor highlighted in the beginning, but we see when you look around the world and see what the needs are in the united states, and there is an omission

right now. we don't is a way to make decisions on projects truly of national significance so what i'd like to see is some kind of entity that's focused on delivering those economicals that we have as a country, so the president's goal is to double exports in five years, the far reaching, ambitious goal, connected to the global economy we have right now, and infrastructure banks then actualize some of those goals. there's major freight projects with that in and around the united states ports so that we're not investing in projects that are -- areas competing with one another. freight moves across the country. the country is very, very large, and freight moves from los angeles to chicago and elsewhere, obviously, to rural areas, and rural areas benefit directly. the infrastructure bank does not solve all challenges. i think that we're doing a good job on the transportation side, but i think we need something that is looking at clean energy, looking at other areas of infrastructure, water infrastructure, and not

cometting to silo nature which we make infrastructure investments. it's not going to solve every problem, but fill a niche we know we need. >> we saw congress is willing to come together on the two year transportation bill. obviously, a long term bill is better, but they want to get it done, ai love the points about the goals because i thought that was one of the best thing the the president put out there, exports doubling in a number of years because we are working to get to that goal, and it made a difference, and people remember that. that kind of a goal with infrastructure tied in with some new ideas, and as the governor pointed out, it's not a one thing fits all. there's a guy i talked about in fargo near canada that actually a guy got permission to be in a shack and charge 75 cents every time they cross a bridge. this is not good public policy, and so that is not the one way to solve everything, and so i think it's a combination of things you talked about today,

and i know there's people yearning to get this done, and i think it's one thing, great thing we can do to bring people together and basing it a lot, people don't talk enough about the freight issue and the exports and industry willing to pay more for lock the dams or a bunch of people in the privet sector want to be a part of this, and we have to give them the vehicle to do it. all right. with that, turning it over to congressman delaney while i go to jiewsh dish ri, come back, and senator coats, thank you. this is an interesting topic here, and i enjoy the input gifnlg to us by the witnesses. i want an issue relative of what governor talked about, and that is the role of the federal government and the impact of keeping it within the political process.

when the political process intervenes, and in the decision making process, it distorts the market, and while amtrack running up the east coast is a demonstrated market, stops in your state, governor, and yet in order to -- in order to continue to subsidize that program, i'm not going to name any particular states, but the line running from a to b, better stop in tim buck to to pick up passengers on there or i'm not supporting anything that stops in philadelphia or going up the coast, and that's a small example of what we run into, so i wonder how do we address that and define the federal role in a way that the political process does not distort the market in a way that discouraging investors from the sector, misallocated

money, and then mr. edwards. >> sure. you dealt successfully with one of the problems, and that's over regulation of the transportation infrastructure. map 21 did a good job in reducing the regulations in cutting time lines. the president, as you know, issued an executive order to cut the time lines by 50%. that would be enormously helpful to us, both on cost and getting things done quickly. you already have done that. the way to get out of the major projects here, you have to give states basic grants to help them with their overall needs, but to take a good hunk of what the federal commitment is, give it to the infrastructure bank for projects that was said of national significance, and let states or groups of states or private entities come in and compete, and the infrastructure

bank makes the decisions based on cost benefit analysis, based on, you know, a review of the project to see whether they are workable, whether there's a reasonable return on investment. that's one way of doing it. a second way of doing it is through the tiger grant process. the best thing about tiger, one, it allows states to combine applications so there's regional projects. two, tiger leveraged private investment, and, three, it was competitive. the decision was made, and most of tiger's decisions were based on cost benefits, not on politics. every state b didn't get a project from tiger, or tiger funded the major projects so the more competitive you make it, and the more you give the decision making, and i know congress is always loathed and evolved decision making to someone else, but give it to people who are experts and somewhat i understandlated from

the political process, we can do in, absolutely do it. it works in europe. it can work here. >> mr. ed wartsdz, do you want to respond to that? >> part of the idea is to get private financing infrastructure, and that's great, and i'm all for that. the problem with the national infrastructure bank is the decision making on infrastructure projects become, you know, national, ultimately, political decisions. i can name you agency after agency, army corp. of engineer, on down the list, where politics intrudes decade after decades and can't get around it at the federal government level. we need decentralize decision making. the people spending the money need to raise the money and spend it to make the proper cost benefit analysis. high speed rail is a good example. if they want to raise its own money as it has with bonds and go for high speed rail, good for them. let them expermit. the rest of the country, the rest of the 49 states watch how well the system works and decide for themselves whether they want to duodown that road, but the

problem with federal intervention is it's decision making away from state and local governments. federal grants for urban transit. the money went to light rail. cities go for light rail systems when bus systems are more efficient. the light rail systems have high capital costs. cities grab the money for the capital costs for the light rail, even though, really, in the long run, buss systems are efficient. i'm concerned about the problem when the federal government intervenes, more state decision making. >> how do we get around the -- when i talked to mayors, governors, and others, they say, you know, so much of our early costs, and so much of the decision making and the timelines are skewed simply because we continue to run into lengthy, almost never ending environmental impact statements, challenges to those and so

forth, and we have that going on in our state right now as well as the permitting process. i'd like to have whoever wants to tackle that. >> again, you did a good job on that with map 21 and the president's executive order cutting timelines for environmental impact statements. some of those take seven to eight years to complete. there's no reason under good god's earth it can't be done in six months. tell people they have unlimited time, they use unlimited time. if you tell -- >> a lot like congress. >> well, right. i always use the example of someone comes into the law firm with an opinion letter, and i seed it next tuesday, and head of the firm says, oh, it's a respectable firm, we can never do it in that short period of time. pulls out a check for a million dollars. they get it done. they get it done. give six months to be completed with only the most stringent waiver provision, it is amazing

how it gets done. when we prepared for stimulus, i wanted pennsylvania to spend our money quickly because i knew the stimulus would affect roads and bridges. i called contractors in, there's six months to respond, but you have two months. you told me nobody's working so there's two months. i said to the bureaucrats, it takes six to nine months to award, there's two months. we had people working with stimulus dollars in three months. congressman overstar's committee ranked the stimulus money, tied for first with three other states. it can be done. it can be done. congress can, i think, really do something terrific insisting it gets done. >> i want to mr. poole to respond, but governor, i want to take the quotes you just said. have that for the quotes, but i'm going to repeat quotes of a democratic governor all over the place. >> no question. >> i think governor's points about getting the time for

environmental reviews shorter need -- shows that we didn't -- we made progress with map 21, but it's not where we need to go. it should be shorter than that with, you know, time certain, you know, time periods, but it's also the question that i raised briefly of the higher costs of every -- of the federal dollar, many states will not take -- they try hard not to use federal dollars on highway projects unless they absolutely need it because by america, the other things congress imposed mean the cost is high eric and now buy america, hwa has administratively decided that now it applies to utility relocations as well that everything used in utility relocation has to be made in america. they have no idea where the stuff is made. they don't have the inventory systems to do this, threatening to hold up billions and billions of infrastructure projects over interpretation.

>> thank you. >> >> thank you, senator coats, i'll turn it over to my friend from new york. as we listen to the conversation we just had, and we talk about the challenges in the country, which also indicates we have a huge opportunity in the country to get to work, it's clear it's a multidimensional problem meaning it's there for a variety of reasons, political reasons, we have it for financial reasons, in other words, there's not been sufficient money allocated, and we have not, because the world moved quickly, and there's been rapid changes in the world that have

accelerated fashioner than people could reasonably predicted so there's a lot of reasons we have this problem, which, to me means we should have multiple solutions gwen this problem, the classic, you know, we need many tools in the tool kit, and in my opinion, this issue is really -- should be our central, and i think, governor, you said it well in your testimony, should be our central kind of economic domestic priority, and all of the solutions that we've heard with increasing privatization, increasing regulatory burden, a variety of tools should all be consideredded very seriously because they are probably all needed as the governor said, the cost of doing nothing is, in fact, nothing, and we pay that price, and we should be putting the shoulder against these things because, in fact, they pencil out. this is actually a really good investment to make in the country. we shouldn't be making all the investment. a lot can be done by the private

sector, and lay that ground work, but there's certain core financings to be made. what we tried to work on with our legislation is thinking about the time horizon because i think this notion of shovel-ready projects, while it's catchy and it makes sense, doesn't always correlate with good infrastructure policy because, in fact, if you travel around the country, and you look at decisions that have been made around infrastructure, even if they will take years to actually implement because of the scale of the projects, create really good economic activity immediately because people know they are going to happen. in other words, if there's a commitment to widen a port that takes five to six years to do it even with accelerated approval processes, ect., everything will start changing around that port in which is why we tried to have an entity that can operate in a disconnectedded way from the normal political cycle. maybe, governor, interested in the views on thinking about the

time frame for the projects and planning in general, and then maybe mr. edwards, maybe you can comment on that as well. >> well, in terms of time frame, one rights now, if you read the afc report, we need to fix it first, although we need new capacity. i mean, there's a stunning statistic that since 1980, our percentage of vehicles on the road has increased by 104% since 1980, our lane capacities increased by 4%. we need to expand our infrastructure, but first, we have to fix it first, and the good thing about fix it first is it is very stimlative because you don't have to go through eis. the reason i was able to get work done in three months is because we were fixing bridges. we were fixing roads. there's very little -- there's no requirement for eis at all so you can get to those projects

quickly. right now, the biggest challenge for america is to fix what we have. i mean, again, i hope you can get your staff to read the full report. it's frightening and disturbing, and so if you fishings -- fix it first, that speeds up the time line. for projects, what i differ with mr. edwards on is there has to be an entity to help fund regional projects so it does no good for, let's say the state of pennsylvania, to put in a rail system that goes through to ohio, up to minnesota, let's say, and with one type of new technology. if ohio has a new type of technology, that does not work, trains don't run, we have a system, they have a conventional high speed system. there's got to be a vehicle for the projects so there's got to be long term vision with good

controls and good speed mechanisms, but fix it at first is going to solve the problems. >> mr. edwards, quickly. >> you touched on something important, which is it's not the short term jobs which is often focused in washington, but it's long term efficiency. with sea ports, we need to make them more efficient. the issue is not the short term army corp. of engineer jobs, the dredging sea ports, but the long term efficiency that manufacturers and producer can have more efficient ports to take bigger ships coming with a bigger panama canal. that's the issue. with sea ports, for example, they can be fully privatetized. britain privatetized ports, and the advantage is private companies, they see customer demand rising, go into the market, raise capital, they do the work. they don't have to go to washington to lobby. if you have a private port, they get it done quickly. >> right. you can't dredge. the most difficult thing

atlantic ports have to do is dredge to the depth that can accept big ships coming through the panama canal. only two of the 12 ports are dredged sufficiently to do that. we'll lose a boat load of business to can cay because of that. >> that's a really important point. ..

ron robinson when we go forward with this we are basically creating many monopolies that of long-term projected income streams and longer-term projected debt streams mittal based on the assumption the government can't do it as well which i believe. i want to ask you, mr. edwards, what do you think the marginal capacity for those rates of return is based on your understanding on anyone about the general inefficiency of government and taking a side of the things like that we are not going to change that in my

opinion. so what you think? >> i'm not sure what your question is that private investors there is no doubt that it's absolutely crucial they want to earn profits search for profits and efficiency makes companies try to reduce the cost and maximize -- >> the governor said that there is 1500 or these are the viable once the private sector to take over as anybody have an idea how inefficient the government is. there's been comparison studies of the ps3 for example of the government contracting. there is a study right here that compared a couple dozen to the government contracting and the private sector companies get stuff done on time and on budget and the capital beltway p3 for example was finished last year on time and on budget because there is a strong incentive of

private actors to put in their own equity. they have to keep the cost flow and make things on time. >> to possibilities existed. take 20% and if you want the internal rate of ten, so the public benefit arguably could be that differences, 10%. it could be much wider but we could enjoy both of those benefits and we could clean up hour own a mess because we run the risk of being too prescriptive going for even to the private organizations plus we run the risk of creating these many monopolies over the local bridge that may be the math was wrong and these review boards are done locally but not adequate. >> the key on the private public partnerships the point is well taken but the key is the eventual contract. we tried to lease the turnpike and my legislature, my republican legislature turned it down because they wanted control of the patronage. they didn't want to turn it over to the private entity. we got a $12.8 billion bid when

the recession hit they would have been holding the bag. the taxpayers in pennsylvania but have gotten a great deal. but the key is the contract. you don't sell to a private entity coming you lease it and then you have the same rights and owner leases. you have oversight. you put in maintenance they have to meet. so it depends on all levels of government oversight. but the real thing is the common operational side because the private sector can and almost always come almost always there some exceptions of dirty that the lower-cost. it's going to be nonunion but because of existing contract, because the number of people in the workforce that can reduce that because they have money to invest in technology faster than the government does. so it is the operational. when they figure out what their

rate of return has to be, they are talking about revenue that they are also figuring out what percentage they can cut costs and those two things factor in together. >> france, how do they compare to hours? i know there are a great many private -- >> in france they are still large. the government airport has sold about a third of the equity to investors that the government still holds the majority share. airports in the u.k. are mostly privatized but they do the largest ones where there are monopoly problems and they do have utility regulations on the prices they can charge. so it is similar to what we give them the elected utilities in the company because it in the monopoly issues. having some share. >> have there been studies between the two differences between how we do in our airports and what the cost and -- >> there been a few. there's a very good study of of the university and in canada

that looked at the data base of almost 200 airports worldwide and concluded that the ones that had either majority, private or 100% private ownership that could include a long-term lease or more productive, or efficient in terms of operating and the least productive or for government ownership and what the function port authorities for the new port authority. >> thank you. my time is expired. >> we want to get away from just this idea of public or private and this kind of notion of privatization. when we see emerging throughout the country is an awful lot of innovation happening outside of the belt we stand, metropolitan cities working with the private sector in cases where it may or may not fit. so, all projects as you mention are not meant to be appropriated and the private interest they are not going to reach revenue

on those kind of projects. so what i would like to see happen is to get where it's a mix of not just the federal government on top in the metropolitan areas but all mixed up to the private sector. there is the partnership b.c. british columbia the have to decide whether or not a private entity is going to make sense of this. as we have to look across the board. sometimes it is going to work and sometimes it is not so we have to get past the notion it's either going to be private or public and one is better than the other. it's very complex, lots of different projects and it really depends. a spaghetti widen it beyond transportation's a drinking water, big problem, the epa estimates the to spend $335 billion in the next 20 years to put the drinking water in the condition to preserve its utter is in a private water company in the world that

wouldn't want to provide the water to marion. but you tell them they are going to provide the water to philadelphia and there is no revenue to support increased rates. so there is no one-size-fits-all. but the point we are all making, democrats and republicans, we are all making the private sector has to be an option going forward. one of the heroes that we have there is no question about that. >> very good kid i know the representative has some additional questions putative >> yes, i thought of as a very good discussion and i think we should also be thinking about public-private precious both at a project led all, which i think is the historical framing for how we think about these things but also to some extent on the more macrolevel one of the things we try to do whatever legislation is fund the infrastructure bank buy effectively creating a giant public-private partnership

funded by the private capital and it provides the tax incentives by allowing companies to repatriate earnings but again it's done in a very market-based approach where we actually auction off the bond and we get the best deal for the tax payer by giving it that way. the other observational question i have for you is we think about efficiencies and how we finance these activities and one of the things we focus on the legislation is having the infrastructure bank for lack of a better term more of a bond guarantor because it seems to me to live with the project in our country they have the ability to issue debt on the basis. i hope it exists for a very long time that is a very advantageous way for the local governments to borrow money and to the extent that we have a larger financial

support enterprise it should be actually guaranteeing their debt as opposed to funding and we the efficiencies. >> i agree, congressman. i think that is a very important point. we used to have insurance for the infrastructure kind of projects in the country until the financial crisis and the others basically went out of business at that point so there is a gap in the market right now that really would be much better for the infrastructure investment if there were the kind of bond insurance, and our guess bond insurance that used to exist for the financial crisis. that needs to be filled. they should be jogging these decisions i agree with. the model where the local

government really have a say in determining their own infrastructure and when you think about infrastructure proposals that are in a situation of more of a bond guarantor that is geared towards local governments, do you see this being more of an enterprise that operates against the national strategy or do you think that these enterprises will be better if they are focused on serving the needs of local mean somebody's? >> i haven't looked at local pontiac but for me the decision making should be where the money is raised and money is spent and different people are raising the money and spending it, you get bad decision making so i would like to see the decentralized decision making which to me is decentralized financing and ownership. >> i just want to again add my thanks to the governor and mr. edwards for the thoughtful testimony and for carving out their time. it was a terrific decision. >> one last question is how the maintenance fits in with this i think about when we do these rabun cuttings for the new

transit project or new bridge or when you fix a pothole you leave a bunch of people celebrating. or you fix the under a bridge. how do you think the bridge maintenance fits into all of this, mr. pool and mr. rendell? >> one is a state guarantee has a great success with contracting, competitively contract and maintenance. virginia is one of the pioneers, texas, florida, so that is a way in which you can often get more value and more maintenance per dollar spent than in doing it with employees. but the letter is the point i made briefly and you may have been out of the room when this cannot is a few long-term infrastructure, the company's created to finance, build and operate the project also maintains it over a life that

may be anywhere from 30 years to over 75 or 99. so you basically create a guaranteed source of maintenance funding in these kind of long-term arrangements. so if you think of the overall highway responsibilities of the state dot, it is 20% of that can be competed to the long term p3's. that whole section is then guaranteed for a long period of time to be maintained. the state and in annual budget has to come up to be responsible to look at the maintenance of the rest of it so that is an advantage over the long term p3 that is often not really fully appreciated. >> governor? >> i want to correct one thing. most states to 95% almost 100% of the maintenance as well as the building work is done by private contractors. the state workers are usually too oversight or a little bit of painting.

but we have been at everything. i-95 runs to the city of philadelphia for 18 miles. there are 14 bridges and goes 18 miles that i-95 goes over. it's estimated to put the bridges most of which are structurally deficient or obsolete and the fair decent condition would cost $4.5 billion. the city of philadelphia's entire capital budget for everything, police stations, fire stations, iraq centers, road paging is $120 million a year. now, there are two ways to do that. if we were allowed to throw i-95, we can't because it is previously accredited the federal highway that grandfathered the states, but we can't. we would have a chance to raise

some of that money. or alternatively, we need federal investment and that is just maintaining pitted but it's maintaining the nation's largest highway. it's a state and local responsibility and we need help. >> i see the representative maloney is here if you want to ask a few questions and we are going to end i think. >> everything is happening at once. the votes in the financial-services and then we have the votes in the government reform and oversight. i just feel that the infrastructure is important and why aren't we investing more in infrastructure or if it creates good jobs in the district that i am privileged to represent i have two major construction projects and the second is on the east side connector both of which have over $4 billion in federal funds and are creating over 400,000 jobs. my question is on high-speed rail. our country used to lead the world in infrastructure.

and now we are falling apart. when you go to europe, china, india they all have high-speed rail and particularly on the northeast corridor, it would be a corridor that makes money now for amtrak and would make money as we have high-speed rail. i see the governor rendell between washington and new york to boston, all of this area. and your thoughts on how to move this forward. do you think of it be possible to the public private match to protect the union agreements but also give us the money to move forward it's obviously a financing deal. and there's been a debate in congress over and infrastructure bank. some people support it as a financing mechanism and others say it is just another level of bureaucracy if you want to fund it float your bond, your financing system and just move forward. if you need an infrastructure

bank for? i would like to open it up for answers. i can speak for all of us to endorse the concept of the infrastructure bank we may have some differences about how it shall operate etc. in terms of what you're saying the northeast corridor high-speed rail it couldn't be a better example of p3. let me preface this by saying i am on the advisory board of the japanese magazine lab on the east coast and you get to new york and washington in 55 minutes. philadelphia, new york in 23 minutes. the are opening up in japan in november 310-mile per hour system they want to put up some of the funding. the federal government should put up a part of the funding, the majority of the funding should come from the private sector but the states that

benefit from it should also put up a part of the funding. we wanted to expand the philadelphia to harrisburg line of credit amtrak while i was a founder wanted to put 75 million caroline matched the 75 million. we cut the travel time from hundred 20 minutes to two hours to 90 minutes. we increase the flow rider shipped to 2.1 million in the northeast corridor you could end the shuttle's. it would do so much for the tarmac waiting time you get the shuttle's it would be the first infrastructure bank and do it have not only the japanese love of people but from the private sector i think we all agree with that and the private sector would be happy to cut and bid for that. >> most of the lines of the world don't make money and the northeast corridor absolutely it makes sense.

the problem is the federal government gets heavily involved in the funding on the northeast corridor could get every state in the union is going to want money for their own high-speed line through areas that make it a lot less sense so this is a problem of federal involvement is that there is only the political problem and people wanted the money shared around and get customer demand wise high-speed rail may make sense in some areas like boston to washington. >> lord knows how much money the line would make the that is the job of the infrastructure bank. the infrastructure bank from political pressure. it works pretty well. philadelphia has been done - recipient of a lot of this so i know it works pretty well. you insulated and have those decisions on a cost-benefit analysis. he is absolutely right. the northeast corridor is the project that we should try.

then maybe we examine california in and see if that would make money than we examine the midwest and see if that would make money. but everyone knows if it makes money it does as a stand-alone you know that high-speed rail would make money. >> one last answer. >> we need to think differently about the partnership. the japanese example was great because it isn't just the rail line its real-estate deals and the tokyo train station and that's all a real-estate deal as well by the company so we have to get beyond thinking about these as individual projects and think about it more -- >> that is a great weekend. i want to think the witnesses. excellent job once again at the hearing. and i know there is a lot of work that needs to be done to the we have a lot of people here in putting the representative and the representative who are devoted to getting something done on the infrastructure part

of this but as we discussed with governor rendell, there's also other things we need to do with bonding and other things that can be very positive. we are excited to move ahead with this and i hope that will be one of our top bipartisan efforts in the coming year. it should be and will be. thank you very much and the record will stay open for the next two weeks and the hearing is adjourned. >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] the house judiciary subcommittee on immigration and border security held a hearing looking into the immigration status of so-called dreamers on undocumented immigrants who are brought to the united states as children. testifying was a sister of an undocumented immigrant who described some of the struggles her sister had to endure because of her illegal status. here is a look at her opening statement during the subcommittee's hearing that place on tuesday. >> my parents moved to the united states in the 1980's and i was born in 1987 in california shortly after my birth, we moved back to colombia with money they saved working in the u.s. and

tried to pursue a life there. they had my sister while we were living in colombia and in 1991 when i was four and she was three, they moved back to the u.s.. they wanted us to live without the drugs, violence and daily car bombings that defined a life in colombia for a world-class education and falling american dreams. i didn't know about my family's immigration status. however as the years passed i began to understand my family was not like most and even though my parents tried to provide for our family, we would never be treated the same. my dad worked nights and my mom worked in the morning in order to make sure that my two sisters and i will never left alone. they understood the meaning of family and how important it was to raise their daughters and a stable home.

my mom learned english quickly by volunteering at our school and was working with us on our homework. i remember my mom asking my teachers to send home extra homework even on fridays so that my sisters and i would catch up. my youngest sister sarah was born here in florida in 1993. we all grew up in the same home, attended the same schools, spoke english, played lacrosse. there is one major difference that would come to dominate our life. sarah and i were a natural born u.s. citizens, while my sister evelyn was brought here on an expired a visa. it wasn't until high school that i found out for sure about my family's immigration status. there were so many little things that would come up that i couldn't -- there were traces the for hard to figure out because of the situation. for example, i was not able to get my driver's license when i turned 16. and i cannot tell you how hard

it is as a teenager to not be able to drive. as hard as this was for my youngest sister and for me, there is always a light at the end of the tunnel. we were u.s. citizens. evelyn didn't have that. she had a high school graduation knowing that there was no relief in sight. no path to college, no path to a normal job. she had to walk across the stage into the shadows. in a somewhat normal life she had gotten to live in the only home she had ever known. she also had to walk across that stage without our mom watching because our mother a couple months before had been pulled over at a traffic stop and arrested and was forced to leave the country. all of this happening with my sister in the car. this all occurred while i was a sophomore in college and i cannot put into words fell level

of devastation that this caused. it affected my personal well-being, academic success. my sisters and i worked hard in school. but unlike my youngest sister and i, evelyn wasn't able to claim her scholarship because of her undocumented status. as a u.s. citizen i've been able to perceive the american dream. when i graduate of florida state university and currently pursuing my master's degree at the university of florida. i have learned to cherish every moment i have with my family, especially since we have a foster mother. as a u.s. citizen, i am hopeful that congress finds a way to keep this from happening to other families. as of last year it had been over six years since we had seen our mom. it has been over six years since

her life came to a halt. this is the only home she knows. she has been here for 21 years, yet she is punished every day and forced to live a life in limbo for no reason at all. the american dream has been bittersweet for my family to i had to watch my sister and others like her be denied opportunities afforded to us. in the only country that she has ever known or if not an accident of birth. thank you so much for letting me share my story to the senate testimony from the sister of a so-called dreamer, a child of an immigrant that grew up in the united states the treatment of hundred strikers at guantanamo compromises a core ethical values of our medical profession

the ama has long endorsed the principle that every competent patient has the right to refuse medical intervention. the world medical association and the international red cross have determined that for speeding through the use of restraints is not only an ethical violation, but contravenes, an article for free of the geneva conventions. >> my concern is let's just set aside the numbers that you might or might not feel you can safely pushout. there are an unknown number that the president said its 46 that you can never try. do you honestly think that the people behind me and the people >> this soldier, the fear based argument in guantanamo based facility opened is hard to

understand. incarceration or medical treatment the detainees would pose no threat to the national security. for transfer should be transferred. for all all of war detainees as we have done in every conflict.

>> while directly supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs and empowering industrial facilities that produce the inexpensive goods we too often take for granted so midding and lower income americans can enjoy a higher standard of living making their hard earned dollars go further. rarely, however, has such a beneficial life improving resource upon which society depends been under such hostile attack. adding injury to insult, this

sled by our own president. in 2008, president obama boasted on the campaign trail that his policies would necessarily bankrupt any company that wanted to build a coal fired power plant. unfortunately, this is one campaign promise that the president appears determined to keep. not only are his epa power plant regulations prohibiting new coal plants from being constructed, but imposing massive costs on plants and forcing scores of shut downs. for example, 288 coal units in 32 states cited current and pending epa regulations as a factor contributing to the expected closure. senior members of the obama administration have readily acknowledged impacts of the policies. for example, former doe deputy secretary for fossil george, jim wood, estimated epa rules could phos up to -- excuse me, that

epa rules could force up to 7 o gig watts of coal offline adding, quote, number one, electric rates are going to go up; number two, whether or not construction jobs in the green energy are created, i think there's virtually no manufacturing jobs that are likely to be created from the replacement of coal; three, transmission grid stability likely to emerge as a major issue because of the shutdowns and because of the intermitt tan sigh of renewables. epa is one agency leading the war on coal. on tuesday, they discussed the department of interior's anticoal regulations to restrict coal mining activities resulting in thousands of lost jobs from the coal mining industry. incredibly, the president is attempting to limit the global use of coal by restricting international aid for it in developing countries; thus limiting access to which those

country's citizens escape poverty. even if the president were successful in his quest to eliminate all u.s. coal fire power plants, any potential reductions in global warming would more than overtake -- be more than overtaken by global emission growth. china continues to be build a coal plant a week, and global coal demand is projected to grow significantly over the next half century regardless of u.s. domestic policy. the purpose of today's hearing and challenge before us in the subcommittee is to apply to the regulatory economic and global realities to improve the focus and priorization of doe's coal-related activities. i look forward to hearing more about the recently developed coal r and d road map to help identify technology opportunities to increase

efficiencies, reduce pollutants, and lower cost of electricity. i'm eager to examine the truly innovative research underway at the western resources institute in wyoming. wri serves as a model of how to bring together public-private, and economic stake holders to advance development and use of abun dapped and affordable energy supplies. thanks. i now yield to ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you, chairman, and, first, i ask unanimous consent that ranking member johnson, that her opening stai. be entered into the record, she's not here today, but has been a leader in this area, and i hope the committee will accept that. >> accepted. >> thank you. >> i also thank you for holding the hearing and thank the witnesses for the testimony today. i'm pleased, also, to welcome

ms. judy greenwald, a group that does a lot of work in texas, the home state of the full committee chairman, mr. smith, ranking member, and hi colleague on this subcommittee to introdust ms. grownwald in a moment. before i came here this morning, i had students in my office just a part of a constituent thing that we do about a couple times a month, and they asked where i was going. i said i was going to a hearing in this district, and there was a puzzling look on their face. i said, yeah, thars right, coal, you're from california. we don't rely on coal, but the rest of the country and in places does, and i explained to them we're at a point right now in the country where we're in a struggle, and we are trying to figure out where are we going to provide -- how are we going to provide the future of our energy

needs, and in california, 20% of the electricity in 2009, the last study available, was provided by renewables, and so california saw ourselves as leading the country forward and moving away from dirty fossil fuels that could hurt the environment, and not be so good for our children or the future, but coal does have a place to play, and i'm interested and always agree that the all of the above approach is the way we should go, and wherever we make it safe, we should make it happen, and i support the chair 's interest in doing this. i say what the president talkedded about a couple weeks back with climate change was not a war on coal. in fact, i saw it as the opposite, but as a retreat from coal, not a war on coal, but attempt for the united states to eventually, one day, hopefully pull out of coal, and pull closer to more renewable,

cleaner energy sources, and that's what i support, and so -- but until that day comes, i'll continue to work with the chair to find a future of coal that is clean and good for our environment, and we should not ignore the possibilities available today as we continue to move and strive for the fuels of tomorrow, and programs like the national enhanced oil recovery initiative demonstrate the innovative capabilities of the mature coal industry long enjoyed federal support. carbon capture, sthornlg, and enhanced oil recovery are examples of technologies that help ensure our present reliance on coal will not hinder our ability to move towards a cleaner, safer environment. these advances support industries today, even as we lay the foundation for emerging energy technologies that'll support the work force of the future, so i look forward to working with you, chair, on doing this, hearing from our witnesses, and making fro depress in the area. with that, i yield back the balance of any time.

>> thank you, and we have not seen the chairman of the full committee, mr. smith come in, we have accepted the statement of the ranking member of the full committee. if there's other members, your statements will be added to the record at this point. thank you. we'll begin then. i would like to introduce our witnesses, and i'll defer to those who has -- when he arrives -- >> [inaudible] >> well, excellent. your opportunity to introduce ms. greenwald will be occurring shortly. our first witness today is chris smith, acting assistant sick tear for fossil energy at the department of energy. mr. smith was appointed in 2009 as assistant secretary for fossil energies, office of oil and natural gas. prior to joining doe,

mr. smith's spent 11 years with oil companies focused on upstream business development and trading. our second witness is ben -- did i get that right? >> [inaudible] >> thank you. executive director at the coal utilization research council. he's also a part there -- partner, and he's served as council and staff director in the natural energies research committee and development. our third witness is dawn collins, chief executive officer at the national research institute focusing on transitions scientific and applied research into technology. he's spent 29 years of experience in engineering, management of research, and deploying of new technologies. for today's final witness, judy

greenwald. i yield to the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. smith is from fort mort, my hometown in texas, just happy to have him on the panel today, and judy is the vice president at the center for climate and energy solution overseaing very many important aspects of that organization including the analysis and promotion of innovation in the major sectors that contribute to climate change including transportation, electric power, buildings, and industry. in addition to the 0 year -- 30 years of working on environmental and energy policy, she has a strong texas connection and worked with many

organizations and individuals in our great state, and i welcome her here this morning. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you. , and now we'll go to our witnesses. as you may know, spoken testimony is limited to five minutings each, after which the members of the committee will have five minutes each to ask questions. we welcome you here today, mr. smith. you are recognized first to present your testimony. my favorite boot store in all of america is in fort worth, and we're delighted to have a good fort worth native amongst us. mr. smith, you are now recognized for five minutes. >> well, thank you, chairwoman, a lot of fort worth references this morning, so happy with that. thank you, chairwoman, thank you

ranking member, and members of the subcommittee, and i appreciate this opportunity to discuss the department of energy's coal research and activities. our secretary, secretary announced an $8 billion loan guarantee solicitation to promote early development and deployment of innovative projects that reduce carbon emissions. this solicitation including the $6 billion already committed to clean coal technologies reflect the president's commitment to the all of the above strategy reflecting a mix of renewable power and clean coal. the department of energy plays a leadership role in the development of clean coal technologies with a focus on carbon capture and storage or ccs. the clean coal research program and partnership with the private sector is focused on maximizing efficiency, minimizing the cost of the new technologies. in recent years, the program has

been restructured to focus on clean coal technologies with carbon capture and sequestering. the program pursues the following two major strategies. first, capturing and storing greenhouse gases, and, second, improving the efficiency of fossil energy systems. the clean coal research program addresses key challenges to confront development and deployment of clean coal technologies on research to capture technologies, monitoring, verification, and accounting technologies to ensure permanent storage and development of advanced energy systems. to get there, we're pursuing three pathways for carbon capture. post combustion, precombustion, and oxy combustion. research in the pathways is exploring a wide range of approaches that coupled with the efficiency improvements and cost reductions in developments of turbines will help provide a technology base for the commercial deployment of ccs technologies. on the storage side, we pursued

projects to design, innovative, advanced technology and protocols for the verification accounting and accounting of co2 storage in gee lomingic formations as well as simulating behavior of geologically stored c02. there's a component of the effort, and the program is in the development phase during which large scale field testing involves at least 1 million metric tons will be implemented. several of the large scale tests are gurnetway, and one safely injected 1.6 million tons monitored for safe and permanent storage. the department is implementing large scale projects in the regional partnerships that clean coal power initiatives, future jen 2.0, and carbon capture and storage program. we have eight major ccs demonstration projects nationwide and important advances made in several of them. for example, the archer daniels

project in illinois will dplon strait an integrated system in an ethanol production plant. the prompt is under construction, and it's nearly 50% complete. future gen2.0 successfully completed phase one and phase two commenced in february of this year. they are focused on design and engineering. there's demonstrations on storing co2 in a variety of formations like enhanced oil recovery. enhanced oil recovery remits the most attractive option for storage to produce substantial quantities of oil and permanently storing co2 in geologic formations. there's six projects employing and two employing underway across the united states. as with saline storage projects, eor projects are subject to rigorous monitoring, accounting, verification and technology procedures to ensure their

safety and effectiveness. today, nearly three out of four coal burning power plants in the country are equipped with technologies that trace roots back to the department of energy's advanced coal technology program. the office is to ensure that this important resource can be developed and utilized in an environmentally sensible way to strengthen energy security. i believe that our clean coal research program shows we have the critical experience, expertise, and capabilities and track record to meet this challenge. madam chairman woman, members of the committee, that completes my statement and happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you very much, mr. smith. i now recognize ben to present his testimony. >> madam chair, ranking member, thawfng for giving me the font

to make comments today. we have two subject areas you asked me to address by discussing four points. first, in describing to you as you requested, our coal technology development road map done in conjunction with the power research institute, let me say we concluded we have technologies to develop high conversion of efficiencies moving electricity generation from today's high of 9 or 40% to nearly 50%. following the same road map agenda, will result in reductions in traditional air pollutants leading ultimately to coal fueled plants that really today are very clean, but will be nearly emissions dpree in the future. since the 1970s, the doe's coal research and development program and work of the national energy technology lab has as pointed

out now been installed on many of the coal units in the country. with doe's support, we are confident, confident that technology will be the pathway to also addressing co0 e mageses from the use of coal. second, you asked if our road map might be a way of examining the priorization of doe's research and development activities. let me start by stating our general agreement with doe's port portfolio and note industry's successful collaboration with the fossil energy office. where we see need for added emphasis, ccs should not be the singular focus of the government's research and development supported efforts. we recommend an emphasis on technology development to address water use and discharge from power plants and increased support for high temperature material development, and these advanced materials are key to increasing the efficiency of coal conversion to electricity.

doe may need to focus more attention now on technologies that are truly transformational to move beyond adding a series of improved technologies to have , and timely, the pace of technology by doe fits the age profile of the existing coal fleet. we might require commercially available technology for retrofit of coal units or replacement of coal units by the early 2020s so that technology can be used in the later 20s or 30s. doe's technology timelines could be too late by several years. also, the president's fy2014 coal research and development request is nearly a hundred

million dollars less than what we believe is required. third, the added cost of new and pending environmental regulations on certainty of future regulations and market competition from abundant and natural gas led to projections that perhaps 60 to 80 gig wattings, 20-25% of the existing fleet will be retired in the next several years, and anticipated co2 requirements could increase the number of those requirements. it's been commented the original c02 proposal requires plants to meet the refined standards that can only be met with the installation of carbon capture technology that is not commercially available or economic today. this is not a realistic starp. we will await the reproposal of the rule, but if it is still predicated upon technology that is not commercially available,

our concerns remaven. simply directing or assuming the existence of technology will not make it so. point four, you asked we comment upon research activities that should be pursued in the near, mid, and long term. perk is developing a three part program that is organized around the proposition that technology development is a positive pathway to the sustained and nrkzed use of coal, but our program is being developed through the prism of defining benefits to the nation from coal use. in the near term, we consider recommendations to undertake the technology research and development to address challenges to the existing base load fleets which is now a cycling fleet while simultaneously confronting ever-more stringent air regulations. in the medium term, we have to ensure the doe demonstrations

currently underway are successful. a program is needed to encourage the construction of world class fuel generation coal plants meaning high efficiency and e mages control standards and committing projects to fit technology when the technology is available. we recommend a program to use captured c02 # from end hained oil recovery. we are looking for ways to accomplish our midterm program without new government spending. progress is being made on this front, and, finally, in the long term, government and partnership with industry needs to pursue a research and development program. thank you for your time, and i'll await your questions. >> thank you. i now recognize mr. collins for five minutes. >> good morning, dalton collins

from the research institute in wyoming. i appreciate the opportunity to provide research on technology development. it can ensure diverse energy resource portfolio that utilizes resources officially and environmentally, responsibly. there's a multiscientific research and technology nonprofit institute special idahoing in by yo energy, natural gas, environmental monitoring, and remediation, chemistry, heavy and ultra heavy oils like canadian oil stands as well as clean coal power, and conversion to fuel, hydrogen, and industrial chemicals. i'll summarize the testimony and request my testimony be enter into the record. our view is that research and development work is successful when viable technologies are deployed to the betterment of

our country. in my written testimony, i highlight opportunities to have carbon for energy resickling for living in a carbon rich world. ole, coal, an untapped water resource, lower plew at that particular times and lower water consumption. they have a port portfolio to se very local conditions and resource availability across the united states. based on the experience and expertise, i recommend that congress take some of the following actions. consider policies that allow exploring solutions for living in a carbon rich world. in addition to living in a carbon constrained world. cultivate a national portfolio

strategy to lever sources and technologies formulating flexible, integrated technology research portfolio and priorities to consider local and regional constraints. allocate funding to support carbon dioxide to stimulate the transformation of the compound from something to be avoided to a beneficial resource that can be used to increase chemical feed stock, biofuels, and support self-sufficiency. allocate resources, research to support the sustainable and environmental safe use of fossil fuels, energy in water, efficiency advancements, and formulate a subtle leadership team to plan and advance energy and water efficiency improvements and environmental impact reductions in the coal sector. in summary, we take a portfolio approach to provide steanble energy solutions, our thinking

approach delivers cost efficiencies and environmental benefits with respect to utilization of coal. the many boom and bust cycles that we have experienced in the energy sector really are a function of the market place, but the way to minimize the downside of the fact of life is through the aggressive, innovative partnership through energy, research entityings, and federal and state governments. this one shows energy technology portfolio delivers benefits to the u.s. consumers and protect the environment. i would note, for example. the state of wyoming is implementing a long term strategic plan to maximize the entire energy portfolio within wyoming utilizing c02 for enhanced oil recovery and storage of c02, precisely the kind of activities the federal government should encourage making the best use of limited financial investments in addition to efficient utilization of resources the key to achieving national stainability goals, energy

security, and economic prosperity. in closing, a strong commitment to a portfolio approach including solutions for living in a carbon rich world facilitates innovation and growth that strengthens u.s. competitiveness. this necessitates continue federal funding of scientific research and technology development. it is certainly to maximize efficiency in the most environmentally and economically sustainable ways. i thank you for the opportunity to appear before you, and i'm pleased to answer questions the subcommittee may have. >> thank you, mr. chairman collins, and now i recognize ms. greenwald to present her testimony. good morning. >> thank you. madam chairman, members of the cube committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify, and thank you for the kind introduction. i'm due -- judy, the vice president at the center for climate and energy solutions. my testimony today focuses on

the most important climate and energy solution no one knows about. i'll emphasize two main points. first, carbon capture and storage, ccs is important to addressing cloyment change. second, c02eor boosts production and creates and generates that federal revenue. united states and the rest of the world give 80% of the energy from coal, oil, and gas, and and is expected to continue. emissions pose the challenge. that's why we need a sweep of technologies to store c02 deep underground. it can capture up to 90% of emissions from power plants and industrial facilities allowing coal and natural gas to remain part of the energy mix. ccs is commercialized for certain processes, however, ccs and other contexts, for example,

coal and natural power plants is an expensive technology reaching maturity. the key challenge is to get a sufficient number of commercial scale projects up and running to demonstrate the emerging technologies at scale and bring down the costs. the department of energy's role in ccs development has been and will be critical. we are working with the private sector on the projects today including several coal-based power projects. additional drivers needed, though, to help the next generation of projects move forward. that's why ccs is increasingly thought of as carbon capture and utilization and storage, or ccus. utilizing captured carbon dioxide could play a key role in the development of ccs. it has the potential to increase american oil productions by tens of billions of barrels while displacing imported oil and safely storing tons of carbon emissions underground. i'll explain how it works. after conventional primary and

secondary oil recovery, the oil in a field is left in the ground. injecting this underground makes it possible to recover oil and extend the field's life. the united states is a global leader in c02eor for 40 years and gives 6% of the domestic oil this year. while most activities occur in the basin of texas, there's projects in wyoming, the gulf coast, oklahoma, and michigan. using existing technologies, c02 could double or triple u.s. reserves. it could store ten to 20 billion tons of carbon dioxide, five to ten years worth from all coal fired power plants. technology could produce more production and increase storage. it is done using dioxide under ground and ironically in short supply. using captured manmade cab bon dioxide, we increase oil production, promote economic

development, create jobs, reduce carbon emissions, and drive innovation in ccs technology. because of these multiple benefits, we've been able to bring together the national enhanced oil recovery initiative with a diverse coalition of industry, labor, environmental organizations, and state officials. this recommendation calls for a subtle tax incentive to capture manmade c02 for eor. in some regions, eor operators pay $30 # a ton for c02. at the same time, plants emit billions of tons of c02 into the atmosphere as waste. this is the opportunity to trappings form the waste into a marketable commodity and transform a problem into an energy production solution. by combining private eor operating willing to pay for the c02, society leverages the investment. this more than pays for itself in ten years increasing domestic

oil production and associated taxable oil revenues. federal revenue exceeds the fiscal cost of incentives by more than a hundred billion dollars by 40 years. so summarize, ccs is a critical technology to have fossil fuels and protect the global climate. the best hope at the moment for advancement is carbon captured utilization and storage or ccus, and the best current example is enhanced oil recovery. solving the climate and energy problems require a portfolio of technologies and to be pursued vigorously. we focus on c02eor, the most important climate energy solution no one knows about it. thank you for your attention. i look forward to your questions and working with the subcommittee and congress to advance this critical technology. >> thank you. now, if we would limit our questions to four minutes each, we could probably issue everybody in the room could get

to ask questions before our vote series. if there's no objection to going with four minutes rather than five? then so ordered. we'll start the chair now recognizes herself for four minutes. thank you, panel, for being here. starting with mr. collins, and in your testimony, you talked about integrated port portfolio approaches to maximize benefits for coal. talk about what technologies you believe are the most promising to improve energy utilization. >> yes, madam chairman. we have a process called right coal that will extract the water out of low ranked coal that in the past has been a missed opportunity, low rank coal, especially out of wyoming, beneficial for reducing sulfer emissions and content, and the water is up the smokestack as long as other emissions. extracting the front end, we utilize water in the power plant

reducing local water consumption in communities that are water stressed by 50-60% for the water, especially in air cooled systems. we see that as a second value of low rankedded coal that we deliver water with the energy resource. second technology is a bacteria process that operates in the dark 24 hours a day to consume c02 and make a crude oil to be used to make sin synthetic diesl fuel, for instance, and perhaps longer chain coveredded molecules like pharmaceuticals and turn the carbon in the coal into an additional economic resource by using it more than once, so that's our view to look at recycling energy. >> thank you, mr. collins. i have a question about the fossil energy loan guarantees,

and the agent of 2005 to advance technologies and facilitate commercial application for projects selected for further evaluation in july of 2009, and to date, no final loan guarantees have been issued. ..

>> we believe that idea we can stop that process at any point in time. in regards to those for projects, the answer we can be sure that we are not quite certain where those products are >> mr. smith, have you taken any steps to advance these projects? >> thank you for that question, madam chairwoman. this oversees all the research and development and i don't have oversight over the loan guarantee program. i do know the projects that were selected and it focused on this technology. we have recently announced additional levels of funding of $8 billion which is part of this loan guarantee. it would have a very wide range of technologies and offering up

for public comment. so we can structure this in a way that has the highest probability of tracking the right kind of participants in making sure that we are successful in moving upward. we are pushing for this in real-time i don't speak >> now we move onto the next witness. >> it is pretty evident now after a number of scientific studies that 97% of scientists agree that human activities are causing climate change. so i would like to ask each one of you agree or disagree with the 97% of scientists who to believe that. mr. smith, do you agree or disagree? >> must work out programs are focused on is. >> you agree that climate change

is caused by human activity? >> we do agree that this is something that we need to address. >> sir, do you agree? >> you are not going to like this answer. >> you agree or disagree. >> we have to have the technologies to address it. >> what about you, personally? >> i think there is a lot of information out there that suggests that. >> you agree or do you disagree, mr. collins? >> well, i would say that you probably won't like my answer either. there are multiple contributions and it is not all just part of these sources. that statement in my mind is incomplete. that is why i cannot agree to the question. >> you agree that human activity

has played a role, a substantial role in climate change? >> the activity releases a lot of energy that contributes to the warming of this. but also that co2 is an untapped resource when we think about how we utilize that. you and i to live in a carbon free world, that sounds like suicide. >> you disagree or agree? >> excuse me, but i focus on the technology sector organization. we do have a staff that focuses on science and we do work on that area. >> mr. smith, over the history of research to reduce the impact of coal-fired power plant, where has the bulk of innovation taking place? has that been in the private sector or at the national lavatories for research universities? >> thank you for the question. without making a direct

comparison, i would say this is an area in which it is critical for the government to be involved. we work very closely with private industry and all the major demonstrations. we need to ensure. >> well, first of all, it is important of these we found these critical programs that allow this work we have to have these findings for these programs allow us to work

together. >> i will yield back in the interest of allowing more questions. >> i think the gentleman and i now yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. nock of >> madam chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing. in regards to new and existing coal-fired plants, the epa's initial regulatory proposal for this release last year, making an assumption that this technology would be available within two years, initiating operations. do you agree that this new proposed rule, which i understand is part of this provision, that it would ban the construction of new coal-fired plants? >> well, thank you for the question, congressman. i cannot comment on this yet as it has not been published.

it has been in the agency and what i can say is that the department had an important role to play in terms of shaping out and we believe it is critically important we are working together with the epa in the industry to ensure that new technologies are commercially ready and that they are being developed and that we are making the right to the investments and these innovations are created here in the united states that we are creating that for our country. that is the part of energy that is played in this process. >> would you agree that in order for this to be a part of the new coal plant, the this includes liability issues that will have to be resolved? >> i do agree that there are issues that need to be resolved. and that is the process that we are in real time going through. this is an important innovation that will allow us in this

mission. >> with that in mind, what is the earliest time frame that we would be commercially available to the scale? >> well, mr. congressman, i would say say that currently we know a lot about this and storing it the work that we are going to right now is going to ensure that we are making it more affordable for a broad scale release. i cannot make a projection in terms of what exactly that is going to look like. but that is the amount of information that we are going for right now. we hope to make a real term part for this. >> if we can't get to that point, are we basically keeping new power plants are being bought online are potentially closing existing ones?

>> well -- >> the chairwoman mentioned how many plants have been closed. >> we have the emergence of natural gas. it has leapfrogged in a lot of areas in terms of how this gets dispatched. so what we are working on is not just those with sequestration but also industry to improve efficiency.

>> this is part of the research topic and we are making investments to ensure that we are moving it forward. we do have this high-level of performance. >> it is a true statement that this demonstration is not a fan of coal? >> if you look at the investment we have made since the administration started, almost $60 billion invested in these technologies. better processes, more efficient turbine. this is all this administration has made for investment in coal over this. i would not agree with your statement, respectfully,

mr. congressman. >> i think the gentleman from texas and i yield to another gentleman from texas. >> i had t-shirts made for my second campaign that said that just because i got it, i have to suggest that the t-shirt route would be part of it. the gentleman is recognized for four-minute. >> i wanted to ask judi greenwald about her organization's work and what is important to reuse as far as projects go and there is an important geographic area.

>> we pointed out recently we have state officials in both the u.s. and canada talking about this and its relationship to carbon storage. they are doing carbon capture and they are using co2 into their pipelines to be used. so it is a practical example of the kind of project so it is a huge deal.

>> okay. >> these products are also part of our initiative. >> let me ask you about ccs and how would you compare it the need to support other energy sources, such as renewable energy. it is something that we really don't seem to talk about. >> the way that we think about this is we think about a strategy at all of the above. >> all of these projects we should be working on, also in

deployment and encouraging them to be used more in the marketplace. for us, it is all about performance so we did not come out and say this is the best technology. as i said in my testimony, the reason we are focusing today is because recently that was a position that not many people know about. we have the most an official product in the marketplace. we are working towards that.

>> thank you, judi greenwald. none come i yield back. >> i just want to say that my car truly is a friend of coal. it is charged by coal power. i'm very excited about it being an abundant resource here. we are talking about the administration's bias against coal. they just brought on this in 2011 a critical boiler unit that is a state-of-the-art cocoal-fired facility in the station.

but they told me the other day that the clean energy tax credit two years ago, today it would be illegal to do and we would be able to do it we wouldn't be able to comply with these rules that will be accommodated. we hope to build another compliant station. >> thank you for the comments, congressman. obviously i cannot respond to this particular instance. >> would be possible to build this without ccs technology today? >> again, we are not the regulatory commission, so i can't answer the question that a specific to how the regulations operate. but i can talk to you about the technology pathway that we are pursuing about this. i can address this point.

>> i will assume that they were correct. let me just ask you a question. we cannot base it on opinions. i believe without that, i am looking for facts and numbers today. can you tell me what percentage of that warming is due to resource that is causing this? >> what i can say without getting into a detailed scientific discussion -- >> i'm looking for a number or a percentage. >> we do believe that the co2 production and gas emissions are important components of global warming and is something that we do have to comprehensively check out. >> okay, let's take it into the realm of facts. what percent would you apply in regards to these causes?

>> i'm not going to go through the complete review of scientific studies. i can't say that it is comprehensively important. we certainly could provide your office with more details. >> every time someone comes from this, we've never gotten an answer to that question. but i do have another question that is based on that. what is the% cost increase in coal production which you associate with this technology? >> right now we are looking at three separate ways that we are checking out the implement of these technologies. >> with the additional cost be? >> well, depending on the state of technology at the point of implementation, it just depends. >> he said between 35 and 70%

$8200 to $300 and in 12 months they have another $1200. >> the positions they take with this is that these are technologies that will be critical to be developed. >> we hope to have the maximum amount of energy diversity.

if we do not move forward on these technologies, we are not going to have a way to ensure that coal is part of the energy that we need. we must work to ensure that we do keep his important energy source. >> the turnout recognizes the gentleman from california. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. smith, i would like to explore a little bit more about the competitors competitiveness of coal. can you tell me the impact that is being increased with efficiency and extracting natural gas and what it has? >> thank you for the question. it has had a pretty large impact. if we look at it in this way, i grew up in texas is the gentleman mentioned.

now it is an absolute boom of gas production. prices for natural gas were creeping into the double digits at one point. as you have that large decrease, it brings another option. >> whole is struggling with administration policy. >> it is also part of the rationale that we have to work very closely to make sure that we are working together with these technologies. >> let's talk about those versus

natural gas. what makes it such a more compelling source of energy on the fossil fuel side. >> we think that energy diversity is important and i would say that natural gas has the benefit of having half of the co2 impact. right now it is much more affordable than it was just five years ago. >> thank you for that. so it seems to me looking at these policies, it is trying to make coal competitive. >> i would characterize this is not a war on coal, but an attempt to make it competitive. it is something in our back

pocket that we can develop for energy independence. >> we believe that this energy diversity is a very important part of it. that creates a lot of jobs and a lot of economic benefits in parts of the country in which coal production is important. we firmly believe that we are going to in the only way that we could have this look forward is to move forward with research and development make sure we are doing something about the problem that we have. ..

>> that's an accurate characterization of what our intent is. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentlemen, and i yield four minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. weber. >> chris, good to see you. i have not seen you since the opening of the plant. you said in your conversation with them that you said it's not true that the administration was waging a war on coal, but let me talk about that fundamental question of the future of coal in america as it relates to the president obama's policies. in the first campaign, the president famously said the objective was to bankrupt anyone that trieded to build a coal fired power plant. the president worked hard he was denying he waged war on coal after he