we're humble in the face of what could happen. so i hope you'll go back and i hope your counsel will look at the law in the light that our experts are telling us. our experts, they don't have any -- anything to hide or gain. they just have been advising the congress forever. and i have the opinion here. i'll give it to your counsel. the summary of it. this is the summary. we have the full book if you need. it i hope you'll take a look at this. should we give the whole thing? we'll give you the whole entire book about it. because what you're telling us is simply unheard of. we don't get it from any other agency. just so you know. we don't. people complain about epa. they're not asserting. they're asserting either

executive privilege or one of the arguments that are legitimate. so we'll have you back soon. we are going look at the twelve recommendations and how you are going about it. i thank you for being here and for answering all the questions you did. thank you very much. we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations] . .

emergency and natural -- energy -- resources will come to order. we will have a busy morning today. but i want to start with particularly exciting news. senator landrew is having her first grand daughter in a couple hours. we will give her a round of

applausei applaua applause. we wabt wanted to -- wanted -- to have this hearing because there is talk on whether extruding crude oil is in the natural interest of the people. i think it is fair to say this isn't going to be revolved over the next couple weeks. there is a lot of interest in this subject and that is why we are holding the hearing. i believe deeply in expanded trade. 1-6 jobs depends on international trade in my state and trade jobs play better on the non-trade jobs because they reflect a higher level of

productivity which is often required. i am asked to summarize my economic views, and i often say a goal is to help things grow, build and have revenue in america and then ship them somewhere. that is why today's debate is especially important. the fact is energy is not the same thing as blueberries. accordingly it is treated differently under federal law. the energy policy and conversation act allows for the export of crude oil only when doing so is in the natural interest. there is not that requirement for blueberries or other things. national security is involved when we talk about exporting

energy. there are several armed conflicts around the world that are being inflamed by fights to control oil. now, i will put blueberries up against anything, but the last time i looked no one is fighting a war over them. it is hard to believe that only a few years after campaigns, being dominated by slogans like drill, baby drill we have having the talks on excrudeing oil. now, our country is in the enviable position about having choices about the energy future. how can the boom create the greatest effort for america?

can energy help create jobs? of course. can it ease the pain at the pump? of course. can we reduce the dependence on fuel from countries that don't have our best interest in mind? of course. those are the easy questions. the harder question is how can you come up with policy with america can have it all? can we get the domestic benefits from export and retain a cost advantage for domestic consumers? that is my goal. but in an effort to keep the hearing under seven or eight hours we will have to have a focus. i want it understood for this hearing i have a particular interest in focusing on the consumer. in any energy debate it is never hard to find a voice for the

various regions, industries and points of view in america. consumers often don't have one however. the number of voices want to export oil. i want to hammer home the point this morning is for me the litmus test is how middle class families will be effected by changing the country's policy on oil exports. it isn't enough to say an algorithm determines this. american families and many businesses deserve to know what exports mean for their specific needs when they fill up at the pump. charging forward and hoping for the best isn't the best way to

get the policy decisions. responsibility of the committee and we have worked on the issue in a bipartisan way is to make sure consumers don't get hammered by the price of gas going up. i will wrap-up by saying there are important issues with respect to timing. there maybe a time when crude oil exports are appropriate. one of the questions we will have to explore is whether that time is now. when a conversation has begun on exporting crude oil, i am not hearing a similar conversation on ending imports. our country is importing about 40% of the crude oil including from those places that don't have our best interest in mind. every member of this committee understands the global commodity debate. a global price doesn't

automatically mean a stable price. if oil stops flowing from saudi arabia american consumers and businesses would feel it in a hurry. does real energy security mean being energy independent even if we never do it? i think most americans would think the government would chose not to import the oil if given the option. we will listen to the arguments pro/con and i need to hear more. i will not be making judgments today and i look forward to working with all of the colleagues so that our country can maximize what i think we all would say is a historic set of circumstances that we want to think through carefully about how to tap the potential of. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i

appreciate you considered remarks and the opportunity to bring up the issue before the committee. as you, and i, have noted over the past year we have not shown any interest in taking up the difficult issues when it comes to energy or energy production and export whether it is natural gas or oil. this is what people expect us to do: take up the hard issues and have considered debate and dialogue and where and when appropriate to act on that. my hope is that today's discussion is the beginning of many very considered and thoughtful discussions on what is a very timely issue given the position that the country is in when it comes to our

dramatically increased oil production. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss this today. i would note that it has generated a fair amount of discussion. we have not seen a full hearing room in a while. we have good representation on the committee so i am pleased to see that. mr. chairman, you will recall that you and i were speaking together at the center for strategic and international studies on unconventional gas production this time last year. during the q&a during the presentation, an attendee asked about the ban on crude oil and you answered the question in a thoughtful manner. my response was isn't it amazing

you are able to ask the question and not be laughed out of the room. a year prior to that it would not have been possible to have the discussion. so where we have come in just a year in recognizing, again, that as a nation when it comes to energy production on several different fronts, the landscape has changed dramatically and thanks to my colleague at the end here, what we are seeing coming from north dakota has changed dynamic. it has helped with our jobs and our opportunities. but it isn't just north dakota, it is in texas and california. we are not seeing it in alaska unfortunately and we will not see the opportunity for

exploreation this year. shell is not moving forward because of the decision by the 9th circuit. very troubling to me. let me get back to where i think we will take the conversation this morning. just a couple weeks ago, i addressed the brookings institution and presented a white paper on the energy trade and called for ending the prohibition on crude. i will tell you i have been gratified by the thoughtful responses. it hasn't been a knee jerk we cannot do it, the sky is falling. it is much more considered and thoughtful and i think that is where we need to be with these discussions. i want to prompt further discussion and debate on the issue. the analytical and trade winds

are blowing. the architecture of u.s. energy exports must be renovated if we are going to lead the world on issue of trade, environment and energy. the highest profile fact is the de-facto prohibition on crude oil. it threatens record-breaking oil production by creating gluts and distortions. it is my hope and expectation that the hearing continues all of the issues considering all sides and reaching conclusions so we can move forward rather than let the global energy markets pass us by around the world. having said that, i don't expect that we are going to either see the administration moving forward with a discussion next week or legislation coming forward from me or other members

of the energy committee here. what i am hoping is that we can advance this discussion so that it is clearly understood that from the consumers experience why exports make sense. timing is key here. i believe opening up world markets to crude oil will lower the global prices. the american consumers will benefit from this action. go-political impact is important here. the on-going talks with asia is

just being understood. we cannot let short-term thinking distract us from the long hall. gasoline prices will go up and down, there is going to be variations across different regions of the united states. this is do to variables like infrastructure and differing tax structures and other aspects of the distribution system. regional variations are ultimately variations on global prices. lifting the ban is about production and jobs. the international energy agency, iea, has warned that maintaining the man might result in shut-in production which would be

against the livelihood. so many things to chew on and kerry forward in discussions. we have a panel in front of us and i think mr. chairman is knowledgeable and poised to speak to the issues. i think we will gain from their input this morning and i thank them for being here and thank you for allowing us to have this opportunity. >> thank you for a thoughtful statement. without the committee being hit by one of those political facts, i am told this is the first hearing in the congress in 20 years on this topic. given the fact we have more than 10% of the senate here, a number of senators want to make short statements. franken did. >> i didn't want to interrupt

the ranking member, but when she was talking about where we came in oil production and thanked my colleague from north dakota, i wanted to point out while as governor he did all kinds of things to make sure it was developed there, he didn't discover the oil there. and i want to point that out but if you would please discover some oil in minnesota, it would be most welcome. >> you need to talk to our guest herald hamm. let me go back and forth. is there someone that would like to make a comment?

is there a colleague on the other side who wants a minute or two? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to welcome herald hamm. and senator franken isn't too far off, he didn't discover the oil, but discovered the methods and developing them in a way that made oil recovery in billions of barrels. it is leading an energy renaissance. so i am pleased to welcome and introduce herald hamm. >> i enjoyed my visit to north dakota as well. >> i think we have a great panel

and i want to thank you for a thoughtful opening statement. i will submit my statement for the record, but i want to say we are witnesses an energy revolution in the country today producing more energy at home here than we have in decade and translating that into numbers, the eia predicts 8.5 million barrels a day in production, is 1 million more than in 2013 and very near the record of 9.6 million barrels last achieved in 1970. that is why we are having the hearing and i think the testimony mr. hamm will show us that this will expand and the production companies and also

the landowners and the oil supply and gas suppliers and also the general manufactures that make products unrelated to gas and oil but employ americans. and they are experiencing the excitement about supply and stable and reasonable prices. i will put the rest of my statement in the record. for the refineries, we do need to get on the record what the refineries are positioned to process today and the kind of crude that is being produced. and the miss match that is there. we have to be very aware and sensitive of the investments that have been made by the refineries. i think we are going to hear some of that today. i am looking forward to the testimony particularly the users of it like delta airlines that

use a tremendous amount of fuel. thank you, mr. chairman. >> let's go to the other side. anyone on the other side who wants to make a brief comment? senator mansion was interested. >> i want to thank both of you for holding this historic hearing today. i just can't help but think that where we are today and we are thinking about this, which would have never had this a year or five years ago, it really speaks of the innovations and changes you have made. the l and g exports that we were going to import a couple years ago comes to mind. and senator, you said that sweet spot and i can only think about

100-150 years ago what the coal industry did for us coming from west virginia gave us the life we have today. and what people are still depending on our state. where we would be if we had sent that product out of the market place. there is a balance to be had and i think we are able to find that. i will introduce my statement for the record. i am interested in this topic and discussion for us and the children and grandchildren and the security of the nation. >> thank you. senator barrasso. >> i read a book called "break out" and it is about pioneers of the future. it goes into the battle that is

going to decide america's fate and a lot has to do with energy resources, availability and production and the technology making it possible. so thank you for this and bringing this together. >> senator cantwell. >> thank you for the statement. there are two issues i would like to discuss and those are safety and price. i don't know if they will be discussed today. i am not saying you cannot have oil transported safely but we had a huge fire and a report is being released about the death and what happened from that. and we have had incidences of oil now if you think of the north dakota and the export opportunities on rail and what are the safety issues. that is an important issues to

me. and secondly the issue of price. i believe it is global market and global price. i definitely think we could do more to police the markets to make sure manipulation isn't effected. that is more about the banking figures and how many people have their fingers in the oil pot when they are not taking the end user. the price issue in the pacific northwest given the world market and being isolated, we have had some of the highest gas prices in the nation. when the congressional research gave an estimate on exports, it is saying that consumers could pay 5-10 cent more if '75 we ha

discussion but now we do because of the fracking and such. l and g exports issue was more

controversy than it is now. we found ourselves in a situation it looks like we can afford to export and help the manufactures in places like iowa achieve what is happening. it is as a revolution but it is more important as to the impact on jobs where manufactures are coming back and adding jobs because they are seeing there is a long term and stable price. on the issue of oil i would like to hear if the price at the pump is determined through there global market. we hear that what happens at the pump in ohio and around the

country is affected by the global market place. and when there is an issue overseas of no disruption but the potential the prices go up. so we would like to hear more about that. and since senator talked about the sweet spot, i would love to hear what could be done in terms of a swap specifically with mexico that has been suggested where we would export light sweet crude for heavy crude. so it might not lift the wholesale export ban, but might enhance or competitiveness and have the right balance of emergency resources in the context of the revolution that

put us in the field across the board. >> we are going on a long time so i will try to be brief. >> it has been 25 years. >> that is a good point. there is a lot of bottled up ideas. >> there are. >> i want to remind my colleagues that one of the reasons we are having this conversation and why the market is changing is because of this technology that has been developed. as you said, horizontal drilling and fractureing and much of the research came from the national laboratories and after several years of declining budgets, i think it is important to realize that things we consider mature and industries have been around for long time can be changed by our investments and research. we need to continue to make sure we don't loose sight of that.

>> very good. other colleagues? senator scott. >> i would feel left out if i didn't say something. >> not on our watch you wouldn't be left out. >> thank you. having the opportunity to go to midland texas and see the results and impact of hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling it is remarking where we find outselves. especially when you look back at people saying we were going to plateau and the end was coming soon. but yourself and mitchell invested resources to get us into a country where we should have a larger conversation about the impact of those export opportunities on national security. as we become more aggressive with the oil production and

exporting hopefully, it puts our middle east competitors to look at their own budgets and revenue. our's is positive, but it does more for national security than we articulated. >> senator baldwin. >> i wanted to talk about the context in which i am going to listen to the testimony and think about the input. i mentioned it at our hearing recently. this winter in wisconsin, families and business owners have had one issue on their minds and that is the cost and availability of propane. it is an especially cold winter in wisconsin. for many people who relied on a

steady propane fuel, they are unable to find fuel to fill the tanks and regional suppliers have been depleted. it is over $6 per gallon now and risen that much in three weeks. this is devastating and very frightening for people across the state. i am hopefully the committee will take a close look at how we can solve this problem and figure out how we can prevent it from ever happening again. but in addition to tight supplies, we have witnessed a dramatic increase in propane exports. midwestern supplies were dwindling but the export industry tripled.

this crisis should give us pause and inform the larger discussion about another fuel that is critical to our economy. consumer supply protection is a part of any serious debate. and let me add another issue as i don't know if i will get to stay long enough to ask questions. one of the major causes of the propane shortages is a result of infrastructure changes. pipelines are being repurposed to serve new oil fields. as oil production increases, the infrastructures will only increase. so part of what context i will be viewing the discussion, and again chairman and ranking

member, i appreciate being able to hear the testimony. >> i think we are ready to go the witnesses and guest. let's go forward then. mr. hamm is here. graham bernett and amy meyers jaffe is here as well. and daniel weiss, the senior fellow and director of climate at the center for american progress. we welcome all of you and will make your statements part of the record. there is great interest among the senators. mr. hamm go ahead.

[turning mike on] >>good morning. chairman wyden, ranking member murkowski and members of the committee: thank you for inviting me to testify before you today.

in october 2011, depa put a stake in the ground and predicted american energy independence by 2020.1 america's independent oil and gas producers have unlocked the technology and resources that make this a reality. as a result, we can today mark the recent 40th anniversary of the opec oil embargo by ending the era of oil scarcity in america and, along with it, ending the last of shortsighted regulations passed during that period. the federal laws passed in the 1970s artificially controlled the supply, demand, and price of u.s. energy and brought about unintended consequences. for example, one law even banned the use of natural gas as a boiler

fuel and mandated u.s. power plants switch to a less environmentally friendly alternative, coal. today america is still struggling to rectify the aftermath of this rash regulation. in the years since the enactment of these laws, our elected officials have recognized our global energy industry has changed dramatically.

>> week develop we can -- america now counts the natural gas supply in centuries and experts agree we will be energy independent within the decades. this was missed by the general c concensus. has to be asked, "why does the united states, a nation historically very supportive of free trade, continue to impose export barriers for domestic

crude oil?" the fact is the supply and demand factors and "scarcity mentality" that originally led to the creation of these export restrictions in no way reflect the economic reality of the global energy marketplace of today. we are entering a new era of energy abundance in america and the world. heretofore, we have only been able to extract hydrocarbons from reservoir-quality rock, primarily through vertical wells. but through technological breakthroughs in precision horizontal drilling, we can develop resources previously thought to be unattainable. america now counts our natural gas supply in centuries, and experts including raymond james,3 citi4 and the international energy agency5 all agree we will be energy independent in terms of crude oil within a decade or two. in deed crude oil is no different than any other commodity.

over the past 18 months, gas and diesel fuelss have been reduced by 18% due horizontal drilling. a release yesterday by the report by icf international states the cost can be reduced another $6.6 billion if the export ban is removed. the economy impact reaches far beyond consumer. it is adding jobs for millions of america and helping the

chemical factories grow. we have seen in cuba and other areas >>good morning. chairman wyden, ranking member murkowski and members of the committee: thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. my name is graeme burnett. i am the senior vice president for fuel optimization at delta air lines. in this position i manage delta' s jet fuel supply as well as serve as chairman of the board of monroe energy,the company

that owns and operates delta's refinery in trainer, pennsylvania. i have over 30 years experience in the petrochemical and refining sectors of the energy industry and, before coming to delta, i worked in various capacities in texas and across the globe for one of the top five oil companies. delta air lines is the largest non-military user of jet fuel in the world and, like all airlines, we participate in oil markets on a daily basis. jet fuel after all is our largest expense. it contributes to the price of an airplane ticket, influences the types of aircraft we purchase, and helps determine whether we serve certain routes. because of all this, we are uniquely situated - both as an end user of crude oil and as a refiner - to comment on the crude oil export ban and the current debate over whether to lift it. we believe strongly that the ban on u.s. crude oil exports is good policy. it is good for american consumers. and it is good for the airline industry and our passengers. as we all know, the ban dates back to the 1973 oil embargo. with gas prices then soaring, congress established a crude oil export ban to limit our nation' s reliance on foreign oil and minimize the impact of volatile global oil markets on domestic gas prices. while u.s. oil imports did drop in the 1970s and early 1980s, the ban did not - as critics will point out - insulate the country from foreign oil. in the years after the ban was created, this country remained vulnerable to volatility in oil markets and the price of a u.s barrel of crude - known in the industry as west texas intermediate or wti - tracked the price of a barrel of crude that traded on the

global markets. the price thof of the barrel oil came down and the global economy is influenced by a car tell.

it's clear who gains from this scenario: the oil exploration and production companies, many of which are foreign owned. with all the crude coming out of north dakota, wyoming, texas, pennsylvania and other states helping to push prices down, these companies want to lift the ban and sell u. s. crude on the global market at higher prices largely determined by opec. and it's equally apparent who would lose: the american consumer, who would pay more for gasoline, more for heating oil and more for the price of an airline ticket. in in fact, according to barclays plc, lifting the export ban would stop the decline in u.s. crude prices and cost american motorists as much as $ 10 billion a year in higher prices at the pump. our country's refinery workers also stand to lose from lifting export limits. some recent history can help explain why. before the shale oil boom, there was too much capacity in refineries in the northeast and along the gulf coast and many were closing. in fact, delta purchased its pennsylvania refinery in 2012 from conocophillips after that facility had been closed for nearly one year.

the shale oil revolution breathed new life into these refineries and created jobs for thousands of refinery workers. by lifting the export ban and sending our crude overseas, we would reverse that trend. refineries in europe - where there is currently excess refining capacity - would be more than put simply, lifting the ban will benefit european refinery workers at the expense of thousands of american jobs. furthermore, in thinking about the merits of the export ban, we should consider one of its goals: to help this country achieve energy independence; and by

the ban may be unnecessary at some point in the future. but we still have a long way to go to protect against oil market volatility and achieve true energy independence. that's why - and i'll close with a sport's metaphor here - lifting the ban now would be like ending the game after the first quarter. thank you mr. chairman. i look forward to an answering questions you and others have. >> i have been writing about this since high school. i am glad to be hear to talk about the fact we might get the

ball through the goal post. we promote open markets and free trade and for 30 years we have spent efforts to promote open marks and free trade in energy. that is a vital interest of the united states. i appreciate the thoughtful comments in term of stimulateing full debate on this subject. we don't want to take policy or actions that enhance opec or russia to use energy as a weapon or tool of state craft. we want to lead from the front not behind. it is important for us to have this thoughtful debate. in doing so, we need to consider

how to avoid creating market distortions. whether they benefit temporarily industries or region, we want to make sure we are doing more helpful things than damaging. we need to export the oil and gas and in the form of refined products so we don't have export ban on gasoline or diesel fuel or propane and therefore we are exporting that instead of exporting the crude oil. what we are discussing is the best way to organize free markets and who gets the profits from the exports because we are

not in here to discuss banning all energy exports from the u.s. because we have physical bottlenecks that prevent us from exporting our surplus of natural gas, we are exporting coal. when you will block a hole in one point of the dike water pressure comes and something that is exported is a different think. i think the natural gas is the best example. no one expected to united states with the abundance of natural gas and lower prices it is promoting, no one expected the result of that to be the export of coal to europe. i am returning from the world economic form and i can tell you

the entire discussion focused around europe's need to reevaluate their entire energy policy because they are importing coal and not drilling for natural gas and have huge distortions that are creating an economic advantage for the u.s. economy and a great disadvantage for the european economic system. so we want to make sure we are continuing the advantages we have. i want to address the gasoline price voltility here. the solution to gasoline or any kind of consumer is the minimal standards for inventory. that is what happens in europe,

japan, and south korea. that is how they protect consumers about fires or cold weather. this is the critical thing to tie them through temporary things that come for a period of time. in closing, i want to remind the committee and our public that when we had a temporary disruption during hurricane k katri katrina, europe loaned us gasoline supplies from their mandatory stocks they are required to have. we need to consider the relationship with allies like

europe. thank you. since 2008, the united states produced more and used less oil due to advances in drilling technology and more efficient vehicles. this reduced oil imports and lowered our vulnerability to a foreign oil supply disruption that could cause a gasoline price spike. however, the energy information administration predicts that the growth in oil production will peak in 2019, and domestic production will slowly decline after that. lifting the ban on crude oil exports could squander this new energy security and price stability. to maintain these benefits, we urge you to defend the domestic crude oil export ban. after the 1973 arab oil embargo, congress enacted the energy policy and conservation act, which banned nearly all exports of domestically produced crude oil to keep this precious commodity at home and insulate drivers from price shocks.1 at the time of the ban, the u.s. produced 64 percent of its oil and liquid fuels, while importing only 36 percent.2 in 2013, we produced and imported nearly the same proportions of petroleum. the only real-world experience of lifting an oil export prohibition occurred following

the 1996 removal of a ban on alaska oil exports.3 during the ban, much alaskan oil was shipped to the west coast. a congressional research service analysis found that lifting the oil ban exacerbated the existing price differential between west coast and national gasoline. in 1995, west coast pump prices [were] only 5 cents per gallon above the national average. but by 1999 west coast gasoline was 15 cents per gallon higher. when crude exports stopped in 2000, the average [difference] was 12 cents; it [later] narrowed further to 7 cents. when alaskan oil exports ceased, the gasoline price differential between the west coast and the national average did decline. 4 this experience suggests that lifting the nationwide crude oil export ban could similarly raise gasoline prices. barclays plc. predicts that lifting the export ban could increase total spending on motor vehicle fuel by $10 billion a year.5 sandy fielden, director of energy analytics at rbn energy, told bloomberg that if there are more oil exports "the most obvious thing that's going to happen is that crude prices will go up and so will gasoline."6 if the ban is lifted, oil companies could sell some of

their oil at the higher world market price, which the energy information administration projects will average $9 per barrel more in 2014 for some domestic oil.7 the energy information administration projects that crude oil production will peak in 2019 and decline after that. this could be a temporary event. this gap between demand and supply will continue at least through 2040 growing by 13%. i advise you to look at the chart that the clerk has. thank you. this is hardly energy independence. any domestic oil sold overseas -- my mother raised a

polit son -- any of the oil must be replaced by expensive imported oil that could raise prices. it would be heavy crude imported from venezula and canada. canada's tar sand oil produces double of the problems with climate change compared to well to tank. neither are good options. the u.s. imports more oil from opec than any other source. they found quote interruptions may occur frequently. oil production in the united

states is less likely to be disrupted and providing security. the u.s. is exporting 3 million barrels a day of refined petroleum products. as a finished product made by american workers is being exported. that explains why the export of crude oil is being opposed as they would rather see it here and kept for american workers rather than shipped to made into feed product by foreign workers. the five largest oil companies made a combined profit of over $1 trillion in the last decade and that figure is based on their quarterly reports. our transportation system is

powered by oil. american families and the economy and energy security are vulnerab vulnerable. we must invest in alternative power like electric vehicles, advanced clean biofuels and public transportation. the president and congress should maintain the gas stubility. >> i will ask one question to stop this out and what jumped

out at me. mr. hamm and bernet have different veviews. hamm is for lifting the restrictions and the other isn't. but both believe the same benefits and pit falls exist for their position. lower prices if the senate follows their advice. and higher if we don't. so i think how can this be? they think same benefits and pitfalls institute for their position. is this a lack of knowledge on the effects of the policy? is it possible as it was alluded to the different regions of the country would be affected in different ways?

is the question if export restrictions are lifted, is it possible america would see prices go up in some parts of the country and down in others. zip down the road and hear the four of you weigh in on that. >> thank you, chairman. i think it comes down to one example i can give. bill days, a spokesman for the united states fund, talked about the nationwide export ban and said it insulated americans. in reality, he told the market in the graphs he handed out that it provided an unfair advantage. ...

is whether u.s. would go up or down as a result of exports. it's my position that if the

u.s. begins exporting crude oil, then the opec producing countries in saudi arabia in particular will act to maintain crude oil price by reducing their output. so my logic is based on the fact that crude oil buys -- prices will rise to an international level will not decrease. the net result of that would be increased stock to the refinery and the closure of refining capacity in the united states particularly in the northeast. consequence of that is less supply of gasoline and other fuels and higher costs. >> thank you. >> started this by the illusion there may be regional differences. let me take a crack. >> first, i have talk about how the international oil market works. sometimes people are unclear. it remine ease that refiners in

europe have bought the product and cut their refun i are run. so therefore opec is already effected because they cannot sell more of their crude oil to europe because those refinery runs are shot and our gasoline exports are already hurting opec. whatever opec policies they will take, they will take whether we export the product or whether we export the crude oil. it's not the issue; right? the issue is the oil market. we have a logan in the oil market. we call the tyranny of geography. the tyranny of geography is whether it means i'm selling refined product or the crude oil. he wants to sell it to the closest possible refiner. thanks how he makes the highest amount of money. the transportation cost eats in to his profit. that means that even if we were to lift the export ban, the

crude oil first and foremost look for a buyer inside the united states because that's how it would be most profitable because that would be the cheapest transportation. now, if it happens there was a refinery in mexico or canada that would benefit actual most of our today is going canada for use as that for the transportation of heavy crude. the oil will flow to the best possible use. now what that can mean when we have -- bottle neck a pipeline bottle neck or have some kind of a transportation bottle neck or we have some kind of regulatory bottle neck is that the bottle necks create some distortion that might artificially lower prices in one particular guyography for a particular time

until. -- i'm over my five minutes. quickly. >> i'll be quick thank you. it's important to know we don't export very much gasoline right now. a little bit less than 400 barrels a day. the primary product we export particularly to europe is diesel. it's about million.2 barrels a day. i don't see it being a challenge. i agree with him that it is tough to try to lower the price when the price of the commodity is patrol -- controlled by a cartel that committed to have at least 1 $100 barrel oil. it would not lower prices at all to allow exports of gasoline. >> sorry. export of oil. >> all right. we'll continue this discussion just know that the pacific northeast has a history of the highest glean prices in the country. it there are issues relating to the tyranny of geography in some way you can be sure the people -- and i represent this are going

to be interested in that issue. released from the center of -- mr. chairman, i want to insert in to the record 1999 study from the gao that exams the impact lifting the ban on crude oil exports from alaska. in that report, they state despite higher crude oil prices for some i are finers no occurred in the prices of 3 import important trillion products used by consumers on the west coast.

also cited. >> without objection. it's important that we make sure we have the full quotes in context there. you mentioned tyranny of geography. in to the north dakota to the gulf refinery the texas is actually looking to it speaks to the issue of we have a mismatch what we are producing domestically and our ability to

meet. as many refineries as question. maybe there's a little more room there. we're looking to some pretty significant diss. when you're moving crude from texas through the panama canal to come up to the west coast refineries, and still hoping to make a profit there. we're looking for some solutions. but this issue of timeliness is one that i have been trying to track in eia latest report they say the growing volume this time line comes up a lot in discussion. i'm not asking mr. hamme about a

date certain. but really what is your general sense on when these when it do we hit the misalignment or the mismatch that can cause some real disruption and, again something we have tried to avoid. and i'll start with you. okay. i think the mismatch is beginning to happen already. and most of what they do refining would be the -- [inaudible] and so with that is the crude didn't fit well with some of

them. but you need to move that then to the more efficient ones that can have this so the mismatch is beginning to occur. a lot of people expected to occur almost as quickly as they oversupply of natural gas. but supply demand was equal. price has been elevated a bit with projections of shortage in the future but with all -- we have 60% deficit with the and reduce that to 32% in nine years. that's a good move. >> lelt -- let's go -- he said it's coming soon. when are we going see a mismatch? >> when you look at the specialized model for the

trading of products the flows will be so high mixing them to the crude stream exports to canada use in refining will max out for our physical facility. unless there's some giant upsurge in investment for specialized equipment which is not on the horizon right now. in 2016 we face a situation like companies like continental resources might have to stop drilling. there would be a containment problem. we would not be able to find a place to store all of this if we can't produce it in export it. >> we haven't seen a new refinery in 25 years. >> well, we have seen two companies that i know. they put in expanded the tower

in such a way to use more they made an investment in ohio. but, you know, these kinds of investments take time, and so, you know, we don't have a giant amount of investments announced in the next year. or so. then i think it will be very difficult to absorb the flows. >> i'm well over my time. i know, mr. weiser is -- >> without prejudice any senator's time. if you can quickly offer your view. >> yes, thank you. so and third there are numerous refineries that are going to be expanding over the coming years in north dakota and texas.

senator machin. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. this will be a simple yes or no. and if the answer is no if you can briefly explain why you would be no on the question. do you the x l pipeline would be a strategic advantage to the united states of america? >> the things that really hurt everybody up there is that the delay that is going on with it. >> you're in favor of it? you're a yes on that? i think the only way to keep it is lower demand. >> you're in favor of the pipeline? >> i think if we have the demand for the oil we need to exfort by pipeline. >> i got you. >> no, i'm not. the huge increase in carbon pollution that would occur and most of the oil would be refined

in to other products and exported overseas. we keep to get the pollution. others get the petroleum products. >> my next question. for those especially in, you know, all of our states west virginia we don't understand we have so much more. and paying high price at the pump. can you explain are they going domain contain that car dr cartel maintain that? and be able to control the prices since we have such a large find, if you will will, and we're going in a position for some time. can it change to where we in america can benefit? >> the -- and are just based on current knowledge. we're having a total paradigm

shift in the way we look for and produce oil. not only in the united states but probably eventually around the world. and so these temporary projections about the peek, in my opinion. >> the difference -- [inaudible conversations] >> the point is as the united states and mexico and other countries produce more oil incentive oil and gas at market competitive prices will be control antitrust laws if are company that sell and buy it. right? opec's power will be reduced

dramatically over time. >> senator machin? why is there a difference there? we're not on the world market with gas. we have more flexibility on gas. >> there's not a worldwide market in natural gas in the way oil. $15 or so in japan. transportation is harder and

because of the supply is for either mr. hamme or burnett. do you see feasibility for us bringing the price of gasoline at the pump down for the people. especially in west virginia all over the country? are they going see any relief at all? >> a decrease with both diesel and gasoline. the past 18 months. i think everybody realized that. >> they haven't seen a 12020% i did crease in the price at the pump. we're still 33, 53, 60 in that neighborhood. >> in some places you'll see that. and we're about 2:85, and down about 60 cents a gallon. and with diesel, run close to $5. >> someone explain why west virginia is paying when you lower crude oil price the

gasoline will come down. i'm sorry. we have to call a little bit of an automobile here. we've been told that there are going to be four votes. by my calculation each of the remaining senators can have the five minutes and that will be good. i commend them for buying a refinery in pennsylvania and operating. i don't think it's very good -- using crude from include in the refinery. we appreciate that. my questions. i think the number one priority for americans when you talk energy, is they want what they call energy independence. i know, you refer to as energy security.

we're not there yet, but i can't think of anybody that has done more to help us move in that direction than yourself. my first question for you is what can the federal government do to help us produce more energy in this country but specifically more crude. that's what you do. what can the federal government do to help us continue to increase our crude production? i look at this graph and it doesn't show us producing more than we consume how do we get there? what can we do? >> first of all, we need -- change the rules that are archaic. a lot of resource -- it takes 15 years to develop it. the numbers distort. we had to teach them how to count. at one time once they did that

they realize we're up 12.6 million a day in this country. that's first thing. we have to get the numbers right. the numbers are totally pessimistic. next thing, do no harm. we're going down the right path. if we don't have a lot of tax changes and things like that where people can go ahead with the bids. we can get there. look at the rocks. that's what we produced in the past in this country. past 160 years. we can produce them effectively. we're on our way to get there.

moving crude. we need address that. you know that. tell me what we can do what we should do. what you're doing so we can make transportation safer. >> rails come a long way, you know, since basically the regulations put out a bit on the level is deregulated. it's come back. it's doing a good job. preparation, everybody is working on that. so rerouting effectively you go

a month on at least on everything. and anything that is congested they're trying to as quickly as they can. so this is a new thing that come out. there's some standardization that needs to be done. the rails are -- they're working on it. safety is out most importance to them. and they're certainly doing their job. we need pipeline and rail. would you agree? >> i do. pipeline -- rail cost more. it will put to the places you need. pipeline additionally will take the place. >> one concluding question. how do we both expand and develop more refinery. we are building a refinery in north dakota, i think, first one in 25 years or something

greenfield. how do we get more re-- refinery expansion and development in this country? >> well, you know, the gentleman is right. there have been some capacity added to these existing refineries over the years because it couldn't start one from scratch. you couldn't start one. done by the refining industry. you know, i think that overall, you know, looking at the regulations from building new ones they're going to be more efficient and better. certainly these will be looked at. and it's going to be quick. i know, i'm tight on time here. >> my position is there is sufficient capacity in the united states today in refining to be able to absorb all the oil produced. the issue is infrastructure and getting it well to the

refineries. at the trainer refinery started taking some back. we would certainly like to take more. the infrastructure isn't there yet. the projects the soim there. it's being produced. there's a lag in the infrastructure. but it will come. >> thank you. thank you, chairman. i want to go back to something you touched on and then would like to get everything's thoughts on it. one of my concerns here is just the potential lost opportunity cost in terms of exporting crude or the refined petroleum products. it seems to me we create more jobs by exporting refined petroleum products than exporting crude. can you expand on that. if any of you disagree with that, that position, explain to me how we create more jobs

exporting crude oil than exporting refine petroleum product. we had a text tile industry here. now we export wool and export cotton. we don't make it in the products here in those jobs have gone away. >> i have an opinion on that. when you do complex trading with. it's hard to say. what i say generally speaking is that the experience in the industry is companies like continental resources when nay have a better cash flows they invest more of those cash flows in to drilling. and therefore we have even more oil in this country. when a refinery raises its throughput rate, to 90% versus 80%, that probably doesn't create very many jobs at all. refining is a very job -- not a very job intensive

industry. it's part of the reason why saudi arabia has so much trouble creating jobs inside the country besides refining the chemical is not a labor intensive industry like textile. i would say on balance if the goal was 100% jobs you could create more jobs having more cash flow that night downstream side. the university of montana did a study several years ago that found that investment in oil production create one-third the number of jobs compared to investments in wind, solar, and other form of clean energy. so jobs and nrnlgt what you're interested in then investment in renewable has a -- bigger payoff than investment in petroleum. in any aspect it's capital intensive. not labor intensative. >> i agree.

there have been more jobs created in the upstream sector than anywhere else over the last ten years. so refinery. i used to work on one. it's not very intensive from manpower standpoint. 05 or 90%. capacity is about the same. in our business, it create a lot of jobs. one thing i want to emphasize the export of product is in a competitive market. export crude is not in to a free market controlled by opec. i believe it's better for the united states to keep the added value in country. if you look at the oil producing countries around the world, they're all building refineries. megarefinery. they want the added value to stay in country too, thank thank you. >> senator baldwin and scott. i'll yield back the last of my time. >> thank you. gracious as always. senator scott. >> thank you, sir.

i believe our trade deficit is one of the biggest threat to the national security. in your testimony you touched on how the export ban on crude oil could improve the trade deficit. can you explain a little bit on how it will improve our trade balance particularly in troord china? -- in regard to china. we're going to be hopefully in the unique position where our imports of crude oil, which are a huge part of our trade deficit are going to go down over time and already seeing that. we're going have a situation where china is going in the opposite direction. they have a higher and higher rising amount of their trade is going to be for importing crude oil. so as we move forward, they will be increasing in their debt and vulnerability to the international oil market. we will be able to strengthen

our economy through these improvements in our trade balance. and i think that one of the things china does for my travels there and discussions with them is they have this in a great cycle. they support iran, they support other players in the middle east that cause disruptions, instability, we have to spend our tax dollars setting our military out there and our young men to try to help with the trouble. it makes us more indebted to china. because they're buying our treasury bills and bonds and so forth. so which we can get out of that pattern where we're not having this constant burden of rising prices and burden on trade balance and china is the one that feels the pain of the instability in the middle east. i think we'll find easier to brick china to the table to negotiate with us about stability internationally.

>> thank you. i want to get one more question and give you the balance of my time. you have been one of the best guy unconventional business in to so speak. we could see another million or jobs or so. crude oil export cap what does it do our economy? north texas we have seen a tremendous surge. north dakota as well. would it have a major impact on the jobs created if we didn't lift our ban? >> it could particularly if can certainly put a cap and stagnate what we're doing in the future. so it's not a good thing.

get where the energy independent and call us opec have a severe step back. we need to follow through with this. thank you. do you want to comment? >> thank you, senator scott. long we have the difference between consumption and supply here, we're going have a trade deficit on oil whether we export or not. if we export more oil, the crude we have import more oil to make up for the gap. the way -- if one is concerned about producing our oil trade deficit. the number one thing is dramatically reduce consumption. we have new fuel economy standards that get us 54.5 miles per michigan. -- gallon. we could go beyond that and reduce the trade deficit.

two things. >> before you comment i would say we can quickly solve the problem our deficit by allowing us to get on the federal lands hundred of years of resources. >> i want to point out. every refinery in this country has a different configuration of what kind of crude oil it can or cannot refine. and whether we export or don't export. we're not going physically change that. except over ten year period. maybe over time. because of the tyranny of distance refiners will invest regardless whether we're exporting or not. if we have an inbalance of quality; right. we leave it in the ground or exfort. if we're having an imbalance of what kind of quality of crude we can refine in this country and what kind of crude we can't. and there may be a time when we could produce as much light crude in the country as could be physically, you know, by barrels we need.

but we need heavy crude. there's going to be some refinery that already exist in the gulf coast that have certain configurations and only so much light crude they can put through sppt we have to import heavy crude. >> i yield back the balance of my time. negative 16 seconds. [laughter] thank you, senator scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman i mentioned earlier wisconsin is experiencing a propane crisis right now. very short supply increasing prices. and so i'm very interested in subject matter of this hearing from a perspective of how it will affect propane. i have two questions. i mentioned earlier that one of the major components of our propane shortage in the midwest has been result of significant infrastructure changes. pipelines that have served the region for decades are being

reproposed to serve new oil fields. we have understand that one pipeline in april will be reproposed but traditional supplied propane to our area. as oil production increases. i think these infrastructure pressures will only increase. if more american infrastructure is dedicated to oil that is heading overseas, is there adequate remaining infrastructure in the united states to ensure that other fuel like propane continue to flow to americans? >> whether the crude oil is refined domestically or exported. the lo jig irks problem will remain the same. historically in the united states crude oil arrived in the gulf coast and all the movement from south to north. since the advent of shale oil the movement is reversed and moving from north to south.

to where it needs to go to the refinery. i don't know if it answers your question. i think it's going to continue. i think it's a good argument for keystone x l as well. >> do we know what impact the export of crude oil will have on the prices and the availability of propane and other critical fuels that are used in everyday life to heat homes and power tractors and do all sort of other things. >> i'm afraid i don't know the answer to that question. >> okay. well, the export of crude oil won't effect propane in your state. basically it's from the liquids out of natural gas production, and so we export crude oil or not it's not going matter. the infrastructure problems,

hopefully we can get where we can build new pipeline in this country quickly and so people have to realize that this is going to go forward as far as the -- money back in the infrastructure that is necessary. >> i was just going say. i've been trying to school myself in the production of propane. crude oil natural gas liquids can be a by-product. and propane is one of the things that gets stripped out of natural gas liquids.

so the export of crude oil to the extend stimulates more production in the united states or the export of natural gas to the extend stimulates more production in the united states it will produce more and more propane over time. and so people are expecting a giant surplus of propane over time. when you have a extreme weather event, no matter how much natural gas are going to produce in this country, no matter how many refineries we have and how much a surplus of oil there is in the global market. tyranny of distance. if you have a particular unique narcotic uses a particular fuel. you're always going have weather-related bottle necks. there have a number of contributing factor. a harvest that used an exesional amount. the supply were low going in to the event that the state has been experiencing.

pipeline disruption for maintenance. complicating factors the weather event alone didn't cause the shortage. it's -- regulated inventory. i'm hoping to back to you if i can give him the chance to answer the question. i want to followup on that. if not at the hearing after wards. >> thank you, senator. i will be brief. there hat not beenen independent analysis to predict the impact of lifting the crude oil ban on the price of gasoline and other refined products. one thick the committee can do is ask the energy information mrs. to conduct an analysis. unfortunately due to sequestration and other budget cuts they have to scale back the amount of work. i think it's probably for another hearing. >> i have run out of time. i want to follow up with you about that. i have heard that in your testimony at the end. and it is something we need to

looking at not only in wisconsin but other states impacted by the propane shortage. >> you all may be experiencing another first here in the senate because you're about to get what amounts to a joint question from myself and senator mor cow sky. we're both wrestling with the definition of energy independence. i probably frame it as how you go about defining energy security. i'm going yield to senator muir murkowski who would like to be part of the discussion. when i contemplate energy security. i think i ask myself does it mean no more import? oar does it mean the capacity for no more import? or does it mean more export than imports? i think the whole question what

institutes energy security. you may want to characterize it energy independence. i want to let my colleague weigh in on this. because you are seeing our bipartisan efforts perhaps in one of our we try to find new way to demonstrate it. woe are like an old married couple. i hope you let me finish the thought. i have been thinking about how we define energy independence, and we have a couple of end of the spectrum here. we can either be insular as a

nation, and try to do it all ourselves and basically thumb our nose at the rest of the world. kind of difficult in most areas, 0 we can where we allow for toward the shock of world prices. when i think about energy independence it goes two things like economic security. how do we ensure that as we deal with our energy needs we have also helped create jobs in opportunities. i don't view energy security to

be a situation where we close in on ourself but rather we open up to a greater extent but by doing so, we become less vulnerable to the impacts of other actions of others. i appreciate my colleague letting me join in on this. i said no you can't ask the question. i'm going ask it. i think it's important as a ranking and the chair on this committee to wrap up the very important hearing export the energy we're successfully able to produce in this country. so i thank the chairman. the vote is on -- each of you take a minute. we we can still make the vote.

[inaudible] produce were foreign owned. i would assure you there's more foreign owned refineryies than they're bringing in. that's what we have to look at the balance of the two. and so i would suggest that we look at it this is -- energy independence is that includes crude gas, coal, and

[inaudible] for north america. not the united states. it has to be include canada. and if you include canada, it's feasible for north america to be independent 2030. and what it means is that we'll still be crude import and other energies as well. >> so i would say i agree with that given my slogan geography they'll be balancing for quality and other reasons between different kinds of energy sources. in and outside our borders we have a free trade agreement with mexico and canada. i want to end with the following two points. number one, supply bottle neck now matter how they're created it makes intense as we heard

about propane and the second something that senator murkowski is correct. the secure global market is what is going to bring american consumers the lowest price. and the most consistent stability in fuel prices. and that is what the u.s. should seek to do. responsible participate in making sure we have the fuel global market. i'm sorry we're not able to give you a joint answer. i think all of the discussion about energy independence or almost all focused on supply. that is something we can control somewhat and some we don't. we need to focus on reducing the demand. that's something we have control over. it will help save consumers money. it will help reduce the carbon pollution that will cause extreme weather that disrupt our energy production and transportation system. i think we need focus on reducing demand and particularly

when it comes to transportation which is fuel over 90% by oil. we need to invest in alternative to oil whether it's electronic vehicle, whether it's natural gas, fuel trucks, whether public transportation. advanced biofuel. all of them will give consumer choices so we're not fully depend end on the one fuel to run our economy. we'll have the discussions still. this is the first hearing apparently on the topic. it will not be the last. i knew would be a piece of cake to find common ground on the question. and it's in the to be continued department. we thank you for the patience and the committee is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] washi. so what is the goal of the republicans getting together at the retreat? where are they going? good morning house republicans e cambridge, maryland. they will be there for a couple days. two items on their agenda. first is immigration reform.

it has been controversial for some time. also, the debt ceiling coming up next month. republicans will try to come up with a strategy, a different approach from last year's government shutdown. host: watching them gathering yesterday to get on a bus to head out to cambridge, maryland? what is on the agenda? on the eastern shore. this particular resort has been etreats forst r both parties. i have been at numerous republican retreats. these are closed door sessions. very little opportunity to mingle with lawmakers. unlike the u.s. capitol, it is quite open. the agenda is for speaker john ehner two, with a 2014 --

for speaker john boehner to come up with a 2014 plan. because the republican committee toso large, this is his time meet with members. football coachme will be there as an inspirational speaker. they will look at a one-page memo that goes over republican ideas on the issue. any kind ofhave comprehensive reform, but more piecemeal process. a republican version of the dream act and minor reforms for order security. der security. host: are they likely to come out with a game plan? will we know something about their strategy? guest: i think we will know a

lot more by the end of this week about what republicans plan to do. the sense among republicans is, even in the ranks that do not want to do much on the issue, midterms, the 2014 something has to move towards the floor this spring on immigration. i think we will see paul ryan play a critical role. tor to jackas a men kemp. he will be almost a conservative whisper for speaker john get the helping issue through. the conservative block is very uneasy. they sense momentum among john boehner, eric cantor, they would the movement to pass immigration reform would stop. very uneasy about the prospect. democratsttends --

have these retreats as well. strategy sessions. beyond young members of congress, who also attends? congress,members of who also attends? are there lobbyists? guest: each party brings about a dozen speakers. not only the football coach to give pep talks, motivational speakers. a conservative radio host. you also have pollsters. one of john banner's -- one of llsters,hner's top po he will go over data and try to give them a look on the politics

they are working on. the polling of key issues. it is part strategy, part motivational, part social. they can connect on a human level with colleagues. dot: the lobbyists attend -- lobbyists attend? guest: no. a few my pop up as guests. is kept out, lobbyists are kept out. this is members only. there is strict security and it isreally a houseful -- it really a time for house republicans to meet amongst each other. are: robert costa, we asking our viewers about the behavior of commerce and the program -- about the behavior of congressman michael graham. whether he should face an ethics

review for violating rule 23. do you see the republican leadership will weigh in? guest: because the incident was caught on video, this could move forward in an unfortunate way for rep set of -- unfortunate way for a representative grimm. thee is a lot of angst in media about what is the house policy on how to handle the press. should a congressman be combative, is it appropriate? i would not be surprised if some kind of investigation moves ahead. this is indicative of the age we live in. it could create a political headache for politicians on media.n social this has happened for decades, but they were not caught on camera in this fashion. "the robert costa with

on the u.s. health care system. and to the state of the union president obama announced the creation of a new federal retirement savings program. christina marsh and chris will join us to discuss the findings. we'll take your calls and you can also join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal live each morning on 7:00 eastern on c span. >> someone as i say who grew in the -- he was badly burned by the cuban pay of bigs

experience. he had enlisted the expert, cia, joint chief of staff, and he said went to -- and the goal said you should surround yourself with the smartest possible people. listen to them. hear what they have to say. at the end of the day, you have to make up your own mind. kennedy remembered what harry truman said. it stops here. i think after the bay of pigs he was determined to make up his own mind. hear what the experts had to say. at the end of the day you make the judgment and he was the responsible party. you see that that was abundantly clear when you listen to all of

those and read the transcript of the tapes during the cuban missile crisis. he was his own man. he was making his own mind. watch our program on hillary clinton. i was in the car wreck and i wrote about extensively in my book, and the whole time i was in the hospital i was not injured. i had a cut on my leg and the broken angle. he was praying that the other person in the car walk okay. the other person in the car was one of my best friends. which i didn't know. i department really recognize

that at the sight of the crash. and i think because i prayed over and over and over for him to be okay and he wasn't. you know, i thought, well, that nobody listens to god. god was not listening my prayer wasn't answered. i went through a long time of not believing. and not believing that prayers can be answered. it took me a long time, really. and a lot of growing up to come back to. on c-span radio and c-span.org. in 2011 after the failure of fukushima nuclear plant. the regulatory commission wrote new rules for u.s. nuclear plant safety. in the commissioner testified on capitol hill today about the implementation of the new regulations. this hearing at the senate

environment and public works committee is two hours. [inaudible conversations] hearing will come to order. today we're holding our eighth nrc oversight hearing since the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown in japan. the third anniversary of fukushima is coming and japan is still struggling. the failed effort to prevent radio active water from washing to the sea have lead officials to build a huge underground ice wall. it would be at least three more years before 60,000 local residents can return to their home safely. we must learn from the tragic events in fukushima and take all necessary steps to ensure the safety of our own nuclear facilities. no more than two years ago, the nrc charged the most --

was making recommendations to help prevent such a disaster here. some of the 12 recommendations that nrc task force proposed have been acted on. the nrc issue ched orders to enhance safety when plants lose electrical power. and prevent explosion. that's good. but other measures have not been moved forward. for example, the nrc has allowed three full years for seismic evaluations of nuclear reactors in the western united states to be completed. if a seismic evaluation find there's a seismic risk, the nrc provides an additional three years more more analysis. to me it's an unacceptable delay. earthquakes aren't going wait until your paperwork is done. now, when the nrc made aware for the new as the key dee dee --

it should require immediate steps to be taken to protect the people who live and work near the facilities. on another issue, our ability to conduct oversight is being impede bid a lack of cooperation from the nrc. during my investigation of the san o'know free nuclear power plant i learned the general counsel directed staft to withhold documents that i requested. my investigation in to why equipment was installed is very important. as it will provide lessons learned for the commission's future safety decision making activities. the nrc's response to my investigation is not the only recent example of the agency's effort to avoid congressional oversight. last fall the nrc attempted to change the policy and providing information to congress from one the generally made nonpublic documents available to one that did not.

the new policy even added restrictions that could have been used to withhold information from the chair and ranking member of the oversight committee. even though each of you are up for the conformation absolutely agree to make all documents available. and my counsel tells me whether you were sworn in or not is considered a sworn statement. congress unambiguously rejected the new policy when it rescinded that policy. your policy in the appropriations bill. i want to thank the bipartisan leadership of that committee for making sure that you can't do that. nrc still has not responded to my document request in a manner consistent with congressional direction. and not back down on this matter. in recent letters, the nrc cites nonspecific constitutional foparation-of-powers as a basis