there's the potential for infrastructure to lag. the resource in areas which have very rapid growth and we've seen a bit of that in north dakota in south texas.

overall there's a very direct profit motive to build these infrastructure facilities that are necessary to make sure we get energy to consumers are going to use it. generally that's happening. >> to believe that profit motive exists irrespective of the answer to lng exports questions? >> certainly. i do not see lng exports as being the single factor that determines whether not private industry -- spent what i say natural gas being flared off around the country due to a lack of infrastructure, clearly either the motivation is not there today because of low gas prices or the cooperation is not there today to go through the permitting process to get that infrastructure installed. >> that's a good question. there's a challenge when you have lots of associated gas being produced along with oil. and so if you're in a situation

where the infrastructure would be expensive to build sometimes it's difficult for companies to justify extensive building when have the option of flared gas take it to market. there's a market inefficiency there somewhere, but certainly state regulators and industry work together to try to make that work better. >> from at d.o.e. perspective they're willing to let those marketmarket forces be a plague of those market forces report before all our natural resources, to no benefit of the consumer, ma fair enough. of those market forces required we need to build a pipeline to get those resources to consumers, that they be supportive of that as well. >> i wouldn't characterize that as willingness. the department has a mission. i oversee the national energy technology laboratory that does much of the our anti--- r&d that

leads to solutions for environmental sustainability in safety. i think we're working together and state regulators in some cases but there's a question of oversight of some of these questions and a lot of them are complex and involve multiple market actors in the private sector. >> on behalf of the state that gave america the department of energy, we support you creating a safe and sustainable structure here in the country that hopefully will not only lead to the manufacturers that ms. duckworth talked about that changer balance of trade with the world. i yield back. >> ms. norton. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you're holding this hearing at an interesting time when there's a lot of talk internationally about natural gas and perhaps new opportunities, new marketing opportunities here where we see very low prices, even given the

technology and environmental challenges. so my question is really to mr. hochstein, and mr. hochstein i promise to give you time to answer my questions. you here much off the top of the heads of people talk about our natural gas supplies being of aid to europe and even ukraine during the crisis that ukraine is now experiencing. according to the figures i have europe gets a quarter of its gas from russia and half of that that was really news to me have a that passes through ukraine. we remember that in 2009 early in 2009, the pipelines were shut down to ukraine. what was the reason for that again? >> there was a price dispute between -- ukraine had not paid

its debt and the russians shut down the gas supply to ukraine first and then for the rest of south eastern europe through ukraine a few days later. >> so that didn't have much of an effect on europe at the time because of the shorter rations because it had a tremendous effect, both 13 days of no gas in the dead of winter, and chip uses gas primarily for eating so the timing was not accidental. >> what did it do come increase the price? i mean, was there a scarcity going to your? >> it lasted 20 days in total, 13 days for most of europe and as a result what it did was drove home the realization of the publicly that europe has in its reliance on russian gas and its need for diversification. because it only lasted 13, the pain was a short-lived. >> does that mean that europe is less dependent on russia today? did it diversify? >> europe did a number of things

and we work very closely with europe in the last five years to do that. they are less reliant today on russia while still are extremely reliant and it will be for a long time to come. but because they passed the third energy package which required that the destination clauses be gone it meant when russia exports gas into the eu the first country of transit let's say germany or ukraine or other eu countries, could not say, they couldn't dictate you may not pass this on without my permission to another country. what it allowed it to do the minute the gas comes into the eu it is not eu gas and to be transferred for the. as we talked before about reversing the clothes from poland hungary to slovakia into ukraine that would not impossible in 2009 because of the regular structure that was in place. by working with europe to get the regulatory structure their making some investments, getting

them to make investments in infrastructure their less reliant today. but as russia will continue to be a supplier into europe there's more we can do together to make sure that reliance is diminished, and quite significantly. >> is a pipe dream for americans to see themselves in anything like the near future providing natural gas to europe and with that have any effect on our domestic market? or do we have so much that it would simply mean a new market and a new perhaps reduction in the trade imbalance if we were able to do that? >> i think the united states as a role to play and that our exports are an important factor speed we are not exporting at all our we? >> we don't have any facilities to export.

>> when we hear people talk about our becoming a supplier, that would mean a large and evidence effort -- evidence effort to construct the infrastructure to do so? >> that stupid some of that isn't trained in the first will come online 18 months. i just would mention that the gas is already been approved by the department of energy is about half the amount of gas that europe imports annually today. so it's an enormous amount of gas already been approved but the market forces have to be there to build the facilities that have been approved? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> i'm going to open this up for open conversation so anybody can jump in. i just include vacation. you mentioned were not exporting natural gas now. would you include canada, mexico in that we're not exporting natural gas? >> i meant lng of the ones we've been approved through this

process. >> so we are a net exporter already of natural gas and we do lng off the peninsula at this point but we are exporting not importing natural gas? >> we are also importing natural gas today. we are not a net exporter yet but we are poised to become a. >> what was the timeframe on that? >> as her exports it's hard to protect that by 2018, the prediction are becoming a net exporter, i would let my colleague address that. i think it's important to say as we give permits for the department of energy gives permits, they have to be built a have to be built and decisions have to be made to sell it. >> to come back to mr. smith on that. how many export terminals do you anticipate will actually be constructed? >> i can't really say mr. chairman. >> give me your best guess.

you're an export a 10 -- you're an expert on this. >> first of all there are terminals being built right now. in terms of making predictions about what will happen subsequently, my experience is that i came to the job from industry. i spent 11 years at chevron before it came to government. i worked on the terminal what was an import terminal. if you'd asked me at that point the question you would've asked the was how many terminals to import lng would've been built i probably would've made to estimate because i was working in that field. i'm going to demeter from giving a numeric total because our collective faith and our collective -- -- >> we of the seven permits after already, 24 permits that are still pending. do you think we will build 31 after most? >> i can safely say that i do

not think 31 terminals will be built. >> do you think we will build 15? >> i don't know. >> let's play this out a little bit. mr. hochstein, or maybe mr. smith, said what has already been permitted would generate about half the lng that europe already uses. these companies are big boys so they can make decisions about whether not to build or not to build. they made decisions to build import facilities and then got burned. i would venture to say they are probably going to be reluctant to move to swiftly because it appears that this particular market varies dramatically from time to time in short periods of time. so if, in fact, half of the natural gas that is being used by europe today is sorted in

permitting in united states and we have the countries australia, most of become israel, lebanon coming online. i mean what are we saying here? they are not going to come online and not try and provide that energy to europe in many respects. >> which is the exact point. mr. smith and i've had this conversation somewhat. if we already know all these terminals are not going to be built, we are giving a competitive advantage to people that filed a permit request a couple of days before or couple of weeks or months before someone else what they may have filed comments on these folks filed their permit request the exact same day by the actually won't find out for maybe two or three years later than other people on it. we're giving a competitive advantage to some companies and of the companies just have to wait two or three years until the wee makes a decision. i agree all these permits, all these systems are not going to

be built. there will be a lot of competition worldwide but we will lose the competition if we continue to delay. basically were saying to australia and to other countries, you go compete worldwide. we're going to discuss it. >> but the flip side of that coin is part of our restrictions, part of our economic reinvigoration is the fact companies are bringing manufactures back to the united states because the cost of fuel in china and elsewhere, and they see a net benefit. we are creating jobs in that regard. we don't want to cut off our noses to spite our face. >> only agree. we are about four and recorded in the united states, 12 bucks in europe for the same peace. even at that point companies will relocate are going to relocate. my conversation is how do we balance this out? how do we is the economic engine? when you look at job growth over the last abuse, the largest area

of job growth in america has been energy. how do we continue to maintain that engine to work in a very difficult economy? you continue to provide new markets. we have an economic benefit in the united states and we have a geopolitical benefit worldwide. what you want to expand if i can quickly. there's a lot of conversation between india and iran right now about natural gas. we can soon talk about ukraine but this is not just a ukraine will issue. this is a worldwide issue. is the state department accountable with india's natural gas supply being iran? and if not, what are we going to do but that? >> thank you for that question. my office has been leading the effort to implement the iran sanctions on energy especially since congress passed this in late 2011. first let me say this but we do not believe there is any truth or likelihood to gas supplies were granted in the at this time. iran is a net importer of gas at

the moment. the export some to turkey on one side of the country and import others. we've had very close and open and frank conversation with her indian friends about their oil purchases from iran as well as how we would view iran's exports of gas. currently iran doesn't have the gas supply or the infrastructure in that state sanctioned. they sit on the largest reserves. as a result it not been able to build up out the infrastructure and there's no infrastructure inside to be able to deliver the. if they do build it i assure you our views are very well-known to our friends and allies about how we feel about that as long as sanctions are in place. >> are we in a position to say india, we will provide you natural gas needs or are they in a spot to say go and the market and find a? >> india will be one of the first that already has contracted for natural gas.

>> keep the conversation going. do you have questions of? >> i do and i apologize for not being here earlier. there was a mark upon human trafficking so i'm bouncing between committees. i do have questions. >> go ahead spewing i'd like to ask our state department representative, there's been discussions they told me about here today and i've read your testimony and a lot of what we focus on is exporting u.s. sources lng to ukraine. u.s. lng exports are important foreign policy tools for assisting our allies, especially when you're dealing with russia. certainly benefit our economy at home. i like to talk to you a minute about the benefits of potentially assisting ukraine not with u.s. lng but with world source lng. state department has repeatedly inserted the lng export are not a viable option in the near term

because u.s. lng exports are such a long way away. i will have a conversation with mr. smith about that when i finished talking to you but i do want to know why this is unfortunately true, it's my understanding ukraine has been discussions with the lace one u.s. company about constructing an elegy and tremble india during and bringing world source lng in until the u.s. supplies are available. it's by understanding this could be done in as a slow as six to eight months so they can get a plan to build in eight months. i point that out. turkey is causing some potential problems by denying access to the straits of the passage of lng tankers. what is the state department's view of this? are you aware of the world source lng could be a viable solution to the ukraine? what are your thoughts on this? >> yes. thank you for the question. you all right.

when we talk about lng as a solution, i don't think it's a comprehensive solution for all problems and views, we're not the only supply. there are others antisec some of the european countries that are building terminals are in contact with other suppliers for more immediate gas. as far as ukraine we've had this conversation for quite a while. about interest in ukraine to build an lng facility. it's not necessary to build a terminal come it's to bring in a floating lng facility, a boat that would come online. it's a little different. the concern and what's blocking it as you said in the black sea is exactly what you said. turkey does not allow lng tankers to cross. they maintain that is a national ticket issue. has been a long-standing position that came up several years ago spent his are you working with them on it working

to educate on the fact these things are not going to blow up the way they think they are? >> we had very frank, open and honest obsession with our friends in turkey about lng trade and in general about what it means to have open access trade through the basras. their positions are theirs to have and they have concerns. >> certainly we don't control turkey but we also turkey has been a good friend and ally to this country and hopefully we can bring them on. mr. smith, in a previous hearing we heard from the department of energy on the process for getting lng export facilities permitted. one of the things that i've heard that the we consider it is all right we don't want to get too many of these because we want them all to be profitable. seems to me, is that the government -- an appropriate role for government government to decide how make you have so they're going to be profitable? or is that something should be

left up to the market? if the market has a demand for 20 lng export terminals, and 25 or build, well that's not the government's money that's going to be lost. that's those investors money that will be lost from making a bad investment. can you talk about that? how big of a consideration that is in the process. >> thank you very much for the question. that indeed is not a point of disagreement. the department does not take into consideration whether or not a company is going to be profitable or not. it's not our job to protect companies from themselves. >> why has it taken so long to get this permits out? >> i think it was instructed to the dialogue between the ranking member and the chairman in terms of some of issues that we're dealing with. 's there are very strong views on both sides of the equation about the need to balance the

increased production imbalance of trade and job creation and the place where terminals are being built with the impact on consumers and prices and impact on manufacturing sector environmental factors. >> i'll concede the environmental factors to you but it seems like when the government starts regulating based on marketplace factors in such, i think we're getting out of line. we could have a debate about that between the sides on this and probably the administration but i'm at a time on this. the potential is so much better, and the delays are just frustrating to me. but i'm out of time so i'll quit preaching. >> thank you, mr. chairman. 's maybe i can take on the preaching. thank you very much for being here and thank you very much mr. chairman for the hearing, and we're all looking for those

investments and balances wanted to move forward quickly enough that we experience of the right kind of results from those investments. in my state i'm from new mexico, the energy industry is certainly critical to our economic success. it's a significant component of our current economic base. in fact, i think it's responsible for about 30% of our state's general fund revenue. in a poor state like new mexico that is the only way we pay for education. it's also clear to me that the natural gas revolution has national security implications and according to the international energy agency, the u.s. has enough natural gas to meet all of its energy needs from domestic resources by 2035. that allows us to be left -- lesser light on the middle east and other countries for energy. i know this has been discussed

already. we have a responsibility which we managed to responsible manner and want to protect public health, wildlife the environment and our water resources. i think it's important to explore ways to ensure that the ukraine and allies have access to reliable supplies of energy for the own national security reasons. it's all of our understanding that the ukraine faces numerous energy security vulnerabilities including a lack to an adequate energy infrastructure which i just heard you talk about, which i appreciate several times. but i would love it if you would elaborate, i know that we started the conversation with representative holmes norton, but i do want to talk about specifically if you could elaborate on what those strategies are and give me a little bit more depth please. >> in securing the energy security in europe, we are

working on a number of factors simultaneously. number one is to make sure, and ago to separate out what we're doing, there's ukraine and the rest of europe. primarily the baltics or south central, eastern europe. in ukraine it's about making sure that if there's a shot off of gas in the near term that we have reverse flow capability in hungary and poland and slovakia to expand that to the degree possible that it takes care of the portion of gas that the import. number two that we help them become a more efficient and more capable producer of their own gas. are quite an impressive producer of natural gas but a lot of that technology is 1970s soviet technology that can be updated and they could be using a producing more natural gas on their own. we're working on exploit unconventional gas areas. we're working with them to make sure that the reform of the sector is such that they will be able to not end up in the same situation that they are in today

today. and to make sure that efficiency rates are there so that he can do more with less. that includes subsidy reform, et cetera. in europe we have to make sure the infrastructure is there the regulatory reforms that started continue. we are working closely with them on that and to look and make sure there's no energy island in europe which is a stated goal of the eu. so the baltics are a good example of that. lng is going to be a key factor in that, lithuania has gone a long way. we work, the chairman mentioned the ambassador at large for hungary was a good friend and we worked closely together as they represent and chair of the four plus romania and bulgaria to make sure that as the southern corridor is jobs with more infrastructure to supply europe. so as you can see there's not one answer for any of these and it's unfortunate you can't fit into headline, here's what we do

with europe. it's a lot different aspects. >> giving have to have a broader approach to sustainable over the long haul i certainly can appreciate that and recognize given that we have our own natural gas exploration issues in new mexico because we can't recapture the cost until a lot of this gets balanced, and i'm very supportive of moving so we get more export opportunities because that would create an environment in my state to further that exploration and accept what you said which is looking at tertiary recovery is cost effective and without the over structure to do. but what of those strategies in 15 seconds are quick some looking at some of the stability issues in ukraine and you pick what are two that you think of more of an immediate relief? >> i think the reverse flow capability and making sure the ukraine is able to pay the arrears to the gas tank and tangible. the reversal is our very important and we made progress on that and we need to make more. if i had to say 15 seconds on one thing that's what it would

be. >> thank you. >> if you have additional response. >> why does she speak about energy efficiency or the lack thereof? >> sure. as we discussed before and i finished the answer mr. chairman, it is critical as a look at ukraine, it's such a big problem, and giving -- if you look at the numbers and look at the production rates and import raised and what is in the system as made available by the regulatory change in europe we can expand those reverse flows quite considerably so that maybe not fully for this winter but in the years to come ukraine can choose whether or not to import gas in europe -- from russia or to do it through other mechanisms. it is very important to us for the efficiency rates there is ukraine is very inefficient. the department of energy together with this is working on proposals to work with ukraine

to see what we can do to increase efficiency rates. that means as many have addressed the subsidy issue where gas is so cheap that people don't want to have incentive to conserve what to put in place the current mechanisms and structures that will allow for more conservation. so they can do far more with less or with the same amount. that's a program we done in other countries, d.o.e. and the department of state worked together on these issues and i think with a number of proposals that could work very well with ukraine. >> mr. smith, and we talk about ferc in the process of their which my understanding is more cumbersome takes longer and how does that interrelate with the process that you have ongoing? >> thank you ranking member speier. i don't want to get too far into the details of the ferc process because i'm afraid i would not be able to get drysuit appropriately. but i was in general terms ferc

has an important job of managing the environmental process of evaluating the environmental impact of the terminal itself and they give the opposition to build the terminal. they have a very detailed and important role to play in this process. ours is kind of larger, bigger picture of looking at the impact of exporting but they have to go through the very detailed process of looking at the specific impact. so we were close with them. we share information in terms of making sure that we know where the different projects are. but their process is separate from ours. >> i understand that but i've been told that process is cumbersome and long that they have huge huge backlog. is that true? >> i wouldn't characterize their process as necessarily cumbersome. i think it is appropriately

detailed because it is a key part of the decision making process. >> can i ask a question on that as well? are some of the applicants in the ferc permitting process now even before they have a deal we permit? >> yes. we do see applicants going forward with the ferc process which is also a significant expenditure of funds. you have to do a lot of work in terms of your initial engineering and/or environmental studies. so easy companies moving ahead. >> what happens when they get a ferc permitting and that the ub process is not complete and there in the queue? if they have a permit in hand let's have have gone to the whole process and they completed that, but they don't have a deal we permit, what happened to? >> the archetypes of authorization. we give conditional authorizations which is essentially consistent giving some sort of confidence to individual investors that the

final approval will be granted. then there's the final approval. we have given one final approval. so if there is someone who did go through the entire ferc process without a conditional approval, they could conceivably come back for a final authorization from d.o.e. >> they would still have to wait in line on on the queue? let's say their number 15, just make up a number, but they have a ferc permit done but they're still waiting on d.o.e. on this. what they have to wait until number 12, 13 14 is complete before they get it or would they move up the queue? >> that hasn't occurred yet so i don't have a definitive answer to that question. conceivably if they were done with a ferc process then we would have to come up with some process for dealing with an applicant who went did all the work without having gone through the approval process but i don't have a precedent for that. >> it does become a challenge if they walked to the process and get the that they're holding a

permit process in place. they already to go. it shows a seriousness that others may not have. you mentioned i don't know how me it is total that already started to that ferc process. do you know what the number is? >> i don't know i could probably tell you that the. i don't know off the top of my head but there's a number of projects that even though they've not gotten up in the queue entrance of du we they have started with the process. >> i'm guessing about seven companies have started working to get the permit process but they don't have the we approach it. various forms in that line -- d.o.e. at the end up with one and they're waiting on the other one, we are back to what mr. jordan and mr. hochstein at this wonderful conversation about keystone there in this unique position where they are just waiting. that's the difficulty of all of this from a business site and

also from our foreign partners and allies around the country. when they come to talk to me that one statement is when will we get an answer. the difficulty is i can't tell them. as a member of congress i can look at the site here's when he enters coming because there's no predictable answer. as we talked about before it could be two weeks before the next permit comes or it could be two years. it might be 20 years. it could be five and a half years. and still discussing it. there's no predictability in this and that's terrible for business and terrible for our allies. so some point we have to get some sort of predictability in this process to know we are working to process here's how many weeks it's going to take and it's not a red flag to people decide if you'll just write more letters to us and we'll slow down the process did more which is what it seems to be now. >> i make a couple points. the department of energy has established a track record of getting authorizations done. again these are all very complex, sensitive complicated

evaluations we have to do. we have to challenge hundred of sometimes complex conflict in interest. the second part of the answer, if someone does what is going to be the ability of natural gas in the united states, my colleague from state department has pointed out, we've already authorized 9.3 billion cubic feet per day of exports which is equal to all the lng i goes to europe. it's equal to half of the lng that europeans import from russia. hashas already been after this amount of lng that we have authorized even going through this determination. there will be a question that you post earlier about how much of these will be billed, at what

rate will the private sector build the terminal that was already authorized the there is i think certainly some demonstrate progress we've made. it's a tremendous amount of gas we've already authorized and indeed, the fact that we are no longer importing large quantities of lng has already imported, impacted global markets dramatically. >> when you talk about this amount already been permitted, is there some cat amount that you sing we will get to this total and we will not permit any more beyond that? >> no, there's not. we're not determined a level beyond which we are not going to, we're not going to permit. so that is not something that the department of energy has identified or determined. >> the best interests continues to be a subjective for each location based on the letters that come in and response for that area, looking at digital of the application correctly that type of thing in trying to fight

with that, getting a chance to see who the partners are and how much is demanded from run the country. obviously, the study that d.o.e. commissioned gave a more objective look at the economic benefits of this. so while i understand you got letters coming in and say we don't want this or we do want this, you've also got an economic study you commissioned that says this is a good idea and it's in the best interest economically of the united states. >> indeed. there was a study received by the department that was considered as part of all our applications to date. i will point out as we go forward in time, conditions to change as was pointed out earlier. a couple months ago we would not have foreseen sitting in this room talking about issues in the ukraine because it wasn't -- >> i'm not sure that's 100% true your like i said almost two years ago members of the ukrainian parliament were knocking on my door say how quickly can we get this? i think this was a pretty

predictable crisis in central europe. may not be specific to ukraine but we knew it was coming summer. would you agree or disagree with that? >> i would agree that we've been working on the vulnerability or or identify the folder to your past with this this rely on a single source in many cases and we been trying to reduce the. i would agree this is a crisis that is a surprise to some but not to others. >> i don't know if we ever got clarification of how much natural gas is going to be generated by these other countries that you mentioned earlier, mr. hochstein. >> a lot of this is where early in the process. israel has already taken care of with the first two fields that have come online, the first big one, has addressed their entire domestic needs. they've come up with an export policy so it's not only about how much you're going to produce

but how much are going to put on the market. 40% of the production, of israeli production will go on to exports. we don't know the amount you out of cyprus. with one field that's been proven but there's going to be truly throughout the summer and fall by three companies, one u.s. and to europeans. mozambique is about double the size of the israelis and the need to get their act together as well. a lot of the gas from eastern africa is going to end up going to asia what makes sense from a transportation perspective. this takes us back to the arden this is not just the ukraine and europe. this is about the global demand. as we're putting more products on the market there's demand is rising as well in asia at an impressive pace and that has to be addressed. what happens to europe, they're not entirely at their own, you know decision-making. there's a lot of market forces that will have to come into play. as we see with the prices are around asia that will determine

what these supplies are available for europe. that pressure is already there as a result of our production and not importing europe for the first time actually went out and we negotiated and forced the russians into renegotiation of price. they were able to get better terms a couple years ago in a way that they weren't able to do that in the past. these dynamics are having real impacts. i'm with my colleague here, it's very difficult to make some protections on this because if you read any predictions in 2009 into global supplies and trade of natural gas they would've been very, very mistaken today in hindsight. >> mr. hochstein, you mentioned before state department's helping some folks in europe with nonconventional exploration of oil and gas. he made the comment you're helping them focus on science, not emotion. could you clarify that? >> i think i said we recommend that when you go to make a

decision on whether or not to explore unconventional and shale, it's important to look at what the science is and what is and isn't true. we've had a great experience in the united states with a regulatory system of both federal and the state's of looking at that. and what we would like to do is to brief them and educate and show what we've been able to learn from experience here at we brought a variety of delegations to the united states together with epa, department of the interior, department of energy to learn from the process you. what's great about it is that it's not a monolithic here's how to do. here's how we do at the federal level a look at what colorado is doing versus new york or pennsylvania or texas et cetera. i think that's been a useful and there's a larger interest in that program. there are some countries that have announced moratoriums on shale development and exploration.

and if that's their decision to do it and if they don't want to export that's fine. we continued those conversations even with those countries but we don't have programs with them to support the process if they're going to have a moratorium i would add one thing if i could to that observation. a couple years ago i traveled to warsaw with the principal deputy assistant secretary for the bureau for energy and natural resources where mr. hochstein works. we participated in what was called the session those held by the iaea called the golden rules for golden age. it was a collection of subject matter experts from around the world convened to discuss their experiences in shale gas and unconventional gas development. again i reiterate. it's not our job to tell other sovereign nations which do with the resources but we think it is in the best interest of the united states to be as open and transparent ensuring the best

practices that we have learned here to help build kind of a scientific basis for decision-making. we see that as being positive and something that we affirmatively support through our actions. >> just for verification on this. state department is working with other countries that have shale to be able to bring them to the united states, to interact with some of our regulators, to be able to look at some of the science out of this, how we can do it, fracking, horizontal drilling, to be able to take this on because depending on the nature of the country and whether they owned their own oil companies, some do, some don't. basically exposing them to what we're doing in the united states saying this is a good for you to be up to take this on so you can provide your own energy resources in your own country. >> i would agree with everything except the last since the it's not for you to encourage you to do so. it's not our decision. it's a sovereign decision but if they decide to want to move

ahead and exploited, we'll be there to support them with this program. if they're interested to show them all the of the things you just said yes. >> you can't force a coach to say i want to be independent that most countries was that it had the opportunity to not be depend on someone else for energy they would most likely take that. >> at times there are also external forces and factors that come in the countries to encourage them not to explore those resources. >> i would say oklahoma would be welcome to see folks from around the world to show how we do natural gas exploration, how we do it extremely well in clean and our regulatorregulator y scheme in the state of oklahoma and how we regulate things as far as expiration is exemplary. we've had over 100,000 fracked in oakland and it's a beautiful state with very clean water and clean air.

so as you mentioned before trying to do with the science, not the emotions. when you're finished with the rest of what i would appreciate it if you come back to the united states. one of the comment unless the ranking him as another question on this, i want to shift topics. i promise i won't stay long. i want to bring up the issue of crude oil exports. and what we are hearing from our international partners on that we already export refined products around the world. we are currently not exporting crude. what are we hearing lex we've heard quite a bit from people that are interested in our lng. what i would we hearing about crude and the request from our allies? >> i think just like in the united states this is a conversation that's happening around the world. i think it was the next logical conversation that we're going to see happen. we are following that discussion of what it means. very early stages of this conversation.

i followed what's been done here in congress both in the house and the senate side a discussion of what does this mean to crude oil exports. i think this is a much bigger discussion. we been so focused on the lg side that the oil site is next. i think we're in the early stages of understanding what it means and listening to the views being expressed but i think there's less of a drumbeat as far as our partners, i think is more of a focus on natural gas but there's definitely an interest in the topic of what the united states is going to do. more fun aspect, less of independence, more fun aspect of understanding how will this impact the mid-and long-term oil markets and prices and structures. we talked a lot about gas but with the same changes, radical change in all markets around world today that are happening in gas. edges slightly different. big change from days were open dominated the market new

players and with most opec countries today producing maximum capacity for variety of reasons some for such consent for clinical instability, so for technical reasons and some because that's the most they can do. the question of what happens to the market if the united states starts exporting is one that is fascinating those who follow the energy market. >> let me complete that thought. prices drop worldwide. if we start exporting. correct or not correct? >> i think it would depend on the -- i've learned one thing in this business is that any prediction on oil prices those who make those predictions are usually regret them later. >> all it takes is a little cross-border war somewhere in the middle east and it changes everyone's gas prices. i do understand that that is their and thank these i would say in the opec countries that the united states could become an exporter? >> i think they are watching our decision-making process very

carefully. >> mr. smith, do you want to make a comment about that? >> i would probably make a comment. there's been more focus on gas because there's a statutory process for getting with natural gas and is not a statutory process for dealing with oil. but this is certainly a topic we think is of interest but we don't have a direct role in even the current limited capability of exporting oil unless a waiver is granted. >> isn't do you we doing a study of oil capacities, what's coming online our capability of production and what we will actually use? >> that's something that the energy information agency follows very closely and we are, that's part of the department of energy where we are consumers of the analysis so we follow that very closely. >> semiautonomous. i'm enjoying that conversation.

we've got a conversation about several agencies semiautonomous. the length of time issue. you and i talked about often as far as permitting, getting back to lng predictability i think it's extreme import. not only for american companies american production, but i think it's important for our international partners. i don't know how we get there. based on what you were saying, your team is working on it but there are no deadlines and there are no demands on certain time periods. it's, we will get it done when we get it done and my concern is for our international partners. they need some certainty. the folks that come to visit my office have all said the same thing, when? >> let me interject. if this is is one of speediness and still doing the job then the question becomes are the fees that they're being charged to provide this evaluation

adequate to the job? and does the office need more staff? maybe you can address that as well. >> well, thank you. 's i make two points about that. first, i think if you look at, when i go and talk about lng at the various venues i'm often followed by a market expert who will put up a chart on the wall that shows the exact length of time between various d.o.e. actions and juxtapose that against prices and there's all this analysis about why 10 days longer between these two then these other two. those are always interesting to watch because there is all this theorizing about what's the back story about the extra four days. the bottom line is that there's not a back story. all of these are slightly different, but what we can see is we've established i think a fairly reliable track record of

getting these propositions out a reasonable amount of time. there's been a consistency over the past year or so. it varies from order to order within a reasonable amount because all the orders are not the same. it's our intention to make sure that we're moving forward in that manner. the biggest uncertain if one is going to be a reaction in in the private sector that's received these authorizations. at what rate are this term is going to be built because the our massive multibillion dollar's investments that are complex to get build, and they will be built if the market determines that there's going to be a demand for u.s. gas. >> but if they have a ferc permit them they're not moving in line or they are moving online?

>> again, we've got a number of applicants that are not yet received a conditional authorization from the department of energy that are working through the ferc process. we have not come to a position where someone has finished that process any chance of having received a conditional authorization. unfortunately, i don't have an answer to the question because it's a hypothetical at this point. >> but that would be a big issue. obviously, this becomes very, very significant. i would hope you are addressing this, that if someone is holding a permit in their hand but it's two and a half years of still waiting on the d.o.e. peace or it's unpredictable you don't know. use it would establish a process that has some particularly but just because it's been done that way in the past as you mentioned already doesn't meet the would be done that way in the future. you're not saying it's going to be six to 10 weeks between each one. you're saying this is what we've done in the past. >> i'm saying we have established a track record. this is an unprecedented activity. the department of energy when this market changed and you

referred to this energy production revolution in your opening statement, that has taken the regulators from my organization and the of looking at terminals, everything is changed. i think your number of hypothetical situations want to come up with. we are hard at work at making sure we're doing the work that's before us, that we are meeting our commitment to get these out in as timely a manner as possible. as we went into new situations those are things will have to consider and make the best decision that we can. >> so it is possible at the point after holding a ferc permit, that they can step out of line. we have to reevaluate that spirit i will say that all times were looking at ways to make the process better and more efficient based on signals that are being set by the market.

our assessment of public interest. >> okay. we will still have more conversation about this obviously. i understand you're still saying look at our history, but there's no predictability of what happens in the future and that's really a much-needed thing right now both in our nation, development of infrastructure if any of these systems are going to be built we've got to get pipelines to them. that's years in the process years of construction, lots of capital, pursuing contracts worldwide. it's our international partners in okay we're going to get it here's the date all those things are all depending on your team making a decision and people knowing when it's going to happen. to not do so you've got the whole world in your hands but there are a lot of folks around the world that are waiting on decisions that if we can't get particularly when they're going to happen, there are a lot of folks around the world that are

just waiting and a lot of economic development in the united states that's waiting to be released pending a decision from your office. if we can get some level of predicted build on that it would help our economy and help our geopolitical situation as well. >> understood. >> i would like to close by thanking our two witnesses who have a big presented some very persuasive arguments for why this is global in nature and not something that the united states in and of itself is going to fix. certainly your admonition that there should be some predictability is worthy of us region. i would urge us to look at ferc as being part of that and they're absent from this discussion here today and you are a key component as well. so thank you for your good work and for your service to our country. >> gentlemen, thank you. this hearing is adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] >> defense secretary chuck hagel will be speaking about nato at the wilson center. live coverage 10 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> almost 5000 students entered of this years c-span studentcam video competition on the most important issue congress should consider in 2014. we talked to the top five winners about their documentaries. >> the moment where we all decided that this is going to be a topic with when there was an article on fracking in the local newspaper. it said how fracking was happening to muster my house and so this is a national problem and now it's a local problem.

so from then on we are very passionate about the subject and he seemed obvious that's what topic could be. >> food is essential to life. it transcends everything. everyone requires food to live. i figured the fact a lot of people don't know what's being done to our food supply, and they just eat their food regularly without knowing what's inside it i found that very concerning so that's why i chose the topic. >> there's a lot more that you don't know and it's hard for the average person to know exactly what is going on because they don't know what is going on. i think it depends do you value or security of your privacy or your privacy over your security? >> hear more from a hear more from a top student cam when it's saturday morning at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span to provide live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. every weekend booktv now for 15 years the only television

network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow was on twitter. >> the u.s. house has adjourned until tuesday. before ending their business for the week, house majority leader eric cantor discussed the house agenda with minority whip steny hoyer. this is 25 minutes. >> on monday the house is not in session. on tuesday the house will meet at noon for morning hours and to be in for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on wednesday and thursday the house will meet at 10 a.m. for morning our and legislative business. on friday the house will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business or class votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. mr. speaker, p.m. mr. speaker, the house will

consider a few suspensions next week a complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow. in addition the house will consider h.r. 4438 the american competitiveness act of 2014 sponsored by representative kevin brady. this bill will provide american businesses with the certainty they need to invest in good bang middle-class jobs and develop the technologies of the future. the house is also scheduled to consider a privileged resolution finding -- former director comics and organizations in internal revenue service in contempt of congress for refusal to comply with his peanut issued by the committee on oversight and government reform. lastly, mr. speaker, the house will consider h.r. 10, the success and opportunity through quality charter schools act authored by chairman john kline. mr. speaker, america does not work if our children are trapped in failing schools. this bipartisan bill provides an

opportunity for our children to attend schools with a good environment focus on those students exceeding the and with that i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for that information with reference to the legislation for next week. he leads with a bill that is entitled the american research and competitive act of 2014. as a gentleman knows we have an agenda which i talk to him about briefly we call it make it in america, essentially about growing manufacturing and encouraging manufacturers to return to the united states and encouraging people when they want to go into manufacturing, to do so here in america. not only will that provide for a made in america label all over the world but it will also provide the kind of middle-class jobs and opportunities that we

need. part of that agenda i will tell my friend used to make permanent the research and develop a tax credit. this bill does that. this bill also cost some in the neighborhood of $150 billion maybe a little less over 10 years. it is unpaid for. a series of bills that were passed by the ways and means committee will cost $310 billion. they are also and paid for. i suggested my friend, and as he knows, i preach relatively regulate, one of the things we need to do for the business community and for america's to get ourselves on a fiscally sustainable path. mr. camp offered a comprehensive piece of legislation mr. leader. as you know, which i think was an h know, which i think was an honest effort, but it also made hard choices.

it made hard choices not to increase the deficit and therefore, provide an offset for tax credits. i think it is absolutely essential for us to do. this bill that we will consider next week which is a proposition i think most of us support, and that is giving businesses the insurance that the research and develop a tax credit will, in fact, be available not only for one year, but for a series of years in this case i believe 10 years. .. making the deficit worse. as a matter of fact, mr. leader, your party talks a lot about bringing the deficit down. this goes in exactly the opposite direction and i think that's lamentable. i said $150 billion. it's actually $155 billion over 10 years. i would