you will is all part of an information policy. our country is white, gray and black programs than what we don't have a someone in overall charge of it who thinks of these things relate to each other. we should. this is a serious matter that should be handled at a high level. there should be people doing a full time. the other point is it's way underresourced. all of them including public diplomacy efforts, broadcasting of honest journalist and i'm also including various messaging and so forth at other agencies may be involved in. we just had taken a subject serious enough. it's not well enough thought through a not well enough funded. that is what i strongly believe. >> hi there. jim bullock. going back to your idea of having one person in charge and you said overseas you have valid

extremists in various countries and it would be best to leave organizations in those countries. i get back to the question here in the united states we had massive recruiting among somalis in minneapolis, it sat, et cetera to join the terrorist movement and yet we were all raised and we can't violate the firewall. do you see a role for this one person in charge going across into domestic messaging out of the white house? is that doable? i bring up a point in question. i am aware of an exchange student right now who is actually being harassed. we who are field officers would send people back to the dates as you just said with a wonderful experience will change their lives. what happens to young muslim student who comes to the united states and has a very bad it.

period are we failing to message the american people about what needs to be done? >> on the first half, i don't think i can help much on the second half. that is very regrettable in there needs to be work on the various fronts by the leadership in this country to try to minimize the number of times that happens. most people have a good experience but it's terrible when someone doesn't. on the first point, the separation come you may or may not be aware a couple years ago congress quietly amended smith mont to basically reflect reality. the internet had made it past the law, let's be honest. the law said per voice of america and the dow shall not broadcast the united states. all you have to do in the website and click and you had a live stream of somalis is immense okay. and by the way, a lot of people

in minnesota were listening and what is wrong with that one guy. congress thought so too. in recognition of reality and a very sensible move, they amended to say if the broadcast are asked see how, you can offer them the broadcast. set up a system under which that can be done. you are now be able to hear minnesota and creole in florida and broadcast not designed for u.s. victims option and not 1 dollar is spent for coverage aimed at this country. [inaudible] >> i guess i would say this. this is the reason we need information leadership. i think there are -- the concept of national barriers is getting weaker all the time and we need

to face the reality. technology is moving ahead and many of the platforms we now broadcast on, talk on, communicate on a global in nature. so our strategy of should reflect that reality and the amendment a smith mont i think you're implying is just one step of a number that ought to be made to make it easier to address a global audience. the somalis in minnesota ours mali is, to us both american and they can be influential on people who might be recruited. it's a global problem that is a global solution. i very much agree with that underlying sentiment. >> thank you very much. my name is greta morris. i'm a retired diplomacy officer. you've mentioned a couple times they need for overall very

strong and capable leadership of the u.s. information after and of course mentioned edward alberto. i am wondering what you see as kind of the ideal profile for a director of that, leader of that effort inside tonight, should that be the whole of government effort or are we talking about something of the state department or the nfc or perhaps overall the various entities that are part of disinformation effort. >> i appreciate the question. i feel a little uncomfortable. it might be presumptuous of me to put my own architecture. say this is what it should be exactly. better have a mind can figure this out. i would say one thing. the next president needs an information policy advisor who is in all the meetings.

and then maybe it's a question of just having the right structure. i talked about the structure at the pbg. i very strongly believe one full-time bosses let the broadcasting entities need. i know that many on the other -- from the grantees are nervous about that. i'm afraid they will be corralled into a federal space where they feel they don't belong. i would just say i don't think that would eat the problem and the challenges our country space abroad are so large now in the information area that we don't have the luxury of having lots of people running all different directions. we need a clearly well led effort. the radio freeze can contribute a lot from where they are and should continue to do so but

under a full-time professional lawsuit takes it all work a cohesive way. i mentioned the current time show. it's a leadership to help dla and rfe get to where they could do the show in that better than either network could produce by itself but the larger audience. it is not perfect. it is not enough, but those efforts are only possible if you have one board, once ceo of a unified structure and everybody pulling the same direction. i very strongly believe that is what is needed on the broadcast side. and most expert on the diplomacy side of though i did serve as a public diplomacy officer and was very proud to have done so. i have views on what works and what doesn't in that area. as i say, look you with the budget was when usia candidate a department. it is smaller now and many years later when the dollar is not

worth what it was. why is that the case? it should not be the case. if anything, public diplomacy is more important, not less. leadership of the state department needs to look closely and should put a higher priority and have an undersecretary who stays for a while. we have one now is seems to be ready to stay a nice wonderful. there has been too much turnover in that job. i was at that. >> thank you for your comments. montini key. i work at the state department but i am not here speaking on behalf. i'm speaking for myself. i enjoyed both of your pieces, the fp as well as the more in-depth harvard peace. i want to go back to a point made earlier addressed in a little different way the idea of new media versus traditional media. you focused a lot in your pieces that the idea of a shrinking

budget and need to invest more. what i'm interested to know if given the fact that much of the next generation or much of the world the way we see it whether in africa or latin america is under an age where traditional media would be worth a necessary league look for there new information and new media, social media platforms are where many people get in permission. so can you help me understand how reinvesting more into traditional media is actually where our dollars shipped dell is supposed to accounting for the current and future information will be side. >> if you took for my remarks that i think traditional media is where we should put all of our eggs, then i didn't explain it properly. i do not believe that. i believe that each market --

people used to ask me, what is your overall strategy? i've got 45 of them. which one do you want to talk about? and each one is a different situation. north korea, sure but radio is that. there might be medium wave along the border and so forth, but it never can get people that way. there's not much more that's going to work in north korea. and russia were put in house around international broadcasters off of their partnerships with tv and radio stations around clearly an internet strategy aimed at mostly young people is our best and main way of reaching people in the russian federation. there's television, radio, using partners commit getting things done to you to, click side of shows that are stimulating thought provoking. you need a strategy that's different for each market. in latin america when i was director we had about 3 million

listeners or viewers. we now have over 30 million. i don't claim credit for this. my predecessors thought this up but i helped enact it. we recognize latin america as in most markets a mature media. they are doing the news. they don't want us to do it for them. however, if you go and say that is a great evening news show, we notice you don't cover the country to your north very much. why is that? could we help you with that? could we have somebody mexican born who went to an american journalism school and now works at the away pool cover whatever subject within reason you want covered. could they be a great evening news every night for three or four minutes. people jump at that. that is a mature market strategy paid dividends in latin america,

indonesia, ukraine and many other markets. it depends where you are looking. in northern nigeria, the house's service is a very, very strong service, has for years had a solid audience in the millions for sure ain't audio broadcast. that audience is dying off in the use of satellite shortwave radio is dropping quite rapidly at the moment. so the service has launched a mobile app in house with news and sports and various other place that features, stuff about america. click on your phone and the mobile of figures out what kind of phone you have. if it's more sophisticated it will give you more. the last figures i saw we were losing something around 3 million a year or two ago and we were gaining about

2.5 million or so a mobile app. so you've got to move to the place where the young people are going because they are going to be an audience for longer. voa is doing now with proper funding, more robust funding, a lot more could and should be done. i don't think we should be biased, but i will say a lot of people around the town talk about new media is the answer to everything. the biggest audience growth over the last 40 years was old-fashioned television. old media. there is a tremendous amount of growth that is the possible on traditional media, radio and television. fm radio done right is a powerful medium and were made though for a long time. we have a little tendency to see the world's media through an american ones. it is like surfing.

you've got to ride the wave. you don't want to be too far ahead or behind. as people's tastes change or as the in which they wish to consume news change. you've got to be right there with them. that is why i believe in very much rely on the language service had come a division or is letting them figure out in each place to keep a hard eye on what is happening. what is the best way to reach people. we had a lot of success because we delegated those decisions as much is possible to the people who did the markets. i hope you will continue when he or she is selected. >> my name is dr. sandy. i rarely come to the sessions. in the midnight seven days i was working in poland. he was in jail i was cio at warsaw. soon after coming back, our ambassador was richard t.

davies. an initial state department who had done a tour of duty and when i got back here, the ambassador and i were invited to speak a community gathering out of chevy chase one evening. all that time ago, it must've been in 1980 or 81, someone in the audience said isn't there a lot of waste and duplication having a separate u.s. information. why isn't the functions folded into the state department. this is well before they were sold out polled were dividends. i would just say i'm occurs a department officer. i joined in 1946. i served a tour of duty. he had been area director for eastern europe and the soviet

union. he said i assure you that is a terrible idea because the state department doesn't have the slightest interest in the programs managed by the u.s. information agents to you. i think davies was right. i think the state department has very little interest in here we are in the center of the american ones service association. most of the people are current state department officers. we have a problem right in their own tents. most of our colleagues don't give a whit about the functions that we perform. i am trying to answer your question a little bit. david has had there is not enough money. there is even less money than when the merger took place in

1999. we need to do all of the above, but we can't do it with less money and it should be obvious. one of the things david is saying is we need a different management structure. the question i have is when do we as a group, most of the people in this room are former public diplomacy offers good when do we begin to recognize a major problem exists with a key audience with whom we are closely associated, the american foreign service. how do we begin to get a career foreign service people so they have a better understanding of the need for this functioning and this increased importance? >> you know, different parts of the department, they're a very different levels of sophistication about the issue you've just been talking about. how and part of it is broadcasting this war reflect to and people are aware of that.

it's keenly aware because it is considerable and africa. voice of america really is a big deal. when i traveled there and went to mali, nigeria, senegal, i was received well because i was director for the voice of america. it was a big deal. the government of mali handed me the keys to an fm transmitter instead we want you to be part of the mix. maybe this will help. it sure did. all of a sudden we had a big signal to this terrific. but they saw the power of what we do. they wanted their people to hear what american journalism sounds like in their own languages. folks at the embassy totally got that. we've even in one or two cases in africa being able to work with ambassadors who are going to transmitters and towers put

inside the embassy compound and at least one case not too long ago, that meant there were the only people left on the air during a coup attempt and we were able to provide three times i am told this is happening. so working closely with public affairs officers in the vast udders around africa has been profitable for our country. i would love to see similar types of collaboration with other areas and area experts around the department. i work for the department. in a great believer in the american foreign service. i'd be honored to be be amongst them, too late and be led by others. i am a huge fan. but they have a lot of things to do and they cannot be worrying about what broadcasts in addition to trying to run diplomacy of the country. most of them don't want to

either. i do agree with your underline point that there needs to be a separation, but i also think at the management of old where i was as director, there's a lot of collaboration and cooperation that can go on between the state department to the mutual benefit of both and particularly the benefit of our country. >> thank you for your presentation. i am chief of the french national. i was interested by russia today and mr. putin's war which is very act it in europe at the moment and i was struck he said in terms of creating confusion, the russians have been pretty effective. maybe not in being totally convincing about what they say, but they have created the confusion. i am wondering if it is not in fact the major danger now in

europe that there is a lot of confusion about where our alliances lie. there's a lot of confusion about where we should go in terms of political tasks and there is a lot of fascination for the the russians passed. so i am wondering, what is to be done in europe? why was it more in the cold war the information policy at the u.s. and what should be done now? thank you. >> that is a big question. i'm trying to think how i can add value in responding to it. it is such a big question. what i care passionately about as well like you. i would like to see the u.s.a.

and its european allies get together on the subject of broadcasting and russian as an example. i think it would be useful for the united states and its allies, the leaders of the big ross caster is to try to figure out if there isn't something we could together to argue perhaps in collaboration with someone in the private sector. what is needed i ink is a russian language satellite television channel that is popular, that has the right sports events on it, the right soap operas on it, the wright entertainment webcasting and also has news and information programming prepared in some cases by our company is that what also air perhaps doa

programs or radio for your program. in the months a diet of really popular programming. i don't think it is beyond our government to figure out how such an entity got such great coverage in good programming choices. i would love to see us get together as we do on other reissues with our allies and figure something out. you know, a competitor to kremlin tv that has eye candy on it. the polls in an audience and tells the truth. shocking concept. about what is going on in ukraine and elsewhere in the world. so i have had conversations like this with european friends and not all of them are keen to be

part of the club if you will. many people like to go it alone and have their own. somehow chippers v. this is a pretty big issue and i am not sure if going it alone is going to be as successful as working together might be. i am no longer in office. that is what i can stand up here and say whatever i feel like, which is what i'm doing and is great fun. i just was there recently. this is a tough matter. it would take leadership at the top government level to get something like this to happen. but i would like to see it. a station based in kia or rita orville dance that was 24/7 and have programming depressions really wanted to see a satellite. the number of russians who have a satellite dish and what at the moment get the program is not all that large. but they are there. if the programming was also

streamed on the internet, you would have a decent audience in the major cities among young people and they would be impossible for the kremlin to ignore. i think over time they could change the conversation in russia. in ways that would useful. so there is just one idea. i have more, but that was one of the ideas in the paper. it is just a concept. there has to be a lot of work done. i don't know if i was how you put it together. it would depend. but there be a wealthy person who wants to set up such a station somewhere that governments could help enable a bit? maybe in everybody's interest. we are in for a long haul here. in information -- in the battle of ideas. >> i used to be a pao once upon

a time. if you talked about funding, one of the things that i look back at your career with envy as the liver pao in afghanistan as you are running a team that had are the americans including three full-time qualified grant offices. i don't mean first two are people who take a course at fsi. and a budget over $150 million. five years later could do that back and you mentioned some of the things you feel are good about that the things that were maybe the things you either team would've wanted to do differently, but more importantly, are there any lessons you learned from the experience that you would suggest to the poor underfunded pao who don't have $150 million in counterterrorism funding? >> gosh, yeah. it was the biggest budget ever for public policy anywhere on earth by any country.

so it's a great privilege to be there. but i was trying to do in a very short time as much as possible for our country to make a difference, to help the afghan government and the afghan people feel there was change in their lives and to make them aware of the u.s. intense desire to be helpful. you are asking me sort of what works and what lessons did i learn. it is going to take quite some years. historians will probably analyze what worked and what didn't. i think, you know, one thing that worked was the program -- we put out a grant. we said dear marketplace. we are looking for a company double set up a social media plot or for poor people

basically. a simple basic thing you can use on your very basic phone to send messages. the way i described it was i want the kandahar fruit seller to be able to tell what price he will pay for green melon wednesday at 6:00 a.m. and the farmers to get the dirt off the screen and see what the prices and decide whether to harvest again or not. i want something that will help the family business because that is what the country needs to build itself back up on. none of the big for phone companies wanted to do it. they all said social messaging type. you out charging two and three sent the message. it's rich kids in kabul. that company set up by african-americans or northern virginia who moved back to do it is a very successful company in afghanistan.

in fact, when i was working on the harvard paper i called one of the guys from the company and got them on the phone and i said what are you doing? he said we are setting up here. so this is a public diplomacy effort by the u.s. state department that now has a for-profit company that did exactly what we have to do and now it is hungry for more. going to places that also needed. so that was a very successful effort. it was more popular platform and facebook in afghanistan by a long shot. it became the jobs market a way to find out what jobs they were and they were and how to gain among other things. it also became the lonely heart base of operations. to change society in some interesting ways. i think bringing "sesame street" to afghanistan was powerful not

only because it teaches that abc's two little kids, but it teaches their mothers and their fathers as well. i thought it was a great contribution to the afghan future. as i've mentioned, we did a lot of things with that kind of money you can. we also fell on our faces a number of times. i don't even want to talk about it. richard holbrooke and carl eikenberry, the ambassadors that sent me there said we are hiring you to do this because you are not in the system. you are not trying to make ambassador and you will take. you can afford to take more risks than our other fine officers can. so go ahead, fail and try to be more successful than not. we did fail sometimes. we also did a lot of other towers very useful and it made a big difference for the country.

it was a mixed bag. we were in a battery. another thing i worked on that i thought was important and this may be relevant particularly to public affairs officers in the middle east area or in muslim countries. it took me almost a year to convince state department lawyers and others who are rightly worried about it that we should be allowed to pay for programs that would take afghan mullahs and imams and mayors out of the country on programs that would allow them to meet with their coreligionists at the university in cairo or jakarta or other places where muslims gather and be reminded what a great world religion islam is and the narrowminded violent

cul-de-sac the taliban had pushed them into was not islam. once we did get permission to do it, it would take a dozen here and it doesn't bear. you take a 25 road and love for my skin into cairo for a week and expose them to the greatness of islam. it is a conversation that needed to go on and all we had to do was facilitated. it was greatly in our interest and i'm so glad we did it. that is very wise spending in my opinion. the lawyers were worried about separation of church and state understandably and we didn't have to work our way through those issues. we ended up finding the people we were spending on trips as community at this, which they were. we ended up broadening the pool

to include the mayors and deputy mayors and others who were leaders and communities, all good. so we got to where we needed to be. it took a while. now we are there i would urge others to look at those programs and i think they are valuable. >> just a close, you mention $150 million in net gain of 10. what is the total worldwide -- what is the total worldwide budget for voice of america? all languages, all services. >> i'll be corrected perhaps. it's 212 at the moment. there is proposal for a little bit more. but $212 million. >> with respect to the federal budget, a fairly small investment. >> i like to say it's the equivalent of two and 35 jets of which we are scheduled to buy 2457 in the next seven or eight years. so for the price of just a few

fewer jet, we could have an immediately powerful public diplomacy and international broadcasting program. i would submit we need both. but we are -- we don't have this imbalance in my opinion. i don't know what to do about it exactly except talk about it and try to urge people. but the professionals in the room, and speaking to the converted here but i want to say to the converted, to all of the professionals is please don't be silent on this issue. speak out. reach out to your senators and congressmen on this issue. i mentioned a bill currently pending in terms of international broadcasting. it is pending right now. people decided which version to support. if they were reach now, it would be really worthwhile.

the same may be true in other areas of public diplomacy funding of go forth. this stuff is important and we should speak up a little more than we do. i am so pleased the public diplomacy is so vibrant and has such strong leadership and has had recently the immediate past president was wonderful. got some spark. i hope we can as a community of people who care about public diplomacy and honest journalism being one of the things our country can offer, you know, be a little more active. write a few more letters and e-mails to representatives and so forth because it is worth it and i think it could have impact. never underestimate the impact you can have. i just wrote my senator yesterday and it felt good. >> thank you for joining us to speak today. please join me in 19 our

speaker. david ensor. [applause] >> four weeks today. until then, we are adjourned. thank you. [inaudible conversations] ..

>> on donald trump and i approve this message. >> politicians can pretend it's something else but donald trump calls it radical islamic terrorism. that's why he's calling for tempers shutdown of muslims entering the united states until we can figure out what's going on. he will quickly got ahead of isis and take their oil and you'll stop illegal immigration by building a wall in our southern border that mexico will pay for. >> we will make america great again. >> c-span takes you on the road to the white house and into the classroom.

this year our studentcam documentary contest asks students to tell us what issues they wanted from the presidential candidates. policy stance road to the widest coverage and get all the details about our studentcam contest at c-span.org. >> we need to know how many people are reading us. we need to know how they're coming to us. for example, let's say not coming directly toward website and come to us through facebook or google or twitter or snapchat or any of these other dangers. we should know that. >> sunday night on to a "washington post" executive editor marty baron talks about the changes at the post since he took over in 2013. he discusses the depiction of his work as editor-in-chief of "the boston globe" in the movie spotlight. >> i think the movie is quite faithful to the broad outlines of that investigation unfolded. it's important to keep in mind it's a movie, not a documentary. you had to compress within two

hours seven month plus investigation including things that happened afterwards. you and introduce a lot of characters and introduce the important things that emerged over the course of that investigation. >> sunday night on q&a. >> and we are live on c-span2 on the american petroleum institute president and ceo jack gerard shortly will deliver remarks at the organization's annual state of american energy. he will address priority for the oil and natural gas industry and is scheduled to take questions from the audience. live coverage getting underway shortly here on c-span2. >> good afternoon all again. i hope everybody enjoyed your lunch. and again welcome to the 2016 state of american energy presentation. as we all know, energy is fundamental to our society

standard of living, to help the economy and its critical part of our national security. as this new year begins and clearly the presidential election and campaign are in full swing, this year state of american energy report which is on the table in front of you at your seats, focuses on the critical energy policies they. presentation today will focus on the importance of getting it right when it comes to our energy future and the policies that will drive that. it's our hope this information and the presentation will help drive a thoughtful discussion of policy goals and out into the future from campaigns and. let me remind you one last time, you all have the question cards come if you have any questions related to jack's presentation. with that let me introduce jack gerard, apis president and ceo. [applause] >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and happy new year to each of you. as you can tell why foist this

little scratchy today so i hope we get through this well at i have a number of children, eight, two of those little 10 year old adopted twins who come home from school everyday and heaven only knows what they brought home, but i haven't. spotlight to blame my 10 year olds of what could happen today, for better or for worse. welcome and thank you for joining us issue for 2016 state of american energy report. it's a time of year for us all to come together to talk about the role of energy and from our vantage point specifically oil and natural gas. with a roomful of vips like we have here today i don't want to take time to introduce all of you, knowing that in washington everybody is a vip. bubut here i do have to have tables of our partners that which is like to make mention of before i start with my prepared remarks that i would ask you to stand quickly and acknowledged the crowd.

first is tom gibson, president and ceo of the american iron and steel institute. [applause] >> next to tom -- hold your applause. next to tom is james baldwin, president of international union of regulators. next to james is sean mccarthy, president of north america's building trade unions, afl-cio. next to sean is one of our important members, alan armstrong, president and ceo of allen company. next to alan is our good friend, don harris, director of office of economic impact and diversity department of energy. and then our good friend and admiral don lord, our strategic advisor for veterans for energy. peter, president ceo of the american road transportation association and is thrilled he got a highway bill done it is that right, peter? next to peter is a long-standing partner paula jackson as president of the american

association of -- and our friend was the ita. let's give them a round of applause. [applause] and her head table you vomit lewis so let me go to the lord, president and ceo of the asian pacific american institute for congressional studies. around lucy, president of the national association, ocean industries association. next is when, president of black women's agenda. karen, the president and ceo of the small business council. then we have rob, president of petroleum marketers association. then tom and ceo of american wind energy association. no, as well as good to talk about today and i said i was going to take on the wind energy. [laughter] so he is listening very intently, as you can tell. next is don, president of

international natural gas association. and the general president of the national association of bridge structural ornamental and reinforcing iron workers. and next to eric is andy black, association of oil pipe lines. thank you all. is give them a round of applause. [applause] before i turn to my prepared remarks i would also like to acknowledge a couple dozen veterans that we have in our room today. those that lead our efforts will be called vets for energy group i'd like them all to standard thinker all over in this area. please stand up for us. we greatly appreciate -- [applause] >> all you have to do is read the newspaper headlines today and see what's going on around the world. it's a very sobering thought, particularly as we give thanks to these veterans and others

with the been doing is working hard on issues of national security associate with energy security. we want to give a special shout out to you, and thank you for your service. and the other vets who happened to be in the room with us today. address each a copy of this year's report which captures america's current energy reality and potential through the lens of seven u.s. regions, the east, southeast, gulf coast, pacific, arctic, mountain west and central. this year the report emphasizes a national scope of the oil and natural gas industry and identifies the common challenges which we face. and the important leadership role played by the states in the transition of our nation's away from the decades of energy scarcity and uncertainty towards an era of energy abundance and security. the report is a snapshot of energy policy as it is today,

and as it could and should be in the future. in broad terms the state of american energy is strong, even during this time of what we call real alignment. the united states is for energy self-sufficient and has transitioned from an era of energy scarcity independence into a global energy leader. today the global energy world is realigning with the united states poised to remain a dominant global player, something that was unforeseen just a decade ago. the energy policy decisions we make today will determine whether this nation remains a positive stabilizing force in the world energy market, and whether consumers can continue to count on reliable, affordable and abundant domestically produced energy for years to come. domestically the 21st century

energy american energy renaissance which has created an unprecedented surplus of energy have significantly lowered energy costs for american consumers and delivered a sizable lift the u.s. economy. for example, the energy information administration estimates that the american consumers have now saved on average $700 in 2015 hahn transportation fuel costs alone. as a result of his abundant energy, and it's estimated the u.s. average income was $1200 higher in 2012 given lower home energy costs brought about by unconventional development. we tested the figure could reach as much as $3500 a year per family by 2025.

and even during this period of real alignment, the oil and gas industry remains an important source of well-paying jobs for millions of americans. america's oil and natural gas industry supports approximately 1.2 trillion in u.s. gross domestic product. that's the equivalent of the size of the mexican economy, according to the world bank. fortunately, we not t bring abot america's rider energy future which means lower costs american consumers come a clear environment and american leadership. because that is today's reality here in the united states. we call it the u.s. model. simultaneously the united states is leading the world in energy production. we have one of the strongest western economies and we are leading the world in reducing

greenhouse gas emissions. i trifecta of success unmatched by any other nation in the world. our nation's success in the global energy production and carbon reduction later is rooted in the united states unique federal system which allows the states to be an active and semiautonomous actor when it comes to its energy resources are developed. our system of government working in combination with our long tradition of entrepreneurship and distinctive innovative spirit has led to world leading reductions in carbon emissions, now at near 20 year lows. as a state of american energy report details, the states demonstrate time and again that the best way forward on energy policy is not to legislative mandate, overreaching regulatory oversight, or executive decree, but by using facts in what we

call the u.s. model. including what's worked and what's best for our energy future. the economy, consumers, and the environment as our guiding principles. the states demonstrate how bipartisan compromise, consensus building and collaboration with industry can lead to significant increases in energy production and environmental protection. nationally according to the latest epa data, in 2013, greenhouse gas emissions were 9% below 2005 levels, even as our population, energy use and gross domestic product have increased, proof that the u.s. model is the most effective way to better protect the environment while growing the economy and increasing our energy production. our nation's emissions are lower as a result of greater use of

clean, burning natural gas. and according to a study, the oil and natural gas industry itself reduced its own greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of 55.5 million metric tons of co2 in 2014, all while dramatically increasing our production right here at home. fofurther we in the industry hae invested $90 billion in zero and low carbon emitting technologies from 2000-2014. almost as much as the entire federal government's investment of $110 billion. we also know what the difference between pro energy development and anti-energy development will mean to our nations economy, businesses, families, consumers, and for our environment. last year study by mckinsey found that with the right energy

policies, america's oil and natural gas industry can support as many as an additional 1 million american jobs in 2025, and as many as 2.3 million additional jobs by 2035. the study also looked at the real world economic difference between pro development energy policies and anti-development energy policies espoused by some. specifically over the next 20 years pro-development policies could punitive increase local, state and federal government revenue by more than $1 trillion. 1 trillion, and boost household discretion income by as much as $508 billion. further average annual house energy expenses could be lowered by approximately $360 per year at the same time.

conversely, national energy policies that discourage energy development and constrain u.s. refiners could lead to a queue with a decrease of 500 billion in government revenue from 2016-2035, and increased by 242 at the cost of energy annually for the average household. because, according to the eia, fossil fuels will account for 80% of u.s. energy consumption through 2040. and the agency estimates that even under the best case scenario for alternative fuels used, fossil fuels will still account for 78% of our energy needs. this is just another data point in support of the long-standing tenet of energy policy which is held by most economists, academics, and government

analysts. fossil fuels were remain the foundation upon which our modern society rests for many decades to come. encouragingly, there is growing support within congress for this u.s. model, the style of energy policies. as many indigent are well aware, just last month as congress was finishing the people's business before recess we witnessed a rare glimpse of bipartisanship and forward-looking energy policy on the national level with the lifting of the 40 year ban on crude oil exports. lifting the ban is a win for american consumers and economy. according to a recent study which found that lifting the ban could save consumers as much as i .8 billion per year on fuel costs -- 5.8. congress' action was a victory of long-term vision, and fact-based policymaking over

political ideology and ideological dogma. still in spite of all these facts, and a wealth of other evidence to the contrary, the art and ardent few who continue to believe that keeping our nation's unfunded energy resources in the ground is a credible and viable national energy strategy. there are some in government who will advance their favorite forms of energy to the dubious and untested and, heedless of the potential harm it could cost to our economy or how much cost they would impose on consumers, or how it could impede continued environmental improvement your for example, ignoring their consumer preference and in spite of current record levels of production and refining, epa continues to push the renewable fuel standard. a relic of our nation's era of

energy scarcity and uncertainty. in 2014 congressional budget office study projected that the rf as good raise the cost of fuel prices because quote, given design of the rf as the cost of encouraging additional sales of horror and the high ethanol fuel fall some producers and consumers of gasoline and diesel, end quote. what's more, there is very little consumer demand for these high ethanol fuels. according to the tia the end of a not found the 85 that result in 2014 is less than 1% of the annual gasoline demand. the reason is simple. ethanol is less energy dense than gasoline and as result provides fewer miles per gallon. the laudable goals of the rfs less dependent on imported fuel, lower gasoline prices and

reduced emissions have largely been achieved through industry innovation and market forces. it is well past time that we end or significantly amended the renewable fuel standard. it is a relic of our nation's era of energy dependence that poses a direct threat to our nation's economy, risks reversal of important environmental improvements, as concluded by the national academy of sciences, good raise energy costs for american consumers. another exampl example is the cn power plan which under the guise of environmental protection does, in fact, seek to pick winners and losers in the energy market, not based on market conditions, consumer preference or economic reality. the reality is that the approach of the rule is to proposed a regulation based solution for a problem that is already being successfully addressed in the

marketplace. and the treatment of natural gas is a good example. administration routinely acknowledges a greater use of natural gas and power generation has not only led to greater greenhouse gas emission reduction than any other nation, but that it has been a quote game changer in quote introducing other air pollution. and the president rightly highlights that we have far more than 100 years worth of natural gas abundance. yet in releasing the clean power plan last summer, the white house talking points bragged quote, the rush to natural gas is a laminated, end quote. reasonably by means to spur more renewable energy. in 2015 there were several months in which natural gas produced more electricity than any other fuel for the first time in u.s. history. by no coincidence that period

also saw the lowest carbon emissions from the power sector. and far from reducing opportunity for wind and solar power, natural gas provides the reliable power necessary to integrate those intermittent sources. states that electric utilities are required to provide clean, reliable and affordable energy. natural gas will continue to provide all three, with or without the clean power plan. more broadly, however, the clean power plan could further drive up costs for consumers who live in regions of the country who pay more than they should for energy they need because of the growing strain on our energy infrastructure. the eia estimated giving the residents paid up to 69% more for their electricity than the national average just last winter. and the industrial sector has

paid up to 90% more for its electricity than the national average. in part because of infrastructure limitations. much of these limitations are the result of a dangerous combination of outdated policies and anti-fossil fuel ideology. that discourages american companies from investing in tomorrow's pipelines, marine terminals and other needed infrastructure. emboldened by their ability to stop the keystone xl pipeline, anti-fossil fuel advocates have set their sights on the energy infrastructure projects. their arguments against the energy infrastructure project are not based on economic merit or on true environmental impact. and the decision to reject the pipeline simply ignores the pipelines many benefits. including strengthening ties one of our closest trading allies,

canada. accretion of thousands of well-paying jobs, the generation of millions of local and state and federal tax revenue and the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in developing canadian oil sands that have been achieved to date. keystone is a good example how facts can be stubborn things that take little heating of political ideology or preconceived notions. the stated reason for denying the keystone xl pipeline was environmental protection. however, that was contradicted by the administrations own state department report which concluded that after seven long years and five comprehensive reports, that the denial of this pipeline would actually increase carbon emissions by 42% due to an increase in truck, rail and

barge traffic via the transport oil sands. the oil is finding its way to the marketplace through alternative means, and as they concluded prior to that decision, it has increased carbon emissions 42% as a result of that unfortunate denial. the demonization of the keystone xl pipeline remains a powerful, cautionary tale of the dangers energy policy driven by ideology rather than economic reality. and as a chilling effect on expansion efforts for our nation's energy infrastructure. that's not just bad national energy policy. it is also bad news for our nation's economy. according to an i h. s. study, the amount of energy sector infrastructure needed through the middle of next decade could spur 1.15 trillion in private capital investment.

1.15 trillion in private capital investment. ihs also projects in infrastructure investment to support more than 1.1 million american jobs nationally, contribute 120 billion the u.s. gross domestic product, increase revenues to government by more than 27 billion through 2025. and, finally, another example of why policy matters when it comes to energy is a glaring difference between energy production on state-controlled and federally controlled land. federal data shows crude oil production will remain flat between 2009-2014 on federally controlled land, while natural gas production declined 35%. i contrast, on private and state lands were development does not

need permission from the federal government, production increased 88% for crude, and 43% for natural gas. these dramatically different trendlines are a function of political ideology, not geology. all three examples underscore don't know how energy policy affects energy production but also how changes in energy production affect the lives and livelihoods of us all. and that highlights the simplified that is often lost in the energy policy debate, get energy from fossil fuels is in for decades to come will be fundamental to our society. and as a result of policies we put in place in that area, will have repercussions well beyond the well head, the pumping station, or the refineries. a have real-world impacts on american families, on small businesses, on our environment

and on our communities. as the president's plans for your in office begins, we hope that he will take note of and help foster but we like to call the u.s. model. we hope you will note the already heavy regulatory burden, almost 100 pending regulations on the oil and industry -- and counting upon the oil and gas industry can hinder rather than advance what he hopes to be one of the administrations defining legacies, environmental improvement. while the outcome of november's elections is far from clear, it is certain no matter who becomes the 45th president of the united states, he or she will take a nation that is first in oil and natural gas production. first in refining ever clean fuels, and first in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. they will also have a choice to

continue the trend a positive role energy abundance, global leadership, domestic, economic opportunity and environmental improvement, or to dismantle the progress we've made by implementing policies born from ideology and on board to science or to facts. if the past is indeed prologue of the november elections approach, our nation civil discourse on our most pressing national issues will likely include energy. our vote for energy voter education campaign will keep the national energy discussion hopefully above the hyperpartisanship of a presidential election year. vote for energy focuses on what unites us as a nation and seeks to drive national energy discussion that is focused on facts that are smart, responsible, pro-energy policies, and what they mean for

american jobs. a stronger economy, a better environment, a continued global energy leadership. and it will focus on the facts, will focus on the future, and empower voters with information they need to understand where those who seek to lead us stand on america's energy future. vote for energy after central message is straightforward. energy is fundamental to our society. and thanks to american innovation and entrepreneurial spirit, the united states stands as the world's leader in energy production and environmental improvement, and will remain a global energy leader only if we get our nation's energy policies right today and tomorrow. there will be those whose rhetoric and contributions to the national energy policy conversation consists only of personal attacks, misinformation, and political

polemics. at an attempt to reduce the discussion to set up false choices. we want to instead work toward proven unrealistic solutions as demonstrated by the facts of the u.s. model. in this new year let us all resolve to work together toward a shared vision of a world where everyone, without regard to zip code, to state, nation, continent or hemisphere, has access to reliable, safe and affordable energy. and it will keep the energy conversation focused on what's most important, energies role increasing american prosperity, long-term job creation and economic opportunity, coupled with environmental improvements and enhanced national security. our goal is to keep the positive momentum of the last few years to in the politicalization of energy for petty partisan and. we want to foster national energy policy discussion the

remains of the partisan fray and immune from the misinformation campaign deployed by critics of fossil fuels. because the reality is that no single source of energy will alone solve our problems or is the source of all of our woes are moreover, no group holds all the answers other solutions to the challenges that we face. what history has taught us is that america prosperous most when we work together for the common good. i continue to believe and hope that all of us ultimately have the same goal, to leave our community, our nation and the world other than we found it for the next generation. they deserve nothing less than our collective best efforts to that end, and they are counting on us to put into place realistic policies that enhance our nation's energy security and

national security, while at the same time promoting job creation and responsible environmental stewardship, economic growth and status as a global energy leader. thank you very much for your attention. i'm happy to take a few questions. thank you very much. [applause] >> i think you held up pretty well. >> thanks. >> you got a little stronger as doing. reminder that everyone has a car. if you have a question please get them to us. the first question is, what is it yes top legislative priorities now that the oil export ban has been lifted? >> the oil export ban was one of many priorities for us. let me suggest as i touched on today the renewable fuel standard is another current policy that needs to be

significantly amended or repealed. so i expect as we work with our membership, that's another issue will focus on, i can't over emphasize how important these infrastructure issues are. as a look at my partners around the table, organized labor and others, we have a great opportunity to step beyond as mentioned earlier the projected investment is $1.15 trillion. that's all private capital. i don't know of any other project, all due respect to peter and highway bill, that's a big number. you couple this investment with the highway bill and others and you can see a real job opportunity for the country, at the same time we're producing a movie a lot of energy and great benefits to consumers. you were talking earlier about some issues going up through new england. consumers are paying 69% higher than the national average. why? because we can't get the natural gas there. let's put people to work and build the pipeline, safe

pipelines, transport everything we move 99.999% of its safety. we've got a good record. we can all do this together. >> jack, i've two questions that tie into one and other related to saudi arabia and the middle east and iran. what are your thoughts on what happens if the political leadership false in saudi raid and its impact on the global energy markets? and moreover, what happens to reliability of energy supplies that impact on american consumers? >> it's a great question to all you have to do is look at what's been taking place the last couple of days, and one thing i will note that all the analysts are now talking about them watch what's happening with the price of crude oil. it's moved slightly but there has been a big uptick. 10 years ago i believe in the markets to show that would've been significant movement in the price of oil with the unrest that has taken place today.

why is that? because the united states has come in as a major player. things like the crude export ban being lifted put us in a position where the geopolitics of energy production around the world will never be the same, and less we restrict ourselves. many believed that what you see is the epicenter of power for oil and gas production is now shifting to the united states. and i've had to go back through with all of you the history of what's happened over the last 10, 20, 30 years. i think we're all hopeful we can get as much stability as we can out of those oil-producing nations. i don't think any of us can predict what's going to happen but i will suggest overlooked domestically we need to be focused at home. we need to look at lng exports as opportunities not only for our own domestic production creating jobs but think about what they can do a round the world if we took cleaner burning natural gas and started to

displace some of the developing world for those that are today without energy, 1.5 billion people in the world who don't have energy. if we talk about income inequality we talked about a moral imperative that i believe we should help people get educated. we should help people rise to the standard of living what they can and should a reasonable quality of life. energy is key to all of that. >> with a low prices of natural gas and gas and physical be difficult to fire up the public about these energy issues? >> i don't think so because i think the public well beyond what we might call traditional oil and gas producing areas have started to get a good taste of what this means. what this this mean versus $4 a gallon gas liquids what does a new jobs created in a state of pennsylvania that pays over $90,000 a year mean to those who are up to producing natural gas?

if you look at these job creation engine of the oil and gas industry, though we are going through a difficult real i'm even as we speak, longer-term prospects are very bright for us. we can build the infrastructure, make the united states truly the energy power of the world. and if we did i believe the public will get interested take a look at survey research today, three quarters of the american public says yes, we want those jobs. yes, we want to produce more oil and natural gas right here at home. then when they begin to understand like to call the u.s. model, that cleaner burning natural gas is made the united states the leader in carbon reductions in the world. we encourage the president to go to paris and talk about our proven case study right here at home. they would have a very different dynamic to it. we could start showing improvement environmental protection at the same time we

create these well-paying jobs. i believe more the american people understand, the more engaged they will be you got i think energy is going to be a big issue in 2016. >> jack one last question. how can we best support the communities that suffered during the oil and gas industry downturn that have been negatively economically impacted? >> the first thing that it is when you do realize that all the market-driven dynamics that we are experiencing today, the worst thing we can do is give government to intervene and try to manipulate the marketplace. the best opportunities long range, long-term visionary policies like lifting the ban on crude oil exports. first think i think went out last week or earlier this week. those of the opportunities we need. we are not asking for government intervention. were asking for the opportunity to compete on a global scale. the initiative to lift the ban on exports from iran and allowed

them access to the global marketplace, we finally allowed the u.s. producers to do the same thing. just let us compete what we can do at home is just like we commission over the last five or six years where we have created hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs, is let the market work and let's deal with the science and the data. in science today shows the u.s. leads the world in carbon emission reductions. why? because we are producing vast volumes of cleaner burning natural gas which has now become economic and consumers are benefiting to the tune of $1200 per family per year. that's what we need for society is an opportunity to compete in to provide those jobs with the energy that is needed. so with that, thank you very much. thanks for the easy questions. they are always appreciated. thank you for being here today. we greatly appreciate it. thank you. [applause]

♪ ♪ >> mr. gerard finishing up with his formal remarks to the american petroleum institute come in petroleum institute come in and about 50 minutes he is scheduled to the news conference which will also cover live right here on c-span2. the u.s. house will be back for its first legislative session of the new year. they are in in about 45 minutes, to be in future. you can watch live coverage on c-span. we have more live coverage come up later today as the house rules committee takes up a bill repealing portions of the nation's health care law. live coverage at 5 p.m. eastern on c-span3. while we wait for this news conference with mr. gerard to get underway here's a portion of today's "washington journal" look at presidential campaign financing at the amounts being spent on political ads during

this campaign season. >> host: and i join us in studio is a campaign finance report with "usa today." will discuss the latest on the fundraising numbers released i the 2016 presidential candidates at the fundraising quarter ended december 31. walk us through some of the announcements that happen. what we know about what campaigns raised in the last three months of last year. >> guest: so far only four candidates have told us the numbers. they have until january 31. the day before the iowa caucuses actually to release their year in fundraising numbers. at this point hillary clinton is ahead. she's raised $37 million as many for the nomination battle. bernie sanders isn't that far behind. he's raised about 33 million. this remains counties turned out to be very competitive with someone who has been considered the long-standing democratic front runner. >> host: republicans a bit

slower to put the numbers out perhaps. ben carson's numbers out at $23 million. and ted cruz at $20 million. before we get into the details, is there some strategy about announcing the numbers yourself versus waiting until the day before the caucuses? >> guest: yes, there is strategy because they get good news to tell you want to share it, run out and blasted to the world. some candidates whose fundraising numbers may been disappointing. why? make that part of the narrative in the last four weeks before the caucuses. why not just release it every day you have to to the federal election commission. on nothing but has bad years. we will see. >> host: we will certainly see. where the numbers are four of the candidates, especially the two leading candidates in the democratic field. as you look at the numbers what do you look at as a campaign finance report below the top line number? there is cash on hand what

about, what are you looking for? >> guest: cash on it is critical. that's one of the things we got from the democratic numbers. we saw hillary had far more cash on hand to start that you did she was i think at $38 million cash on hand. bernie sanders -- coming into the 2016 year. had that much available. bernie sanders, senator sanders had about 28 million. she had an advantage. of course, they are each starting passion she has been spending heavily trying to build a campaign that own and the early states but beyond. because she is looking ahead to the general election prospects i should note that our viewers want to call in on this topic as we're going through some of these numbers, we welcome you to do so. we will put the numbers on the screen. feel free to start calling him.

want to ask about big donations versus small donations. why does that matter? isn't money money? >> guest: it matters a lot. for someone who can raise money in very small amounts, $200 or $100 at a time, that person, that candidate can go back to the donor repeatedly before the donor gets the $2700 limit for the primary. it makes fundraising far more efficient because our have their information. you can send out an e-mail blast or contact them via social media site i need you to re-up again because this fight is getting closer. bernie sanders has relied heavily on small donors. about 88% of the money that he has received through september came and amounts of $200 or less tempered only about 20% of the money that went to secretary clinton. that said, she has been very good at fundraising. she's raised about 112 million,

112, yes, billion dollars during the course of 2015. that is no small change. bernie sanders come his total for the is about 73 million. >> host: bernie sanders raises 33 million, in the fourth quarter of 2015. within 4 million of clinton's total in the same three-month time period if you want to get all the details you can read the story or give her a call and we can go through the numbers here on "washington journal." thomas is up first, wichita, kansas, life for democrats. good morning to you on with fredreka schouten. >> caller: how is it going? i have a question. all these millions of dollars that are being spent on this, see, i've already made up my mind on voting for hillary, period.

so -- >> host: what is your question about the money? >> caller: the question is, what are all these millions of dollars being spent on a campaign that, what come into like the independence or the and decide it's? how can you be undecided between hillary and donald trump? >> guest: well, i mean, you know, there are people who are undecided in these races. it's still early. and again secretary clinton has yet to secure the democratic nomination. the first votes have not been cast. so what, they're spending money on staff and field organizations making sure that people turn up to the iowa caucuses. organization is very important to remember in 2008 she did not win the iowa caucuses. she placed third and ensure she does not want a repeat of the performance.

early centers, he has about 100 paid staff on the ground in iowa. he will be a formidable competitor. that's the thing about presidential politics. you don't want any leftover money. you want to spend it all and try doing this. >> host: how big of a budget item is commercials and ads into traditional and presidential campaigns? >> guest: is still a big ticket item. what's been interesting this time around is that spending is a. that's up i think 45% according to an analysis in our december. looking at what was missing during the course of 2015. >> host: donald trump on the republican side of course making his yesterday with his first ad running in iowa and new hampshire. want to play before our viewers who didn't get a chance to see it spent on donald trump and i approve this message. >> politicians can pretend it's

something else but donald trump calls it radical islamic terrorism. that's what he's calling for a temporary shutdown of muslims into and the united states until we can figure out what's going on. he will quickly cut the head off isis and take their oil and he will stop illegal immigration by building a wall on our southern border that mexico will pay for. >> we will make america great again. >> host: donald trump's first ad of the campaign. running in iowa and new hampshire. who are the candidates have been running a whole lot of ads, spending a lot of their own money throughout 2015 until today to? >> guest: let's go back. that's donald trump very first ad and it's fascinating because he's been leading the polls without spending a cent until yesterday on his own television advertising. it's interesting because it's not necessary the candidates were running ads. this their super pacs or other

outside groups. jeb bush's super pak right to rise pac led the field in advertising. they spent more than $30 million on advertising to promote his candidacy. and there's questions on whether that is paid off. so he's been leading the way. ted cruz has not been advertising that much. he's just started to pick up and do more advertising, both from ted cruz and from the super pacs supporting him. >> host: we will get more into the super pak. want to show our viewers a chart talking about candidates money outside money versus money that they have raised themselves. here's a jeb bush, the darker bar up top. the outside when it has been raised to support jeb bush over 100 million in personal campaign. this is your october about $25 million. hillary clinton october, about

$20 million raised by outside groups were. she raised about $77 million up until the point and now we know of course she's raised over $100 million in 2015. and so and unelected want to do some of the other candidates, open secrets is the place to go. we are with fredreka schouten taking calls about campaign finance. tulsa, oklahoma, like the democrats. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i was curious if you could retract just a moment on cash on hand. when you talk about debt, the current debt contessa cash on hand reflect that or is that number somehow to the site? when you do a simple asset liability sheet. >> guest: we generally tend to talk about that separately. for a number of reasons. one is that the campaigns have a

longtime to pay off their debts if they have any. they can pay them off long after the election is over. what we are interested in is sort of what's left on the balance sheet that they view as money that they can spend it at this point of course we don't have the actual report from the campaign. so we don't know how much that they're currently caring but we do know that clinton has told us that she is $38 million in available cash, and that sanders has told us he is about 28.4 million available in cash. >> host: line for republicans, dynamic and you are on with fredreka schouten. >> caller: one of the questions i have is a just and it seems that maybe some of the candidates have an unfair advantage in that they are given the opportunity to give lots of images on tv for free and that's money for not having to spend on campaigning. if you are someone looking,

wanting to read look at who the candidates are and you are not able to go to all their debates, people can depend on seeing on people what they are doing. it is only a few candidates that are being put on tv, or when they come and have debates come it seems there's only maybe a couple of candidates that their debates are put on television, and you'll see the other candidates. like i never see that debate with chris christie or a town hall meeting that those other candidates are having. it seems to be always about carson or trump or jeb bush. >> host: that factors in earn the media versus paid media. >> guest: that's an interesting discussion because -- >> we will leave this site but had to take you live to a news conference with american petroleum institute president jack gerard.

>> strengthening our energy security, our national security. so let me know present jack gerard to take your questions and let me just remind you, if you could please identify yourself and your news organizations. we have about 80 folks from around the country at the top news organizations here in person, at about 80 were called in from around the country. with that let me introduce jack gerard, apis president and ceo. >> thank you, eric. thank you ladies and gentlemen, for joining us today. my apologies for my voice. on the show much longer it's going to last but we appreciate you being here today. let me just say as we begin and when it opened up to questions, anything you'd like to talk about, is we believe as we talked about earlier in our vote for energy rock the would be doing through this election cycle once again, we want to talk about facts, talk about the future. we want to talk about the opportunities we have in this country would like to refer to as the u.s. model.

where, in fact, we create jobs, while at the same time reducing carbon emissions. it's significant what's taken place in this country, unpredictable just 10, 12 years ago. so with that let me open it up to take your questions. eric, i will let you identify. >> my name is darcy, thank you for taking our questions. i wanted to ask in paris whenever climate change discussion, they were reporting on saying the only way to achieve their true goals of this climate change is to eliminate fossil fuels. can you comment speak with yes. i think as you look at the reality, i mentioned in my speech today, the experts would say that i 2040, 80% of the energy resource will rely on the united states and will continue to be fossil fuels. what's happened in the united states today, we laid a world in carbon reductions. i think you're all were dashed all well aware that we do not because of fossil through

production in vast quantities estimated competitive. is allowed to be used come and as we are continue to improve the environment. susser look around the world today, this will not happen overnight but we need to be thoughtful, look at the science and the data. the science today shows us that natural gas is a key opportunity to further improving the embargo. up with just one of the things we should look at is how do we expedite end of elegy export opportunities of the united states. we have a case study. there are those who try to ignore the case study. some of whom denied the case study. the reality is we are leading the world, and how did we get there? that's the simple point of what we are trying to make you look and you work on the success we had to dig we believe we can do with the challenge of carbon but we can also do it in other ways other than those driven purely by political ideology.

>> i am marilyn waxman with npr. my question is about the conflicts in the middle east. typical thinking is that when there's so much rising tension it should be driving oil prices higher come and get that really hasn't been the case. how do you explain how these problems between iran and saudi arabia about the troubles in syria have not resulted in higher prices? >> i think it's the american energy renaissance is a key driver in the. as we talked about earlier, as you look around the world today, the geopolitics of energy has changed significantly over the last decade. the united states is now the world's number one producer of oil and natural gas. so it's the fundamentals of the law of supply and demand take it out a lot of the risk that we've seen historically uruguay? because what's happening, the markets look at that unrest and

saying it could have an impact within those significant producing nations, but there's alternatives today. the united states being wind. a production in the united states today is around 9 million barrels a day. that's almost doubled over the last five or six years. so the global market today is very different. those who had significant influence over global pricing, if you talk to analysts, will tell you that dynamic has shifted and is changing. and i think once again the market reflects that over the past couple of days as the unrest has continued to heighten and tensions increase, the market is moving. the market is basically showing that there were alternatives out there now for the energy. it's very significant what's happening. >> jack, thanks for doing this. what role do you anticipate

playing in terms of talking to 2016 candidates? are you advising any of them? have they reached out to you? where are we going to see your voice in this campaign? >> this campaign output you will be seeing as we will be talking to all candidates, regardless of local party. we believe as i talked about earlier innerhofer energy efforts, it's all about education. it's all about the science and is all about data. we believe that everybody apart from that perspective, the solutions to the challenges of our day are easier to give right at if we base been inside and data. that's why this u.s. model is so important come is because what it shows us is we can reduce carbon emissions, if that's the issue of our time, we can do that through cleaner burning natural gas, more consumption of low-cost, affordable, reliable clean burning fuel, in this case natural gas. ..

thank you. >> inc. is a look at the western hemisphere, generally one of the big issues of course will be mexico as mexico emerges as a bigger player in the gulf of mexico and the sure activity. another issue i put on the agenda as the top about is the

new five-year plan from the outer continental shelf in the united states. we are hopeful the administration will provide opportunities including the atlantic coast in this new proposal that should be coming out soon. so when we look at the western hemisphere, there's many opportunities. canada has been the number one energy partner for many years. it will continue to play significant role to the united states emerges as a major player now leading the world and combined with mexico, you see a three nation opportunity here that is really a chance of a lifetime as a mentioned earlier to see a lot of the energy focus shifts back to this hemisphere. other opportunities, i mean, you are all well aware of their opportunities around the globe. the differences the united states is really emerging as the key player in the world. >> hi, jenny mandel and energy wire clear such a major

accomplishment. can you reflect on how that is going to shape the u.s. industry oil and gas industries in the near term and for a decade or two. >> well, it is a good example as i mentioned in my prepared remarks of a long-term vision. and rethink about the oil and gas industry, people forget oftentimes as our companies are making investments, they don't like a first, second, third quarter. they look in a five, 15, 20 year horizons. things like lifting the crude export ban is a long-term visionary play that allows the markets to operate as they should. you see the differential between wti fundamentally close because now it has become a truer, free market. you have seen the opportunity for american producers not only in refined project, but now on crude oil. that is why there is such benefits to american consumers

because it gets back to supply and demand. as a mentioned earlier, from our vantage point as an industry, we are looking for the opportunity. don't overregulate. we can protect the environment. we can produce the needed energy the world means. lifting the crude export ban is a good example of long term energy policy. we should have a lot more focus and expedite the country and have a permitting process between d.o.e. and ferc that takes too long. we should focus on not just like we have other energy sources by this administration to expedite to purvey because they create an opportunity for u.s. producers to compete with anybody in the world and ultimately all the data shows that benefits american consumers. so there are opportunities out there that do the crude oil export ban was a big one. that is in place about 40 years

and that is change the energy dynamic as we know it. >> brian lesh limburg news. just following not treated to two factors we been here and it's the reason the price has been blanked a little bit is because production, there's no expectation of the decline in saudi arabia or iran and china is slowing quite a bit. wondering if you could look forward a little bit and tell us what you expect to happen the next couple of months if you could look into a crystal ball. if there was some lack of production, and what about america's producers? i don't have any in terms of what could happen. it is unfortunate for a variety of reasons that they won't take the time to go in today of the

tension which is occurring. as we pointed out earlier, historically would've had a significant impact on price reported by analysts. the api we don't project price, but the experts are saying today the price impact would've been significantly different in a daze as a result of that unrest and that is the key to focus from a u.s. that which is who we represent in the american petroleum institute. it is our ability to compete in global markets as a game changer. the world has been known for the last 30 to 40 years of the balding. it is realigning. while we have ups and downs, all we ask for is an opportunity. the companies we represent him that we don't want government intervention. we don't want government support. we want opportunity to compete in the market will find its equilibrium. that is all we ask for.

>> by meyer. i am curious your not on how the u.s. and the administration's clean power plan and more generally a month ago the carbon pricing, more broadly how ready are energy companies for those two and regulations. >> all of our companies, some are across the continue on. some have supported a cap and trade approach to climate in support of carbon tax. it is a very is a variety of positions against our member companies. the things we have focused on primarily as the signs in the day that because we think that is the story that is not being told today. the reality is the u.s. this liter. we believe the president should have gone to paris and said i have a case study in united state with one of the world largest economy is we are able

to grow our economy, the people to work. the economy is growing. put people to work and at the same time, our carbon emissions are at a 20 year low. we believe that story should be told because we think it will help we oriented other thinkers about the solutions to the challenges of our time like climate piercer rather than get into cap and trade, carbon tax, we believe we now have a case study. we have data that shows how you continue to support a growing economy at the same time you can address the climate issue. we think natural gas should be put out there is a secondary matter. it should be a focus. we should think about how we can use it in other venues around the world and that is why the production right here at home is so important to creating great jobs in pennsylvania, colorado and oklahoma, texas, ohio at the same time we deal with the environmental challenges.

>> jay radley a voice of america. low oil prices mean lower investment in the energy industry. eventually that will mean lower production. how long do you think it will take before you can see reduced production? >> you can see today some of the production being curtailed good as a accuweather leadtime opportunity when he drilled the well and bring it into production. as you see today that the production is up slightly in the united states. the market will drive back. all we are asking for his opportunity. give us a chance to compete with everybody around the world and the key beneficiary is the consumer because the lowest cost of oil will find itself into the marketplace. it will be refined for less than they brought to the american consumers doorstep for less. that is why i think infrastructure is so important as i talked about a night

earlier prepared remarks appeared in new england, some of you might have homes up there. europeans to 10% more than the national average. why is that? because we can't get the clean burning natural gas to you today. if we could build infrastructure, then we are allowed to compete and you'll see a huge benefit modeled in the clean burning fuel being put into those regions, particularly new england, the lower cost to the consumer. so there are a lot of benefits here. we just don't think those that take the simplistic approach lets forget about fossil fuel. you can't forget about fossil fields. all the experts will tell you there's a foundation foundation for the economy for many years to come. let's be smart, thoughtful look at the data and the science around it. >> two quick questions. the first one on climate change in general is the biggest climate change and issues affect

neither your member companies for your group from an advocacy standpoint in 2016. the second question is a quick one on the rss. what do you see as the prospects for pushing back for repeal or significant modification in an election year. thank you. >> on the climate question, the untold story as we talked about earlier is the u.s. model. there needs to be more conversation about what is working globally for the united states is the leader. we don't need to apologize where we are. we need to lead the world and show them how we got here. what we can do in the future as we deal with the serious challenge called climate. that is the first issue we have to focus on the climate discussion. hospital the science and data on the table. let's not drive the conversation based on pure ideology and particular dogma. let's look at the case study. we often hear people talk about this focus on the science in the

data. we couldn't agree more. there are some that want to ignore reality of the u.s. model. there is some that choose to deny the reality of the u.s. success in growing our economy, producing more energy and at the same time bringing a carbon emissions. there is a lesson there for us to learn and our hope is we will talk about this, learn from it and figure out not only the united states but globally how to better address the issue. on the rss, once we see the new congress assembled, the white house i think at that point we will be able to judge the likelihood of change. i will say i believe there is a clear majority in the house and senate today to make significant changes to the rss. process has been the thing that is protected that old relic of the past and we need to educate the american consumer and call on congress as those who represent those consumers to fix

a problem that's not helping american can immerse. >> let's turn to the songs. you have a question? the >> on the line from the "financial times." [inaudible >> i just want to go back to the subject when you say you are from not recognizing the significant from the valuable role that natural gas can play in producing emissions. one important policy conclusion do you draw? does that mean you think the clean powerplant should be scrapped or some reformer amendment for a similar plan put in place that still has that same object as i've emissions and does so by making more use of natural gas. the mac well, where we are today i would hope they would be more

consideration for redoubt pick winners and losers, but we actually allow all energy sources to compete in a true of the above energy strategy. the president used the common that he swore at all the above energy strategy. we couldn't agree more with them. the carbon intensive feel should be able to compete with all of the forms of fuel. but the fields that cost a lot we should tip the scale or put the finger on the scale in behalf of one form or another because it happens to be our favorite fuel. to allow consumers to benefit and compete on a level playing field with all other forms of energy. that is all we are saying in our conversation is let's look at the facts on the reality. i remember not too many years ago 13 or $14. that was a very different world than it is today. it has changed today because of our modern tech geeks and

technology is being able to produce vast amounts of it. now it is competitive to come into the marketplace. we should put the fingers on the scale for any particular fields. if our true objective is reducing carbon emissions, let's allow those fields to reduce carbon emissions in the marketplace. >> you devoted a lot of your talk today about the success of the u.s. novel. i wonder if this is the part the above administration has relatively accommodating to you guys and you would like the next administration to start of extend that. >> say that again. the administration has been accommodating to us? >> relatively accommodating. >> can i take issue with your promise? s. an industry with pending

regulations, i think it is accommodating. i think what the reality is they are looking at what it takes to feel an economy like ours. if your member for crude oil experts and the spokesperson today was passed and was commented didn't think it was the time to do it. we probably have some difference of opinions on how you should approach the regulatory regime. methane emissions are down and the united states. they are pursuing a method regime. it is heavily regulated by state. they are pursuing a hydraulic fracturing regime and the united states the united states has a rated three minimum. i don't know if it's accommodating our help old or whatever the word you used is as much as i believe we need to look at it on the basis of the science and data and the reality is we are now a major producer of natural gas. cleaner burning, reduces carbon

emissions and that needs to be given due attention and i don't think it is in the current administration. >> you alluded to it in your speech, but given the administration's climate is, how concerned are you they are pulling back on oil and gas as driven by the environmental movement when people keep it in the ground? >> jim, it is fair to say we are always concerned where the regulatory approach will go. we think it is unfortunate that some were taken in a responsible approach and suggest that to keep it on the ground when the administration data shows by 2040, 80% of energy will be oil and natural gas. we think those approaches are driven by a political ideology. they are not driven by science and data. those individuals denied the

u.s. model that shows you can create jobs, produce energy and also reduce carbon emissions. so we are always concerned where the administration will go. we work with them every place we can and does have some success in working through these issues and we hope this last year if we get the focus on what really benefits our society with job creation and environmental production that we can find some common grounds to work on it. there's a lot of pending regulations out there that we think are unnecessary that we wish they would you pursuing so aggressively, particularly those in the state that would regulate. >> amy herder with "the wall street journal." i want to go back to carbon politics for a moment. he said a couple minutes ago you remember how various sessions on this issue. i want to know what apis official position is on the carbon tax or some sort of

price. i know you have a very position on oil exports. as an official position, do you not have a position given to various positions of their member companies or do you have one? >> we have the positions posted on her website. i think you will see they are a description we believe as a serious concern, challenge that needs to be tougher than we focus our time and attention on solution that is why we believe we ought to have more conversation about what natural gas has done is a solution. those that want to get into the conversation are you for or against or you deny this or that. let's look at the data. let's look at the science and see what is really happening. the u.s. leads the world and carbon reductions. we are at a 20 year low. it didn't happen because the government mandate. it happened because the free-market principles for a cleaner burning fuel was brought

to the market and because we've been able through technological innovation to produce a lot more of it. it i become cost competitive. it is further improving our environment. we believe scientists and engineers that is what you do. you look at the model and say what is the solution? that is why we take issue with some of the approaches and proposed around the world of dissolutions. we put our solution is based on facts the next areas. it's not ideology. is not based on theoretical foundations. we've demonstrated that right at home and we believe that is what is missing in the conversations. we can all agree climate is a challenge in the a's to be the real discussion focused on solution. ours is better for consumers. it's better for environment and longer-term investments as economic activity in her consumers in the process. we believe ours is that when it illusion and that is why we want

to push it. >> with go back to the phones. we have a number of callers. >> the next question comes from amy joy donohue. >> you outline related to oil and gas production when there's federal ownership, specifically a huge difference between the experience of the pennsylvania experience. can you imagine something else going on here besides the federal law and the numbers are quite amazing. >> answer the question, amy. the numbers are quite amazing. i would encourage you all to take a look at our report and some of the data because there is a dramatic difference between federal ownership in state ownership. that is why the reason they shared in our report to focus on the role of the states. if you look in the state of pennsylvania, for example, in

the past the governor has supportive of the development of the natural gas affair. look at the state of ohio today, there's lots of conversation that ohio is a significant oil producer driven primarily by innovation technologies. look at a state like utah where you have a lot of federal grants, much like nevada for some of the others out there in colorado and you can see a stark contrast between what is going on in the federal land which is controlled by the federal government versus what governors are allowing to happen on the state land. that is the point of the race. this is driven by ideology, not by geology. the oil and gas reserves don't go to that kind of federal and state land and stock. they typically cover both bases but there's a reason the dollars aren't invested to drill in the federal land and that is generally because there is great uncertainty. the costs are much higher says david with it. so you see the capital investment dollars like any

other industry will grow at its best return for the most investment and that is what is happening and energy in the united states today and that is why as i mentioned earlier in my comments if you look at crude oil production on the federal united states, it is flat at best. natural gas production, the cleaner burning fuel reducing carbon emissions is actually down on federal land 35%. you get off the federal land, the state land which adjoins the federal land in the production is up 80% from crude oil, 40% for natural gas i believe. it is a function of policy and ideology and not science and energy. we think he should be focused on geology. we strongly encourage the states and feds to work together on these matters and that is why the report points out because it does make a long-term difference in the united states ability to produce energy. >> chairman daley at cq

rollcall. [inaudible] with those built packages be enough to address the infrastructure and expert concerns and you have any other thoughts on the pending legislation? >> some of the packages you know. we think there needs to be a lot more focus on the infrastructure issues. things such as permitting timelines, it better. is it enough? we think now is the time to go look at it a little more specifically particularly in light of the lifting of the crude oil export ban. now that we give global opportunities, we think you always have to reassess the infrastructure opportunities for the domestic market in the global market. we are looking at both the house and the senate. chairwoman murkowskii