our infrastructure is going to the devil. the cost of congestion, i don't have to tell anybody that lives in the washington, d.c. area about this. we're being penny-wise and pound foolish. so you're not talking about a wholesale cavitation of the american military by providing these incentives which we recommended, and they can be funded in a lot of ways. butwhat they need to be looked at is part of the overall strategic issues that confront the united states, not a free market issue, not a picking winners and the losers, but in the overall context. >> let me tu it over to other questions from the audience. al a fred moses. a microphone up here? >> thank you, ken. mr. smith, you should be feeling pretty good. first of all, you didn't mention it, but your company is one of

the most efficient users of fuels obviously looking to get vehicle that are more fuel efficient. you're a leader in the industry and you should be commended for it. but if you take your five points greater oil production, we've embarked on that, rather dramatically in the last four years in terms of natural gas. our production has moved up so that the cost of natural gas today is what, $2? >> right around $2 per thousand cubic feet. >> against almost 6 to $7 a few years ago. >> $13 at the turn of the century. >> well, i don't go back that far. looks like you did either, perhaps. overstated. electricity. electric cars, we're moving in that direction. we're not quite there yet. we're certainly moving in that direction. biofuels? yes. not quite there yet. we're moving in that direction. and lastly, fuel efficiency. if i call correctly, president

bush's goal was 35 miles a gallon. president obama's goal is over 50 miles a gallon. so a dramatic improvement. i've even seen figures in newspapers such as the mirror times that we will be fuel neutral in terms of imports by the year 2020 and may even be exporting fossil fuels a decade or so later. so aren't we really marching now to the smith drum in accomplishing many of the things you've been advocating, and probably in a shorter time frame than you foresaw? >> well, i think the answer to that question is yes. i think one of the very best thing that has happened has been this incredible technology that has been deployed for natural gas, and now oil production. and as i mentioned, i believe that the position of the energy

security leadership council on new fuel efficiency standards was a very big part of the bush administration's decision to embrace them in the 2007 energy act. we certainly worked on it hard at the time. so yes, we're moving in the right direction. but i'll tell you one of the reasons that i a to do these sessions today. and it gets to exactly the point that bob lutz was talking about. our national dialogue today is we take one incident about a lithium-ion battery fire three weeks after a government crash testt was caused because they didn't take the fluid out of the vehicle. yet there are 275,000 internal combustion engines that catch on fire every year. now when you've got that type of hyperbold that type of

misinformation -- well, i don't know. but i know this much. we're here to try to correct some of these misconceptions. but that is doing a disservice to the american public that doesn't understand the magnitude of the problem, and that these technologies are safe. now listen, we know where lithium-ion battery technology at fed ex very well. we transport them in our airplanes. they can combust under certain circumstances. but they have not in the automotive sector because of the tremendous amount of r&d and manufacturing prowess that bob put into that product, and presumably toyota has put into theirs and so forth. so we are definitely moving in the right direction. we're down 5% year-over-year. but until we get to that point, and my guess is that people think we'll be a net oil

exporter probably a bit overoptimistic based on the depletion rates of the oil that is coming up because of fracking. but until we get to the point where we are much less dependent on foreign petroleum, the foreign policy options that the successors to general conway and general kelley have to deal with are tremendously circumscribed in what we can do. we have to just as the general told you at the joint chiefs of staff, they're talking about the economic implications of whether we do this, that and the other thing. and if we have another oil crisis, it will put the united states back into significant recession. and as i said, based on my experience over these 40 years, given the demand grethe of china and india and the emerging economies, from this point forward, as long as we have this

kind of imbalance, as soon as the united states starts showing any type of significant economic growth, i can almost assure you that that economic growth and wealth will be expropriated by an increase in oil prices because it would not be in the best interests of the people that control the oil markets through a cartel to do anything other than that. >> thank you. thank you so much. mr. smith, you commented on -- and when i look at japan in light of the fukushima accident, the japanese government ordered all nuclear power play, my question is japanese are

confronted with a huge electricity shortage this summer. and b, dealing with iran and eu issues, whenever i look at u, in france 75% of energy mix is coming from nuclear plant and uk is 20%. but in the fukushima accident, a german government, it change its policy in nuclear plan. do you have any views how other eu member states might change their energy? thank you very much. >> well, my view, and the view of the energy security leadership council is that nuclear power play generation is something that the united states should embrace and continue. in the history of human technologies, producing power, i dn't think any have the safety record that nuclear does. i mean thereave been far more people lost in coal mining accidents and refinery fires and

one thing or other than nuclear. i think the real problem in horrible tragedy in japan and of course we were very heavily involved in that. fed ex served japan. we tried to help in every way we could taking supplies. so i know the extent of the devastation. but the fundamental problem at fukushima was the unfortunate decision to locate the nua@d power plants where there could be a tsunami that kept the power plants from being safely cooled down. so i don't have any doubt about the fact whether the german government has made their decision stick or not, i would doubt to tell you the truth. i think the advantages in nuclear power, particularly for people concerned with emissions and so forth, there is a high likelihood that there will be a lot of nuclear power utilized in

the next 20 or 30 years, if not in europe and the united states, certainly in china and elsewhere. >> steve cheney with the american security project. let me thank all of you for your service to our country right up front. i'm with the american security project. we cover topics that are virtually identical to this. bob, your comments about politicization of this, secretary mavis went up on the hill last week and was grilled hard about the navy's use of boy fuels when i think the decision to use biofuels is the right one. my question is to mr. smith on fed ex. you have so many airplanes now. biofuel has been proven to work in airplanes do. you have any plans to use biofuels? and secondly, one of the b problems with that is funding on

the development front end. it could it seems to me on the industry side it would be a good thing to invest in. >> well, the industry is working very hard on this. boeing and airbus, who agree on very few things, just in the l@st week along with embraer of brazil announced a consortium to rk on biofuels. lufthansa, virgin, klm, i think alaska airlines, qantas, many ercial carriers have flown airplanes powered with fuel mixed with jet a, and the fuel is made from kamalina, algae and so forth. that's all been certified. the navy is calling the fa/18.

they call it the green hornet. this has been derided by the popular press and the conservative wings. and again, i am a conservative. so let me reemphasize that about the president's remarks on algae. but i think the presiden@ is absolutely right. the most likely biofuel that can be produced at scale is likely to come from algae. exxon has invested $600 million with craig ventnor, the individual who decoded the genome. we're working with an australian company that seems to have some pretty good technoliy to make jet fuel feed stock out of algae produced in bioreactors. algae is prolific, both in the sea and in static water. it can be made in bioreactors. it doesn't compete like corn

does for crops and arable land and so forth. so if we get luckyand, you know, the right chemistry can be put together, i think biofuels is definitely part of the mix. but it's strictly at this point in time a matter of the scale production costs. it's not a technical issue anymore. >> we have time for one last question. i will turn it over to my colleague lee lane, sitting patiently. >> thank you. i noticed from the economic analysis that the consulate has authorized you call for -- and mr. smith mentioned this morning. you call for the phasing out eventually of the subsidies to the electric vehicles. and you also call for a

restructuring of the biofuels subsidies -- actually, the subsidy has gone away. but what we still have -- we still have a mandate. i guess my question then is fundamentally of a political nature. and it is it seems awfully difficult for the u.s. government to get rid of a subsidy once it's created. and so is it really realistic? i mean i agree these are good policies and would be desirable. but don't we run the risk if we create a subsidy that it stays there even after the need for it has disappeared? >> look, we operate in political system that cannot, cannot raise the price of fuel. through taxation. we have 18 cents a gallon federal tax on fuel, which is ridiculous.

the average in europe is $4.50 so that the gallon in europe is $9 a gallon. that $9 a gallon you need no government subsidies to get people into alternative fuel vehicles. in fact the chevrolet volt, when we announced it, its sister car, the opal impera, it got 8,000 orders the first day with zero government subsidies because at $9 a gallon, it provides its own incentive. but in the states we -- the political process is such that we can't use the market mechanism of fuel price to drive demand for these alternative fuel vehicles. so we leave the fuel price, we leave taxation where it is. and then we have to find a somewhat artificial means to incent customers to look at these vehicles. as i say, if i were emperor of the united states, the only position for which i qualify by

virtue of my foreign birth, i would raise the fuel tax in the united states by 25 cents a gallon per year so that people making a purchase decision would say, wow, it's $4 this year, 425 next year, $4.50 the year after this. you know what? we better buy a compact this time. a predictable rise in fuel prices. the problem with fred and i, when his commission first recommended strict fuel economy guidelines as a representative of an a automobile manufacturer. it was clearly opposed to it because cafe or corporate average fuel economy regulation is the equivalent of combatting national obesity by forcing clothing manufacturers to manufacture only small sizes. whereas what you should be doing is raising the price of food.

so it's a round-a@out way of getting at it. is it a totally free market? no, it isn't. but it will have to suffice because we're not using the free market mechanism to get people to voluntarily restrict their use of gasoline. so we have to come in with an artificial substitute subsidy. i think if fuel prices continue rise, we will see continued ue much faster rises in the efficiency of the u.s. fleet than you could ever achieve via regulation. so if we get to $5 a gallon and $5.50 a gallon, you're going to see a mass transition to small cars, to diesels, to hybrid vehicles. in other words, people will be more and more willing to pay for the technology. i don't like the system of artificially low fuel prices and then compensated by subsidies any better than anybody else.

but since the fuel price and federal fuel taxation is the political third rail in the united states, no politician in his right mind is ever going to mention fuel taxes we have to use a different mechanism. and, you know, we all have to live in the world as it is. we can fight it, argue about it. but at the end of the day, to achieve progress, we have to do what works. be pragmatists and do what works. >> just one fact. the energy security leadership council was prepared to support an increase in fuel prices just as bob lutz described, you know, on a graduated scale to get to the same place and supported the reimposition of fuel efficiency standards and incentives for electric vehicles since it was impossible to achieve politically. >> i didn't know that. thank you.

makes me feel a lot better. >> and on that happy note, let me just thank our very distinguished panelists, general kelley, general conway, bob lutz, fred smith. also the communications teams at both safe and hudson and the wonderful folks at c-span for pulling together today's event. thank you very much. >> nice to see you, sir. >> nice to see you. >> how are you doing? >> good to see you.

coming up next on c-span 3, a house hearing on preventing prescription drug abuse, and the diversion of those drugs to illegal markets. and later on, a look at afghanistan's government and the security situation in the region. as u.s. forces prepare their withdrawal at the end of 2014. this morning, the senate's subcommittee on civil rights and human rights will hold a hearing on racial profiling. senators will examine the impact of newly enacted immigration laws, anti-terrorism efforts, and discriminatory law enforcement practices occurring around the country. watch live coverage getting

under way at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span 3. jury selection began this week in the retrail of roger clemens, charged by federal prosecutors of knowingly lying to congress in february 2008 on performance-enhancing drug abuse in baseball. >> let me read to you what his wife said in her affidavit. "i laura pettitte do oppose and state in 1999 and 2000 andy told me he had a conversation with roger clemens in which roger admitted to him using human growth hormones. mr. clemens, once again i remind you you're under oath. you have said your conversation with mr. pettitte never happened. ifh@t was true, why would laura pettitte remember andy telling her about the conversation? >> once again, mr. congressman,

i think he misremembers. andy's and i's relationship was close enough to know if i had known he had done hgh, which i -- if he was knowingly knowing that i had taken hgh, we would have talked about the subject. he would have come to me to ask about the effects of it. >> watch his 2008 testimony online at the c-span video library. with over a quarter century of american politics and public affairs on your computer. the house subcommittee in march held hearing examining prescription drug abuse and diversion. the white house's drug control policy director testified first, providing an update on the administration's prescription drug abuse prevention plan released in 2011. according to the centers for disease control and prevention, approximately 27,000 unintentional drug overdose deaths occurred in 2007. in about 45 minutes, we'll hear from attorneys general of kentucky, florida, and ohio discussing their state's efforts

to prevent prescription drugs from being diverted to illegal markets. >> good morning. if statistics hold true, by the time this hearing is over, ten americans will have tragically and i believe needlessly died from prescription drug overdoses. today prescription drug abuse is a deadly, serious, and rapidly escalating problem across our nation. we have a solemn obligation to tackle this epidemic head-on, and i'm going to keep beating the drums until congress, the fda and the dea come up with a comprehensive plan for action. i recognize her statement for opening statement. and the clock is not working. that's all right for me. it won't be all right for y'all, though. so don't get too comfortable. as americans we rally around efforts to fight breast cancer, childhood diseases and other serious health threats. but for far too long there have only been hushed whispers about prescription drug abuse.

now the fastest growing drug problem in america, according to the cdc. today as the death toll from prescription drug overdoses continues to rise harp sharply, it's time to move the story this from the obituary page to the front page where it belongs. it's time to realize we can't simply wish this horrific problem away, not with nearly 30,000 people a year dying from it. see no evil, hear no evil often leads to a society's unspoken evil, indifference. we can do better than that, and we must. just about everyone knows someone who is affected by prescription drug ab which impacts an estimated 12.5 million americans and is now considered a health epidemic by the cdc. according to a survey, nearly one in 412th graders have abused prescription drugs. today two classes of medicines, painkillers and insomnia drugs are responsible for about 70 deaths and nearly 3,000

emergency room visits a day. these are stunning numbers. but here is what even more alarming. the overdoses from these powerfully addictive medicines is now more than double the death toll from heroin, cocaine and all other illegal drugs combined. @ result, for the first time ever, drug deaths outnumber traffic fatalities and have become the leading cause of accidental death in america. so what is the answer? when it comes to prescription drug abuse, where are the safety belts and the air bags that we need to deploy? first, like anyone in recovery knows we have to admit we have a serious problem. americans today simply are prescribed too many medicines there is a pill for just about every ache, pain, and malady. so what is wrong with that? well, consider this. not long ago, the dea conducted three national drug takeback days, and i applaud them for that. and at those three take-back days, they collected an astonishing 995,815 pounds of unused and unneeded medicines.

that's 995,000 pounds, not pills, in just three days. today doctor shopping is a widespread problem, which contributes to our nation's alarming drug addiction rate, increases costs to all of us through higher insurance rates, and makes it extremely difficult for the dea to crack down on abusers. compounding the problem is often a false sense of security. if it's approved by the fda and prescribed by a doctor, it must be okay. wrong. too many pills taken at once or combining them with other drugs and alcohol can have a serious and even deadly consequence. but the issue confronting us today is a much more complex and evolved than just what have you found lately in grandma's medicine cabinet. the black market sale of powerful and highly narcotic painkillers such as oxycontin and vicodin is big business, prompting the dea to attack the problem on multiple fronts, from street level sales all the way to the top of the supply chain. targeted first were the so-called pill mills in florida,

which were largely unregulated until last year. and they routinely dispensed painkillers like they were m&ms from a gum ball machine there is a yet more insidious side of the story as well. after becoming aaddicted to painkillers, more and more are switching to heroin. drug treatment experts say the use of heroin by young adults has more than tripled since 2006. much of the growth is due to people who switch to heroin as a cheaper alternative to oxycontin. now going on the street for as much as $80 for an 80-milligram tablet. by contrast, oxycontin sells for about $6 a tablet in pharmacies. personally, he will never forget the very chilling phone call i received one night from a constituent of mine who told me that his son had had a gun put to his head because he couldn't pay the street price any longer for his oxycontin. so what is the answer? i believe my legislation the

ryan creedin act and the top oxy abuse act are good starting points. my goal is to improve proscriber education by getting doctors, dentists, nurse practice tissuers in and other practicers up to speed that powerful drugs such as oxycontin are to treat severe pain only, not moderate pain like a toothache or a sore knee. in far too many cases, addiction becomes a much greater health threat than the original pain itself. and in far too many cases, death is a final result of failed rehab. let's not continue to blame this on gram ma in and her medicine chest. she knows better. and in our hearts americans do too. i'm happy to recognize the gentleman from north carolina, the ranking member of our subcommittee, mr. butterfield for his five minutes. >> thank you. let me thank the chairman for holding today's hearing on this very important subject, prescription drug diversion.

i know that this issue is very important to you and i admire your work on it. prescription drug diversion is an everriwing problem in our country. in fact, aotple years ago in 2010, 7 million people, 7 million over the age of 12 were considered current users of a prescription pain reliever, tranquilizer, stimulant, or sedative that was not prcbed to them. sadly, it's become clear that as legitimate prescription drug use rises, so too does the number of people who abuse these drugs. and so too does the number of people who accidentally die from prescription drug overdose. it is unconscionable that since 19( a little over 20 years ago, deaths resulting from an overdose of prescription drugs have risen. it's risen fivefold. something must be done, and i agree with that but the question is what? and by whom. some of the testimony we will hear today comes from manufacturers and distributors

of prescription drugs. it seems to me that the security and safeguards these entities employee is very impressive and beyond what might be expected. the use, layers upon layers -- they use layers upon layers of security. they hire third parties to audit the processes and make immediate changes if a vulnerability is identified. they track shipments with gps precision, and have built in a lot of redundancy in their security procedures. understandably, though, the further down the supply chain a paicular drug travels, the greater are the opportuniá for diversion. the national survey on drug use and health reported that 76%, dmre than 3/4 of people who use prescription drugs nonmedically gain access to them from someone they know. i think this needs to be our focus as we go forward. to that end, we need to focus on