effective at forcing lobbyists and activists to be ethical and honest? is it the legal restrictions or is it more of the environment in lobbying that provides incentives for honesty and for your reputation in maintaining? >> excellent question. i speak a course called lobbying and ethics a workshop. i think it's filled already, but i would love to have you in it. it's coming up and we take up the question of shades of gray. you know here's the law, and you got to figure out what's ethical personally. and we have all kinds of case studies where people have not broken the law, but they have crossed the line ethically. and so my european colleagues

will say well, we have a different core ethical values in europe. that's great okay. and greece? in europe generally. ro romania? no offense to those countries, but we have a different value system here. we don't need all those rules and regulations because we know what's right and wrong. well, i think we need a certain amount of regulation of law but we also have to have people going into public service that remember why they went into it, which is public service. maybe to shrink government but also to solve problems. and they forget that sometimes because absolute power corrupts absolutely sometimes, they're pursuing things for themselves their family. they forget. and this class that i teach we start out with some philosophy from madison and others to talk

about that, because it is something in your lives that you have to figure out what you're willing to do. and you will face that. i have faced that. you'll face it and you'll have to determine what's right and wrong, and there's no -- sometimes no right answer. like pat was talking about, proximity fund raising in townhouses only hill to votes. there's no rules on it but politically it would be stupid to do one of those and have it reported a week before a vote, or even a month before the vote. you have to sort of figure out the ramifications of what you're doing not only on your reputation but the reputation of the organization that you work for. there is an expression that it takes a lifetime to build your reputation and five minutes to lose it. this happens all the time in washington not because of the law but because people cross the

line ethically. let's take a short break. joe sandler will come in and tell you what the law really is in greater detail. thank you very much. [applause] the house democratic caucus is holding a three-day retreat this week in philadelphia. today vice president biden speaks at the close of the event. we'll have his remarks live at 10:30 a.m. on c-span.

we'll also have the house democratic retreat also on c-span. keep track of the republican-led congress and follow its new members through its first session. new congress best access on c-span c-span2, c-span radio and cspan.org. representatives for foreign policy speaking about u.s. transatlantic relations, priorities and the terror attacks in paris. the remarks came from an event host bid the brookings institution. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the brookings institution. thank you very much for joining us. this afternoon i am martin indic, director of the farm

program at brookings and we're delighted this afternoon to host this event with federica federica marmarimi together with the marshall fund. a great institution from around the corner, and it's an honor to be doing this event with them. karen donfree, head of the german marshall fund is president of the panel. i'll introduce her in a moment. it's a special honor for me to have an opportunity to host and introduce federika marmarini because i knew her before she was famous. for only about five minutes actually. we had a wonderful meeting in a

splendid palace in rome before she was appointed as foreign minister in the new italian government, and pretty soon after that, she became the high representative of the european union for foreign affairs and security policy. in short, the eu foreign minister. but i remember that meeting very well. i was just in

it. in that moment. so welcome. ms. marmarini, as i said previously was eu minister of foreign affairs. before that a member of the italian parliament from 2008 to 2014. she was the head of the italian delegation to the nato parliamentary assembly, and previously being a member of the parliamentary assembly of the council on europe. she's held many positions in the foreign policy field in italian politics. she has also been a fellow of

the german martial fund of the united states. so that explains her meteoric rise to a position of such importance. karen donfree, as i said is the president of the german martial fund. she is a former colleague. she served most recently as special assistant to the president and senior director for european affairs on the national security council at the white house where she was president obama's principal adviser on europe and led the inter-agency process on development and implementation of the president's policies to abort european affairs. we're going to have an address from miss marmarini on the subject of the transatlantic bond in an age of complexity and she and karen will then lead

a conversation with her and with the audience. so ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the eu high representative for foreign affairs, federika marmarini. [applause] >> thank you very much for the memories, for the warm welcome, and also for the joint invitation. it's a pleasure to be back here in brookings. i actually was in i think, another room next door less than a year ago, and it's a pleasure to meet again, friends, not only at brookings but also gmf. i have to say to make my experience as fellow in 2007 was one of the best and most important experiences of my life, and i would say it shows that fellowship works. to some extent, at least. but coming here i realized that the first time i traveled to america, i was 28, and that was

just after 9/11. all europeans felt a very strong sense of solidarity at that time. we were all americans in our hearts and with our minds and i remember very well that during my visit that was a private trip, i was very much impressed by the sense of pride and unity of the american people in those days after the attacks. u.s. flags were everywhere, and rightly so. 14 years eventually

even china would give workers with aging couldn't nents. interconnection has its dark side to think about terrorist network. think of the threat of global

epidemics epidemics. technology for this is for good and for bad. nowhere is this clearer than in the communications where social media provides us an expensive vehicle for massive communications communications. likewise, our work is becoming more conflicting and we see it every day. coupled with the growing population in a large number of people in declining areas and middle class sets the scene for greater competition. security and water remain a critical challenge in large parts of africa and the middle east with a food price hike in

2011 being recognized as one of the triggers for the upheaval across the region. technology coupled with climate change creating new opportunities in the arctic, which if not managed well, risk triggering conflict. security is another part of the conflict. the revolution presents an undeniable opportunity. reaching these opportunities would require cooperation within europe and between europe and its partners starting with the united states, as well as new investments in infrastructures and technology and addressing climate change. technological advancement has also created the conflict for greater advancement. hype hyper space has become the new frontier. finally, and this is not the end of the speech, i'm sorry about

that -- our world is becoming increasingly concentric. new and old borrowers are on the rise. the perforation of emerging economy acronyms indicate an undeniable global power shift. the u.s. and europe alone no longer set the agenda in global affairs. i guess we understood that by now. and yet i would not argue that power is shifting from the west to the rest. i think this is simplistic. it is incorrect. it is not correct because there are not alternative alliances on the horizon notwithstanding all the talks about that. it is inaccurate because the west is not in decline as is evident here on this side of the atlantic looking at the u.s. economic performance in the last years. also by the resilience of the european people that have gone through difficult time but is still the biggest integration

experience. power is defusing beyond state structures. why in the multiple interactions between government regional and international organizations companies, societies simple citizens. the new world order we might see emerging cannot be a game where increased influence for some necessarily means decreased influence for others. it is a world where influence is, can be should be shared. thhc and the fact that the challenges we face are joint challenges, sometimes global challenges, makes cooperation even more crucial. and this brings me to our relationship. it is a relationship that some may believe has passed its age. is it because of diverging demographics and the africa and eastern europe? is it because of partly

diverging security concerns with europe focused on our neighborhoods and u.s. on the asia pacific? yet the global challenges and opportunities we face are so complex, so difficult that only a renewed transatlantic partnership can face up to them. we have a long history that makes it natural for us for my generation in particular but also for the previous ones, to be friends to be partners. we share values and that is the basis of our common, cultural identity. that is strong and no one can take that away from us. that's in our dna. now the renewed transatlantic bond that i see are security and economy. supply and demand of our forces are driving a transatlantic cooperation, and we slowly

expanding on u.s. and transatlantic security and defense. they expect its european partners to shoulder more of the security responsibility in our neighborhood. it no longer feels ill at ease with the development of european defense capabilities. on creatorthe contrary, i have the feeling. at the same time our 30 operations to date focus mainly on operational reforms. on the demand side they are primarily responsible for security, the europeans are taking on the lead in helping its members, neighbors and partners about systems and practices of good government that will reduce corruption and influence, and thereby, their ability to extend civilization. that requires time but i think it's a good investment.

i have put a premium on immense euro-nato cooperation. let me say i was impressed and happy. i was meeting with the inspector general, and we were forming a very strong and close cooperation. we have many challenges there and even if the 28 members are not overlapping completely they are overlapping quite significantly. security is the next frontier of our transatlantic cooperation. see it as a win-win project aimed at providing more opportunities, and in so doing simulating growth and creating jobs. but it's much more than a free trade area. it's going to create the largest free trades ever in the world, and by doing so i think it will

inject momentum into the development of global rules in areas in which multilateral negotiations have told. it can become a benchmark in future trade agenda. plet let me be clear. the european union is coming to a mutually beneficial conclusion for the benefit of citizens on both sides of the atlantic. and i think we have to use the opportunity ahead of us. i know i've been already far too long, and i guess that's typical european. i'm sure it's typical italian. i apologize for that. but let me conclude by reviewing briefly what the actions for transatlantic are in our views. cooperation begins along the arc of stability surrounding the european union. if you see the world map the highest difficult places around the world are all around the

european union. maybe we should ask ourselves some questions. on the european continent the european union and the u.s. are on the same line when it comes to the european perspective and reformed priorities in turkey as well as on the eastern partners, noticeably joe and muldova. of course, the ukraine is more intense as we struggle to see the full participation of the agreements, and we pressure russia through our sanctions. to russia we share an approach based on functions in view of moscow's illegal infestation of crimea and east of the ukraine, while keeping the door open for dialogue both on the solution of the conflict in ukraine and on the common global challenges we face. together we actively support ukraine's reform efforts aimed

at eradicateing corruption, judicial energy sector reform, and i could go on. in the mediterranean multiple and interconnected crisis from libya to syria and iraq, passing through israel, palestine and iran all call for much transatlantic cooperation. neither the u.s. nor europe can settle this crisis alone, and i think we both understand it very well. transatlantic cooperation is imperative as its engagement with all relevant regional and international powers that have an influence in the region. we know that very well. on issues such as iran while the final outcome remains uncertain, the nuclear talks have already proved its strength, and we are jointly working towards a robust long-term solution that will guarantee a peaceful nature of iran's nuclear program.

while nuclear negotiations are entirely separate from other regional issues, i believe the transatlantic thinking and action is crucial on iran's regional role. in the middle east process the gridlock should trigger thinking to our overall approach to the conflict. the increased dominance of regional actors and recent steps at u.n. security council on its solution and the palestinian steps toward the icc all point towards a quite messy, if you'll allow me diplomatic words, multilateralization of the conflict. and i think we cannot afford to live the process or rather the lack of process with no framework, with no international framework. in light of this we should work on possibly a large fortress which could act as a renewed

global census on the conflict, testing positions that could ultimately find expression through the u.n. and make the process not only restart but also bring some results. beyond the european neighborhoods, let me focus on three final -- i promise -- priorities for our cooperation. first, growth and cooperation on lower en law enforcement is crucial on both sides of the atlantic. the attacks in paris i think are a tragic reminder of the links between external and internal security. we need to share information more. at the same time, our population on both sides of the atlantic demanding public and privacy. above all, our response to terrorists and violence must be living up to our values of freedom and respect of our

citizens. second energy security. we had last december a eu-u.s. energy council that was an excellent opportunity to take stock of how far weave've come and where we can move forward together. i think we should strengthen energy traits by moving buyers to crude oil. this would open new expert markets for the u.s. for the producers, and help the european union face the pressures from other suppliers. lng export restrictions would not immediately address european repression. it would send the right signals to global markets and would encourage further investments upstream and downstream. by including this chapter on energy and raw materials we would reduce barriers to trade investments and agree global

rules on transits. third and last point, energy is the climate industry. it is essential that the european union and the u.s. partners reach an effective deal in paris later this year. some positions have aligned as they have never, ever done before in history. our challenge is that of transforming this shared sense of purpose into a joint eu-u.s. leadership to take forward the solution that can fit the challenge. there is also mutual eu-u.s. responsibility to achieve a successful outcome on the 2015 development agenda this year, ending extreme policy and achieving sustainable development alongside other dangerous climate change are defining challenges of my generation. eu and u.s. leadership is

driving an agreement in the u.n. general assembly for an ambitious sets of targets for the 2015 framework would also send a very strong sign in support of effective multilateralism. that would also be a sign that we have learned some of our lessons when it comes to the co coherence of our choices and our policies. to conclude, at a time of unprecedented uncertainty, our collective joint responsibility is that of trying to take this as an opportunity to finally lead the endless transition that my generation has been living towards a real new global order. at such complex times, i understand it might seem naive even to say so. yet the alternative is not sustainable for all. and the only way in which we can realistically think to achieve this is by working together.

transatlantic partnership has already broken a world record. it's the longest-lasting and strongest partnership in history. our challenge is that of collectively together breaking a new record, ensuring that the shift from the actual global disorder to a new global order based on cooperation and partnership would be not only successful but also a peaceful one. thank you very much. [applause] . . >> thank you. i'll go ahead and get started while this is still on. i want to begin by saying what an honor it is to be here with martin. we welcome the eu

representatives on foreign policies, and i say that because we feel a special relationship because of the fellowship that federica mogherini did in 2007. my co-chair is sitting here, and he asks what is the impact that she does? sometimes it's very obvious and it's wonderful to see -- >> i had incentive. >> if you pull up your cv, you have a line around the general martial fund, so it's something you're very proud of and you've been a wonderful supporter of gmf since, and i thank you for that. also your commitment to the transatlantic partnership are not only true in the words you just spoke but also in the fact you're here in washington. of course, you've traveled

extensively stepping into this job, but it has been within europe and the immediate region. so this is the first longer trip that you've made. and i think it shows also your commitment and the commitment of the eu to the transatlantic partnership, which certainly we at gmf agree is so important and as you said, in the increasingly complex world we live in. when i think about transatlantic partnership, you reference ds the -- referenced the attacks of 9/11. that was one of those moments when transatlantic solidarity was so clear. then it fades because of the war in iraq and because americans and europeans ended up drawing the line between protecting security and safeguarding privacy and civil liberties in a different place. so as i watched the foreign affairs council yesterday, i was very struck by the forward-leading decisions taken on stepping up terrorism

cooperation. whether that's sending security to diplomatic missions whether that's working together to block terrorist financing or whether it is sharing passenger information within the eu, because it reminded me of how hard that's been in europe. that proposal sharing passenger information has been there for years on the european side but it's been blocked by the concern, particularly in the european parliament that this would infringe on european'ss' privacy. i'd like to get a sense from you having lived the last two weeks in europe after the tragic attack in paris, in which i think all americans felt the sorrow and that you will of europe felt. have those events galvanized the european public in a way that there is a greater commonality

of the sweat? and do you think that will lead the european parliament to overcome those earlier inhibitions about privacy concerns and leave the eu to put into place and implement much more significant counterterrorism legislation. >> i think what can come out of the dramatic events in paris is actually an opportunity -- the first lesson you learn that out of a crisis is something an opportunity can come, but that could lead to two things. on one side the stronger sense of common identity sharing the same risks, sharing the same difficulties in our societies, because we're talking about eu citizens out-talking other eu

citizens. so although external, it's very much internal, and ip that is know that is a debate that's been going on in the u.s. as well about a way in which you relate to the complexity of society with the complexity of the world but our societies are growing more and more complex. so a sense of being together and having to share together not only the fears, not only the concerns but also the possible solutions to the problems. and not only are the passenger information, i hope and think that the european parliament will make these decisions in the coming weeks. i was spending a lot of time in the european parliament and i felt a different sense of urgency on that. but also on the need to share more, share information, intelligence. we know that it's crucial for national states, member states

to have their own networks but still, as we are living in a common space, we should be also responsible together for the security of common states and for sharing more of the responsibility and the actions to guarantee security inside the european unit. this is up for debate that is partially done at the foreign minister level, so we discussed about that yesterday, because obviously for ministers, also members of the cabinet, they are respect active members of government. so i would also say in the measurements to be taken on the security field there are specific issues we need to debate being at the cultural level. you mentioned a couple issues that we addressed yesterday but i have underlined that the first

thing from not only symbolic point of view but political point of view, because symbols in politics are part of the policy. yesterday we met with the secretary general of the arab league. to say that we need to work more together. this has an influence on shared information, shared projects how we work on foreign swagz young people older people traveling or not traveling. one thing that strikes me, we see the problems when they come back. but that's also a problem when they leave the european union to go and fight whether it be the city of iraq or elsewhere. it might not be a problem for us but it's a main problem for the countries where they go and

fight, and we should not only take our own point of view, we should take the point of view from a regional perspective which should work to protect this movement. but also from the point of view of creating like malliative. one of the risks we had after the attacks in paris and the news about the networks not only the fact that this feeds into fear but position in society. the image of muslim or islam communities as dangerous parts of our societies, but actually we forget that the victims of the paris attack where some of them arrived of origin and that our society is complex.

and this is our strength as is a strength for america. we share this. we took a little bit more time to get there, but we are there. so i think that we have to get the narrative right, and this is crucial for preventing this phenomenon to grow even more in the future. what worries me even more than the process of sharing information and security is a test in the coming weeks. we don't see a clash of citizens. we see what the reaction in the world is coming up to. and i think we have a responsibility to try and prevent moves that in 14 years' time could give us again a situation like this. it's not easy because then this debate leads to also internal

discussions in some of this country about where are the limits between the freedom, the liberty and the security lies, and the human rights. but i think we have to engage because this is a difficult debate but difficult debates are probably the ones that are more important to have especially in this time. where our people do understand very well that there is not simple solution. there is no magic response from one day to another can solve problems. and i think this is the positive. we are mora weare aware we need to work with them and prevent this phenomenona in the future. >> thank you very much for that. i will admit to being an ewonk.

so i read the statement you made after the foreign affairs council yesterday, which i would have done even if you weren't here today. and i was very interested when i got to the part on ukraine and russia. and you made a comment about how -- you made a comment about how there have been new policy papers that have been leaked last week, and you said you were going to be disappointed because there weren't big risks and there was a consensus that we in the eu were going to stay the course on our policy. >> which was written into the document that was leaked but didn't make the title. >> not nearly as newsworthy. but, you know i wanted to ask you two questions about that. one is, you know, spell out for us what does it mean to stay the course when a situation is always changing? we had the ukranian prime minister yesterday talking about

the 700 regular members of the russian army that were coming across the border into eastern ukraine. so there is a deteriorating situation in the eastern part of ukraine. we certainly see the impact, not as sanctions, but as impacts on the russian economy. so it's a situation of influx. how do we, in terms of americans and europeans, because i do think we've coordinated policy in a very compelling way over these past months. so what is the course a, and b, you continued on by saying maybe we need to add some components to our strategy and the comment you made was, it might be useful to add on our side more diplomatic efforts in any format to contribute to solving a crisis, and you spoke a little about that today. if you can draw a little more on what your thinking there is, that would be great. >> what we need to continue to do, and it's reasonably not

changing in the future months, is on one side the support of ukraine -- this is part of our expense to russia because the first victory would be for russia if ukraine becomes a sane experience. and to show that choosing, for instance, the association agreement with the european union, is leading to something negative for the people of ukraine. this is the first duty we have, to make sure there is that story from an economic point of view from a social point of view and that the reforms people have asked not only is made clear and done one year ago, but also with different rounds of elections by now because they elected a president, a parliament they have a new government. they have clearly said we need to change ukranian way of leading politically our country. this needs to bring tangible results for the people.

this is the first effort we have to do and it's a common effort. the european union, the u.s. and the rest of the community. number one, this will not change, and i think is not going to be changed. the european union just decided an additional 1.8 billion euros for national assistance to ukraine last week. we hope this can be met by others. obviously conditional to reforms because we need to see that trust ring true and benefit the people. the second thing is the sanction policy. now, on one side we have overset, and i think we'll say that together again and again. our policy of normal recognition of the administration of crimea is there and will stay and we're not forgetting about that. no way. the second element is we've always decided on sanctions together, and that's a big value

not only the european unity but the transatlantic unity. the senate always together on the basis of the situation on the ground saying sanctions are a flexible instrument that can be moved up or down if there are improvements or if the situation deteriorates deteriorates. now after september when the agreement was signed, we have a framework over which we can check the progress. they have to say that out of those points, the only wunl on which substantial problem has been done is the exchange of hostages. now, what is our role i think, to keep the fact that our judgment on sanctions, our decision on sanctions, when they will come on the european side to renew the position when they expire after one year, from our

legal point of view. we have more complex rules also on that. we will have a different sets of decisions that is coming up in march, and then following the others. it would be based only on the evidence. thank you, and of the improvement of the situation on the ground. it has been the principal on which we decided sanctions. these are going to stay and the russians know that it will depend on the results. it's not going to change. the other thing that's not going to change is our unity. not alternatively in europe but across the atlantic. this is one of our main strengths, i think, because showing divisions or showing the possibility to divide. it is a basic principal for showing weakness.

this means we have to talk a lot, to prepare our. >> what i meant when i said we need to -- and i said that on behalf of the 28 member states, so that's again unity. we need to add probably a couple of things. we said already in the last month the foreign minister level but also at the european council so with this type of state and government, we have a strategy toward the crisis. sanctions, support the ukraine and the political track, the dialogue. so you put pressure. you have to have a place where you ask something and that is obviously the solution to the conflict and to crimea. on that level, european unions

could do more. engaging in the different formats, all dialogue not only with russia but with ukraine, sit around the table and do sit around the table a lot are obviously president poroshenko and president putin. that do speak among themselves. and the minsk agreement was reached thanks to the work that president poroshenko did together with president putin. through the four months that was facilitated also by the european union, by the belarussian and in the format that included very much the usc. then we have another format which is the normandy format. two foreign ministers from the european union, two foreign ministers, one from ukraine, one from russia and the heads of state and government at the respective level. that is another format that implies also european union in terms of framework. we have discussed that at length

yesterday. and there's going to be a new meeting at foreign minister's level tomorrow night in berlin. this is also another way in which the european union can push for a solution, support the efforts of president poroshenko, the efforts to find concrete steps to employment the minsk agreement. the other thing we could work on more, and i know there is a reflection here in washington in these days, is our dialogue with russia on a set of regional or global issues on which cooperation or at least dialogue is needed on the other set of crisis we have, being it middle east, being it the iranian talks, being it all those things that go through the u.n. security council where russia sits, being it big global issues like counterterrorism or climate change.

and on that level, the communication has never stopped, being it the communication from washington to moscow and also on the european union side. to have more coherence in that kind of exercise might be an element that could contribute to some sort of diplomatic steps. at the moment, i have to say it's not decisions taken. it's a reflection that is starting at the european union level, as i know it has started here in washington on this. and i think we need that kind of reflection because i've said that publicly and i would repeat it also now. sometimes i'm accused of being naive, but i think i might be. i don't have any kind of

expectations about goodwill or a positive behavior, but i think it's -- or it can be equally naive to think russia would just disappear from the scene. russia is going to be our neighbor because you can't change geography. it's going to be ukrainian neighbor, georgia's neighbor, and some of the european union states' neighbor. so the question is how do we deal with that neighbor? today when we have a conflict going on and in two year's time, five year's time and in ten year's time and how does that relationship impact on the global relationships that russia has or does not have with other world powers or emergent powers. we have to look at that without being afraid of that because not naming the problem does not solve the problem. we do have a problem and we have to face it. >> i appreciate very much that thoughtful answer. now i want to bring as many people in the room in as possible.

what i want to do is let's take three questions at a time just so the high representative can hear from as many of you as possible. i saw you first. yeah? and then you and then i'll come over here. well, just go ahead and project. >> can you hear me? >> yes. i am with state telegraph agency and with the ongoing conflict in ukraine i think this is the best time to ask about the issue of separatism. you know, besides ukraine there are countries like georgia ukraine, azerbaijan. my country, 20% of its territory is occupied by armenian armed forces. and as a foreign minister for eu, what would you do to address the specific issue of separatism?

especially given the fact you come from a country that had its own share of separatism? thank you. >> pass the mike to the gentleman behind you. >> washington correspondent for euro politics. >> that's a conflict. >> my question is just a follow-up on a clarification and on your response to karen's question about the passenger name record. did i understand you correctly that you support putting a proposal on passenger name records back on the table because whatever about the parliament's position, the last i understood was the commission withdrew the proposal because there was no support in the parliament, and so the first step would be for the commission to put something back on the table, so i was wondering if you could clarify your position on that. >> and then there was a question here in the middle. then we'll do another round after these three.

is there a mike here? we had a gentleman up here. no, we're going to come to this gentleman right here in the middle. maybe just stand up and project. >> -- any ways to -- relationships with russia and do you have real evidence against russian terror act in ukraine? >> if you couldn't hear that, that was about restoring trade relations with russia. >> we discussed also the share of trade relations with russia. that is part of the reflection but let me say that this is not only part of the reflection of the european union but also of the eastern partners. at the moment, one of the main problems is, obviously, the -- not only the sanctions but the countersanctions. so, i think that would be we

would need to commonly work on the framework that is a little bit larger than only bilateral relations. let me also say that the problem might go even beyond the issue of ukraine as there is a set of number of issues with wto that need to be sold in that framework in any case. on pmr, i thought i was clear enough. sorry if i was not. there was not only by myself but also by president last week in strasbourg in front of the european parliament by the latvian prime minister taking the presidency by prizer junker always in front of the european parliament, a very clear appeal to the parliament to vote on the pnr. the directive is there and i think as far as i understand and i hear from different political groups that the opposition to

that is getting -- let's say, is diminishing. i would not predict if the parliaments that is obviously auto ton mouse in their decision, we take the decision or not in the coming weeks but i really hope it will -- obviously, we also have to be clear on the fact there's not -- it's not going to be sold immediately and automatically of all the problems but i think that it is very much needed. actually, this is not even something that's came out only from the commission side or from the council side after the attacks in paris, because in december, foreign affairs ministers in the conclusions of our work mentioned the need to make an appeal to the european parliaments to proceed on that. the european council did the same in the presence of the european parliament president, martin schultz, that was december. and the commission did the same.

so, i believe that there was an awareness on that already before the attack in paris, of the urgency of doing that, on the importance of doing that. and i think that's the mood -- the awareness, as you said, of the importance of sharing information, and especially on the pnr is growing also in the european parliament. i will not comment on italian -- also because it's very different -- it's a very different situation. i lost you. i cannot see you anymore. here you are. sorry. it's a very different situation. i would not at all compare situations. what i would say is that we have instruments in the european union. obviously, we have inside the european union a way of living together that is the full respect of the international recognized borders and our living together is based on the fact that we are a community and respect each other. we have with our instant

partners all of them, instruments to hopefully settle conflicts and improve relations. not only with the european union, but also themselves. one of the basic principles of our partnerships is and should be one of the added values but the increased capacity and possibility to facilitate not only bilateral relations but also bilateral relations among the regions. this has happened fairly well in the balkans, for example, where the big added value of the european path has been also an improvement of the relations among countries that were found it quite difficult for historical and even recent political reasons to live together, and look at the balkans now. it's one of the most quiet places in the region. and we would have never said that.

that's very much thanks to the fact that we have developed a strong relation through the european union and from the european union on the regional cooperation. i really hope and believe that this could be an added value also for other regions around us. >> now i'll go with the gentleman in the very back, please. whose mike we took away before. >> thank you very much. madame high commissioner, i'm john gizzy, chief political correspondent for "news max." the elephant in the room, so to speak s greece and its selection is this sunday. how seriously does the eu take the talk that certainly the punditocracy lines to bandy about an exit of the euro of the party of the radical left if its takes power and very possibly greece being out of the european union. >> and then the woman here in the striped shirt.

>> hi, thank you. laura with cnn. my question is going back to the security issue. in the days since the "charlie hebdo" attack we've heard from a number of european officials and u.s. officials that said there needs to be a broad review of border security, not just within the european union but also between the european union and the united states, looking at the shanken agreement but also reciprocity with regards to travel between the u.s. and europe without visas. can you see a time in the near future where we could see kind of a step back from those agreements, whether it's an abolishment of shengen or the need to obtain visas for tourist travel between those two areas, thank you? >> no. >> and right here in the second row. bill, yeah. >> bill de rose, mcclarty and brookings. i want you to elaborate on the

point about the need for political cooperation on regional conflicts with russia. for example, what could the west be doing to push it further in terms of syria, iran and, in particular, on syria, is there merit in russia's view that we ought to draw in bashar assad into negotiations? >> i will start and also finish with that because one of my basic rules, i'm sorry, i'm not too generous in this case, is that i would not comment internal electoral processes a few days before the elections. at least in sign of respect of the oldest democracy we have in the world. but on political cooperation with russia on regional conflicts, and in particular on syria, this is one of the most difficult issues, i think, to be

tackled. and -- and it's going to stay difficult. i'm not saying that this is going to be one of the fields where the cooperation -- political cooperation or political dialogue, actually, with russia is going to bring us anything good necessarily and immediately, if ever. one point that we have discussed on the european union level with foreign ministers, we spent the -- almost the entire foreign affairs council in december focusing on syria and iraq. is the fact that now after almost four years of war and after one year without basically any sort of engagement or developments after montreal, we still have a conflict going on. the number of internally displaced people and refugees in the region is dramatic. there is of course spillover not

only in lebanon but also in iraq, as obvious, jordan, and the risk of instability on turkey is increasing. and assad is still there. i'm not saying that the solution is to be found in moscow, but what i'm saying is we need to work, first of all, actually across the atlantic and within the european union to find ways of moving that situation toward some sort of solution. i think that the framework of reference still is and has to be the geneva communique. geneva 1. that referred to political transition. the point is how to get there. this then interlinks with different other aspects, on which actually the only thing that worked partially, but still even in this disaster, that's something partial is

positive, was the destruction of the chemical weapons partially, but still important. also because i've seen some friends in the room that know a lot about weapons of mass destruction and nuclear issues that is in that region an important and symbolic step. because that is the region of where the concentration of weapons of mass destruction is critical and highly dangerous. but apart from that, we haven't been moving forward on anything. so i think it's far too early to say that there might be cooperation with russia on that. what i'm saying is -- actually, not me, what foreign ministers of the european union have agreed on in december is that we need to work with all regional and international actors that have or can have an influence on the syrian conflict. and there's many of them.

one of the other issues there is that everybody is playing a different kind of game on syria. and at the moment things are actually quite blocked. we're going to have other meetings on that in the coming days as well. you know, there are efforts that are made in russia to try and move things again. i would not be particularly confident on the fact that this could be a way forward. what i say is that at the moment what we need to try is to create a situation where what we wrote together on the geneva communique gets real, somehow. which is a political solution where assad has no future in this country but leaves. and have tried to find ways on

which all regional or international actors that want to contribute to that in different ways could play a role to get the results. the result is staying the same. the problem is developing the strategy to get there. i elaborated a little bit. i don't know if i answered your questions. there's a little too many journalists in the room. >> you will not be surprised to know there's an impressive showing of our ambassadorial core here. bring the mike to the front row, please. >> i know at least one. >> thank you very much. i'm ambassador of ukraine. first of all, we highly appreciate the strong support of the european union and your personal strong support of ukraine. thank you very much. unfortunately this situation has been deteriorating.

russia totally ignores the minsk agreements, and with russia, those puppets so-called rogansk people went public which are actually as we consider in ukraine terrorist structures. so now we do not see -- we don't concede that there are much differences between those mentioned. donetsk people, on one side and isis on the other side. and we consider those two structures, terror structures designate -- deserve to be designated as terror organizations. can you speak more on that issue? >> and then there was a woman here in the -- yes, please.

>> hi, my name is barbara dello. do efforts towards improved global social economic and human rights goals sometimes disregard the cultural traditions and long-standing values of the nations of our diverse world, and does this ever contribute towards global instability and its resulting heartbreak? >> i have a lot of you on my list but i must give the last question to my cohost who has been trying to get in. >> you can come up here. >> thank you. since you've only had difficult questions to answer, i thought i'd just add one more. you've recently been to israel and the palestinian territories. i couldn't help but notice you

came up with what appeared to be a functional adjustment. you suggested in your remarks that the quartet should be expanded. i wonder if you could put the two things together for us. do you see any positive way forward, given the deteriorating, rapidly deteriorating relationships between israel and the palestinians. and why do you think that in lodging the quartet would help that matter? what do you have in mind there? >> any positive way forward, if i didn't believe that there is one, i would have better change job, i guess, not only on this but on everything. it's difficult for me to answer this question from you because i know that you know much more than me in this. we should have a conversation

rather than me answering a question. i think that now we have difficult months ahead and strange months, everything that's into that. and i think that question will need to wait couple of months before things might move again. on the other side why i'm mentioning the quartet and why i'm mentioning the enlargement of the quartet which is an idea at the moment. nothing more than that, to be explored. on one side i mentioned it because i think that the efforts and the steps forward that was done by the american administration and we john kerry personally with his strong commitment to that were relevant, very much. and that now when we will have -- hopefully we'll have

again the conditions for restart from that kind of efforts. we need to make sure that the international community at large is behind the efforts even more than before in a more structured way to support that efforts and bring them to some results. what i'm afraid of is on one side the fact that the lack of process is in itself something that is deteriorating the situation. you know that better than me. middle east sometimes leads on the processes. but on the other side, i'm also worried about a process that has gone on for so long, if we just restart the process and that's it, it might not be enough. the sense of frustration, the sense of lack of hope is so strong on both sides. both sides. that we need not only to restart

the process but to start a process and make sure that the process bring concrete immediate results for both sides. i was very much impressed when i was in gaza, because that was just a couple of -- some weeks, a couple of months after the conference on the reconstruction. and the lack of impossibility to work on the construction, there are different reasons. first of all, the difficulties within the palestinian camp means that the people that have been living there and are still living there will for sure develop, let's say not positive feelings towards the rest of the world. and on the other side in israel, after what happened end of last year, feelings are really a sense of desperation. so we need to build this

international frame and structure it more to restart the efforts that john kerry was very well doing last year. and guarantee that. why am i thinking that an enlarged version of the quartet could be helpful is that you remember the arab initiative of 2002. and i believe that we don't only need to tackle the palestinian israeli conflict. we also need to tackle the israel arab conflict. we have two conflicts there. and maybe the original situation that is so serious and so bad at the moment could give an opportunity to work on common security basis in the region between israel and some of the

arab countries. you've seen the positive role that egypt has played in gaza to reach a cease-fire. the positive role that other arab countries are playing in the fight. i refuse to call it -- i refuse to associate the same islam with a terrorist organization. even if it requires a little bit of explanation that i think we also have to use our narrative right. so i believe that it could be an added value to enlarge the scope of the process. and that could also be of some support for the palestinian side. so -- but this is just a thinking process at the moment. it's not this coming weeks, the time when i think we could move forward. but maybe start preparing the framework for what could be done

in a couple of months time hopefully. i know that john kerry personally is very much committed to restarting the process when it will be the appropriate time. and we will for sure discuss that also. when it comes to your question, first of all, thank you for your presence and also for the excellent work that we do together. i was, i was always very pleased not only in any capacity today but also in my previous capacities to work together with you. and i visited kiev three times in the last year, once as a member of parliament, once as minister and once as high representative. it was impressive to see the changes, the developments, the energy that is there from the people and from the government and from the president. and our support will always be there. not only our, i'm sure here i'm speaking not only in the name of

the european union but the international community. when it comes that, we've discussed in the european union council several times. and we've always come to the conclusion that it is not up to us to make such definitions. what is our role and what i've tried to explain before is to try and support your efforts for reaching a solution to the conflict. i know how much the government and president poroshenko is personally committed to find a solution to the conflict. that is first of all in the interest of the people of ukraine which is also the people in eastern ukraine. and how much of an effort we have to do not only on the political side but also on the humanitarian side to make sure that the humanitarian aid from kiev gets inside the territories, which is something that at the moment is not allowed. which is a shame, i think. but also -- so our role from the

european union side, i think, and we think, is not that of defining the separatists. it's that of supporting you in kiev, to find a solution to the conflict in whatever way this can be more helpful and effective. thank you. >> i know i speak on behalf of everybody on this room and those who are watching on video in thanking you for spending the afternoon with us. it was really a treat to hear your view on how we can deepen the transatlantic cooperation on the whole range of challenges from climate to the ukraine. thank you for the time. i invite all of you to join any the thanking the high representative. [ applause ]

house democrats are wrapping up their three-day retreat today in philadelphia. they'll hear this morning from vice president joe biden. that's in about ten minutes at 10:30 eastern, live on c-span. and leaders will hold a closing news conference today at noon. we'll also have that live on c-span. here on c-span3, the woodrow

wilson center hosts a panel discussion on the houthi takeover in yemen and its broader consequences for the entire middle east. that's live at 12:15 eastern. >> here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span2's book tv saturday night at 10:00, on after words, white house correspondent for american urban radio april ryan, on her more than 25 years in journalism, and her coverage of three presidential administration's. and sunday at noon on in-depth our three-hour conversation with walter isaacson, whose biographies include ben franklin, albert einstein and the international best-seller on steve jobs. and on american history tv on c-span3 saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern, on the civil war, boston college history professor heather cox richardson on how the cowboy during reconstruction became symbol ig of a newly unified america.

and sunday evening at 6:00 on american artifacts we'll tour the house that was the headquarter was the american red cross. and learn about the life of its founder, claire are barton. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. or send us a tweet @c-span #comments. join the c-span conversation. like us on feinacebook, follow us on twitter. next, a hearing on liquefied natural gas permitting held yesterday by the senate energy and natural resources committee. the house this week passed a bill easing lng permitting. christopher smith, the assistant energy secretary for fossil energy was among the witnesses yesterday. senator lisa murkowski chairs the committee. maria cantwell is the ranking member.

meeting of the energy committee this morning. thank you to members and thank you to those on panel joining us. as you know, we've had kind of a busy week here on the committee. senator cantwell and i have logged a few hours standing up in chambers there trying to move a keystone bill through. and our hope is that we're on the final run of that. but i appreciate committee members coming a little bit earlier. we had initially noticed this for 10:00. but in an effort to try to get through this important hearing, then tend to our business on the floor, we bumped it up. so thank you to our witnesses for the accommodation.

i want to recognize senator heinrich as well as senator bar osso who are the lead crimeary sponsors of s-33. we'll have some remarks this morning so i'll keep my comments brief this morning. i want to recognize, congratulate them and their co-sponsors, senator capito on the committee, gardner and hoeven, all members, as well as senators bennett udall toomey, kane and heitkamp. appreciate the work all of you have done to get us here. i have long argued that exports of liquefied natural gas should be expedited from the united states to our friends and allies overseas. i made the case in my energy 2020 two years ago and again in two more recent white papers. one called "america's opportunity to join the global gas trade," as well as "signal to the world." renovating the architecture of u.s. energy exports. know from the outstart that i fully support the bill that we have in front of the committee.

i think it is the culmination of years of legislative work here in the congress. i can remember when senator dick lugar who introduced in december of 2012 laid out the concept that exports for nato members should receive expedited treatment over at the d.o.e. as proposals came forth more countries were added to this prospective list. ukraine, japan india, and eventually the entire world trade organization. yesterday we voted on senator cruz's wto amendment as part of the ongoing keystone xl debate. last year legislative activity turned to the approval process tefr at d.o.e. we saw proposals to give a time limit for authorizations of these licenses with the clock starting at various points. after final authorization, after prefiling and so forth. many colleagues co-sponsoring this current legislation were involved in those efforts as was our former colleague, senator mark udall. i think we would all recognize

that this legislation in front of us, s-33 is compromise. compromises almost by their definition are imperfect in certain ways. but i do think it is the result of some very serious work by very serious people coming together to try to address an issue. i thank my colleagues for all that they have done together on this. i will turn to my ranking member for comments. >> thank you madam chairman. thank you for the hearing. as you said, we're on the floor on a pretty serious policy discussion on energy and we're having this hearing this morning. i think it is obvious to everybody we're two female committee chairs but we also have two female staff directors. i think the fact we're having this hearing and the floor debate at the same time just shows we are capable of multi-tasking when it comes to energy policy. makes for a busy day.

at this hearing we are here to discuss s-33. that is a bill to seek accelerated and more certainty to the process of determining natural gas exports. and whether they are in the public interest. as we consider this bill, and how to discuss it we obviously are interested in taking advantage of america's abundant natural gas and its ability to help transform our economy. it was only ten years ago when we were discussing how we would need to import natural gas and how many new terminals we'd need to build to meet growing demand. but over the last eight years, natural gas production has increased by 36%. today's natural gas has become so plentiful and inexpensive that we are reversing the flow and turning those lng import facilities into export facilities. we're here today to discuss some of my colleague's, i think five members of our committee, in fact, are looking for ways to help speed up that export permitting process. and i appreciate that they are doing so in a way that respects the critical nina process,

maintains the legal requirements for exports to receive a public interest determination, and i would note however that the department of energy recently changed the process to approve these new projects, and the goal of this was to speed up the overall approval process, so as we're considering s-33, and whether this legislation i'm interested in finding out whether these issues have actually been addressed. so is the new revised d.o.e. process actually working in the five months since the department of energy adopted its new policy, it has issued four separate approvals for lng export facilities. the 37 applications for exports to non-fta countries that have been filed at the department of energy currently 32 are pending. we must consider whether the revised process is the best way to evaluate those projects. and second what are the policy implications for the fixed deadline. i'm sure we'll get into this discussion here. and determination about the public interest.

a fixed deadline is not necessarily always the best in the applicant's best interest as well. what if the authorization can't be made in 45 days but could be made in 60 or 90 days. it would be unfortunate the applicant would get turned down simply because of the time line this bill lays out rather than from a public interest determination. third is it appropriate for d.o.e. to make the decision before the ferc process is started. right now d.o.e. starts its process after approval. the bill would require the department to start after the nipa process is complete. it includes a robust comment period to vet the citing of these facilities. all of these are important countries that we'll have for today's hearing madam chair i think so much thank you so much for giving our colleagues a

chance to be here to discuss this issue. i would say besides the five members who have very -- support for this legislation and some of it has already been implemented, we have great concerns about what is the impact of this as it relates to pricing, the midwest and natural gas. i being from a hydrostate am always very aware of how energy is the lifeblood of the economy and how it has built the northwest economy over and over again. i want to understand how this will impact also our big industrial users and the impact. look forward to having questions from the panelists who are here today to testify. thank you. >> thank you, senator cantwell. i want to note for the record senator portman was added was co-sponsor to this bill as we appreciate his involvement as well. as i mentioned i will now turn to senator barrasso and senator

heinrich for brief comments before we go to our witnesses. as the co-sponsors of this bipartisan bill i'd like to extend them that courtesy. >> thank you very much, chairman murkowski. pshs hearing on liquefied natural gas export exploration. two weeks ago we introduced s-33 the lng permitting certainty and transparency act. this bill would expedite the per midding process for lng exports to countries which do not have free trade agreements with the united states. it would require the secretary of energy to make a final decision on an export application within 45 days after environmental reviews process is complete. it would provide for expedited judicial review of legal challenges to lng export projects. finally the bill requires exporters to publicly disclose the countries to which lng is being delivered. our bill ensures that the secretary will make a timely decision on lng export applications and that legal challenges to lng export

projects will be resolved expeditiously. in short our bill will give investors greater confidence that lng export projects will be permitted and built. our bill is carefully crafted and it is a bipartisan compromise. it's co-sponsored by five democrats, and five additional republicans, it is nearly identical to the legislation that the house of representatives passed yesterday. with the support of 41 democrats. like its house companion our bill offers congress the best chance to do something meaningful for lng exports. study after study has shown that lng exports will create good paying jobs all across america, good paying jobs in states like oregon, west virginia, colorado, new mexico and wyoming. lng exports will also reduce our nation's trade deficit which currently stands at $39 billion. it will even help president obama fulfill his goal of doubling our nation's exports which he set five years ago this week.

finally lng exports offer the united states a powerful means to bring about positive change throughout the world. lng exports will help increase the energy security of key u.s. allies and partners throughout europe and asia. lng exports will provide an alternative source of energy to countries which russia has ruthlessly exploited. lng exports will also give countries an alternative to energy from iran. in conclusion, i'd like to thank senator heinrich for your leadership and his leadership on this bill. he's been a great partner to work with. i'd also like to thank senators gardner, hoeven cap ito and portman, members of this committee as well as senators heitkamp, kane bennett, udall and toomey. finally i would like to thank the witnesses for their willingness to testify here today. i look forward to the testimony. thank you. >> thank you for your lone leadership on this issue and that of senator heinrich's as well. we'll turn to you, please. >> thank you madam chairman for holding this hearing, and i want to say i very much appreciate

the work of senator barrasso and his staff in working with us, putting to the this bipartisan bill. and i'm incredibly pleased to join my colleagues senators gardner, heitkamp, hoeven, kain cap ito bennett toomey, you'dal and portman in sponsoring this bill. it just doesn't get much more bipartisan than that around here these days. as the chair mentioned our bill follows directly from the work of the last congress of our former colleague senator mark udall and also our new colleague senator gardner and my home state of new mexico some of you know, ranks seventh in the nation right now in gas production. the main gas producing region in new mexico is the san juan basin in the northwest part of the city around the city of farmington, as tech. the good news is, we have large reserves of natural gas.

however the current surge in gas production has depressed prices to less than $3 billion per million btu negatively impacting the economies of doemsics gas producing regions, including northwestern new mexico. i fully support the measured and cautious approach being taken by secretary moniz, and assistant secretary smith at the department of energy. it makes sense for d.o.e. to complete its review of an application for exports to non-fta countries only after the nipa review has been completed. in addition, recent studies show that the industry can fully support modest levels of exports of lng with minimal impacts on consumers while boosting the nation's economic output and jobs in states like senator barrasso's and mine. i co-sponsored this bill because i believe it will help stimulate job opportunities for my state's gas industry while fully preserving both environmental and safety reviews and d.o.e.'s determination of public

interest. including the authority to approve or deny applications to export lng. to non-fta countries. though our bill allows d.o.e. to continue to independently review each application it will also provide much-needed additional certainty and predictability to the industry to market lng to non-fta countries in europe and asia. the bill will also provide much needed transparency by making available to the public the countries to which lng has been delivered. thank you again for holding this hearing and i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. >> thank you. now we turn to our panel. we'll begin this morning with mr. smith and just go down the row. i will introduce everyone at the outset here and then we'll move for five minutes presentations and then followed by questions from the members here. we first have mr. christopher smith, assistant secretary for

fossil energy at the department of energy. thank you mr. smith. mr. paul cicio president of the industrial energy consumers of america. welcome. mr. martin durbin president and ceo of america's natural gas alliance. mr. ross eisenberg. who is the national -- with the national association of manufacturers. and then our last panelist this morning is david kohanyi who is the director of eurasian energy future initiative. welcome to each of you. with that we can begin with you assistant secretary. >> thanks you, chairman murkowski, ranking member cantwell and members of the committee. i appreciate this opportunity to be here to discuss the department of energy's program regulating the export of liquefied natural gas and to answer questions about s-33, lng permitting certainty transparency act. since 2010 when we began receiving long-term applications to export lng to non-fta countries the department

demonstrated its commitment to protecting the public interest. as you know we conduct a thorough public interest determination process as we quired by the natural gas act. one that's expeditious, judicious and fair. that process includes ample opportunity for public input in order to evaluate if an export is in the public interest, a determination that allows balancing a range of important factors, including economic impacts, international dynamics security of natural gas supply environmental concerns and market dynamics and developments. i testified before this committee last july. and at the time we just announced a new procedure for processing lng applications. i told you that by focusing our efforts on the projects that had completed the safety evaluation process, that reviewed that it would help us to make our decision making more effective and efficient and that it would allow the department of energy to focus on those projects that were most mature and therefore most likely to be constructed.

since the announcement of the new procedures ferc has completed its decision making process on two projects. the department issued a licensing decision for each of those applicants and in total the department has approved 5.74 billion cubic feet per day and final long-term authorization to export low export lng to nonfta countries. we've issued thorough orders that can stand up to the scrutiny that they are sure to receive and we've done it within days of the project getting signoff from ferc. i believe this demonstrates our commitment to act expeditiously and effectively in addressing the department's responsibilities under the natural gas act requirements. in conclusion madam chair, i appreciate the committee's interest in discussing this very important issue with the department of energy. and i look forward to this discussion. we understand the significance of this issue. as well as the importance of getting these decisions right. with that, i'd be happy to answer any questions that the committee might have.

>> thank you, mr. smith. mr. cicio. >> chairman murkowski, ranking member cantwell and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to be here today. my name is paul cicio, president of the industrial energy consumers of america. we are an industrial consumer advocate. ieca is not opposed to lng exports. however, today there is no energy, public policy decision more important than whether or not to approve an lng export facility for 20 to 30 years. the reason is that all risks associated with the export of lng fall on the consumer. the larger the lng export volume, the larger the cumulative risk. australia has over a 200 year supply of natural gas, which is more than twice that of the u.s., yet today because of unfettered lng exports domestic prices have tripled because the australian government has failed

to protect the consumer. mtvers are shutting their doors, power plants are converting from gas to coal, and we do not want to see that happen here. and if we -- if -- long-term. if policymakers do not fully implement the natural gas act. the d.o.e. sponsored report illustrates that lng exports create winners and losers. it explains how higher natural gas prices can be expected to have a negative effect on output and employment particularly by sectors that use large amounts of natural gas. and that is us. figure 12 of our written testimony is directed from the report and shows how exports result in loss of labor income wages. capital income and indirect taxes. combined, these accelerate wage disparity. the net economic gain at its peak is a meager $20 billion in

2020 and declines from there. bottom line is that the bulk of the population is negatively impacted to the benefit of a few raising questions about how it can be in the public interest. despite this the nea report was used to justify several export applications. in their wisdom the congress passed the natural gas act and they did so with two things in mind. the cost of lng exports to consumers, and implications to trade. congress understood that unlike so many other tradable products, natural gas is different. because consumers do not have a substitute and it is not renewable. congress felt a responsibility to act in their behalf to protect unknowing consumer who does not have the ability to understand the long-term implications of lng exports. for this reason the natural gas act includes a provision called the public interest determination and it is completed for each application to export to non-free trade countries.

however, the government accountability office september 2014 report says that the d.o.e. has not defined public interest. that is a glaring omission, if not a legal issue. if the d.o.e. has not defined public interest how is it that they can make informed decisions on behalf of 72 million natural gas consumers? and 145 million consumers of electricity. without a definition of public interest, how much public hardship can be inflicted before the d.o.e. denies the next application? the definition of public interest is not a macro economic number like the so-called net economic benefit number of the nea report. the real definition of public interest was pioneered by justice brand ice. quote, the public interest is that which pro-uses the most good for the most people, unquote. finally the natural gas act provides for ongoing monitoring and adjustment to an lng

application. the natural gas act specifically anticipates that adjustments to lng exports would be in the public interest when it states that d.o.e., quote may from time to time, after opportunity for hearing, and for good cause make such supplemental order in the premiseses as it may find necessary and appropriate, unquote. so the natural gas act creates an obligation for the d.o.e. to monitor, and to do economic impact assessments at regular intervals to be sure that exports do not harm the economy and jobs long-term. however, contrary to the natural gas act the d.o.e. has stated that it does not plan to monitor impacts, and make such adjustments. to not do so implies that u.s. policy is designed to protect the capital investment of lng exporters and not u.s. manufacturing assets. in closing we urge the support of this committee to conduct

oversight and require the d.o.e. to conduct rule-making to define public interest create up-to-date decisionmaking guidance, to condition applications for monitoring, conduct economic assessments at regular intervals, and be prepared to protect the public. we urge the d.o.e. from refraining from further approvals until such time as it makes these necessary rulemakings. thank you. >> morning, chairman murkowski, ranking member cantwell, members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. america's natural gas alliance strongly supports s-33 as a means to establish a timely and certain review process for lng export facilities. this will send a strong signal to the investment community and a clear message to our allies and adversaries that the u.s. is determined to play a leadership role in global energy markets. given the sheer magnitude of

u.s. shale gas resources, there's no question that our nation can be a global energy leader without sacrificing our domestic advantage. now is the time to seize this opportunity. while some have raised concerns regarding supply and price, the markets and experience speak for itself. as recently as 2009 the u.s. energy information administration forecast that natural gas prices would rise to $13 by 2035. just this last year in 2014 and multiple independent projections and eia put that figure below $6. and if we look at where prices are today, it's going to be hard to get there. in fact, right now in the dead of winter peak season for natural gas demand prices are less than $3 at henry hub and even lower if you're in pennsylvania. the markets are screaming for new and diversified demand outlets for natural gas. lng exports offer briem opportunity to send critical signals to the markets that these outlets are on the way.

this in turn will help maintain and grow production so our nation can take full advantage of the promise our shale gas abundance holds for our economy, environment, and energy security. the u.s. is now the world's leading producer of natural gas. put this in context the u.s. consumed 26 trillion cubic feet or tcf of natural gas in 2013. the most recent supply projections show a range of technically recoverable gas using today's technology from 2,200 to more than 3,500 tcf. the only remaining uncertainty around natural gas supplies, where is the top? as technology continues to advance reserve estimates continue to grow. as a result, public and private sector experts agree that the u.s. has enough natural gas at reasonable prices to sustain substantial increases in domestic consumption, and significant levels of exports. global market dynamics will limit both the size of our export opportunity, and the number of facilities that ultimately receive financing. as a result eia projects that

natural gas exports will account for less than 10% of demand for u.s. natural gas by 2040. those same global market dynamics underscore the sense of urgency. lng facilities cost billions of dollars and take several years to construct. unless we act quickly to provide greater certainty in the approval process we miss the opportunity to become an integral player in international markets. far from competing with domestic interests, lng exports markets will strengthen the u.s. economy. already the u.s. is experiencing a manufacturing resurgence thanks to the ready availability of abundant affordable natural gas. what is less widely known is that the natural gas liquids found within natural gas are an essential feed stock to many industries led by plastics and chemicals. simply put, more dry gas for export means more natural gas liquids for american manufacturers. in fact, as of this week the chemical industry alone has ideaed 220 announced projects

representing $137 billion in potential investment all linked to natural gas. as markets scream for demand, exports provide a win-win opportunity. of course lng export terminals are just one aspect of energy infrastructure. timely approvals of new and expanded pipeline projects also require the priority attention of policymakers at all levels. as several members of this committee know firsthand and it is particularly true in the northeast where expanded pipeline infrastructure would help consumers and unlock the kinds of natural gas fuelled manufacturing opportunities we see flourishing in so many parts of the country. thank senators barrasso and heinrich and the bipartisan co-sponsors of s-33 for working to ensure america's competitive advantage. i appreciate the committee drawing attention to these issues and look forward to our continued work together to build this energy revolution into a sustainable, economic manufacturing and environmental success story for the nation. thank you.

>> good morning chairman murkowski, ranking member cantwell and members of the committee. on behalf of the national association of temporary hold while it studied the macro economic impact of exporting lng. the study forecast the u.s. would gain net economic benefits. it urged the committee that the free market will find equilibrium here and exports should be governed by principles of free trade and open markets. some witnesses at that hearing

took the opposing view calling into question the validity of the doe study's findings and warning of constrained natural gas supplies, "unfettered lng exports," and skyrocketing natural gas prices. fast food to today. doomsday predictions have not come true. only five of the terminals out of 37 are under construction. overwhelming numbers of economists who have looked at this issue including the doe have concluded the lng exports and a strong manufacturing sector can co-exist. as of last night, gas stood at $2.98, a full $2 lower than two years ago when i was here to testify. study after study has confirmed and continues to confirm that manufacturers are investing in the united states thanks to a competitive abundant and secure

supply of energy. manufacturers in arkansas, california, coll, iowa, louisiana, maryland, minnesota, nerve, new york, ohio, pennsylvania, oklahoma, texas, utah, virginia and many others are taking part already in the explain chain to support terminals already under construction. in maryland 14,600 jobs, created across the supply chain. we applaud the doe for taking look at the inefficiencies and trying to fix them. we once again find ourselves in a situation where the approvals are starting to lag. a project that received conditional approval as far back as 2013, now approaching the fourth month of deliberations on a final license. we believe s-33, is both timely

and warranted. this bill ensures that the free hand of the marketplace will govern international trade by providing a 45-day deadline on the doe to approve or deny pending lng export applications. it do is not affect any other requirements. but eliminating unnecessary delays, the bill protects running afoul of our obligations. developers looking to build an lng facility must subject themselves to a multi-faceted permitting process. s-33 provides certainly while ensuring that all environmental

laws will be complied with to their fullest extent. manufacturers support this bill and urge the committee to approve this legislation. >> finally, mr. koranyi. >> thank you.

i am honored to appear before you today to discuss the geopolitical implications of the act. i will make three brief points in support of the act. point number one. european energy security is matter of natural security for the united states. as mr. putin continues his aggression against ukraine that threatened the transatlantic community as a whole. as a hungarian i witnessed firsthand devastating effects of 2006 and 2009 gas crisis in the region. we cannot be sure that another cut-off does not happen. if not this year, then the next. furthermore, compromising energy security and corrupting the

energy sector are at the heart of moscow's strategy to divide our alliance and render it ineffective. opec deals with the kremlin question the country's ability to conduct an independent foreign policy that is both in the national and in the allies interest. this is especially unnerving as the european union needs anonymity to uphold sanctions against russia. the good news is that europe is finally stepping up to the plate. but europe cannot succeed without the help of the united states. europe has access to multiple sources of pipe gases as well as

lng supplies. but current and prospective supplies from both the south and the southeast face their own challenges due to the turmoil in north africa and across the middle east. most lng supplies outside the u.s. are not without risk either. nigeria and yemen are facing terrorist and insurgent activity. producer such as egypt and indonesia have to grapple with increasing domestic demand that limit their export capabilities. qatar, the biggest energy producer to date, its energy tankers have to press to the strait of hormuz and suez canal. meanwhile, u.s. lng supplies do not face political qualms. u.s. energy would rely reliable and competitive alternative to the allies in central and eastern europe. provide liquidity to the global gas markets. sending a critically important message ever strategic reassurance to a region that is under the most serious threat since the end of the cold war. point number two -- even if another single drop of gas makes it to europe, which i believe is

a very unlikely prospect, u.s. energy exports will nevertheless substantially improve european energy security including that of ukraine. u.s. energy is admittedly no panacea. in and of itself it will not solve europe's energy security problems but clarity in the lng export licensing procedure would put a downward pressure on gas prices abdz celebrate the interconnection between the european gas markets well before or even in the absence of a single american gas molecule reaching europe. that is because lng markets are global. markets are shaped by future expectations. existence of a credible alternative will incentivize infrastructure investment. terminals enable both greece and lithuania recently to ensure substantial gas discounts. exports in particularly important. the u.s. has been promoting transparency and open markets.

to the great benefit of the whole world. introducing that transparency into the export licensing procedure would be critical to bolster trust in america's global leadership. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you. all of you, this morning, for your testimony, your comments. we greatly appreciate it. we'll now begin questions from the members. i would ask members to be sure to limit your time to five minutes as we've got a lot of folks to get through. and we've got votes that are theoretically going to begin around 11:00. mr. smith, i would like to start

with you. reading through both your written testimony and the comments that you've provided here this morning, you have outlined steps that doe has taken, that really get us to a point where there is -- there is less time between the approvals. i appreciate what you have done with re-alignment. your testimony states that this legislation is "not necessary." now, this is not saying that you don't support the legislation. i certainly understand that you have, again, under your leadership, and with secretary moniz, you've issued several final authorizations. again, i appreciate the comments