maeb you know, larger-scale types of attacks that we're trying to avoid. so i just think that a variety of reasons why they get reyuted. the internet is a big, big part of this. i think the f.b.i. is doing the best job that they can. but what we really need to recognize and track who these persons are. to be honest with you, if somebody is going to conspire to fight against us, which is essentially what they're doing, there also has to be a discussion, at least, about their citizenship. >> so you think the additional steps is to look very carefully at those people who travel. my concern too, is turkey is a con duet for people traveling into syria in those areas. are there additional steps we should make in order to be more aggressive with them spefkly those folks who lefrt the country.

so the comebination of intelligence and law enforcemented is a big deal. we have to make sure that there are good mechanisms in place. if we know somebody is getting on a plane out of liguardia or dulles to fly over to ankora we need to recognize we know who they are, they're being tracked and have the right visas. and turkey needs to know what they're doing over there. we've got to know why are you going there? are you part of a nongovernmental organization? are you part of a private organization? or are you going e going there for some other ill gotten game.

>> let me ask this. we've seen what's happening in yemen. it's collapsing before our eyes. our u.s. marines, the embassy staph. you see the chaos that's going on there. it was not long ago that this was one of our foreign policy successes in how we dealt want terrorism that we were in support of the government there, that our counter terrorism efforts was e were successful. a couple questions of the yoo u.s. foreign policy. >> from my perspective, the last decade plus of war, if i had to give you one lesson learned, that lesson would be that we continued to fate to understand the threats that we face and

that failure is leading to a mismatch in strategy and resources i'm really concerned about a post period of time. in the washington post there's an article rethinking our time. i i think that's appropriate. i's how we applied it against this enemy. >> thank you.

general flynn can you foe low up on your equipment a little bit. when we went into arook and had considerable what d what would jowl respond to that? >> yeah i i think that's very -- what you're imprying is very true. the political has to look at it from piece e peace and get us back to paech. and we don't do a really good job thinking past the point of

conflict or the point of war. and we have to do that. and i think that's part of this debate as the ranking member was reporting that we have to not just throw military resources. we have to be far more so fist kated. be you will that's not guilty comprehensive right now. why right-hand turn there 126,000? why are there only 126? i mean there's that many mosques in baghdad. and there should be leaders that

need to stand up and make a stimt e statement make a strong statement about what it is that we're doing or not doing. >> thank you. >> right now, i think there are, perhaps, somesome opportunities. have you had any thoughts about that why we 'not doing as good of a job as we can and furter facilefa facile tating? >> i think that's a great question to ask, queue know. else specially from this committee. so we could do more and get them more so fist kated and really putting in the right kinds of military tolls we need to be air chl to what is actually the eastiest

part. >> i can't agree with you more. >> so we just have to be more sophisticated. >> yeah, and if i could just go on. >> go ahead. >> just shifting to a local region. before a senate intelligence committee meeting yesterday. the growing connection between isis and e and the boka koran to hear that discussion. >> i'll let bill ans this, too.

>> so we know al-qaida was dealing with bokaca when bin laden was still alive. so this is not just some connection that all of the sudden happened and boca has just popped up. hopefully, you're see general rodriguez, our kmanter of africa u again, i think there's seven oar eight nations in africa that are tryings to come to grips with dealing with boca huron now. >> dam this is a long term.

>> mr. kaufmann. thank you, mr. chairman. i served with isle in the marine corps. and wha i found in the sunni air population is they clearly didn't like us. we have set the apple card. they saw the government in baghdad as a sheer dom nated government, sectarian e turn govts that was gernsz them. but when they saw later on a path, the fissures between the al-qaida government and the local insurgence became more significant overtime. when they saw a pathd where they could be a part of the goeft then those fissures exploded.

i found them to be a very modern people. it's hard for me to edge vient e vision them beings sub jew kbated to this group, isis. they were temporarily lined with al-qaida and they e then they broke up. >> thank you, congressman. i think you're absolutely right.

i think one of the great missed opportunities that we've had is that he was unable to kamt liez on that. it was a tragic missed opportunity. i think you're wrong about the people being able to live under isil. the problem is now it's big-city mayor e become so intense and so deeply inglanedmented to both sbernl and refugees. people who have seen family members being butchered and an enormous amount of mistrust chlts until they ooir able to

see it as a viable partner, it's going to be difficult to make that leap. that's why some serious institutional reforms is what you need to do in order to win in iraq. i think the national guard program is abslautly the right way to do it. something that's institutionalized and can't be done at the stroke of a pen. >> thank you, mr. kwong man. i would just reit rate its's spoending to national level polls within the last two years.

to me if sectarian inch eism trumps secularism the way it has in iraq, because of these identity groups like isir, then e then we better make sure that we realitily push back on sectarianism because it's such a powerful force. it's a force of nature. if we don't deal with sectarianism. i e iceland, aqam in these groups have a relatively easy time to big a side stlu guy leens e listens. >> a lot of lessons. it has been a discussion within the ranks of the al-qaida movement, okay? so they learned lessons from the ways our callie did things.

even though the new president what's in there now, still, there's not a sense in that. and just a real december pratt economic conditions that these people live within. and that's just going to be a difficult thing to change. sdul kk change. you actually have the wealth to provide for their citizens. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. naurng e thank you very much for being here today. each of e has made points throughout the morning about how the sectarianism was a driver for violence. how the trust of this e t sunni tripe e tribes of people must be irnd in order to take the oxygen awail that currently kpiszs in isle rang for isis.

how can this be done with in leadership. you've talked about a different way of doing things. but the fact of the reality is iran's influence over this current government in iraq continues as it has been. they're barely allowed to have any control. who they're attacking and what they're doing does not kpisz. and unless you go to a different pod el of gover nans and go away to n kobt e continueroneted policy of one central government in iraq and move to something where you're truly padding where even at this point a small margin of the weapons and policeman ewe fwhigs that we're seds e sending is getting to them. fwh some type of three-state tlugs. how is this a colonel winning strategy to dedeet isi sirks.

j i believe we are going to not go back to the way things were. the breakdown of the boundaries within this region are going to be incredibly difficult to get back to. not impose, but i just don't see that happening any time soon. i would ae say that iran is the greater problem. >> and i think like you saw in remmen, you were anyings in iraq things occur that are careerly isle rain yan influenced and everything that we are trying to do. so i'll leave it at that.

i would actually not pose iran as the primary problem in iraq. i think the myly shas are a primary problem. and isle rabble can use that striemt when it was e it is useful for them. and then they can begin to move to try to shut it down. and i think that the key point is going to be that it. it isn't going to include some

kind of tas it of iraq. what you need to do is bring that country together and have a state based on citizenship. >> >>. there's already been huge progress. you know they're dealing with these issuings of oil regulars and all of these things and no one is very happy with any of the solutions that they've comet up with. but they're working on that. i think that the idea of the curd kurds going their own way is a good one.

help them in the ways that they need to be helped but don't encourage the fragmentation of the state. you talk about a three-state solution, and we've heard about this quite a lot. there's a fairly plausible sub state that you can imagine. there's no plausible suttnni. and that is notten e in an nern interest to create it. so you're going to need some kind of bargaining in which that state can co-exist and cocur vooifr. >> the president recently released his 2015 trat jill. that i mean say it's the blue prnt while

while advancing to the future. on page p, we are leading a global campaign. and on page 15 u it states we reject the lie that anymore is at war with islam: we are not at war with all of i would say ram. we are at e at wash with -- the only two times that the word appears are the two entrances i've just mentioned. yet, clie nat change appears 1e9d times. i would ask that you think the national security sfrat jill has enough strategy to actually have a positive impact only executing a strategy for degrating and ultimate e matly defeating isil. i kwould ask in your haurlt ere

hooijt act being hoind e hounts, gist within the past 24 hours, they've taking other the phil. how can you say that their method has been you could pd. >> in any simple e situate. >> i really apraesh your e yat your opening comment. and, you know there's been a huge debate about will we should use the term e e islamic extremism or those sorts of things. i actually knelt in the cool and id sit unt it doesn't praelly matter all that much. i think that this notion would be interesting to talk about more, but i think that forming

strike that sfrat jill is not effective. if i think if you look at these kinds of civil wars you're going to see herened a mull meal sheer gaszically being a stra teejsic stalematened and this village getting captured and lost they put a lot of resourcings and prop began that effort into this, and they failed. and that was big for blocking their momentum. i think that we've scene them pulling back from aleppo. we've seen them try to kons trat some of their forces. we've seen their failure to move into bag sdad. and so i wouldn't say, and here e looer i would akbree with you there's no siend e sign that we've revezedded, bud we've

topped and bx atina everyone ins insblety. whuns they deponent look invunl shlble, that's when those stripes and others will start bliefings that it's safe to flip sides again. so i think that's how old i woulgd describable what is still obviously a very fluid situation. >> the national security strategy lays out the world. i don't believe that the national security strategy prioritizes what the united states should do about those threats. for our ties in sort of the here and now and then sort of what -- like what a harry strks ruman said post ward war 2.

>> we have to prioritize inside of it against the threats that we're facing. so will're recognizing the fact na there's something call islamic. so again, we're trugling to define it as clearly as we possibly can. and tgs r it is arad e radical version of islam. this's no doubt about it: if the enemy is calling themts that why do e have 1u6r a 23i6 couple time. 2 other 24i7k is a real small,

minor thing. 2 word -- or the acronym, that we throw and noup that actually reck e rek niezing the lam e lard ere mart of that ax dwro him tripes 2340u numbing is the sell fond. it actually, to me in my framework of trying to understand who it is that we're facing and i've stud duhhed theesz guys i've dealt them. i'm talked to them. the acronym says you are trying the la vont. so wefr to be vfr very skafr careful able 2 words that we use. those are recognitions of their courage, instead of using another foreign wourd.

>> mr. vice president smith? >> thank you. two follow ups. one on the notion and isis is someone doing better than al-qaida did in governance. there have been just as many stories out there, like i said mozul is a disaeser. and if i'm wrong about that, please gor get krekt me. i koent e don't real e really see any evidence that they're doing any better in terms of governing muslims. the one thing that they have going for them is the boog dad government. the sunnis still look at the baghdad government as, you know shiite. and basically, sectarian.

we've had ps e massacres by myly sha groups. squl am i missing something? >> all right, thank you for the question. i think the biggest difference is that they are governing. so where they have governed was the comparison.

in thatceps are they doing belt ere? j perhaps what, the next show would be the flow of foreign fighters in the iraq in syria. i think it's because they are "living up to the rightousz values that they ogs e et hil nay ire purifying. these kind of macho turns. and while it's horrible stuff,as! flmplt e glnchts mentioned, it's a really. they're calling mushrooms to build the institutions to take part in this con e fro jeekt of reestablishing a religious plilt kal empire. and that's empowering even if the means by which they're governing is appalling. and its's seen as for some, a

more appealing alternative. >> in one final point the conversation back and forth about that. i would not take seriously any arguments that we don't need to detain enemies chlts we do. the question is do we need to detain them at guantanamo. >> you are not going to detain them at guantanamo.

we definitely need to be able to capture. so when you look at prior to 2003 there were many nonafghans. ole oochl fool goirng to argue with you wear e where. we have to be able to make that decision. if we bring them into the yiet,that stops them to get the kind of information you can get. i've heard that argument a thousand times. >> so you're telling me every f.b.i. ajeblt gets no useful

intelligence out of anybody that they've -- this it's a lot slower. putting that point aside there's no reason that, you know, as we've done with some other people you know you have to do that in guantanamo, too. the same things apply in both places. there's no reason that we could bt do the same thing here in guantanamo. it does not give us any particularly advantage. >> you just have to make sure that there's a timeliness issue.

we don't have any designated zones anymore. we have to be able to capture these individuals. >> we've to. >> there's a difference at this point between guantanamo and the u.s. chlts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> whether you detain these folks, that's the issue. that's the issue to the bad guys and their associated friends and foal lows. so i think it's -- i agree with

the general, when you bring it wac to the u.s., it just creates a whole bunch of other issues that that we have not had to deal with. the bun thing i'm trultling with is the pet's kwsz fsh an autorye zigs. it's a clear, comp relistensive strategy. and what would that look like? i guess that's what i'm looking at. what does it look like in regards to the issue that we have before us? we have the king of jordan here. his strategy is you have to look at across the world in the kaz of israel e rammic extreme im. squl so we talk about this and

clearly findings the enemy. i think there's two partings of this and you just adreszed the dempbt tun. i think the third one is we feel to take a lard look at how we are l we are urg ds as a dplagsz to deal with the takt kal probable of what's hatching in isle rajts and southeasterly ya. specifically it's the department of defense. the central intelligence agency and the community as it supports our national interest. and then i think we have to look at how we're organized internationally. i used the nato model as a model, although it's got its short comings. we've got to have some sort of our world nato-if you will -- like struckture.

and not guilty deal with these individual kwun aprils dealing request their probables. and i think e do think we need to put smsh in dharj of it. designate smchb that has not only thebacking of this country and the a few lime of thoorty too excute the president for authorities. its's proobly just civilian led. but also internationally accepted. i believe it should be somebody from the u.s. it dunts mean that we have to va large numbers of boots on the ground. it just miens that we have to come together, organize ourselves first, make sure that we are organized correctly internationally and may recollect sure everybody is in charge of this eft. and, frankly, tell the mesh e american pub e pub plik that this is gingrich the has e last 23r general pragss. >> to the other panelists -- >> and the aumn is not that.

>> and that's the mistake people make. it's the concern row hence ifr trat jill. it is just part of the tool kit. in other mantist, do you think tods today that we have a comprehensive strategy? >> no, i don't. . >> i koulgds repeat the things i said before about -- i don't need to say all of that. but i really want to emphasize and second and third something that general flin said. if we're going to have any success in dealings with isil and the ents e e treemism in the middle ooesz, we have to make sure that our atlies are on the same page.

>> so a comprehensive strategy is just spinning in the wind. >> eny al-qaida and i vblt pilled us into e into the realm of on 15i7k ax 06rs. we should try to pus them balk into the sbsh nashlt system. thaurng, mr. chairman. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairn e chairman. i want to thank all 06 our witnesses for being here. in particular, general flynn the fellow or rhode island i recall.

welcome back back. ; i'd like to for whatever wants to go first i would clear ly if rely jougs community was allowed toe triejd nigh norty tleeders and everything. it kind of tyke a long time to get here. it's going to take a long time to get out of it. let me e me just ask you desz the prlt in e grichlt which i foubd surprising but welcome chlts they are establishing

sunni imams or who are on islam islamic extremism. do they moderate or counter the nature of the grooefd e groefdss and the threat fwr jihat e dist. it's very difficult for him to say you must be moderate or participate in the lit kal m is.

it's about the need to understand the kinds of things that you and i would like to see. they need to have the substantial doubting for which to do so. right now, they don't. thoer not in a very strong position now to make the kinds of moves that we need to see. et just showed how dedicated and wha long tirm virgs they they believe.

he was talking to the egyptian people as much as he was talking to the arab world. sdes piet the challenges that e i want e just a minute faces. we need leaders like that. he needs to know he has to be able to chaing inside their oen system to get the people to skomg back around to be more mod rat. and they're dealing request al-qaida and dealing l.s of muslim broer hood. so i was very heartened wleb i heard president alseesi come out and make those remarks. >> so are there things that we can focus on in our strategy to help enkurjs e durj this that kind of moderation.

given that there are certain actors in the region, such as uae and jordan, among others who appear to be supporting the u.s. interest, how should the united states support and organize these parted e farer ins fwr e in the region to serve as po ten shlly mod rating forces within the degraying middle east. >> it's lowering that threshold so that they step over that line more quickly. this is something that i think we can coe do collectively.

>> if there's one thing that we need to exportaround the wourld not so much democracy, but the idea of rule of law so people are governed by norms and behaviors. >> as you all know, i think we'll have time to get two more folks in, mr. cook. >> general flynn first of all, i noticed you went to rhode island? >> my daughter and my son and law went there. i just want to know why the out-of-state tuition is so high.

going back to dnchts's question. i think a lot of us are wondering whether this is a symbolic thing in terms of a tartartar tartar getting ch am e and indirect fire weapons. 2 fact that there's marines there, a chabs to embarrass the marines as you know. that's number one press story. can you comment on that? >> and, secondly i want you to address our lack of human swell jens.

>> it's sdef nitly a strategic chgs for them. g if i were those marines in there, i would, you know, be looking to make sure that we are absolutely within -- that we have the rules of engagement very clearly understood. to be able to deal with anything that happens against that particular bags. but i would love to see an unhere leashing of sub iraqi force.

and that would be something that is doable. in terms of human we lack the kind of hue el e spell skblens that we needs that we used to have pretty -- we develop ds over time, but we don't have that kind of level that we needed to. and interrogations is actually a part of that. >> since i've still got two minutes, i just wanted -- you talked about everything else chlts we just don't have enough military force to go around for all of the commitments.

gld we do not. >> our military is so stretched thin and, frankly, under-resourszed an parts of it are not trained to the level that we would e would expect them to be. that the mesh e american public would kppt them to be at. the sequestration is just choking the readiness of the united states mim tear. and we need the decide wha kind of military do we kantd to have given the threats that we've face ds. is if we can't do this down this paet, it's going to get even smaller. >> faung e faung for grower . >> jentsdsgentlemen, i'll try to be

brief. i want to go to the fact that terrorism is ebbing and flowing and we shouldn't pay too much attention to it. that's going to happen the way the middle ooesz, is, if you will. i've wondered if you've seen this. this is the d.i.a.'s intelligence assessment from 20e 00 h to 20 14e. in 2e 0 1e 4 we were dealing with 1e8 total countries and today we're dealing with you are four material wrisz groups. i would suggestion that's more than an eppbb and flow. that's an ideology that is do i thinkous to the world. what you e would you assess the population of islamic extremists or test e terrorists whatever we want to call them in iraq to fw. the total number of them.

>> thank you, congress manage. i want to scarfully. clarify. i was talking about the fighting on the ground in syria u spefr fkly. so i'm southerly ri for that confusion. >> for the record, you know the usz working to undermine a srksz ad and move him out, i've read some of your statements. i personally think the u.s. made a mistake. but i have some of your statements there. the total number for iraq, if you would. >> i wanted to clarify that. the emts and flow is about the civil wars. and the question of whether we should have gone outside is a question for another day. i would say if you go country by country, you get wild answers. there's anticislamic state in algeria

algeria. affiliate in -- >> if i can, in iraq what boy would say, that is your specific question chblt question. >> yes, sir. >> you might somewhere along the lines of 5,000 dedicated isis or isil fighters combined with a wheel set of fighters. >> he's use that number. i'm trying to move fast. how many fighting age men are in that country? >> good question. 17 million, maybe. 15 million. >> let's -- okay. >> but those are current sunnyies and shiites. >> here's my point and this is what i want to come back on. if there are 5,000 islamic extremist terrorists, whatever we want to call them inside a country that has 5 million fighting age men no matter what battle we win if we get the rules of engagement right,

they've got if they are mod rates, that's a 50000 to 1 margin. and if 50000 to one isn't enough of an advantage then what is? so this is where -- this is why so many people in our part of the world identify this as islam because clearly 50,000 could overrun one if they wanted to. so general flynn, my question for you specifically, if we get the ruse of engagement right, which i certainly don't trust the president on but if we get the rules of engagement right this's no doubt in my mind we can win any battle over there. but if they, in iraq, have a 50,000 to 1 margin very was is islamic terrorists and they can't control that, what good can we do? sgh up was asked a question back

in 2002 when i was first in of gan stan. i was asked how many enemy are we fighting at that time, 2002. april, may time frame. i said we looking at 35000. the next question is if we kill or capture 35,000 can we go home? do we win? there the answer is no. there's the same sort of analogy today. we can capture and kill all day long. but until we deal with the others that are there the millions or whatever the number is we're going to be at this for a long time. the military component of this makes us feel good, but it's all the owes that are there ready to join in movement and fight against our value system. and that's just something that we're going to have to -- that's the wider strategy we need.

>> that's where i think training and equipping our allies because important. >> across the region. >> absolutely. >> i think we've got time for a couple of questions. >> thank you mr. chairman. a lot of my questions have been answered. a quick question about africa. just your comments. we've talked a little bit boko haram there are plenty of spaces that we've seen the foreign fighters fly in and out when many people weren't paying attention. any comments on the trend going on in the organizations in the african continent? >> i'll defer to bill on a lot of the details. i will talk about libya and the

effect that that's having. y ear seeing the emergence of what looks like islamic affiliate in libya. it's now a civil war. total polarization. that's has destabilizing effects on the east and the west. and so you know so basically the lesson is you get the collapse of the state and it opens the state for these groups. i'm very worried about libya for all kind of reasons but that's kwun of them. >> okay. thanks. >> i know bill hassing? to offer on this as well. the negative is that it is rapidly growing. it's getting worse. in particularly those couple of areas that you just talked about. aer the other part is, as mark just highlighted, the breakdown of the nation state or the order of the nation state, if you will, in parts of that region. the positive is that there are countries that understand it and are trying to come to grips with

it. and that's more down in the -- you know, there's a number of them. i think it's seven countries that are trying to work against boko haram right now, there's economies that are there. but the size of the population in the 15 to 30-year-old category of young men that have nothing better to do than to join these groups is probably the fastest growing popation demographic in the world today. >> i yield back my time. thank you. >> thank the gentle lady. thank you all for being here. as many topics as we got here today, we didn't get to everything. mr. braniff, did you have something you wanted to add on that point? >> thank you. al shabaab boko haram will takely be the most or the second most lethal

terrorist organization in 2004 when we finalize our data. although they're not the most active in terms of number of attacks which means they're unfortunate will quite efficient in creating fatalities per attack. and of course we just saw their first attack in chad a day or so ago. continued' tacks in al cameroon. there's a number of groups associated with the tribes. so what we're seeing is increased levels of terrorists attacks and fatalities both in west africa and in east africa. and a lot of fluidity in north africa. >> thank you. and i think it is helpful to have some objective measurements to gauge these things. they don't tell us the whole story but they do enable us to compare, to compare trends.

the other topic we didn't get to today, which i think we need to understand bet ser the competition among groups. you alluded to it. we didn't have a chance to get it. but that is a very significant factor that we've not fully explored. we did get to a number of things. i apologize and i appreciate you being here and assisting the committee with that. with that, the hearing stand adjourned. \s on the next washington journal, director of the georgetown university institute of law, science and global security on the president's executive action on cybersecurity. then a look at the legal and political status of same-sex marriage with brown brian brown president of the national organization for marriage and

susan summer of lam don legal. call and tweet on our facebook page with your thoughts. on friday oregon gof your john kitzhaber resigned. the resignation becomes official on wednesday. here's audio of the governor reading his resignation letter. >> i'm announcing today that i'll resign as governor of the state of oregon. it is not of my nature to walk away from a jb that i've turned taken. it's to stand and fight for the cause. i apologize to all those people who gave of their faith, time, energy and resources to elect me to a fourth term last year and who have supported me over the past three decades. i will continue to pursue our

share goals and common cause in another venue. it is deeply troubling to me to realize that we have come to a place in the history of this great state of ours where a person can be charged, tried, convicted and sentenced by the media with no due process and no independent verification of the allegations involved. even more troubling and on a very personal level who has given 35 years, so many of my former allies have been willing to accept this judgment at its face value. it is something for me to comprehend. something we might expect in washington, d.c. but surely not in oregon. i do not know what it means for our shared future, but i do know it undermines the state. nonetheless, i understand that i have become a liability to the very institutions and policies to which i've dedicated my career and my adult life. as a former presiding officer i fully understand the reasons for

which i've been asked to resign. i wish speaker cocheck and president courtney and the colleagues own both sides of the aisle success in this legislative session and beyond. i hope they're truly committed to carrying forward the spirit of cooperation that's marked the last four years in oregon. i in 1968 i was inspired to commit my life to service. 41 years ago i started work as an emergency room doctor with a geel to make life better for those in my care. every since then i have sought to keep that focus for trying to make things bet for the people in the communities of the state that i love. i've had the extraordinary privilege of pursuing that work as a state representative, state senator, senate president and as your governor. over those years i've had the honor to be part of the reck marketable achievements. we responded to the worst recession by rebuilding an oregon economy that's added jobs

in the state. unlike many parts of the nation we did it together with cooperation and respect for oregon and for each other. we successfully defended oregon spectacular heritage of clean water, clean air forest farm land and special places. we've also found ways to support or rural communities and to create jobs in the natural resource industry while enhanszing the environment. we stood up for the principle that everyone deserves respect and basing rights one including the right to choose and the right to marry the person we love. i am proud that o o has not invoked the death penalty. we stood fast supporting collective bargaining in the right to form a union. we've transformed the health care system while lowering costs through the new coordinated care organizations. tonight over 95% of oregonians

will go to bed knowing they had health coverage. we provided tax relief to small businessings and raised new re knew for mental health and education. we've passionately spur pursued the goal of -- those in poverty those in rural parts of the state, the very young and the very old. we've laid the ground work for eliminating the achievement gap in ensuring that over 90% of our children could be reading at level in third grade and we're poised to expand irrigated agriculture. as important as what we've accomplished, how we have accomplished it is perhaps even more important. we've had a great tradition of overcoming partisan differences in this state and doing what is right for oregon. that tradition faltered but over

the past four years we've rebuilt a functional political center reaching across party lines to do important things to help right the ship and chart a better course for the future. i ran for a fourth term as your governor to continue to progress but the questions that have been raised about my administration specifically allegations against me concerning the work done by my fiancee and the contracts she obtained during my my last term and the escalating media frenzy stemmed from this as clearly reached the point of no return. i am confident that i have not broken any laws for taken any actions that were dishonest or dishonorable in their intent or outcome. that's why i ask the ethics commission and the attorney general to take a full look at my actions and i will continue to cooperate with those ongoing efforts. i'm equally confident that once they have been concluded, oregonians will see that i've never been put before my love

for and commitment to oregon and faithfully fulfilling the responsibilities of the public offices i've had the honor to hold. but it is also clear that this process will take months. i have always had the deepest respect for the remarkable institution that the a oregon legislature and for the office of the governor and i cannot in good conscious continue to be the element to undermines it. i've always tried to do the right thing and now the right thing to do is to step aside. i love this state and its people, its rivers, mountains and landscapes with every fiber of my being. sit because of that love that i tinder my resignation of governor as february 13th 2015. kate brown will take the oath of office as oregon governor at that time. oregon will be in good hands and i wish her well. thank you for allowing me to serve you in our state. it has been the honor of hi life

and i believe that i can say that looking back over those years we have left it better than we found it. upon governor kitzhaber's resignation on wednesday, oregon secretary of state, kate brown, also a democrat will become the state's 38th governor. the governor's resignation letter and the audio of him reading it are available op our website, c-span.org. here's some of our featured programs for this president's day weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span 2 bock tv, life coverage of the savannah book festival with nonfiction authors and books on four women spies during the civil war and sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern within former senior adviser for president obama, david axle rod and american history tv on

c-span 3 saturday morning begin al 8:30, the 100th anniversary of the release of the film, the birth of a nation. the showing of the entire film followed by a call-in. and sunday at 8:00 on the presidency, george washington portraits, focussing on how artists captured the spirit of the first president. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. calls, e-mail us or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. on friday house speaker john boehner signed a bill requiring the approval of construction of the keystone xl pipe loin. president obama said he'd veto the bill when it reaches his desk.

speaker boehner joins mitch mcconnell and other con cession nal republicans to talk about the oil pipeline. congressional cnal republicans to talk about the oil pipeline. republicans to talk about the oil pipeline. morning, everyone. if a few minutes i'll sign senate bill one, bipartisan legislation approving the keystone xl pipeline. i want to thank any colleagueshere today and i want to take the president of the building trades union for being here as well. this is pretty simple. keystone xl pipeline is a good idea for ou economy and a good idea for our country. members of both parties know it. they've put politics aside and passed this very important bill. the president's own state

department says this project will create up to 42000 direct jobs. many labor unions know it. they say keystone, this isn't a pipeline. it's a lifeline for american's construction workers. and the overwhelming majority of the american people know it as well. to the president i would just say this. do the right thing. sign this bill and help us create more jobs in america and create a healthier economy. with that, let me turn it over to sean. >> thank up mr. speaker majority leader. on behalf of the 3 million people i represent, north american building trades i want to thank you for your that nasty in not giving up on this project. we're excited to be at the point. we're excited with the ceremony today and we urge the president of the united states to put our men and women back to work across the length of this

pipeline as soon as possible. we urge the president to sign the bill. thank you. >> well, the new majority is getting congress back to work for the american people. passing a bipartisan jobs and infrastructure bill like keystone represents another step along that path. i'd like to recognize a few members who made that possible. first is the bill's name sake. john ho van has literally been a warrior on this issue. he fought hard for years. he joined alliances across the aisle and no matter how long it took, the senator never gave up. he never doubted that common sense would eventually prevail in the senate. then there's senator ma call ski. she's a gifted bill manager no doubt about that. she worked hard to manage varying amendments and competing priorities. and no matter how they voted every senator owes her a debt of

gratitude for proving thu her squil that a functioning senate is possible. a new majority is grateful for her work and many democrats are as well. one of them, senator cant well also deserve as mention. although she didn't vote for keystone, but she worked constructively with us to process the amendment, so we're certainly grateful for her as well. and so now where we are is as others have indicated, we're hoping common sense will prevail and the president will sign this extraordinary jobs bill. >> when the president spoke during the state of the union address he said that the united states must aim higher than a single pipeline and i agree with him. this is a great place to start. ushd his policies domestic production set down on federal lands. that has led to more money in the pockets of hardworking americans and they've benefitted

from having more domestic energy supply. the keystone pipeline could go through western south dakota. and for those counties it would be a good shot in the arp. for many of the countries it would fund schools, roads and bridges. it would give them the opportunity to transport the energy supplies theed need in a safer manner and take better care of the environment. if the president says no to this bill, what he cease saying is no to safety, no to the environment, no to school and no to safer roads and bridges. i'm determined to do everything i can to get this bill signed into law so that we can build this pipeline. >> i want to thank the house for passing the senate bill so we don't have to go to conference and the bill can now go to the president. this really is about energy. it's about jobs. it's about economic growth.

it's about national security for our country through energy security. and everyone is on board, except for the president. for starters, you've got both houses of congress overwhelming majority, 270 votes in the house, 62 votes in the senate. bipartisan majorities in the congress. this states are on board. all six states on the route have approved this project. as i said before given that they've had six years to do it that's not a real high bar. but all of the states are on board. most importantly the american people are on board. overwhelmingly. last three years poll after poll it showed that between 65 and 70% of the american people supported this project. so you've got the congress on board, the bipartisan joorts, you've got the states on board you've got the people of this country on board. mr. president you need to join us and approve this project. make no mistake, we're in a

global battle to dernl who is going to supply energy. is it going to be opec? going to be russia? countries like iran and venezuela? or are we going to get our nrng at home. are we going to work with our closest friend and ally canada to prodouse or energy at home. a year ago the price at the bump for a gallon of gasoline was a dollar higher. you know, if it were a tax cut, the drop in gas prices at the pump is $100 billion. it would be like a $100 billion tax cut in the consumer's pocket. so when we ask the american people where do you want the energy produced who do you want to be the energy leader in the world. the answer is clear. they want to produce the energy at home and work with canada. so when the president says no, no to investment in producing more energy in the country, no

to the very infrastructure that we need to move that energy around our country safely. remember it's not just canada that's producing the oil. it's produced in montana domestic oil we're removing to our refineries. but when the president says no, that's music to opec's ears because it puts them right back in the saddle. and when our energy is declining because that very investment is blocked, then opec will raise those prices right back up. consumers will pay more at the pump and we'll have less energy security. when you look at what's going on in the middle east when you look at what's going on with isis, do we really want to rely on opec for our energy? americans say no. congress is on board. the states are on board. the american people are on board. mr. president, we need you to join us and sign this legislation.

>> thank you, senator hovan for being the warrior on this. you know i believe that america's national security and america's economic security are tied directly to america's energy security. that's why it was easy for me to recommend to leadership to we simply accept the senate amendments rather than go to a covers committee. i think that the amendments while not universally loved strengthen the bills. and it strengthens the bill's political palability. it is an important point. we've seen gridlock grab the town and now we've demonstrated in this bill a functioning congress. and the best of us is illustrated in this bill. and i think it would be a tragic shame if the president didn't stand with us as we're willing to stand with him. willing to help him do the thing that we could have done unilaterally with the stroke of his pen by signing the presidential permit.

sean, i'm especially pleased you are here. when i was in north dakota and we cited the first keystone pipeline 260 miles greenfield, 600 land owners' land i saw ever mile of the pipeline. i know it very well those 260 miles in north dakota. and i met, i met the labor force on the site. these are real workers. this is -- these are real jobs. this lifts up middle class america in a big way. but even more than the pipefitters and the machine, heavy machinery operators and the truck drivers it was the local cafe, the hotels, the retailers, the hardware stores and little towns that quite frankly at that time needed a shot in the arm. and your men and women that are working on the site gave us that shot in the arm. so i understand that we all have

political consideration and that the president does too. but today, today those political consideration i think are diminished by the fact that the new political consideration is that the people's representatives, in perfect concert with the people we do represent are willing to stand with the president as he stands with them and hopefully signs this bill into law. >> all right. time to sign the vote. [ laughter ] [ applause ] [ applause ] >> thank you all. thank you.

in january the price of oil fell to almost $45 a barrel after reaching an all-time high of $115 per barrel last summer. energy analysts at the hudson institute in washington, d.c. talked about the factors that caused the drop in oil prices. this is an hour and a half. good morning. i'm arthur herman, senior fellow at the hudson institute. i want to welcome you, both those of you who are here live who defied the cold and our

arctic conditions to come to be here in person, and also to welcome our c-span audience for what is the first of a series of seminars we'll be doing here at hudson on energy and national security. and i want to also at the same time, welcome our panel of guests and experts who are going to talk to us today on the topic of the phenomenon then over the last seven months which you see displayed for you very graphically by the way on the power price slide which is the falling price of crude oil. falling price of crude oil both for -- in the case of the united states production, wti index as you see here, but also in terms of global prices. talking about what those -- what that price decline -- why it happened, what it means now, what it means in the few chr.

oil price decline good news, bad news. good news for who, bad news for who. that's what we're going to talk about this morning until noon. the fall of crude oil prices i think, this is, in many ways, an historic drop in ways that i think are important to think about. and one of them is that this has been not only an economic shakeup but in many ways, a culture shakeup. this fall in oil prices is something which i think many people have come to realize if not most have come to realize was never predicted. this was a lesson in how those who deem themselves the prediction nears of future energy prices and supplies can be so wrong. and these an important economic lesson, certainly the ways in

which one calculates the value the future value of assets. very tricky business and very difficult to define and to understand. the other lesson i think that comes out of this, too, is that it's really jolted the american public out of some key assumptions that used to govern the way in which we taught about energy. one of which was that the price of energy particularly oil, would always be dear and would only get dear ner the long term and in the future. our guests are all going to have views, perhaps differing views about where oil prices are headed and where they're going. but the one thing we've learned over the last seven months is the degree to which oil prices can go sharply down as well as sharply rise. a lot of americans' attitudes and policies regarding energy came at times from the sharp

rises in energy and oil prices which forced important and sometimes even radical policy changes. now we may be looking at an environment in which sharp drops in oil tries are going to force important, possibly radical changes in policy. the other big change the other thing that's jolted americans is for so long, perhaps for 40 years, the belief that america's days as a major energy producer were over. that in the end we were passive spectators to what was going to take place and the forces that really controlled and directed global energy prices. what has happened over the last seven months has focused our attention on the degree to which over the last decade the united states has been an emergent emergency producer. some might even argue in some ways an emergent swing produce from the point of view of shale

revolution shale oil smalhale gas. the changes that have taken place in regard to the united states position and being positioned once again as the worl's biggest energy producer are also going to have enormous policy implication and will also with a subject that our three distinguished guests are going to address and talk about. then there's a third aspect i think. the way it's jolted us into understanding the degree to which it's energy not money that makes the world go round. energy, who controls the sources of energy who controls access to it. who knows how to use it not only to promote economic growth but also to enhance national security and even to possibly deter international threats. that's the link between energy

and national security that we're going to be exploring over this series of seminars that i want to kick off today with our discussion of falling oil prices. it's a distinguished panel. a panel of experts on this subject that i want to bring to bear for you as a way to talk about this important and possibly even historic change in the direction and future of the energy market. the first speaker that we have for this morning is doff ziegler. dove is financial markets economist at scotiabank. he's a former analyst for the canadian department of national defense. trust me if there's anything about the canada energy that dov doesn't know it's not knowledge. he's m.a. from johns hopkins

university a student of the late great so dov is someone who has a keen understanding of the relationship between financial markets and the larger gio political issues that are involved, particularly in the middle east with regard to energy policy as energy markets. and i'll also add dov is also vase chair of the montreal bach fest festival. we have someone who understands hair moan yous. i want to well come dov and have him speak to you on the economic consequences of the historic oil price drop. dov? >> good morning.

ie here to talk to you about about the disharmonious nature of the global oil market and some recent developments which you're all aware of which brought us here today the decline in oil prices and the questions i'm going to try to answer is how we got here whether or not we the ska here what theic economic impact will be and give us some thoughts on the regime we're going to find ourselves in with in the next 9 to 24 month. 0 what brought it us here? the north american market has been oversupplied with crude oil for the better part of the last three years. the chart that i have up here shows you the difference between the american oil benchmark wti, and oil prices everywhere else in the world. the brent crude price, but also prices for east siberian ocean

borne oil open also oil arriving in china. the blue line on the bottom on the left is wti. american oil prices have been lower than global oil prices pretty much consistently since 2011 when the boom in u.s. oil production commenced. the u.s. has been producing a million barrels per day of oil each year for the last three years, 2011, 2012, 2013 all had it. so this has been upsetting the order of global crude prices. there's also been arbitrage against the crude prices but the arbitrage has grown to the point where it became extreme. most oil market observers believe that this meant that the united states was going to have an oil price advantage for the foreseeable future along with the natural gas advantage shown on the chart on your right over there.

but no one thought that would weigh precipitously on the national oil prices. of course what occurred over the last six or seven months is that all oil prices have been dragged lower by the increase in u.s. production. so the question is really what changed? the first thing that changed was the distribution of global oil supply. this chart shows you the line with the incremental increase of oil production and then the bars show you unplanned shutdowns of global oil production in libya, iraq, in nonopec countries and in iran. and what you see is that the heightened gio political tension and developments in countryies associated with recent revolutions in the middle east caused unplanned shutdowns in

production that equaled or exceeded the increase in u.s. oil production. almost a race between the two. and the u.s. got ahead in the middle of 2014 when oil prices started to decline very rapidly. that's one factor. only one. oil is a financial asset. the u.s. dollar has been appreciating against pretty much every currency in the world for the last call it seven or eight months. this is a result of expected changes in monetary policy in the united states and changes in actual monetary policy in other countries. as interest rates fall elsewhere in the world and interest rates say the same in the u.s., the u.s. dollar becomes more valuable. and oil is denominated in dollars. if you're an european who's used to seeing an exchange rate of 1.4 euro to the dollar and now

it's 1.12 to the dollars even though the oil price has fallen, it's not fallen to a commiserate amount. the drop in oil prices hasn't been a drop in oil prices everywhere to the same degree it has been a drop in oil prices in the united states. a final thought i leave you with is that there's also been a global commodity super cycle and a boom in commodity prices of all kinds since 2006. and that boom picked up in an extraordinary way in late 2007 and in 2008, which coincided as well with the start of the global financial crisis. it wasn't perhaps evident to the entire world that we were in the midst of a global financial crisis. but parts of the u.s. mortgage market were exhibiting all sorts of peculiar financial. because it was a very compelling story, which was the rise of the

so-called bricks in particular china and india, and this allowed global investors who had little optimism with respect to investmentsy a whole broad range of asset class to focus on the one story they believed in mainly commodities. and commodity prices went up quite a bit. two things have happened since then. one, recently at least the global economy seems to have emerged from at least the worst of the financial crisis. the european financial crisis that went on until really late 2012 is now over. the american financial crisis thankfully was over pi the end of 2009. we now have some distance from it. the economy of the u.s. is growing at a decent clip. a lot of the type of economic behavior that we weren't used to seeing in the first five years of the recovery from the crisis we weren't used to seeing, we're now seeing. as a result there's a broader spectrum of investable assets i

think. that's at least limited the financial demand for commodity investment. that's a hypothesis. can we stay here in the data thaz to do be the cause. the cause has been an increase in u.s. drilling in the shale areas. and as the prices have fallen, the deployment of oil rig has folen. the so that would tell you that at least possibly american oil production could start to slow down in its growth. however other data that look at the efficiency of oil rigs have shown for efficient oil rig usage in a major way since rig usage started to fall. we're using fewer rigs, producing more oil and the oil

production per rig is going up. what that points to is the technological aspect of the u.s. increase in oil production. oil production in the u.s. has gone up in large part because of a new technology to produce oil that whose ultimate abilities we're not yet aware of. there aren't shale oil wells that are seven, ten years old. we don't know the actual decline rate. we don't mow what the decline rate will be for the most efficient shale oil production and we're going to find out because the global distribution of supply seems to be even. it doesn't seem that they're going to reduce their production. and they're testing to see what really what the american oil complex is able to. i don't think there's a conspiracy behind it. i just think that there's uncertainty. and i think that we're in a period of tremendous price discover ki which is going to be the theme of my concluding

remarks. before i get to that, just to walk through the macro economic impact on the united states from the increase in oil production and from the decline in oil prices. well first, the u.s. trade balance has been getting substantially, substantially narrower with respect to oil. these charts show you the u.s. crude oil -- sorry, pa toll yum products trade balance in nominal terms, the gray line on the chart to the left. what you see is that in volume terms at least the u.s. is now importing fewer petroleum products than ever before. the u.s. is actually exporting refined petroleum products and exporting less crude. it's a very important development. and it actually results in gdp numbers looking better. as well the u.s. trade balance

is less sensitive to oil prices. oil prices can fluctuate as they may. however the u.s. trade balance with respect to oil remains pretty similar. i'd also say this is a north american phenomenon. it's not just that the u.s. is producing more oil. canada and mexico -- canada is producing much more oil and mexico has had level production and could see the production increase. so this points to how we've actually had an integrated north american increase in production. so and the production out of canada and mexico should be somewhat more stable and less erratic in coming on and coming off. from a u.s. consumer perspective, this is a chart that shows the change in the oil price and the change in the quantity of nominal gdp taken up by spending on oil. what it points is as oil prices fall ore rise, consumers have more money to spend on something else. this is social science being

used to demonstrate the obvious. the question is extent. and i think that's where this can be what useful. extent seems to be moderate. i think american consumer wills be better off. u.s. gdp will be able to have .2 to .4 more spending to be done. it's not a game changer but it's a good thing. i want to conclude, and it leaves us with a few questions with respect to where we're going and who the winners and losers will be globally. i didn't talk about budget balances because the united states oil revenue though important, is isn't an essential mix in the national budget. that's not true for all countries. with respect to particularly russia, with respect to a variety of large oil exporting states in the middle east, oil can be a pretty important mix in the tax revenue generating side of national accounts. another issue that i think bears

some thought is the question of how long this can go on. if we're really in a period of price discovery, i think that no one can actually know. it's an important example of how free markets are supposed to operate. a new technology is invented new supply comes online and then we get to discover the duration and durability of this supply through price discoverry. what i think that means is volatility for the next little while and i think it will be sbeg rale to see the extent to which we're able to maintain efficiency and see the efficiency maintained in the u.s. oil complex which is ultimately quite a new thing. there are very few countries that have seen their oil production increase by 3 million barrels per day over the course of three years. it's almost unprecedented in the course of global production. this has not been driven by the

discovery of new reservoirs. this is a new technology. with that in mind i think from a policy perspective, we need to think of the oil issues in the united states as much one of technology as one of just simple, you know, supply of an oil reservoirs and land allotment. i think these are major issues. i think that we don't really know where the process of price discovery with lead us to. but we're going to be in it for some time. and i think with that in mind the macroeconomic benefits that the united states is reaping with respect to consumers should be an important and persevering factor at least for the next little while. and more importantly, i think that on an investment basis i don't think that the investment to this new technology is going to stop. i'll conclude my remarks there and pass things on to ann.

>> thank you, dov. when i was thinking about someone who could speak for this panel on issues of the gio political impact of the fall in oil prices, the big picture in how it shapes and will shape the future of the global energy picture but also the global economies, the person who spraining to my mind was ann coran. ann is a c-span veteran. she speaks around the country on energy issues and on questions of energy independence and energy security. she's codirector of the institute for analysis of global security. and is coauthor of three books, energy, security challenges in the 20th century, the collapse

of america's energy security paradigm and turning oil into salt, energy dependence through fuel choice. she's also senior adviser to the u.s. energy security council whose members include ex-shell ceo john hofmeister, alan green span former secretary of state george schultz, former governor and director of the department of homeland security, tom ridge former assistant -- former secretary of the navy john laymen and other associated washington heavyweights. ann's words carry weight as well as knowledge, in other words. and it's my great pleasure to introduce you and to present you, ann coran.

>> i'm glad to be here. thank you for argue niezing this event. i'm going to talk about where we were, where we are and where we're headed and what kind of black swans we need to consider as we think about the oil market and more importantly the impact of oil strategic importance on the global economy and on gio politics global security at large. we may think oil prices are how right now, but if we go back to 2001, if we think about what prices looked like before september 11th they were under $30. so they're not really that low right now. they're just low in relation to $147 barrel and $100 oil that we've gotten used to. and it's very important when we think about oil to understand that what has happened in the united states in terms of shale oil production is fantastic, should be encouraged in every possible way by minute mie zags

of regulations that thwart this kind of exploratory activity, but it's not enough to be a game changer over the long term when it comes to the oil market. and the reason is that today, just like yesterday, the conventional part of the oil market is still dominated by the opec cartel. people may they that opec is irrelevant, but i want to throw some numbers at you to give you a thought exercise to make it chiropractor that clear that that's not the case. 1978 global population was around 2 billion people. today it's 7 billion. global gdb since 1973 increased by a factor of 14. there were 250 million cars on the road of the world's roadways then and there are a billion today. global demand for oil were 55 million barrels a day then. over 40 years ago and it's 88

million barrels of oil a day today. but if we look at what opec production was in 1973 and what it is today, then we're in for a very large shock. remember, opec sits on 72% of world conventional oil reserves. that's the oil that's cheapest to produce. and yet in 1937 opec produced 30 million barrels of oil a day. you would expect with the massive growth in oil demand population and the number of cars on the ground that opec production would have increased wouldn't you? today opec produces 28 million barrels a day. opec production has no increased because opec countries have substantial budgetary obligations. and the input into their budget, their income is sales. you may ask, well if that's the

case why did they allow oil price to drop so substantially. let me walk you through a thought exercise. saudi arabia produces barrels a day. much more per capita than in other countries simply because oil is very heavy subsidized as it is in other opec countries. a third of that production is consumed domestically. that leaves 6 million barrels a day for the expert market, global sales. at $50 a barrel you're making $300 million a day selling six million barrels a day right? now what if you decided to cut production by three million barrels a day which would offset the kbrout in production in the united states that we've seen over the past several years? go down to three million barrel as day of exports.

does anybody think prices would not go back to three digit level? well over $100. but let's be conserve tiff and say $100 a barrel. you would be making exactly the same amount of money. so now we need to ask ourselves if that's the case, if that's the case, you can sell less oil and make as much or more money, why haven't the saudis been cutting production? then we see a number of possible reasons. one is of course, similar to what happened after the fuel's effort and the shift in the united states from electricity sector that used a large portion of oil to generate electricity to electricity sector that uses less than 1% -- the less than 1% of it is generated from oil. we see that the saudis dropped oil price, or find it comfortable to drop oil price in

order to undercut the competition. decades ago that was the sen fuels effort. it remains to be seen what the economics of the shale production effort in the u.s. look like precisely and how much of that production will be knocked off the market at low prices. there are other factors that play. there's no doubt a side benefit to weakening iran, no doubt a side benefit to hurting russia who has supported to support the shia side in the conflict. but there's also the factor that saudi all is heavy or medium sour oil meaning it's high sulfur oil. and that refineries that are dedicated to processing the heavy sour oil are not the same refineries that are dedicated to producing the light sweet crude that's produced in the u.s. shale sector. so if you offer discounts to developing world son qumers with, asia consumers at large so

that they become beholden to your type of oil and they building refineries specifically dedicated to producing your type of oil, it's going to be harder for them to switch to somebody else's oil down the line. so it makes sense to keep the price a bit lower right now so that asian consumers build up refinely capacity for medium and heavy sour sulfur rich saudi type oil, and you try and guarantee your market down the road when you will be putting on the brakes and sending prices back up. okay. this is kind of thinking about the supply and demand of the market. but there are other factors that we need to think about that i think people don't often like to consider. and that is that the saudis and their friends in the gulf on the sunni side of the aisle have created a monster.

by funding radical islam throughout the world, they've now created cancerous growth in the middle east that has turned on its creators if you will. they've lost control of their creation. they tried to funnel the anger and aggression of their populations and being controlled by what the population may seem as frivolous and wasteful royals towards religious fa gnattism and the result is very clearly seen. in isis and other related groups. isis isn't an isolated phenomena. just because you put a label on it doesn't mean it's the only group. i don't see any difference between the people that beheaded daniel pearl and the people that

beheaded kenji goto. and the people that burned alive, the jordanian air force pilot. people who are willing to do this and willing to fly airplanes into builds and murder 2,977 people and would surely have been willing to murder more if those people get their hands on weapons that give them the capacity to murder hundreds of thousands of even millions do you think that they would balk? the answer is clearly no. and what does that have to do with the oil market? it has a lot to do with the oil market. because at the end of the day two thirds of global conventional oil reserves sit in the middle east. again that's the oil that's cheapest to lift and produce. and in the middle east we see a sunni shia conflict that's raging out of control slowly but surely. we see an interest june any conflict that's raging out of

control with isis gang popularity. we see an enemy that cannot be negotiated with, that cannot be contained, that can only be droid. and we don't see a desire to destroy that enemy. and when we think about the fact that the region that the world relies on for oil has so many roll tile dangerous factors that impact its future stability --

then we're being very very short sided. so where we are going forward. this is a very break and

unpleasant vision, i know. but i think that what is very important to consider is how the united states, europe, asia, the growing energy consumers most importantly in china and india can utilize the energy resources that the globe has an abundance to make oil a much less strategic commodity. and to make these type of unexpected black swan events that can send oil price spiking very, very high, can bring the global economy to its knees, make them less regular vant. how we can i knock late ourselves if you will to a region we cannot control and we cannot stabilize no matter how much blood and treasure we may wish to commit to the effort. and i think to that end what we need to do is focus on the transportation fuel market.

oil strategic importance dereal housewives from its virtual monopoly over transportation fuel. the fact that almost all of our transportation fuel is petroleum based means that when oil prices spike, moving people and goods from one place to another, which is after all the engine that moves the global economy, becomes very much more expense i. and that means that every single service we consume becomes more expense. salt was a strategic commodity years ago because it was the only way to preserve food. wars were fought over salt and countries chose where to place colonies due to where there was an abundance of salt. today oil is a strategic commodity because it has a virtual monopoly over transportation fuel. unfortunately for us the virtual

monopoly is married to the opec cartel. it accounts for less than a third of global production, if we think about what would happen if it a barrel today. anybody think they would be constraining their production to the point that with 72% world conventional reserves they only accounted for a third of global supply? no. they would face antitrust if they did that. prices would be 15 dollars a barrel today. or 20 or 10. they would be much much much lower. assuming of course the opec countries are not lying about the reserves they have. we have no way of nowing or auditing their reserves. assuming the reserves they claim are the reserves that they have there is there is no excuse for

constraining their production to that point. except of course to maximize the revenue prospects for the regimes now and in the future. with periodic drops in price to kick competitors out of the market. so what we need to do because opec, as a collective acts a as monopolist essentially in the oil market and because oil has a monopoly over transportation fuel in effect opec act as a monopolist in the global transportation fuel market what. we need to do is destroy that monopoly position in the global transportation fuel market. it is not enough to expand production of oil in the u.s. and other places. while that is fantastic and has tremendous trickle down benefits to local economies it is not enough to keep prices of transportation fuel down in a long-term and sustainable manner. but if we open the transportation fuel market to fuels that are made from coal natural gas, bio mass and other

resources so these resources can be arbitraged against oil, so that with sufficient capacity expansion and fuels made from non petroleum resources we eventually get to a situation where there is competition over market share in the transportation fuel market. that will drive transportation fuel cost down in a sustainable long-term manner. and that will make the global economy able to withstand craziness in different part of the world. we can't negotiate with the evil that is isis. we can't talk them down. we can't do anything to stop their current brutality and murder. and their cohort, al qaeda and the other various names they go under. the same ideology. but what we do is attempt to inoculate ourselves to them, even as we work up the will to

seek to destroy them eventually. if we don't do that, i guarantee you that we're going to be lulling ourselves into a sense of complacency, the prices are low now and everything is good and we can forget about the post 911 11 franticness and just go back to sleep. i guarantee you're going to be waking up to a very nasty shock down the road if we don't wake up and open our cars to fuel competition. thanks. and i think i'll move to you matt. >> when i was putting together this panel i decided the other component needed when we were looking how this drop in oil

prices is going to be viewed and the gop and congress. and i thought the person who could give the most insight in it and also the way in which the new gop congress looks at develop issues generally. that person was matt leggatt policy council for -- basically the policy steering committee that thinks through the issues. and the prism through which they see those questions. matt is former staffer for representative tim murphy who heads

and with meeting policy makers as well as something which has been connected. >> vanderbilt university. on the hill on america's emergent energy issues and ways to address them. how america's emergence has the leading natural gas and oil production.

>> thank you, arthur and the institute for having me today. who doesn't like paying $2.24 for a gallon of gasoline? that's today's national average price down 1.09 last year. low gas prices act distributed to