pollsters, with the field of 2012. then eric olson from the woodrow wilson center and the warnings of americans traveling or living in mexico. we will talk about that topic plus a look at the newspapers and your phone calls. we will see you then. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> coming up, lisa jackson on

the u.s. economy. also, a white house forum on energy security. and and discussion on aviation industry. >> today, the white house correspondent black-tie dinner starting with the arrivals at 6:45 p.m. our coverage includes highlights of past dinners and your comments from facebook and twitter live on c-span. on c-span.org, follow along with our interactive video player. >> tomorrow, on "newsmakers," a look at 2012 when the republican party chairman in new hampshire. we will look at how they are

preparing for the new hampshire primaries. that is at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> environmental protection agency administrator lisa jackson talked about the u.s. economy and rising gas prices. she also addressed the epa's recent decision to stop shell oil from drilling off of the coast of alaska.

>> this conference can foster a variety of expert opinions about the energy issues facing our country and the world today. >> communication must be a two- way street if we are to fulfill our mission, which is to analyze, collect, and disseminate impartial energy information to promote sound policy making and public understanding of energy and its interactions with the economy and the environment. it is exciting for us to be here with you, the people who build on the eia data and analysis. it is pivotal in improving the products we produce. i have been the administrator for nearly two years. i continue to find the role extremely rewarding.

we have achieved many milestones to strengthen our organization and our products. i will go into more detail about the changes we are pursuing at eia. we have invited colleagues from outside eia to bring their views on a host of topics. i would like to thank our speakers and moderators for being here with us as they shared their in size and expertise on important energy issues. let's give them a round of applause. [applause] this morning's opening session is the first of two sessions today. the second will take place at 1:00 p.m. during lunch. it will feature the director of the national economic council. please note the change in the

printed agenda. we will look at energy issues in the broader national economy and discuss president obama's energy plan. lisa jackson will speak about the connections between clean energy, health, and the environment. she will then welcomed the president of shell oil, marvin odum. he will address meeting future energy demands. he will talk about taking a global view on energy challenges we face given the interconnectedness of markets and the economy. they will answer questions from the audience. they will answer questions from the audience after the speeches. you can fill out a card and bring it up to me. there are some concurrent sessions.

we plan on making presentations and transcripts of the sessions available on the eia website. at this time, it is my profound honor to introduce lisa jackson of the u.s. environmental protection agency. she leads the department's effort to protect the health department of all americans. she made her mission to protect members of vulnerable groups that are particularly susceptible to environmental issues. when nominated for the role as epa administrator, she was no stranger to the organization. she is a graduate of tulane university.

she has an m.s. ms. jackson, the floor is yours. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. what a time the conference. we are not having many conversations that do not revolve around energy and prices. i always remind people when i speak publicly that i am a shell oil scholar. >> obviously a successful program.

>> i have to apologize in advance. because of scheduling, i cannot stay and listen to the q&a. thank you for having me. you are the nation's energy thinkers and leaders. i will try to be brief to save as much time as i can for q&a. my time at the epa is spent on pollution and the impact on our health and environment. i will say a little bit more about our work, especially with regard to clean air. i want to begin with a topic i know is on everyone's mind. that is the price of gasoline. you do not have to look far to read an article come to hear an article in your own lives to seeing the effects of the spike in gasoline prices.

american families are struggling. they recognize that the situation we are in is not sustainable over the long term. the thing that is driving up those prices at this particular moment is not that our competitor nations like china and india are increasing demands. at least that is not the primary driver of cost increases yet. i also feel compelled to note that upward pressure is not coming from any environmental or health regulation. the standards we set to protect our health are often an inaccurately blamed on increasing prices and economic challenges. that is not what is happening right now. what appears to be the most important factor at work is our dependence on imported energy. this is what leaves us

vulnerable to jumps in prices. president obama has strongly supported a cleaner, safer, and more secure energy future, one that breaks our dependence on foreign oil. it is something we have been talking about changing for years. we believe it is time for results. when the president took office, america import 11 million barrels per day. by 2025, we will reduce our net imports by 1/3. that encourages greater efficiently all around and supports the development of innovative, cleaner fuel. we are already making progress. last year, america produced more well at home than we had in the past seven years.

as someone who grew up in new orleans and attended school there, on the gulf coast, i do not take safe and responsible production lightly. neither does secretary of the interior ken salazar. neither does president obama. neither do the american people who watch the blown oil well spilled millions of barrels of oil into their waters. we have to recognize that increasing offshore oil production is not a viable long-term solution. we can still produce about 25% of the world's oil. we need to come up with better

ways to use and produce energy, better ways to power our economy. that means bringing energy costs down and investing in energy efficiency for residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. we have a number of successful programs on which to build. the energy star program, an epa program, helped americans reduce their energy use it and save $18 billion on their bills. there is the clean cars program that the president set in motion in 2009. by bringing together all the companies and environmental groups, they came to an agreement that will result in savings at the pump for american drivers by ensuring that our vehicles are more energy-efficient than ever before. drivers of cars that meet these standards are expected to save

$3,000 over the life of their vehicle. in addition to saving money for american drivers, the clean car program provide certainty for american car companies and sets the stage for them to create new american jobs. chrysler committed to adding 1000 new engineers and technicians. 2000 of our fellow americans have new opportunities because of the certainty of regulations that are built on the simple premise up in the efficiency and the importance of it to our nation's feature. to thousand jobs that help meet -- 2000 jobs that help meet

environmental standards that we set in motion with the clean cars program. along with promoting energy efficiency, the president has called on us to innovate our way to a clean energy future. our best opportunities rely on what president obama called our one critical renewable resource, american ingenuity. to tap into that ingenuity, it is critical that we maintain our innovation. the president has called for setting the goal of generating 80% of the electric supply from renewable sources by 2025. -- 2035. we want to shaping the field that will capture wind energy. that will be beneficial to our health and our environment. by reducing mercury and acid gases and carbon and other pollutions that are the byproducts of fuel. it is important to do what we can to make our current supplies cleaner and healthier for the american people.

epa is building on a history of success. we have been able to cut air pollution in the air we breathe by more than half. it is down more than 90% from one generation ago. since 1990, the clean air act has helped remove 1.7 tons of pollution from our skies. it prevented 170,000 trips to the hospital.

it is a success story. when the american people look for a law that works for them, i point to the clean air act. even still, there are still millions of americans with asthma in our country today. our work is not done. not long ago, epa proposed the first ever national mercury and air toxic standards for power plants. these proposed standards will require american power plants to utilize widely available pollution-control technologies to cut emissions of mercury and acid gases. pollutants are linked to respiratory illnesses and other

debilitating and fatal health challenges. we are initiating an effort that will reduce harmful pollutants in the air we breathe and save lives. widespread adoption of these standards will prevent 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks. for our kids, it will prevent 120,000 cases of asthma. for utilities, this will do what the car rule did for all to workers. -- for auto workers. it will provide certainty after 20 years of anticipating the standards and clarify where investment needs to be made to reduce pollution and modify our energy grid.

the things i talked about are the things we must accomplish by working together. the depth and breadth of the energy challenges means we have an important role to play. we are eager to work in good faith with all parties. the path of our experience has taught us the value of hearing every viewpoint. when epa first proposed renewable fuel production standards, we heard from public comment and direct conversations about the concerns with our analysis about greenhouse gas impact. we relied on the best science and we have a rule that encourages innovation. it respects the needs of agricultural communities and is expected to increase farmers' incomes.

when we updated our standards for toxic emissions, we considered the input of utilities and workers during the public comment process. they had good ideas. we took their advice. we cut compliance costs in half. that meant reducing compliance costs by $1.80 billion without sacrificing the health benefits of the rule. that is the kind of collaboration that makes for environmental progress. we are deeply concerned about americans' health. we are concerned about gas prices that threaten to break budgets. we all it to them to be pushing in the same direction. we owe it to them to be pushing in the same direction. this is one of the most

important times we can be gathering. i am glad to be with you and i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> as you can see if you have been witnessing the number of questions i have gotten from the audience, we need to establish a common response period for questions or the administrator. there are some things that have emerged. let's get going. there have been a number of things that have come up related to the epa also worked in the area of hydraulic fracturing as it applies to natural gas. what is the epa doing to protect the environment? would you comment on hydraulic fracturing? >> we are not the only entity

doing things in the area of hydraulic fracturing. the area has been regulated by the states. the epa has a number of exemptions for oil and gas production. there was not a need to necessarily have us in that space. hydraulic fracturing is different on the scale we are seeing it. not only do you inject -- which normally we would regulate under our underground injection control regulation -- but you also have produced water that comes back from a restructuring process. -- from the fracking process.

dealing with that water can be as much of an issue as water safety. on a grand scale, we are doing a two-year study. that study has a grand scope. the goal is to look at the impact of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. it takes a life cycle approach of the hydraulic fracking process. epa is also looking at its regulatory authority to -- i would not always say backstop -- but to find the places where epa needs to provide guidance or direction as far as the injection of fracking fluids. the place we do have a gap is on diesel injection. companies are using diesel as part of their fracking process. we need to put some guidance

out. we are reaching out to industry, to states, and to the department of interior. the departments of interior and agriculture have a huge stake. other fluids, other hydraulic fracking fluids are not regulated under the states drinking water act by law. but that the regulation says these zero is not exempt. -- says that diesel is not exempt. i heard a quick question on pennsylvania. we are handling issues in the state out of our regional office. we have no concerns as they are brought to us. we would prefer to allow the

states to be the first level of response. with the recent blowout in pennsylvania, the one place we thought we could add value to get a handle on what is in the fracturing fluid. we have a regulatory role to play and we are interested in the study. >> we have questions about fuel economy standards. what do you see happening with the cafe standards in the future? there have been some administration proposals and a specific proposal for heavy duty trucks. it looks like the final roll for -- rule for have the duty trucks will be similar to what was proposed. >> let me answer that. that is an easy one. i do not know. we will follow science and the

law. i do not have a meeting and tell them what the final standards will be. it is the opposite. our staff brief us on the comments they have received. i do not believe i have had that briefing yet. what i can promise you is that the final standard will comply with the law. we will take comments and now we need to review the comments and make revisions. i have to give a shout out to my staff who worked on mobile forces. mobile sources. that that is here and in ann arbor, michigan. when you want to talk about policy and technology, you do not find a better example of that than what is going on in the mobile sources. on cafe standards for light duty vehicles, we have standards in place that cover model years from 2012 to 2016. we know they will save consumers money and they will save billions of gallons of gasoline that we will not have to use.

the president likes that program and has called on us and the department of transportation and the national highway safety transportation administration to come up with the next round of car standards for 2017 to 2025. we have a proposal coming out later this summer based on technical work. what we set in scoping this is that we can look at increasing fuel economy every year by a range of 2% per year to 6% per year. we are not in a position to go further until we get the results of a lot of testing and studies back from safeties and cost. -- from safety to cost.

cost is a huge factor. >> a few questions on biofuels. what do you see happening with e-15? a number of things need to happen to make e-15 a reality. is there a plan to revise the biofuels standards? >> we have been working closely with the u.s. department of agriculture to ensure that the estimates we did when we look at the life cycle of ethanol -- that is probably the genesis of your question -- is not impacted by the current situation in the commodities market. current prices are high. everything we know and everything usda knows does not blame a large percentage of that. some amount of corn is being used for stock or ethanol.

yet the thing about biofuels that is fascinating to me as an engineer is that it is about innovation. i just got back from iowa last week. i saw a couple of plants. i was at a traditional by a diesel plant. -- a traditional biodiesel plant. i met with representatives from various by a few industries. it is about getting to the next generation of energy fuels. it is about feed stocks. they are as interested in moving to other feed stocks. the other thing i learned was even though you use the corn or traditional corn at the top, that can come back and be used as feed. you do not get all of the energy out if you use the corn

directly. we are monitoring the situation. do not feel like it is going to change our regulations on biofuels. we at epa had a narrow role to play. we were asked to look at the life cycle of various fuels and determined if they qualify for renewable fuels or advanced tools under the law. that has to do with their greenhouse gas savings over traditional gasoline. we have done that analysis. we did the best job we could. we are working with the national academy of science for analysis going forward. the marketing will depend on several other issues. we are working to do that shortly. we have already put out guidance for tanks there are different issues with regard to tanks. we are helping to move the pumps so that people can move to the higher bland.

-- higher blend of ethanol. >> do you think congress will take away epa authority to regulate the greenhouse gases? >> i certainly hope not. that is the answer to the second question. there is nothing to fear from common sense use of the clean air act to begin to put this country in the direction of moving toward direction -- addressing greenhouse gas emissions. i join the president in calling for legislation to address greenhouse gas emissions. i believe that would have been the most efficient way for our economy to move in the direction of lowering pollution from many

different sources. that did not happen. now we are left with the clean air act. one of the things about the clean air act is that is not the ideal tool. but it is a tool. according to the supreme court, it is a tool. the epa has made an endangerment finding. that finding is the basis of the clean car and truck rules we have heard about. we are moving to apply that same law to stationary sources. the first is what we call the tailoring rule. it says we are going to face in the regulation of sources. - phase in -- phase in the regulation of sources. you want to start with the largest sources. this country has several large

sources. our utility sector, the way we get around, our transportation sector. the next on the list is our refineries. if you are going to start, that is where you should start. the clean air act is a technology law. it is thought of as a public health law. it is. you heard about the lives saved and the hospital visits reduced and the health care costs avoided. the writers of the law were rely on it to move us forward. technology that is there is energy efficiency. in the work we have done, whether it be on mobile sources like cars and trucks, the best determination on the guidance we put out in january it is all about energy efficiency. it is about squeezing as much energy as possible out of

whatever fossil fuel you are using. that certainly includes coal and oil. my belief is that we should allow the clean air act's to get us started. i also believe and hope that -- allow the clean air act to get us started. i also believe and hope that we will use it. administrator lisa jackson around of applause for her thoughtful comments. [applause] i would now like to extend a warm welcome to marvin odum, the president of shell oil company. mr. odum began his impressive in 1992.ith shielell

he has served in a number of management positions with increasing responsibility. in addition to his corporate responsibilities, he holds several board positions, including the board of directors of the american petroleum council of the dean's the harvard/kennedy school and the board of directors on the council of the americas. he received a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering. we are thrilled to have you here. i am looking forward to your thoughts on the critical energy issues we are facing today. mr.owing mr. oldham's -- speech, we will take

questions. please welcome him to the conference. [applause] >> good to see everyone. quite a nice crowd this morning. it is a pleasure to be here with what is likely to be the most energy informed audience in washington. or the most energy informed audience anywhere. i would like to begin with what might seem like the obvious. i would like to do that because it establishes what has to be the starting point of any conversation about energy whether in the u.s. or anywhere else. the statement i will start with is this one. there are things we know and things we don't. what we know and what we don't and the decisions we make as a result have global impact. we know, for example, that the demand for energy and the number of people expressing that demand

will continue to grow. we do not know when or where the next natural disaster will occur or where the next political instability will come from. we also know, largely because of eia data, what inner resources we have domestically. we have a workforce that can go get it. too often, we do not know what the regulatory picture will look like for the long term. that sends a job-creating opportunities to other borders. we see that happening to a degree in the gulf of mexico. we know that reducing demand and increasing supply is the surest way to build a stable energy future. our political climate does not always make that easy. neither does the decision -- do the decisions made by a few that deal in rhetoric and hyperbole

rather than facts. i want to let certainties propel action. from my perspective and the perspective of shell, it should not be difficult to create a rational, prudent energy policy, one that ensures current and future demands are met. the slate of options is limited. we need to pursue them all. i do not think there is a lot of debate about that. opposition comes into the picture when people talk about when and how to pull the level -- pulled the lever in bringing new resources into the mix. people pick winners and losers. some are less than honest about the trade-offs. compromise to the back row. one of the reasons people are so disappointed in their leaders

right now. the u.s. should not be one of the latecomers in figuring this out. you cannot force the kennedy challenges to fit neatly within borders. market economies demand we take a global view. the world's instability, uncertainty, and volatility requires us to take a global view. but never before, what we know can inoculate us from what we don't. today, i would like to focus on what we know in three areas where i think this is the case. by definition, we could spend just as much time talking about the efficiency and other entities. i have chosen these three. with your questions, you can talk about the other topics in more detail. the first area is biofuels. it is the most practical solution in producing fuel for

the transport sector. we know the international market for biofuels is growing. with the right policies in place, it can grow faster. with shell, their delivery system is most similar to our core hydrocarbon business. we continue to build capacity with biofuels produced from sustainable feed stocks. shell has actually been one of the largest pile fuel distributors for a number of years now, selling fuel containing over $9 billion liters of biofuel in 2010 alone. we are working with the largest ethanol producers to finalize a $12 billion mentor for the production of ethanol sugar and power and for the distribution and retail sale of

transportation fuel. with an annual capacity of $2 billion - 2 billion liters in biofuel, this will be the largest deal ever. we have considerable explorations for growth. whether we are talking about brazil or other countries, supports in significant increases will depend on developing new technologies in advanced by a fuel and new conversion processes. working with a number of processes -- the number of partners, we are removing new technologies from demonstration -- phasespphases to - phase to commercial scale.

we can help create conditions necessary to build and sustain aa biofuels market. there is a temptation to believe this is enough. that assumption would be wrong. there is much more to be done. this includes rewarding sustainable low carbon fuel. in creating a regulatory framework that stimulates market innovation and providing regulatory certainty that encourages innovation -- ken we know that these policy emerges will materialize? -- can we know that these policy imperative of swell materialize? no. for our part at shell, we know

that we are standing with a long line of people and enterprises that want to make that happen. the second area where what we know should prompt action rather than prevent it is natural gas. here's what we know about natural gas. we know there is a lot of it, especially in the u.s. it is cheaper than other energy sources right now. it is a cleaner burning fuel. using it is easier than ever. just a few years ago, north america's natural gas production was believed to be in decline. everyone in this room knows the story as well as i do. application of technology has made natural gas more acceptable. over 2500 trillion cubic feet are available here. at current production levels, there is enough global supply to

meet the world demand for 250 years. we have enough in the u.s. for 100 years. by 2012, shell will produce more natural gas and oil. that is not an accident. it is worth pursuing. it will be a preferred fuel. it is worth it for the people around the world who are emerging from poverty and becoming energy consumers like so many of us. among the international oil companies, we are the second- largest gas producer worldwide, a leader in coal gasification. we have invested in the north american exploration and development. we have 2.4 million net acres in resource potential. beyond the economic and environmental benefits of

natural gas, we are seeing other benefits as well, particularly in the petrochemicals industry. low-cost gas production is created a competitive advantage for petrochemicals. a 25% increase would create around 17,000 new high-paying jobs in the chemical industry and about 400,000 jobs outside of it. it would do all this while creating over $130 billion in economic output and an annual increase in federal, state, and local tax revenues. the policy makers are looking for new ways to spur job growth and lower the deficit. it is hard to imagine why a response will energy policy with more natural gas exploration and production is not sailing through congress. i realize part of the hesitation

to embrace natural gas has to do with what i believe is incomplete and irresponsible reports around hydraulic fracturing. make no mistake, it can be done without harming the environment. anything less is unacceptable. shell supports legislation that requires companies to disclose the chemicals they use in the process. we do that now. and adhere to the higher safety standards. response operator should have no problem complying. the best ones should work to improve the process. this technology and these procedures will reduce the amount of fresh water drawn from local sources and recycling innovations will minimize the footprint of natural gas development. our goal is to get to the point where we effectively recycle 100% of the water we use. i am, and we will get there. we are already there in --

the final area is to touch on alaska. there is a lot of oil there and we know people need it. at the current pace, we are losing daylight relative to our own needs and other countries. i understand that one year after the disaster in the gulf, some remain critical of deep water drilling. let me be clear. our industry, in many respects, is only as good as the worst operator, whether that is in the gulf or anywhere else. shell is in favor of new, all- pro regulations that can make our people safer and make our industry -- shell is in favor of new, appropriate regulations that can make our people safer

and our industry stronger. we have worked to build an energy task force to share and enhance the standards. when we operate off shore around the world, we employ standards that go above and beyond what the local governments require. let me also be clear that i believe there is a role for government to play that goes beyond oversight. that role is one of enabling and encouraging private sector growth and development. permiting is beginning to wrap -- to ramp that up in the gulf, but getting them back to previous levels will require work. we were glad to see the permits for the shell discovery be approved last month. this was the first to meet the

full fleet of regulatory requirements for preparedness, prevention, and response. that is encouraging. i am cautiously optimistic that that is a turning point in the gulf. the alaska story is much different. since 2005, the federal government has held a lease sales off the coast of that state. we participated in the sales. we paid more than $2 billion for hundreds of leases. we estimate an additional $1.50 billion to prepare an exhibition the best prepare an exploration program that meets the standards. we have yet to drill a single well. as you are aware, the government does years of analysis before deciding on a lease sale. a lease sale is an invitation from the government. it says the government wants oil and gas development. shell has been blocked by

regulatory and legal boundaries. some of the leases are now within four years of expiring. some of the leases have to do with our temporary exploration operations. these operations are miles from shore. epa has said these operations will not have an impact on human health. the delay is frustrating and disappointing. it undermines confidence in the american regulatory system. beyond that, you might call it irresponsible. thousands of men and women were counting on those jobs. local businesses were counting on the revenue. communities were counting on the tax boost. we hope to see the situation resolved quickly. i want to say that i appreciate the openness and attention that administrator lisa jackson has devoted to this issue. she is paying quite a great deal of attention to this.

there's also an impact in pipeline that connects oil wells with canadian refineries. there are additional environmental review is being conducted. this is on top of the 20 public comment meetings the agency has already conducted. the completion of the pipeline would move more than 1 million barrels of oil each day to refineries in the gulf and create jobs in the u.s.. the technology to develop oil spans did not exist 30 years ago. this is another example why is important for the u.s. to it -- u.s. to invest in energy innovation, to secure stable sources of energy. whether we are talking about oil

drilling, or alaska, the impact is similar. if we do not develop secure energy sources, we will have to get it from sources that are less secure, less stable, and less environmentally controlled. we cannot be sure where the next ball to a shift in mollusks -- in market or geopolitics will arrive, why would we want to add another layer of uncertainty to the mix. we will talk about what we know and what we don't. i have tried not to use the word solution. there is a reason for that. solution implies that the challenge is gone, finished. people use that word to apply that one or a couple of in the discourses can fix everything. we know that our energy challenges will never be "sol ved."

fitial what we have and how best to use it will always be something to aspire to. we need an approach to energy that is as the challenge. our elected leaders in washington have difficult and important work. getting it right will take a sustained, long-term commitment. the way we see it at shell, it is our job to work collaboratively with regulators to adopt the outlook that reasonable regulation are what pave the way for us to do what we need to do. it is our responsibility to be open and honest about what we know and what we don't know. it is our job to demonstrate that we can be trusted to do the right and then to do it. living up to this challenge is

something we take seriously. in a complex global world with complex global challenges, we believe the best approach is a simple one. meeting our energy needs in an efficient and responsible way should not be hard. not if we deal in facts, trust in certainty, and let what we know safeguard against what we do not know. thank you. [applause] >> why don't you stay standing? we are going to reverse. martin is going to stay at the podium. the first question is about on shore natural gas production. i am assuming you would like -- you would like to increase support of natural gas production. what you think needs to happen to bring that about in terms of addressing environmental concerns?

>> that is a great question. it is phrased as an industry question. let me tell you what we will do as a company and i hope it will be representative of what the industry will do. there have been questions surrounding natural gas development what it is fracking or emissions and so forth. all of those have good answers. they have a measurable impact. what we will do as a company and what we are working on is how to be completely transparent about that throughout our actual operations. how to measure those impacts, how to share that in a transparent fashion, how to partner with someone in that process that helps provide that data with some credibility that may not come from the company alone. that is something we are working on. i would expect us to get to an end point of that reasonably soon.

transparency is the answer to address the concern. >> there are a number of questions related to oil and gas. some of them come in the form of differentials. gas and liquids came up in some of the questions. another related question, are you overemphasizing gas over oil given the price differential? >> let me start with the last question. if you are a financial analyst, that is the question i get every day. are you emphasizing something that has a low price rather than something that has more value associated with it? express is something that we as a company has to take a long time you of, energy opportunities. this is not about what the prices next week or next year. it is about a 10, 20, 40 your

forecast. the regulations week -- it is about a 10, 20, 40 year forecast. the red hill -- the regulations we put in place will last a long time. our company is turning natural gas into a clean permanently with fuel that can be used as diesel or other transportation fuels. moving to gas and transportation fuels is something that we are exploring to understand the cost associated with that and the public of take -- uptake on that kind of option. there is a lot of talk about gas exports in the u.s..

that is a political debate that has not begun to happen yet. we are still waking up to the fact that we have these enormous energy resources in our backyards that can completely change the way we looked at energy as a country going forward. we need to finish the realization process and then have a political debate about whether exporting that is something that should happen or not. if you look at it from a pure, commercial, a global gas business perspective, is can make some sense. but we have not had the debate yet. there are lots of good uses for gas. >> what do you see as being some most -- the most promising in terms of increased production potential outside of the u.s.? >> a decent way to answer that question is to think about the places we are working around the world. that is on the order of 25

countries around the world from an upstream production process. -- upstream production standpoint. you cannot discount what is happening in north america. looking at the natural gas that is being developed here, looking at the fact that we may have something on the order of 27 billion barrels of oil and 100 trillion cubic feet of resources in the arctic and offshore in alaska. we see the same thing in brazil and australia and in the middle east. there is more development potential there. it is a widespread basis. i would be remiss if i forgot to mention the scale of the heavy oil resources that exist in canada. >> we talked a little bit about gas to liquid. what has happened to hydrogen as

a future fuel? what are your thoughts on the projects for shell oil? shale oil? >> i would think about it from a company perspective. the kind of mix we are looking at is the core business of oil and gas. it fits well with our skills. we see the ability to step into that as being one of the near term options that have the biggest impact. in the next decade, you might get something that makes a difference in the total system. that is why we are focused their. we have a careless -- a fairly substantial wind business.

we look at it from a commercial sense an from anco2 emissions of since since -- a co2 offset sense. there are things happening in seoul. i will not embark on that discussion. hydrogen is something that is still interesting. it may be part of the mix. we do research and development in hydrogen. we have demonstration filling stations spread out across the country, mostly in california. we continue to see that as a potential source four get it out into the future and probably not before then. that is more not ignored in it -- near term resource. >> will the alaska natural gas pipeline be built? >> i will stick to the

commercial side of this which is you need a strong commercial driver to connect that gas resource with the lower 48, the way the gas pipeline is proposed. with the number of resources that have been discovered recently in north america, you can see what represents quite a challenge to the commercial drivers for building the pipeline. >> a few questions related to offshore. one is in terms of what operational changes have been made since macondo and what is the outlook for the ocs in the near term and the mid to longer term that we should not underestimate the changes that have been made to the industry as a whole. >> i have read some of articles last couple of weeks of is the industry safer. hands down, things are better than they were before. there are a couple of areas in particular that i point to purify and sensitive about the subject because i think some

companies do better than others. i will not make that part of the discussion. i will talk about the changes from an industry perspective. the commitment that a number of was made shortly after the oil spill to build a containment system in the event there ever was another spill was a significant item. that is not a capability that existed before. it is a share did not exist before. we committed to build that. for the first phase of that, we are into the second phase of building and a more improve system. the regulations that have been built up around how you drill an oil well and a mechanical requirements are significant for some companies. some of those are very good changes to make. i liked the idea that when someone drills a well in the deep water of the gulf of mexico that they are at a high level of strong, well thought through regulations and standards they have to follow. i think that is a very good thing. i think the thing that also you

should pay attention to it if you are concerned about another blowout in the future is pay attention not so much to the containment capabilities, if there was oil being spilled from a well and it was caught and brought to the service and collected, but think about the ability to cap a well that had a problem. put a cap on top and shot it in and now the way that will is being drilled that it can always hold whatever pressures you could possibly see in that well. capping it is a real option for stopping a lead like that. that is the capability that we as a company, every deep water drill we drill in the world have to meet the requirement. that is a significant item that should make people feel better. >> time for one more question and this relates to where you see the potential biggest upside uncertainties in terms of supply side forces in liquids. you have biofuels, gulf of mexico, you have other offshore areas where it has not been

explored as fully and you have onshore liquids. where do you see the biggest potential for increases beyond what people already think might happen? >> there are interesting other places to look. if you are based in north america, there are other places you could explore, off the atlantic coast, further into the gulf of mexico, and those are interesting but not to underestimate the things that people of this talk about how significant those are. i am not one that uses the term energy independence at all, frankly. i don't think that is the right goal. i think secure supplies of energy are the right goals. the degree to which in north america we could impact our own supply based on exactly the resources you mentioned is so much greater than what i sense the general public understands. it is certainly greater than what the rhetoric is out there. >> with that, want to thank you

for your excellent answers to the question and your comments, thank you. [applause] >> gas prices are also a topic at this white house forum on the energy and defense department plans to develop clean energy technology. you will hear remarks from the former cia director, john deutsch and john podesta, president of the center for american progress. this is one an hour, 30 minutes. >> i would like to introduce brooke anderson. >> welcome to the white house

energy security forum. you very much for coming here today. as businesses across the country, american families are feeling the impact of higher gas prices. in an economy that relies so heavily on oil, rising gas prices affect everyone, workers and farmers, truck drivers and restaurant owners, and businesses see it impact the bottom line. families feel the pinch when they fill up their tanks. we have known about the dangers of our dependence on oil for decades. president richard nixon talked about freeing ourselves from dependence on foreign oil and politicians of every stripe have promised energy independence but that promise has so far gone on that. -- unmet. president obama has pursued a comprehensive energy policy because he believes the u.s. cannot afford to plan on a

resource that will avenge the run out and before runs out, will get more expensive to extract from the ground. we're proud of the historic progress we have made but at the same time, we run into the same political gridlock, same inertia that has held us back for decades. in his march 30 address on energy security, president obama made clear why we cannot repeat his mistake, why we cannot keep going out from energy security, rushing to propose action when gas prices rise and then heading the snooze button when they fall again. the folks on the program today know this very well and we are eager to have them join us today to discuss the national security implications of america's oil dependency. securing our energy future is critical to our military. we must transition away from a

department of defense that relies too much on fossil fuels which can create a strategic operational and tactical vulnerability for our forces. to solve this critical problem, the people in this room are working together to reduce our military dependence on oil, to better support america's security and our armed forces. by developing clean energy technologies, and getting them into the field. i am happy to welcome you here to hear about these efforts by the department of energy and defense and for a discussion with leading thinkers in this arena. to start the discussion, have the pleasure of introducing the deputy secretary of defense, bill lynn. he understands energy security through his long experience on defense issues in the private sector and that the department of defense. i will turn things over to bill, thank you.

>> we usually meet in the situation room and the lighting is much worse and it is a smaller room. bailout coffee so that is one improvement that could be made here. i want to second broke in welcoming some of the leading experts in washington and around the country in areas of energy security, john deutch, jane harman, and john podesta are all leaders in national security and energy security in particular. if you have not seen, you should look at the john deutsch and john podesta 2008 article which lays out a lot of the challenges in -- and a way ahead. also with us are the two leaders

in the department of defense and energy security, sharon burke, and dorothy robine. i will mark up their ideas with a very low retail. i would like to talk about the connection between innovation and energy technology and the projection of military power. this linkage has spent history just as the shift from wind to call revolutionized naval power in the 19th century, so, too, did the introduction of nuclear energy on submarines and aircraft carriers transform the global balance of power in the late 20th century. our mastery of energy technologies than both unable our nation to emerge as a great power and give us a strategic edge in the cold war. today, and the technology remains a critical element of our military superiority. it addressing energy needs must be a fundamental part of our military planning. our department is operating at

over -- in over 100 countries around the world. we have crews fighting in afghanistan, crews fly over libya, and relief operations under way in japan. everything we do, every mission we perform requires significant amounts of energy. 3/4 of the energy department consumes involves military operations. insuring our forces have access to that energy is not easy. our forces in afghanistan and iraq have long logistical tales. more than 70% of the convoys in afghanistan are used just for fuel or water. we all the supplies on roads laced with ied's and roads that are prone to ambush. more than 3000 troops and contractors have been killed or wounded protecting those convoys. the threat to our supply line reflects the nature of war is changing. rather than confronting our

forces have gone, our adversaries are increasingly employing asymmetric tactics and in those tactics, energy can be a soft target. whether using ied's against supply convoys or cyber attacks ended are critical infrastructure, we face a wider range of threats and must be prepared to defend against all of them. the nature of war is changing in a second way, conflict is evolving from a focus on intense but short periods of combat that ended decisively to launder more drawn-out engagements. as complex become longer in duration and more expeditionary in nature, the amount of fuel it takes to keep our forces in the field represents a significant vulnerability. we must change how we manage energy on the battlefield and tried to reduce demand at all levels of our forces. to minimize our future energy footprint, we're building energy performance parameters into our

requirement process. this includes calculating the fully burdened cost of fuel used by potential weapons systems. a new generation of military technologies that use and store energy more effectively will only emerge if we change how we do business. when it comes to that future, the navy is leaving -- leading the way. secretary mavis has made energy a priority. the navy is incorporating more efficient propulsion technology and experimenting with biofuels and other sources of alternative energy. our push for highly efficient systems also extends to the individual soldier. over the past decade, our crown forces increased their use of radius by 250% and their use of overall information technology by over 300%. accordingly, the demand for batteries has nearly doubled. today's soldiers on a 72-hour patrol in afghanistan may be

carrying 18 pounds of batteries. all this extra gear means more capable forces but it increases our reliance on energy in theater. in afghanistan, we're finding that clean energy technology is one way to lighten the load and give our troops marketability. in the 1990's, the engineers natec soldier system develops solar panels that could power a range of devices. the marines decided to deploy these panels to afghanistan last fall. the marines sent this new equipment to the heart of the fight. the regiment selected to try out the solar panels deployed to one of the most violent district in helmond province. the operational gains were immediate. marines ran two patrol base is completely on solar power and cut diesel fuel consumption and a third base by over 90%.

in 13-week foot patrol, solar panels eliminated fuel entirely, eliminating supply drops that required -- that were required every 48 hours. as this shows, our initiatives to develop new technologies provide material advantages to our troops in theater in terms of energy consumption. especially at the tactical edge, new energy technology makes air war fighters more agile allowing them to focus on the mission rather than their logistics' chain. it is important to note that energy on the battlefield is not only vulnerable in the last mile when convoys come under attack. military installations here in the u.s. provide direct operational support to troops in theater. today, the front lines extend to uav operators in the united states. if the operations are heavily

dependent on the civilian electrical grid. as a result, energy security here at home is becoming increasingly important to operations abroad. disrupting energy supplies at any point along our logistics networks undercut our ability to project force. we are taking steps to enhance the energy resiliency of our installations. the power grid that most of our installations is no more sophisticated than a large off/on switch. when the grid is under strain, everything loses power. at a marine base in the mojave desert, we are demonstrating new microcode technology. it is a system of self-generated electricity and intelligent control that can be operated independently if the commercial grid goes down micro grids to improve energy efficiency, make it easier to incorporate solar and wind power, and ensure power can be directed to facilities that need it most.

most importantly, they reduce the vulnerability of our power supplies to disruption. energy is also important to the department as a budget item. our military consumes more energy than is used by 2/3 of all nations on earth. we account for 80% of the federal government's energy use and about 1% of consumption nationwide. our energy bills are already in the tens of billions of dollars. with increasing volatility in energy markets and a tightening of global supplies, our expenditures on gasoline alone are up 225% from just a decade ago. any step that we can take to lower our energy use will bring immediate benefit to the resources we are able to provide for other war-fighting properties. in short, dod needs to address energy as a military planning challenge. supply is limited.

cost is increasing and with the changing nature of war, our current energy technology is not optimized for the battlefield of today or tomorrow. to remedy this, we are renewing our partnership with the department of energy. we have signed a memorandum of understanding. this memorandum launched a committee of leaders from both departments to spur investments and technologies and foster program -- programmatic cooperation. already we are working on micro grids, alternative fuels, batteries, and energy storage. in the coming years, our collaboration will grow targeting energy reliability and installations and strike capability in operations. the key to this partnership is focusing the unique knowledge on meeting defense requirements. by taking technologies from labs to the battlefield, the department of energy can enroll its scientific ingenuity in the

service of our most important national mission, national security. innovative energy technology can increase the operational effectiveness of our forces and our department can use its size to leverage technological development. of different energy technologies. by serving as a sophisticated first user and early user, the military can jump-start their broader commercial -- commercial adoption just as we have done a jet engines, high-performance computing, and the internet. by combining doe technologies combining dod innovations, we can achieve a payoff that extends beyond the defense sector. under the continued leadership of president obama and with the industry's health, our partnership can transform how this nation develops and uses clean technology laying the foundation for a future that is both cleaner and more secure. i am now delighted to yield the

floor to my good friend and colleague, the deputy secretary of energy. [laughter] [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much, bill for that kind introduction. i am also delighted to be here and join my old friend and colleague brooke anderson. thank you for organizing this event and i am honored to be joined by distinguished americans who have already contributed so much. john deutch was in the jimmy carter administration and had a senior role and he later served in the position with bill lynn. jane harman it is in -- was in the house of representatives and john podesta is at the white house. it is an honor to be with you. our national economic and

environmental security obviously deeply depends upon the energy resources that power our economy and armed forces. as we are all aware and as deputy secretary lynn made clear, our economy and military are deeply dependent on petroleum and petroleum derivative products making our country vulnerable, too vulnerable to price spikes in the global oil market. the crisis in libya is only the latest of a series of reminders that offer a vivid picture of how our own energy security can be affected by political events and forces outside of our control. the president has made clear that there is no silver bullet to free ourselves from excess of oil dependency or to bring down the cost in a short term, there are a number of important steps we can take that we must take, indeed that we're already taking, that will help protect

our armed forces, help protect america's families and businesses from price spikes in the future. as president obama has made clear, our long term energy security demands that we take aggressive actions to reduce our dependence on imported oil. this means increasing our domestic energy resources, improving the efficiency of our vehicles, ships, and aircraft, and finding new ways to power them. the department of energy and the department of defense have both been at the forefront of this country's efforts to develop advanced energy technologies that will be essential in meeting our energy challenges. in fact, the leadership of secretary gates and deputy secretary lynn, the military has already taken on president steps to diversify its fuel supply and reduce energy use including secretary mavis' visionary goal of requiring the military to

obtain 50% of their energy by 2020. it is billions of dollars of savings. there was announced just last week by the army that more than 20 installations nationwide will be piloting net zero facilities, consuming only as much energy and water as they produce and will eliminate solid waste going to landfills. the strategic partnership that deputy secretary lynn and i loss last year between our two departments build on the progress already under way in our armed forces and laboratories. both departments have put full shoulder to the wheel. it leverages each agency's strengths to accelerate clean energy innovation and help meet the president's energy goals. as you may know, the department of energy is already the nation's largest funder of the physical science in terms of basic science research and

development. through our national laboratory system, the department brings tremendous scientific expertise to bear across the whole portfolio of national energy and scientific priorities. coupled with the scale of the defense department's operations and its potential to act as a test bed for innovative technologies, this partnership is a crucial vehicle to strengthen our national security and to build a clean energy economy for america. to date, joint projects under the memorandum of understanding have been primarily focused on three areas -- first, advancing mobility and strike capability which includes reducing the military's dependence on oil, second, increasing energy reliability and efficiency of dod fixed and for operating capabilities, and further institutional cooperation between the departments which includes stationing department of energy advisors among the combatant commands to deploy

their experience, implementing education and training programs to develop energy education programs through each service. in order to help reduce the department of defense's dependence on oil, we are working together to develop next-generation drop in biofuels and advance fleet technologies like electric vehicles that will diversify our fuel supply options, cut pollution, and enable us to power our vehicles, ships, and aircraft without requiring the dangerous fuel convoys that were just describing to drive through war zones to reach the war fighters. these technologies will create new jobs here in the united states, help reduce oil imports, and enable our military to power our vehicles and aircraft with homegrown resources. commercializing these technologies remains a major challenge for the advanced biofuels industry. while the government cannot and should not be responsible for

single-handedly driving product demand, it can act as an important catalyst for the market. as deputy secretary lynn mentioned, the broad scope of the defense department provides opportunities to test new innovative technologies and jump-start their commercial deployment. for example, in 2009, the defense department accounted for nearly 2% of all u.s. petroleum use. that may not sound like much but for a small biofuel refinery, the market that comes with 300,000 barrels of oil consumed per day can beat a game changer. it is this type of ongoing partnership between our two departments, lever doe in novation to dod operation requirements that will grow between energy economy in the u.s. and strengthen our national security. the second focus of our partnership centers on improving the energy efficiency of our military bases and installations. you heard the deputy secretary

discuss the importance that the military attaches to micro grid technologies. to help advance these projects come doe and dod are jointly funding three projects known as spiders or smart power infrastructure demonstration for energy reliability and security. we are good at acronyms, apparently. these projects will demonstrate smart, secure, and reliable mike: grid technology -- micro grid technology across the spectrum. the department of defense also has over 307,000 buildings with over 2.2 billion square feet of space under roof. that is more than 12 times the square footage of all the gsa buildings for the rest of the

federal gcombined. they enormous opportunities to achieve energy and cost savings in these facilities. under the recovery act, the department energy provided technical assistance and energy audits for nearly 70 military projects nationwide. through these projects, our teams identified more than 200 energy compass age -- conservation measures that could be implemented to save more than $3 trillion british thermal units of energy per year and cut the department's energy bills by $15 million per year. this is not just efficiency for efficiency's sake, rather, by reducing energy wasting our facilities, we can improve the ratio for our armed forces. instead of putting more money into power in our facilities, will be able to put more our limited resources into the sharp end of the spear. we will be able to build the leanest, meanest, most energy efficient fighting machine in the world. we all know that our nation is

facing significant energy and security challenges. through the kinds of partnerships that we're discussing today, after the commitment of the president, our secretaries, and the efforts of so many of you here who are joining us today, we will be able to achieve our clean energy goals, strengthen our national security, and grow america's economy in the years and decades ahead. thank you. [applause] >> bar with that, like to -- with that, would like to invite our distinguished guests up to the table.

>> i would now like to turn things over to our panelists to make some brief remarks and then we will open up for questions and discussion. our first panelist to speak is -- has unique and deep experience in energy and also national security issues. and the play as were those two issues made. this is jane harman. >> thank you and good morning everyone. i think it was invited here because i am a survivor. i serve 17 years in the united states congress which in dog years is 119 years and i am still alive. that gives me some insight, perhaps, into congress and their unfortunate inability to be a

major player on energy conflict -- conservation and efficiency. if ever there was a time, this is the time to fulfill the promise of every president since richard nixon. to help us with energy independence. i served on the energy subcommittee of the energy in commerce committee for some years. i helped author the landmark legislation on a light bulb efficiency. you would think that what we need in this congress is bipartisan legislation to retire the 100 year old incandescent light bulb that sheds more heat than light. 90% heat, a 10% congress, just like congress. you would think we would want to transition to modern incandescent light bulbs and

save tons and tons of energy. we did that. we passed that in 2007. george bush signed the bill into law at the energy department, as i recall, and now the mantra of the tea party is to repeal that law because it is big brother somehow forcing industry which supported pilaf to change to something that will somehow cut american jobs, not true. it will build american jobs. that is a small example of congress not working. to be brief, what do i think of the opportunities now, especially in light of this mou between dod and doe and the major efforts to move to a much more efficient fighting force, more efficient installations, and the promotion of innovation? i think the efforts of our that people in light of high class -- gas prices are going to change their own behavior.

finally, again, there is political will to do things differently and so i think that regardless of congress, there will be popular support for initiatives that will be taken either by the executive branch or by state governments to make us more energy efficient. let's observe that and applaud that. yes, i support federal funding for npr. there was a piece about how ford remain itself into a modern productive company and people are buying the more fuel- efficient vehicles in droves. the other opportunity is for dod to lead once more. let's remember that dod has been at the forefront of all the major cultural changes in our country there were at the forefront of racial integration there were forced a little bit by harry truman and there were at the forefront recently of the

repeal, finally, of the unconstitutional don't ask, don't tell law. that was led by president obama. they were at the forefront of moving past one of the obstacles to true equality in our society. given those two achievements, it should be a lot easier for dod to lead on this issue. i suggest that all the reforms going on are appropriate. i would urge one more. i assume that dod has the largest fleet of vehicles by one single owner in the country, perhaps in the world and wouldn't it be nice if by some form of administrative action, every single vehicle over some short period of time had to be a fuel-efficient vehicle? i can just imagine how much difference that would make.

we don't have to pick one winner. electric vehicles, those that would run on any form of biofuel, hybrid vehicles, pick a number of them -- dod can drive innovation for those vehicles and it can be as a mass producer the place that drives efficient production which makes all those vehicles more available at an affordable cost for the public which now wants to buy those vehicles. all of this i think is a win- win. only loser, sadly, is the united states congress which is at the back of the line. hopefully, soon, the public will also be involved in demanding opprobrium by partisanship out of our congress, a place like the wilson center is trying and i think other of these major

thoughtful out that in this town are trying to urge that to happen. i just can't wait, thank you. [applause] >> i would like to turn things over to mit professor john deutch who has a long and distinguished career working on energy and security issues, thank you. >> thank you very much, brokers. ok. energy security is a word that reminds us that import and domestic energy developments have international consequences and important international events have a board domestic consequences. the nuclear accident in japan affects the outlook for nuclear power everywhere in the world. depending on oil imports, constrains our foreign policy options if the united states and its allies. shale gas presents a challenge

domestically but as international consequences by increasing the supply of natural gas throughout the world. of course, climate change remains the subject which is going to bring the greatest tension between the north, the south, and the years ahead there's a reason to salute bill lynn and dan ponaman to promote the president's energy initiative and we should all in the public welcome the places where different executive branch agencies cooperate and here is an excellent example the overriding objective to this effort should be to reduce the religious the burden of providing energy to u.s. military forces in peacetime and in conflict situations. success in that enterprise has the potential for having big

benefits for the private and commercial sector. i want to mention a couple places where i think the opportunities are greatest in the near term and where we in the public should be measuring the progress of dod and doe in this exciting adventure. energy management for dod facilities and operations is a tremendous place to save money and to reduce the logistic urgent -- burden of our activities. the department of energy's efficiency and renewable energy programs can be used here for more efficient building design and operation, integrating buildings and bases and manage that -- and management for those bases in one integrated manner, experimenting with plug-in hybrid electric vehicles at, and

compressed -- and compressed gas vehicles. it is very important that these different activities get documented because it is in that way that the value will be spread to the private sector. we have also heard the opportunities to support deployed operations and the projects that are taking place. in doing that, we have to remember that the principal for deployed operations, the principal concern has to remain the security of our forces, self protection of our forces, and the fact that individuals in the field are men, women, in uniform and they are heavily overworked and there will be little opportunity to experiment with different things so we have to be selected. fortunately, the department of defense has two very able officials in sharon burke and dorothy robine to pursue these activities and i am optimistic.

let me say something about the longer-term opportunities for cooperation which are in the technology area. i would highlight the areas of batteries, a place where technical advances will have tremendous positive effect for the military and the private sector. i don't carry 18 pounds of batteries by kerry a lot around and rather it be less. fuel cells is another place. i would also mention alternative fuels in research and development whether it is fuel from cellulose biomass, natural gas converted to liquid, or whether it is fuel from algae or other sources. it is very important that of both -- that the department working with doe enables people

to do this. hopefully they will push the r &d and the focus should be on technology options rather than moving to "harry's law late -- to hurriedly sustainable fuel spurtls. i think a joint project office should be established by the department of defense and the department of energy. i believe the project office should have a budget set by the distinguished tiberi -- deputy secretary of these departments and put into place a process for selecting among very many different options available so one doesn't spread the effort to i believe milestones should be set for this project so that

we the public can see how well we are making progress. i close by saying that i know u.s. industry and u.s. universities are eager to participate and support this venture. it is a privilege to be here with you this morning. thank you very much [applause] . >> i would now like to turn to one of our leading thinkers and instigators for creative approaches to energy security, the president of the center for american progress, john podesta. >> thank you and it is good to be here and i appreciate the invitation. a lot has been said by both secretaries. i would add a couple of points to the security challenge that the country faces. secretary lynn went through in good detail from the perspective of the department of defense the security challenge but the economic security challenge has

national security implications as well. we spent $1 billion per day on imported oil which is nearly half of our trade deficit and will be more than half by the time we are done this year. before libya, 20% of our oil was coming from states -- from countries that the state department classified as either dangerous or unstable. it should come as no particular shock that in one of those places events would happen that would likely cause the price of oil to spike. secretary lynn laid out in good detail the tactical security questions on the war fighters. it bears repeating -- the fact that our war fighters are lugging around 18-30 pounds of

batteries in afghanistan for 72 hours has its own operational of fact and it is something that needs to be attended to. i would really commend the secretary for his program and i am trying to answer the challenge. blending the expertise of the two departments, the innovation and the emphasis on new technology that comes from the department of energy and the operational requirements of the department of defense and the ability to be able to be a first purchaser of some of these technologies that will never get off the market in the commercial end but the operational requirements dod has provides a place that the high-performance new technologies can really find their place and their market.

i would like to add a couple of points to what has already been said about how to think about this and how this program can be even ramped up to a higher level. the center for american progress has been thinking about the energy security challenge. we have a focus on a mantra of the fact that we need to build markets and give companies access to financing and we need to extend u.s. clean energy infrastructure. this program applies in all three ways. with respect to building markets, there has been a good deal of discussion already this morning about the ability to go through the procurement process through advance purchase, to be able to take in new technologies, particularly in the biofuels arena. i have spent some of my time and

other kinds of advanced technologies which is a direct expression of hydrocarbons from microorganisms. there is a suite of investments being made by the doe that have applicability. seeking those programs as secretary of mavis has done with doe is a promising aspect. the one thing i would note is that the best logistics agency can only provide five-year forward contracts. one of the places that legislation is pending on the hill is to extend that to a 10- year period. the potential to develop new markets particularly for the new technologies is something that is worth looking at and gaining the support of the of ministration for. with the respect of financing, doe has the lion's share of the

role in terms of providing loan guarantees to companies that are trying to come up with breakthrough products. there are issues in the law about whether companies with long counties can then use those loan guarantees to centrally service -- whether companies with loan guarantees can use those loan guarantees to centrally service the government. access to dod programs is the opportunities for companies to find stable financing in the private sector and can bring not just government money and taxpayer money to the table but a good deal of private sector money as well. with respect to expanding u.s. clean energy infrastructure, a good deal has been said already about the environment and using the newest and most efficient

buildinggies in the dod -- in that area and building efficiency. one place that my colleagues at the center have focused on that has perhaps gone less attention is at the air force with respect to using airplane hangars as a source of installation for solar technology. i recommend that to you. we have found there could be tremendous savings from retrofitting u.s. air force airplane hangars to provide savings in that area. the other thing i think is important is to think about the energy infrastructure as an opportunity to think -- to have dod think about its need to

invest in the defense base. if you think about energy in that context, taking the lessons for mantech program, creating the work force and technology and innovation flows in manufacturing and applying those in the energy i read that would be a very useful place for collaboration between sharon and her team at and theydoe team. [applause] >> thank you. we would like to open it up for your questions or comments. a rumor that there would be microphones, yes, we have them. raise your hand if you have a question or comment and we will bring a microphone to you. right there. please identify yourself.

>> i am gordon davidson with davis and energy group. we have one side on the commercial side, the possibility of loan guarantees to private companies. on the early stages side, we haverpe darp and so on. there's a gap in there. some people call up the cash flow of valley of death. the point is getting technologies into pilot demonstration size which are pretty costly if you're talking about reduction technology. i would be interested in the panel's thoughts on how to bridge that gap. >> i'm sure there will be comment. we often think of two valleys of death. traditionally, the department of energy has invested in the early stage when there are so many -- sunny dozens of quarters of earnings, it is not reasonable

to expect shareholders to be that patient. the classic example we have looked at lately in shale gas, is in the late 1970's, we invested was assisted on million dollars. -- we invested $169 million. the industry had zero interest. now, after those initial investments, you can get angel investors and first round and private equity to come in. in the loan guarantee place, you have the second valley of death for you have demonstrated technology but you have not been able to bring it to a scale where you can get the kind of market that will then allow the company to grow and prosper. this is rendered more acute by

two factors. in the case we have been promoting under some of our loan guarantee programs, without a price on carbon, it has been hard for many of those projects to get financed. following the big credit crunch of 2008,the loans are at a link to get a pay back in 25 years and that has been hard to death. we have used that program in that gap. the very early stage place where we have made our traditional grant proposals is more at the front end that the great innovation a rpe has come to the floor. it was rather modest investments but changed the whole metaphor for the kind of paradigm we are using. john podesta to refer to are electro-fuels program.

some of these things are still way out there. we are using the traditional grants program by rpe and research centers to address some of those challenges. some of these issues where you have a big energy problem has crosscuting currents and it is not always easy to break through the stovepipes. that is where the secretary of energy, setve chu has put these hubs. we think of an injured disciplinary team of a great skill and great duration -- we think of an interdisciplinary team of great skill and great duration. >> the problem of transferring good research ideas into programs of record is not unique to the energy area. it is a challenge for everything

we do. the path in the energy area is probably stronger than in most other area. it derives from the operational utility of improved energy efficiency in the field, in afghanistan and that is being demonstrated. that demonstrates a pull from the operational for -- operations and that jump the gap between research and production. pull is the -- the other pull is the $15 billion we spend per year. to the san wycombe reduce the growth, there's a real return on that. -- that generate p strongull the

polls across that gap dod perspective. that gap is definitely there and you have to manage it. >> i agree with that. from my experience representing a district that i call the satellite center of the universe, i have seen the gaps you're talking about i also think we already have done a lot of the major work on some of the energy savers that have immediate applications like solar. the defense makers have perfected the use of solar power in space. applying a commercially is something they know how to do well. they're not the only people who know how to do this but i thought it was interesting to hear stories about how it is being supplied on a mobile bases in the field.

there was an effort in canada are to provide -- kan indahin k to provide cell towers and there were powered by solar power. we already know how to do this to some extent. creating a mass market that is necessary to help many of you in the private sector to produce this stuff at an efficient cost will get not only the defense department and the government in this game beget more private- sector in the game. i think we are very close if we can't just work together -- if we can't just work together and make sensible moves now to crossing the threshold that will save money, save lives, reduce the deficit, let's remember that, we will cut defense spending in wise ways.

if we can't vote could -- if we can cut defense energy use, that will be a wise way. >> let me just say a couple of things. there are bipartisan proposals on the hill to provide greater financing support to the form of multi-windowed green financing facilities. i think that would help in direct answer to your question. from the perspective mo of thi mo thisu is that the joint management of this program could give a strategic direction to the investment dod will make based on their requirements that will provide the platform for companies to go out and raise private sector funding through

advance procurement and other demonstrations. it is across the field we have been discussing like technology and suite of technology we have been discussing verydod plays an important role in being a consumer that can provide the basis to give those companies the ability to raise private capital and debit -- and get out into the market and make a place on the commercial side. >> other questions? in the front. >> sherri goodman,cna. thank you for your leader dod of in and doe. john deutch as my former boss. thank you for your leadership,

both of you. this is a critical area where i think we have a unique opportunity. beckoned build on work that we have already talked about. it as well been put in place. john, you recall a do or atd you want to extend into the demonstration phase environment and energy technology programs that have been established by a senator nunn. dan, you talked about the funding mechanisms do in thee and i think there is a mechanism to better align perhaps under a joint program, the later stage funding getting beyond the early r &d stage which could have support from the congressional bipartisan effort that is

working its way through congress now. there are some republican co- sponsors. who could support and championed these efforts to better align the defense needs. it could be the signal for the energy in the field. this will be important to help stage these efforts in the increasingly challenged climate.

>> i would just make two kinds of comments. one of my former mentors also appear on the stage, john deutsche used that he wants always tell me if you don't measure it, you don't manage it. so some has that he wants do with measuring things. so we have done a lot of work and it applies equally well with our work at the pentagon because they have over 300,000 buildings.

that energy audits. if you have an energy audit inspection that will at least tell you what you're losing for example by various inefficiencies particularly important in this country where as china and india are building 250 million structures for people who do not yet exist over the next quarter century we have tremendous existing stock. so if we can start that he wants build in those kinds of measurement tools, now i've got a predicate upon which i can finance a modest investment in a much more efficient home energy weatherization efforts which might seem like a lot of out-of-pocket expenses a couple thousand bucks that he wants somebody looking at a tough economic situation but if it's on your mortgage, that's the kind of thing that we can do institutionly. that's point one. point two it is i think still important for us that he wants put goals and i think the president is very articulate tat state of the union if we can double the amount of clean

energy we get between now and 2035 that's a driver. and that he wants the extent it is expressed through legislation and senators bingman and murkouse can i put out a questionnaire and they are taking data in, that can give us an achieveable yet ambitious goal that will help drive us and investments in that he wants the extent that there are congressional mandates. obviously things like the cafe standards have been phenomenally successful at getting us to be more efficient in a way that does bring in support from industry and most recently the georgetown speech when the president asked for us that he wants lower our oil import bills by a third by 2025, all of these things by setting a target then have a cascading effect on other things that can be done that he wants make sure that we're making the kinds of investments in energy and that we're having policy and regulatory tools employed that he wants support those overarching objectives that can help us achieve that

goal. >> any other comments or shall we move on? >> can i just add one thing just that he wants kind of tweak you. one of your competitors, northrup grummond also located in my former district, has made a huge deal about reducing the energy footprint of its facilities. i'm not saying ratesdz i don't know has not. but with gigantic satellite phase and other energy consuming facilitieses you have opportunities that he wants change the way you like them, you heat them. and how they're insulated et cetera. and you can be a good neighbor or a better neighbor wherever you are located a, which is in many parts of this country and the world. and if you do that, you reduce your own cost which is presumably increases your competitiveness. and so i would just put that out there as another thing you might consider. >> i just follow up. i think what bill said, which

is that building in at the front end of the procurement process, the requirements for the full life cycle of the system is really critical. that's really what's going that he wants make a huge difference. i think that he wants the point of setting goals, i think the very aggressive goals particularly set by all the services but particularly by secretary maves and the navy ought that he wants indicate that he wants the people who are working in those procurement environments what the sneave likely that he wants look like in 2016 and 2020 and begin that he wants think about how do you meet those extremely aggressive requirements that he wants back out so much dependence particularly on oil, and think about that from a development perspective. so i think that's a very exciting development and it just needs that he wants be pushed through i think that he wants conclusion and fruition

under your leadership. so i commend you for that. >> ok. let's take a question here. will you? yes. and then we'll go there and then we'll go here. >> i'm on assignment at the u.s. state department at the moment as a jefferson fellow. i'm at puru in new york city. thank you professor for mentioning your new recipes and their role. my question is related that he wants state and local governments all around the world. not just in the united states. but energy policies made at the state and local levels in many parts of the world. and how can d.o.d. and dough encourage -- z.o.e. encourage the local governments in terms of having lowell and state

energy policies which have overall energy consumption? >> there are a couple of things. we had a recent experience in this field under the recovery act which under which the department of energy was entrusted with over $30 billion of taxpayer money significant portions of that went directly that he wants the states that he wants support state energy programs. we also had community block grants. and these were for precisely the kind of investments you want that he wants make in weatherization and so forth that would help give frankly a strong incentive for communities that he wants do that. that's point one. point two, if you look at our continuing efforts competitions we've had under rpe, many of them have state and local participants. so for the government at the

level of presidential policy and secretary chu that he wants sort of set the goal on the opposite shore and then have a specific programs where those participants who can come up that he wants speck, i had the opportunity that he wants travel with the senator up that he wants new hampshire and it was see a scene out of it's a wonderful life. it's a high school fueled by solar panels the local bank was invested in it. it was a matter we essentially

come with our own market. and if we can pine near these things they can then be transferred that he wants commercial use and then that starts that he wants address the broader national security

issues that john poddesta raised about reducing the deficit, on suppliers who don't have our best interest in mind and so on. [inaudible] >> national -- >> why don't we take a question there in the third row. >> michael moynihan, director of the initiative. in the 20th century a number of decades ago with the goal of increasing the resilience of communitiesications the defense department undertook investments in the internet which ended up achieving those goals and also yielding very substantial benefits economically domestically as well as what was intended originally on the communications side. and u.s. companies have gone on that he wants be leaders and the internet is probably played a major role in u.s. leadership in information technologies. in the case of electric, we

have a situation today where the structure of the industry probably resembles that he wants some extent the old communication system. it's centralized tends that he wants be top down and doesn't have that distributional resilience built in. i wonder if anyone could comment on perhaps the parallels of whether it might make sense through these microgrids that secretary's alluded that he wants and other innovative technologies how resilience on the electricity side could end up having economic benefits for u.s. clean energy companies and others. thanks. >> well, that's of course the promise. and i think that the other thing that characterized telecommunications system of sort of the 1960s and through the almost breakup of at&t was the limited rd that was going in the life cycle of new

products that were coming into the market. and that rapidly changed when the system opened up, if you will, created an open architecture. and you saw the dinism of the ability of having that cascading effect of new innovation, new information, opening up the communications grid that he wants innovation, if you will, at the edge. that is what has that he wants happen i think in energy. and can happen. but that will probably take policy at both the national and particularly at the state level that he wants open the opportunity up for innovation that he wants be fully integrated into that sort of grid. but i think that's the promise of a revolution in energy technology. >> ok. here that he wants the front.

>> fred. i run an independent natural gas exploration company in the rockies. the energy secretary pointed out that in the early 80's there was a lot of work being done and research, coal bed methane initially on horizontal drilling and fracturing. i participated with that with you all and it had wonderful results. in fact it had results so wonderful that many people and i'm afraid maybe most people here do not recognize you've won the war. you have, you talk about who secures energy will win the war. you secured the energy. shale gas, the amount of shale gas that we discovered is immense. it's -- i can't tell you how much there is. you can -- i believe and i'm sure that john deutsche will disagree that he wants some extent i'm not sure about mr. poddesta.

you can run the world now off gas. you can do away with nuclear and coal and run the world off gas and emergent renewables. renewables and gas are complementary as ferk german wellinghauf points out they are complementry not antithetical. and we can drill gas and produce it with new technologies so the leaks are held that he wants 1/10 of 1%. and which means that you can clear with efficient built systems you can win the carbon war. you can beat climate change and keep the count down that he wants 250 by 2050. you've won the war. my proposition, i ask you that he wants say if you've got almost unlimited amount of gas, what are you going that he wants do with it? are you going that he wants recognize it and use it? how much redundancy of other types of fuels do we need? but this is a transformational event and it needs that he wants be recognized. >> i think everybody is going

that he wants want that he wants chime in so i will be brief. first, it is transformational and the opening remarks that john deutsche made about how the domestic affect it is international vice versa really rings true here. think about how every winter we used that he wants read stories in the press about how pipeline issues were causing issues across central europe. so your premise we broadly agree with point one. point two, as our energy information administration has just shown, the kind of discoveries of the resource internationally are now also adding another 600 tcf or something on that order of magnitude. so point one. the opportunity is great. point two as the president made clear at georgetown at the same time we have that he wants be very smart and careful about how we develop the resource. and of course john deutsche will be speaking more that he wants that because the secretaries of energy's advisory board together with the department, department of

interior and e.p.a. are going that he wants be working on that aspect. the third point is the point about energy security that he wants me in many respects is talking about diverse if iication. and i think we still believe in a need for a broad portfolio approach that he wants the future and not putting all of our eggs in any one basket, even a very large basket. and therefore we do see the continued need that he wants look for generation of low carbon, the nuclear option, taking full account of the lessons we're learning. and coal, if you look at india and china and therefore carbon capture seckstration is part of a long term strategy is going that he wants be important. but i know others want that he wants speak. >> i would add just a couple of words, which is that there still needs that he wants be, there's still an area where the problem's not solved. innovation needs that he wants happen.

and in part i think that is on the set of questions that dan raised about the careful development of those supplies. but in part it's also on the end use side of the use of natural gas. so if it's going that he wants actually be a replacement fuel for oil, there still is a tremendous amount of capacity i think rpe is now focused on this that he wants some extent of thinking about where those innovation ks take place, whether that's in using natural gas as a precurser that he wants chemicals, whether it's in using natural gas as a substitute for liquid fuel or whether it's using natural gas as essentially a feed stock for liquid fuel. so there's still work that needs that he wants be done and i think both these departments have important role that he wants play in that. >> my firms, there's enough gas that he wants convert the liquids that he wants supply the chemical industry and do

baseload generation. the other thing is the oil and gas industry, my industry needs that he wants change its cultures and have its standards and become the most noble trust worthy friendly accept yabbling industry on earth and we have a long way that he wants do that. >> i'm sure there's votes for that. >> we have question in the back. >> you have a co2 issue there. >> this will be the last question. >> paul with boeing energy. i would like that he wants thank the white house for hosting this event today. i appreciate the opportunity that he wants have this leadership in front of us. there's a lot of challenges facing the military and i think that if the pots of money that are considered for the funding of these projects, which don't exist now, and the fact that the investment comes from a source that doesn't then

realize the savings. and you have a disconnect. and that's where i think the white house and the leadership and the osd can weigh in and create a situation that recognizes this so that the investment that may not come back in two or three years but comes back in five or ten years for a building that's going that he wants exist for 250 years can -- 50 years can get implemented and right now you have the service combsplementing ned zero bases and no funding. no funding. it's all totally reliant on the private sector and the private sector has that he wants go that he wants market that he wants get those funds and yet the military is prohibited right now from building installations for power because number one there's no priority given in the funding for security. at all. none. for energy efficiency reducing greenhouse gases, yes.

but security, no. and that funding is reliant on the ability that he wants sign long-term contracts with the military and omb scoring issues prohibit the military from doing that. and if there's one thing that this administration could fix, it's the policy issue regarding scoring of energy, renubble energy products on military installations that he wants allow the military that he wants lead. like the energy leadership here in this room dr. robine, sharonburg, richard kid, dr. sharon guise, they're all here. they will do it. and the industry is ready that he wants come back and help do it. but you've got that he wants get rid of this impedment or it captain be done. we just can't do it. we could power the government just by burning the federal laws regulations and executive orders for at least a year.

on energy. so last but not least mr. poddesta if you come down that he wants charleston, senator kerry south carolina you will get that he wants the 12 -- solar 787 plant that will provide most of the power for the plant. >> i will take that as an invitation. >> let me say, a couple of things. if you can solve for me the two issues you mentioned the o.m.b. scoring and i guess the other i think was congressional restrictions on what kind of power or what we're allowed that he wants do in the power industry, that would be terrific. that would certainly ease our lives. what we are trying that he wants do is put in a mix of centralized funding and scommonent level funding so that, for instance, we funded at a centralized level the installation test bed that he

wants test out these various technologies because no individual component is going that he wants make the multi-year investment that it takes that he wants develop these technologies and then test them. but once you have them, the return is quite, comes quite quickly. so the incentives for a component that he wants be more energy efficient in its installations, in its buildings pays back very quickly. and so what we're trying that he wants do is get the centralized funding in a position where it primes the pump for the components that he wants then utilize those technologies that he wants reduce their costs reduce their energy consumption. the broader issues that you mention are substantial and they have that he wants be tackled. but it's beyond one department that he wants do that. >> >> any other comments? ok. we will close with a question that came in via face book.

transport ts biggest use of fossil fuel products in the u.s. and probably the world. what are you doing that he wants mitigate that? >> it's from eric and it came in through facebook. he said transport is the biggest use of fossil fuel products in the united states and probably the world. what are you doing that he wants mitigate that? so a broad question that we can end on. >> well, a number of things. and again the president has spoken clearly on to this. number one, by dropping our imporlts by a third and making rule for hopefully ultimately drop in biofuels, that's going that he wants be a very important part of the equation and indeed this partnership we

hope can provide some of the driving force in that direction. number two the electric if iication of our vehicle fleet we have taken a very diversified approach that he wants that we invested $5.9 billion in the ford full suite of vehicles for improvements on their internal combugs engine on the theory that a modest improvement would have a significant effect and it has as jane harman has noted all the way over that he wants the full electric vehicles of test line on the niecen leaf and hybrid in between. so we're investing in electric vehicles. the president has announced an objective of 1 million by 2015. so the whole suite of things we are doing in terms of everything from enhancing domestic ploducks, responsibly of course of oil and gas resource that is will reduce the import use on that. the increasing use of biofuels and the research that you've

heard described earlier today, whether it's in terms of the electric fuels or advanced cellulosic or algae fuels. that whole sweet is all directed that he wants shifting the transportation fleet of the united states off of its current path of excessive dependence on imported oil. the last thing i would say is that he wants think about and i agree with the point john was making earlier, need that he wants think in an overall systems approach. obviously the critical issue is how you need that he wants power the fleet that's why you need this broad portfolio approach so that we're obviously no longer relying on oil as we used to decades ago but in time we're going that he wants have that he wants reduce the reliance on things that have as high a greenhouse profile starting with coal but as john indicated even as we move that he wants gas combined cycled plants for peaking that that he wants in time will have

that he wants get the carbon capture piece going as well. >> fill in any final words. >> well, clearly i mean transportation is a critical part of our efforts that he wants reduce our dependence on energy, whether it's the direct operations of the of our military forces or probably even more importantly it's the trancetation of the fuel from its source that he wants the operations in afghanistan exposes the forces that he wants enormous vulnerability. so every step that we can take that he wants reduce that is a critical step in the plan. >> i want that he wants endorse that. and the comment that john made about energy security being huge piece of our national security. let's keep that in mind. on transportation, not just d.o.d. centric, my former district has former major refineries in it.

one of them is a shench refinery el seg understoodo where much of the industry is based is named because it is the second shevron refinery in california and almost everything that's refined goes into cars in the neighborhood which have one driver in them and no path jers. so let's understand the way america moves is as energy inefficient and as energy insecure as it possibly could be. and so a gol -- and we have apparently more vehicles in this country than we have people with drivers licenses so if we could focus on that a bit and think about the advantages that he wants our country of things like high speed rail which was zeroed in the cr that congress just passed for this fiscal year, i would hope that high gas prices would fuel popular outrage at some of these inaction and we would change the way we fund and the

amount that we fund mass transit in this country. and just finally my point about the d.o.d. transportation fleet is it can change the culture in this country. it can be a mass driver pun intended of the people in our military but it also can create the mass markets necessary that he wants lower the cost of more efficient vehicles for everybody else who hopefully will drive in the same vehicle on h.o.v. lanes and contribute that he wants energy security. >> thank you. john. >> well, on the transportation issue specifically, i think the two most important things are vehicle efficiency and completing the rules that are now in the planning phase on the next phase the president has already done one. but completely the rules and getting 60 mile per gallon fleet vehicle standards in place for the early 2020s is probably the most critical followed by the new truck rules

that he wants provide more efficientsy in truck engines. fuels. we already talked about that. shifting that he wants electric city in the passenger vehicle sector and perhaps natural gas in the fleet sector. and then that he wants follow up on what jane said, southern california is probably not the model for land use planning but i think if we could make better investments in the if you surface transportation bill on public transport that i think is another place where there's tremendous capacity in the mid term that he wants save fuel that he wants reduce the price that consumers are paying that he wants move from one place that he wants another and that he wants improve budgets for individual families and that he wants create the right platform

for a stronger security for our country. >> now i will show how wise i am and give john the last word. >> thank you, madam chairman. i want that he wants make -- i will close on some remarks on transportation. first of all, whatever we do with respect that he wants the use of liquid petroleum products for transportation, it's going that he wants be modest compared that he wants what china does and other rapidly growing developing countries in asia. so on a world basis, what's going on in india and china with respect that he wants petroleum demand is much more severe than the united states. what determines transportation demand in the united states are basically three things. one is population growth. people don't realize our driving age population scoring at 1% per year and they want that he wants be in cars at least as much as podea is.

second, economic growth. well, it's a small car. >> economic growth, if we have the pleasure of economic growth? this country and we're going that he wants be using more gasoline,. and finally it's the price of the gasoline. so i filled up my car with gasoline yesterday and it cost me about $60. i was completely stunned by this. but it made me think i'm going that he wants have that he wants do something about how much i drive. but in the long run, it is only going that he wants be if we shift that he wants another source of energy. and in the near term it's certainly natural gas for automotive use whether it's in compressed natural gas or gas that he wants liquids. it's going that he wants be biofuels from cellulosic biomass and it's going that he wants be plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles. if we go down that path and the price of gasoline remains high, i believe that over the next couple of decades we will see a

very sharp decline in our use of petroleum for transportation. our problem is that he wants make sure that others in the world do that as well. >> thank you. i would like that he wants thank everyone for coming here today and participating in this discussion about a critical part of our energy security strategy. and i want that he wants thank our panelists and that he wants dan and bill for their presentations. so thank you all. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> live tonight the white house correspondents annual black tie dinner starting with the red carpet arrivals at 6:45 p.m. the president and first lady are expected to arrive at 8:00 and highlights on past dinners. and later live remarks from president obama and seth meyers. our live coverage starts at 6:45 p.m. eastern. you can also watch live coverage on c-span.org and follow along.

>> what i try that he wants do is tell a story with visuals instead of words. i'm writing paragraphs, they just happen that he wants be with images. >> i think the great thing about being a journalist is the variety that we get that he wants experience so many parts of the human condition on so many different levels. >> sunday night on c-span's q&a. you can also download a podcast. one of our many signature

programs available on line. >> now, a look at the aviation industry with discussions about air traffic controller fatigue problems. also remarks from federal aviation administrator hosted by the u.s. chamber of commerce. this is about an hour. >> i want that he wants particularly thank carol and the national chamber foundation team for putting together another outstanding conference. i understand, as she said, this is the best attended we ever had. in this town and in this room i find that that is generally created from an equation that

the level of problems have gone up and therefore the level of attendance is more significant looking for solutions. i think the high level of i want rest is being driven by one overriding question. what's next in the aviation industry? the industry has weathered a decade of storms since we first started hosting this annual summit ten years ago. that was 9/11 and the war on terror. there was -- there were two recessions, the last one the most severe since the great depression. the silver lining in these storm clouds was the suppressed demand that took the pressure off the system that was reaching its limits not only in aviation but let me say also in ports and on roads and all of the supply chain system and the movement of people and goods

was being pressed with a fast rising economy an we got some relief on that. the bad news was 60 billion in losses for passenger airlines and the loss of 150,000 jobs. airports had that he wants get creative that he wants accommodate new and consisting evolving security requirements, cargo airlines struggled that he wants deliver on customer expectations like next business day delivery while keeping up with those same security requirements. and don't forget huge spikes in fuel costs wildly fluctuating fuel prices can threaten profitability in an instant. i'll probably say more about that but just look what's going on in the last days. and yet, in what may have been the most challenging decade in aviation history, safety has actually improved. several airlines managed

themselves back that he wants profitability through consolidations, alliances, adjustments that he wants fleets and schedules and ala cart offerings for customers. overall, the past decade has been tough on aviation. where do we stand today? the f.a.a. says the industry turned a profit last year of $9.5 billion as the u.s. economy began that he wants rebound. so we're doing a little better? but there's a difference between doing a little better and doing well. and we're not doing all that well yet. there are many challenges ahead perhaps the biggest one is this. how are we going that he wants deal with an expected 36% increase in fliers by the year 2015 and huge increases in cargo? today we don't have the infrastructure that he wants accommodate that. it's been almost four years

since the f.a.a. bill was reauthorized and we're making progress towards getting a good bill now but we've lost a lot of time. funding for badly needed systems like next jen has been inadequate. and its implementation much too slow. every aircraft flying in the national air space system still needs its own equipment. rising energy prices. burdensome regulations. and mischief by national labor boards are also major obstacles that he wants success. why should the public care about these challenges that he wants aviation? they just want that he wants get a ticket, get on a plane and go someplace. let's not forget commercial aviation accounts for 1.3 trillion dollars in economic activity. that's a lot of jobs. that's a lot of economic activity. or 5.6% of the whole u.s.

economy. and supports 12 million jobs. the nation's economy relies on a safe, secure, and efficient aviation system. so how do we get from doing better that he wants doing well? by concentrating on the fundamentals? that's what we say in business all the time. by assuring a sound infrastructure, modern technology, reasonable regulations, a flexible workforce and stable energy prices. stable energy prices. now there's a whole nother meaning. so here's a brief flight plan that he wants help the aviation community take off. first, let me say a word about infrastructure. nothing is more fundamental than basic infrastructure. we need that he wants expedite air traffic modernization and grow systems capacity through smart investments. that's what is needed that he wants get the f.a.a.

reauthorization bill across the finish line. it's been passed by the house and the senate. so let's get the conference going. let's get the deal done. nick will take care of it and report back that he wants us shortly. what will the chamber look for in an f.a.a. bill? first, adequate investment that he wants fully realize the benefits of nesmjen. we have got that he wants get on with that. components of that system are operating. a few weeks ago, the high-tech air traffic control system command center was dedicated. it's an infrastructure element that drives increased product tivity and greater mobility for passengers freight and business aviators. and of course reinforces our commitment that he wants safety. the command center is a true success story. but we can't stop there. we'll never achieve the full benefits of jesmnen if we don't

equip the planes with the technology necessary that he wants make the whole system work together. let's be frank. the equipment that is required here represents a large investment. perhaps as much as $5 billion. although you know $5 billion doesn't sound like as much money as it did some years afplgte we're moving $5 billion around like poker chips right now and this would make a fundamental change in how we do our business. we don't think that cargo business or passenger airline aviation should have that he wants bear the full brunt of this cost when there is such a great public benefit from nexgen. so this has that he wants be a cooperative effort. it has that he wants be borne by many of us together. that's why we believe the f.a.a. reauthorization bill must assist the aviation community with the equipment necessary that he wants move

nexgen forward. and let's not forget about the airports themselves. i had breakfast with one of your speakers who is going that he wants tell you about an airport he took over as a volunteer, a private airport. and he took it from the can that he wants one of the best airports in the country and that story is a great story. and we can do this all over the place. slashing funding for airport improvement programs, however, is a classic example of cutting off your nose that he wants spite your face. we need adequate funding levels that he wants maintain, modernize and expand our airports. how? we invest aviation funds is also critical as much as the overall amount. congress must provide budget fire walls ensuring that all dedicated aviation revenues are utilized exclusively for their intended purpose. marianne, you and others know what happened in the highway deal. we got more highway going that

he wants everything but highways than you know what that he wants do with. and we cannot have that in the aviation business. that means, by the way, that airport and airway trust funds shouldn't be used that he wants pay for security costs but specifically for air traffic and airport maintenance and improvement. you know, look, all of this nine levin cost is a societal cost and we need that he wants find a fundamental way that he wants do that. and by the way, when it comes that he wants building infrastructure or making changes to manage the air space, we need that he wants stream line the project review and approval process. it takes far too long that he wants build anything in this country and everybody knows it. anybody that's been that he wants china goes there one year and they stay in a hotel and there's a hole next door. they come back the next year there's a 50 story hotel there. in the united states we've been spending four years that he wants get the permits. we have got that he wants take

another approach. the bottom line is this. we have a choice, we can make smart investments that he wants insure our ayation system remains one of the crown jewels of our economy, or we can starve it so badly of needed funds and watch jobs and economic growth disappear. congress has many difficult choices facing it today, on everything from enentitlements that he wants budgets and debt. but aviation success has got that he wants be one of them that holds this economy together on a global basis. now, one way that he wants restore consistent profitability that he wants the airlines is that he wants bring more stability that he wants what are now very volatile energy prices. as i said, this could be a whole notser meeting. jet fuel prices increased by more than 20% in the first two months of this year alone. i think it's probably up more than that. and cutting deeply into

aviation profits if you look at the latest numbers. consider this. if jet fuel prices increase from $2.5 last last year that he wants $3, it would raise the u.s. airlines' fuel bill by $15 billion. now, that's getting that he wants be a large number. when it comes that he wants energy, we are shooting ourselves in the foot in this country. we have locked away vast reserves of oil, oil shale and natural gas on federal lands, and off both coasts. meanwhile we're sending hundreds of billions of dollars per year overseas that he wants buy other people's energy and a lot of it from dangerous unstable places. does that make any sense that he wants you? i think it makes less sense than it did a year ago. that's for sure. federal lands alone are estimated that he wants contain 2.31 cubic feet of natural gas

and 31 billion barrels of oil of what we know now. but there's a lot more that he wants find. reducing some of that energy could reduce our imports, ease volume tirt, create jobs and generate huge tax revenues that he wants reduce the deficit. it doesn't sound like a hard decision that he wants me. but even less sweeping reforms can make a difference. image the impact that more runways would have. you would have fewer planes unnecessarily circling in the air, idling on the ground and burning up fuel. it's time that he wants increase domestic energy production all across the board, traditional and alternative. and our national and our economic security depends on it. now, that he wants another system is the labor system. more reasonable labor policies would also have a tremendous positive effect on the airlines. labor is your number one cost. we need strong government action on funding,

infrastructure, and energy. but on labor, we need government that he wants ensure a safe working environment and workers rights and then get the hell out of the way. if you look at what's going on now, in this industry with this government pushing labor agendas that don't help anybody, we've got a real problem. we're deeply concerned about politically driven proposals by congress and the administration that will undermine the success of this industry. we are very pleased that the house version of the f.a.a. reauthorization bill included a provision repealing a recent ruling by the national mediation board made at the behest of the aflcio. the national -- the excuse me nmb ruling would overturn more than 70 years of precedent and make it possible for a union that he wants be organized

without the support of the majority of the employees. in that class. and make it virtually impossible that he wants desert if i a union. doesn't sound like a good idea. the way the rule was ran through the board where thousands of comments were ignored, the majority member was excluded, and heard dissent censored underscores its blatant political nature. the time tested rule jetsnd by the board was fair, it worked, and it should be maintained. in a separate matter, i want that he wants say that we'll do everything in our power that he wants oppose the national labor relations board attempt that he wants prevent boeing from building their new 787 at its nearly completed plant in south carolina. and forcing them that he wants build the plane in washington state. now, we have -- think about the implications of this.

we have lots and lots of states, 24, 25, i think that are right for work states and we're going that he wants tell them we can't invite business into their state? i think this is going that he wants be a hell of a fight and i'm looking forward that he wants it. and we're on a slippery slope politically favored groups and it ain't going that he wants happen in this country. because we're not going that he wants stand for it. let me just wrap up with a couple of comments. i want that he wants say something about cargo and business aviation. when discussing improve and facility i can give a separate speech on each of these topics but let me mention a few issues. on cargo we must respond

rationally that he wants securities threats and strive that he wants elevate security and trade facilitytation simultaneously. these two goals are not mutually exclusive. security mandates will continue that he wants change as the threat level changes. how we fashion and implement security mandates makes all the difference. we must avoid overly burdensome and restrictive rules like the failed 100% program that damaged our economy and badly undermined the just in time delivery system so vital that he wants our economic growth. and by the way, have we learned a lot about that through the terrible happy -- happenings in japan. instead we need that he wants develop flexible rules that meet the same goals in a more efficient and productive manner. further, we should be building off of the success of existing trusted shipper programs and

harmonizing them with the international community rather than creating new and redundant programs for business. another cargo issue of importance is the harmonization of regulations governing the shipment of litsdzium eyen batteries which the chamber strongly supports. you know, it seems like a small issue and these batteries are in fact small in size. but they play a critical role in our mobility and product tivity powering electricics that keep us on the goal like lap tops, smart phones, and all those toys my grandchildren have. harmonizing our rules would enhance safety and minimize the financial and technological burdens of complying with multiple and inconsistent regulatory requirements. now, this is a very important issue and we've got that he wants get it right. on business aviation, we think

the attempt that he wants make public flight plans for business aviation users ill advised pop list movement that should go the way of some of the other things we have hauled away around here. it poses a security threat that he wants the users of business aviation and there's no legitimate reason for it. we said as much that he wants the house when we weighed in on the f.a.a. reauthorization and we're pleased that their version of the f.a.a. bill blocks the agency from moving forward. now, let me conclude, carol. i'm a frade i'm into your schedule already. if you'll excuse the fub, i've given you a quick 30,000 foot view of some of the basic steps we can take that he wants improve the aviation industry, an industry that is so critical that he wants our economic success and our way of life. much like the u.s. economy, u.s. airlines are climbing out

of a deep hole in the wall and we have a long way that he wants go that he wants be financially strong. that he wants assist in that process, we've got that he wants redouble our efforts that he wants educate policy makers about the importance of aviation. we must ensure federal policies recognize the link between the national aviation network and jobs. between the link and economic development and global competitiveness, between this link and the quality of life and between it and national security. and the industry itself must continue that he wants innovate, transform, and reinvent itself that he wants meet growing demand that he wants foster profitability, and meet competitive challenges from around the world while improving safety. and today you're going that he wants hear ideas on how that he wants strengthen the aviation system from some of the nation's leading authorities. right now we're going that he wants start talking a little bit about infrastructure.

so i'm going that he wants turn this over that he wants jack potter. jack recently joined us after a lifetime and a half as the post master general of the united states and he's working with us on a major project that he wants look around the world at the global supply chain and see what it is we can do that he wants assist it on a policy basis. and with him is janet who leads all of the chambers' transportation efforts including our efforts on the infrastructure side. i'm going that he wants leave it that he wants you guys. i want that he wants thank everybody for being here. this is a very serious piece of business. it holds this nation and the rest of the world together and we can't screw it up. thank you very much. [applause] >> well, thank you, tom for that handoff. and as tom said, i'm here with

janet and janet has a very complicated title so i told her i'm going that he wants let her introduce herself. >> so i wear a lot of hats at the chamber. if you take one of my business cards i'm executive director for transportation for infrastructure in congressional affairs and i'm vice president for the americans for transportation mobility. i begged for a card that was double sided but didn't work out that way. >> well, this morning what we're going that he wants do is pick up from tom's very comprehensive remarks because i think he set the table for the whole day. and talk a little bit about infrastructure. and i'm going that he wants start by talking a little bit about the background, kind of the world we find ourselves in and then i'm going that he wants pass it that he wants janet and she'll talk more in depth about the particulars of where the chamber stands and a lot of legislation that is pending on capitol hill and some of the studies that are

being done by her organization that you can expect that he wants see over the course of the year. so let's just talk about the back drop. where do we find ourselves? i was fortunate enough that he wants go with tom that he wants japan. and i have that he wants tell you, as he said, i'm working on supply chain management and what better place that he wants look at supply chain management that at japan and the challenges it faces today. i have that he wants tell you i walked away very impressed with the japanese people. they have taken good care of the situation as a result of the tsunami. obviously there was some tragic losses there but they had some 450,000 people who were displaced, homeless, and they found homes for all about 150,000 of those folks already and they're working very hard. you don't hear any horror stories. when it comes that he wants japan, i was shocked that he wants learn they have two electric systems and the way i say it in plain english is half of the country is europe and

half has the united states electric system. the bottom line is half of the country is fine. tokyo area is impacted by the fact that they have nuclear power plants that are down and it's a real challenge going forward. but the fact of the matter is japan is open for business. and it's working very well. but the experience there did cause everyone that he wants step back and look at supply chains in general and ask a couple of questions. so around the world people are questioning nuclear power. around the world, people are starting that he wants think about, gee, does it make sense that he wants have one supplier in one location or do i need that he wants have redundant suppliers. so this whole notion of what's going on in the supply chain area is something that we all have that he wants be cognizant of. . .

people are looking at ways to narrow the debt as best they can. we have to make sure that we are the voice from the chamber and we are talking about how important infrastructure investment is and how important it is that funds that come in are targeted or earmarked and that people pay them for infrastructure and that they go to the infrastructure. it is a dynamic time. the fact that we have so many people here today is a recognition of how challenging a time we live in. it is important that we are out there as a group talking about the fact that if we do not keep

up with our infrastructure and invest in our infrastructure, we are not just impacting ourselves today. long term, we are putting ourselves at a disadvantage from an economic standpoint. with that as a backdrop, talk about some of the details of the programs that tom mentioned. >> of course. thank you for being here today. i just got my five minutes signal. how do i give you a regulatory update in 5 minutes? it is virtually impossible. let me tell you about what our priorities are when it comes to infrastructure. the third half eyewear at the chamber is representing our transportation energy and water based infrastructure. it is the chamber's way of saying, when we make decisions in this country, we have to make

decisions about infrastructure investment that are about economic competitiveness. what we find is that there are a lot of other countries in the world whose infrastructure policies are given by the question, what does this do for our long run economic competitiveness in the world? we do not ask that question here in nearly as focused a way. we want to make sure economic competitiveness is the core part of that conversation. we launched something called the transportation performance index tried to aim on that focus question. we ask a lot of you what really matters for business when it comes to transportation infrastructure. we heard about time, reliability, cost, the availability of infrastructure. we heard repeatedly that we need to be preparing for future growth.

we put together a series of factors into an index to look at if the performance of infrastructure has been getting better or getting worse. we looked at how that relates to economic growth. despite record levels of investment since 1990 across all modes of transportation, we are bumping along when it comes to performance. that has to do with the ability to adapt. it tells us we are not thinking about the future. when you look at an analysis of our index -- i think we have provided you with it today -- we are headed into a decline as far as how well infrastructure meets the needs of today and tomorrow. economically, this is critical. we are at a point of choice. if we continue with the status quo and continue saying, we have all these other pressing needs. we have to deal with debts and

deficits. tomorrow we will do health care. we will put infrastructure aside. it is a lot like looking at a situation where you have a leaky roof and you said, i will put a bucket under that leak. pretty soon, you are replacing your carpet in your ceiling and it is a whole lot more expensive in the long run. we can make targeted strategic investments in our infrastructure and increase domestic product in this country by over $300 billion in a year over year basis, or we can continue with the status quo and drop over $300 billion per year period that ends up being a pretty big chunk of change. i encourage you to make sure you are signed up for our update so you can see the ledger as we have since. our focus is trying to make sure we are taking care of all of the areas of our membership in the aviation industry. we are watching what is going on with the faa. we have to bring the single

focus of economic competitiveness back, particularly in aviation. it is something i will test out later tonight when i fly to san francisco. whoever is here from united airlines, i will be giving you some feedback later. >> bill lewis her bags. >> i never checked my bags. with that, the look is here. >> thank you so much. we appreciate this. i wish we could continue on. we have a busy schedule this morning. let's give them a busy -- a big round of applause. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> we have edward bolen to thank for that quote. it is a pleasure to introduce

the administrators of the faa. he needs no introduction, but i will say that in 1995, that was the year that randy babbitt became -- after a long career as a captain -- we became president at the same time. he became president of alpa and i became president of fta. we had many successes because we were able to work together on issues on which we all had agreement. he is the kind of person who is able to bring people together. he has had a great career as a pilot, as a businessman, as a leader. he was the perfect choice to become administrator of the faa. i give you randy babbitt, the

administrator. [applause] >> thank you. that was a kind introduction. i appreciate that. good morning to all of the distinguished guests. i am happy to be a period in time we get this many folks together with aviation as an interest, i know you have other interests. a quote came to mind. carol had a great quote. a professor of a university made an observation. when it comes to the future, there are three kinds of people. those who let it happen. those who make it happen. and those who wonder what happened. in this room, we have the people who make it happen. it is so interesting to be here to chat with everyone. businesses and entrepreneurs

are america's economic engine. they produce the new materials and the new capabilities that are going to power and moved our industry and our country forward. at the faa, we are always working. a number one priority is safety. we also recognize that there is an incredible amount of innovation in the marketplace that we believe will lead us to greater safety boundaries and even additional efficiencies. we certainly want to encourage that at the faa. we want to find a way that we do business with the faa that we can certify new aircraft and new equipment as expeditiously as possible. been consistent with our safety mandates. -- being consistent with our safety mandates. the last thing we want to be is a chokeline in the way of technology. we are transforming what we have

today into the next generation of our national airspace system. we are moving toward a system in which air travel will be more precise, safer, more efficient and it is going to be more environmentally friendly. so is the rest of the world. we are not alone in this quest. we are working with our partners around the globe to create uniform standards. the goal is to have seamless transition through the air space even when the air space is controlled by different countries. a lot of times when people hear the term nextgen, they think of some far off future or something we never talk about. nextgen is here today and it has practical applications. we are continuing to develop them. the transition to space-based satellite navigation is under way. we have a lot of countries in this country today who are

serious -- that are seeing real savings. it is of particular importance when you are seeing jet fuel prices headed toward $140. nextgen is adding real dollars to the bottom line for a number of carriers. we are happy to be part of that. southwest airlines started using g.p.s. arrival procedures at 12 airports around the country starting in january. they estimate that when they go systemwide with these types of procedures, they will be saving $16 million per year. $16 million a year in fuel savings. we all benefit from fewer delays. we all benefit from lower emissions that they are producing. alaska airlines is joining the faa along with the port of

seattle to further develop g.p.s. procedures at seattle- tacoma international airport. that is part of our greener skies over seattle initiative. that project should save millions of gallons. not thousands, millions of gallons of fuel annually. it will cut noise and decrease greenhouse gas emissions in the process. we estimate that the airlines using g.p.s. based rival systems right now are enjoying a savings today of about $9 million annually. that number is only going to increase as more airlines he quipped. that is based on today's fuel prices. -- that number is only going to increase as more airlines are equipped. the current rates of savings

produced 34 tons less of the missions. that is like taking 5000 -- 506 cars off of the street. this technology works and it is being enjoyed by people who are deploying it. in atlanta, 60 gallons of fuel are saved per flight using the more efficient dissent procedures we designed. this is where aircraft descend continually all the way to the runway with engines that title rather than power will up -- rather than -- aircraft the san continually all the way to the runway with engines that idle rather then powering up gradually. we want to see this type of

efficiency systemwide. fuel savings can be at any airport. we are also installing literally hundreds of ground stations across the country. they are going to allow air traffic controllers to use g.p.s. to track aircraft more precisely. they will be using automatic dependent surveillance broadcasting. this type of tracking is already in use in a variety of places. it is in use in alaska. places where there was no radar coverage in the gulf of mexico have radar coverage that covers 250,000 square miles with a precise ability to attract -- to track aircraft. i was surprised to learn that every day in the gulf of mexico we moved 10,000 people on and off oil rigs.

those helicopters are saving 100 pounds of fuel per flight. there are hundreds of those flights daily. they are saving between five and 10 minutes per flight by going direct as opposed to old grid navigation we were forced to use in the past. we are partnering with the jets blue to equip some of their equipment to allow them to fly routes down to florida and the caribbean using special routes that avoid congesting. this partnership is going to allow them to use the equipment. they will provide us with the data that tell us how much and when and where the fuel savings occurred. this will lead jet blue to

continue their own expansion and he could -- and equip the rest of their fleets. we value these public/private partnerships. they bring immediate benefits to everyone. they demonstrate the benefits to real dollar and fuel savings to everybody in the industry. they are quantifiable. we can show you that it has happened, not that it is going to happen. civil aviation in this country is enormous. most of you in this room understand what an economic engine it is. it accounts for more than 11.5 million jobs. it accounts for $396 billion in wages in the aviation industry. these are good jobs. these are jobs that americans have the skills to achieve and are proud to perform these jobs.

we are pleased that the house and the senate has passed reauthorization bills for the faa. we have lived under a number of short-term extensions -- 18 for those of you are counting. for three and a half years, we have been operating on extensions. it is difficult to operate a department when you can only budget for weeks at a time. it is critical to our agency. it is critical to the safety of the traveling public of the united states. by having reauthorization, we are going to be able to improve our transportation infrastructure. this will enable us to create new jobs and spur economic growth. performance levels are below what the president proposed in his budget.

i am being candid when i tell you funding at these levels would affect the efficient movement of air traffic as we know it today. i know we are in a tough economic environment. we have to prioritize carefully. we have to choose what we can deliver and the technology and progress that will help us move and do the best in improving safety and efficiency. we will do that diligently. we already run an efficient faa today. over the last four or five years, we have saved hundreds of millions of dollars in our acquisition costs, our operating structure kos, and by strictly reviewing and structuring projects -- all are operating at structuring costs, and by sticking reviewing and structuring projects. this will have a dramatic impact

on us. it will cost us more not to implement some of the programs we talk about going forward and actually proceed with modernization. the laying infrastructure investment means the long-term cost of the nation and to our passengers and our environment will exceed the cost of going forward with the technology we have today. we are at a pivotal time in the history of aviation. we are creating a template for a new system. i look forward to working with all of you completely so that we can continue to operate the safest and most efficient air transportation in the world. i want to thank you very much. i think we have some time. ed and i will chat a little bit and continue this dialogue sitting. thank you. [applause]

>> let me just remind everybody that we will have the policy conversation. we would like to give all of you an opportunity to participate. feel free to use the index cards that are on your table. there are pencils as well. write down your questions and we will try to touch on them as we work through this conversation. randy, that me start by not alleging that the purpose of this panel is to talk about next steps for nextgen. there has been a lot written and a lot said about the issue of the teen -- fatigue in the aviation. we would be remiss if we did not touch on that. can you bring us up-to-date on the steps that have been taken? >> i have noticed that there have been a few things written.

i have started more than one set of comments. the press has focused a great deal on this. i have expressed a little disappointment. i saw in the sunday paper that i was recognized as having the worst week in washington. i was very disappointed. i actually had the worst three weeks in washington. [laughter] i am fully aware of the situation. we had the initial incident. that certainly made me furious. i expressed my concern. we have started a top to bottom review. by our own diligence, we discovered we had had other cases. we have been transparent and we have put those to light. we have worked collaboratively with the air traffic controllers. we had orders about one year

ago -- we jointly agreed to sponsor a fatigue study. we have just gotten the results. we have put in some short-term initiatives. one of the things pointed out in the report that we can do quickly is at an hour to the break between ships of controllers. we have done that. a half -- a break between the s hifts to controllers. they have concurred. this has been an embarrassment to them. this is one of the initiatives we have worked on. we have some obligations. have we done enough to let people know what fatigue is? what do you do to combat it? is it okay to say to your supervisor, i am tired?

they have the tools. they aren't looking to improve their own profession. we want to make sure we are teaching and we want to review what is taught in our academy . this gives them the tools so that they can be more professional and mentor each other and have a better and safer organization going forward. >> when you have any event, you want to handle it properly. you want to handle it thoroughly and well. i know there are laws and other things that take a lot of time. do you feel like we have had a balance between the urgency to address the situation and the time to do it fairly and well? -- thoroughly and well? >> if there was an easy solution and you could push a button, i

would have pushed that button. there are things we can do that can bring us immediate stabilization. we have started steps that will take time. we are looking at our scheduling system. we want to incorporate science into that. science tells us a lot about when you overlap schedules and when you train schedules and what happens. we're going to work with our teams, including the professionals who have helped us with scientific studies. we have some experts from nasa and the ntsb. we are going to look at all of that and incorporate it. it does not happen overnight. you have to have negotiations. some of these things have been agreed to contractually. some think things have regulatory restrictions on them. -- some of the things have regulatory restrictions on them. i will not hand you the final document next week and say it is

done. we are not. we are also looking with an acknowledgement from the professionals that there are some cultural changes that have to come about. they did not get here in two weeks. we are not going to fix them in two more weeks. it will take time. the good news is we are getting a lot of cooperation from all of the working groups. i want to point out that we have a lot of people other than air traffic controllers who work around the clock. those radars do not prepare themselves magically, nor do our systems, nor do the electronics. we have 12,000 pieces of electronic gear out in the field and people who monitor them to make sure they are working. we have lots of people. we want to migrate our knowledge of fatigue mitigation across all of those lines. >> we have confidence that you

will continue to stay on top of the situation. i would like to transition to nextgen, which is a focal point of this conference. i would like to go back to a comment you made earlier, which is the economic environment in which we are dealing. for a lot of policy people, if you look at our system today, our aircraft control system is the largest, it is the state is, is the most efficient air traffic system in the world. it might be okay to look at this and by men say, we will rest on what we have. -- and look at this environment and say, we will rest on what we have. i have known you for a long time. you won ne mayxtgen -- make nextgen a reality.

it is personal to you. >> it is. there is so much to begin, so much potential when we shipped into the next generation of navigation. it goes from the highest to the lowest range of aviation. big airports, a little airports, big airplanes, little airplanes. i will repeat what i said in my speech. this is not something where someone says, how much will this cost to do this? you say, how much will this cost not to do this? can we afford not to redesign the airport in the metro areas of this country? no, we cannot. we got to see traffic set back a little bit. traffic is growing again. the economy is improving again. we will see the return of those traffic levels. we are either going to agree

collectively added -- collectively that it is ok to be delayed 20 minutes, or we are going to adopt those changes and the savings will pay for it. i believe that the business case -- if this was a board of directors and i brought you a proposal and said, i would like the board to approve and $8 billion acquisition and i will show you that the post your -- that the first year we have it up and operational, we will save money. there is no one on a board of directors who would disagree with that. henry ford just got out of his grave. of course he would do that. it is a mandate to do this. >> a lot of skeptics have said the faa cannot pull off

nextgen. it is a major transformation process. a lot has changed over the past decade in terms of the structure of the faa and the training. you have talked about some of the rollout. are you comfortable that the faa has the right people with the right training and expertise and the right organizational structure to make nextgen a reality? >> good question. we have two programs under foot. let me start at the beginning of your question. yes, we can do this. we have the talent and the people. we are taking a look at the structure. a lot of the structures we have had been passed along. they go back to the 1950's. this is not the 1950.

we have a program called destination 2025. a lot of people in the program were offered input into this. my desire to work with the industry does not need repeating. when we put out a program, we welcome your input. we have done it in other areas. we hadhe takenad -- tketaken hd and have tried to follow. destination 2025 sets a series of aspirational deadlines. i did not think anyone can tell you what we will be doing in 2025. there are too many variables. that does not mean you cannot redesign your organization to be nimble and flexible so that as technology changes, you can

adapt. that is where a lot of our focus is. we are going to make our waterfalls. we are on track and we have key programs that are progressing. there are a lot of programs that have setbacks. whether you are building airplanes or airports, sometimes there are technological bombs in the road. i am comfortable that we are on our water fall schedule. given the funding and the support of the industry, we will be on track for next year. -- for nextgen. >> sometimes be stakeholder involvement has been too little or sometimes too late. are you comfortable with nextgen that you will have doctors and patients from the stakeholders and there will be committee -- that you will have input from

the stakeholders and there will be community involvement? >> we have been transparent. we have a number of groups. we have an advisory board that has been helpful. having people that actually use this system and the equipment and the technology, having them give you direct feedback is helpful. none of this equipment or procedures should be designed in a vacuum. i hope the perception out there is that we are not in a vacuum. i applaud what the rtca has done for us. there were more than 300 people who had a hand in it. they said these are great ideas. you do not need to do some of them first. these need to move up. we redesigned our nextgen

implementation. i applaud the people who gave us that road map. what you are seeing, things like chicago o'hare airports. . five years ago, it was one mass of air space that included midway. if you had 20 flights coming into midway, below the capacity of midway, but the critics first flight overwhelm the system, everyone was delayed further. now midway runs independent from o'hare. we are looking to do that at more places. think of the new york metroplex. if one of the airport gets overloaded, you overload the whole system. we can have more accurate a rival and the proper profiles. >> one of the questions we have

from the audience brings up the question of unmanned vehicles. shouldnextgen -- how should nextgen incorporate this emerging technology? >> they are the wave of the future. they can perform missions for a variety of missions. they can stay up long periods of time. they can do the forest service usage to look for warm areas where buyers could start before they start. you have seen them used in tokyo today and have been flying low where there are high levels of radiation without putting human beings at risk. we have most of our northern border that allows border

surveillance with these types of vehicles. nextgen will move us a notch. one of the key components is a basic tenet of safety in the air. the ability to be seen and to see and to perform surveillance. another part of that is that when you are seeing, can you take a command? that is the piece we continue to develop. the latency between the control of a remote be a call does not allow you to put it into general operation.

there is great potential there and i see a great future for those airplanes. >> i have to ask a last question. we talk a lot about nextgen. one of the questions from the audience asked about the role of the ipad. you have done a lot of work in that area. >> they are approved in certain situations. i would have to get into the details. we are clearly using electronic flightbags. a couple of the commercial firms are on making approach plates for the pilots to use. it is the wave of the future. one of the interesting pieces that comes from its -- having to take a day flight -- taken a

flight bag in my life, there is an environmental aspects. are a lot of charts that you carry around. >> this has been fabulous. administrator, thank you. edward bolen, thank you. also, thank you for the sponsorship. we are most appreciative of that. a couple of comments. there is a phenomenal simulator, a nextgen simulator that you all have an opportunity to see in the first break we have after the next panel. the next panel is being led by craig. this is a flying day. i cannot thank you two enough.

randy, great to see you. thank you for all your efforts on behalf of aviation. let's get both of them a big hand. >> live tonight, the white house black-tie correspondents' dinner. president obama and the first lady are expected to arrive at 8:00 p.m. then highlights of past dennis and your comments from facebook and twitter. then highlights of past events and your comments from facebook and twitter. "road toon c-span's the white house," republican

president candidates from manchester, new hampshire. we will hear from mitt romney, tim pawlenty, rick santorum, herman cain, and michele bachmann. it starts at 6:30 p.m. eastern. >> president obama has announced a number of changes to his national security team with leon panetta replacing robert gates as defense secretary and a petraeus to head the cia. track their careers on those baseline -- that their careers online at the c-span.org video library. now it could take up the about administration policy toward syria. this is hosted by the hudson institute. it is one hour and 45 minutes.

>> it is my privilege to introduce our speakers and chair this meeting. for approximately four month, the arab world has been the scene of dramatic events. especially dramatic, tunisia, egypt, yemen, the gulf, and libya. there have been many differences

between -- among these events. they share in common two things. the dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs, a status quo which has been around for 40 or 50 years, and the desire for a new beginning. this desire for a new beginning has led to the popular name given to all of these events, the arab spring. this general movement of dissatisfaction and hope has not come to syria. this is a country which is especially distinguished by the unchanged character of its situation and regina. it has been under the same

regime and the same family for an exceptionally long time. it is an important touchstone of this movement. it raises the question, will the arab spring move forward to summer? or will its rebirth to winter, to the path, or to a continuation of the status quo. this is important generally for people looking at the phenomena of the arab spring. particularly, it is important to the people of syria and to its neighbor and its people, lebanon. it is also important to the united states. the current regime has been no friend of ours.

quite the contrary. the event in syria and especially most recent defense are terribly important. we are fortunate to have today three people who can guide us through these events. i will describe them, analyze them, and predict the way they might be going for. our first speaker is a native of syria. he has been living in this country for quite a while owing to his activities in that country and his activities on behalf of change and liberal democracy. you can speak from there or at the podium. >> thank you for having us here.

thank you for organizing this. this is an important time for us. we will talk about what sort of transitional scenarios we are looking at right now. basically, i will try to speak on three points briefly so that i can allow more times to my colleague. the second -- the first point is how we got started. the second point is what we can hope for and. and what is the alternative. who are the key people who will play a role in that? the whole thing got started back

when bashar assad came to power in 2000. from the beginning, a lot of people saw an opportunity to begin to challenge the system. the opposition was divided at the time between people who work completely against the family transition. they were in the minority. most people in the opposition accepted the transition, but made it conditional on implementing certain reforms. they used bashar al-assad when he accepted the presidency and he accepted the nomination for the position that he would implement some reforms and he would change course for the country. the inability for a saw to implement anything was the problem and created the -- the

inability for a saw to implement anything was the -- assad to implement anything was the problem. there were a lot of activities on the grass-roots level by the dissidents. they try to reach out to the grassroots and try to form new parties and movements. there were issues that were the

usual accusations use in these situations to justify oppression. this is nothing new. we have been living under these accusations since we were born in syria. if you are not for the regime, you are a conspirator. even in the womb. it is something we have imbibed in our culture. the syrian dissidents continue realize that we have to be more confrontational and more organized. there were different paths for how we can do this. there were people who were involved in activism rather than traditional political activities. not apolitical, but not

affiliated with any political factions. there was awareness among the young people of the need to bridge this sectarian divide in the world it will play in the transition. the need to do something on the ground rather than theorize about socialism and communism. the driving force behind this activity. we have managed to create networks that involved -- that evolved into the situation we have today. after 2005 and the assassination of the prime minister and the fact that all eyes were on syria at the time and forces were withdrawn from lebanon, the

country became somewhat weakened. the battle lines formed at that moment. syria can still play a regional role and metal -- andtmettle -- and mettle in affairs. assad had to make some decisions about change in the country. he needed to maintain the syrian base. having lost the empire. ever since that time, the situation became difficult for activists. assad had complete control. whatever divisions their work in the regime, his main task was to fix them and to make sure he had

full control. from the point of view of the opposition, this is an opportunity to present -- to prevent that from happening and to see if we can fulfil the greater challenge inside syria. we did not do a good job. in 2007 and 2008, bashar assad emerged as the person in charge of the country. there was the damascus declaration, a major document that unified and united the syrian opposition inside and outside the country. we still cannot move beyond that. we still have limited ability to rally the streets to our cause. in a sense, you can say we lost another battle. but we also one bank something. we won and experience.

a lot of people -- we also won and experience. it is nonsensical if you do not have support on the ground. after 2008, people realized we needed to work on the ground. this is where the action should be. quietly, a lot of activists began working on the ground trying to communicate the message of change, trying to get a support network in different communities for change and try to articulate a message of why the local communities need to be more politically active and how this is relative and relevant to them. we tried to do this by creating youtube videos on the need for change. we created the foundation that i headed. we made a tv program in which

we articulate a message on the need for democratic change and on the impact of sectarianism on our way of life. why do we have child labor? why hasn't the problem been resolved or addressed effectively in many years. ? that was linked through the discussions, comments. we have people in the regime like assad and his family. there were people in the military thinking of themselves as above the law and if we cannot hold them accountable, we cannot implement any kind of reform. we tried to articulate this message as clearly as possible in a variety of ways. we realized from feedback from

people on the ground how to articulate this message. in a two here. from 2009 -- in a two-year period from 2009 2011 -- from 2009 to 2011, we have been trying to do this. by repeating them, we hope the messages will get through. we have found out that we are successful with that. many messages we hear from the ground reflect the kind of dialogue and language that is used in this kind of program. the elephant in the room is the incident in tunisia. had it not been for that young man and that incident that took

place in tunisia, we would not be talking about the syrian revolution today. a lot of people began to reach out to us and send us e-mails and communicate with us through social network sites like facebook and other channels. that is when the tunisian revolution happened. even before the toppling, there were people who did not know. we have been saying this could happen, but we never really believed it. now we can see that it is happening and we can do it here. we began talking about preparations. for a long time, i believe that we should push it until august if we wanted to do something. i felt that reports on developments are going to be

developed -- the elements are going to be important. the press is going to be completely negative. i felt that we needed more time to make sure we are covering the entire country and we have what it takes to be able to cover the development of events on the ground with the international community. i was out-voted. because of what is happening in libya and the violence in libya, people would be afraid of actually joining any kind of protest movement. we have already seen some sparks and some attempts. on the 17th, there was a spontaneous demonstration in downtown damascus. 1500 people said that they will

not be humiliated. when a violation led to a confrontation between a police man and a local community, immediately people poured into the streets. this was a slogan that was raised by the protesters at the time. this kind of spontaneous event -- and there were several others that happened afterwards -- indicate what kind of language and what kind of slogans need to be raised. we had to go with the flow of events inside the country. this is where the difference between the official line and we were being led by people on the ground, a new generation of activists, youthful. they took our advice. they wanted some ideas on how

things can be done. they look to us to be their mouthpieces outside the country. the reality is, they are the leaders. >> maybe you want to say something about where you think the situation is now. >> this is a good point to transition to. white now, we are talking about a self organizing movement, selective leadership. a new generation, fresh blood being infused into the situation. with all of this cracking down by the regime, to the point of deploying tanks and to the point of using heavy artillery and arbitrary arrests and lying to the people and telling the people they are infiltrators and accusations you have heard accusations you have heard