that isd doves in opec, a function of where you are in terms of her fiscal breakeven your fiscal -- breakeven price of iran has a very high break even price of oil. the more hawk you're going to be wanting to drive prices up. i want to jump to frank. you're really a trail blazer. >> just one sentence before that. the cost of lifting oil in saudi arabia according to the saudi king is $2 a barrel. so these numbers add to the cost your ing oil what reasonable profit may be 60%. $3 a barrel what this includes

is paying the young men not to work swems paying for other things other than lifting oil. >> thanks. rank, you really have been a trail blazer for over ten years now and in the beginning i know it was very hard and lonely out there among conservatives calling for the importance of reducing oil status as a strategy commodity, why? >> well apart from the fact y'all told me that was an important thing to do, it kind of dawned mejia that it was an important thing to do. it became so transparently obvious that as has been observed here and elsewhere before, if we prs in this only ce of paying not

substantial amounts but through the nose to people who principlely, not exclusively but principlely in terms of setting the price are adversaries of this country, many of them enabling the war we've involved in, i call it the war for the free world, it is the war of our time, is simply insanity. and if we have a choice not to persist in that, that moves to the top of national priorities. and i just want to say thank you to you guys and to this council for being the path finders in terms of explaining how this can work, how it can work makeically, how it can work in a very practical, very cost effective, veneer term way if we

simply don't the solutions that you've identified for fuel choice specifically. so thank you. >> thank you, frank. >> i'm turning over to john. you are president of shell oil north america. have you a great understanding of the oil and gas industry. what we are seeing in this picture. everyone recognize the location on the map. that bright spot is north dakota. that's not a big city like new york that is shining brightly from a satellite photo. what we are seeing there is flaired natural gas flairs. i'm seeing money going up in smoke. john, with your experience in the oil and gas industry, talk to us about how companies like so n, like shell, like bp monetize northerly gas that is currently being wasted.

how important is it to open that sector to competition so that money going up in smoke can be turned into something that lowers the price of fuel for americans? >> let me respond in two ways. the first is that while you will not hear it from publicly held oil companies, there is an awareness and a deep concern that over the next four to five years global demand for oil, particularly with china, india and the developing world continuing to want more, global demand will exceed global supply by several million barrels a day. in the first instance that has a huge impact on price. and the price of course will serve to hold the global economy in check unfortunately. but still there will be that

demand. auto companies reported that china auto purchasing in september of this year exceeded any other previous month in history. so the chinese love mobblet the way americans love mobblet. and that's a huge impact on global demand. so i predicted for some years ow that whether 2016 or 2018 there will not be enough oil. not because the world doesn't have a lot of oil. but the technical difficulties of getting oil from new reservoirs while old ones decline is overwhelming to the industry. whether it's deep water brazil, whether it's arctic reserves, whether it's east africa, whether it's other difficult base sins, there simply cannot be enough done to meet the global demand in the middle of this decade.

that's point one. point two, the technology revolution that has opened up shale formations including the incredible amount of intelligence in the well. we all think the world of smartphones. the technology that has gone into the well leaves in my opinion smartphones in the back of the race in terms of making use of good technology. and whether it's the aerospace industry or the oil and gas industry, the race for technology is never ending. and that new technology in the oil and gas industry has opened up such new reserve, probable, possible and proven that there is no end in sight to the expanded availability of natural gas, not only in this country but in many other formations around the world. that natural gas doesn't have a market that can adequately

demand enough to get the gas price to where you could actually continue to grow gas supply. we have so much natural gas, we don't actually know how much we have. eia is always a year or more behind the reporting and their reporting numbers are incredibly amazing if you follow it. one year 1,200 additional trillion cube bick feet reported. and the number keeps growing. what is needed is a new market. what the oil companies are particularly concerned about is the price of natural gas in order to develop their reserves completely. and the way not to increase the price of natural gas is by making more electricity from natural gas. that's a low value added

contribution to the natural gas industry to simply export lng or to produce more power generating plants that are gassed based doesn't maximize the value. what maximizes the value of molecules of natural gas is when you apply technology such as -- meth nol hol or is aking other things which more satisfying contributor to the economy over time. meth thatd about make nol from natural gas, a problem is the value existing in the refinery system. this is not easily written down. but at the same time if there re the kind of enablers,

regulatory enablers that open a market for natural gas, then there is an additional opportunity for companies to invest to make methanol. that doesn't exist today. that has to change before the oil companies will get interested. but when exxon bought x.t.o. and yes they were accused of overpaying for it, exxon saw the future. when my former company invested placesmounts of money in they see the long term value. these are long term oriented companies that make decision that is may not pay for decades. but frakly to my first point we don't have decades had is why we have to move more quickly unless we simply want to manage the

crisis of shortage of all. not gee politics, although that may aggravate the situation but because of supply demand factors. >> to draw from two points. what i'm hearing you as blessed as we are, the real game changer here in the global oil market is not so much oil production but if we do the right things natural gas production. if we put natural gas and the various fuels that can be made from it as well as other commodities and the fuels that can be made from them in competition with oil, that's the game changer and natural gas let's us do that. >> oil is old and dirty. the kind of uses that you have from oil aren't going to go away. they are not going to disappear over night. but the real game changer yes, not just for the united states but the world as a whole is the further development of the uses

of natural gas. >> one more clarifying point, we ethanol sound nd alike. you can drink ethanol but don't want to drink methanol. you will have a bad headache. they are both liquid fuels. they both can be used in vehicles. they are alcohols and unlike ethanol methanol can approximate be made from natural gas. and i introduced you earlier. please talk to us about recycling co 2 into fuels and chemicals.

to be here.easure recycling co 2 is an interesting concept. nature is not efficient. because nature requires nurture and nurture means you need to put more. 1% o synthesis is less than efficiency. so chemistry is the way to recycle co 2. f you have co2 and water and inexpensive energy sources we can split water, mike hide general, we can mix it and make it by the buckets. in fact we're involved in a making in iceland we are

a day.ns of methanol co2 recycling will happen in the long term future because man kind does not have . energy shortage energy storage and energy carrier problem. sun is going to be there for the next four and a half billion years. it all came from sun. so we can use any energy sources 2 and water. with co short term what i would propose or this council is convert

shale gas to mrk ethanol. we can make it by the buckets and we can make all the products that man kind needs. without carbon you and i wouldn't be here. this is the message i'd like to give. >> every time we exhale we let more carbon out in the air. we might as well view it as a resource. if it's a resource that companies can make money from and convert it into fuel, that is likely to solve a lot of problems. the m going to turn to onomic et at the shea at the embassy of vale. >> -- israel. >> i hope i'm not embarrassing

anyone. for those of you who don't know israel has taken a lot of initiative in terms from a government perspective to address the oil monly and amongst that amongst the main initiatives one of them is a million dollar prize awarded next month to the person developing the most innovate tive approach to oil substutes over the previous year. through a purely certain dip douse circumstance i find myself is it ago cross from the winner who was announced today. congratulations. i can say that we are thrilled. the award was given for the economics of methanol, not

ethanol. >> i'm honored. my colleague i think i'm sharing with my colleague and it's great recognition of my research work over the years. thank you very much. [applause] >> just one clarification. this prize is going to be an annual prize. it will be given every year to the person or persons who will demonstrate biggest achievement to rds finding alternatives oil. i know the government of israel is a ill administrative team of

judges and will be asking for submissions from around around the world to submit their proposal for next year's prize. >> i would only add while i have your attention that the prize is just one piece in a really concerted focused effort by the government of israel to address the world of oil substitutes. hundreds of millions are being vested in research and development, co-investment etc. we're very proud of this and honored that the original co-recipient will be the doctor. any of you who can attend next month, seriously consider it. it's in the spirit of what is being said around the table, we view it as a global initiative for the free world and we're trying to do our small part in

making the world a better place so thank you very much. >> from a tiny country let's go to a giant country. secretary general of the international energy security forum. in an annual event held beijing. it's the chinese largest think tank and the largest think tank in the world. being in beijing i was very struck to see that the main streets in beijing are 12 and 16 lane highways full of brand new cars, full of brand new s.u.v.s, very large new cars. china's economy is growing very fast even within a global economic downturn. how fast is china's oil

consumption expected to grow as we move forward? big question. since 1993 chinese have become ninth importer. china has become cole importer. [indiscernible]

we have the highest price of automobiles, the highest soline price and the indiscernible]

the chinese people don't know where the economy will go. this year china will surpass the u.s.a. as the number one oil importer. only can say there are opportunities of collaboration between u.s.a. and china, we can collaborate on electric motors, and we hopechnology [indiscernible]

i urge all of you here to attend next year. thank you. >> our report includes domestic recommendations and international recommendations. would you please describe the international recommendations especially as they pertain to what we just heard? >> there are a number of recommendation on the international front. i would like to talk about one of them. the rest are in the report. we believe that for too long we have been hearing about the u.s.

and brazil talking more about ethanol which is grain alcohol but as you can see in this slide here china has made it's choice and china is going very ggressively toward adoption of methanol fuel. today it is already a commercial fuel in all of those provinces that you see here in orange. there are standards in place. here are provinces larger than the state of california where almost every fuel station serve it is fuel. they are standard so you're not doing it illegally. it's within the law. very soon there are going to be a national stad for methanol in china. so between the grain alcohol and wood alcohol, those two alcohols enable us to come up with a new

idea. -- ll it abc aligns alieans. the top three alcohol blending countries, among the three of those countries you find almost half of the world's automobile making capacity. in other words, almost half of the world's cars are made within the borders of those three countries. and when you are engaged in a coordinated approach among the top three auto makers or top two and brazil about another 4 million cars a year. china today makes 19 million united states about 10, but this gives one enough leverage to dictate what type of cars are going to be driven around the world.

and if have you enough of a critical mass of cars that are comparable with a liquid fuel that can be made in the united states from natural gas as we heard, it can be made in other places in the world from other commodities, can be made in the future from co2. what we want to do is make sure that 50% of the cars made around the world, maybe more are comparable and certified and warranted to run on this alcohol fuel and we think that because changes and al cost and changes in infrastructure associated with this, it will be a very little hanging frute to open the door to a fuel that offers so many economic, environmental and

strategic benefits. i would just add that in china the drive for methanol fuel adoption was mostly environmental. those of you who visited major cities in china know what i'm talking about when we talk about air prution problem. chinese are increasingly aware of the problem and they would like to see cleaner skies, blue skies for a change and the pressure is mounting to really don't cleaner burning fuels. i think there is a unique opportunity here to bring those three countries together in a concerted effort and that's one of our primary recommendations in this reported on the international front. >> thanks. just to point out when you said standard in demine, you don't

mean where people have to use it. you mean at a particular pump you know exactly what is going into your car when i buy a particular product. what struck me also in china is it is made from coal and what struck me is that the fuel is so economic, it's so cheap as compared to gasoline. let me see if we can find the slide here. if approximate you look at this graph, this is the price of methanol compared to the price of gasoline. the price is so competitive compared to gasoline that you actually have illegal blending going on that this is really economically driven. it's not something that is top down driven or anything like that. i want to jump over to darren of the defense counsel and put you on the spot a little bit as one

of the representatives of the environmental organizations in the room. you hear many, many voices in the environmental movement over the years have called for high oil prices. a lot of environmentalist believe that high oil prices are good for the environment. we have high oil prices. are high oil prices good for the environment? >> no. high oil prices in and of themselves are not good for the environment. that is something that is costly to the u.s. economy, it's costly to the consumers and because they have little choice but to continue buying oil at sky high amounts in order to make their daily rounds, it's not what drives better environmental out comes. what drives better environmental out comes are good policies such as a higher fuel economy

standards. and other alternatives for americans to use besides their cars in order to make their daily rounds. the good news for the environment in the united states right now is the fact that it looks like oil consumption may 2007 and ed a peak in looking ahead as a friend of mine at exxon mobile said is efficiency as far as the eye can see. we see efficient vehicles on the road dritch by policy and the other thing that is happening is to project at a set percentage out into infinity which is foolish and looks like we're reaching a sat relation point in termings of per capita driving. and these two facts are driving our oil consumption down slowly and we're seeing pollution peak

as well. what is happening elsewhere in the world is crucial of course. what happens now to capitalize on this remarkable fact in the u.s. is crucial too. hopefully this will make scaling alternatives up easier because efficiency and reduced consumption is just part of the equation. that's why i'm gratfide to hear so much talk about competition. now the question is if we can envision a world where we use less oil, can we ramp up real competition for it so that when you pull up to a gas pump it's more akin to walking down any aisle in a grocery store and looking at multsm product lines as opposed to a monoculture in the energy sector. >> to wrap that up, for the supply side whether it's electricity or liquids or gas, it's the question is

funny people talk about the environmental community and there are so many differences of opinion. but for nrdc the question is what is the net environmental benefit for any fuel in terms of carbon emissions and environmental affects. it gets complicated pretty quickly but on the other hand there are some pretty exciting alternatives made possible because we can moderate demand. that was a lot. >> competition as we know drives down price. if you don't have competition then the biggest players in the room are going to be able to keep the prices nice and high for them, not so nice for the consumers. i think of this as a situation where you have very severe allergies. but you have to start each day with a cup of coffee with some

mick in it but you are alerg i can to milk. the only thing you can drink the rise milk. it could go up to $50 a gallon. you still can't put any other milk in your coffee. you can make do with less. you can scrimp and save but you don't have the option to switch on the fly among the different sources of milk. our vehicles have severe food aller jiss. because they are warrant tid to run only on gasoline, it doesn't matter how cheap others are because you can't use them. >> i think i can call you a captain of industry. you led lockheed martin. you had important roles in government. how important is it to encourage a real growth in production capacity for competitive fuels?

>> i think it's very important. in fact it may be the only answer for a period of time. i'm an engineer so i view the world through those eyes. and with the advent of hydrolic fracking that was made possible by technological break throughs, we suddenly have a new opportunity. but as we've heard as we have less and less energy dependency from foreign sources in this country, the price of energy doesn't drop. and that's kind of the mystery. you say why doesn't it drop. the reason is when you go to the filling station you have three choices depending on the brand you buy. you can have regular, high test or supreme, that's your choice. if you had a real choice, then the free enterprise system kicks

in and the free enterprise system really does work. so you say why hasn't it worked to date? and why don't we have a true choice at the pump. as i would view it there are a couple of reasons. let me cite two that stand out. one argued it will increase the cost of a vehicle to give it a multifuel capability. but if you look into that, the increase in cost is almost trivial. you may say what does a space engineer do sharing opinions on the ought motive world but i am rocket scientist. the second problem i think it cost money for the filling stations to provide the capability. if there is only one filling station in washington, d.c. that

gives you an alternative that's not going to solve the problem. you have to build a critical mass. that's the challenge today is to build this critical mass. through get into policy issues. competition does work. i've lived in it all my life both as a buyer and seller. we just have to give it a chance. >> now from one rocket scientist right over to another, dan putting you on the spot over here. dan at m.i.t., you led the m.i.t. reporten the future of natural gas. what did you conclude in what are the best ways to open the transportation fuel market to natural gas? >> thanks for the generous introduction. first i was executive director of the study butter any who is now the secretary of energy known to all of you was the

chairman of the study so you can blame him. my interest particular interest in this study was the togetheration area and with my student and other people we analyzed the various options for seeing how natural gas could play a fwreater role in transportation. we looked at cng and ong. we considered conversion of natural gas into electricity and then the use of electricity in battery powered cars. d we looked at conversion of .atural gas into liquid fuels and after quite a bit of debate and we debated all our conclusions pretty intensely, the conclusion of our group was

that converting natural gas into a liquid fuel offered the greatest promise for widespread impact in the transportation sector. and among liquid fuels we ncluded methanol had the greatest promise because the production from natural gas is very well established. we know what the price is. there are many commercial plants and the conversion cost of onowing a vehicle to operate mentioned as was earlier was trivial. a few hundred dollars. > allowing it to operate for methanol. yes, it was a few hundred

dollars. o we also looked at the use of natural gas not only in the light duty area but also in the heavy duty area. and natural gas converted to methanol looked attractive as an alternative to dees until rucks. -- diesel in trucks. >> it would not require a complex and expensive exhaust after treatment system and this could be particularly important in china. let me mention one additional aspect wasn't cord in our study but is an area of my interest which is the special properties of methanol that allow it to enable very large increases in

the efficiency of internal combustion engines. it has very special properties compared to other fuels. has a very high intrinsic ocktain. it has a tremendous cooling effect which has the same effect as high ocktean. these allow engines to operate at much higher compression ratio and turbo charging. allows smaller engines to replace larger engines that operate for efficiently. another area has to do with the very fast burn of it that further increases efficiency and it offers a good way of recovering exhaust heat. these are all unique features. together these are can increase the efficiency of an internal combustion engine by 50% or more

relative to present gasoline engines and 35% more than the best gasoline engines. this can have an impact in the light duty area and in the heavy duty area. so in addition to the lower cost methanol entually could save drivers money because they use less fuel, considerably less and also can be very important in reducing the green house emissions from vehicles. so along with its cost benefits and it's bundens, methanol over a somewhat longer period offers prospect for much more efficient vehicles. >> we're talking about can cheaper ber gallon and on the hicle side a very minor cost

for light duty under $100 and heavy duty you are saving money due to the exhaust coming out has to be so clean it cheaper to do this with another fuel. >> don, i want to jump over to you. i know you wanted to jump in with your comment but i have another question to ask you in addition. if a company bids up the price of its own product, that's actually illegal, people can go to jail for that. if you bid up your own stock, that's illegal? >> right. >> as oil goes up sovereign inflates and we have no way of tracking if they are bidding up the price of their product. is there anything that we can do about that? >> i was going to bring up and

i'm glad you did, i was going to talk about with respect to all of these commodities there is an open market and for the most part in the united states and part of the cme and the international petroleum exchange, one can see who is in the end of the day holding the amount of contracts relating to a particular commodity. in concert with that though, there are many, many banks and other kinds of institutions that trade not on the floor of the exchange but they trade in the physical commodity or a derivative there of. so what i would say it's not completely transparent but it is more so than the period of time we started in 1973 when there was no market or transparency for any of the complex energy

products. but with respect to the ones that you're talking about in the new form, i looked up quickly that in china they do have trading of futures. which i don't know how well they do or extent in methanol but i noticed none of the others are trading in these product was. so to the extent that the financial community can get involved in promoting some of the competition, i think that would be a very helpful group of people to put at the table. because if they can make money on transactions they'll do it but they also create another person or entity in the blend that can push forward some of your ideas. so that's kind of answering your question but also adding another component part to it. >> can i follow up. how do you bring about trading in new commodity not being traded? what's the process you need to

create enough volume? what needs to happen for one to be traded versus not being traded? >> fuel oil is not a commodity per say but the components of it are traded very actively and most every single company involved in some area where they utilize fuel oil has hedges on it. some of it is deriveed from a mix on the exchanges and others are goldman sacks or morgan stanley. also the big banks. so if one wanted to start traded i would go first to the big companies that know how build the over the count ter markets in concert with the exchanges. if there can be volume and especially in spreads that one

would do between natural gas and methanol it sounds like, it would be pretty step by step but you get partners to do it with you. >> joe, you directed the fuel freedom foundation. we've been talking about the new vehicle market but the secondary market is very important. most cars on the road are not new. how important is it to streamline regulation to reduce the cost of retro fitting existing cars to be platforms for fuel competition sm >> thank you very much. and thanks for having us here. the mission of the fuel freedom foundation is to create competition at the pump for cheaper, cleaner american made fuels. we're generally agnostic on the fuels themselves but as it happens with all the discussion we've had here today, it's a clear important geopolitical

fact that natural gas is a huge boom. we couldn't have had the conversation maybe even four or five years ago. so the dramatic diversion of the price of oil and the price of natural gas on a btu basis is an enormous opportunity for our country. even though we are fuel agnostic in general, our view is how do you make liquid fuels from natural gas available. we're very big proponents of methanol at the foundation. you can also make ethanol from natural gas, both liquid fuels which can go into vehicles. so why if it's really cheap to convert your car to do it as we've heard. you've got abundnt supplies of natural gas. you have abundnt supplies of methanol, not so much ethanol.

what's the issue. e.p.a. has a regulatory regime, many people are critical of epa. they are not crazy regulations. e.p.a. has a mission to prevent tampering with vehicles. so the regulatory regime is to prevent tampering. however even within their existing regulations there is the ability to go to e.p.a. and get permission to convert your vehicle to run on other fuels. so why doesn't everybody do it? >> the regulations are quite complex. they are quite come ber some and quite expensive. they also weren't designed with this whole idea of taking natural gas liquid fuels from natural gas into account. our foundation is working very hard to look at the technical background of those regulations. how it is we can approach e.p.a.

and help them come to view this is better for the environment, their job is the economy, that's their job the environment. how do we work with e.p.a. to make it easier to convert more vehicles in the existing fleet to run on fuels from natural gas. we are supporting a good deal of research e technical motor engine research. i just came from a meeting yesterday. we are trying to provide the intellectual infrastructure to go to e.p.a. to cause them to come to the view that this would be a good thing for their mission as well as the rest of the country. >> we sponsored a study na concluded that the idea of widespread conversion of existing vehicles to liquid fuels from natural gas is both

economically desireable and regulatoryly feasible. that is one of the early published studies on this and there are others coming. 250 million existing vehicles is a heck of a market for people to look at natural gas and converting it to a fuel that will go into those cars and our little bumper sticker is cheaper, cleaner american made fuels. >> thank you. over to umarty. you are at ba tell heading the energy and environment group there. and i'm going to pick on you regarding india because i know jim just came back from india but you were in ipped i can't not too long ago talking about energy issues. india we have very small very cheap car and a lot of people lifting themselves up into the middle class and the first thing they want to do is buy a car.

how important is low fuel cost to the economy of india and really where is india going when t comes to thinking about oil? >> it's interesting you mentioned tata. it's a cng vehicle with gasoline. low fuels are key to any developing country. the amount of money everyone spend on fuel and transportation and being able to get from your place of residence to a place of work and what that does to expand your economic opportunities is key for all those folks. we like to say technology is easy. getting technology in the marketplace is very difficult. if you look at some of the advances that were done in the u.s. years ago, those were done on methanol. when detroit big three made flex three vehicles, they couldn't

get competition in the u.s. so they went to brazil and converted to ethanol. getting those changes back in the u.s. will be key for having those competitions at the fuel pump. with competition you'll break down the barrier and get more technology into the marketplace and price comes down and more people can rise up. >> we've been having an alcohol party at the round table. energy emphasize the sourt council is fuel agnostic. we don't have a dog in the race. we don't care which fuel wins. we want a competitive market in which no one commodity is particularly important and the analogy that i use, that we use, l of suss turning oil into salt. salt was once a strategic

commodity. wars were fought over salt and countries chose where to place col anies based on where was salt. with canning and regridge relation salt became not that important anymore. nobody cares or knows how much salt we import or who controls salt recertains or what salt price is. and that's true independence. true independence is not wowing yourself in the world market. it doesn't matter who sits on oil reserves because it's just one among many different options of what you can put in your tank. but since we've been in having an alcohol party, i just want to make a shoutout here to one particular other technology which is vehicle electrify indication. the most fun car i ever dreeve, i don't know if we have a tess

la representative in the room but the most fun car i've ever driven was a tesla roadster. it's an unbelievable driving experience. we heard from the secretary before this is about getting the cost of batteries down. one of our recommendations on international front is collaboration focusing our efforts on driving down the cost of that battery because there is tremendous potential when it comes to vehicle leck triindication, your car does not care whether natural gas or wind or anything else general rates that electron it's running on. want to make sure we're not focused on only one technology here. >> just to back up what you are saying, leck trifying vehicles tend to be talked about separately as if they are just

alternatives. but i've got a prius that has been converted to be a plug in hat is about 20 miles a day on electricity and a volt that is 35 miles on electricity. once you run out from the overnight charge you're on a liquid fuel. if that liquid fuel is cleaner, you make some pretty dramatic changes with today's technology. for example little dial on the volt says on the average given how long i drive each day i get 95 miles per gallon of gasoline because the volt only uses gasoline. e 85 or m also used 85. >> that's 85% alcohol. then i would be getting 400 to 500 miles per gallon of gasoline

every day because you need that 15% gasoline for cold weather starting. so you don't have to choose between electricity and alternative fuels. in can use both in plug hybrids. it was a e tesla when prototype and i've never had so much fun. people love electric cars once they've driven them and they are captivating and so fort. but you don't have to choose not to have alternative liquid fuels if you have a plug in hybrid. you can do both and end up with hundreds of miles per gallon of gasoline and the technology is out there on the road to do this right now.

mind overview, let me re you of point one, the demand for oil continues to grow. china is going to import more. more.is going to import the consequence is we are going to see a continued price pressure and we are on the ragged edge of supply. and for the immediate foreseeable future, we will continue to be there. so the knelt effect is we are not going to break the monopoly of opec. we can constrain opec's pricing power with these alternatives.

but do not think that we are going to break the power of opec. they will continue to prosper as long as the international nvironment continues as it is. >> i want to jump over to greg. methanol institute. talk to us a little bit about the growth in production capacity around the world over we nt years and really what can expect going forward. >> sure. i guess i'd start off looking at china. if you go back about ten years, china had less than a billion gallons of methanol production

capacity. today they have about 15 billion gallons of production capacity. so they've grown that much in just the past decade. as you mentioned in most of their production capacity is using coal as a feed stack. and china has made the decision that natural gas based coal is a strategic transportation fuel -- >> methanol. >> coal based methanol. >> right. but if you look at what is happening here in the u.s., if you go back to 12i79 u.s. had 30% of the world's production capacity for methanol. we had twenty plants. you could make it all day and get a considerable profit. we saw the price of natural gas

rise up. in our industry went through a rationization. a lot of plants closed down. some were cut up and sthoippeddemine and are operating today in china on coal. now we've seen that reverse. now because of the shale gas revolution we're seeing a resurgence of the industry here in the u.s. so we had just a couple of years ago we were down to only two methanol plants. if you fast forward within the next five to six years, we're anticipating to be at about 5 billion gallons of production capacity in the u.s. just last year o.c.i. reopened a plant in texas. a plant e of weeks moth balled in texas will be reopened. one of our member companies is cutting up and shipping two major plants from chilly to

louisiana to take advantage of the low cost gas here. and i think kiss coverry channel is doing a special on moving that production. we could be in just-- that prod. we could be at a point where the u.s. becomes again one of the largest methanol producers in the world, and potentially a large methanol exporter. within the next five to seven years, we can have as many as 3 billion gallons of methanol looking for a market. we could put onit on a ship and send it to china. or he could use it here for domestic feel. >> thank you. i want to highlight a key policy regulation. we have been talking about the needs for opening the vehicle for fuel competition. the approach really has been -- we are fortunate to have andrew linhardt hear from congressman engel's office, and he has been

a leader in the assets. years -- has been for ,ess just ask auto companies tell auto companies, as new cars he do have seatbelts, you need to open your cars to some sort of fuel competition. we don't care what. vehicle electrical petition, compressed national -- natural gas, choose whatever it is you want, but open to new competition. someapproach has faced clinical difficulties, and so -- that is an understatement. despite that as jim pointed out, the dangers of monopolies and cartels, many people do not understand the need sometimes

for a little bit of government access -- action to break through an opening market to competition. -- in your head against the wall repeatedly gets to be a little bit tiring, so in this report there is a very different approach. one key recommendation is via the existing fuel economy system, automakers have to make -- cap to meet very tough fuel economy standards. it will be quite extensive to make these standards. good will toward men will result from this, but the fact is that will raise the price of vehicles and be tough for automakers to do. one of the approaches we suggest is if you make at least half of the cars in your fleet some sort of tool competitive vehicle, electrified vehicle, png

vehicle, if it is like still, it has to be gasoline methanol/at all. we really want broad condition. some, nation thereof. some other technology nobody has thought about -- if you make at least half of your cars in your fleet fuel competitive, then the government should make it easier for you to meet the existing fuel economy requirements by saying we are going to give you a number, a miles per gallon credit for that fuel economy number. not per vehicle. there are existing credits today on the books for making different vehicles that run on -- run onvehicles nonpetroleum fuels. if you need to spoke ratio, you are moving the market enough to get the fuel station attention. if there are one or two cars up that i can use a particular

fuel, you do not have a business reporting a fuel pump to serve that fuel. but if you are a fuel station owner and you have 10 pumps and 15% of the cars in your area can use the fuel, all of a sudden you have a business reason for putting in a pump to serve that fuel, especially if that fuel is cheaper and your markup on it can be larger. key is one of our recommendations. there are other recommendations to streamline regulatory barriers across the board when it comes both to the fuel site in the vehicle side, but i want to jump over to john hofmeister again. >> i would like to make a point that i am actually putting up in a parking space because i think without recognizing it in a discussion like this we could beingtentially end up extremely frustrated. there's enough intelligence and experience around this table to truly transform the american and the global fuels marketplace.

from the forces of market, i understand how powerful they are. i also as a practitioner in the industry know that there is no such thing as a free market for energy essentially anywhere in the world. absolutely every aspect of bringing energy from the ground controlled,mer is permitted, or licensed by some agency of the government one way or another. i have never met an american that did not love democracy. i also know a lot of frustrated americans in the way in which democracy operates. as the secretary said previously, we have had eight presidents who have embarked upon energy independence. i do not think any of them were incompetent people. but here we are 40 years on, and we are where we are. hundreds and hundreds

of members of congress and senators over the years. i can only probably count on one hand people that i thought were not competent. at least in the conversation that i was having. they are competent people who come to serve. i have met hundreds of appointed officials over the years. on anything or any incompetent appointed official i have ever met. so with all of this competence in the face of a government that controls every aspect of energy from the molecule in the ground to the molecule in the gas tank, why are we where we are? i put this in a parking place because this is not the conference to discuss it fully, but i do not think we could leave here without realizing that democracy is a problematic system when it comes to energy the way we have established the current governance. the current governance includes 13 cabinet agencies and the

executive branch plus the white house, 26 congressional committees and subcommittees, 800 plus federal judges, 50 states, 50 state legislatures, and then you get to the thousands of units about these and counties across the country. system.dmitted -- pretty fragmented system. where my going with this? -- where am i going with this? the same issues exist around energy that exists around money and the supply of money. yet we have in our democratic wisdom figured out a mechanism that enables the monetary system to work. ofhin the same governance this big, sloppy federal democracy. pastse we have in the experienced monetary crises where the system was not working

, we came up with a solution. that solution is not 100 years old this year. 1913, federal reserve act aeated an institution, governance mechanism that works to manage money. i think it we give some serious modify the action to governance model that we use for energy from the this functional -- the dysfunctional and fragmented energy governance system that we have today to a more simple like, streamlined, independent authority when it comes to energy, we will not crack this problem. opec is a powerful institution. operates under very different rules than the u.s. government. because it has no rules. it is just agreement. the eight presidents, 20 congresses, many, many states

having tried this effort -- they have none of them succeeded. i do not think we can afford the lack of success in the face of future fuels competition for the basic fuel that we use today peer it we are all going to lose. i think somewhere along the line , we have got to turn our attention to not just the practical solutions of competitive products, which i absolutely agree with and work everyday to promote, but i think we also have to deal with the larger issue, which is as long as we pretend that energy is a place, when it is not in the first instance because it is all upturned, then we have to have a government institution that enables that market --ernately to work ultimately to work in an organized manner the same as we have a monetary system that works in the very same system in

which we also consume energy. i will leave it there. thank you, john. >> i agree with the complexity that you present, but sometimes to need an outside force have the government do the right thing. we see on the slide is the of the chinesent version of the sputnik because sometimes you need a nudge from the outside. this is happening. israel. -- it is a real and it is spreading. as you know, no automaker in the world will be able to give up on the chinese market. then the question is -- can we afford as a nation to see our chinese friends enjoying competition at the pump when we are denied similar prerogatives?

at that point, people will ask the government why do people in china and brazil have the kind of choice and we do not? sometimes you need a little push from the outside. >> let's not get too envious of china. [laughter] bill andgo over to then with frank and an overview, bud, for a wrapup. >> for somebody who has been involved in the production of ethanol for the past 40 years, i would be inclined to wave a right -- a white flag, but not have one, so i would like to propose something outside the government that we can do, and that is a partnership between ethanol and methanol. >> thank you, bill. over to you, frank. before we parted, i would

like to see if we could get some ground truth established on a couple of things that i keep as a told about methanol clear, attractive option here. is terribly corrosive and therefore it cannot possibly be used in existing internal combustion engines. i'm told it is toxic and therefore a health hazard. i have been told it comes down that thelly warranties technology -- i heard jim talk about o-rings. we been manufacturing cars in this country that had as a potential, at least the sale in brazil. --y are not martyred here as marketed here as flex fuel vehicles but they are marketed there as a flex fuel vehicles. so they could be in fact if not methanol compatible than ethanol

compatible. what is the difference yo? we part,ebody before rocket scientist or others, just to get to the ground truth here as to how hard is it, whether it models pre-2007, which i understand is a bigger deal, or just the ones that have been made sense to thousand seven? -- since 2007? ones goingsince the forward as you just implied will be manufactured for a chinese market as well as an american market, and will we be persisting in this pretense that they cannot be everything they are in these foreign markets? >> there are a heck of a lot of know want tohat i jump in, but greg, you are in the seat. >> if you look at china, a lot of those provinces are using 50% methanol, 80% gasoline.

the cars that are using those are the existing fleet of vehicles, no changes to the cars. if you look at the chinese auto fleet, about two thirds of the cars that are sold in china are built by the international oen 's, ford, audi, volvo. those are likely compatible with him-15 because they are compatible with china. with existing warranties. if you look at m-85 -- >> so the company that manufacture these cars are warranting them to work in china with 15% methanol? >> they are honoring the warranties in vehicles that are being fueled with 50% methanol. 15%he flexible -- with methanol. on the effect -- the flex fuel cycle mode we had experience, we did not have technical problem, we knew how to build a methanol flex fuel vehicle. we are doing races in europe on , gasoline, ethanol,

methanol. we've done research with barlow demonstrating these same kind of volvo andends -- with they work. it is slightly more corrosive than ethanol but the materials compatibility issue is a simple expert on the toxicity site, methanol is toxic. you cannot make it on toxic. -- untoxic. when you talk about length, just 15% blendingthe the mix makes it powerful because it has that methanol in it, you cannot drink it. miles,nia, 200 million in china, not a single case of methanol poisoning. so it really is a nonissue. i would also point out that methanol is readily biodegradable. it is more environmentally

benign than gasoline. it is not have the carcinogens like benzene. so there are a lot of benefits to using methanol. have our mental energy. we know how to do it. there are no technical verticals. you,d, before we jump to is there anything you would like to add reflecting on our conversation today? really very it is impressive to hear everybody talking about not only oil and but also other forms of energy including methanol. in the past, china -- we utilize to make ethanol, but later we realized that our call is not enough for peoples consumption. therefore we give up the idea of manufacturing ethanol from corn,

and we manufactured methanol from coal because we have a lot of coal. i think that is really a very good form of energy and also very reliable form of energy. meanwhile, we will still rely on some other forms of energy, including nuclear and also hydropower. we will give more attention to methanol because before this seminar, i did not expect that people would be so interested in discussing this topic. behought everybody would interested in china's import of oil or natural gas. but that is actually not the whole case. thank you. >> thank you.

our goal is to look forward and look towards a competitive transportation fuel market for all countries. >> thank you very much. thank you to each of you who contributed today to this discussion. you know, it is kind of -- as kind of an old guy at the table. >> i said a mere kid. [laughter] >> on the day 40 years ago, we were facing this embargo, and the secretary of the time of defense was attending meetings tound the clock, and having worry seriously about the impact of quadrupling of the price of oil, well, the 40 years since

cynic, youu are a could say this has been the where age of handwringing we have tried again and again and failed. today, people that have come hoping for resolutions may ask -- well, what is new? why has it not been done? what gives you hope that it can be and that lives will change? i think what you have heard today tells you that our approach is relying importantly on two factors. that is to bring the american people and their values into this policy process.

what does by that -- everybody want to have? mp.etter value at the pu cheaper fuel. secondly, what is a bedrock american value that every american can give you 99% positive rating? competition. thinking about those two drivers, we believe that comment to -- we believe that are common to all americans, we are saying -- is it feasible to deliver a cheaper way to power transportation? do we have the resources, the science, the engineering at hand? and that is a new thing. because we do. today because of advances

carsectricity and powering and this windfall, enormous blessing of shale gas, which can be used as a vehicle fuel, bring new things to market. cleaner,cheaper, better for you, competitive. well, you may say how are you going to get that done? the answer is when you go to people that you need to start spending investment, to produce more of these alternatives, they say they are ready, but we are not going to do one until there are a lot of vehicles like him vehiclesn the road -- that can burn it on the road. at that point, john hofmeister's

point is absolutely right -- we do have to engage government in the regulatory framework that of carsle creating lots that can use these things. cannon and heoe fuel freedom foundation is focused upon. free american ingenuity and the mom-and-pop store for that matter to convert your existing there are 250 million of them on the road right now, to be able to burn all of these alternatives. at that point, you induce those investors to say -- great! if we are really going to convert all those old cars and start making new ones that can ghastly,hing -- methanol, or ethanol -- and we are at theeople that

cutting edge of electricity for powering cars, then suddenly you have a competitive marketplace. schlesinger is always right about this. we are going to have oil forever. we need it. let's get into a marketplace with electricity, with methanol, with ethanol, and let 250 million automobiles now capable of trying it all do it. the only other point that i think has been underplayed today is it is healthier. it is interesting that automobile industry has been very imaginative, and he fuel industry to, and trying to figure out how can you get a higher octane fuel?

for a long time we use lead, and we found out that is bad for you, and we took that out and began to put in carcinogenic things. we did not tell you that, but when you put mtbe in to replace benzene, via lane, they are all carcinogenic. achina, theex m windfall natural gas that enables you to make high-octane cohn said, gives you the high i think without the cancer. -- gives you the high op pain without the cancer. the deal. so we have the means to do this. if we can get the american people to express their values that are age-old.

we like competition. we like a cheaper product. if it is healthier, that is icing on the cake. is -- andbottom line the this report -- it is first report i have ever seen to do it -- is that you can do it without a dime of taxpayer money. now, on your evening news this very day, we are finding out that we are just not going to do very many things in our lives in the years ahead that subsidies government for taxpayer money. well, we're asking you all to become disciples and to get out there and spread the gospel. we are going to do our best to do the same thing. let me turn it back to you,

anne, and thank everybody for coming. [applause] >> thank you, bud. this is a special message to our viewers at home on c-span. you heard what bud said. we need you. we need you to demand of your elected officials that they stop talking about increasing our energy security by reducing oil imports, they start talking about turning oil into salt, making oil just into another commodity by opening the market to feel competition. it is the american way. competition is the american way toured together we can do this. without you, it is just another of the very many issues out there and no politician will pay attention. you can go to our website, united states energy council, reportrg, and find this and take the time to read it. thank you, everybody. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the federal government has resumed business after the shutdown came to an end bank this week when both timbers of congress voted on electric -- voted on wednesday to fund the federal government through mid- january and raise the debt ceiling until february. there's also a measure in the bill that allows for a conference committee to be formed to work on a long-term budget proposal. they are expected to meet the week of october 28, the first of what is likely to be a series of meetings before reporting back to congress with a plan that is due mid december. this weekend on "newsmakers," we will hear from one of those representative, chris van hollen of maryland. he is the budget committee's

ranking member and one of the 29, reese. here is a little bit of the interview with him. this congress, the entire republican budget and democratic budget. the proposal and budget gets rid of the affordable care act. i should say, get rid of the good parts. -- it gets rid of the good parts. italy balances in 10 years because they kept all the taxes and the medicare savings. one of the things that i think the public is fully aware of is when republicans say they want to get rid of the entire affordable care act, if you do that, their budget would not balance because they kept every penny of the revenue stream that they complained about, and every penny of the medicare savings that they complained about. but the answer to your question is that there is a very wide scope, potentially, for this conversation. our priority for this budget negotiations going to be --

number one, accelerating job growth. that has to be our focus. getting the economy moving faster. that means making sure we invest in our and the structure, where you continue -- in our infrastructure, and we have huge unmet needs. we do believe we have to replace the sequester, and there are many republicans who agree with that because it is a drag on the economy. >> do you think that this sets a precedent, what happened this week in which we won't see this kind of governing by crisis anymore, that they may have learned about the balance of power, we have the president of one party and the senate ?ntrolled by the same party >> that is a big question going forward. i'm not think we will ever persuade the tea party caucus, the really reckless group in the house, that they should not try again to shut down the

government. we are not going to commence them. are theyion is -- going to step up and try and forge bipartisan compromise, not wait until after 60 days of a government shutdown with all of the pain that has been inflicted on the country? congressman chris van hollen tomorrow on "newsmakers" at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. the group called campaign to fix the debt hosted a meeting at the national press club about the federal budget and the deficit. the event took place shortly after it was announced wednesday that senate leaders harry reid and mitch mcconnell had reached a deal to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling. among the speakers, former defense secretary leon panetta and jim nussle. this is about one hour. >> good afternoon, ladies and

gentlemen. i would like to introduce maya mcguiness, the president of the committee for responsible federal budget and the president of fix the debt. [applause] >> thank you. thanks so much, everybody, for joining us today. this turned out to be an incredibly well-timed conference. on behalf of fix the debt, fix the debt is a nationwide, diverse coalition made up of citizens, business leaders, civic leaders with the purpose of trying to, in a bipartisan way, focus national attention on the need and push for a comprehensive debt deal that would help deal with the nation's fiscal challenges. today is obviously an important day. it appears as though we have a real plan put in place that would deal with opening the government and lifting the debt ceiling and putting in place a budget process to help focus on those discussions. we have, today, with us an incredible gathering of people who will talk about the current crisis we have been in, the

state of play where we are, and the kinds of things we want to focus on going forward from a really diverse group of people with diverse perspectives. again, i think the importance is to talk about how people with different opinions can come together and work on these issues. i think what is clear is that what we have seen so far is the model in this country is we have been lurching from crisis to crisis. we cannot continue to do that. i think in the coming weeks, it is going to be critically important. we know what we need to focus on, the issues of reforming our entitlement system, our tax code, replacing the sequester with smarter cuts, and finding a plan to put our debt on a downward path. we think it is critical that it is time to stop the menace of the way we have been governing, start real negotiations, and solve the problem. i'm thrilled to be able to introduce secretary panetta, who has held so many important roles in all of this, most recently as secretary of defense, but has also played instrumental roles in budget negotiations in the past.

he's going to kick off this will discussion and talk to us from his perspective about all of these issues. we are incredibly lucky to have him. thank you for joining us, secretary panetta. >> thank you very much, maya. thank you for your great work. ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in this effort to try to put this country back on the right track. our hope is that later today actions both by the house and senate, that they can bring, what i think has been, a very tragic and shameful period in our history to an end. it is hard to believe that what has happened has been not the result of an economic crisis, not the result of war, but the

result of a self-inflicted wound by people who frankly swear to make sure that they will do everything to protect and defend the constitution and this country. 17 years ago, we went through a similar shutdown when i was chief of staff to president clinton. at the time, i thought that there were two lessons that were learned by that experience. one was that you don't take a step that hurts the american people, innocent american people, by shutting the government down. that makes no sense. to use that weapon against your very constituents, against the people who elected you to office.

secondly, ultimately the lesson that came out of that, it was better to govern than to create gridlock and to shut the government down. it is better to govern. that was the case. 17 years later, i think those lessons still apply. it makes no sense to shut the government down and to hurt this country, to hurt innocent people, kids, women who needed nutrition assistance, families that are trying to meet their debts at the end of the month, putting people out of work, putting people out of jobs, threatening individuals in terms of their quality of life. it makes no sense to do that. to take a step that threatens our economy, hurts our economy, hurts our growth levels, an economy that has been through some rough times and is looking

like it may be on the right track -- why would you take a step that would deliberately hurt our economy? and hurting our national defense. let me tell you, from my own experience -- i just had the opportunity to come from the pentagon -- a combination of the sequester and this shutdown has hurt our national defense. not only are some very important elements of our defense being put on hold, 12 air force squadrons, combat squadrons of that have been grounded, half of air force planes are not ready for combat -- we have ships that are not being deployed. there is maintenance that is not being done. we are virtually hollowing out our military. at a very important time when we face all kinds of threats abroad in this country. this is still a dangerous world that we live in. then the shutdown top of that,

the furloughs, the impact this is having on the men and women in the defense department is inexcusable, in terms of protecting this country. so, it hurts america and americans when these shutdowns take place. my hope is that everyone learns the second lesson, which is that it is time to govern, to roll up their sleeves, and to get to work. the place they should have been weeks ago -- is in a budget conference. working on the key issues they need to address if we are serious about reducing the deficit, getting rid of sequester, and trying to put this country on the right path to the future. a budget conference that deals with entitlements, looks at all the entitlement programs and determines what reforms and savings could be achieved there, a conference that focuses on

looking at the whole issue of discretionary spending, what caps should we put on it, but what should be the next five- year direction for discretionary. we need to establish some stability here rather than this kind of kick the can down the road mentality that we have been involved with. what is our discretionary spending going to look like over this next period? and looking at elements of tax reform -- all of those things ought to be looked at. this is the opportunity to do it. my hope is that they will take advantage of this opportunity to govern this country. i believe we are at a turning point in the united states of america. it is a critical turning point. we can either be an america in renaissance with a strong

economic recovery, with opportunity for everyone, a strong middle class, the opportunity to be creative and innovative, the opportunity to provide good education to our kids, to be able to have a strong workforce, as we do -- this country could be in a renaissance in the 21st century. or we could be a country in decline, an america in decline, if we continue to be dysfunctional in terms of how we govern this country and if we continue to operate by crisis after crisis after crisis. that is no way to govern the country. what path we take is largely going to be determined with how we govern ourselves. in recent years, unfortunately, as i tell my students, you govern a democracy either through leadership crisis -- if leadership is there, we can avoid crisis. they've got to be willing to take the risks associated with leadership. if leadership is not there, we will operate by crisis. crisis will drive policy. you can do that.

but there is a price to be paid. the price that is paid is you lose the trust of the american people and our system of governing. the time has now come to exercise leadership on all sides. the american people are probably the best example that all of us in elected office drew our strength from -- the american people, like my immigrant parents, have some fundamental principles and values they believe in -- common sense, doing what is right, hard work, sacrifice, and a willingness to do what they believe is necessary in order to get their children a better life. i believe that i have seen that in our men and women in uniform as secretary of defense. our men and women serving this country are willing to put their lives on the line in order to

protect this country. they are willing to fight and to die in order to protect united states of america. i believe, if they are willing to fight and die to protect this country, then surely that those we elect to office ought to be willing to take the risks associated with governing in order to protect this country. our hope is that they will do that, they will engage in this conference, and they will do everything necessary to protect the government of, by, and for the people. >> thank you so much. next i would like to introduce former congressman, former chairman of the budget committee, former head of the office of management and budget, jim nussle. >> thank you. leon, that is impossible to follow. maybe i shouldn't even try. i have followed you a few times both as chairman of the budget committee and at omb. i am proud of the tenure and the

experience and dedication and example of public service, and again, you showed it here today. i thank you for joining us at this important moment. this is not a proud moment for our country, even with the good news of an agreement. we can all look forward and see a couple of different paths that could easily develop, one that is just as negative as the one that we have recently been on that could, by january 15 to february 7, devolve into yet another crisis, stalemate, another juncture that would prove just as damaging as the one we have been through, or a path were cooler heads can prevail, some experience, some judgment, some leadership, people who want to govern, as secretary panetta said, people who want to step up and realize that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, that our country is more important than

all of the little petty things that go on all the time. we have all participated in it. i don't stand here with clean hands today. i see former members of congress, and of course, leon, as well -- all of us, from time to time, the rhetoric has gone up a little too hot, and maybe we said something or did something, but at most junctures, we were able to put all of that aside, come together, and say, ok, we said that. we did that. we have been there. let's come and figure out what the right path forward should be. what we have seen recently has been reckless or incompetent. pick your poison. it is based on debates that are important -- the role of government certainly is an important national debate that we have now and will continue to have. waste, fraud, and abuse, tax reform, entitlement reform, even defunding or delaying programs that may be popular on one side and unpopular on the other -- it is certainly worthy of debate.

anyone who has watched saturday morning cartoons and has watched how a bill becomes a law by "schoolhouse rock" -- "i'm just a bill, i'm only a bill on capitol hill" -- know and knew what was going to happen. this did not take anybody, other than a kid watching saturday morning cartoons, to understand that when the president and senate say no, the house isn't going to go. that is just the way it works. that is the way our system has been developed. instead of educating our constituents, instead of taking this as an opportunity to inform people and to explain exactly how we are going to govern ourselves in a self-governing society, people have taken this to forward their own personal or their own personal political agendas.

which has been an abomination, in my view, and very reckless and incompetent towards our system of self-government. we have an opportunity. today, cooler heads to prevail. we have an opportunity to look forward over these next couple of months and say, we can put this process back together. both secretary panetta as chairman of the budget committee and myself have participated in these conference committees between the house and the senate where budget negotiators come together and plot the path forward. they are messy. they can be ugly. they can be just as difficult as what we have seen, but if people are committed to the end result and if they will listen to organizations and campaigns, such as what we have assembled here today, we can give them some tools for the toolbox as they go into tried to build that consensus. there are many good examples of that here today. fix the debt was put together as an organization or as a campaign that believes that tax reform ought to be on the table,

certainly, entitlement reform needs to be there. sequestration is a crazy, dumb way to run the government. looking at both annual as well as automatic spending needs to be put on the table. the focus needs to be on the long-term, not february 7, not january 15th. how about 2020 and 2025 and when our kids and our grandkids have to look at some of this debt? that is the reason we focus it on the debt. most, in a bipartisan way, can say fixing the debt is the ultimate goal. everything else, yeah, we will have those fights and disagreements. no one, even in this campaign, is going to agree 100% of the time. we have partners here today that i want to invite forward to give a little bit of their perspective on this.

as an example, we have had a group of former members, some of them that are here today, that, in a bipartisan way, has met on the outside on a regular basis to talk about ways that they can influence our former colleagues on a path forward. we have had a wednesday morning debt fest where we get together over breakfast and talk about ways that our organizations can work together and stay together and focus attention on this very important mission. we have invited a couple of those partners to come here today and to give us some of those thoughts. i would like to invite a few of them forward here today. first of all, i would like to invite xavier pulmeras, the president and ceo of the u.s. hispanic chamber of commerce, to come forward and provide his perspective. >> thank you. good afternoon. on behalf of united states hispanic chamber of commerce, i would like to thank the team at fix the debt for organizing this press conference.

the ushcc represent 3.2 million hispanic-owned businesses that, together, contribute more than $468 billion to the american economy every year. we also advocate on behalf of 206 major american corporations, and we do this through our network of 200 local chambers and business associations throughout the nation. while the ushcc represents the interests of businessmen and women who happen to be of hispanic descent, we never forget that we are first and foremost american businesses. every tax bill we pay, every job we create, every product we manufacture, and every single service we provide those to benefit our american economy. as one of the nation's largest business organizations, our membership's primary concern is the health and prosperity of our economy.

all businesses are directly influenced by a stable political climate and the state of any economy. our american people understand that we must work together to sustain the growth of our businesses, the security of our jobs, and the full faith and credit of the united states. everyone, from main street to wall street, knows that the weight of the economy rests on the shoulders of our elected officials, and we are asking them to put the common good of our country before political partisanship and self-interest. how deeply has our nation sunk into the trenches of partisan politics that not only has the government of the strongest democracy in the world been shut down, but is now facing the threat of an unprecedented default, which will jeopardize our standing as a global economic leader? for the past years, our congress has been plagued by divisive politics that have reversed the recovery of our economy. this environment of brinkmanship has reached its boiling point,

and the current threats of default are already resonating and creating signs of uncertainty in national and international markets. consumer confidence is now at an all year low, while interest rates continue to climb. the ongoing gridlock is estimated to cost taxpayers almost $19 billion in extra interest. even foreign debt holders are demanding more collateral due to the uncertainty of whether america can even meet its financial obligations. a substantial segment of our membership does business abroad and is deeply impacted by both the health of our national and the international economy. it is no secret that if congress allows the united states to default on its debt, the economic consequences would be nothing short of catastrophic. what happens in the united states doesn't only affect our nation, it impacts all of the countries that rely on the

stability and the well-being of our american economy. recently, mexico and brazil, the two largest economies in latin america and two very important trading partners, saw their currencies lose value simply because of america's threat of a default. chinese officials have urged the u.s. to avoid a debt crisis for the sake of the global economy. just last week, the international monetary fund warned of a worldwide shock that would result from the united states defaulting and stated that it is critical for our country, especially its elected officials, to prevent a looming crisis that would put the global economy at risk. the american people, our economy, and quite frankly, the world is hoping for better news from washington. the ushcc stand with our friends at fix the debt, with secretary panetta, with former omb director jim nussle, and all of the other organizations assembled here. we all call on congress to raise our nation's debt ceiling and

avoid this default. we urge congress to put an end to this hostile climate of uncertainty and brinkmanship. it is time to move our country forward, not jeopardize the hard work and the progress we have only together. at the end of the day, elected officials have a stake in preserving our free-market economy and our american way of life. negotiations, whether they are motivated by profit or politics, achieve their highest possible success when we recognize that cooperation works much better than conflict and solidarity will always outlast isolation and that our differences do not outweigh our common interests. thank you very much. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next, we will hear from ian kramer. ian is the executive director of leaders engaged on alzheimer's disease. >> thank you.

thank you for the opportunity to be here today. this is not a happy day. this is a day where we all sighed in relief that the circular firing squad said, ready, aim, and held its breath. this crisis is not over. all it is is delayed. the guns are still pointed. the real tragedy is the harm that could be done by a default, the harm that has been done by the government shutdown, and the harm that continues to be done by sequester is not suffered by those who impose it upon us. it is suffered by those who they victimize. and that is the american people, as has been stated before. while we are relieved we have not defaulted, and why we are relieved that the government shutdown appears to be near its end, hopefully not resurface, sequestration continues to be a weight on our economy, and more important, a weight around the next of the american people who desperately need their government to function and for a long-term solution to be found

that keeps them out of this day- to-day jeopardy about whether the programs and services upon which they depend and for which they pay will or will not be there in their time of need. i'm going to focus primarily on sequestration, but we know that sequestration is 10 annual doses of bad medicine. it is not only what has happened so far. it is what could happen over the next nine budget cycles if we don't fix it, fix it now, and fix it once and for all. if you want to understand what sequestration means for pursuing our own clearly identified and carefully planned national agenda, i would offer you just one example of many, and that is the crisis around alzheimer's. for 5 million americans who have the disease, there are 15 million caregivers. if we don't proceed with the science that we need, then over 13 million americans will have alzheimer's, and well over 40 million americans will be there caregivers within less than two generations.

currently, dementia costs the american people over $200 billion a year just for caregiving. we invest a paltry roughly $500 million in trying to arrest that disease or reverse it. it is ridiculously small investment. it is an investment that sequestration erodes. who agrees that we have to take more dramatic steps to fight alzheimer's, to invest in the science that will provide us a catalyst to reverse the trajectory of this disease? i will tell you. it is president obama. it is nih director francis collins. it is also house majority leader eric cantor, michele bachmann, and former house speaker newt gingrich. they are joined in a determination to increase alzheimer's research funding by republican senators susan collins. the entire congress voted

unanimously to adopt the national alzheimer's project act and create the first ever national plan to address alzheimer's disease, which has, in its most recent update, a consensus plan, a business plan, to stop and effectively prevent alzheimer's by the year 2025. that plan depends on scientific investment that the sequester not only prevents from being increased, but erodes the slight investment we already have. who else's for that increase investment? i would argue the entire american people. the 5 million who live with this disease today, the 15 million who are caregivers today, and all the rest of the american population that live in fear of their family being struck next. who is against nih having the tools it needs to stop alzheimer's? no one. no one will come forward. no one should come forward to say that they oppose those investments, but actions speak louder than words. your commitment is shown by what you do or what you choose not to do. sequestration is no accident. sequestration was a choice.

it was a choice from the first day it began. it remains a choice until we stop its 10-year run of bad medicine. what stands in the way? what stands in the way of getting rid of sequestration? it is exactly what the secretary and the congressman and javier spoke about, the will to do the work of the people rather than engage in political brinkmanship for self-serving political gain. even that fails. what they can do is succeed in the fight against alzheimer's disease if they are willing to put politics aside, get rid of the sequester, and engage in long-term, serious budget planning that reduces the burden's for cost of care and invests in innovation, which is the driver of our economy. i would say, do not isolate alzheimer's disease as the reason to get rid of sequestration. look across the government and

all the good that these members of congress vote for issue by issue, and say, are they undermining their own good intentions by their actions and choices to allow sequestration to remain in place? thanks. >> thank you, ian. next, you'll hear from todd mccracken, who is the president of the national small business association. >> thank you. i can't add a great deal to the excellent opening statements of secretary panetta, congressman nussle. i can certainly associate myself with their remarks. as i said before, i represent the small business community. for us, all of this creates a crisis of confidence. that is the fundamental issue, whether it is the shutdown, the threat of breaching the debt limit, or the ongoing brings kinship. you have to ask yourself -- i

asked folks this all the time -- if you were about to make an investment, open a business, grow a business that required you to risk your economic future, your home, your life savings, is this the moment in time he would choose to do that? would you have enough confidence that our leaders are going to put in place a framework? i would submit that the answer is no in most cases. that is why this is so crucially important. small businesses and startups are the place we are going to grow our way out of this mess. our leaders in washington need to give those folks a reason to believe in the future of this country. that means putting aside petty grievances and getting to some real long-term deals. these short-term issues are just that -- short-term issues. the real issues for this country are the long-term debt. we hope that our leaders will grab this opportunity in the coming months to sit down and talk seriously about how they can put these differences aside and get this country on the right framework where we all, who are invested in our economic future, can have confidence and move forward. thank you. >> let me invite hunter

rawlings, the president of the american association of universities. >> thank you very much. thank you to fix the debt and to secretary panetta for this occasion, which i think is particularly important given the late hour we find with our congress. i want to be very -- very brief, which for an academic is always a challenge, but i will succeed in that. we have the best research universities in the world by a wide margin. we have the best innovation system in the world. those are now jeopardized. those universities and that innovation system are jeopardized by the continuing problems here in washington. this is not today's problem. it is not this week's problem. it is not the sequesters problem.