corners. so the opportunity is available to a child growing up in one -- opportunities available to one child growing up in one neighborhood in that city might be vastly different from a child >> hing up just blocks away and that -- child growing up just blocks away and that difference can shape their lives and their life prospects from the moment they're born. from nancy reagan through michelle obama. ndays at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span3 and c-span radio and creep.org. >> senate energy and natural resources committee lisa murkowski called for a decades old ban on domestic crude oil exsports. she said president obama has the authority to end the ban without congress. senator murkowski made the comments at the brookings institution. this is just under an hour.

>> welcome, everyone, to brookings. i'm bill, the managing director here. and we're delighted that we're joined today by senator murkowski. one of my favorite johnny cash songs growing up was called "springtime in alaska" and if you remember the chore us, he says, when it's springtime in alaska it's 40 below and by that standard it's downright balmy here tpwheasheds. we're delighted that senator murkowski is here today. we wanted to make her feel at home so we deviled up some summer weather for her and i'm sure she's wondering what the big deal is all about. the senator is the top republican on the senate energy committee. from the largest state in the nation, nearly as big a territory as the u.s. west of the mississippi, she thinks in large terms about issues like energy and in particular energy. and she has a big track record on this issue. so today we're here to discuss the implications on the domestic economy, on our

national security and our energy security. and with the polar vortex being all the rage, we have almost forgotten about the polarization that almost chills washington and in that sense senator murkowski is of particularly important voice because of her ability to work across party lines. she's the only republican senator from a west coast state, and only one of three u.s. senators ever elected by write-in ballot, which means she speaks to noon partisan ground swell of support for practicing mat tism. senator measure cousy key has exhibited -- senator murkowski . s exhibited this she's been a consistent supporter of sensible pragmatic energy policy and that means taking a stand against subsidies for oil and gas companies when warranted but also for the right kinds of investments and infrastructure and policies that connect us to the wider world. she understands the vital role of energy in our economy not

just oil production in alaska but increasingly natural gas and renewable production across the country. she's been a supporter of oil production and exploration in alaska, of course, but also outer continental shelf oil and gas leasing, horizontal drilling into the coastal plain and developing technologies for renewable energies and carbon sequestration. she understands that this takes place in a global context. alaska, of course, not only borders canada to its east but as sara palin reminded us, russia to its west. she's focused on the role energy exports can play, both the potential economic benefits as well as the impact on energy prices, production and the broader economy back at home. secretary of energy, ernie, says these issues are all worth re-examining so we are really delighted that senator murkowski is here to have a conversation with us about

these topics today. as americans consume less oil but produce more of it, it's a good time to revisit energy policy. but energy, of course, is not just about how we get and use fuel. it's also about what happens when we use it, including the environmental consequences. and in that sense, again, senator murkowski is a terrific guest for us. she's won one of the few senate republicans who's argued that said we need to take climate change seriously. and on a day where people are wishing for more of a climate change and warming around here, we look ahead to a coming january weekend, this coming weekend where temperatures are predicted to be back in the 60's. understanding that the science s real but also emerging and evolving, senator supported energy efficiency legislation and a greater understanding of the need to adapt to a warmer world, actually, before we were talking about one of her favorite ski resorts near anchorage is starting to lose its base at the bottom because

it's too warm out there. we'd be happy to trade places with them today. at the same time she's focused on making sure that climate and energy efforts do not burden middle-class families unduly and she's been firm in asking other countries, such as india and china, to take a similar stand when dealing with carbon emissions. there are opportunities for rethinking energy trade, which will be a focus of today's conversation, and we all look forward to hearing from senator murkowski on how our country will answer these important questions about the changing global energy landscape. so with that we're delighted to have senator murkowski. [applause] >> bill, thank you for the introduction. for those in the back, there are seats upfront. it isn't like church. i won't be asking questions. i am pleased to see so many of you here this morning. very grateful to the brookings institution for the opportunity

to be here today on a good brisk washington morning. i'm not going to comment on the weather. other than to say, we'll take that polar vortex back. we like it cold. we want to keep it that way. and if you don't like it, send it on back north where quite honestly where it belongs. i like to go straight to the heart of the matter that i wish to discuss with you today, and this is where we are as a nation when it comes to our energy production. according to the energy information administration, last july saw u.s. domestic 7 gy production reach over quadrillion b.t.u. at's the highest monthly total record. we are producing more energy

today than ever before in this country. and its dramatic increase in production from all sources of energy has resulted in a dramatic sea change in our nation's energy trade. in the process, we're creating jobs, we're lowering prices, we're reducing our trade deficit. think about where we are right now. we are selling coal to the netherlands, morocco and germany. dist late fuel to france, chile and argentina. petroleum, to turkey and china. gasoline to colombia, brazil and panama. jet fuel to britain, israel and nigeria. natural gas to canada and mexico. and natural gas liquids to switzerland, honduras and aruba. and i could go on. i know that you probably know these facts well. i didn't come here today to simply recite facts.

i'm here because as good as this story is, these developments have transpired in spite of the federal government, not because of it, as the president frequently seems to imply. the rules of engagement on energy trade, quite honestly, were written long ago for a now bygone world in which scarcity, not abundance, were the prevailing mindset. a hodgepodge of regulations has accumulated over the better part of a century. kind of like a barncals on the hull of a ship. so let me briefly sketch out the maze that we're dealing with here. the state department reviews cross-border oil pipelines such askeystone x.l. but petroleum products, crude oil and condensate, fall under the commerce department. the energy department grants export licenses for natural

gas, but then the commerce department permits exports of natural gas liquids. and the ferc, the federal energy regulatory commission, regulates cross-border natural gas pipelines. coal and renewable energy products flow with ease to our trading partners while nuclear exports are tightly regulated, as they should be. even many professionals in the energy sector are unaware of the role federal trade promotion agencies plays within this area. for instance, the export-import bank, the overseas private investment corporation and the trade and development agency and other entities are advance the u.s. energy trade. in legal terms, what we're talking about are laws such as the natural gas act of 1938, the atomic energy act of 1954, the energy policy and conservation act of 1975 and

executive orders that stretch all the way back to the eisenhower administration. at recent workshop at the center for strategic and international studies encouraged participants to think about the regulation of energy exports in terms of the underlying chemistry. the chemical formulation for methane is ch-4, so you've got one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms. this can be sold through canada and mexico through a pipeline without much of a regulatory hurdle, but if you want to build a facility that liquefies gas for sea-borne transport to japan, then you need a license from the energy department to export it and another approval from the ferc to build your facility. that process we know can take

years. if you're absolutely determined to build an l.n.g. facility, you're pretty much in luck. go to australia and get liquifaction ne areas that our federal government is helping to promote over there. if you take a methane molecule and you attach two carbon atoms and four more hydrogen atoms, giving you c-3-h-8, also known as propane, then the commerce department will grant you an export license without much of a delay at all. but you done want to fiddle with the formula too much or you might end up with a barrel of crude oil, the export of which is generally prohibited, under, of course, you can process it through a refinery, in which case you can export it as diesel. you can also ship the crude to canada where apparently the laws of chemistry don't apply. the regulatory edifice that

governs the export of american-made energy is antiquated and at times, i would suggest, even absurd. and while there is no perfection under the sun, we surely can do better than this. today, i'm releasing a white paper -- this is a second that i have released. it's called "a signal to the world: renovating the architecture of u.s. energy exports," and it follows on the energy 20/20 blueprint and the l.n.g. white paper that i released last year. it was just about this time last year that i had the opportunity to release energy 20/ 20. we have since done one white paper. this is a second white paper and there will be a third coming out soon. but i have a goal with this particular paper, and the first is to highlight the facts. consensus about the facts is

the basis for productive dialogue. nd my second goal is to help frame a conversation about the state of u.s. energy exports, the architecture of the energy trade. and although certain aspects of the energy exports stories have been in the public eye for quite sometime now, i'm not aware, quite honestly, of another report that really shows the full picture through a single lens. and alongside this paper, i'm releasing a number of reports from the nonpartisan congressional research service that contain a great deal of information, some of which is not generally available, about various aspects of the u.s. energy trade. the facts tell me that we must modernize the regulations that govern energy exports, demonstrating to the world that we are committed, committed to

leading on issues of energy, the environment and trade. now, i am not proposing comprehensive energy export legislation. i believe that the executive branch has the statutory authority to implement most of these ideas on its own, and if the president does need help from the legislative branch, he will always have an open partner in me on the energy committee. i'm willing to introduce small, targeted bills to move the ball forward as needed. but i do want to today advance several key principles here, and there are three-fold. to assess, again, this energy architecture that we're talking about here, particularly where we have seen exports banned. the second principle is really to do no harm where the regulations that we have in place are working.

and the third principle is to look to efficiencies within our regulatory framework and see if we can't work to do better. so first, there are parts of this antiquated architecture where exports are effectively banned. i think we should think carefully about the conditions in which those bans were put into effect and consider whether or not they still serve the public interest, if they ever did. two energy sources in this area, of course, come to mind and that's crude oil and conneden say the. i raised the -- condensate. i raised the issue at this year's annual conference, and at the time i said that the debate could come sooner than expected, and here we are today. the basics are pretty simple. the shale plays in the balkan

are yielding so-called l.t.o., or light tight oil, our refining capacity is concentrated in the gulf coast and is geared primarily towards heavier grades of crude. now, as many analysts have pointed out at the e.i.a., at i.h.s. global and elsewhere, various mechanisms exist for moving l.t.o. out into the market. it can be shipped to lighter grade refineries on the east coast, for example, or blended with heavier grades. it can be shipped to canada, refineries, of course, can also be modified to accommodate lighter grades. with minimal exceptions, the export of crude oil is prohibited by law. it's my understanding right now we're exporting about 65,000 barrels per day to canada, but that's essentially it. there will come a time,

however, when we will have an unsustainable glut of this light crude. it may be next year. it may be sooner than that. it may be a matter of months. the free market works wonders but it can't work magic here. now, condensate, is a byproduct of oil and gas production. these hydrocarbons are extremely light. they can be refined and exported as natural gas liquids but otherwise trade is prohibited. most common tators assume -- commentators assume that congress and the administration will be slow to address this issue. opponents of oil exports will, of course, raise the specter of rising gasoline prices i think to scare off elected officials. now, as many of you here in this room, i spent at least a good several months thinking

about this export issue, but the point of deliberation is eventually to arrive at an answer. hung juries may be the default here in washington but they don't sell well in alaska. so i'm calling for ending the prohibition on crude oil and condensate exports. the current system is inefficient and may lead to supply disruptions that we can ill-afford. lifting the ban will send a strong signal to the energy markets that as a nation we're serious, we are serious as a country about our emerging role as a major hydrocarbon producer. now, i believe that the administration retains enough statutory authority to lift the ban on its own. although the president has the authority to declare it in the national interest to lift the

ban, another path is for the department of commerce to approve an application for export of crude oil or condensate, under a provision in the law permitting the applicant -- permitting the application if it can be demonstrated that those fuels cannot reasonably be marketed here in the united states. a mismatch then in our nation's refining capacity has already emerged and common sense suggests that the mismatch should meet these qualifications. now, if the administration is unwilling to act on its own or if that statutory authority needs further modification, i'm prepared to introduce modernization to modify the laws. now, opponents of trade will be quick to assert, too often without citing any evidence, that exports of crude oil will

raise gasoline prices for american consumers. this claim is wrong, but it must be dealt with immediately and it must be dealt with head on. i've said repeatedly, and i firmly mean it, that the goal must be to make energy more affordable. if we want to bring down gasoline prices, then we should be opening up federal lands to energy production, not closing them off. i can think of a few places in alaska that could be opened up immediately for new oil production which would help to lower gasoline prices. small but rising amounts of crude are already being exported to canada, as i noted. it's permitted by statute, but we've seen no crisis in gasoline prices here at home as a consequence of that. modernizing the export

architecture would reduce volatility by making world energy markets more efficient. we don't see a looming run on he crude oil bank out there. lift the prohibition on crude oil exports will have the entry of this oil onto the global markets will put downward pressure on internatiol prices. and all things equal, this combination will help the american consumer. i want to be abundantly clear here this morning. this status quo, in my view, is not beneficial to the american people. i believe that we need to act before the crude oil export ban causes problems in the u.s. oil production which will raise prices and therefore hurt american jobs. now, the second principle that i mention is doing no harm.

it is important that we do no harm. these are the areas where regulatory review is already effectively streamlined. thus far, coal exports appear to be keeping pace in world markets, and although efforts to forestall this expansion in trade must be opposed, i also see no problem with the regulatory structures surrounding renewables, natural gas liquids and petroleum gas products. the commerce department already covers those, and i believe is doing a commendable job. and then the third principle, we should be looking for efficiencies in areas where existing regulations could be more effectively implemented. so whether the state department is the appropriate agency in which to vest authority for cross-border oil pipeline is certainly a fair question to

ask. the course of its review of the keystone x.l. has been counterproductive and frankly i think it is unduly strained our relationship with canada. the department of energy's slow-walking of l.n.g. export licenses is another area that i think is worthy of examination. secretary moniz appears to have quickened the pace of approvals, which i appreciate, t the co-2 is still quite -- could you is still quite -- cue is still quite full. the project still must go through a rigorous safety review at the ferc. the u.s. has been a leader in the nuclear trade and i'm particularly excited about small modular reactors which has received a great deal of attention in terms of research and development. current designs can provide strong nuclear safeguards and

maintain our commitment to international security. so renovating our export architecture will strengthen our global posture and send a strong signal to the world that must be heard. already you have policymakers in riad who speak of the balkan and the eagleford, in tokyo and new delhi they watch the marcellus and the permian. in moscow and budapest they look at the potential of the utica and the monterey. inaction, also has a cost. failing to renovate the crude oil export architecture could very well lead to disruptions in supply and production. ultimately we can only have this conversation because of our energy resurgence, an

opportunity -- an opportunity orn of technological proess. american-made energy is the safest and most environmentally responsible energy on earth. and if any -- if any nation is exporting energy to the world, bringing electricity to those without power, heat to those in the cold, the united states then should be that leader. with that i thank you for the opportunity to present my thoughts with you, to share my new white paper on the energy architecture, happy to take questions about where we may go from here. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, senator

murkowski. that was a provocative set of comments and recommendations, the white paper, which i had a chance to look at last night, is really quite an important piece of work. it covers a wide range of sectors, as did your remarks. i want to introduce charlie evenger. senior fellow at brookings and head of our energy security initiative in our foreign policy program. charlie will ask a question and i'll get one myself and we'll turn it over to the audience for further q&a. >> thank you, bill, and thank you, senator murkowski, for, i think one of the most important speeches certainly i've heard in washington in a long time. i think the complexities of the regulatory process that you outlined are probably not known even to everyone in this room and certainly maybe not to all your fellow members on capitol hill. i think you did a great service in doing this. i want to recognize kristen abby on your staff who coordinated very closely with

my own staff in putting this etogether. i think a lot of hard work went into making this happen. let me begin by asking perhaps an unfair question because, as you know, each energy source is different and probably requires different regulatory processees. would you see any merit in the whole gamut of federal regulations governing the approval of various export projects for putting a reasonable time frame on the egulatory process by which the federal -- respective federal agencies would have to come up with a yes or no answer rather than this great limbo we sometimes see as we've seen, for example, on keystone? >> i think it's one of those a as that we can look to for possible solution to the delay, the impasse, the lack of

certainty that you have within an industry. i think one of the things that we recognize back here in washington, d.c. is when we don't have certainty within our policies, it costs dollars, it costs jobs, it costs us when it comes to our competitiveness. so when we think about ways we can improve the regulatory process, reasonable timelines to me are one area that we can to. hould be looking now, you have to recognize that there may be situations where you have to extend it out, that ou have to do a bypass, if you will. but right now, for instance, within the approval process for l.n.g. export license, there is -- there's no certainty whatsoever out there. it could be one month. it could be two months.

it could be two years. it could be never. and in the meantime, you have investors that are waiting, you have those who are seeking these jobs. you have those who are looking for the product to purchase but no certainty within our process, so i think it's one of those areas that we should look to to provide a little more certainty. >> thank you. bill. >> i was struck in your remarks how you both took a step back from calling for a comprehensive piece of legislation just on the exports piece and really calling for executive action in some of these regards and it makes me wonder how you see the broader political landscape. it suggests the sense of caution and not high expectations from what can get accomplished 18 blocks east of here. >> well, i would just remind you that we are on tuesday of the first work day back in january of 2014, which shall i

tell you, let the races begin. >> right. >> we are already into full campaign season in terms of the 113th congress, and when that happens, it's just more difficult to advance legislation. and not only move it through one body but move it through both and get it signed by the president. so i'm trying to be practical about where we are. and as we have looked at this issue, while i have suggested in my comments that i am prepared to introduce legislation if necessary, i am not certain that it is absolutely necessary. i do believe that the authority currently resides with the executive branch, that they can ake these actions in the national best interest, within the department of commerce. so -- but it takes -- it takes

initiative by the executive to do just that. so if they need some encouragement, i'm happy to provide that but i think it's also fair to recognize that some of the acts that i noted in my comments have been around since the 1930 earks the 1950's, -- 1930's, the 1950's, most recent the mid 1970's. in essence it's property to review these. my suggestion is they're not. so maybe we approach it on two fronts. maybe we advance legislation that will allow for a modernization while encouraging e administration to act on its own with the authorities that they currently have. >> ok. ladies and gentlemen, the floor is open. we ask that you identify yourself when you ask a question and please ask a question. we'll go here.

and please speak up because this room has terrible acoustics. >> michael tubman with the center for climate and energy solutions. in the natural gas export discussion, there's been a balance between the desire to export natural gas and also the benefits of using more natural gas at home to increase etc. cturing and increase what are your views on the balance of exporting more crude and perhaps increasing refining capacity in the united states, taking advantage of some of that increased capacity to export more value-add products? >> michael, thank you for the question. i do think that we can do more to increase refining capacity. we have seen -- we have seen those adjustments, if you will, or reconfiguration within our -- many of our refineries to accommodate the l.t.o., the

light tight oil. but i do think we get to a point where it is this mismatch that i talked about, we're not able to gain alignment because with the continue retrofit of those refineries. we've got to be honest in terms bring any new to refineries online. last time we had a refinery built in this country was decades ago. so i think we got to be cognizant of that. in terms of doing more to build out those value-added products for export, we certainly have seen that here in this country, and it got the attention of many in this country who didn't understand how much we actually export in terms of those value-added products. so when i'm talking about the

ability to export our crude, i think it's important to recognize that when we're talking about an all-of-the-above energy policy, i'd like to see it relate to all forms of our energy products, whether it comes from crude oil, from natural gas, from renewables, the refined products that we're able to do, let's allow for a level of trade that is full and across the board. can we be doing more to create the jobs here in this country through our refining capacity and advancing value-added products? yes. but will we'll be able to do even more as we increase production domestically, increase the opportunity for jobs, work to address our trade

imbalance, this is where i think we'll have the opportunities with the export of our crude. >> yes, thank you. company that has production in the balkan and the eagle ford so this is an interest of great interest to us. my question is of the white paper and the extent of which was produced in coordination of input from members of the committee and if not, what reaction have you gotten from other members of the energy and natural resources committee? do you get a sense there is a sense of consensus around this issue or you are aligned with other members? >> as with my energy 20/20 which i advanced last year, that was the work of my energy committee staff working -- we worked with committee members in terms of where are your priorities, but in terms of

actually putting pen to paper, that was the work of a pretty strong team on our energy committee. the white paper that is being released this morning is -- will be shared with not only all members on the energy committee but i want all of my colleagues within the senate to have a copy of what i feel is a pretty important document, really kind of shining a spotlight in a very rateable format, 20 pages, to bring them current. so i have not -- i can't give you the reaction from my other colleagues. i would ask you to ask them in a few days after they've had an opportunity to review it. >> david, did you have a question? sorry. behind you. yes. >> with bloomberg news, this is kind of a follow on the first question you asked.

are you giving the administration a deadline to act and at what point would you introduce legislation this year? >> i'm not going to suggest haven't ly 1 if we seen something, then i'm going to advance one thing or another. what i would certainly hope is that with this discussion that i think really kicks off today, the administration will start looking critically, although i believe that they already have started to look more closely at this issue, and that's certainly evidence by secretary moniz's comments last month about the need to review some of our policies as it relates to export of oil. so in terms of a deadline to the administration, i'm not prepared to do that, but i do -- i am very concerned about

the signals that we may be seeing in the not-too-distant future. here as i suggested, we might see this mismatch become more apparent in six months. it may be sooner than that. but i don't want us to be sitting around and waiting until such time as things really do get out of balance. because then it's more difficult to jump in and make those adjustments. i think we need to be looking at it now. i want to move this conversation and i want to move it aggressively. so i'm hoping that the administration will engage with begin to act. >> do you think that new leadership on the senate energy committee will help move that legislation along? >> well, we don't exactly know

when we might see some changes there. i will suggest to you that senator landrieu made a comment just this week also suggesting that it was timely to look at our export policies, so i think that's a good indication that she would be willing to take a good hard look at where we are today and just again how we might be able to modernize the energy architecture. >> a question back by the wall. >> hi. alicia saratani with 21st century science and technology magazine. i know that the white paper that you wrote is specifically on exports of the natural gas reserves, etc., that we've recently discovered in the united states, but i wanted to ask you something about nuclear power and the future of nuclear power being eventually

hopefully predominant source of energy production in north america and the rest of the world. looking at the iaea is at nuclear power specifically this year as a world energy source, and despite the fact there is a lot of hype in north america about these natural gas reserves, there's also a lot of discussion about moving away -- and this is 20, 30 years along the line -- moving away from an extraction economy. i was wondering if you could share, you know, whatever discussion there is in the senate, in the congress about this view of nuclear power, and i hope we're not going to be left behind in that because i think there's a lot of promise with that as an energy source. >> well, count me as one who coming from a state that , duces oil, natural gas fossil fuel, coal, we don't have nuclear in my state yet,

but there are many who are looking with great interest at e small module reactors, great promise there. and i have long been one that has suggested that to have any level of what we call energy independence that nuclear must be a strong piece of that energy portfolio. and as aggressive as i will be on domestic production, including renewables, i want to focus and really urgency when it comes to doing more with nuclear in this country. i think that that's too important to the energy equation. as you know, there are efforts in the senate currently to deal with the issue of nuclear waste. we all know that's kind of the

elephant under the rug or whatever the expression is that has been -- that has been causing a holdup within the congress to try to advance nuclear within the energy portfolio. we have i think made great strides with the joint efforts between the authorizers and the appropriators on the energy committee and the energy and water appropriations committee in building legislation that we think is responsive and could enjoy support in both the house and the senate. i am hopeful that we will be able to continue that effort going into this new year. i think that that will help us , we try to advance nuclear

but, again, as i suggested earlier, this is a hard environment at this juncture of this congress, to pass free-standing legislation, particularly on something that generates as much discussion as nuclear waste. i'm not so naive to think just because we think it's a good bill we'll be able to snap our fingers and it will happen, but i think you have strong commitment from a good group of folks to try to advance that and if we're not successful this year i hope we will be in the next congress. >> bill. >> was struck -- again, i like how you're thinking and talking about what both can be accomplished now particularly by the administration and longer term how you build various coalition for support of various energy things and i was struck in the white paper, really, which is beyond the narrow regulatory things that are central to the speech but talking about the different sectors that in each of the

pieces there's an infrastructure dimension to them. you know, on the oil and gas side there's pipelines. charlie and i were up in north dakota and we were struck about the amount of flaring that's going up there in natural gas. there's no pipeline. and for the oil that's coming out of there, it's all being shipped by rail. talk a little bit about that looking forward. in the white paper, where you see the most important infrastructure investments and what kind of support you think will be on the hill on both sides of the aisle where senate republicans tend to be more cused on infrastructure, republicans less so. >> it's a central part to the discussion when we're talking about the energy architecture. discuss the g to availability of the resources, going from a position of relative energy scarcity to one

of true abundance, particularly, when it comes to our natural gas. and as we're able to utilize our technologies to access oil resources as well. . everybody wants to talk about that, but unless you can move that you're stranded, and alaska is a perfect case in point. we have more of everything. let's just leave it at that. we have more of everything. we are the saudi arabia of coal, of natural gas, of oil. honestly, we have it all. but we don't have the ability to move it. we've been trying now for 40 years to advance our natural gas coming off the north slope and we're still working at it. our oil resources, you know, we were success in the mid 1970's getting the transalaska

pipeline but that really has been our only infrastructure corridor is that 800-mile pipe from north to south. you think about our coal reserves, we export very little of our coal and that's because we lack that infrastructure. here in this country, while you may have the infrastructure, it is aging infrastructure. it is -- it's inefficient to meet the demands that are out there. i, too, have been in north dakota and quite honestly, the folks up there are saying, well, we can wait all day for more pipelines, but in the meantime, let's just put it on rail. but we will not be able to access these incredible reserves unless we've got the infrastructure to move it and it's not just limited to our

fossil fuels. it's how we move our wind, our solar, our renewables. this is going to be our big challenge moving forward, and t's going to be expensive. if we don't make these investments in the infrastructure, all the -- all the oil that we have, all the wind and sun that we have, everything that we have just sits. >> do you think there's a coalition of republicans within the republican party that are willing to pay for it and figure out where to get the resources to pay for it? >> i think we have to, and i don't think that this is -- this can't be democrats supporting the integration of renewables into the grid at the expense of everything else or republicans saying, nope, these are just going to be pipelines for oil and natural gas. as americans, we've got to be looking at this and saying, how

do we move these resources to benefit our country? whether you are coming from alaska or whether you're from florida, how are we going to benefit? alaskans, how are we going to help with jobs, allow our energy resources to be affordable to all? and this has got to be our challenge. so i am pushing colleagues to not think about it from a partisan framework. hat's not going to advance us. you have other countries that are looking at us as a nation and saying, wow, can't believe you're just sitting on the resources that you have. why aren't you moving them? hy aren't you doing more for yourself? and that's a good question. why aren't we?

so we need to figure out how we're going to make those investments in our resources. as i mentioned in my comments, we have u.s. agencies, institutions that are helping to finance energy infrastructure and projects in other countries. why aren't we making that investment in ourselves here? >> i think we have time for two quick questions. kevin, you've been patient, and then we'll go to this lady. >> i'll be fast. thank you for a thought-provoking report, another one. you alluded to it a minute ago, the international dimension. but it wasn't the three sort of forums for reform of crude oil exports you mentioned. the agency, the executive branch and congress. do you anticipate any sort of international negotiation, like the tee tip talks or something else that could provoke a discussion of crude exports in a different forum, in

international or w.t.o. forum? thanks again. >> dory anticipate it? certainly. certainly because we can't have these conversations here in isolation in this country. as i mentioned, everybody's talking about it in other laces, whether it's rihad or moscow or budapest. they are talking about what's happening in our country. there's no closed secret here about the resources that we ave. and is that going to prompt conversations that will be part of negotiations? i would think so. there's already been some discussion out there as to whether or not export restrictions or limitations are rules. violating w.t.o. as i say, these conversations

are happening with or without us. maybe we need to be part of those conversations. >> thank you very much. my name is jeannie. thank you, senator, and thank you, doctor. the question about infrastructure to the international level which is connectivity. so you talk about the federal agencies, including d.o.e., d.o.d., especially the commerce department and you expect them to take their executive authority to move forward, take the leadership in it. my question to you is the transportation of our own resources into the global arena and also, how do you connect that with the many f.t.a., t.p.p.'s that our

administration has started focused on, especially the t.p.p.? now, given that, i know you are a strong advocate and dr. ebinger is a strong advocate for our law, the united nations conventions under law of the treaty. and at this time, freedom of navigation and freedom of connectivity globally is significantly crucial to our market globally. -- your ou see the colleagues in the republican party can share your keen ratifications of the laws? thank you. >> well, you've laid out a lot of different things there, but let me just -- let me speak very briefly to law of the sea. you know, i am a proponent,

a supporter of ratification of law of the sea. i think it is well past time for a most of different reasons. the e least of which arctic, where i am from and where you all feel like you are from today, it's a changing world up there. and some of the arguments that were being discussed decades ago when law of the sea first came to the united states senate really do not hold true today because we have -- we have navigation in areas we've not been able to navigate before. so for -- again, for a host of different reasons i am a supporter of ratification. i would like to suggest to you, of course, we're going to be able to see passage this year, but that, too, is extremely

difficult given the political environment. i've had a conversation with secretary kerry as recently as last month about this, and as you know, when he was in the senate and chairman of the foreign relations committee, he worked very hard to try to advance that. i think in his current position, he's obviously going to continue that, but i am not -- i'm not overly optimistic that we will see that in the second half of the 113th congress, as much as i would like. >> well, i'd like to thank the senator for choosing brookings to make such an important speech and thank you, bill, and, again, thank all the people on the senator's staff and my own who made this event possible. the senator is on a tight schedule, so if you would not be -- mind remain seated while she's escorted out so she can get to an important vote, thank you. >> thank you, appreciate it. [applause] [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> the house of representatives opens the second session of the 113th congress today meeting at 6:30 eastern for a vote to establish a quorum. we'll have that live here on c-span. a couple of tweets. one of them from jennifer of the huffington post saying that representative ron barber, who was shot on tucson on january 8, 2011, will mark the anniversary with remarks on the floor tomorrow. and we're expecting the house to take up legislation dealing with the security of the health care.gov website and also a -- healthcare.gov website and also a bill of the state superfund cleanup sites. >> c-span, we bring events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry, we're c-span, created

by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider and now you can watch us in h.d. >> general odierno, the army chief of staff, spoke at the national press club today saying the u.s. should remain engaged diplomatically in iraq, but he says the u.s. should not consider sending combat forces back into iraq. here's a look at his comments. >> with the seizures of parts of fallujah and ramadi, much of the work that you had done has been turned back in iraq. how do you feel about our role now in iraq as we watch what's going on over there and try to figure out what's next? >> so first i would say, obviously it's disappointing to all of us to see the deterioration of the security inside of iraq.

you know, i spent a lot of my life over there. from 2006, into 2006, december, 10 2010, i was there as we continued to reduce the violence while the sectarian vy leans was going on. i believe we left a place where we were capable of moving forward. we saw it because of political issues internal to iraq, that security situation has devolved into something that is concerning. but this is not just about iraq in my mind, it's something we need to be cognizant of as we look across the middle east, what's going on in syria, what's going on in lebanon, what's going on inside of iraq. and it's this sectarian potential building of sectarian conflict between sunni and shiia and then the exploitation of that by nonstate actors such as al qaeda and other organizations who will try to take advantage of this. the biggest threat to our national security is this ungoverned territory becomes

areas where we have terrorist organizations that become dominant and then try to export their terrorism outside of the middle east and into several other countries, including the united states, so i think it's something we have to watch. i think it's something we have to stay engaged with politically, and it's important for us to make sure people understand that we're concerned. i think you'll see us do that as we move forward. >> account u.s. keep al qaeda's expansion there at bay without keeping troops there on the ground? >> well, we have to wait and see. we have trained security forces to do that. i think the first alternative is the forces that are there that we have trained to execute that strategy. you know, one of the things that we did in iraq as well as we're doing in afghanistan today is train about counterinsurgency and how you fight insurgencies.

and i think what we have to do is continue to work with the iraqi army and others to ensure they understand the basic techniques of counterinsurgency. and so i think we continue to do that. we have a very small element on the ground that works in the embassy that have some expertise that can continue to help in these areas. and i think it's important that we do that. it's also important that we continue to ensure that we stay involved diplomatically, as we are. so it's -- we got to wait and see. i would say this is certainly not the time to put american troops on the ground. i think it's time for them to step up and see what they can do and we have to just wait and see and see if it becomes part of our national security interest to put people on the ground, but i think right now our goal is to let them take care of this problem. and we'll continue to work with them to try to solve this problem as they go forward, but it is dangerous, the thought of al qaeda getting on governed territory is something we need

to be cognizant of and as we work with them as they conduct counterterrorist organizations as well and that's something we need to focus on as we move forward. >> the house is expected in this evening at 6:30 this evening to start the second session of the 113th congress, and we'll have live coverage here on c-span. . a report from the council on foreign relations with syria, afghanistan and north korea as top national security threats facing the u.s. the group hosted a discussion today on those threats and others such as cybersecurity and national security leaks from snowden. this is an hour and a half. >> good morning, everyone. i want to welcome you here to this center for preventive action meeting on what to worry about in 2014. we will be taking stalk of potential threats and crises facing the united states over the next 12 months. there is no shortage of

international flashpoints that could distract the attention of the united states and even draw it into new military commitments. it is these ongoing and potential crises that we most want to talk about today. let me remind everybody that this meeting is on the record. you may gaggetter from all of the cameras in the room. but want to do this officially and let you know that the video and audio of this meeting will be available on c.f.r.'s website, cfr.org. it is my pleasure to introduce today's panelists. you have their complete bios. on the roster for today's meeting, let me introduce them officially, particularly for those of you who are watching us via video videotape. to my left is dr. david gordon whon has had a distinguished career in academia, government and the private sector. most notably he has served as chairman of the national intelligence council and

director of policy planning at the state department. he is now head of research and director of global macroanalysis at the eurasia group and the eurasia group has just released its annual report. this one is top risks 2014. and i believe you can find it ature -- eurasiagroup.net. i have to say that david wases my senior thesis advisor a long time ago when i was an undergraduate. i'm deeply indebted for him to inspire me to this career. and i hope i've made you proud. >> yes, you have. [laughter] >> to my right is mark snyder who is senior vice president at the international crisis group. mark also has held numerous positions in government deputy secretary of department chief

of the office of analysis and strategic planning, and director of the peace corps, most notably. mark has been at the international crisis group now going on 11 or 12 years, i think. >> 13. >> 13 years, ok. so mark is quite a veteran of these issues. finally we have paul stears. he's the general john w. of s.c. senior fellow and director of c.f.r. center for preventive action. he's held senior positions at the u.s. institute of peace, stanford university and the brookings institution. he has written or edited 10 books on various aspects of world affairs and he directed the production of this year's preventive priorities survey which is available on cfr.org. now, are we going to go left to right? >> left to right. >> left to right. then, dr. gordon. >> thank you very much, jim. and it's a great pleasure to be here. this has become something of an annual event and it's great to

be able to sit down with all of my friends and have a good hard-headed discussion about what's going to happen in the coming year. so, i think that -- let me start with some of the themes that we're looking at, at the global macrolevel and then we'll work down to some more specifics. i think that as we look at the world in 2014, i think the striking thing is that the set of issues that dominated global macroconcerns since the financial crisis has really begun to retreat. that is, the risks of another round of really bad financial instability, and that's really been the focus of a lot of what we've done analytically since 2008, that's really retreated this year and we don't see a lot of risk there, either in europe or in the u.s. i think in the emerging markets there is, but it's likely to

take on a different characteristic, not a financial risk per se, but much more of a divergence and the end of emerging markets as any kind of a unified asset class. but at the geopolitical level, at the geopolitical level, that's really where we see all sorts of uncertainty here. and our top risk for the year really has to do with america's troubled alliances. a yearhink that 2013 was that set in motion some very, very, very powerful forces that served to weaken the perception of commitment by the united states in the eyes of american allies around the world. and i think that the two main

events here, one was really an -- at, the other was a slow- slow rolling out. but i think the first was the snowden affair and the whole set of consequences around the affair itself, but also the uncertainty with which the administration has dealt with what happened with snowden. are they backing n.s.a., are they not backing n.s.a.? what's important here, what's not? the lack of a strategic response by the administration, and i think in particular this has really put a huge risk on what had been a growing relationship between the u.s. government and high-tech firms on cybersecurity issues, on counterterrorism , that was mutually

beneficial. t i think the trust factor there is gone on the part of the private sector. i gave a speech two weeks ago, just before the holidays, to a group of silicon valley c.e.o.'s and the animosity, the animosity toward the obama administration on the handling of these issues was absolutely stunning to me. d driver here i think the second driver here was the vacillation around syria. and, again, it's less of an outcome, it's less of what happened in syria and more about the process. the process of setting up red lines, driving what looked like a runup to a

military action. and, again, the lack of consultation with allies and the lack of a strategic focus here. what was the president trying to do. and i think when allies, frankly, hear president obama talk about syria as a foreign policy success, they wince. they wince. so, you know, for a lot of relationships here these things are thorns, right? for canada, for the u.k., even for japan a little more serious. but for a lot of other allies, for, you know, particularly u.s. alliances this the middle east -- in the middle east, if for a lot of countries in asia, in the pacific they really raise

questions on the reliability and the durability of security guarantees. and where is is this all, where is this all headed? so this uncertainty about the role, what's the obama administration's strategy, what are its priorities? i think this was reinforced, frankly, on the trade side with all of the buildup around the trans-pacific partnership and closing the trans-pacific partnership. and, again, the administration sort of saying, well, it's the congress' role to get trade promotion authority which flies in the face of all of the prior experience where administrations have gone and made requests and made compelling cases. i worked on the hill when we did the u.s./canada/mexico. and, you know, president clinton

set up a war room in the white house around this. that's how you get big trade bills passed. there's been nothing of this. so i think that, that's the first. the second theme here if it's u.s. external and uncertainty, i think the second big driver is china internal. and it's really driven by the fact that the new, the new chinese leadership, the new chinese leadership is very focused on reforming domestically, getting china to a more stand bl economic -- sustainable economic policy. this is something that as a close observer of chinese economic policy for 20 year, it's stunning to me that in the last ten years for all of the talk about reform and the significance of reform be, there was less and less and less big reform. and the new leadership clear hi of the view that time is not on their side, that unless they move quickly, they will not make

the series of reforms that they need. but the reform process itself potentially very destabilizing. lots of losers. and the political strategy that the chinese leadership has chosen to undertake this is recentralization and strengthening the core leadership of the communist party and undertaking a very, very, very sharp anti-corruption campaign and setting up control mechanisms here, strengthening control mechanisms. so the irony of this is that it's undertaking a liberalizing economic policy through leninist means. and, you know, is that going to work? is we don't know. if it opportunity work, if it doesn't work, this will be a huge source of instability over the coming years.

and i think president obama in his meeting with chinese president xi jinping was absolutely correct when he said that the united states has a huge stake in china successfully enabling these reforms. third big theme globally was the reemergence of al-qaeda from its, from the series of setbacks that it suffered cull -- culminating in the killing of usama bin laden. and here again i think the core geography here was syria and, in retrospect, syria and the whole syrian conflict is looking increasingly like afghanistan in the '80s and iraq in the last decade in terms of being a magnet for jihadists and a focal point for increasing extremism. now, the new form of al-qaeda

is somewhat different from original al-qaeda, that, in fact, the defining characteristic of al-qaeda as an organization driven by usama bin laden was the focus on the far enemy. and jihaddism in al-qaeda 2.0 has gone local. the al-qaeda brand is the brand, but it's now very much a finish it's all about local power, it's all about building local alliances. in many ways al-qaeda 2.0 has more in common as an organization with hezbollah than it does with al-qaeda, original add al qaeda. and so those are the big, those are the big macro themes. i want to close by focusing on the two regions that are of big concern and drawing a contrast between them. i think you have a lot of

geopolitical risk and tension both in the greater middle east and in asia and in the pacific. .. whereas in the middle east i think it both a lack of interdependence and you have a lack of any kind of a credible security energy. i think there still is a

security guarantee for the gulf, for the straits, but the saudis, the others do not believe that, they have a whole conspiratorial view about iran and iranian relations. the middle east has not come close to hitting bottom yet. and that i think 2014, we are already seeing a refocusing of jihadists pressures into iraq. i think that will continue. lebanon is on a very, very, very fragile tilt. this also spreads out into turkey. and so i think the middle east region is one where extraordinarily concerned about. i just wanted to throw these ideas out there as a big themes we can come back and talk about a lot more specific in the key

with a. thank you very, very much. >> mark, your turn. >> thanks a lot. thanks to give me the opportunity to participate in what really is the third joint look at the dangers pressing against our living room windows. in the new year. and thank david s. always resetting the strategic framework within which i'm going to focus on countries. 2014 is going to be a very hard year for those who make or conduct foreign policy in the obama administration. also for the u.n. it will be another year, great response of those, fewer resources to meet the challenges and inevitably more criticism for failing to prevent or bring complex to an end. and in addition we shouldn't forget this. most of the people in the countries where discussing it will be another year of misery, senseless violence, anger towards the west for failing to come to their aid, particularly anger at the united states. crisis group president op-ed

next years -- was published for the fourth year in a row you want to emphasize the criteria that we used was for including some and excluding others, and it's open to dispute was that these complex are where we have the greatest concern about the magnitude of the loss of life. in 2014, if they explode. or with respect to ongoing conflicts, same concerns given the likelihood of increased intensity of this complex in the coming year, and where the capabilities or willingness of national forces, national political forces, or the international community, to mitigate those dangers is lacking. now, last year i cited some issues that i thought cut across the various countries, and i still think those are relevant. first the absence of the rule of law partially applied to protect citizens. second, the inability of the state to ensure monopoly on the use of force, to protect the

borders, enforce the law or protect its citizens. third, it seems to me that we now have, and david touched on it, we have radical islamist extremist bring tears -- [inaudible] and essentially taking advantage of those internal battles for their own hand. forth, again, applied the continuing absence of neatly packaged peace agreement in civil conflict for all the parties are at the table and all commit to the end to implementing those agreements. that simply does not exist. and, finally, effect i empathize last you that want to emphasize begin this year, none of these complex are contained within the borders of the named country. they all believe across borders, destabilize their neighbors and in many instances, their neighbors contribute to the continuation of those conflicts. now, i'm not going to limit myself to the tender juicy in

this list. one, i'm going to emphasize is that afghanistan, giving the immediate short-term potential for extends of violence innovative elections in april next year. clearly poses the threat of additional violence. and even more so if the elections replicate the election of 2005. but let me make a point that there are several which dropped off last year's list and to some degree there's positive reasons for that. kenya dropped off last year's list in part because regional and international diplomatic engagement in the run up to the recent election helped prevent the kind of ethnic cleansing that essentially cut the country apart six years ago. second, pakistan didn't make the list this year because it successfully managed its first transition from one elected civilian government to another. and also because the new military chief seems to have shown some evidence of are willing to go after the

pakistani jihadists and also to allow new our charisse efforts to build engagement with india to continue. third, turkey dropped off the list as they seem to be holding cease-fire. and forth, the drc, extremely fragile, nevertheless the diplomatic strategy that was put together by mary robinson at the u.n. plus feingold and lady ashton, in fact have managed to regional parties, put pressure on them in ways -- at very least dampen down the proxy confrontation and along with a more progressive military posture of monusco basically has taken down the in 23 and hopefully put controls on the other militias in eastern congo. there are however five new countries. that pose greater risk this year of widespread loss of life in

2014. central africa republic. a number of displaced has grown from 180,000 in june to 400,000 in november, and a month later when i testified before the congress, 600,000 there today, a million. simply the fact that even with the intervention of the african union peacekeeping, the killing continues between christians and muslims, and the power struggle has not been handed. second, i think we also have to focus on the reality that libya in this 2014 has the potential for additional violence across the border the militias roaming the country. the islamist, liberal conservative revolutionary center periphery divide. bangladesh, the competition because back to the 1971 war of liberation. as you saw the elections on

sunday, 22% turnout, substantial violence. unfortunately, that looks like it's going to continue. honduras, murder capital of the world. transnational cartels via gangs to participate in the illicit transport of drugs. 87% of all the cocaine coming to the united states by air goes through honduras. the north caucasus, this year the olympics in sochi unfortunately more than -- are coming to sochi. and, in fact, the state security structure doesn't make much distinction between who are the real victims and who are the real threats. to the other five conflicts on our list, those are the new ones. that is, the new ones are central african republic, libya -- the continuing ones are because the intensity has, in fact, increased. south sudan and sudan.

in both countries, each faces multiple points of political violence. and, unfortunately, with unresolved issues that go back many years. and have not been resolved by the secession in south sudan. the explosions in recent week in south sudan has already been to atrocities unfortunately the troops are still aiming for juba and despite discussions, the unresolved political competition threaten the future of the country. in the north, the failed to design a comprehensive strategy to deal with the underlying separatists, autonomy concerns of region and to bring them somewhere into national government, set a new powder keg for the north itself. and then david has already indicated syria. it's internal conflict is no

closer to resolution, and over the course of last year, the death toll reached 200,000. it has virtually engulfed lebanon. it's not just syria. it's its impact in the region. lebanon's population has been swollen by 25% by syrian refugees. and that obviously has a skewed lebanon's own sectarian balance. unfortunately as well, despite the resolving chemical weapons issue, the one hope for any the fundamental conflict rests on the u.s.-russian accord is slimmer than ever. for those internal optimist, there's a glimmer somewhere that the iranian nuclear or limit their report might need to lead to a positive iranian role in geneva. you have to really dig deep to believe that's going to make a difference.

iraq is not in a full-blown civil conflict. more than 8000 deaths in 2013, increase prospects over the coming year. the molecule government simply did not and is now suffering the consequences of sure start exclusion of sunni leadership, from government anticipate and service. it's also grappling with the negative impact of the syrian conflict. they may appear to be quiet because nothing else push them off the front pages but the real is that mali and northern nigeria remain tinderbox. the final country on our list is central asia. it's not the country, it's a subregion. it was on last year and it's on this year. everyone other countries faces the possibility for a very violent transition to the family that the autocrats have controlled the country simply have not set in motion any institution that provide for a transition.

and given the fact that they are all vulnerable to extremist cutting back from afghanistan and the other wars, the possibly of a major outbreak of violence there is a great concern. in conclusion, deadly conflict usually -- states inability or lack of interest in providing all other citizens basic services, due process and security. instead predatory rule that benefit the elite, ethnic and sectarian divisions and denial of human rights are the future violence and every one of these countries. >> thank you very much, mark. poll, over to you. high-tech now i suppose. >> thanks, jim. and thank you all for coming out on this very chilly morn. really appreciate it. so i'm going to talk to you about the results of our latest revenge of priority survey. as many of you know we do this

on an annual basis. the six-time we've done it, as jim said it's available on the website and they're also hard copies available on yorkshire. for most of you familiar with the survey, the basic premise is that there are many conceivable sources of political instability and conflict around the world, that the u.s. has an interest in preventing or mitigating in some respects but they are equally important in terms of the challenge they pose to u.s. interests. so the purpose of the survey is ws policy makers make choices -- u.s. policymakers make choices, given the limited or finite resources and attention span as well as i think the appetite of the american public to engage in various preventive action overseas. so the gulf basically is to help u.s. policymakers pick and choose among the competing

priorities. so before i get into the actual results of the survey this year, i thought i would just sort of quickly review how we do this through the each year. so basically we begin with initial crowd sourcing, social media outlets of the principal concerns of the foreign policy community. and so we solicit the contingencies that are going to be the basis of the survey each year. and on the basis of that we select 30 contingencies that make up the actual survey. and then we send out the instrument this year to over 1200 government officials, experts and nongovernmental officials, academics. and we basically asked them to rank each contingency on the basis of how likely they think it will be in 2014, and what is the relative impact on u.s. interests according to some

basic criteria that we lay out in the survey. and on the basis of the results we get back, we audit the results into three priorities for u.s. policymakers and we do it according to this basic risk matrix, as you can see but if you want to learn more about the methodology you can read about it in the actual survey that's on page four. so let me now runs through the basic survey results, and i'm going to use this new interactive global conflict tractor that we've developed to not not only highlight the pbs but also serve as the basic resource for the community on conflict around the world that we have identified as being particularly important for 2014. as you can see, when you go on

to the global conflict tracker you come up with a map. on the left, you can organize various conflicts by relative likelihood. on the left, the moderate low as well as relative importance to u.s. interests. again, moderate, high, medium, low. you can filter them across the map. these are the q1 contingencies. secondly tier two, and tier tier three. and then he can go on any one of those, click on any one of these and each one will bring up a background conflict brief we are calling them. which lays out basic information about the conflict, date of late is used, major reports that are

available on the particular conflict, and other resources that i think are very useful. i'm not aware of any other resources this kind out there, so we are hoping this will be of use. this will be regularly updated, by the way, so that it's not sort of one shot. so with that as sort of a gentle introduction, let me go through the tier one contingencies. which were identified this year. no great surprises. many of the tier one contingencies from last year showed up in this year's list of top priorities. still obviously concerned about the threat of a major terrorist attack as was cyber attack on the united states. the situation with iran is hardly resolve, and there's still concern the interim agreement might unravel and lead

to a resumption of tensions with iran. afghanistan is out there as mark said in terms of the likelihood of increased violence as a result of the drawdown of u.s. forces and coalition forces in general, and the uncertainty about what will happen post 2014. pakistan is still considered very unstable to most experts in terms of its internal situation. the are, as mark mentioned, some encouraging signs but over all people were still unconvinced about the long-term stability of pakistan. i would say perhaps that leading focus of concern this year was series. this was last year's number one prevented priority, and we can demonstrate how, but this new tracker offers to the community. as you saw, we collect on the --

we clicked on the symbol for syria and it takes you to this conflict a brief. you just scroll down a little bit, you got a sense of what is available. there were not only tweets, red portion on the left inside, also give you an update on the situation in syria, a crisis alert we are calling it. but if you just scroll down a little further here, you see the latest information from around the web, breaking news, primary sources on the conflict. so again, this i think shows how useful this will be in terms of a resource on each of these conflicts. getting back to the tier one contingencies again, i mentioned that somewhere the same from last year. we have a i think for new tier

one contingencies that were upgraded from last year, strengthening of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, and general instability in yemen was identified. north korea remains a major concern. not only about the erratic behavior of the leadership there, but the possibility of various military in the coming year whether nuclear or missile related. the growing civil violence in iraq, and a possibility for full-blown civil war also made it into tier one this year. and, finally, spillover from the syrian conflict into jordan was also highlighted this year. let me turn now to the tier two contingencies. see them on the map there.

again, some of the concerns from last year showed up in this year's survey. continuing uncertainty about egypt's political stability, nigeria, particularly northern nigeria, a possibility of a major crisis between india and pakistan. we have seen an uptick in violence in kashmir along the line of control, and also finally libya was mentioned as a concern, growing concern among many respondents. interestingly, east china sea, south china sea did not make it into the tier one category this year, which was somewhat surprising. it could be due to the timing of the survey, which was done in november before the recent increased tensions over the territorial disputes, particularly between china and japan but it may be because of

what david said at the outset of some general confidenc competene economic independence between countries in east asia and the u.s. security guarantee make people feel that, while a source of concern, while not actually become a major source of actual hot conflict, if you will. some new contingencies that made it into to tear this year, some of which have been mentioned by mark. somalia, a possibility as, with the war in somalia with al-shabaab plays out and we could see an uptick in violence, particularly in neighboring countries as a result of terrorist attacks by al-shabaab and, of course, th the central african republic is a source of great concern to many. again, you can find out more about chr by clicking on that and going into the get the

latest information. let me just quickly turn to the tier three, the third level of priorities identified this year. some dropped off, and mark again has mentioned some of these contingencies that did not appear this year. tenure, zimbabwe, and actually interesting saudi arabia. there was concern last year of the potential for political instability in saudi arabia. didn't show up this year. but we did get some new sources, concerns merger, increased sectarian violence between buddhist and muslim in me and mark, protected internal violence -- myanmar. inadequate in many respected interestingly, tensions between india and china appeared this

year, the possibility of rising tensions over there very territorial disputes may begin. and, of course, sedan as well. now, interestingly to contingencies showed up to internal instability in sudan and north south tensions. and it was not anticipated that there would be violence or internal instability within south sudan. as you see were already on top of it. we updated the conflict briefed to reflect the rising violence within south sudan. so that's about it for the pps. i owed you -- i urge you to not only read the survey results that use our global conflict trucker. i think you'll find it very useful, and that's it. >> thank you very much, paul.

the global conflict trucker can be found at cfr's website, cfr.org. i'd like to bring the rest of you into the conversation if we may. i would ask if people have questions to wait until your recognize can wait until we get a microphone. and if you could identify yourself, we would greatly appreciate it. go back to dr. walker. >> joshua walker. i was interested, the one major discrepancy that he heard between you and when he said turkey was off your list, a but started shaking, looking at his topless. and for all of the holiday surprises we had, it almost seems pressing. i want to pressure on the tricky question there. >> so, yeah, i'm very, very, very concerned about turkey. and i'm concerned that, me, turkey is one of a bunch of countries emerging market country that has elections this

year, but i think that it's also very vulnerable to the cross-border stop from syria, but my biggest concern in some ways is, i think we're heading back into the pkk kurdish question leading to a return of conflict and erdogan is just getting -- the more pressure there is the increasing, increasingly combative and conspiratorial and paranoid he gets. and it's really self-fulfilling, and i think that as turkey moved to this new constitutional arrangement with having more power in the presidency, you are potentially setting up a huge fight within the akp.

so i'm really quite concerned about turkey. i think we are heading into very, very nasty territory there. >> does erdogan run? >> yes. and i think he probably becomes president, but then this really uncertainty, the powers of the presidency, people try to prevent his main opponent in the akp from becoming prime minister. this gets very ugly. >> the reason that we, again, choosing which countries in the list of 10 and initially is hard. but on turkey it was again that 2014, do we think there would be massive loss of life in turkey as a result of a political conflict? the answer is no. i think -- long-term stability issues, absolutely. but again, turkey still, when

you look at the institutions in turkey, they are stronger. and the politics have a tendency, particularly the election politics now, i think we'll have a contingency on restraining erdogan and pushing both he and the pkk to maintain the cease-fire, at least in the short term. now, that gives them then the opportunity in in the midterm o deal with these issues and and much more -- let's say compromised way, that avoid the long-term crisis that david pointed is potential. so i hope that's right. my only issue here is that as things begin to get shaky in turkey, this year, erdogan veers very sharply towards his nationalist-based, and go into that basis exactly, he had to move away from a commitment he had talked about, vis-à-vis, the kurds. i'm very worried about this

purchase question going absolutely in the wrong direction, david. it's a good debate. we will see who was right. >> just adding quickly. we didn't identify turkey in particular as a great source of concern, but we didn't identify rising secessionists pressure amongst the kurds. we are a little us i think sanguine than igc on the deal between turkey and the pkk and vc concerned about unraveling, that agreement was largely reached before the creation of a kurdish enclave within syria. and is also obviously the effect of the iraq civil war on the possibility of kurdistan declaring some kind of semi-autonomous stay there, too. so it often think we do see a real uptick in instability

around the kurdish issue in 2014. >> fair enough. >> thank you. thank you very much for doing this. in my first comment is that it's quite different from last year. china as paul mentioned was big on the horizon. that china is nice, reforming cabinetry. this is deep contrast to my question is primarily to david. what i would say is you did not mention the fear of new imaging market crisis. of course, turkey is one of the countries we're worried about, indonesia, india, south africa. so i wanted to ask how concerned -- summit.

>> sure. i mean, hard about has to do with the focus of this session on civil conflict and implications for u.s. foreign policy. actually if you look at our document, what we call diverging markets is our number two risk. and it basically highlights the fact that the years between 2002-2012, 2013 were very good years for the emerging markets. they basically acted as an asset class. this was very favorable for political incumbents. lots of countries i think god unrealistic, bought into this whole narrative of emerging markets as the inevitable way of the future. in 2014 has elections and a half a of the most important

countries. and the outcomes are likely to be much more divergent here. so we are most pessimistic about turkey, but we are also i think a lot less optimistic than a lot of people are about india. there's been a lot of -- there's been a lot of enthusiasm over the possibility of ahead of government where he has followed a very market from the common investor from the policy. in india a bit like the united states, governing at the center in delhi is completely different from governing at the state level. and just like american presidents who were governors, their behavior as governors didn't, don't get their signals to what they're going to do in the white house. i think the same thing is likely to hold in india. and i'm particularly struck by

the fact that you had the last five years, you had a congress government, pretty strong with literally the world's leading economic technocrats in the driver's seat, and they failed to get real momentum behind reform. i think there's still a very, very big political challenge for india to move to the next level. i'm relatively more optimistic about some of the countries, people are concerned about. i think in south africa, we are beginning to see the fragmentation of the labor unions that could be a positive factor in terms of restoring a balance between populism and constructive economic policies. i think also that brazil, heading towards reelection would give her a chance to restart, reformulate or economic team

probably do a little bit more, particularly on the energy front where the brazilians are in real danger of falling behind the ways. colombia, i'm very bullish. i'm very bullish on mexico. but what our theme here is the emerging markets are much what difficult environment, and i think the whole narrative, even the international institution bought into of the emerging markets as the future is a much more complicated story. >> just quickly on china. i mentioned that there had been i think some general skepticism the tensions between china and japan it escalate into a hot war. quite a few respondents in the survey did mention the possibility of political instability inside china as a

concerned. and for those of you who did take the survey, you are actually passed to see if there are other issues not on the list, things you're being asked to rank of concern to you, please fill in the blood. and sure enough, quite a few actually did mention rising instability inside china. i don't think it was purely about ethnic tensions related to the weaker issue, but also general dissatisfaction -- uighur issue. corruption and the comments party and other concerns about governments in china. >> will it be significant that this year is the 25th anniversary of tiananmen square? >> i think there are people here who are probably better able to comment on the. i'm not sure it's going to get so much, you know, it's going to get more attention i think outside of china than within china. i don't see it as being sort of a focal point for public

dissent. i think, i think that's very unlikely. >> mark? >> two things. one is i think we've been writing about the potential, not so much for intentional conflict as result of china's effort to project power, but in terms of the south china sea, in terms of the creation of the pressure on japan, the potential for accidents has increased. and while there's likely both sides will backweight, nevertheless it's a matter of concern. >> mark, we've seen talk about improving, virtually nonexistent crisis communications procedures in northeast asia. how's that talk translate into any significant advances to deal with this issue of -- >> not yet. in fact, one of the things we've been arguing for is that there needs to be a series of -- not

single, not one, but a series of efforts both tactical and at the strategic level for communication to avoid these kinds of crises. >> i think the everywhere crisis coordination has improved in northeast asia is around north korea. and in particular, the dramatic improvement in 2013 in relations between china and south korea, i think really has taken a lot of broader risk out of the north korea crisis. the north korea crisis would clearly be a big challenge for south korea, but i think the fear always was that the korean peninsula could really be a focal point for a broader international crisis. and i think that's really gone way, way down.

>> jack wilson. >> hi, jack goldstone, george mason university and brookings. want to pick on something that david said. 2013 had a lot of crises, but nonetheless we saw quite a lot of resilience. despite the fact that debt ratios in europe went up for a lot of angle states, the euro crisis faded because of coordination and ecd. syria, the war got worse, but oil prices didn't spike because of the global process on fracking and the ability of the u.s. and russia to surprisingly work together. so my question is, given what you said about crises and in particular spots coming forward, what do you see about the resilience and the institutions that if an international order to function well in response to them the next year? is nader getting stronger or weaker? is the u.s. pivoted asia really

going to add security to that region? is viewin the u.n. going to be o intervene effectively in africa as problems pop up or some other agency going to step in? in other words, what do you see as the most effective global institution going forward? and are any of these threats potential risks to weaken or undermined the kind of responsibility, the response ability of these institutions be? that's a great question. i do believe, i do believe that we still have a very, very big institutional challenge. and as everybody knows, we have talked about g-0 world. and again, it's not to say that there is no multilateralism and there are no institutions, that i think that this crisis that you begin to see in u.s. alliances very much an

expression of g-0 world. i do believe, as i said, i think the region most, by far most vulnerable to this is the middle east, where i think what you're saying is an increasing role of regional action, of regional actors. and, frankly, a huge competition between the shia powers, iran and hezbollah, and the sunni powers, saudi arabia, the gulf states, turkey, again, who are very fragmented among themselves, very, very fragmented among themselves. but i think that as i look at the ability of the world to engage your -- engage your from an institutional perspective, i think that on the crisis,

prevention crisis response site, i'm quite pessimistic. i much less pessimistic on the international financial elements. but crisis response here, i think much more, much more challenging. and again, even in asia i think the sources of my optimism about security issues in asia is an institutionally driven. it's really much more structural and interest driven. so i'm a pessimist. i know some people on the panel may have some different views on this. >> mark? >> unfortunately, on that regard i don't. the concern, for example, when you look at the u.n. peacekeeping response, and a good example now is -- they are polling, they had to pull troops out of other peacekeeping

missions for central african republic, now they have to pull troops from other peacekeeping missions to do with a problem in south sudan, moving from 7000 up to 12,000 peacekeepers. simply, we don't have a good mechanism and we also don't have a good mechanism for ensuring that those troops are the right troops, trained, capable, not from the neighboring states of their own interest as we see in central african republic, chad. so that's a question there. the other is, and this is my hobby horse, the international system has failed utterly in 15 years to recognize the need to have effective law enforcement and justice sector support, and for fragile states both for support public and post-conflict reconstruction. recently don't have it. and, finally, i would say that the regional organization, they still haven't quite developed capabilities to fill the gap. and we either need to recognize that, help them do it, or

understand that you're going to have to have you in in a far more -- to have the u.n. and a far more capable, extended fork or skinny capability, it has to be done. and, finally, come of the one good piece of news is, is twofold. i think that the atrocity prevention board that the obama administration has started, finally in the case of central african republic, late, actually resulted in a far more expensive response over the course of the last month and have been would otherwise have been the case. and the u.n. has now developed something called rights forward, where they are actually going to look at this issue of how do you prevent atrocities come and hopefully get serious about it in terms of staffing, resources. >> just quickly, i agree with david. there is i think an institutional deficit in key

areas on really important issues, and i agree with mark, is also a capacity deficit in many areas, the resources of the u.n. are limited to deal with many of these conflicts. i think if there's some positive news in 2013, is that it's shown the value of the ad hoc coalition willing to actually resolve some crises. we saw that with iran, the p5+1 grouping, in at least getting this interim deal. we saw this over some extent the chemical weapons issue in syria. ..

parrot the gap between what we need to get effective multilateral cooperation and multilateral cooperation, maybe infective. effective multilateral cooperation, ineffective is an inappropriate adjective. do you have a question? >> very short. >> thank you very much, jim shearer, many thanks for the mapping of the terrain for our panel. david, a quick follow-up, on the theme of diverging economies are concrete cases to involvement in emerging economies and the global value chain as a

mitigating factor overall? i ask the question because the economist, this picks up on the theme of the anniversaries, 100 years from the anniversary of the first world war and the economist published a piece saying we ought to be a little more angst written about legacy conflict. john mccain -- and there was too much emphasis on economic independence but there is the global value change. are there specific cases you could back of to and if the panel wants to comment on the economist's concern? >> i think the whole phenomenon of supply chain integration in asia, literally tens of millions of people being lifted out of poverty, hundreds of millions of people