i appreciate it. [applause] >> coming up on c-span, senator michalski -- murkowski in alaska exporting crude oil. and the petroleum institute resident jack gerard talks about the 2014 energy production outlook. and later, a look at federal investments and green energy technology. >> coming up on the next "washington journal."

ways to reduce income inequality. after that, luke messer of indiana with the republican take on the issue. the spotlight on magazines features the christian science monitor on her piece about democrats plan to highlight income inequality in 2014. washington journal is live every morning it c-span. >> the release of a report on states and health care costs. speakers include former governor of colorado. she also says the health and human services secretary at the george w. bush administration is live at noon eastern on c-span three. >> the deadline is approaching for c-span student cam video competition.

what is the most important issue congress should address this year? prizes within total a grand prize of $5,000. get more info. senate energy and natural committee resources member lisa murkowski called for an end to the decades-old ban on domestic crude oil exports. senator murkowski spoke at the brookings institution about domestic energy policy. this is just under one hour. >> welcome to brookings. i am the managing director here. we are delighted that we are joined today by senator murkowski. one of my favorite johnny cash songs growing up was called springtime in alaska. chorus he sings, when it's

springtime in alaska, it's 40 below. by that standard, it is downright balmy in washington dc. we are delighted that senator murkowski is here today. we dialed up some summer weather for her. i'm sure she is wondering what the big deal is all about. the senator is the top republican on the senate energy committee. in thee largest state nation, nearly as big a territory west of the mississippi, she thinks an large terms about issues like energy. and she has a big track record on this issue. we are here to discuss the implications on the domestic economy on our national security and energy security. and with the polar vortex being all the rage, we almost forgot about the polarization that chills washington. in that sense, senator murkowski is a particularly important voice because of her ability to walk across party lines.

is a republican senator from a west coast state and one of ae three senators elected to right invalid. she speaks to a groundswell of support for pragmatism. she has exhibited the presence of mind that we hope makes her feel warm at brookings today on a cold day. she has been a consistent supporter of pragmatic energy policy. that means taking a stand on subsidies for oil and also the right kind of investment and infrastructure policies that connect us to the wider world. worldderstands the wider of energy and economy. increasingly natural gas and renewable production across the country. she has been a supporter of oil and alson in alaska the outer continental gas leasing.

borders toands it the east and as sarah palin reminded us, russia to the west. on the roleed exports can play on economic benefits and the impact on energy prices, reduction, and the broader economy back at home. these issues are all worth re- examining. thate really delighted senator murkowski is here to have a conversation with us about these topics today. americans consume less oil and produce more of it, it is a good time to revisit energy policy. it is also about what happens when we use it and the environmental consequences.

in that sense, senator murkowski is a terrific guest for us. us arey when many of wishing for a little bit more climate change and warming around here, we also look ahead to a coming january weekend where temperatures are predicted to be back in the 60s. understanding the science israel but also emerging and evolving, the senator has supported energy efficiency legislation and a greater understanding of the need to adapt to a warmer world. talking about the fact that one of her favorite ski resorts near anchorage is starting to lose its base at the bottom. at the same time, she is focused it does notre burden middle-class families unduly. she has been firm asking other countries to take a similar stand when dealing with carbon emissions.

we look forward to hearing from senator murkowski on how our country will answer these important questions about the changing global energy landscape. with that, we are delighted to have senator murkowski. [applause] >> thank you for the introduction. those of you that might be standing in the back, these are seats up front. it is not like church. i am pleased to see so many of you here this morning, very grateful for 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 to say we will take that polar vortex back. we like it cold and we want to keep it that way.

send it back north where it belongs. 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 lastmation administration, july saw energy production reach over seven quadrillion btu. this is the highest monthly total on record. let me repeat that. we are producing more energy today than ever before in this country. and this dramatic increase in production from all sources of energy has resulted in a dramatic sea change in our nation's energy trade. process, we are creating jobs and lowering prices.

think about where we are right now. we are selling cold to the netherlands, morocco, and germany. fuel to france, chile, and argentina. , brazil,to columbia and panama. britain, israel, and nigeria. natural gas to canada and mexico. and natural gas liquids to honduras and aruba. i know that you probably know these facts well and i did not come here today to simply recite facts. as good as this story is, these developments have transpired in spite of the federal government, not because of it as the president seems to imply. the rules of engagement on

energy trade were written long ago for a now bygone world in which scarcity, not abundance, where the prevailing mindset. hodgepodge of regulations has accumulated over the better part of a century. kind of like barnacles on the whole of the ship. let me briefly sketch out the maze we are dealing with here. reviewse department cross-border oil pipelines such as keystone xl, but petroleum thects like crude oil and energy department grants export licenses. but the commerce department prevents exports of natural gas liquid. energy federal regulatory commission regulate cross-border natural gas pipelines.

coal and renewable energy products flow with ease while nuclear exports are tightly regulated as they should be. even many professionals and the energy sector are unaware the role that agencies play in this area. export bank that overseas private investment corporation and the trade and development agency, other entities all advance the u.s. energy trade. in legal terms, what we are talking about our 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 a recent workshop at the center for strategic international studies, they encouraged participants to think about the regulation of energy

exports in terms of the underlying chemistry. the chemical formulation for methane is ch four. you have one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms. this natural gas can be sold to canada and mexico through pipelines without much of a regulatory hurdle. but if you want to build a facility that liquefies gas for seaborne transport to japan, then you need a license from the energy department to export it and another approval to build your facility. that process can take years. if you are determined to build a facility, you are in luck. go to australia and get involved with one of the liquefaction products -- oh grams that our government is helping finance over there. if you take aand,

methane molecule and you attach for more hydrogen atoms, giving known as propane, they will grant you a next or license without much of a delay at all. but don't fiddle with the formula too much or you might end up with a barrel of crude oil, the export of which is generally prohibited unless 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 even, i would suggest absurd. while there is no perfection under the sun, we surely can do better than this.

today, i am releasing a white paper. haveis the second i released, a signal to the world. renovating the architecture of u.s. energy exports. it follows on the energy 2020 blueprint and the paper i released last year that was about this time last year that i had the opportunity to release energy 2020. we have since done one white paper. it there will be a third coming out soon. have two goals with this particular paper. the first is to highlight the facts. consensus about the fax is the basis for productive dialogue. my second goal is to help frame stateersation about the of u.s. energy exports. the architecture of the energy trade. and although certain aspects of the energy export stories have

been in the public eye for quite some time now, i am not aware of another report that shows the full picture through a single lens. and i am releasing reports from the nonpartisan congressional research service, some of which is not generally available about various of the u.s. energy trade. mustacts tell me that we modernize the regulations that govern energy exports, demonstrating to the world that leading onitted to issues of energy, the environment, and trade. i am not proposing comprehensive energy export legislation. branchve the executive has the statutory authority to implement most of these ideas on

its own. and if the president does need help from the legislative branch the targeted bills to move the ball forward as needed. i wanted to address several key principles here. assessing the architecture that we are 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. 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 bands were put into effect and consider whether theot they still serve public interest, if they ever did. two energy sources in this area come to mind. i raised the prospect of crude oil exports this past summer at the annual conference. that thee time, i said debate could come sooner than expected. here we are today. basics are pretty simple. the shale plays in the balkans are yielding light tight oil. a refining capacity is concentrated in the gulf coast and is geared primarily toward heavier grades of crude.

at ihs global and elsewhere, various mechanisms exist for moving it out into the market. great refineries on the east coast or blend with heavier todes, it can be shipped canada. refineries can also be modified to accommodate lighter grays. with minimal exceptions. the export of crude oil is prohibited by law. understanding that we are exporting about 65,000 barrels a day to canada. that is essentially it. there will come a time, however, when we will have an unsustainable glut of light crude. it may be next year. it might be sooner than that. the free market works wonders, but it can't work magic here.

and condensate is a byproduct of oil and gas production. out ofydrocarbons come plays like the eagle furred. they can be refined and exported as natural gas liquids, but otherwise, trade is prohibited. most commentators assume that congress and the administration will be slow to address this issue. oil exports will raise the specter of rising gasoline prices, i think to scare off elected officials. roomny of you here in this , i have spent at least a good several months thinking about this export issue. the point of deliberation is eventually to arrive at an answer. defaulties may be the in washington but they don't sell well in alaska. i am 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 are serious. emergingrious of the role as an emerging hydrocarbon producer. administration retains enough statutory authority to help lift the ban on its own. the president has the authority to declare it in the national interest and another path is for the department of commerce to for crude application oil or condensate under a provision in the law permitting the applicant, the application. if it can be demonstrated that

those fuels cannot reasonably be marketed here in the united states. our nation'sd refining capacity has already emerged and common sense suggests that the mismatch should meet these qualifications. if the administration is unwilling to act on its own or if that statutory authority needs further modification, i am prepared to introduce legislation to modernize the laws. opponents of trade will be quick to assert too often without citing evidence that exports of crude oil will raise gasoline prices for american consumers. this claim is wrong and must be dealt with immediately and head on. i have 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 land to energy production, not closing them off. can think of a few places in alaska that could be opened up immediately for new oil production that would help to lower gasoline prices. amounts ofising crude are already being exported to canada. it is permitted by statute. have seen no crisis in gasoline prices here at home as a consequence of that. modernizing the export architecture would reduce follett tell eddie -- volatility by making them more efficient. we don't see a looming run on the crude oil bank out there. the prohibition on crude oil exports will serve to increase to mastic oil production, and the entry of

this oil onto the global markets will put downward pressure on international prices. all things equal, this combination will help the american consumer. i want to be abundantly clear this morning. my view, isuo, in not beneficial to the american people. actlieve that we need to before the crude oil export ban causes problems in the u.s. oil production which will raise prices and therefore hurt american jobs. the second principle that i mentioned is doing no harm. it is important that we do no harm. these are the areas where regulatory review is already effectively streamlined. exports appear to be keeping pace in world markets and although efforts to forestall this expansion must be opposed,

i also see no problem with the regulatory structures surrounding renewables. the commerce department already covers those and i believe is doing a commendable job. is we shouldnciple be looking for efficiencies in areas where existing regulation could be more effectively implemented. the state department is the appropriate agency in which to vest authority for cross-border oil pipelines is certainly a fair question to ask. course of the review of the keystone xl has been counterproductive and i think it is unduly straining our relationship with canada. energy's slow of walking is another area that i think is worthy of examination.

secretary appears to have quickened the pace of approvals which i appreciate, but the queue is still quite full. licenses still take far too long to review, especially when, as appropriate, the project still must go through a rigorous safety review. i am particularly excited about modular reactors that have received a great deal of attention in terms of research and development. current designs will provide strong nuclear safeguards and maintain your commitment to international security. renovating our export architecture, it will strengthen our global posture and send a strong signal to the world that must be heard. policymakers.ave

and new delhi, they watch. in budapest and moscow, they wonder about the potential. it is hard to put a price on that. in action also has a cost. 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 research and an opportunity born of technological prowess and true american grit. theican-made energy is safest and most environmentally responsible energy on earth. is exportingtion energy to the world, wringing

electricity to those without power, heat to those in the cold, the united states should be that leader. with that, i thank you for the opportunity to present our thoughts with you and share my new white paper on the energy architecture. i am happy to take questions about where we may go from here. [applause] >> that was a terrific and provocative set of questions and comments. the white paper is quite an important piece of work that covers a wide range of sectors, as did your remarks. , thet to introduce charles

senior fellow at brookings and head of our energy security initiative. charlie will ask a question and i will give one myself. then we will turn it over to the audience. thank you for one of the most important speeches i have heard in washington in a long time. regulatory process you outlined is probably not known to everyone in this room and certainly not to all your fellow members on capitol hill. i think you have done a great service by doing this and i would like to recognize your staff members that coordinated with my own staff putting this event together. a lot of hard work went into making this happen. let me begin by asking an unfair question. each energy source is different and probably requires different regulatory processes.

any merit in the gambit of federal regulations governing the approval of various export projects for putting a reasonable timeframe on the regulatory process by which the federal agencies would have to come up with a yes or no answer rather than this great limbo we sometimes see? >> i think it is one of those areas that we can look to. for a possible solution to the impasse, the lack of certainty that you have within the industry. one of the things that we recognize in washington dc is when we don't have certainty within our policies. jobs, and itars, costs us when it comes to competitiveness. and we think about ways we can

the regulatory process, a reasonable timeline to me is one area he can and should be looking to. you have to recognize that there may be situations where you have to extend it out. that you have to do a bypass, if you will. for instance, within the approval process for the export license, there is no certainty whatsoever out there. it could be one month, two months, two years. it could be never. you havee meantime, investors that are waiting. you have those seeking these jobs, those that are looking for the products to purchase, but no certainty within our process. i think it is one of those areas

we should look to to provide a little bit more certainty. >> i was struck in your remarks that you took a step back from calling for comprehensive legislation, and really calling for executive action in some of these regards. it makes me wonder how you see the broader political landscape, a sense of caution and not high expectations for what can get accomplished 18 blocks east of here. >> let me remind you that on tuesday, the first workday back in january of 2014, shall i tell you, let the races begin. we are already in the fall campaign season in terms of the on hundred 13th congress. is when that happened, it just more difficult to advance legislation.

and not only move it through one body, but through both and get it signed by the president. i am trying to be practical about where we are. and as we have looked at this issue, i have suggested in my comments that we are prepared to introduce legislation if necessary. i am not certain it is absolutely necessary. i believe that the authority currently resides with the executive branch, that they can make these actions and the national best interest and within the department of commerce. it takes initiative by the executive to do just that. if they need encouragement, i am happy to provide that. i think it is also fair to acts havesome of the been around since the 30s, the 50s, the mid 70's.

in fairness, it is appropriate to review these to see if they are as current as they need to be. my suggestion is that they are not. on two fronts.h maybe we advance legislation that will allow for modernization while encouraging the administration to act on its own with the authority that they currently have. ladies and gentlemen, the floor is open and we ask that you identify yourself when you ask a question and please ask a question. we will go here. speak up because this room has terrible acoustics. >> in the natural gas export discussion, there has been a andnce between natural gas the benefits of using more natural gas.

i am wondering, what are your views exporting more crude and perhaps increasing fighting in the united -- increasing the you [indiscernible] >> i think we can do more to increase the refining capacity. we have seen those adjustments, the reconfiguration within many of our refineries to accommodate that light type of oil. i think we get to a point where it is this mismatch i have talked about where we are not able to gain alignment because continue with the

retrofit of those refineries. in terms to be honest of our ability to bring new refineries online. last time we had a refinery built in this country was decades ago. i think we've got to be cognizant of that. to buildof doing more out the value added products for export, we have certainly seen that in this country. and it got the attention of many in this country who did not understand how much we actually export in terms of those value added products. i am talking about the ability to export crude, i think it is important to recognize that when we are talking about and all of the above energy policy, i would like to see it all forms of our

energy product, whether it comes from crude oil, natural gas, , the fine products we are able to do, let's allow for a level of trade that is full and across-the-board. increase doing more to the jobs through a refining capacity? and advancing value added products? yes. we will be able to do even more as we increase production domestically. we can increase the opportunity for jobs, work to address our trade imbalance. this is where i think we have opportunities with export. >> this is an issue of great interest to us.

to which it was produced in court nation with -- if not, what reaction have you gotten from members of the natural resource community? is there a set of consensus around this issue? 2020 whichmy energy i advanced last year, that was the work of my energy committee -- we worked with committee members in terms of, where are your priorities. puttingerms of actually pen to paper, it was the work of a pretty strong team on our energy committee. the white paper being released this morning will be shared with not only all members of the energy committee, but all of my colleagues in the senate to have

a copy of what i feel is a pretty important document. really kind of shining a spotlight in a very readable format. 20 pages to bring them current. i can't give you the reaction from my other colleagues. to ask them in a few days after they have had the opportunity to review it. >> david, did you have a question? >> this is kind of a follow-on the first question. are you giving the administration a deadline to act? >> i am not going to suggest that by july 1, if we haven't seen something, then i am going to advance one thing or another.

what i certainly hope is that with this discussion that i think really kicks off today, the administration will start looking critically although i believe they have started to look more closely at this issue, it is certainly evidenced by the secretary's comments last month to reviewneed policies as they relate to export of oil. in terms of a deadline to the administration, i am not prepared to do that. but i am very concerned about the signals that we may be seeing in the not-too-distant future here. might see this mismatch become more apparent in six months or 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 is 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 aggressively. i am hoping the administration will engage with me and really begin to act. >> new leadership on the senate energy committee might move that legislation along? we don't exactly know when we might see some changes there. i will suggest to you that the senator made a comment just this week also suggesting that it was timely to look at our export policies. i think that is a good

indication that she would be willing to take a hard look at where we are today. >> from science and technology magazine. i know that the white paper you that we on exports recently discovered in the united states. i wanted to ask you about the future of nuclear power be and source ofa prominent energy production for the rest of the world. i know the iea is looking at nuclear power this year as an energy source. despite the fact that there is a lot of hype about these natural

gas reserves, there is discussion about moving away from an extraction economy. i was wondering if you could share whatever discussion there is in the senate and congress about this view of nuclear power. i hope we will not be left behind. count me as one, coming from oil,te that produces natural gas, fossilized fuels, we don't have nuclear in my state yet, but there are many that are looking with great interest at small modular reactors with promise there. and i have long been one that anysuggested that to have level of what we call energy nuclear must that

be a strong piece of that energy portfolio. ,nd as aggressive as i will be including renewables, i want to and urgency focus when it comes to doing more with nuclear in this country. i think it is 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 it is kind of the elephant under the rug or whatever the expression is. uphas been causing a hold within the congress to try to advance nuclear within the energy portfolio.

have, i think, made great strides with the joint effort between the authorizes and the in buildings legislation that we think is responsive and can enjoy support in both the house and the senate. i am hopeful that we would be able to continue that effort going into this new year. i think it will help us as we .ry to advance nuclear and again, as i suggested earlier, this is a hard juncture, tot this pass freestanding legislation, particularly on something that generates is much discussion as nuclear waste.

thatot so naïve to think just because we think it's a good bill that we can snap our fingers and make it happen. but i think you have a strong commitment from a good group of folks to try to advance that. if we are not successful this year, i hope that will be in the next congress. struck about how you were thinking about what can be accomplished now and longer- term, building various coalitions. paperstruck in the white that was beyond the narrow regulatory things, talking about the different sectors, that in each of the pieces, there is an infrastructure dimension to them. charlie and i were in north dakota and were struck by the flareup of natural gas. of for the oil coming out there all being shipped by rail. talk a little bit about that

you seeforward, where the most important infrastructure investments and what kind of support might be on both sides of the aisle where republicans can be more focused on infrastructure. it is absolutely an essential part to the discussion when we are talking about our energy architecture. discuss theing to availability of the resources going from a relative position of energy scarcity to one of true abundance, particularly when it comes to natural gas. and as we are able to utilize technologies to access oil resources as well. everybody wants to talk about that. but unless you can move that, you are stranded.

inska is a perfect case point. we have more of everything. let's just leave it at that. more than saudi arabia, oil, coal, we have it all. but we don't have the ability to move it. we have been trying for 40 years to advance our natural gas coming off of the north slope and we are still working at it. our oil resources, we were successful in the mid-70s, getting the trans-alaska pipeline. onlyt really has been our infrastructure corridor or, the 800 mile pipe from north to south. think about our coal reserves.

that is because we lack that infrastructure. infrastructure, it is aging infrastructure. thes insufficient to meet demands that are out there. i too have been to north dakota and the folks up there say, we can wait all day for more pipelines, but in the meantime, let's just put it on rail. access not be able to these incredible reserves unless we've got the infrastructure to move it. and this is not just limited to our fossil fuels. it's how we move wind, solar, renewable. this will be our big challenge moving forward. and it is going to be expensive. but if we don't make these investments in infrastructure,

all the oil that we have, although wind and sun that we have, everything just sits. coalition of republicans that are willing to pay for it? >> i think we have to. this can't be democrats the integration of renewables into the grid at the expense of everything else or republicans saying no, these will just be pipelines for oil and natural gas. got to bens, we've looking at this and saying, how do we move these resources to benefit our country? whether you're coming from alaska or from florida, how are we going to benefit? to help with jobs and allow our energy resources to be

affordable to all. this has got to be our challenge. pushing colleagues to not think about it from a partisan framework. you have other countries looking .t us as a nation they are saying, i can't believe you're just sitting on the resources that you have. that is a good question. as i mentioned in my comments, we have u.s. agencies and institutions that are helping infrastructure

projects in other countries. why aren't we making that investment in ourselves? >> i think we have time for two quick questions. then we will go to this lady. >> thank you for a thought- provoking report. you mentioned the international .imension it wasn't one of the three forums for reform that you mentioned. the agencies, the executive branch and congress. do you anticipate international negotiation that could provoke a discussion of exports? >> do i anticipate it? certainly. everybody is talking about it.

it is moscow or budapest, they are talking about what is happening in that country. is that going to prompt conversations that will be part of negotiations? and whether or not export restrictions or limitations, inviting the debbie t o rule -- wto rule? these conversations are happening with or without us. >> thank you, senator. i follow the question about infrastructure for the international level that is conductivity.

will you talk about the federal agencies including the dod, especially the commerce department. you they have the executive authority to move forward? is, theion to you transportation of our own into the global arena and also how you connect that with the many fta and ccp, focus.avat have strong advocate're a strong for the united nation conventions, at this point in navigation andf

conductivity globally is significantly crucial to our market. see where the republican party can share your vision to get the ratification e? >> you laid out a lot of different things there, but let me speak very briefly. , a supporter of ratification. i think it is well past time for a host of different reasons. , thehe least of which arctic where i am from and where you feel like you are from today , it is a changing world out

there. some of the arguments that were being discussed decades ago when it first came to the u.s. senate really do not hold true today because we have navigation in areas that we have not been able to navigate. for a host of different reasons, i am a supporter of ratification. i would like to suggest to you that of course we will be able to see passage this year. also extremely difficult given the political environment. i had a conversation with secretary as recently as last month about this. when he was in the senate and chairman of the foreign relations committee, he worked very hard to try to advance that. with his current position, he is

obviously going to continue that. i am not overly optimistic that we will see that in the second half of the 113th congress is much as i would like. i would like to thank the senator for choosing brookings to make such an important speech. tank you, bill. and i thank all the people on the senator's staff that made this event possible. the senator is on a tight schedule so if you would not mind remain being seated as she is escorted out so she can get to an important vote. >> i appreciated. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] 4] the news em in washington, this is 45 minutes.

>> good afternoon. i am shelby coffey, vice chairman of the news em. i want to welcome you all to the ninth conference at tnhe newseu. bitnt to start out with one of audience participation. if i could have a show of hands of how many people think that jack gerard ordered out this weather to get more attention paid to his speech -- [laughter] there we go. the people that know him best are all in. of theto be the editor los angeles times, so i am used to seeing hollywood stars do almost anything to get your attention from sharon stone to brad pitt. gerrard maythat mr. have topped them all with getting the lowest temperature

in 20 years here in washington just to get attention. for this. delighted to have the annual presentation of the state of american energy here at the newseum. theuld like to welcome guests that are watching online and encourage them to submit questions the a the -- via #soae2014. #soae2014. the interesting elements of our tech lives that we have to start out with that. the rest of us in the room will have q&a cards that are located at your tables. you can ask jack any kind of question related to energy or not. he is able to handle them all and we are ready. this fitting that important and timely discussion seum here inhe new

the nation's capital. it is a temple to the first amendment and free expression. issues related to energy appear in news print and on the airwaves. alone has tens of thousands of mentions per year. it would be a tall order to try to quantify how often the coverage surrounding energy is -- goes over our airwaves because it is such a relevant topic. it affects every individual. conferences like the washington ideas forum that we where with atlantic media we deal with anything from international affairs to .onetary policy general jones has been a participant in the last. is a major element of

that. a motif that runs throughout. it wasn't that long ago that the lowest point strategically overseas for foreign sources of oil to meet our energy needs for the nation. many of us assume that it would probably always be like that. today the united states is quite a bit closer than ever to deciding its own energy destiny. a new energy reality and how we will decide to achieve it. what policies do need pursue with our elected leaders? what decisions will need to be made by local communities? while of the oil and natural gas industry itself need to do? here to answer these important questions and to talk more about the status of american energy for the coming year is the president and chief executive officer of the american petroleum institute. the one, the only, the nearly

omniscient and possible master of the polyp -- polar vector that brought you your four degrees temperature today, jack gerard. [applause] >> thank you, shelby. good afternoon and happy new year's to all of you. thank you for joining us today. time with the glowing introduction you stand as you have heard many times before and others will say thank you for reading that just the way i wrote it. i will say today that i did not write anything that shelby said today. [laughter] for those of you who believe that we brought this letter -- whether, it is not true. impose aolicy -- policy in washington but not the weather. i think is a good reminder for the need for energy and energy

self-sufficiency in the united states. we appreciate all of you coming. we have a packed house in full room. we can stay warm knowing the elements outside are quite cold. before i begin with my prepared remarks today, i would like to introduce a few key vip's and individuals. as we known washington, everyone is a vip. there are a few people today at tables in the front that i would like to give special recognition to. for their leadership not only in energy but in business, labor, and elsewhere generally for their contribution to our society, to job creation, for all of the things that we have come to would joy and too often take for granted as american citizens. and i willquick list -- let me go to my list and i will be quick. another, cal dooley.

quickly? former house member from california. james bolan who is also the president of also international union and bricklayers and allied craft workers. i have to read that to make sure i get it right. doug mccarron. he is the president of the united brother is of carpenters. doc harris --. harris. we have known as a great friend at the department of energy. don lauren who heads up veterans for energy. sean mcgarvey who had the old in construction trade department who leads our labor-management group in the gas union that -- in the gas industry that oversees 15 labor unions.

at our other table, many of you know general jim jones. thank you for being here. the general was a national security adviser to the president and has numerous other long-listed credentials to service of the country. tom donohue you heads up the u.s. chamber. as bob costello, the chief economist and vice president of the american trucking association. santa, the current ceo of the international natural gas association of america. marty durbin we all know well. we hated to see him leave the api. paul connors, the trade commissioner of the canadian and the sea -- canadian embassy. last and certainly not lead -- not least, area russell who has

up the independent petroleum association of america. as give all of these vip's around of applause. -- let us give all of these round ofound -- a applause. [applause] thank you all for being here. as we reflect on this time of year, with the holidays behind butwe reflect on the past we also look clearly to the future. this time when the year is just beginning reminds us that our future is ultimately of our own design. for our holds true nation. our generation will decide if america continues its march towards global energy leadership and perhaps once in a generation opportunity or if it were main

content to play only a supporting role on the global energy market place. we can arrange what for decades has been one of america's greatest economic vulnerabilities -- our dependence on energy sources from other continents, particularly from less stable and less friendly nations. and fundamentally alter the geopolitical landscape for decades to come. all while providing a much- needed boost to our domestic economy. this is only achievable and possible if we get energy policy right in this country. today, thanks to the innovation -- innovation and the entrepreneurial spirit of the natural gas and oil industries, this nation has the potential to shed the yoke of foreign energy dependence. -- implementing smart policies will help ensure that future americans only know their country as the energy

leader. in other words, elections matter. elections have consequences. in exactly 10 months we will choose who will lead this nation . here in washington, d.c., and the state and local governments all across the land. those choices will have a lasting and profound impact on the direction of our nature and -- nation's energy policy. the decisions of the 2014 voters will help shape whether and the nation forhich our fills its potential as the world's energy superpower. energy all see discussion and educate the public on the game-changing significance of the choices our nation faces, api's 2014 --saging and advocacy fema advocacy fema will be a

america's energy, america's choice. it distills the discussion down to a basic choice. an american energy future of energy abundance, self- sufficiency, and global leadership or reverting to the ,ast of energy scarcity dependence, and economic uncertainty. it is fundamentally that simple. our underlying message is equally simple. energy is fundamental to our society, to our way of life. thanks to american innovation and the entrepreneurial spirit shown by our industry and many , our nation stands among the world's leaders in energy production and is poised to be the leader well into the future if we get the policy right. is question before us today whether we have the vision and the wisdom to take full advantage of our fast energy

research is -- vast energy resources. the policy choices we make today are among the most important and far-reaching decisions we will make in the 21st century. we have a once in a lifetime , tortunity to reshape realign, and reorder the world's energy market and improve domestic prosperity to an unprecedented degree. if we are to continue our nation's current positive energy production trends we must implement energy policies based on the current realities and our potential as an energy leader. not on the outdated political ideology of professional environmental fringe groups or political dilettantes. american energy policy should reflect the reality that someone, somewhere will benefit from helping meet the world's

energy growing needs. make no mistake -- energy and more specifically oil and natural gas will remain foundational to our way of life. worldwide for energy will continue its upward trajectory. for this of -- for the foreseeable future we will need more energy from all sources, wind, souls -- solar, nuclear, goes biofuels, the list on. all these are needed to meet what we see taking place around the ever-expanding economies around the globe. ,ccording to the president energy information administration, 25 years from now, oil and natural gas will still be responsible for providing over 60% of our nation's energy. ofwill provide more than 90% our transportation fuels.

projects demand for liquid fuels will increase by 20% in the next 20 years. theen primarily by development of emerging markets and nations as they seek to out of- lift themselves poverty, improve their standard of living, and increase the economic opportunity for all their citizens. --should be a simple choice do we, as a nation, decide to use our fast energy -- vast energy resources to help meet the world's growing energy needs and boost our competitiveness? do we realize our natural -- security- national considerations? do we provide more americans with well-paid job? do we continue to provide

billions of dollars in revenue to federal, state, and local governments in the coming decades? or will we choose once again to revert to the past of energy , andurity, energy scarcity dependence upon past practices? those on the side of america's 21st century energy renaissance have a few considerable advantages. first the facts. today, hydraulic fracturing in a horizontal drilling or what some like to it has created- the united states is the number one producer of oil and natural gas. just this year, north dakota reduced more than one million barrels of oil today -- per day. if you were a country, it would rank it in the top 20 in the world.

u.s. production of crude and natural gas liquids having -- have increased by over to me barrels a day in the last two years and almost 20% in percent increase, reducing our reliance from over 60% to less than 34% today on outside sources. energy according to the information administration, in gas 1% of our natural supply came from shale. in 2010, that percentage grew to 2035 it is expected to grow to 45% thanks in large part to our technological leadership which the rest of the world is now seeking to emulate. fracking fracturing or is essential to the american renaissance in the production of

american oil and natural gas. aso, in what is really politically motivated disconnect between today's much-changed energy landscape and the political orthodoxy of some, in my view, views of the past who continue to push for arbitrary and unfair limits were outright bans on energy exports. it is a position that flouts the facts. fact -- according to the latest census data which was just released this morning, the oil and natural gas sector is now the nation's leading ex porter and has contributed more than $129 billion during the 11 months of 2013 towards our trade amounts. all other export sectors and today accounts for 8.9% of our total exports.

in this data released this morning we learned that this has reduced our trade imbalance by over 16%, ringing us to waste -- bringing us to a four-year low. with the single largest contributor to achieving the president's vision of doubling exports to the united states. fact, one last remaining a most important one in my mind. the american people get it. ony stand with else -- us today's most important energy policy questions. they understand a pro-growth energy policy will translate into millions of stable, good- paying jobs which will go a long way to lowering unemployment and shrinking the income inequality gap which is shaping up to be a central theme of this year's election. the truth is, the average upstream john -- job in the

industry pays seven times the minimum wage in the united states. little wonder that, according to recent polls, 77% of all americans want to see this nation increase our domestic production of our oil and natural gas. 92% of american voters have concluded that the development of our energy resources provide and will continue to provide hundreds of thousands, indeed, millions of good paying jobs now and well into the future. on perhaps the highest profile issue within the policy discussion today, 69% of the voters support building the keystone xl pipeline, something shelby and i were talking about a moment ago here at the table. this has gone on for far too long. speaking of keystone, with all

due respect to the administration, i would like to point out that this now five plus year evaluation process of this pipeline has lasted longer than america's involvement in the second world war. longer than it took our nation to put a man in space and almost as long -- almost as much time as it took us to build the transcontinental railroad over 155 years ago. in other words, far too long for a project that will create jobs, grow the economy, and ultimately expand our nation's ability to take full advantage of our nation's bright energy future. it is a good example of why policy matters and how dogmatic adherence to political ideology can trump economic reality to the detriment of millions of hard working individuals who

aspire to nothing more than to feed their families, to educate them, and to have some sense of a quality-of-life. the fact is, with a single word, the word yes, the president could allow this vital infrastructure project, paid for by the private sector and without a dime of taxpayer money , to move forward and provide thousands of good paying jobs for many years to come. if we are truly concerned about income inequality, here is an easy way to begin to close the gap. broadly, the keystone xl pipeline to date highlights the our energyest in infrastructure, to support job growth, it economic growth, and increased governor revenue. i would refer you to the booklet we handed out today.

a summary of the report is included. recently concluded by ihs global which showed an energy annual infrastructure investment of up to $95 billion, which is realistic in the current context, would contribute as much as 100 and 20 billion dollars -- $120 billion to the u.s. gdp, support as many as 1.1 million new jobs in america, and provide an additional 27 billion dollars in government revenue on average every year between now and 2025. this is a big deal. --rastructure is he central, infrastructure is essential, critical to well being. the consistent polling data

shows strong public support and the result of multiple studies reported a significant, positive economic benefit of expanded energy production have spurred more and more congress members from all regions and from both parties to support increased domestic energy production. case in point -- going back to our topic of keystone pipeline, just last year both chambers, by wide margins and bipartisan margins, passed measures urging the president to approve the keystone xl pipeline, proving that even a time of hyper- partisanship and polarization that energy is one of those areas that we should be able to rally as a nation, putting aside our different philosophies or different ideologies and our different political banners and begin to support that which is best for the good of the nation for the good of the country.

the public's strong support in our ability to that too partisan noise and stale ideologies of -- critics is due to allah publicto our ongoing outreach possibly. todevelop our own resources develop the world superpower. as we look ahead to november midterm elections and beyond, we will use america's energy, america's choice campaign to spur more pro-energy policies to engage the american people and ensure that our nation's discussion on energy policy is based on fact and reality. the new facts, the new realities , the political orthodoxy or hyperbole. what is more, there is another fact on our side -- the benefits that american energy revolution

has already delivered. the best example being a significant reduction of america's co2 omissions which are at their lowest levels in nearly 20 years thanks largely t supply ofdan cleaner-burning natural gas. it is a direct result of innovation and technology that through hydraulic fracking, to drill hundreds of thousands of wells to produce a low-cost, affordable, cleaner- earning -- -- cleaner- cleaner-burning form of energy. these are private sector dollars being invested in technologies. we can debate the role of government in the expense of

taxpayers dollars to pursue these technologies, but i want to emphasize the oil and natural gas industry is a leader in zero carbon emission, low carbon emission technologies. one out of every six dollars invested in non-hydrocarbon technology comes from the oil and gas industry. since 1990 our industry has $252 billion towards improving the environmental performance of our products, our operations, and our facilities. what we want and what we -- and what the american public deserves his energy policy that continues to trend of our nation the coming energy self- sufficient and, indeed, the global energy leader. energy, america's choice campaign sends a message

to lawmakers at all levels of government that the time to and in the the intrusion policy debate is now and that the only limits on our nation's energy potential will be those that are self-imposed by shortsighted, politically motivated energy policy decision. again, the american public and future generations deserve better. energy, america's choice will harness the collective will and wisdom of the american voter to lead the our nation's bright energy future and to better align our nation's political science with our geologic science. right now the former, all too often, drives our energy policy. it will use the up coming midterm election as a means to frame and to positively policy discussion,

educating the american people, and encouraging them to take time from their busy lives to engage in the political process to educate those elected to represent them, to do the right thing, to take advantage of this once in a lifetime opportunity. all, voting is about vision. it is an act of optimism. our goal is to ensure that as selective -- as selected representatives make policy, the will of the american people will be uppermost in their mind and a dominant voice in the public debate. to make clear the link between developing america's avast -- vast energy resources, job .reation and economic growth fundamentally, america's energy, america's choice will make plain

the energy policy choice we face. develop are in or ms. energy resources at home so that future generations in herod and energy self-sufficient nation? an energy self- sufficient nation? or do we step back in time when america was only one of many play result -- players in the global energy market? in my view it would be unforgivable if the country was to abandon oregon nor its responsibility to future generations by missing this ignorenity -- abandon or its responsibility to future generations by missing this opportunity by listening to political orthodoxy. lawmakersg american to take advantage of america's energy renaissance is at the core of the american petroleum

institute's mission today and well into the future. it is america's energy. it is america's choice. thank you very much and i look forward to entertaining your questions. [applause] >> thank you, jack's. there are people collecting cards if you have any. exports are in the news today and the possible exports of crude oil. on exports, u.s. production is only recently at record levels. pause and go at a more deliberate speed before considering exporting crude oil or increasing exports of lng? >> great question. let me say it not only is it in the news today, a senator made a speech this morning that talked about this issue specifically.

to paraphrase her words, she said that we need to modernize america's energy policy. this is a perfect example of what we need to do in this country as we look at those prohibitions or those limitations on our ability to achieve those -- our full potential. our import reliance has gone from 60% to 34%. it is a significant move. what we should also move -- look at is how we bring more of this vast, domestic supply to the global marketplace. the free market is the best factor to determine price and supply and demand equations. the worst thing for the government to do right now is to distort the marketplace. we see today, as i mentioned earlier, we have now reduce the imbalance of our trades today by 16% because of the export primarily of refined product. we should look at all options. we should consider a the export

limitations on crude oil today just as we are seeking to expand lng exports in this country. it should be part of the mix. it should not be bound by past practices or the visions of the arab oil embargo in the 1970's. it is a new day and new time. it is a new america. as it relates to oil and gas. we should consider and review quickly the role of crude export along with lng export and finished product export because in thisntage it creates country is in job creation and balance of payments. >> on the keystone pipeline, in threeemarks you mentioned thanks. bipartisan support, polls that show people support the pipeline, and for previous ok's from the state department. two part question. number one, why is it still delayed?

two we'd be doing in 2014 -- what will you be doing in 2014 to gain approval? >> i wish i could answer the first part of the question. i think we are as frustrated as anyone else's. we will not give up. to pushcontinue consistent where the american people are. 69% support -- support approval of the keystone xl pipeline. the canadian prime minister said it is a no-brainer. today we are having a debate in the congress and we will over the next year over income inequality. our jobs in the oil and natural gas industry, particularly on the upstream of reduction side, pay seven times what minimum wages today. with one simple word, the word yes, would approve thousands of jobs, well-paying jobs come a would help us to begin to close this gap. we worked closely with doug and

many seats around the table today in organized labor to create these jobs. we are unified. the sinnott not a republican or democratic issue. it is an american issue but it is key to our success and it is fundamental to sending a signal not only to this nation but the world as to how we will hand out -- handle our energy policy going forward and will we rise to the occasion to truly achieve the potential of becoming a superpower around the globe. >> there's a lot of kayak -- talk about the keystone pipeline. as another pipeline that is important to the industry and that is the alaska pipeline. given the declining throughput youre pipeline, what is vision of its future as it is related to the american energy policy? >> alaska is key in a vast energy resources for us that has gone in many ways underutilized for many years. we need to continue to focus on alaska.

the role of federal and state government is key in alaska. the vast majority of the state primarily, they, federal government as well of the state. when we look at the transatlantic pipeline, it is a resource that is now underutilized because we are not producing enough to keep it at full capacity. we should look to those existing infrastructures to expand and achieve our potential but we should also look at the new infrastructure debate. as i mentioned earlier, in your packet today we shared the new report that shows we can create new to it -- close to one million new jobs by building the pipeline networks not only alaska and elsewhere but clear across this country to safely move product to allow it to be refined, to allow it to be consumed, to allow it to be affordable and reliable for all americans. alaska is key to this equation.

it should not be overlooked. the transatlantic pipeline is currently underutilized. for opportunity there. it also brings us back to the question of crude export. investmentioned the in infrastructure in the report going out today. it seems harder to get local infrastructure projects built. what policy changes are needed to ensure that investments can actually translate to projects? >> there is a lot of policy that needs to be looked at. most of this is managed at the local level. what we need to do in the country is to escape what is taking place today and that is those who would seek to stop the development of the oil and natural gas and use the permeating processes as proxies for surrogates to begin to stop this economic activity. statutes, review all

regulatory activity, and focus on their primary purpose. to safely protect our workforce, to safely protect our environment, and also to come to a point of decision to approve these opportunities. i hate to keep talking about the keystone xl pipeline, but it is the wrong model. if it takes is five years, if it takes this extended. of time because of political will limitons, we our ability to achieve our potential as a nation and frankly, discourage the investment that is lining the shores of this country to come here to develop these vast resources, to put our people to work. it could not happen at a better time the. how's the time to do it. you need to look at all regulations and laws to bring about an affirmative final decision on these processes and on these permits. >> on the renewable -- fuel standard, we had a couple of questions. the epa recently lowered the

volumes to avoid the ethanol blend wall. do believe that ethanol is playing a role in our increasing energy security and if so, why is the oil industry urging the epa to go lower than 10%? >> a couple of answers. very quickly. the reason the api and others are encouraging the epa to go below 10% is because the vast majority of all automobiles were built to consume up to 10% ethanol and only up to 10% ethanol. when they survey the auto manufacturers said that if we allow a blend beyond 10%, would thosern teeth -- warranty millions of automobiles in the country today? no,y auto manufacturer said we will not. we will not honor the warranties if you go beyond 10%.

the standard is an issue that is focused on consumers. this is a consumer issue. we're are the ones that are put in the crosshair, the refiners and processes, to produce the gas and diesel fuel we consume every day. consumers.cts that is why you see opposition from small business owners, from marine individuals, from farmers, only turkey farmers, chicken producers, chain restaurants, and others. it was supposed to be a few -- fuel policy, all of the foundation that it was sent that reduce greenhouse, reality has changed in the last five years. the renewable fuel standards needs to be refueled -- repealed. i give credit to the administration to have the courage to step forward in this most recent role making and recognize what we call the blend wall that would have pushed us through this 10% blend. to say, enough is enough.

this is harmful to the american public. we should not allow this to continue. >> on taxes, do you think the tax reform can move forward in 2014 and if so, what would you like to see as part of the discussion? >> i do not believe tax reform will occur in 2014. how is that, when that? -- linda? [laughter] i'm sure no one in this room believes what i said in this room. in theorm is important country to make a globally competitive. from an oil and gas perspective, the worst thing we could do today is to select, to treat the oil and gas industry in a punitive way. if you look at the report, the oil and natural gas industry pays a 44.6% tax rate on a global scale. we pay not only our fair share, we pay more than our fair share. day to themillion a

federal government. we are making a contribution. we can continue to create well- paying jobs and allow others to make additional contributions. a tax policy that singles out an individual industry is wrongheaded and it is going in the wrong direction. the likelihood in my view, humble, but correct my opinion is that it is unlikely that anything will happen in 2014 in a comprehensive way. >> -- >> tom agrees with me. >> regarding your tort -- report and the america's choice campaign, is this going to create ratings of congressional candidates for office? >> we support all political candidates who support oil and natural gas and understand the vision and the potential for this country. to date, we currently do not rate and we will not use this opportunity to rate current

members. i will tell you that as we look at contributions, as we look at support for members, we look at one thing -- the voting record. elections matter. elections translates to votes. votes matter. i believe the congress and administration are lagging indicators. i believe the american public sets the agenda and our country -- in our country and it happens at the polling booth. america's energy, america's choice is designed to continue the american people and to encourage them to participate in the democratic processes that alecto's officials that come here to represent those interests. when you see over 70% of the american public saying we should produce more of the nation's oil and natural gas industry, there is clearly a disconnect in policy formulation and the will of the american public. we believe by purging the will

of the american public, a create sound policy. it is where our primary focus will be on the america's energy, america's choice campaign. >> the last question. you spoke a lot about the need for more natural gas and oil in our energy supply to address the future and opportunities. with increased emetic production, what is the role of energy efficiency in contributing to our energy security? >> energy efficiency is key to our entire equation. it should be a component part, just like all forms of energy should be a component part. today we produce twice as much gdp activity for the same amount in 1980. that we did we, as a nation, are more energy-efficient today that we have ever been. that does not mean we stop. we need to continue to become more and more energy-efficient over time.

however, we have to be realistic. it does require energy to fuel our economy, to heat our homes. that thedded products business community provides. energy is essential to our economy, to our well-being, and energy efficiency is a key component of at -- that broader equation. it is one component and we should not overlook the others, including oil and gas which provides over 60% of that energy. thank you very much, linda. let me conclude by thank you all for your participation. i hope you enjoyed your lunch. i hope that some of what we said today will not only resume, but perhaps all think a little more about the energy reality, the opportunity we have that we can engage together as americans -- not as democrats and republicans, but as americans

seeking to put our nation on a sure footing for the benefit of all of our citizens. thank you very much for your time. i appreciate it. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> [inaudible] "washington up on

journal," waste to reduce inequality. after that, first-term congressman from indiana with the republican take on the issue. later, our spotlight on magazine features someone from "the christian science monitor" on her plan to highlight inequality in 2014. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. next, a discussion on federal spending on green technology companies and the president's climate action plan in 2014. from "washington journal," this is 45 minutes. host: we are joined by dan weise weiss. a hot topic was a cbs 60 minutes report from sunday that they

have little to show from their -- in recent years. notthe outrage? >> it is our rates so much as it is great disappointment. "60 minutes" was famed for its top rate reporting but they did a shoddy job. it said nothing she has read has indicated that any -- it created 55,000 jobs and that somehow escaped her attention. the loan guarantee program that she was criticizing on the show has a 97% success rates. only three percent of the investments went bad. .7% had been blossoming it is a far better rate for

venture capital. on the show itself, and several -- that was never mentioned on the show. host: we will show you the opening from that piece. >> about a decade ago, the smart people who funded the internet turned their attention to the energy sector. they rally tech engineers to invent ways to get us off fossil devise powerful solar panels, clean cars, and futuristic batteries. the idea got a catchy name -- clean tech. silicon valley got washington excited about it erie president bush was an early supporter. purse screens truly loosened owned or -- under president obama. he committed north of $100

billion in loans, grants and tax breaks in clean tech. instead of breakthroughs it suffered a string of expensive tax funded flops. suddenly clean tech was a dirty word. host: dan wise is with the center for american progress. in that report you talk about the success rate of government investments. but was she wrong to point out some of the high profile failures in investing in green technology? there was $500 million for the solar panel company, center $500 million for fisker automotive, beacon tower, a-123, some of them that have been making headlines? guest: it was not wrong because in sense they have failed even though they received federal loan guarantees. but it was out of context to not note the 97% success rate.

those companies represent the 3% failure rate. in the solar industry, the first five utility scale solar plants were built with the help of loan guarantees but the next 10 were built by the private sector on their own. it is that continued of investment that fostered growth and innovation. they missed that. another thing they missed, in 2012 a new electricity generation came on line nearly half of it was generated by wind electricity. we brought down the cost of advanced batteries for cars. the cost has been cut in half thanks to investments and it will be cut by two-thirds by the end of next year. so there is a lot of progress that was never mentioned in the story. it is like facts are stubborn things. you can pull out a couple and make an elephant seem smaller than a mouse.

host: republican vice chair marsha blackburn put out a statement saying this report underscores the massive failure of the administration's green energy programs. the obama administration spent billions of taxpayer money propping up green energy agenda under the guise of job creation but it yielded failed companies and rather than stimulate u.s. jobs, the loan question program has proven to be a more successful stimulus for chinese investors. that is marsha blackburn. your response to that? guest: there is very little intersection between her statement and facts.

in fact, in tennessee, her home state, the nissan factory got a loan guarantee that helped them build advanced batteries that will be used in nissan all electric vehicles. the ford motor company got $6 billion to help retool factories it make more fuel efficient cars and that created 33,000 jobs. you just need to go to the d.o.e. website to see there's been a 97% success rate from the loan guarantees. they have created 55,000 jobs. so while the rhetoric reflects the interest of big oil and coal companies it doesn't reflect the facts. host: we are talking to dan weiss from the center of american progress to talk about clean energy investments by the federal government and other climate issues in his work as director of climate strategy.

our phone lines are open. before we leave this report from sunday on "60 minutes" they noted in the report the department of energy didn't respond to request for comment. do you think the obama administration is doing enough to talk about some of the successes you pointed out this morning? guest: you can always talk more about success but what is news is scandal and failure, not success. so, the news media particularly "60 minutes" has focused on what they perceived to be failure when they ignore the evidence of success. i would note the department of energy did issue a statement yesterday that included many of the facts we have been talking about today. i can't tell you why they didn't choose to do that in advance. host: do you think this is

something the president will talk about in his state of the union address and if in the this particular report what do you think he needs to say on green energy and climate change issues? guest: the president has talked about investments in clean energy being critical to reducing the carbon pollution responsible for climate change and helping us with economic competitiveness against china, germany and other countries. germany gets about one quarter of its electricity from wind and solar power. so, there's no reason we can't be doing more. the president, i believe, will probably talk about this. he hasn't called me to ask me what should be in the state of the union but i would urge him to talk about some of these successes. the amount of clean electricity generated under his watch has doubled in the first four years of his administration. we have 55,000 jobs under the loan guarantee program and it is powering electricity for 15 million homes.

wind was almost half of the new electricity in the u.s. in 2012. there is a great story about how these smart investments are paying off and creating new industries and jobs in this country. host: several folks waiting to talk to dan weiss the director of climate strategy. anthony is waiting on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good morning. caller: i'm call from las vegas, nevada. i'm an electrician that worked on one of these clean energy projects. i had been unemployed for about a year and a half when it job came up. i'm a member of the electricians union. this job was a god send it me because i was going to run out of unemployment. thank god that this job came up in the state of california.

i was able to work on this job. the green technology is a good thing. me and about 150 of my union brothers had been out of work for a very long time. we didn't know what we were going to do. we worked on the job and it basically saved our lives. and this green technology is a good thing. i think that our country needs to do more investment in green technology. california has a surplus right now. a lot of it is due to the green technology because when you start coming off fossil fuels and relying on green technology, it actually does a lot for your economy. host: anthony, was the plant over the california-nevada border? guest: there is a giant utility scale solar project that is just

about ready to come on line. it is right on the california side of the california-nevada border which is what i'm guessing he is working at. it created a lot of jobs and will produce clean electricity for thousands of homes in california and nevada. that is happening all over the country. host: we go to keith in palm bay, florida, republican lane. caller: good morning. i appreciate all the work you do. i don't agree with a lot of what you say but i still appreciate the work that you put in. i have two questions. one on the wind. you said 90% of the new electric generation coming in was from wind. guest: no, i said 43% in 2012 of new generation was from wind. caller: oh, 43%. the question is how much from solar was brought in.

the second question is, is $100 billion, which you said 97% were successful so that is $97 billion. and you said there was only 55,000 jobs made from this that was listed on the internet where you said you could read it. you also said ford got $6 billion for new batteries and created 33,000 jobs. guest: we're spewing out a lot of statistics. what i said is the loan guarantee program which was about $20 billion to $30 billion, that had a 97% success rate. that was not the the only program. there were other investments like making federal buildings more energy efficient that way taxpayers wouldn't have to waste money on energy. that is part of the $100 billion, not part of the $30 billion of the loan question program.

the $6 billion in loans to ford was a different program. that was called the advanced technological vehicle manufacturing program that was created under president bush. that loaned $6 billion to ford motor company where they were retooling factories to make more fuel efficient cars. that created 33,000 jobs. host: is your question whether the billions of dollars were worth it for the jobs created? caller: exactly. under president obama's program she said they spent $100 billion and you quoted that she didn't say they got any jobs for it but it was on the internet that you could read 55,000. are you saying $100 billion only turned out 55,000 jobs? guest: no, you have to listen carefully. the $100 billion part of that was the d.o.e. loan guarantee program to give loans to

companies who couldn't otherwise get them. this started in 2009 after the 2008 crash. the credit markets were frozen. if they could get capital they could start their projects. the money spent on that program which i believe was between $20 billion to $30 billion -- maybe you can look it up while we take the next call -- that created 55,000 jobs. there was another $70 billion to $80 billion that created jobs but we don't have data. things like investing in making federal buildings more efficient. it will save taxpayers money. host: what about the concerns that republican members on the energy and commerce committee pointed out whether there is the right place to be spending tens and a hundred billion dollars when the government has so much debt and such a large deficit, whether it is the right place to try to get jobs. guest: absolutely it is. first of all, jobs are part of the benefit. another part of the benefit is clean electricity that we don't have to import, dig up or burn.

that will reduce the carbon dioxide pollution. another benefit is economic competitiveness. for example, before this program we were only building less than half of all wind turbines in it -- this country. now we're building about 75% of them we use in the united states. so it helps build a manufacturing base. jobs were not the only value achieved. in addition, many of these are loan guarantees where they were paid back. tesla paid back its $465 million loan nine years ahead of schedule. so we got that money back and we will get other money become from other loans. if you look at the whole picture and not just three or four companies that didn't make it, then you see a much more robust investment that is paying off in terms of cleaner electricity,

cleaner transportation, jobs and economic competitiveness. host: we go to chuck in nashville, tennessee, on our line for independents. you are on with dan weiss of the center for american progress. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i have a question according to some of the statements and conversation around congresswoman blackburn from tennessee, the letter, specifically two of them. we were talking about nissan. i live here near the nissan you stated that the loan went to create jobs for nissan. they are making the advanced batteries. caller: they are making the batteries at the nissan plant.

guest: i do not know where they are building the other components. ler: over 80% are being made in japan. you need to be aware of that. comment about ford. any ford are of manufacturing plant in tennessee. guest: i didn't say tennessee. the $6 billion in loans that helped them retool 13 different factories so they efficient more fall cars like the ford focus, ford and even the sion f-150 trucks are all being made be hese factories and will made more fuel efficient which thousands he drivers of dollars and reduce