>> so when i'm talking about the ability to export our crude, i think it's important to recognize when we are talking about an all of the above energy policy, i would like to see it relate to all forms of our energy products, whether it comes from crude oil, from natural gas, from renewables, the are fined products that we are 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 jobs here in this country capacity r refining and advancing value added products? yes. but will we 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 have

opportunities with the export of our crude. > thank you. this is an issue of great interest to us. my question is about the white paper and the extent to which it was produced in coordination with input from other members of the committee. and if not, what reaction have you gotten from our members of the energy and natural resources committee? do you get a sense there is a sense of consensus around this issue or that 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. 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 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 , tty 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. i would ask you to ask them in a few days after they have had an opportunity to review it. >> david, did you have a question? sorry, behind you. yes? >> i am with bloomberg news. this is a follow on the first question you were asked. are you giving the

administration a deadline to act? at what point would you introduce legislation this year? >> 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 would certainly hope is that with this discussion that i think really kicks off today, the administration will start looking critically, although i believe they already have started to look more closely at this issue, and that is certainly evidenced by the secretary as comments last nth about the need to review some of our policies as they relate to export of oil. so in terms of a deadline to the administration, i'm 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. 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 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, and i want to move it aggressively. so i'm hoping that the administration will engage with to act. ally begin >> 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 is a good indication that she would be willing to take a good hard look at where we are today. and again, how we might be able to modernize the energy architecture. >> we have a question back by the wall. >> hi, i am with 21 stanford century science and technology magazine. i know that the white paper you wrote is specifically on exports of natural gas reserves, et cetera that we have recently discovered in the united states, but i wanted to ask you something about nuke power and the fukushima of nuclear power being hopefully a

predominant source of energy production in north america and the rest of the world. i know that the i.e.a. is looking at nuclear power specifically this year as a world energy source. despite the fact that there is a lot of hype in north america about these natural gas reserves, there is also a lot of discussion about moving around -- and this is 20 or 30 years down the line -- moving away from an extraction economy. i was wondering if you could share whatever discussion there is in the senate, in the congress, about this view of power. i hope we are not going to be left behind in that because i think there is a lot of promise in it as an energy source. >> count me as one, coming from a state that produces oil, natural gas, follow i willized fossilized fuel,

oal, but we are looking at the small reactors. great proms there. have long been one to suggest that to have any level of what we call energy independence, that nuclear must be a piece of that energy portfolio. as aggressive as i will be on domestic production, including an ables, i want to see equal focus and really urgency when it comes to doing more with nuclear in this country. i think that 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 that is kind of the

elephant under the rug or whatever the expression is that s been causing a hold-up 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 of ronment at this juncture 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 that just because we think it is a good bill, that we are going to be able to snap our fingers and make it happen. but i think you've got strong commitment from a good group of folks to try to advance that. if we are not successful this year, i am hopeful we will be in the next congress. >> bill? >> i was struck. again, i like how you are thinking and talking about both what can be accomplished now, particularly by the administration, and longer term, how you build coalitions for support of various energy structures. talking about all the different sectors, that in each of the pieces there is an

infrastructure dimension to them. on the oil and gas side there is pipeline. >> yes. >> charlie and i were up in north dakota, and you were struck by the amount of flaring going on up there of natural gas. there is no pipeline. for the all coming out of there, it is all being shipped by rail. talk about that looking forward in the white paper, where you see the most important infrastructure investments and what kind of support you think might be on the hill on both ides of the aisle where senate represents tend to have been more focused on infrastructure, house republicans a little less so? >> it is absolutely an essential part to the discussion when we are talking about our energy architecture. it is one thing to discuss the 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 are able to utilize our technologies to access oil resources as well. everybody wants to talk about that. but unless you can move that, you are stranded. 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, natural gas, oil. honestly, we have it all. but we don't have the ability to move it. we have been trying now for 40 years to advance our natural gas coming off the north slope, and we are still working at it. r oil resources -- we were successful in the mid 1970's, thank goodness, at getting the

trans-alaska 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 is because we lack that infrastructure. here in this country, while you may have the infrastructure, it is aging infrastructure. it is insufficient to meet the demands that are out there. i, too, have been in north dakota, and quite honestly the folks up there are saying we can wait all day for appliance. but in the mean time 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 this is not just limited to our fossil fuels. it is how we move our wind, our

solar, our renewables. this is going to be our big challenge moving forward, and it is going to be expensive. but if we don't make these investments in the infrastructure, all of the oil that we have, all the wind and sun that we have, everything that we have just sits. >> do you think there is a coalition of represents within the represent party that are willing to pay for it and figure out where to get the resources to pay to it? >> i think we have to. i don't think this is -- this can't be diems -- democrats supporting the integration of renewables into the grid at the expense of everything else or the represents saying no, these are just appliance for oil and 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 are from florida, how are we going to benefit? how are we going to help with jobs, allow our energy resources to be affordable to all? this has got to be our challenge. so i am pushing colleagues to not think about it from a partisan framework. that is not going to advance us. you have other countries that are looking at us as a nation and saying wow, i can't believe you are just sitting on the resources that you have. why aren't you moving them? why aren't you doing more for yourself? and that's a good question. why aren't we? we need to figure out how we

are going to make those investments in our resources. as i mentioned in my comments, we have u.s. agencies and 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 they have time for two quick questions. kevin, you have been patient, and then this lady. sorry for the rest of you. >> i will be fast. thank you for a thought-provoking report. you alluded to the international dimension, but it wasn't the three forums for reform of crude oil exports that you mentioned. the agency, the executive branch and congress. do you anticipate any sort of international negotiation like the t-tip talks or something else that could provoke a discussion of crude exports in different form, in a an

international forum or w.g.o. forum? thanks again. >> do i anticipate it? certainly. we can't have these conversations here in isolation in this country. everybody is talking about it other places, whether riad, moscow or budapest, they are talking about what is happening in their country. there is no closed secret here about the resources that we have. so is that going to prompt conversations that will be part of negotiations? i would think so. there has already been some discussion out there as to whether or not export restrictions or limitations somehow violate w.t.o. rules. as i say, these conversations are happening with or without us. maybe we need to be part of

those conversations. >> thank you very much. thank you, senator, and thank you, doctor. i follow the question about infrastructure to the international level, which is connectivity. you talk about the federal agencies, including d.o.e., d.o.d., especially the commerce epartment, and you expect them to use executive authority to move forward. my question to you is the transportation of our own esources into the global arena , and also, how do you connect that with the many f.t.a.'s, t.t.p.'s that our administration has a strong

focus on? especially the t.p.p. given that, i know you are a , the united te nations convention under the sea treaty. the freedom of navigation and freedom of connectivity is crucial to our market globally. where those in the represent party can share your keen vision of getting ratification of that? thank you. >> well, you have laid out a lot of different things there, but let me speak very briefly to law of the sea. as you know, i am a proponent, a supporter of ratification of

law of the sea. i think it is well past time for a host of different reasons. the he 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. ome 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 navigation in areas that we have not been able to navigate before. again, for a host of different reasons, i am a supporter of ratification. i would like to suggest to you that of course we are going to be able to see passage this year, but that, too, is extremely difficult given the

political environment. i have had a conversation with secretary kerry as recently as last month about this. 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 is obviously going to continue that, but i am not overly optimistic that we will see that in the second half of the 113th congress as much as i would like. >> well, i would like to thank the senator for choosing brookings to make such an important speech. and thank you, bill. and i 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 mind, remain seated while she is escorted out to get to an important vote. >> thank you, appreciate it. [applause]

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute] ? [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]. >> jack gerard pushed for approval of the keystone pipeline for expanded exports. he spoke about ways upcoming ways they could expand things. this is 45 minutes. >> i would like to start out with one bit of audience participation. jack of hands who thinks gerard ordered up this weather to get more attention paid to his speech. there you go. the people who know him best at these tables are all in. back in the day, i used to be

the editor of the "los angeles times," so i am used to seeing hollywood stars do almost anything to get your attention. from sharron stone to brad pitt , but i would say mr. gerard may have topped them all with getting the lowest temperature in 20 years here in washington just to get attention for this. we are delighted to have again the annual presentation of the state of american energy here at the museum. a bit of housekeeping. i would like to welcome my guests who are watching this event online and encourage them to submit questions that they soae ve via the hashtag 2014. just one of 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 which are

located at your tables, and you can ask jack any kind of question related to energy or not. he says he is able to handle them all, and we are ready. it is fitting that this important and timely discussion be held here in our nation's capital, which is a temple to the first amendment and free expression. as we all know, issues related to energy appear in news print and air waives daily. a.p.i. alone has tens of thousands of mentions per year. it would be a tall order in fact to try to quantify how often the coverage surrounding energy goes over our air waves because it is such a relevant topic. it is one that affects every individual, and in fact a number of the other distinguished conferences we have here such as the washington ideas forum which we

puts on with the aspen institute and atlantic media, we were dealing with everything from international affairs to monetary policy. i see general jones here, who has been a participant in these in the past. we are dealing with things that get in. energy is a major element of that, a motif that runs throughout it. it wasn't that long ago that america had to look quite importantly and stiegally overseas for foreign sources of oil to meet our energy needs for the nation. many of us assumed it would probably always be like that. but today, the united states is quite a bit closer than ever to deciding its own energy destiny. us ew energy reality asks all to decide how we will achieve it. what policies do we need to be pursuing with our elected leaders? what decisions will need to be made by local communities? and what will the oil and

natural gas industry itself need to do? here to answer these important questions and to talk more about the state of american energy for the coming year is the president and chief executive officer of the american petroleum institute, he one, the only, the nearly o nicient and possible master of the polar vectors who brought you your 4-degree temperature today, jack gerard. [applause] >> well, thank you, shelby, and good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. happy new year to all of you. thank you for joining us today. oftentimes with a 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 i didn't write anything that shelby said

today. for those of you who actually believe we brought this weather, it is really not true. i would like to think we have some influence on policy in washington, but clearly not on the weather. though i think it is a good reminder of the need for energy and the need for energy sfishes si e -- self- in the united states. we have a packed house. we can stay warm today even though it is cold outside. i would like to introduce a few key individuals. as we all know in washington, everybody is a v.ism p. but there are a few here today at a few tables in front i would like to give special recognition too for their leadership role not only in energy, but business, labor and other places generally for their contribution to society, to all the things we have come

to enjoy and too often take for granted as american citizens. shelby, thank you very much for hosting us today in this wonderful institution, which is fast becoming a landmark on the washington scene, though relatively recently. another, cal, doolye, president and correia of the american chemistry council. thank you for being here. james bolen, who is the president of international union and brick layers and allied craft workers. doug is the president of the united brotherhood of carpenters. dot harris. a director of the office of the office of imfact and diversity at the department of energy where we are working on initiatives to employ minority communities around the country. and our good friend admiral don

liriano who heads up admiral he is for energy. and bill, a good friend who leads our labor mcgee group of the oil and gas industry that constitutes over 15 unions, where we work together in job creation and economic self-sufficiency here in the country. >> maybe you know jim jones. thank you for being here. the general is the national security advisor to the president and has another list of credentials and life of service to the country. tom donahue who headsthe chamber and focused on the energy equation. xt to him is bob costello, the chief haven't of the american trucking association. and don, santa, president and c.e.o. of the natural gas association of america. marty durbin we all know well.

we hated to see him leave the a.p.i. paul connors the trade commissioner of the canadian ray emery. amy luz, the vice president for the congressional hispanic caucus. and bob russell who heads up the independent petroleum association of america. let's give all these distinguished v.i.p.'s a round of applause. thank you for joining us today. there are many others as i look around the room. thank you for being here. as we reflect on the past year, many of us at this time in our lives, most all of us as we look ahead to the new year with the holidays behind us, we reflect on the past, but we also look clearly to the future. this time, while the year is just beginning reminds us that our future is ultimately of our own design. the same holds true for our

nation. our generation will decide if america continues it's march towards global energy leadership, a perhaps once in a generation opportunity, or if we will remain content to play only a supporting role on the global energy marketplace. a su energy marketplace. we can erase what for decades has been one of america's greatest economic vulnerabili 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. but this is only achievable and possible if we get energy policy right in this country.

today thanks to the innovation and entrepreneurial spirit of america's oil and natural gas industry, this nation has the potential to shed the yoke of foreign energy dependence. implementing smart pro-growth energy policies will help us ensure that future americans only know their country as the energy leader. in other words, elections matter. elections have consequences. in exactly ten months we'll choose who will lead this nation. here in washington, d.c. and in state and local governments across our land. those choices will have a lasting and profound impact on the direction of our nation's energy policy. the collective decisions of the 2014 voters will help shape whether and extent to which our nation fulfills its potential as

the world's energy superpower. to lead the energy policy discussion and educate the public on the game changing significance of the choices our nation faces, api's 2014 messaging and advocacy theme will be america's energy, america's choice. it distills american's energy policy discussion down to a basic choice. an american energy future of energy abundance, self-sufficiency, and global leadership or reverting to the past 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, and thanks to american innovation and the entrepreneurial spirit

join by our industry and many others, 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. the question before us today is whether we have the vision and the wisdom to take full advantage of our vast energy resources. the energy policy choices we make today are among the most important and far reaching policy decisions we will make in the 21st century. we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to reshape, to realign, and reorder the world's energy market and approve 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 politic dillatonts. make no mistake, energy and more specifically oil and natural gas will remain foundational to our way of life. broadly, demand for energy worldwide will continue its upward trajectory. for the foreseeable future, we'll need more energy from all sources. from wind, from solar, from oil, from natural gas. nuclear, coal, biofuels and the list goes on. all of these are needed to meet what we see taking place around

the ever expanding economies around the globe. according to the president's energy information administration, 25 years from now oil and natural gas will still be responsible for providing over 60% of our nation's energy. and it will provide more than 90% of our transportation fuels. worldwide eia projects demand for liquid fuels will increase by 20% in the next 20 years. driven primarily by the development of emerging markets and nations as many of them seek to lift themselves out of poverty, improve their standard of living, and increase the economic opportunity for all their citizens. it should be a simple choice. do we as a nation decide to use our vast energy resources to help meet the world's growing energy needs and in the process

boost our global competitiveness? do we realign our foreign policy goals and our national security considerations? do we encourage america's 21st century manufacturing renaissance? do we provide millions more americans with good well paying jobs? and 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 insecurity, energy scarcity and dependence upon past practices? in my view, those on the side of america's 21st century energy renaissance have a few considerable advantages. first and foremost, the facts. fact, today hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling are what some like to call simplistically

fracki fracking, created the united states as the number one producer of oil and natural gas. just this year, north dakota produced more than 1 million barrels of oil a day, which if it were a country, would rank it in the top 20 in the world. fact, u.s. production of crude and natural gas liquids has increased by over 2 million barrels a day in the last two years. an almost 27% increase reducing our reliance from over 60% to less than 34% today on outside sources. fact, according to the energy information administration, in 2001, 1% of our natural gas supply came from shale. in 2010, that percentage grew to

20% and by 2035, 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. hydraulic fracturing or fracking as it's often called, is essential to the american renaissance in the production of american oil and natural gas. also, in what is clearly a 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 or outright bans on energy exports. it's a position that flouts the facts. according to the latest census data which was just released this morning, the oil and natural gas sector is now the

nation's leading exporter. exporting sector. and has contributed more than $129 billion during the 11 months of 2013 towards our trade imbalance. it leads all other export sectors and today accounts for 8.9% of our total exports. in this data released this morning, we learned this is reducing our trade imbalance by over 16% bringing us to a four-year low. we are the single largest contributor to now achieving the president's vision of doubling exports from the united states. and here's one last remaining fact. the most important one in my mind. the american people get it and they stand with us on today's most important energy policy

questions. they understand that pro-growth energy policies will lead to stable, good paying jobs which would 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 job in the oil and natural gas industry pays seven times the minimum wage in the united states. it is 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 development of our energy resources provides and will continue to provide hundreds of thousands indeed millions of good paying jobs now and well into the future.

and on perhaps the highest profile issue within the american energy policy discussion today, 69% of the voters support building the keystone excel pipeline. something shelby and i were talking about a moment ago 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 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 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's 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 nothing more than to feed their families, to educate them and have some sense of equality 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's an

easy way to begin to close the gap. broadly, the keystone excel pipeline debate highlights the need to invest in our energy's inif infrastructure. i would refer you to the book we handed out today. a report recently concluded that an annual energy infrastructure investment of up to $95 billion, which is realistic in the current context, i would contribute as much as $120 billion to u.s. gdp. it would provide an additional $27 billion in government

revenue on average every year between now and 2025. this is a big deal. infrastructure is essential, critical to our well-being, and can be added upon what we do in the production of oil and natural gas. not surprisingly, the strong public support and results of multiple studies reporting the significant, positive economic benefit of expanded energy production have spurred more and more members of congress from all regions and from both political 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 on bipartisan margins, passed measures urging the president to approve the keystone excel pipeline proving

that even during a time of hyperpartisanship and polarization, energy is one of those areas where we should be able to rally as a nation, putting aside our different philosophies and 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 strong support in our ability to cut through the partisan noise and stale ideology of our critics is due to our ongoing outreach and educational efforts surrounding this great renaissance we've talked about. this factor, this game changing opportunity, this once in a lifetime opportunity to develop our own resources to become the world's energy superpower. as we look ahead to november's midterm election and beyond, we will use america's energy, america's choice campaign, to

spur more pro-energy policies, to engage the american people, and to ensure that our nation's discussion on energy policy is based on fact and reality. the new facts, the new reality, not political orthodoxy or hyperbole. there's another fact on our side. the benefits of america's energy revolution has already delivered. the best example being the significant reduction of america's co2 emissions at the lowest level in 20 years thanks largely to the abundant supply of cleaner burning natural gas. a direct result of innovations in technology that allow us today through hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling to drill hundreds of thousands of wells to produce a low cost affordable cleaner burning form of energy.

further, since 2000, the oil and natural gas sector has spent more on low carbon and zero carbon emitting technologies than the federal government has. and nearly as much as all other industries combined. these are private sector dollars being invested in technologies. we can debate the role of government and expense of taxpayer dollars to pursue these technologies but i want to emphasize the oil and natural gas industry is the leader in technologies. in fact, one out of every $6 invested in nonhydrocarbon technology comes from the oil and gas industry. since 1990, our industry has invested $252 billion toward improving the environmental performance of our products, our operations, and our facilities.

what we want and what the american public deserve is energy policy that continues the trend of our nation becoming energy self-sufficient and indeed the global energy leader. the america's energy, america's choice campaign sends a message to lawmakers at all levels of government that the time to end the intrusion of extreme political ideology or personal agendas in the energy 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 decisions. again, the american public and future generations deserve better. america's energy america's choice will harness the collective will and wisdom of the american voter to lead the discussion on our nation's

brighten ner-- bright energy fue and align our political science with our geologic science because right now the former all too often drives our energy policy. we use the upcoming mid term elections as a mean to frame and to positively influence the long-term energy 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 because after all, voting is about vision. it's an act of optimism. our goal is to ensure that as our elected representatives and appointed officials make energy policy, the will of the american people will be upper most in

their mind and a dominant voice in the public debate. and to make clear the link between developing america's vast energy resources and greater energy independence, job creation and economic growth, fundamentally america's energy, america's choice will make plain the energy policy choice we face. do we more fully develop our enormous energy resources right here at home so that future generations inherit an energy self-sufficient nation that's the world's leader in energy production or do we take a step back in time when america was but one of many players on the global world energy market? in my view it would be unforgivable if this country were to abandon or ignore its responsibility to future

generations by missing this opportunity based on flawed science, outdated assumptions, and political orthodoxy. helping to lead the change we seek and encouraging american lawmakers to take full 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 for listening and i look forward to entertaining your questions. thank you. thank you, jeff. we have a couple of questions but there are still some people collecting cards if you have any. today exports are in the news and the possible exports of crude oil. on exports, u.s. production is only recently at record levels.

why not wait and pause and go at a more deliberate speed before considering exporting crude oil or increasing exports of l and g? >> great question. many heard senator merkowski talk specifically about this issue. to paraphrase some of her words, she said, 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 our full potential. today our import reliance has gone from 60 to 34%. it is a significant move, but what we should also look at is how we bring more of this vast domestic u.s. 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 reduced 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 the export limitations on crude oil today just as we're seeking to expand l and g exports from this country. it should be part of that energy mix. it should not be bound by past practices or the visions of the arab oil embargo in the 1970s. it's a new day. it's a new time. it's a new america as it relates to oil and gas. we should consider and review quickly the role of crude exports along with l and g exports and finished product exports because of the advantages it creates for this country in job creation and in our balance of payments.

>> on the keystone pipeline, in your remarks you mentioned three items, bipartisan support in congress, poles showing that most people support the pipeline and four previous okays from the state department. two-part question. i'm combining questions. number one, why is it still delayed and what will you be doing in 2014 to get approval. >> first part of the question, i wish i could answer that. why is it still being delayed? i think we're as frustrated as anybody else is and we will not give up. back to the second part of the question, we will continue to push. 69% support approval of the keystone xl pipeline. in the words of canadian prime minister harper, he said, this is a no brainer. this is clearly a no brainer.

today we're having a debate in the congress, our job in the oil and natural gas industry, particularly on the upstream of the production side pay seven times what minimum wage is today. this with one simple word, the word yes, would approve thousands of jobs, well-paying jobs, would help us to begin to close this gap. we've worked closely with shawn, with doug and many other seated around these tables today in organized labor to create these jobs. we're unified. this is not a republican or democratic issue, it's an american issue but it's key to our success and it's fundamental to sending the signal to not only this nation but to the world as to how we will handle our energy policy going forward and will we rise to the occasion to truly achieve the potential of becoming the super power around the globe? >> there's a lot of talk about the keystone pipeline but there is another pipeline that is

important to the oil and natural gas industry, and that's the alaska pipeline. given the declining throughput of the pipeline, what is your vision of its future as it's related to america's energy policy? >> clearly alaska is key for us that has gone underutilized for many years. we need to continue to focus onalaska. the role of federal and state governments is key in alaska as the vast majority of the state, as you know, is controlled by primarily the federal government as well as the state government. but when we look at the trans atlantic pipeline, it's a resource that is now under utilized because we're not producing enough to keep it at full capacity. we should look at those existing infrastructures to achieve our potential, but we should also look to the new infrastructure debate. as i mentioned earlier, in your packet today we're sharing with you recent ihs global report

that shows we could create close to a million new jobs by building the pipeline networks not only in 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 america. so alaska is key to this equation. this should not be overlooked. trans atlantic pipeline is currently under utilized. we should look for opportunities there and this also brings us back to the question of crude exports. a policy needs to be reviewed because of potential. >> you mentioned the investments in infrastructure and the report going out today. it seems harder and harder to get local infrastructure projects built. what policy changes are needed to ensure that investments can actually translate to projects? >> well, there's a lot of policy that needs to be looked at. much of this is managed at the

local level. combination of environmental permitting, etc. what we need to do in the country though is to escape what's taking place today and that is those who would seek to stop the development of oil and natural gas have used the permitting process as a proxy or surrogate to begin to stop this economic activity. we need to review all statutes, regulatory activity and focus on their primary purpose to safely protect our work force, to safely protect our environment but to also to come to a point of decision to approve these opportunities. i hate to keep talking about the keystone xl pipeline, but it's the wrong model. if it takes us five years, if it takes us extended period of times because of political considerations, we will limit our ability to achieve our potential as a nation and, frankly, discourage the investment that's lining the shores of this country to come here to develop these vast

resources to put our people to work. it couldn't happen at a better time. now's the time to do it. we need to look at all regulations in law to bring about an affirmative final decision on the process of these permits. >> on the renewable fuel, we had a couple of questions that i'm going to try to combine into one. e.p.a. recently lowered the volume to avoid the ethanol blend wall. do you 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%? >> well, a couple 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 and vehicles in the united states were built to consume up to 10% ethanol and only up to 10% ethanol. when they surveyed the auto

manufacturers and said if we allowed a blend beyond 10% would you warranty those 250 million automobiles and light trucks in the country today, and every auto manufacturer at the time said, no, we will not, we will not honor our warranties if you go beyond 10%. the renewable fuel standard is an issue that's focused on consumers. this is a consumer issue. we're the ones that are put in the cross hairs of refiners and processors to produce gasoline, diesel that we consume every day, but it impacts consumers. that's why you see opposition from small business owners, from marine individuals, from farmers, from the turkey farmers, the chicken producers, chain restaurants and others, because what was supposed to be a fuels policy, all the foundation that was set on to lower imports to reduce greenhouse gases, that reality has changed in just the past

five years. so the renewable fuel standard needs to be repealed, it needs to be altered, and i give credit to the administration for having the courage to step forward in this most recent rule 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 shouldn't allow this to continue. >> on taxes. do you think that tax reform can move forward in 2014 and if so, what would you like to see part of those discussions? >> i do not believe tax reform will occur in 2014. how's that? i'm sure nobody else in this room believes what i just said either, do they? tax reform is important for the country and to make us globally competitive in a global environment, however, from an oil and gasper spekttive the worst thing we could do today is

to select to treat it in a putative way. they pay a 44.6% tax rate on a global scale. we pay not only our fair share, we pay more than our fair share. we pay $85 million a day to the federal government. we are making a contribution. we can continue to create well-paying jobs and allow others to make additional contributions so a tax policy that singles out an individual industry is wrong headed and it's going in the wrong direction. the likelihood in my view, humble but correct opinion, is it is unlikely that anything will happen in 2014 in a comprehensive way. >> regarding your -- >> tom agrees with me. >> regarding your report and the america's energy america's

choice campaign, is this going to include ratings of congressional candidates for office? >> we -- we support all political candidates who support oil and natural gas and understand the vision and the potential for this country so to date we currently do not rate and we will not use this opportunity to rate particular members. i will tell you as you look at potential contributions and support from members, we look closely at one thing. it's called the voting record. elections matter. elections translate the votes. votes matter. i believe the american public set the agenda in our society and in this country. it all happens at the voting booth. america's energy, america's choice is designed to continue to educate the american people and to encourage them to participate in the democratic

processes that elect those 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's clearly a disconnect in policy formulation and the will of the american public. we believe by encouraging the american public it makes for good, sound public policy and that's where our primary focus will be on america's energy, america's choice campaign. >> and the last question, you spoke a lot about the need for more u.s. oil and natural gas in our energy supply to address the challenges of the future and our opportunities. with increased domestic production, what is the role of energy efficiency in contributing to our energy security? >> energy efficiency is key to our entire energy equation. it should be a component part

likes all forms should be a component part. today it produced twice the gdp activity for the same amount of activity. we as a nation are more energy efficient today than we ever have been. that doesn't me we need to stop. we need to continue to be more and more energy efficient, however, we have to be more efficient. it does require energy to heat our homes, provide the lights, all the added value products that call can. energy is essential. and energy efficiency is a key component of that driveway. it is one component. including oil and gas which provides over 60% of that energy today. thank you very much. let me conclude by thanking you

all for your participation for being here today. i hope you enjoyed your lunch. i hope some of what we have said today will not only resonate but perhaps help us all think a little more about the new 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 ]

>> "washington journal"

continues. host: we are joined by dan wise as director of climate strategy at the center for american progress. hot topic of conversation in environmental circles yesterday as a cbs "60 minutes" report from sunday that seemed to chewed the federal government had little to show for the heavy investment in green technology projects in recent years. from this story? guest: it is not outrage so much great disappointment. "60 minutes" was famed for its reportingnvestigative but they did a very shoddy job. lesley stahl the correspondent said nothing she's that many dicated jobs have been created. in fact all "60 minutes" had to department of energy website to see that the program alone has created 55,000 jobs.

escaped her attention. guaranteen, the honor program that she was criticizing rate.97% success only 3% of investments wented about. blossoming. that is a far better rate than venture capital. show several people said when venture capital terms a est in companies they have nine out of 10 failure rate. we have a 97% success rate. never mentioned on the show. host: for issuers who have not we will show nt you now the opening from that and come 60 minutes" back and talk with dan wise about it. [video clip] decade ago the smart people who funded the internet turned their attention to the sector rallying tech engineers to invent ways to get fossil fuels and devise powerful solar panels, clean batteries.uture

the idea got a dacatchy name, tech. silicon valley got washington excited. president bush was an early supporter. but the federal purse strings obama.ed under president hoping to create innovation and jobs, he committed north of $100 in loans, grants and tax breaks it clean tech. instead of breakthroughs it suffered a string of expensive flops.nded suddenly clean tech was a dirty word. host: dan wise is with the center for american progress. report you talk about the success rate of government investments. wrong to point out some of the high profile green s in investing in technology? there was $500 million for the panel company, center $500 fisker automotive,

beacon tower, a-123, some of that have been making headlines? becauseit was not wrong in sense they have failed even though they received federal loan questions. but it was out of context to not rate.the 97% success those companies represent the 3% failure rate. the solar entry the first solar plants cale were built with the help of loan questi guarantees feel the next 10 were uilt by the private sector on their own. it is that continued of investment that fostered growth and innovation. missed that. another thing they missed, in new electricity generation came on line nearly half of it was generated by wind electricity. we brought down the cost of

batteries for cars. the cost has been cut in half and it t investments will be cut by two-thirds by the end of next year. a lot of progress that was never mentioned in the story. are stubborn ts things. you can pull out a couple and an elephant seem smaller than a mouse. republican vase cha-- vase out amarcia blackburn put statement saying this report underscores the massive failure administration's green thrg programs. the obama administration spent money s of taxpayer propping up green energy agenda guise of job creation failed companies and the loan question program -- proven to be a massive

has proven to be a more for chinese imulus investors. a blackburn.h guest: there is very little between her statement and facts. tennessee are her home state he nissan factory got a loan guarantee that helped them build advanced batteries that will be all electric vehicles. $6 ford motor company got billion to help retool factories efficient carsel and that created 33,000 jobs. ou just need to go to the d.o.e. website to see there's been a 97% success arithmetic len guarantee -- rate rom the len -- loan guarantees. so while the rhetoric reflects oil and coalof big

companies it doesn't reflect the facts. ost: we are talking to dan white from the center of american progress to talk about the energy investments by federal government and other climate issues in his work as director of climate strategy. phone lines are open. if you are outside the u.s. 202-585-3883. report fromave this sunday on "60 minutes" they noted in the report the energy nt of insurance didn't respond to request for comment. think the obama administration is doing enough to talk about some of the this ses you pointed out morning? guest: you can always talk more bout success but what is news is scandal and failure, not success.

media particularly "60 minutes" has focused on what failure eived to be when they ignore the evidence of success. department of e energy did issue a statement yesterday that included many of talking we have been about today. i can't tell you why they didn't advance. do that in host: do you think this is something the president will alk about in his state of the union address and if in the this particular report what do you green e needs to say on energy and climate change issues? guest: the president has talked investments in clean energy being critical to pollution e carbon responsible for climate change nd helping us with economic competitiveness against china, germany and other countries. one quarter about of its electricity from wind and solar power. reason we can't be doing more. the president, i believe, will

about this.k he hasn't called me to ask me what should be in the state of urge him but i would to talk about some of these successes. he amount of clean electricity generated under his watch has doubled in the first four years of his administration. 55,000 jobs under the program oan guarantee and it is powering electricity for 15 million homes. of the new ost half electricity in the u.s. in 2012. there is a great story about how smart investments are paying off and creating new ndustries and jobs in this country. host: several folks waiting to the director of climate strategy. anthony is waiting on the line democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: organgood morning. caller: i'm call interesting las vegas, nevada. i'm an look transmission that

these clean of energy projects. had been unemployed for about a year and a half when it job came up. electriciansof the union. this job was a god send it me ecause i was going to run out of unemployment. thank god that this job came up california.e of i was able to work on this job. a good n technology is thing. me and about 150 of my union been out of work for a very long time. we were know what going to do. we worked on the job and it basically saved our lives. green technology is a good thing. i think that our country needs investment in green technology. california has a surplus right now. lot of it is due to the green technology because when you off fossil fuels

and relying on green technology, a lot for your economy. plant nthony, feels that over the california-nevada bord border? is a giant utility scale solar project that is just line.ready to come on it is right on the california ide of the california-nevada border which is what i'm guessing he is working at. a lot of jobs and will produce clean electricity of, did thousands and mes in california nevada. that is happening all over the country. palm we go to keith in bay, florida, republican lane. morning.good i appreciate all the work you do. i don't agree with a lot of what i still appreciate the work that you put in. i have two questions.

wind.n the you said 90% of the new electric generation coming in was from wind. guest: no, i said 43% in 2012 of from wind.ion was caller: oh, 43%. how much from solar was brought in. is, is $100 uestion billion, which you said 97% were that is $97 billi billion. there was only 55,000 jobs made from this that on the internet where you said you could read it. ou also said ford got $6 billion for new batteries and created 33,000 jobs. guest: we're spewing out a lot of statistics. is the loan guarantee program which was $20 billion to $30 billion, that had a 97% success

rate. that was in the the only program. there were other investments making federal buildings more energy efficient that way taxpayers went have to waste on energy. that is part of the $100 billion, not part of the $30 of the loan question program. $6 billion in lens to ford was a different program. hat was called the advanced technological vehicle manufacturing program that was created under president bush. ed $6 billion to ford otor company where they were retooling factories to make more fuel efficient cars. 33,000 jobs. host: is your question whether were worth it for the jobs created? caller: exactly. under president obama's program said they spent $100 billion nd you quieted that she didn't say they got any jobs for it but it was on the internet that you could read 55,000.

you saying $100 billion only turned out 55,000 jobs? . to listen e carefully. the $100 billion part of that d.o.e. loan guarantee program to give loans to -- nies who couldn't ice otherwise get them. started in 2009 after the 2008 crash. get capital. the money spent on that program $20 h i believe was between billion to $30 billion -- maybe you can look it up while we take the next call -- that created 55,000 jobs. $70 billion toer created jobs at but we don't have data. federal making buildings more efficient. host: what about the concerns republican members on the energy and commerce committee pointed out whether there is the spending tens be

and hundred billion dollars when has so much debt and such a large deficit, the right place to try to yet jobs. guest: absolutely it is. are part of jobs the benefit. another part of the benefit is clean electricity that we don't to import, dig up or burn. carbon l reduce the dioxide pollution. nother benefit is economic competitiveness. for example, before this program e were only building less than half of all wind turbines in it country. 75% of e building about them we use in the united states. o it helps build a manufacturing base. jobs were not the only value achieved. addition, many of these are l guarantees where they were paid back.

its $465 million loan nine years ahead of schedule. money back and we will get other money become from other loans. whole picture the and not just three or four companies that didn't make it, a much more robust investment that is paying off in erms of cleaner electricity, cleaner transportation, jobs and economic competitiveness. chuck in o to nashville, tennessee, on our line for independents. wise of the th dan center for american progress. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i have a question according to statements and conversation around ongresswoman block been from tennessee, the -- blackburn from tennessee, the letter, specifically two of them. about nissan.g i live here near the nissan stated that the loan went to yet

they or nissan and that are retooling. guest: no, i said they are making the advanced batteries that go in the leave. host: your contention is they are making the batteries at the plant. guest: they got the slope gogh retool to make the batteries in the all electric vehicle. don't know where they are building the other components of the car. host: i can tell you that only components of that car are being made in the united states and canada. over 80% are being made in japan. o, you need to be aware of that. second, you made a 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 f dollars and reduce car been pollution and create 33,000 jobs. host: his point about where the spent, what is eing done to ensure this money stays in the united states and doesn't fund jobs overseas? note it is important to that the american recovery and reinvestment act which provided the resources had a "buy america" clause in it make sure was built inssible the u.s. i will give you an example from the wind industry. years ago only one-quarter a wind omponents for turbine were made in the u.s. hanks to investments under the

recovery act three-quarters of the components in turbines are made in the u.s. last month the siemens company which is a fortune company to have it was going the largest order ever to build $2 turbines, almost billion, to build at their plant mason, iowa. i believe that will create about 1,000 jobs. sorry, fort madison, iowa. hat is an example of where you sort of jump started the industry in 2009 when the credit markets were frozen after the horrible financial crash of 2008 capital ovided some through loan guarantees and tax breaks it companies. able to keep investing. get jobs.e able to another good example the first scale solar lity power plants were built with

guarantees.oan the next 10 under construction now are solely private money. able to jump start the industry where we had none and where art manufacturing there was little. this has been a win for the why some ich is republicans don't like it. every republican in the united tates house including mrs. black burn voted against providing these resources. no wonder why they don't want to talk about the success. mama southern frosted writes throwing the tax dollar black holeeen energy most stuff. to roger waiting in on the south carolina democrat liable. caller: i have two things i would like it talk about. the solar insurancenergy.

i understand congress passed a imports of thelate solar panels. of the reasons that the company field. the other is nuclear. nuclear loan guarantees. they are building two plants in south carolina and two in tennessee. hese were loan guarantees by this same program that is mention mentioned. that, please?about guest: sure, thanks, roger. first talk about the ing which is that one reason silindra failed is it didn't solar ate very cheap panels being dumped in the united states by china. people know dumping means when a country will underprice a

to kill its domestic the titors and take over market. the commerce department and trade rep is working with china to try to alleviate that. nonetheless, that was the compensation that proves the rule. and a couple other companies ailed but 97% of the investments paid off under the program. remember, in the "60 minutes" in private venture capital their investments have about a 10% success rate. it comes it loan guarantee for nuclear power plants under we started the first new nuclear reactors in through loan guarantees that have been as recovery package. in that sense president obama is of the ursuing all before energy strategy and wall street investors are going crazy investing in solar energy. there was a story friday.

that long on nuclear energy because of great ost concerns and overruns and what you do with spent waste and meltdown fukushima there's great concern about safety. in all street is investing solar and not nuclear. host: john is in chicago on the republicans. good morning, john. a e you are staying warm in very cold chicago. caller: yes, i am. or wind. to solar that was my kquestion. what percentage of all our power both for heat and electricity, is provided by wind or solar? lesl made it sound real bad. facts buts giving the

so as that same color now that it sounds much been it is. first i would note that the "60 minutes" report included very few actual facts. lesley stahl said she had not any the hing that programs had created jobs but ll she had to do is go to the department of energy website to see that the loan guarantee rogram she was criticizing has created 55,000 jobs. you can go to that website and each project t of they funded and how many jobs are there. hen it comes to total overall electricity generation from would be gy, that about, i believe, 12% or so. been ount that has discriminated from wind, solar nd geothermal has doubled the past four years and it will continue to increase.

nother big change in electricity generation has been the decline in use of coal from electricity it around 40% and rise of natural 22% to the low 30%. hat is a big change that occurred the last four years. host: john smith's question on why try to veil lanize representil when they american jobs? a billion ou invest solar you wind or will create three times more jobs than in oil production. that was based on a study from the university of massachusetts oil production is capital intensive. second of all, the problem with

coal is that it is very expensive. thecosts aren't paid for by .eople who mine the coal the national academy of sciences , a most eminent body, estimates that using coal for electricity least $60 billion per year in health care costs -- premature deaths, more hospitalizations, lost productivity. coal has a huge cost to it. need to do is we need to internalize the costs so that people who are using coal for electricity are actually paying the full cost of the damage of coal, which includes health impacts. host: new regulations on coal.

what is on tap for 2014? question.at june president obama gave a speech about a comprehensive climate plan. the first part was to reduce carbon pollution responsible from power plants. invest in would be to clean alternatives, such as wind or solar. the second is to make our communities more resilient from a extreme weather and climate change, like the drought we have had the southwest or the .orrible flooding let's help communities build ups of their more resistant to extreme weather. the third pieces to work with other nations to get them to reduce their pollution as well.

thehe first part, president, last fall, proposed frommit carbon pollutions power plants. it is coal power plants that will be built in the future will have to be as clean as natural gas plants. they are also working on a rule that will be proposed this june that would limit carbon pollutions from existing power plants. meetings around the country to talk to citizens about this. they're drafting the rule, they will make the proposal in june. undoubtedly they will have another series of hearings all around the country about whether or not this is the most cost- effective way to reduce carbon pollution from power plants. they will finalize the rule in mid-2015. host: let's go to deal from new jersey on our line for democrats. good morning. thank you for coming on.

this is a very tough crowd. i am happy you are sticking with us and giving us the real facts. i am a huge clean energy, solar guy. i'm an advocate of clean energy. i went solar about 3 years ago. i'm in south jersey and it has been an amazing difference fo roufor our electricity bills. why aren't more businesses like big malls having hundreds of panels on the roof? they are soaking in the sun every day. about hydrogennk fuel cells? is that considered clean energy? there has been a company that is doing a lot of small fuel cell different thigns

ings such as transportation. question,your first the conversion to solar has been slow for two reasons. eight -- 2008 there was the huge financial crash that froze markets. committees that wanted to invest in solar panels had a difficult time raising the capital necessary to do that. that is where some of the loan guarantee programs have come and. in addition, there are some new , solar runcompanies -- you can go look at the "new york times" paper from january 3.

you don't have to invest in the hardware to generate solar energy. you just pay the companies for the solar electricity and you pay a rate that is lower than you what -- then you would have been paying for conventional electricity. cell,it comes to a fuel- i'm not familiar with the technology. from what i understand, it is a green energy source depending on how you produce the hydrogen. if you use electricity from a clean source, yes. if you use a lot of coal-fired electricity to produce the it is a, then i think much closer call. i think the fuel source technology is not ready for commercialization yet. this is not my area of expertise. i don't want to speak anymore about it. we talk about the department of energy loan

guarantee program, the one that funded several other programs. ron wrightson on e-mail -- e-ron writes in on mail -- guest: three percent of the defaulted on.n i don't know how much has been paid back. for advancedn toomobiles -- they got close $500 million and they paid back nine years ahead of time. let's go to brian in louisiana on our line for republicans. you're on with daniel weiss. caller: can you hear me? [indiscernible] you'reyou hear me? host: on the air, go ahead. don't care about

people putting solar panels on the houses. i used to live offshore breed we cannot live -- offshore. -- we cannot live in the united states with all the gas. i lost my job because what went offshore and everything. you can keep your electric car if you want to. [indiscernible] it took us almost two days to get to dallas with an electric car. all this is bogus with climate change.

people like you come up with all this garbage. a heck of ag winter. i don't see climate change. am sorry you are out of work. i hope that congress will follow president obama's lead by extending long-term uninsurance insuranceunemployment for people in your circumstances. it is important to know that under president obama we are producing more domestic oil than we have in the last 20 years and we are in -- we are importing less. office, when bush left we were importing almost 60% of our oil. now we are importing only 40%. second of all, we are producing

about 12% of our electricity from her new energy sources now. remember that electric cars is a technology that is just starting out. one of the most important things we need to do is extend the range vehicles can travel. people are starting to get more interested in this. in the first half of last year, twice as many people ought to plug-in hybrid vehicles than the year before. plug-in hybrid vehicles than the year before. those people are saving thousands of dollars per year in lower gas purchases. >> do you want to address the comments about global warming? of an the subject editorial in today's "washington times" --

guest: there is a technical term for what is happening right now. some records are going to be broken, it is important to know that at the same time we are having record colds here they are having record heat in australia. november, it was the warmest november on record. be the fourth to warmest year on record. i would like to show this graph that shows you the average temperature for the last 50 years. as you can see it is steadily rising. sure there are tweaks of up-and- down. every decade has been warmer than the decade before. the zeros were warmer than the 90s and the 90s were warmer than the 80s.

there's no question the earth's temperature is rising. >> where's this chart from? , theat is data from nasa people who put a man on the moon and run the space station. it is one of america's premier scientific agencies. host: let's go to david waiting in -- waiting in anchorage alaska. -- anchorage, alaska. caller: thank you for c-span. it is my favorite program. the problem is a philosophical problem. we have the government picking winners and losers versus the free market. when you talk about venture capital and return on their investment, i don't know how your return is captured in dollars. venture capitalists capital --

venture capitalists gamble with their money. the government gambles with my money. if you look at the ethanol , they are farming roads to road. there's no habitat anymore for the wild beings. they are using herbicides, pesticides, endangering the ground and water in doha -- in iowa. let's get to the wind farm in anchorage, alaska. worth was given to alaska native corporations to buy 10 men -- by 10 windmills manufactured in china. my electricity rates have gone up three percent.

what is your question? do you think the cost of clean energy is worth the return? the short answer is absolutely yes. the greatest environmental threat posed to us is from climate change. in your state cold villages will because theoved tundra it is built on will follow. -- will thaw. congress of the united states, with his elected representatives, did vote for this program under the , passed into law, and president obama signed into law.

that is how democracy works. the corn ethanol industry has had a very huge downside. got rid ofthat we the tax cuts a couple of years ago for foreign-based ethanol. i agree there are a lot of concerns that wind turbines and wind farms have to be built in a way that do not kill -- unnecessarily killed thousands of the eagles and other important wildlife. it has to be dealt with. where are the women? we have had all guys so far. an e-mail -- that is an excellent question. we already pick winners and losers. the nuclear energy institute,

which represents the nuclear industry, did a study that found over the last 60 years that we have invested 58% of our tax subsidies and other stub cities -- and other subsidies in the oil and gas industry. removable's and 12% -- nine percent renewables and 12% in coal and nukes. in fact, big oil and gas companies get $4 billion per year in tax breaks, even though they have made record profits. the five largest oil and gas -- in 2013n the u.s. alone they are going to make -- they already made over $70 billion in profits over the past three quarters. they probably made close to $100 billion over 2013.

they need those tax breaks? absolutely not. to do isre trying invest in a new clean energy technology of the future, like china, germany, and what are other economic competitors are doing. that's what our other economic others -- and what our economic competitors are doing. host: next caller. tennessee.ive in that is where the plant is building batteries for the nissan leaf. earlier you were talking about a on that would go 50 miles its batteries and then it would run on gasoline. but i trulyengineer

--ieve that car could run the electric generator could be run by compressed air instead of gas. that would be h are meant to change in the way -- would be a tremendous change in the way we get around. i would like to say one other -- there are a lot of inventions and technologies that are being suppressed by coal and oil in order to keep us buying their products. i was wondering if you have ever heard of a man named joe holden. , heou search him on youtube is the man who invented the afterburner for the jet engines. he was a jet fighter pilot back in the korean war. he was the head engineer for rolls-royce jet engines.

he had some inventions you do not hear about. you can see them on youtube, but this stuff is being suppressed. give dan weiss the last minute here in the segment. example of a car where you run on that or he first and then gasoline -- by the way, the average person drives 40 miles per day in the u.s.. to -- chevrolet has 30 miles on the battery. of i am not familiar with the air compression technology. problem -- as everyone listening knows we have the best engineers, the most inventive minds in the whole world here in the united states. they're coming up with all kinds of clean energy technology to

run electricity longer, to use less, and pollute less. the biggest problem is getting the technology commercialized ago from the lab to the marketplace. there's is basically a market failure. particularly after the economic crash in 2008, investors were not willing to invest in new technology if they were not sure about the payoff. invest, you can't develop it for the payoff. loan guarantees helped get technologies from the lab to the marketplace. that is happening now. ,or example, with solar energy the first five utility solar plants were built with federal loan guarantees. the next 10 are being built with private capital. that is how this is working. that is how this will remain with our german and chinese competitors.

clean energy technology will be invented here. we also want to make sure they will be used here. dan weiss is the director of climate strategy at the center for american progress. ere can follow him on twitter

part of the hour-long speech on the future of the u.s. army. [inaudible conversations]

>> welcome to the national press club. my name is angela greiling keane. i'm a reporter for "bloomberg news" in the 106 president of the national press club. we are the world's leading professional organization for journalists committed to our profession's future through programming with events such as this fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club please visit our web site at www.press.org. to donate to programs offered to the public through a national press club journalism institute please visit rest.org {/

you can follow the action today on twitter using the hashtag npc lunch. now it's time to introduce our head table guests. i would ask each of you to stand briefly as you name is announced. from your right herb jackson urban record washington correspondent. reporter with the hexagon newsletter. jim michaels military writer for "usa today." faiola, senior writer for the night dates institute of peace. patrick hosts, a reporter with defense daily. kathryn kathryn skiba washington correspondent for the "chicago tribune". colonel andy roland, special assistant to general odierno. alison fitzgerald, finance and investigative reporter at the center for public integrity and the chairwomachairwoma n of the national press club speakers committee. skipping over the speaker for just a moment, eric meltzer systems specialist at the

"associated press" and the speakers committee member who organized today's event. thank you. colonel j.p. mckee executive officer to general odierno. jen jetson editor inside the army. carlo muni owes of defense and national security reporter and thomas a retired air national guard senior master sergeant and currently a novelist. [applause] when our guest today became the u.s. army chief of staff back in september of 2011, his job was none too easy. being the guiding force for u.s. soldiers in iraq and afghanistad nearly 37 years. general odierno phot in desert storm was a key commander during operation iraqi freedom and then became the head of the u.s. campaign in iraq and left the

joint forces command. saddam hussein was captured under his watch in 2003. now the helm he is fighting a war against abuse in the army is has a higher rate than other branches of the military and a message to army personnel he said quote the u.s. army is failing in its efforts to combat assault and harassment. the general has also said sequestration, budget-cutting is making the fight against abuse harder than ever quote from slowing hiring actions to delaying lab results to provide a resolution for victims unquote three at the tightening of washington's pocketbooks and higher than expected costs and afghanistan have added another dimension of difficulty for general odierno. even though the financial restraints are certainly being felt his message to the soldiers was clear. he said, i just need you to stay focused on what you do to train, to sustain your equipment and develop leaders, to take care of our families.

do the best you can with the resources we give you he said. general odierno tested at president obama's measures to shrink the size of the army by 80,000 troops by 2017 while working to increase its capabilities. a native of new jersey general odierno is married to his high school sweetheart and they have three children that he holds degrees from west point, the naval war college, the army war college in north carolina state university. general order your no son retired army captain tony odierno had his vehicle hit by a rocket-propelled grenade in baghdad in 2004. tony is secretary of the board of directors of the wounded warrior project. please join me in giving a warm national press club welcome to u.s. army chief of staff, general ray odierno who will proceed straight to questions and answers rather than starting his speech. [applause]

>> thank you. it's an honor to be here. i thought it would be better during these times of lots of news that we go to questions than answers. just an initial opening comment that every day i'm extremely proud that i have the opportunity to represent them and women of the united states army, 1.1 million in the national guard u.s. army reserve and active component. over the last 10 years there has been over 15,000 words of valor given out to u.s. army soldiers, nine medal of honors, almost 30 distinguished service and silver stars in many words of valor because they did what we asked them to do, go help provide security for this great nation of ours. it's important we continue to think about that as we move forward and look to the future and what are