. .

needham back to the stage to introduce your next speaker. >> thank you all very much. over the last several years we've seen crystal clear examples of what works and what

doesn't work in america's energy sector. on the one hand the private sector has offered inspiring examples of creativity with fracking and drilling, expanded energy, putting downward prices on prices and creating jobs and growth. on the other hand unnecessary federal regulations have artificially driven up the cost of energy, slowed development on federal lands, and impacted the private sector's ability to innovate and meet new challenges to provide americans with affordable energy. the start of today's event i mentioned the only way to win conservative policy victories would be to win elections inspiring millions of americans with bold policy ideas aimed at changing the broken status quo in washington. washington, d.c. is not broken. it is a finally tuned machine aimed at expanding federal power and using those to reward those politically well connected. only way to change that status quo is to inspire americans across the country to get involved and demand control of

their government. nobody has done more sooner to advance this agenda than our next speaker. three words summarize his first year in office, make d.c. listen. whether fighting a bipartisan gun control agenda the imperial presidency of barack obama or doing everything possible to stop obama care before it disrupted our nation's health care system ted cruz had been the leading conservative reform movement for the last year. ladies and gentlemen here to talk about the american energy renaissance act join me in welcoming a great american senator, ted cruz. >> thank you very much, mike. good afternoon. it's great to join you. i just got off a plane coming in

from texas. exactly. you know, i got to tell you, yesterday it was 70 degrees back in houston. i took my girls out to the park. i get out here and it is freezing. i mean it is really cold. i have to admit i was surprised. al gore told us this wouldn't happen. look, it is so cold, i actually saw a democrat with his hands in his own pockets. now that's cold. you know, mike mentioned the disconnect there is in washington. the disconnect between career politicians in both parties and the american people. the most common frustration you hear all across the state of texas and all across the country, is that politicians in washington they aren't listening to us. and this cuts across party lines. this is true of republicans, democrat, independents,

libertarians, americans are frustrated because their priorities are not the priorities of washington. if you get outside the beltway, the number one priority of americans is jobs and economic growth. state of texas doesn't matter where you are, you can be in east texas, up in the pan handle oreo grand valley, over and over again when you ask americans what their top priority, the answer over and over again is restoring jobs, restoring economic growth. i've got to tell you in the 13 months i've served in the senate, we have spent virtually zero time even talking about growth. in harry reid's senate, jobs and economic growth don't even make it on to the agenda. we spent six weeks talking about guns and the president's agenda to restrict the second amendment

right and no time talking about fundamental tax reform, regulatory reform, reducing the barriers coming from washington that are making it harder and harder for people who are struggling to achieve the american dream. today what i want to talk to you about is one specific avenue. we can pursue to restore growth. it is truly, i believe, a providenceal blessing that at a time where we had five years of stagnant growth, at a time when we've got the lowest labor force participation in this country since 1978, we are also seeing the beginning of a revolution in energy. we are seeing extraordinary developments in energy that are opening up resources that five or ten years ago, would have been unimaginable.

that as i said is a providenceal blessing. we are seeing the beginning of an american energy renaissance. and if the federal government doesn't get in the way and mess it up, that has the potential to transform the situation for so many people who are struggling. take a look at a state like north dakota. the president has tolds us he wants to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. now what he doesn't confront is that the real obama minimum wage is zero dollars because that's what everyone who has lost their jobs under the crushing taxes and crushing regulations is getting right now, is zero dollars with the obama minimum wage. if you look at north dakota, the average hourly wage in the oil and gas industry in north dakota

is $45.90 an hour. i'm a lot more interested in generating lots of jobs at those wage levels where people can provide for their family than continuing the path where more and more people who are struggling lose their jobs. in north dakota which is experiencing a boom because of shale gas and oil, the unemployment rate is 2.6%. in north dakota, does anyone know the hourly pay for a cashier at walmart? $1.50. -- $17.50. in north dakota, mcdonald's is offering a $300 signing bonus because people can make so much in the oil fields it's hard to get people to flip burgers. that's the potential of growth. and i got to tell you it's happening in my home state of texas as well. "the dallas morning news"

reported last year that, quote, in west texas, the flood of money and workers into the region is im possible to miss. increased oil revenue is turning around poorer school districts. a high school graduate can earn more than $80,000 driving trucks. from 2001 to 2012, the number of texas upper middle-income jobs grew 24.2%. think about that for a second. a high school graduate making $80,000 a year driving trucks those are the sorts of jobs that we want to see expanded. bringing back working-class jobs, blue collar jobs where people can earn a living, provide for their family, that was the backbone of the american middle class. those are the jobs that have been decimated under the obama

economy. and you know we're seeing that as well in pennsylvania and parts of ohio, as they're taking advantage of the marcellus shale. even so it is striking if you look at the marcellus shale, the shale doesn't end at the border between pennsylvania and new york. but the jobs do. the jobs end because in new york they don't allow fracking. new yorkers apparently, according to their political leadership, don't want jobs. because they prohibited the ability of development. if you go south to pennsylvania you're seeing this kind of economic opportunity and the arbitrary line carved in the ground shows the impact of misguided government policies. now there is one thing and only one thing that can stop us from

achieving the full potential of this energy renaissance and that is the government. let me tell you a story. it's a story about a modern pioneer, some might call him a modern day hank reardon. fellow named george mitchell. now if you listen to the president's state of the union address a couple years ago, you might think president obama invented fracking. but let me suggest that credit for the technological developments far more properly belongs with george mitchell. here's what the economist magazine described george mitchell as. mitchell was the embodiment of the american dream. his father was a poor greek immigrant. a goat herd who later ran a shoe shine shop in galveston, texas. mr. mitchell had to work his way through the university and graduated at the top of his

class. he was also the embodiment of the entrepreneurial spirit. he did not discover shale oil and gas, geological surveys revealed them decades before he started, he did not even invent fracking. it had been in use since the 1940s. but few great entrepreneurs invent something entirely new. his greatness lay at a combination of vision and grit. he was convinced that technology could unlock the vast reserves of energy in the barnett shale beneath dallas and ft. worth and he kept grappling with the unforgetting rock until it eventually surrendered its ridges. the point i want to make, economic growth, the energy revoluti

revolution, didn't come from the u.s. department of energy. it didn't come from any government agency. it didn't come from a grant program picking this is how we're going to transform energy. it didn't even come, with all due respect to our wonderful host, from a think tank in washington. it came from entrepreneurs putting capital at risk and meeting a need. and let me note that where it occurred was not accidental. it occurred in my home state of texas. there are very few state s in te union that would have allowed the experimentation, would have allowed mitchell to go. the barnett shale is not some distant formation out in the countryside. it is right underneath dallas and ft. worth, major cities.

you know, california, is blessed to have significant shale formations. they're not developing them. had mitchell been in california, had california's regulatory system been the only regulatory system we have, there's no way mitchell would have succeeded. because there's no way he would have been allowed to try and develop the technology. think for a moment what we are able to do now, to drill down, miles into the ground, turn and drill miles horizontally, and extract resources -- you want to talk about technology, you want to talk about unbelievably you imagine trying to do the same thing under san francisco? couldn't have happened. that is the story of america.

this government is fond of picking winners and losers or to be more fair, is fond of picking losers. it seems this administration would like to see a whole lot more solyndras and a lot fewer george mitchells. what an incredible opportunity we have right now. but we can't fall victim to what hyatt called the fatal conceit. we cannot believe that government invents, creates or produces. it doesn't. what it often does it stifles creativity, invention, production. the only thing that can stop this great energy renaissance is

the government getting in the way. and i will note, particularly with this administration, it's been doing that more and more. right now, federal lands contain 43% of the nation's oil reserves and 28% of the nation's natural gas reserves. but significant portions of that land are not available for development. the number of new leases has fallen by 42%. from 9,661 to 5,568 between the bush and obama administrations. now, you may be confused because if you saw the president's state of the union address, he proudly took credit for expanding oil and gas production. what he didn't mention is that it's expanding on private lands.

not on government lands, on private lands. the u.s. has approved 37% fewer new drilling permits under the obama administration than under the bush administration. now presidents going back to richard nixon have given speeches calling for energy independence. it doesn't take a geopolitical expert, it doesn't take the renowned insight of a henry kissinger to realize that our nation being dependent on foreign nations for energy, many of whose interests are very different than our own, is profoundly dangerous. as a result of the innovation, as a result of the technological advances we have right now, we're seeing jobs, we are seeing incomes rising, we are seeing less and less dependence on

foreign oil, we are seeing the environment improve in unprecedented levels based on the expansion of natural gas that is reducing admissions. you know, it's interesting, our office put together a map of counties across america, color coded as to whether median income has gone up or down. that map looks like it could be a geological map of shale formations in this country. because you can see median income going up in and around the bakken, down around the barnett, the marcellus, and the eagle ford shale and one other notable exception. washington, d.c. the rest of the country sadly has seen median incomes go down.

we should be lessening the barriers for incomes to go up everywhere. for every american. you know,s just recently, president obama's former secretary of energy -- and i would note under prior administrations it was the u.s. secretary of energy, but the president is fond of saying it's my secretary of energy, to his secretary of energy recently observed that the delay with the keystone pipeline is not scientific. it's political. there have been five environmental review, each of which has concluded the keystone pipeline does not raise significant environmental concerns and yet, it has not gone forward because this administration continues to block it. tens of thousands of high-paying jobs with the stroke of a pen

the private sector could be allowed to create, but this administration is not stroking that pen. but here's the point, as much as we need to approve the keystone pipeline, we need to think far broader than that. we need to do far more. in coming weeks, i will be introducing a bill, the american energy renaissance act, that is designed to do two significant things. number one, to prevent the federal government from stopping the energy renaissance that is blossoming across the country. and number two, to expand the lands, the resources that are available for the private sector to develop so that we can answer what the american people are asking for which is jobs and economic growth. this opportunity is right in front of us.

if the federal government will simply listen to the american people. now what are the elements of this bill? i'll give you the elements at broad level that i'll tell you in coming weeks we are continuing to receive input from multiple players as we design the exact pieces. here are the broad strokes. number one, preventing federal regulation of hydraulic fracture. fracking a technology that has been in use for over 60 years, is what in combination with horizontal drilling has opened up resources that are unimaginable. there is no reason for the federal government to get if the way of fracking and if the federal government did so, the harm to the economy, the harm to the number of people who could eyes ha

otherwise have good jobs would be staggering. the states care every bit as much about having clean water and clean air, but we are seeing states that are able to ensure clean water and clean air with responsible fracking and at the same time not impede the development of our resources. number two, improve domestic refining capacity. streamline the process for upgrading and building new refineries. you know, we haven't built a new large refinery in the united states since 197 7. that's got to change. number three, allow and approve the keystone pipeline and remove the barriers for approving additional pipelines.

there is no reason for this bureaucratic mess in washington. no reason whatsoever. and i would note a pipeline building the keystone pipeline ought to be a no-brainer. in the senate there's a large bipartisan majority. republicans and democrats who agree we should build this pipeline. it's a no-brainer from the perspective of jobs, a no-brainer from the perspective of national security, no-brainer from the perspective of tax revenues and it is even a no-brainer from the perspective of the environment. indeed, i will suggest if you are a birkenstock wearing, tree hugging, greenpeace activist, you should love the keystone pipeline. you should love the keystone pipeline because number one, the keystone pipeline is not built, it means we will continue to rely more and more on overseas

oil, and as long as there are oil on tankers, there will be spills. by any measures transporting oil in a pipeline is far safer for the environment, far more controllable than overs seas tankers. and number two, if the pipeline is not built north/south it will be built, it will go east/west. the canadians will not leave the tar sapped sands -- if it goes east/west it will go to china to be refined there in a much dirtier way. if your concern is the environment the last thing you want to do is send the oil to china to be refined there which will do far more damage to the environment than refining it in the u.s. where it would generate good high-paying jobs and benefit the environment number

four, stop epa overreach and the war on coal. you know, we are blessed to have enormous coal resources in this country. and yet, the last five years we have seen an all-out war on coal. when i visit with those working in the oil and gas industry i tell them quite frequently, you guys are the second most despised industry in the country in this administration. only coal exceeds. in 2008 president obama was cand candid, he said you can open a new coal plant and it will bankrupt. and we have seen hundreds of coal units across this country shut down. i have to tell you, some time ago i was in southern illinois,

visiting coal workers and one after the other came up and shook my hand and the look on their faces as they realized their government has declared a war on their lifestyle. the look of just hopelessness and despair, generations of families who provided for their families, for their kids, working in coal up and down the appalachian. now, these are not the favored classes this administration likes. these are not titans of wall street. these are not ceos flying on corporate jets. they do very well under the obama administration. the top 1% of our economy, the millionaires and billionaires the president loves to demagog right now earn a higher share of our national income right now than since 1928. the people who have been hurt by

the obama economy and people struggling, young people, hispanics, african-americans, they're single moms. they're people working in coal country who for generations have been able to provide for their families and they're seeing their jobs go away as the administration tries to shut it down. that doesn't make any sense. number five, we need to force congress and the president to vote on epa regulations that kill jobs. the epa is issuing a new regulation that's going to take away jobs, let members of congress sign it. let members of congress go home to their districts and say, i voted to eliminate your job. part of the reason we see this out of control regulatory state is that congress has outsourced its responsibilities. has handed it to unaccountable regulators who don't actually have to see the american people. our constitutional system is

based on accountability. if congress has to cast a vote, before putting in place legislation that kill jobs i suspect we'll see a little more focus on what the american people care about which is a focus on economic growth and jobs. number six, proactive. the first five that i laid out were preventing the federal government from stopping the american energy renaissance. the next are proactively expanding it. broaden energy development on federal land. provide states the option of leasing, permitting or regulating resources on federal lands. there are states eager to see the kind of job production we're seeing in north dakota, we're seeing in texas. i suspect there are other states

that would be very happy to see high-paying jobs come to their states, would be very happy to see welfare rolls dropping down because people are getting jobs and providing for their families. would be happy to see local school districts tax revenues going up because people are providing jobs, getting jobs and providing for their families and yet the federal government is not opening up those lands for development. the states can do a far better job of that. among other things expand energy development on indian lands. there are considerable natural resources on indian lands, many native americans tragically live in crushing poverty. and the resources are right there to improve their standard of living and it is only the federal government that is keeping them in that condition of poverty. we ought to allow native

american tribes to develop the resources on their own lands. number seven, we need to open up offshore exploration. expand the offshore areas of the outer continental shelf that are available for development and streamlining the permitting. we have enormous resources we're simply not accessing and actually sitting by and let other nations develop those resources instead. doesn't make any sense. number eight, we need to expand u.s. energy exports. we need to expand liquid natural gas exports. we're producing natural gas at incredible levels and yet the bureaucratic paperwork to export lng has been mind numbingly slow. we ought to open it up which also gives incentives for developing more resources here,

but also gives the ability to expand trade and commerce across the globe. we need to end the crude oil export ban. right now, exporting crude oil is prohibited and that is a relic from ages where our supply of crude oil was viewed as quite limited. we are now developing crude at an extraordinary level and unfortunately, there's a mismatch because most of our refineries in the u.s. are designed to refine heavy crude from nations like saudi arabia. and so the sweet light crude being developed here, our own refineries have limited capacity to refine them. and we also should reduce the regulatory barriers to exporting coal. with all of those, with

producing our natural resource, if we expand the markets, expand the markets they can go, that generates more and more high-paying jobs. let me note something. the jobs that we're seeing in the energy renaissance, are not just oil and gas jobs. they wouldn't just be coal jobs if we ended the war on coal from this administration. they are jobs across a host of industries. like heavy manufacturing where we're seeing more and more heavy manufacturing come back to the united states. industries like the steel industry that have been beleaguered for generations, we had hard-working americans, union members, going to work in heavy manufacturing, providing for their kids and we've seen their jobs drying up as the working class in this country has been left out of federal

government priorities. we're seeing those heavy manufacturing jobs come back and we're able to compete with nations like china, not based on low-cost labor, none of us want to xweets with china based on low cost labor, but competing instead based on low-cost energy, based on the abundant natural resources that god has given this country that are here and available if the federal government simply will allow private initiative to develop those resources. and finally, i would note, preventing washington, from stopping the american energy renaissance has enormous benefits, will produce millions of high-paying jobs across this country.

and also will generate significant additional revenues to washington and the final element in this bill, is the additional revenues coming in, will be dedicated to a trust fund to pay down our crushing national debt. five years ago our national debt was $10 trillion. today it is over $17 trillion. it has grown some 60% in five years. it took 43 president s and one president in five years to grow it over 60%. what we're doing to our kids and grandkids is wrong and having a trust fund dedicated these national revenues will go to paying down debt we can start exercising some basic responsibility. our parents didn't do that to us. they didn't give us a crushing debt we couldn't escape from.

how can we be content do it to our kids and their kids. i will note, money in washington, trust funds in washington, have a way of being, but the advantage of dedicating this revenue is it increases the political price of politicians raiding the kitty. doesn't mean they won't have the instinct to raid the kitty but it does mean any politician who tries, will face accountability of his or her constituents saying why are you spending money in the trust fund to free us from your debt on your own spending project. this is a combination that makes enormous sense for our country. i want to close with this. i've said many times, that where we are today, is early similar

to the late -- eerily similar to the late 1970s. the same failed economic policies that we saw under the jimmy carter administration, out of control spending and taxes and regulation and the same economic stagnation and malaise as a result. just this afternoon i re-read president carter's speech on energy. because i am a gluten for punishment. it really is striking. he compared the energy crisis of the '70s to, quote, the moral equivalent of war and he told the country, we are running out of oil and gas. by the mid 1980s it will be gone. it's really worth re-reading.

it is a speech where he tells the american people, i am calling on all of you to sacrifice. and listen, any time a politician calls on you to sacrifice, grab your wallet. for some reason, the sacrifice never seems to fit -- hit the rarefied air in washington and sacrifice just thickens the government while the rest of the american people hurt. it's worth re-reading carter's speech because i'm pretty sure every single word in the entire speech is wrong including and the. but what's striking is how much of our energy policy is still stuck back in the 1970s. like that tv show with ashton kutcher "that 0s show" that is the current federal government's approach to energy.

we still have antiquated bans on exporting, crude, restrictions on lng. antiquated rules on building pipelines that enable a president who's being irresponsible to arbitrarily stand in the way, to behave as the energy secretary said, politically, to stop those tens of thousands of i might note union jobs that are not being created because the president doesn't want them. the rules and restrictions we have are for a different time, for a different era. we can, by simply allowing entrepreneurs, allowing the private sector to do what it does best, we can continue this janet yellen will testify

before congress for the first time as the new head of the federal reserve. she will take questions about monetary policy, economic outlook, and the jobs report. watch coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. join the conversation on facebook and twitter. later, coverage of the white house state dinner for french president francois hollande. president for want -- president hollande was elected president in 2012. again, follow us on facebook and twitter. >> erik wasson joins us for a look at what is going on in congress. he is a staff writer for "the hill." the house republicans had a special meeting to talk strategy on the debt limit. what did they decide? >> the decisions have not been

made yet. john boehner presented a plan to the conference. they are now doing the current vote. hours, tryingng to get a whip count on it. the plan is to raise the debt ceiling for about a year. to attach a fix to the military pension cost of living adjustment change that was made in december. basically, congress cut the future military pension by $6 billion and that caused a serious backlash. this plan would reverse that. the way it would be paid for is by extending cuts to medicare. to take place through 23 for an additional year. inside the meeting, some conservatives expressed disappointment with this idea. thinking that savings 10 years down the road is a budget gimmick. right now, they are trying to

assess whether they can get enough votes to pass this. it remains to be seen. the one test will be to see if they can get 218 votes. to pass without democratic help. as it stands right now, democrats have been insisting on the clean debt ceiling increase. even if they get democratic help , another case would need the majority of the republicans on board. >> what kind of support does the house republican leadership expect from house democrats and even some republicans? >> during the leadership retreat a few weeks ago house , republicans basically said that they were looking for something that would get democratic support. the military cost of living in atment is unpopular bipartisan way. in fact, the senate just voted to proceed to a bill that would reverse the cut.

it is something that they are looking at as a policy matter should appeal to a large number of democrats. the democratic leaders and the white house, if they decide they do not want to deviate from their line of no negotiation on the debt ceiling, that remains to be seen. >> what is the timeline on the house floor? could we see a timeline that was set by the treasury secretary? february 27. >> everybody agrees that we pretty much have to. s what they call a black swan event. that's still a possibility. the vote would be wednesday, filing a vote sometime tonight. house democrats have been leaving for their annual retreat in maryland. there is a question about a snowstorm coming in. it is out across the bay in

maryland on wednesday night. next week, there is a week long presidents' day recess here. that is two days before the 27th deadline of the house comes back. >> when do you think the senate will take up the debt limit? >> i would imagine they would move very swiftly. if either plan passes, because of the urgency and the white house concern over it. >> americans for tax reform have had a number of groups sign on saying they do not like this. what kind of impact might they have? >> grover norquist is very influential on tax matters. this is a spending matter. he does not have exactly the same weight. basically, most republicans have signed the no new taxes ledge. -- no new taxes pledge. he holds their feet to the fire on that. he still retains other influence on spending matters. it is important including the national taxpayers union.

and some tea party groups as well. defection, it a remains to be seen how large it will be. just coming out of the meeting in the interviews i had there , were a large number of conservatives from jim jordan, matt harriman, saying that they cannot support this plan. >> erik wasson, thanks for joining us. the hill.com. thank you for joining us. >> thanks so much. israelig up, a former because theyis not were not there in numbers, perhaps not as glamorous as other planes. their contribution to the war effort was the replaceable. >> beautiful. familiar tos so

actually sit here. back together again, you will have to come see it. >> for my personal tie to this airplane, this was the airplane i flew in vietnam. combat missions i flew, i flew many in this airplane. it is my titanium mistress. it is what brought me home at times it should not have. i abused it and did things in order to survive, punished it. it held together. it is an airplane i have such strong feelings for. no way i could not bring it home if i could. i had a painting done by an aviation artist to paint my airplane. he asked if i knew what happened, i said no i didn't. he knew somebody who did. they told me it was in

massachusetts, that got the ball rolling. i said if there is any way we andbring that airplane in present it to the museum patrons in the combat form it was, that is what we are working to do. >> this weekend, a look behind the history and literary life of a stopgeorgia, including at the aviation museum. on c-span2 and c-span3. former israeli ambassador to the u.s. michael oren discusses the future of the middle east and the u.s. role in the region. the atlantic council hosted this one hour 15 minute event. >> it is a great pleasure to be

-- to welcome you this afternoon. i am president and ceo of the atlantic council. this event marks the beginning of an important new initiative at the council, the introduction and the first public event around our first ambassador in residence at the brent scowcroft center on international security at the council. there are a lot of reasons why the atlantic council was delighted to have been able to bring on board israel's former ambassador to the u.s. michael oren, starting february 1, so we are getting him shortly after he began at the atlantic council. in the press release circulated in january, i said the "ambassador oren brings us to the council a powerful mix of the highest level diplomat's experience and the best-selling author's skills." i think you will see a taste of

all of that in his opening comments and in the questions and answers today. he is a person who not only knows how diplomacy is done, but how diplomacy should be done in trying to solve some of the problems of the middle east, but also knows the historical context more richly than any ambassador i have ever known. we face a crucial moment in the history of the middle east, and, as you will hear today, ambassador oren is a creative, sometimes provocative out-of-the-box thinker. during the year ambassador oren will address america's feature -- america's future role in the middle east along with research on israel's relationship with other regional partners. please join me in welcoming ambassador oren. before i turn the podium to him, join me in thanking another person.

she was the founding donor for our newest center at the , the latinuncil america center. it was her ideas that pioneered the idea of ambassadors resident ce to the council, and she has supported two of them. she could not be here today, but she sends her greetings. and finally, thanks to the director of the brent scowcroft center. there are too many people in this audience to call attention to all of them. we have ambassadors, senior officials from the u.s. government, officials from many of the embassies around town. thank you for being here. so now to the program, and ambassador oren will kick us off with some opening remarks, then some initial questions, and we will turn to the audience. michael? [applause]

>> thank you. thank you for crediting me with the ability to solve all the middle east's diplomatic problems. i don't think my mother would have given me that credit. good afternoon, everybody. thanks to the brent scowcroft center on international security and the atlantic council. i'm delighted to be a part of your extraordinary organization. rry, theed, -- to ba director at the scowcroft center. is a greatshe visionary and is a great human being. welcome to our colleagues from the diplomatic community. you heard i am a historian, so i will start with history for you. some of you may know this. the middle east as a geostrategic concept was an

american intervention. the term was coined in september alfred thayer mahan, a former naval officer in the navy, a naval strategist. his concern was moving warships and guarding international seaways, guaranteeing access to trade. in those days trade extended from the near east of greece and the balkans to the far east, japan, china, siam, and en route it passed through the suez canal and hooked around the arabian peninsula. to define this nebulous areas between the near east and the far east, mahan devised a new term, the middle east. the most distinctive characteristic of this area, from the perspective of a geo

strategic strategist, was its almost total absence of strategic significance. indeed, the only strategic value of the middle east lay in its location. it was an area one had to cross while steaming from one area of importance to another area of importance. and it would take another decade before the british navy, realizing the affordability and abundance of middle east oil, decided to convert their entire fleet from coal to oil. it took another 40 years until the height of world war ii for the american navy to look to the middle east to quench its thirst for energy. america's growing postwar dependence on middle east oil coincided with the collapse of the british and french empires in the middle east. the process through which america replaced these former colonial powers took place over a short period of time.

you can trace it from the enunciation of the truman doctrine in 1947 to the suez crisis in 1956, and that time also coincided with the advent of the cold war in the middle east. just as britain and france back in the 1850's joined to stave off russian encroachment in the crimea into the middle east, so to did the united states a century later labored to prevent soviet encroachments in the middle east. but the lines in the middle east cold war were never completely and fully drawn. on one level, there were the pro-american, mostly traditional monarchies versus the radical states of egypt, iraq, syria, algeria, yemen, and libya. but at any given time the monarchies were also at loggerheads, and sometimes the at loggerheads

with the hashemites in jordan. the arab-israeli conflict also cut across these lines. although in theory it was a proxy war between the united states and the soviet union, at different points it pitted a pro-american israel versus a pro-american jordan and a pro-american saudi arabia. the lines were never completely drawn. and yet it was the arab-israeli war of 1973 that enabled secretary of state henry kissinger, with singular vision and drive, to lay the foundations of what we today call in retrospect the pax americana. the keystone to those efforts was egypt. it was sadat's move from the soviet to the american sphere. it signaled the rapid decline of the soviet union and the serious challenger to american hegemony in the middle east.

the pax americana officially began with the 1979 peace treaty between egypt and israel. this treaty established the precedent for later peace treaties between israel and jordan, as well as the 1993 oslo accords between israel and the palestine liberation organization. it also set the precedent for later peace conferences, whether in madrid or annapolis. the people in the middle east became accustomed to the assumption that only the united states could play the role of effective mediator, and even pro-soviet states like syria would host over 30 visits by secretary of state warren christopher in the 1990's. it was extraordinary. as the soviet union disintegrated, so too did its military presence in the middle east. remember that great blue water fleet of the soviet union back in 1973 that went eyeball to eyeball with the american fleet? that virtually disappeared

. and between the sixth fleet in the eastern mediterranean and in the fifth fleet in the persian gulf, when american military power went virtually unchallenged. with the exception of that ubiquitous kalashnikov rifle, american arms gradually replaced soviet arms throughout the middle east, and american investment predominated. but paradoxically, although the pax americana ushered in the decades of almost uninterrupted american influence in the middle east, it was not very much of a pax. it inaugurated decades of american military conflict in the middle east, something of what you can call a 30-year war beginning in 1979 with a takeover of the u.s. embassy in tehran, and continued with the ill-fated american intervention in lebanon in the 1980's and the reagan administration's armed

confrontations with both libya and iran, terrorist attacks against american targets, kidnapping of american nationals, often there execution. american missile attacks on iraqi in the sudan, a proxy war in afghanistan followed by a real war in afghanistan, which is en route to becoming america's longest conflict in the region after the barbary wars of the late 18th century and the early 19th century. this is all a part from which the united states had varying degrees of involvement, including israel in 1982, and the iraq-iran war. pax americana, indeed. these conflicts exacted an immense price both in terms of morale and materiel from the united states, and much like the british and the french before them, americans began to lose their stomach for maintaining their middle east hegemony.

middle east enemies were hardly passive. since 9/11, middle eastern terrorists have tried to carry out some 16 major terrorist attacks on american soil, one of them not far from here at that café milano, and of course there was 9/11 itself, which you can , as a military historian, make a case could be the most effective in terms of this cost benefit, the most effective military operation in modern military history. with little training and four hijacked planes, 19 terrorists from the middle east succeeded in killing over 3000 americans civilians and dragging america wars that cost the united states over 10,000 dead and over $1 trillion and left the american people war weary. cost benefit. a case could also be made for citing 9/11 as the high watermark of the pax americana.

a year later, as the bush -- president bush created the quartet, comprised of the united states, the u.n., russia, and the european union. the quartet, which effectively ended america's 30-year monopoly over middle east peacemaking. indeed, america's repeated inability to achieve peace between israel and the palestinians, first under bush and later under the obama administration, was both a symptom and a cause of the waning of the pax americana. the other milestone in the deterioration of america's preeminence in the region are well known. it began with a retreat from iraq, the looming withdrawal from afghanistan, the reluctance to aid syrian rebels trying to topple assad, the inability thus far to remove chemical weapons from syria -- about 94% of those

weapons remain in place -- the zigzagging of american policy toward egypt, hastening and then celebrating the downfall of hosni mubarak, a close american friend of 30 years. the perceived embrace in the region of morsi and egyptian brotherhood, followed by a recoil from al-sisi, and the military regime in egypt. the eagerness of the obama administration to retreat in negotiated solution to the iranian nuclear issue, to the great consternation of israel and other pro-american governments in the region. the effects of sequestration and america's ability to project power in the middle east, the withdrawal of the uss truman from the area, the coldness toward traditional allies such as bahrain, and a willingness to show distance with saudi arabia while flouting america newfound independence of oil sources in the middle east,

the refusal to take a leading role in the toppling of qaddafi toppling al qaeda's allies, the fading of president obama's intensely close relationship with turkish prime minister erdogan. i could go on. vacuum.ics abhors a and the middle east power vacuum left by america's wake been filled or has been try to be filled by other countries. the cornerstone of the pax americana, it is widely thought to be the u.s. is rarely relationship -- widely thought to be the u.s.-israeli relationship, which i have had experience with. i will tell you the cornerstone was the u.s.-egyptian relationship. egypt has now been hosting military delegations from the russians. the chinese delegations have been circulating around the

middle east. people have sensed a vacuum. the french have stepped up to what they see is a vacant home plate in the middle east. impressions in the middle east are absolutely cardinal, and the peoples of the region, if we were to poll them, would not agree on anything. but i am willing to wager if you were to ask sunnis, shiites, israelis, druzes, they would overwhelmingly agree with the proposition that america's power in the middle east is on the wane and that the age of american preeminence is over. the house that henry built is tottering. but can we distinguish then between an impression and the reality? is america's sun in the middle east indeed setting? and here the answer has to be far more nuanced. the key to the future is technology. i apologize for the tautology,

but it is true. with all due respect to russia , china and france, american technology remains regnant throughout the middle east. russia can sell a couple of destroyers, but their presence pales. secretary of state kerry is mediating between israelis and palestinians and taking the to maddock lead -- taking the diplomatic lead. keeping in mind that the pax americana was always heavy on americana, light on pax, little has changed in the middle east except for the fact that today more middle easterners are killing more of each other and killing fewer americans. in fact, with fewer boots on the ground or even ships at sea, the u.s. is killing numbers of middle easterners by remote means, which you know.

and for all of their war weariness, it would be a big mistake, i believe, for any party in the middle east to begin to target americans. in short, it is surely premature to speak of a post-pax americana in the middle east, but it is not too early to speak of a post-middle east america, distinguishing between the two, and america that will seek to streamline its commitment to the region, to revisit old alliances while seeking new ones, and an america that will balk at acting at the middle east as the middle east's exclusive policeman or fireman. that much has changed. here too we may have to wait. that judgment also may prove premature. those of us of a certain generation, fred, may remember 1975 and the american withdrawal

from vietnam. of thoseconic images helicopters being pushed off to the sea. back in 1975, america could withdraw from vietnam and the pretty confident that the vietcong were not going to follow americans down to l street in washington, d.c. there was a sense that america could go home from the middle east or even pivot away from the middle east. that belief may prove illusory, because the middle east is not like vietnam and the middle east can follow america to here, and i do not believe disengagement entirely is possible. pax americana. fred? >> thank you. [applause]

>> wonderful introductory remarks. a lot of meat to dig into and follow up on. i will, back to post-pax americana and post-middle east america. before i do that, however, as much as you have gone into history in your remarks, some people in the audience might not know that you have gone even further back than history of the united states in the middle east, going back to 1776. you provide an overview in your te,t recent book "power, fa and fantasy," the u.s. involvement in the middle east. i wonder if you can go into that in sort of a cliff notes version here -- >> it is 700 pages.

>> that is why i asked for the cliff notes version. this comparative analysis between middle east and the founding of the united states and how the u.s. development has influenced the middle east development, and at some point i think we'll all also get into what that has to do with the civil war and the statue of liberty. let's start with the overview. >> the overview is the middle east and america have had profound impacts in shaping one another. the middle east was fundamentally involved in the founding of the american constitution. i knew that would get you. >> i am listening. >> it is simple. i mentioned the barbary wars. they were the first foreign wars america fought after the american revolution, against the pirates of what is today libya, tunisia, morocco and algeria,

and america did not have a navy and they could not have one until they collected taxes. the question of how to fight the pirates became integral about whether or not to have a constitution. if you go into the debates, in every state the barbary wars are there. page after page, extraordinary. if we cannot have a navy, we will lose our foreign trade. the middle east fired the imagination of authors like herman melville and mark twain, freedom fighters like frederick douglass and john f. kennedy. it had a huge influence on the middle east well before the advent of middle eastern oil. in fact, during the 19th century america was the main exporter of oil to the middle east. mostly in the form of kerosene. the united states also had a no less transformative impact on the middle east, mostly not through

economics or oil, but through education. america built the universities in beirut, in cairo, american universities in turkey, through which american educators imparted american ideas. perhaps the most influential i encouraged george bush to las vegas.arry reid he did not. sessions do not change the fact that the senate was unavailable. planned 20-day no business break. it was gone. there was no forum to be had. the constitution, in my view exclusively grants the executive , both responsibility to determine senate availability and discretion to sign temporary commissions.