and c-spanc-span3 radio. for the background, order copy of the companion book available for $8.95 plus shipping. now, a discussion on the house debate to lift the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports. this is just under an hour. yesterday, the house voted to lift a 40-year-old u.s. ban on imports. on the explain why environmental and vocations are margo thorning for the american council for capital formation and tyson slocum. explain why we have this ban in the first place.

take us back 40 years ago and how we got here. guest: it is because critical commodities like oil pose unique national security and economic challenges. the dynamics that created the ban 40 years ago are still relevant today. the fact of the matter is that it limits the ability to export u.s. produced crude oil. what that does is ensures we have adequate supplies here at 9.5. we still import million barrels of petroleum products every day. even though we are producing record amounts of oil, we are still the largest importer of oil in the world. would give huge profits to oil companies. right now, the production discount, the production boom in the united states has resulted in a slight domestic price to scout for certain types of domestic produced oil. right now, refiners are enjoying a discount and sharing that with in the form of

water prices. what producers want is to export the discount overseas to china and india. that will raise gasoline prices for american drivers. host: do we currently have a ban on any type of energy export, coal, natural gas? guest: that same line 1975 extended the ban to natural gas. natural gas was not an issue in 1975. congress never put together rules for it. that is something we have been pushing for, as well. house votedday, the 261-259 to lift this 40-year-old ban. outside of the 261 numbers of the house, who else wants this ban lifted and why? guest: producers of oil are thought to have the ban lifted because it is no longer needed. it is no longer the case that we are in danger of running out of oil. we are producing so much while that the wall street journal on the front page today pointed out

that we have seen an 81% increase in oil production since 2008. we are in a situation of a happy story. the american public needs to understand that we are now poised to become a global energy exporter of oil and natural gas. right now, because of inability to export, because there is an export ban on crude, we are seeing wells begin to be shut down, and even a slight tick down in production. there is no place to put the oil. our refineries cannot process the crude we are producing. there is a mismatch between our refinery capability -- mainly designed to process heavy sour crude from other countries. when we are importing less and less every year because of our own ability to use some of the light sweet crude. this mismatch has caused production shutdowns. we have lost over 100,000 jobs in the oil industry in the last

year because of this inability to export crude. -- the housepublic built asked with a good number of democrats yesterday. that is a step forward in removing this obsolete van which is no longer relevant. we also have the huge reserve in our strict -- strategic petroleum reserve. --are storing oil off stores offshore's insurance because we have so much. the whiteknow that house has threatened to veto this legislation. what do we know about the lifting of the export ban? the legislation in the senate? do we know and this will get to the four anytime soon? guest: i know that senator mcconnell has discussed bring it to the floor. my thought is he will wait until later in the year, perhaps after the terrorists climate change talks -- paris climate change talks.

the white house threatening to veto the bill is import shoring up credentials before going into the climate change talks in paris. after those occur, there may be a shift. especially if modifications are made to the two bills to make them more palatable to some of the democrats. host: letting our viewers know that our phone lines are open if you want to weigh in on this issue. if you have questions about a competent at issue, we have experts to talk about it. .argo thorning and tyson slocum phone lines, republicans, 202-748-8001, democrats, 202-748-8000, independence, 202-748-8002. thank you folks for calling in. who are the interest want to see this ban in place? guest: consumers. anyone who drives a car. petro-chemical refining industries.

also, refiners who are turning this crude oil into gasoline. you have to remember it that the crux of this debate is hitting the oil companies hitting -- pulling the oil out of the grounds -- they want to get access to that temporary domestic discount so they can make bigger profits selling the oil for a higher price overseas. want to oil refiners continue buying u.s. crude oil at a discount so they can benefit their shareholders. 25% of that slightly lower u.s. oil price is being shared with motorists and other downstream on -- users of petroleum products. this is absolutely about whether or not we want to side with big oil companies and give them bigger profits or make sure that americans have access to affordable energy. host: you made a point earlier about talking about the amount of crude oil the u.s. is importing from other countries. is it your opinion that the u.s. needs to get to zero import before we left export bans?

guest: of course. we are talking about allowing a run into the international oil an into --ness -- ir if we start exporting oil, that will increase our need to import oil. we will be forced to import oil from the iranians and other opec member nations. tois a defeated proposition say that oil exports will liberate the united states. the only beneficiaries of lifting oil export bans are oil producers. consumers and national security will take a big hit. guest: your listeners and viewers need to know that three recent government studies suggest that allowing the export therude oil by expanding pool of oil globally will tend to lower crude oil prices around the world. that will make it easier for our refineries -- the price of gasoline will fall.

the accounting office released a study, in september, the u.s. department of energy information released a study suggesting that allowing the export of crude will tend to lower prices. ,ou have cbo, gao, and cia government studies saying that exports in crude will lower the price. it will lower the price internationally. that means that refiners who are importing crude will pay less for it. prices will tend to fall. there are also a host of private , consultinges firms, think tanks that show that expanding the global pool of oil will tend to lower prices for consumers. host: running to the economic buyer -- arguments, national security argues, environmental are you. bring in our viewers, minnesota, line for democrats, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to let these people know that i am not happy with

the way the oil companies are doing us right now. crude oil is the lowest it can get and they keep letting it prices back up and costing people more and more money continuously. we will pay through the nose for it. let's keep it right here where we are getting it out of our own ground. keep the price down for the american people and forget the big business oil companies. thank you. host: i want to note the energy information administration reports on this that margo thorning had mentioned talking about specifically the gasoline prices in the country and the impact of lifting the crude oil export ban. this is a nonpartisan agency.

guest: page 19 of that energy information agency report clearly says that they did not control for a bunch of other tv variables like global supply and demand when they did their estimates. what this radical theory that they are looking at is saying is if we start exporting crude oil internationally, that will create an international glut of oil that will push international prices down. because we still import some international oil, that imported oil is going to be cheaper and will offset the higher domestic west texas intermediate prices. clearly sayshe eia that other variables like supply in china -- they did not control for what opec and russia counter

increase of u.s. ex with oil. when you look at the data, u.s. as lean prices went down $11 billion since last year because american drivers had access to cheaper u.s. produced crude oil. the important thing here is that this production boom from fracking is temporary. the ceo of exxon mobil said in march that in less than a decade, the onshore fracking will peak inca production and start to go into decline. he says that why -- that is why we need to start exploring the arctic. effect of the matter is this production boom is temporary. ban on allowing crude oil exports will lock us in two more expensive oil and gasoline in the future. host: i want to direct our viewers to eia.gov to see the report where talk about.

they also have more information about their study of production of u.s. crude oil. here's a chart showing from the 1863 to today, u.s. production of crude oil. go ahead and jump in. guest: the fact of the matter is allowing the export of crude will tend to drive down the global price of oil. r refineries and gasoline prices are set in international markets. pay gasoline consumers here depends on what the international price of crude is. if we can push down the price of crude by expanding supply, simple market economics, we will tend to see, according to g.i. eia, a eo -- ceo, and fallen price. if there was the introduction of oil from the middle east, we have a huge strategic petroleum reserve which is full. we are storing oil awful -- offshore. we have plenty of time to ramp

up production. the fracking boom has allowed us to quickly turn on the spigot of more production. in the eia report we just talked about, it shows under high production case, as many as 13.5 billion barrels a day over the next few years if the demand was there. we have effects ability to turn on a dime and increase production if we needed to. furthermore, if the price were to rise, we would tend to see oil being kept here and less of it exported. the market will adjust. host: and one christian following along at c-span wj. he says i don't expect americans fighting to keep crude inside of the united states as long as the cost of fuel doesn't rise. let's go to los angeles, california, line for republicans, stephen, you are on "washington journal." asker: my comment is to your participants on your show

what the real benefit is to oilicans to ship our crude around the world when the world has plenty? we need to be focusing on getting off oil. we have plenty of lithium around the world that we should be focusing on extracting. we should be focusing on making more productive cars and focus on where we are going to be in 10 years. it seems to me with a lot of great people on your panel that --are stuck in what i call instead of realizing we are in the technology age when we have memory sticks and we don't need to go backwards. host: i thought you were done. guest: stephen makes excellent points. the fact of the matter is that the only beneficiary of lifting this man will be bigger profits to oil companies. exports can beil a model of economic growth, that

is the nigerian or russian model of economic growth. exporting unprocessed raw materials is what america did in the 1800s. we are a value-added economy. because the ceo of exxon mobil came right out and said that onshore fracking is going to peak in a decade, it will go into decline, so we need to go into riskier and more expensive arctic oil expiration makes stevens point that we need to on tether herself from oil -- george w. bush said it best in his address to congress in 2006 when he said america is addicted to oil and we need to find alternatives. the electrification of the transportation sector is that alternative today. host: to that point that tyson spoke of, the only beneficiary is big profits to oil companies. guest: that is absolutely not the case. there is a host of studies from consulting firms

that show that if the crude oil and were lifted, we would see additional gross domestic product ranging from 40 billion a year to over 100 billion a year. we have seen upward of 200,000 new jobs a year. study shows the new jobs, approximately 30% would probably go to minorities, african-americans and hispanics. states tax revenues would increase, federal tax revenues would increase, personal income goes up. you can go to unlockcrudee xports.org and down of those studies. there are huge economic benefits. american wheat farmers were told you can't export your week. you have to make it into loaves of bread and send that a broad. that is exactly the situation we are in now. we are strangling crude oil production because we can't export.

it is time to lift that ban and promote jobs, higher income, federal state tax revenue, and the diplomatic aspect. our allies in europe are getting 30% of their oil from russia right now. allies in asia who would like to have a steady source of oil from a reliable source. there are did medic reasons to try to build ties with our trading partners by exporting. to national to get security concerns in this debate. yesterday on the four of the house, a congress and from texas said the administration is doing more to help iranian oil interests then united states oil interests. here is what he had to save for a >> the a ministration -- the administration has worked hard to make sure that the export ban on crude oil from iran is limited. the administration has threatened to veto this bill that would lift the crude oil sanction been on american oil.

that doesn't make any sense to me. sell theiranians crude excess oil of iraq, but prevent america from selling our excess crude oil abroad? president for for iranians over americans? it doesn't make any sense. the president should give the same deal to us that he gave to the iranians. lift the sanctions on them, lift the sanctions on american oil. we had a surplus. we need to sell it. use all weekend, sell the rest. that is the motto, and that is the way it is. host: that was the floor of the house yesterday. why wouldn't we want our allies from buying crude oil from us instead of a ron or china -- iran or china? guest: the representative said something mistaken. he said we had a huge surplus. we don't have a surplus.

the united states remains the largest import of -- importer of oil on the planet. we are importing 9.5 million barrels of petroleum every day. if we allow u.s. oil producers to export crude oil so that they can sell it for a higher price than the chinese, that means we will have to increase the rate of import which means it will be more likely we are buying oil from the iranians. the representative has no idea what he is talking about. this idea of commodity diplomacy is flawed. the state department is not going to make incisions about to whom we sell our oil. toon mobil is going to sell whoever will pay the highest price. inre is no government role sending this u.s. produced oil to our allies. it will be determined by the markets, and the markets don't care who are allies or enemies are. it will sell to whoever pays the highest price. host: let's bring stephen from florida in, line for independence. waser: all i wanted to say i know there is taxation

involved somewhere on these oil companies if they start exporting this oil. my question is, are we going to tax them at the american rate or at the foreign import rate of the other companies? if you tax all of that oil coming out of this country with an export tax, you could probably pay for obamacare. that is all i have to say. be additional profits that might be made if we export crude will be taxed at the u.s. rate. although the economic analyses show higher tax revenues, higher revenues paid to the federal government. higher state tax revenues. exporting crude is a win for all levels of government, not to mention the american jobs that are going to be created. i would like to point out that a new study by the progressive policy institute pointed out that of the top 20 companies

investing in the u.s. in 2014, 5 of them work well producers. investede companies over $33 billion, each billion dollars of new investment is 20,000 new jobs. those five companies alone created over 720,000 jobs in 2014. because of their strong investment. tyson's point, we are shutting in production. we do have a surplus of crude. we have a mismatch between what our refineries were built to consume, heavy sour crude. they can't handle all of the light sweet crude. it is simplest not to allow the export of something we have a surplus of and we are shutting in the wells because there is no market for it. host: this is a time to explain what is the american council for profit formation? guest: a nonpartisan think tank whose purpose is capital formation, job growth, and economic prosperity. our founding rentable is cost-benefit analysis for every

regulation -- our founding principle. host: what is public citizen? guest: a was formed in 1971. we are one of the largest household consumer advocacy groups. we promote those policies which we promote those policies at best protect consumers and we work on policies to strengthen america's democracy by limiting the influence of big special interests. coil is the biggest special interest in lobbying in washington dc today. it is only because of a temporary change in oil market dynamics that has seen them forced to sell their oil at a slight discount to u.s. refineries and oil companies are saying i can make more money if we get rid of this regulation and sell u.s. oil to china. rg andit is citizen.o appf.org. jerry is up next, colorado, line

for republicans. caller: good morning. mr. slocum really has some old school arguments. he has been taking this big oil and elizabeth, small companies like mine, i have two employees. we are not benefiting from this because our oil that we sell -- we sell it in new mexico -- is that a $10 discount. small independents, larger independents have been the surges in oile growth and natural gas growth in this country. slocum are what benefit. we have lost 100,000 people in

his business. did you have a question? host: what happens if the crude oil export ban is somehow lifted tomorrow and the white house signs it. what happens at your company? caller: our company -- not tomorrow but over time -- the price would equalize over markets, logistically oil would go to where it is supposed to go stoppagehis artificial . the u.s. would be the only country with sanctions on its oil. this does not make any sense. if you are looking at a market economy, oil flows to where it can be best utilized. ocum, you say there are millionn -- 9.5

barrels of petroleum products imported every day. that's wrong. some of the statistics i have looked at our crude oil has gone down to about 4 million and day. host: let's get a response. guest: great questions. first of all, my source is the energy administration and if you go to their import section you 2010 we that in july were importing 13 million barrels of petroleum products every day, and now we are importing 9.5 million. we are importing less but we are still the largest petroleum product imported. and you made my point. you said if we get rid of the span tomorrow prices are going to go out, which is great for you. if youprices go up -- can sell your oil for a higher price overseas -- that means americans have to pay more for their energy. that is exactly what this is all about. jerry, as a hard-working oil producer you can attest that you

are making a lot of money. at $100 a barrel, now it is at 50. that means the industry has to focus on efficiency. it is a globally priced economy that is very fickle. it is a boom and bust situation. the oil industry has always experienced that. to use a u.s. law that keeps prices low for americans -- that is snake oil. is not true. the price we pay the pump depends on the international price of crude. it does not depend on the intermediate price. as i made the point already, our refineries are processing largely heavy crude and we are importing much less than before, i think about 30% of our crude is now imported. we are way down. we really need to take a look at the economics of this because --

as the government to -- government report shows, it will reduce the price at the pump. host: you mentioned sour crude and sweet crude. explain that. is that a function of where that is drilled? guest: oil has different properties. been set upes have largely to produce heavy sour crude. out of theing hydraulic fracking wells in the u.s., a lot of that is what they call late suite crude. our refineries cannot efficiently process much about. they can simply switch over from using heavy sour crude to sweet crude. with the environmental regulations it is very difficult to make the kind of investments needed to build a green fuel refinery or to change over what kind of crude you are producing. says whoe on twitter

cares who buys it. sell the oil and maybe america might have a chance. let's go to robert injured -- in georgia. line for democrats. caller: good morning. i have an important question. everybody controls the refineries. who controls the refinery? thank you. guest: refinery capacity has actually expanded over the last couple of years. but because of the new ozone regulations and the clean air regulations it is very difficult to build a new refinery and even more difficult to make modifications to expand production capacity. host: do you want to add to that? guest: the u.s. refining industry has responded to the changing market dynamics by increasing their capacity and there is a process. for example, nigeria was the

largest foreign supplier of light crude in the united states. ago they were exporting one million barrels of light crude into the united states a day. today it is less than 100,000 barrels. we are swapping out nigerian light crude for u.s. light crude which is cheaper to refine, cleaner to refine, and that is better for motorists. texas is next,io chris is on our line for independent or it -- independence. caller: thank you. i would like to take issue with both of your panelists. i'm also an independent oil and gas producer. , she made a,woman early on in the presentation. that we haveing lost a lot of jobs and implied that that was because of not having the export ban.

we lost a lot of jobs because of commodity price. plain and simple. to the gentleman who does seem to have the big oil argument, and of course i'm not big oil, if you look at oil at $47 a barrel,47 gallons in a it is a dollar a gallon. $.25 a cup. disease of the court. a court.f court -- and lastly i would say, we need competitive energy but there is nothing that can compete with oil. it is its own battery. it stores energy and it is transportable. it is its own battery. host: we appreciate the call. did you want to respond to? guest: those are some really

points. all the push we have seen for renewable energy over the last 20 or 30 years, of course we and to produce clean energy reduce emissions, but were energy, for example electricity, if you look at the 30 states that have renewable portfolio standards there average price of industrial electricity and residential electricity is 20 percent to 25% higher than states that don't require a large number of electricity to come from renewable standards. things like electric vehicles. electric vehicles were developed back in eight 1834. than 100 years later and electric vehicle still have the battery capacity, the ability to drive as far as consumers want. we have been trying to incentivize renewables, but

according to the congressional research service 80% of all the subsidies for energy go to the venerable sector. certainly has a place in our energy portfolio, but we need to remember that fossil fuels are going to be dominant probably for the next 30 or 40 years. host: what it means for renewables is a topic that house member frank akoni, democrat from new jersey, talked about in the debate on the house floor yesterday. [video clip] >> there are the environmental and climate aspects of listing -- lifting the ban. a facet of the other. increasing crude oil exports means increasing domestic production and its impact on change, workers health, and protection of our drinking water. as i said before, this legislation easily embraces

short-term profits without understanding or even considering the cause of such a major action. we simply can't afford to make that mistake. we should ensure we fully understand and consider the enduring consequences of our actions. that theelieve potential impact of hr 702 on national security, on the economy, on consumers, and on the environment can be considered acceptable. increased crude exports certainly helped oil companies. it's a bonanza for the oil companies but without any guaranteed benefit for consumers. i urge my colleagues to join me in the president and say no to this legislation. noting there that the president has said he would not sign a lifting of the crude oil export ban if he were given that legislation. starting inuture -- the next couple of years -- is

all going to be about renewables. the fact of the matter is that oil and coal and natural gas services country 450 years -- for 150 years but it is no longer going to be cost competitive. tesla are building this giga battery factory in the nevada desert. morgan stanley said it is going to be producing energy storage at rates cost competitive with the electric grid. this is the transformation that is going to be american led through technological innovation and employment here in the united states. large oilre lord -- producers we still need to import a huge amount of our oil from other countries, and the price of oil is a globally prized commodity. we are always going to be at the mercy of pricing. a bunch of callers waiting to talk to you.

denise in florida, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. m,totally agree with mr. slocu i think the environment has to be the first issue. if companies don't care there are leaks. they don't care about the farms. they don't care about the water sources. what are we doing when they run out of water and land? we can't farm. we can't drink. what do you do that? the point that the previous color made, if u.s. oil -- if we are allowed to export crude, we are produced under cleaner conditions than most countries around the world. there will be less environmental impact. fewer co2 emissions, fewer methane emissions because u.s. oil is produced at the highest standard in the world. the environmental impact of supplant some to of the other countries deductions is likely to be a

reduction and environmental impact. in addition, oil companies have to produce as cleanly as possible. there are safe regulations to ensure that they do. we have been fracking wells for dozens of years now. there are very few cases of where groundwater is contaminated. when it happens it is because of an improper well casing. the solution is to have very who standards for producers drill. but we have had very little incidents of groundwater contamination. other international and -- energy agency's point out that fossil fuels are going to be the dominant source of you'll do the global economy for at least the next 30 or 40 years. host: we want to show you the first -- front page of today's "wall street journal." 81%e oil production is up since july 2009.

tom in maryland, line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to know what you restarting andc selling it for five years. if the iranians and the saudi's come together again and restart production, drive up prices, just like they did back in the 70's. we have got to protect our sell for fine our own resources. the hell with everybody else. take care. host: thank you for the call. concerned about 1975 all over again. guest: he is making some excellent points. first although i don't think the iranians and the saudi's will be

agreeing on anything anytime soon, they are at odds on a lot of things very the fact of the matter is as long as the united states remains the largest importer of petroleum products in the world in makes no sense exportver to allow us to u.s. produced crude oil. that is just going to increase the rate at which we need to import oil from countries like the saudi's and the iranians. oning economic growth pulling natural resources out of the ground and telling them is a nigerian model of economic development. when you look at the budget crises in north dakota, texas, other oil-producing states, they are affected by the fickle nature and the volatility of oil prices. the future has to be an renewables, not because we necessarily want to save the planet, which is also important, because it makes economic sense. this is all about control over fuel supply. exxon mobil forces us to buy

fuel from them to move from point a to point b. the great thing about were noble energy is that the fuel is free. until i guess exxon mobil gets patent rights over sunshine and the wind. that is the great upside to renewable. with the battery technology that elon musk and others are developing, that is going to balance out these sources and that is a consumer revolution. twitter, rather than focusing on selling more big oil should first focus on transporting it safely, stop these train explosions and oil spills. that leads us to this story in today's "new york times." -- railroadorities agency details new rail track standards. they have stepped up their oversight of the railroad surge in theng a

transportation of crude oil by train in recent years which has also brought multiple accidents and spills. guest: just a point about that. clearly we need very good safely standards for rail transport, but one of the problems is access to land to build pipelines. studies show that oil transported by pipelines is much safer than rail transport, but because of the difficulty in may take five, 6, 7 years to get a permit to build the pipeline that has been slow. we need to accelerate the permanent -- permitting process. accelerating the permitting process means trampling on property owners constitutional rights. in the fourth amendment, due process. that allows property owners several years to make their case for-profitivate, company can seized their land and force them against their will to build a pipeline. that is unconstitutional.

anyone who talks about process to more quickly build pipelines is directly at odds with our cherished constitutional protections. let's get a call in. mary is in massachusetts, a republican. good morning. good morning. i am actually on the side of mr. slocum. i see this as just another example of industry naively foring the u.s. up short-term profit for themselves. if you talk about the nigerian countriesna and other were given rights to drill and produce oil. there is mass pollution in the nigerian delta.

in all candor to the lady, whose jobs? whose jobs are we talking about? not u.s. citizens. the vast majority of jobs being created in the united states have been going to illegal immigrants. i just don't see any profit to u.s. citizens. i will hang up and listen to the response. guest: i think the preponderance of economic studies on job jobtion shows very broad creation for small business. those jobs go to workers of all skill levels. some of them may be foreign-born, but plenty of american jobs have been created. if you want to check out the studies, who would you recommend? guest: there are studies by the small business commission that show significant impact on small business jobs. service sector jobs are created.

it is not just oil, it is not just people working on rakes. all kinds of service sector jobs, ancillary jobs. there is a spillover and multiplier effect from increased oil drilling and activity. host: middletown, pennsylvania is up next. bill is on our line for independence. caller: good morning. just a quick comment for the lady about the renewable batteries. they are here, they do work. i am from a small town outside of ashford where there is all this energy being produced but we do not get it cheap. we are not allowed to have windmills. they said they are ugly. energy,ant solar between the city regulations and inspections, they make it so difficult that you have to wait 10 years to get payback for your system. renewable energies are the key to get out of all of this. if i have atand --

business selling oil, why would i want to give it away for free? but we are not to that point where we have a choice anymore. we have to start helping people get solar and wind in small amounts, right there on their property. that is all i have to say for now. is a question about the net metering issue, if you have solar on your roof or if you are using wind energy, you still need the grid. you still have to pay for some sort of system that will generate electricity when your battery is not working because of the intermittency of solar and wind. a still are going to need system that would allow electric utilities to get a normal return on the grid. guest: renewable energy is a disruptive challenge to the embedded follow so -- embedded fossil fuel status quo.

is more costrgy effective. the city of austin just signed a 20 year power purchase agreement with a solar energy company to deliver 150 megawatts of solar cents perower at four kilowatt hour. they will be getting solar for treiber than what -- for cheaper than what: or oil or gas can provide. this is making the fossil fuel industry panic. so what they are doing is changing roles and regulations to make it tougher to compete with them, and this oil export ban is a perfect example. the oil industry wants to change a 40-year-old policy because they can sell oil for a couple thears more a barrel to chinese and set of u.s. refiners in the gulf coast are on the east coast. in carson,is washington, line for democrats.

good morning. caller: good morning. andve in the columbia gorge they have got oil trains running down here all day long. it would wipe out the columbia river. we have windmills and water and hydroelectric. water,put electricity in you make hydrogen. you can run hydrogen in a regular gas engine. you can have a switch, run on gasoline. ron hydrogen. any exhaust from hydrogen. zero carbon dioxide. batteries, everything. it is innovation. that is what this nation is built on and what the keystone pipeline -- the canadians won't let oil companies go through canada. there is another thing in national geographic in 2010

called the pipeline through paradise. the canadians would not let their own oil companies run that pipeline through british columbia and straight to china. they want to run it through texas. then another canal through nicaragua. that is not going to make the air we breathe any better. his,, he first part of talked about the concern about spills and trade actions. if the crude oil expert ban is lifted and more production happens, what does that mean for the potential for more ships on the ocean that could cause bills? the thought is that some of the american production is going to supplant production from other countries. there may be some increase in theyll ship traffic, but

are done with environmentally sound standards and there should be no increase in potential environmental threats. go to ken, beaumont, texas. line for independence. good morning. caller: good morning. this is a really good conversation. we need a real energy policy in this country. that discussion needs to take place. but as far as refining, on the gulf coast lots of the major refiners are retooling to run the likes of crude we have in this country. this is a national resource that we really need to take advantage of. ship our refined products to the rest of the world, keep the jobs here. exxon mobil is expanding a refinery in beaumont. that is an expansion -- everything is gearing up to run this crude. we really need to take a hard look at this. the jobs are here, the tax revenues and the other things that we can do. we have been over the barrel so many times.

i think somebody really needs to stop and take a hard look at what we are talking about. oil right now is without a doubt the cheapest and most economical and we need to think about what it is doing to our bottom line. thank you for a much. caller: he made some -- excellentmade some points. this is really a debate about whether we should prioritize raw material extraction or value added. we are goinghe ban to export raw crude oil coming straight from the ground to other countries where it is going to be processed. the united states has the largest refining industry in the world, and right now we are exporting 3 million barrels of refined petroleum product everything will day, because refined petroleum products are not subject to the crude oil export and. right now we are exporting 3

million barrels of gasoline that we are not using in the united states. that is creating more value added. any time you look at the dynamic nature of the u.s. economy -- is our success because we cut down trees and pullout oil and send that raw material to other countries across -- to process? or should we be using these value added industrial manufacturing here? that is always going to create more jobs and more value in the long run. host: just a minute left. is thathe actual fact we are exporting more and more that we are now in a situation of locking in wells not producing because our refineries simply can't handle the huge abundance of crude that is out there. to tell oursense oil producers that you must sell it to a refinery, you can't exporting. the highest value would be

achieved by letting markets whether crude is exported or whether refined products are exported. i'm sure both of them would continue to benefit. host: we had a viewer mentioned the keystone xl pipeline. isitically is it becoming -- it that divisive of an issue? guest: the american petroleum institute which is the lobbying arm of big oil is trying to make it that. they are trying to make it more of a moral issue than a legislative one. guest: this is a two-part issue. why should our oil producers not be allowed to sell a globally traded at commodity? of light surplus crude. it is being left in the ground and we could be making money and revenue for state and federal tax if we could be listing -- if we lifted the ban. host: chief economist of the american council for capital

>> on the next washington journal, reporters roundtable with jennifer jacobs of the des moines register and dan from the -- latest o'hanlon has the on the word against the taliban in afghanistan. and gaming and sports authority daniel wallach talks about the fantasy sports websites fan dual and draft kings. as always we will take your phone call and you can join the conversation on facebook or twitter. >> i think every first lady should do something in this position to help the things sh