tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 16, 2015 2:00am-4:01am EDT
we have one here that says every lawmaker says they support u.s. energy independence. what exporting crude oil make that take longer? >> no. in fact i think not exporting crude oil will basically kill the goose that laid the golden egg. i love this idea that if we restrict the market somehow investment will stay in this country. i mean think about that. you are a global company and you have x number of dollars and you know that if you drill in the united states of america you will not have access to the market. to emerging markets. where are you going to drill and where are you going to invest? so the notion, it is counterintuitive i get up at the notion that allowing exports
will in fact restrict their ability to be energy independent , i mean i think it's economic folly and i will tell you one of the things that i say repeatedly and we need to always remind ourselves of this, we are not alone in this business. i get criticized, not criticize but i get teased because i found the little canadians who don't take this the wrong way but if you look at north america whether its offshore mexico or the shale that could be produced in mexico now that they are going to do constitutional revisions and the ability to do work in mexico when you look at what's happening in canada when we talk about energy independence and think we have to be talking about north american energy independence because certainly as relates to north dakota and canada or a lot of what we do is all cross-border. so we believe what happened
tonight field when we sell co2 from the gasification plant literally the largest sequestration project in the country we sell co2 that's basically ejected in the wavering deal producing traditional oil. that traditional oil finds its way into the north american market. we see that with canadian oil coming down from the oil sands. i just want to clarify when i talk about energy independence i talk about north american energy independence and certainly with their great and friendly neighbors canada to the north. >> another question coming in on twitter make the point the study we have been talking about shows with the export restrictions would increase u.s. production productions of the questioner asked how would you address the air water and health impacts of this decrease drilling? >> north dakota is a place that is the second-largest oil producer in the country. also as a place where there are
no -- areas. our air is purer than any air in the country. could we do it better with methane, absolutely. could we do a better job with pretreatment and capturing -- capturing the natural gas liquids? do you bed and industry stepping up in meeting those challenges every day. we need to do better but let's remember that even though we are the second-largest oil producer in the country we have no -- area in north dakota and buy me look at, it's kind of a folklore story, i was asked early on in a liberal setting about fracking and it was interesting because everyone wanted to protect me and i stopped and they i said do you know what it is? people think fracking is new. fracking is not new. we have been fracking for years. it's new and horizontal
formation. as long as those wells are -- and i'm all about making sure we have inspectors that are making sure it's solid and we are facing a well there should be no vibration between the formation that is two miles down and our water reserves and groundwater. we certainly believe our history of regulation in north dakota, not always perfect but we are well well aware but those challenges are and continue to build out the inspectors continued to make sure those wells are protecting the groundwater that we have. a lot of people would want to, the question implies that there is a huge environmental impact as a result of domestic drilling activity. >> a very short last question for me. bill bill lacy legislation bill lacy legislation on the president's desk this year and will he sign at? >> i am hopeful the answer to
both of those questions is yes. >> addicting at? >> why not? i predict yes. they can call me hopelessly optimistic. >> senator, thank you very much. >> thank you. it's been fun. [applause] >> i just had my hip replaced and is like the first day with big girl shoes so i need a little help. >> thank you senator heitkamp. i would like to welcome the honorable ed markey. senator markey is served in the house of representatives for 37 years before he was elected to the senate in 2013. ladies and gentlemen, senator markey. [applause] >> thank you. thank you so much for inviting me to be here with you today on
this very very, very important subject. i'm kind of new to this issue. it's my 39th year on one of the energy related committees and so i go back to the beginning of time, back to the actual restrictions on me exportation of oil being exported out of our country. so with me just go down the list. people go through a few things. number one it would be bad for consumers in america. barclays has done a study which indicates that last year because we had the ban, the consumer saved $11 million. this year their study says consumers are going to save $10 billion so that's big because obviously keeping that
supply pressure on here actually helps to keep the price lower here. remember the domestic price is set in oklahoma in cushing oklahoma. the international price as is the price that the oil industry wants to get. that's always three to $6 a barrel higher. that's what they want to do, get it on the ship and get it to an international market and get that higher price internationally. to keep it here the pressure is strong to keep the price low. national security. we are still importing five million barrels of oil a day. do you hear that? we are importing, we are nowhere near energy independence at 5 million barrels of oil a day
that we are still importing. we are competing with china for the title of the largest importer but our numbers look very similar to what they looked like back in 1975. so there is kind of a premature declaration of energy independence when you are still importing that staggering amount of oil per day. oil isn't like any other commodity. it's not like exporting a watch, exporting widgets, exporting semiconductors. we don't send hundreds of thousands of young men and women overseas in order to protect the importation of semiconductors. that's what we do with oil. and from my perspective as long
as we are exporting young men and women over to the middle east in uniform in order to protect the importation of oil, that we should not be exporting oil which we have here in the united states. exports also harmed the domestic refining industry. we are seeing it whom in domestic refining capacity. we are seeing a dramatic increase in that production all of cross our own country and if in fact we start to export that oil we are going to see a dramatic closing of refining capacity here in the united states. that is something that we should not allow to happen. we are also seeing a dramatic boom in the ship welding industry in our country.
a 40% increase in ship helping. the largest increase in ship doping in over 20 years and why is that? under the jones act, when you are transporting oil within the country you have to use u.s. flagships. we are seeing a huge boom in shipbuilding and in refining capacity inside of our own country right now. why does the oil and they want to do this? well, huge profits. you get it out on the open market, you get that mobile price, then you are just heading right to the bank rate i understand that. that makes a lot of sense from the perspective of the oil industry. you hear people say well it's going to help us in our
geopolitical endeavors. it will help us to help our allies around the world. well understand our oil companies are not state-owned. we are not russia. we are not saudi arabia. we are not venezuela. our element doesn't tell the ships where to go. our fiduciary relationship between the shale owners and oil companies instruct them to send the oil towards the highest price. that's capitalism. that's our system. they hand on the tiller is rex tillerson. it's not the president of the united states. that's not our system. the price is going to be paid that is the highest is going to
be the chinese. it's going to be an asian country. that is where the oil is going and we should not kid ourselves. that anything other than that is going to happen. they are going to be thirsting for this additional resource as the years go by. and then you come down to the little issue of the environment. if the united states is going to take all of these risks in the drilling for oil than are consumers actively should be the beneficiaries of that. so we haven't solved the problems of methane coming out of fracked wells. we haven't solved all of the other related environmental issues that replace the new
technologies that are being used. we can solve them. i think we have to make a commitment to solve them but we have not solved them. so on the environmental issue we have to make sure that those risks that are being taken results in our country, our consumers, our industry getting the benefit of that lower-priced oil. so this is a big debate but understand that we are still pretty much where we were in 1975 in terms the amount of oil that we are importing. we are still importing about 1.5 million barrels a day from the persian gulf believe it or not, even today. that is not healthy for us in terms of the magnitude of the
issues that we are going to be confronted with on a daily, weekly, monthly yearly basis as we look at the big stories leading the news every single night coming out of the middle east. we don't know what's going to happen in the middle east. we should be humble, very humble we have made so many mistakes in the middle east, it's time for a little bit of humility especially when we are talking about this most precious resource, oil which runs right through most of the issues that we are dealing with today of paramount national importance but thank you all for inviting me and i'm looking forward to the conversation. thank you. [applause] >> thank you senator. i wanted to start with a topic that you touched on many
mentioned the emissions of methane from oil and national -- natural gas drilling and climate change a topic topic you have been active on for quite a long time. what signal do you think it would send internationally if the u.s. oil list or restrictions on crude oil exports at a time when we are gearing up for the paris conference on climate change and if there's an agreement struck with that cause countries to lose faith in the climate commitment of the united states? >> there's an old saying that you can't preach temperance from a barstool. you can't have a beer in your hand and tell junior that drinking is bad for you. you can't have a cigar and say that smoking is bad for you. to the extent for which this additional fracking takes place in our country which so obviously runs contrary to the consumer interest, but invokes
all of the additional environmental concerns, i think it would cause many around the world to cast an arched eyebrow, this preaching that we are doing and so especially in the same context where the solar tax breaks are dying in the wind tax breaks have argued died and there were no efforts to actually have some national standards for building construction across the country to reduce energy consumption so it looks more and more like it's just not in all-of-the-above strategy but an oil above all strategy and there doesn't appear to be any other strategy but an oil strategy and that fossil fuel strategy is of course something we are trying to tell the rest of the world is something. by the end of the 21st century we just have to have change.
>> pelot way then you mentioned the wind and solar and green energy tax provisions. if this train is somehow leaving the station do you think that you would be able to her at two perhaps be open to any agreement in which as i asked senator heitkamp the relaxation of the ban is somehow tethered to extension of the ig ptt or other provisions? >> well this is a permanent relaxation on the exportation of oil from the united states. are you talking about a permanent extension of the wind tax breaks a permanent extension of the solar tax breaks? are you talking about the oil industry not opposing the continued increase in the fuel economy standards of the vehicles which we drive because they come up for review by the way in 2017. do you know the chance of that happening?
i wish there was a negative zero but the oil industry wants to keep their tax breaks. the fossil fuel industry wants to keep their tax breaks and make sure that the other tax breaks died because ultimately those newer technologies wind and solar and the panoply of new issues is in fact what they hear the most. it stayed true competition in the marketplace so it's a wonderful theoretical discussion which you can have but in the real world that's not happening. that's why this one issue has been pulled out of the energy bill, because there can't be any plans deal that is inside the larger energy bill because there's just no way that the coal industry is going to allow for wind and solar to get those tax breaks without huge fight. the auto industry were some in
the industry will be talking about how difficult it will be technologically to continue to meet the increased fuel economy standards so having done this for such a long period of time i realized that is highly unlikely to happen. i don't think there's any scenario under which we could imagine the fossil fuel industry to support a national renewable electricity standard for the whole country. those are the kinds of concessions you would have to get and those concessions in my opinion as long as the republicans control the house and the senate are pretty much nonexistent. >> so long-term or permanent extension of renewable standards continues strong progress on fuel economy standards, how much of your caucuses with you on that if presented with a vote
how much of your caucus would set the bar where you have said that? >> i just don't think that offers coming in this beautiful discussion who would win a fight that would be a discussion for a girl to have and it's a great discussion but the offer is not going to be put on the table. it just isn't going to happen. the reason it's teased out is that they want to figure out if they can put this thing together with the minimum number of democratic votes in order to pass it. but the polling says 70% of americans do not want to export american oil, do not want to export american oil. the american public gets this. mark twain used to say that history doesn't repeat itself but it does tend to rhyme so
this might not be exact way like 1975 that when people look at the middle east right now it rhymes with 1975 in terms of the mess that exists and the role that oil plays in that region and that's why the polling is so high in opposition to it. that is i would say the main obstacle is there's no guarantee that every republican will vote to lift that ban. these numbers are going to be astoundingly high in states that do not have fossil fuel reduction. >> do you think you have the votes to fight off crude export legislation? >> well they talk weekly about adding the repeal to the defense authorization act and they retreated and i don't think they retreated because they wanted
to. i think they had to make an assessment as to whether or not they have the votes at that particular point in time. the proponents of the lifting of the ban so i think they were counting heads as well and as i was saying this is not necessarily all republicans plus a handful of democrats. don't think we are second. there aren't going to be some republicans that have to seriously consider whether or not they want to dramatically increase consumer costs for oil in our country in order to benefit the oil industry from a small number of fossil fuel producing states. that's a very difficult vote. >> that said you have got some moderate democrats and i know it's not necessarily all republicans but a lot of republicans and within the last couple of years you have seen a lot of organizations like the brookings institution and a
bipartisan policy center of the center for new american security. i guess what i'm asking is can your allies who stand the republicans plus conservative democrats? it seems like support for this is growing. are you going to be able -- how convinced are you that you can hold that lined? >> it's a tough decision. think tank nation versus the nation. the beltway groupthink or ordinary consumers being told that their gasoline prices are going up in their home heating oil prices are going up because the ban on exports has been removed and experts are saying that this could lead to profits from 15 to $30 billion a year more for the oil industry. which side do you want to be on? i will take my side.
i think it is held steady for 40 years and i think there is a strong presumption that will stay in place in the public debate, it in a real debate not a clandestine how can we stick this on to some must pass piece of legislation approach. but the straight up debate on this issue i feel very comfortable that the status quo will be retained. >> how much has the iran negotiation and the survival of the white house deal shaken up the politics of this because certainly of the proponents saying look where opening the door to iranian exports and we should reciprocate on the u.s. side. this is that argument holds sway and you think the iran deal has shaken up the politics in the debate on this? >> that's the beauty of the industry. they can argue it either way. they could argue well if there is no iran deal and iran is not
going to put their oil out on the open market and put tougher restrictions on iranians may be reducing it down from, we drop dead from 2.1 million barrels a day down to the sanctions we are going to drop if the deal died. down to 1 million barrels a day than a course people would argue as a nation that led that effort to kill the deal we should put more oil on the open market. of course that didn't happen. the deal did pass and so the iranian oil is selling on the market so then the very same people turn and they go the oil was going on the market. iran is now selling more oil on the market. is it fair we are not able to
sell on the open market? they can argued either way. the whole point is they want to go and do it and at the end of the day the pressure to keep the price low is intensifying. it's like a tax break in the pockets of consumers all across the country which they are going to need. what's going on in china is uncertain and their stock market and their economy as a whole. we should keep that economic stimulus inside of our economy generally and i think the argument fails that the iranians are selling oil and therefore we should do it because remember we are still importing 1.5 million barrels a day from persian gulf, 5 million euros and 2.5 million barrels a day from opec and it's absolutely nonsensical for us to accept such an illogical circumstance. >> you mentioned several times consumer prices. number of studies some industry
finance and some not the administration administration came out with a study in crude oil exports world they protect the bottom line is they said probably wouldn't change prices much and if it did they it would be somewhat reduced for consumers. is it a concern where gas prices are difficult for many families that they are not where they were couple of years ago and we are not in the threes. is the argument that this is a crisis going to resonate in that prices are relatively low right now? >> you don't make a decision on next year's weather by looking out the window today. so what's happening at this moment in time in terms of the price of gasoline at the pump is not a prediction of where it's going to be year from now. does anyone want to predict the condition of the middle east a year from today or five years from today?
it's just beyond the capacity of residents of the united states understand. let's just be humble. again that study runs contrary to barclays center runs contrary to the refining industry studies and other studies. they say will lead to a dramatic increase in the price of energy for americans if we lift the ban and again if the oil and gas industry cared so much about the price to consumers the energy information agency has authority concluded that if only half of the lng facilities in america are constructed in export to their capacity is going to result in a 50% increase in natural gas here in the united states and the industry says
don't worry about that. that's just a free-market at work. so a lot of crocodile tears. you can see should but believe me at the end of the day the bottom line is that would lead to the bottom line. that is what the oil and gas industry is all about and i respect him for that. they do a good job of making their case but you can't get around the negative impact on consumers. it runs contrary to the common sense that we export and somehow or other a pricier goes down. it's just economics 101 turned on its head. >> even the difficulty of predicting oil markets the legendary difficulty of predicting oil markets a lot of people get it wrong a lot of the time in the oil and gas industry they get it wrong and everybody gets it wrong. even the chairman of the energy companies testifying in 1978 that we were running out of
natural gas. they got it wrong. 10 years later that was the industry experts. there's where the ceos of the companies so again predicting these long-term are just very very pacifist. >> you mentioned that this issue have been splintered off from the larger energy bill that will move to the senate energy committee. and they export bill it says the presumption is that exports continue into the future but there is a provision that says if they are certain market conditions and economic harm than restrictions could be reimposed by the administration. why not have the circumstance in which that type of language is stronger that there be some type of snapback. in other words allow exports but if some of the concerns are mentioning do indeed come to pass those restrictions come back into play. >> so than in 2018 i assume
president trump is going to slap back on the restrictions. i can appreciate that and there may be many in this room that would leave that would be a good place to propose the confidence that in fact there would be a reimposition. but i am not of that school of thought. i want myself to retain the authority and again there is sufficient discretion that any president would have including president trump to do oil swaps. they are doing it with mexico right now to do certain limited things if necessary but to do more than that i think would be a big mistake. >> i'm glad you brought that up because the obama mr. smith taken some steps and the commerce department -- departments allowing this light form of crude. are you okay with that?
do you see this as the administration opening the door to wider exports and you think the way they handled this is appropriate? >> the department of commerce, i've told the secretary in very strong terms, i don't think that it was a good decision. the swaps with mexico don't have a problem with that. i think that's within the ordinary management of the oil supply which we have and it's done at very modest levels but when you are talking exportation of condensate and a million barrels a day i do have a big problem with that. that's just finding a loophole that was never meant to exist. >> you have been predicting and i do don't want to put words in your mouth but you are talking about some of the challenges in passing it what signals are you getting from the white house about whether or not the president would sign it? >> we are at an early stage of
this. i think it would be premature for me to make a statement on it but i do believe ultimately that the impact on consumers on refiners and shipbuilding on our economy in general would be strong enough in order to result in the recommendation of a deal but i cannot say that with any foreknowledge. >> you know senator schumer of course, to what extent have you gotten a read for him on where he stands? perhaps i just missed it but i don't know where chuck schumer stands on exports. >> i don't want to talk about individual senators because there are a number of things you could ask me about but let me just say i have full confidence in the ability of consumers to
elicit an enthusiastic response and the protection of their ability not to have a dramatic increase in the price of gasoline at the pump. it's pretty much the only price by the way. no one knows what they pay for bread or milk anymore. 2% milk or whole milk or whatever but the prize eludes them. the only price they know is the price of gasoline is staring for two minutes. so to the extent to which the price of oil is going to go up i think it will elicit and it significant response. >> you have had in the senate working with a couple of different ad hoc caucuses on climate change. i know how much of the discussion among the task force and senators is there about this in particular?
>> so that is the context in which we debate all of these issues. because there is still a substantial percentage that does not believe that the warming of the planet is substantially related to human activity. and that is the part of this whole discussion that we could go on for another half an hour.
>> you know, the will is intimate. but the execution is confined. so my will is to go. my ability to execute on this is dependent upon the schedule on mitch mcconnell set on the senate floor. and so for that i have no knowledge of the meantime. but assuming that the time is there. >> one of the questions that came in on social media makes a point that you cited some of this and i mentioned the study. how is the consumer giving the number of dueling analyses, saying that this will not force prices up at the pump, but there are studies showing the opposite. how would you recommend this and how does someone beside this
information what would you recommend 2. >> you have to read them both and then decide which you think is more accurate. we are not on who wants to be a millionaire. and then you reach a point where you can ask the audience and the audience is almost invariably right and so there is a point in time where we haven't reached that yet and this is still kind of an insider's discussion. but when you present both of these arguments to the public at the right time, whenever that is, that will be decided when it's framed and they are talking
about which side intuitively they are talking about. so i think that the numbers that they have on what the impact is is going to be the increase. and that is the way that ordinary consumers will be voting and then they will be reflecting that with any poll that is taking place. and so they will have to bring back then as well. >> the leadership is deciding to put that out there, certainly opponents have any number of different channels, and also advocates have environmental root and consumer groups. has this been a big enough priority for the opponents because certainly they are working on a litany of topics.
exporting corn or wheat. that wouldn't be happening. it's not like a widget. it's not like something else. and it's only going to intensify as these stories dominate the top of the news every single night. these are refugees fleeing the middle east which is where the discretionary barrel of oil is still located. and so don't think for a second that that is not being burned deeply into the soul of voters. >> well, senator, i want to thank you very much for being here. >> thank you. it's my honor to be here with you. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. it's now my pleasure to
introduce john hogan who is a member of the natural resources committee who served as north dakota's my second senator since 2011. please welcome senator john hogan. [applause] >> the morning. i want to thank the api and national journal posting. it's great to be here in this wonderful venue. a horse the discussion today is what is the impact of the oil exporter. and quite simply the impact is that it prevents our domestic energy industry from competing on a level playing field. it is that simple. our energy industry is penalized
and is in the global marketplace. when we talk about lifting the ban, we are talking about creating a level playing field so that american energy companies can compete on a fair basis on the world stage. so i want to start off and take a few minutes and talk about why that is beneficial to your country. beneficial to our economy and job creation and beneficial in terms of our national security. and it isn't just this, this is information that i'm providing from studies that have been done by the department of energy and its energy information by the nonpartisan bookings institute by columbia university and others that have studied the oil export ban.
and so how does this affect families and small businesses? across our entire country. if you think about it, what effects the price of gasoline at the pump. and it drives the price in gasoline and it's set by the price of crude. so that is the international benchmark. what goes up it tends to drive gasoline prices up. but in our country, the benchmark that we follow, at a lower price it is five to eight with sometimes $10 lowered than crude. so you might think, how does
that benefit consumers? the way that it benefits consumers is that gasoline price follows this. so when there is more supply locally that puts downward pressure on gasoline prices. so that helps bring down the overall parts. and when we empower our industry to grow and expand and produce supplies, that helps to bring down prices as well. prices globally, prices for gas at the pump, that benefits consumers and small businesses across this country. so studies that have been done by the entities showed that on a long-term secular basis gasoline prices are lower because we are
part of the global supply and we produce more supply globally. so it benefits consumers. so let's talk about the economy. it's pretty obvious, isn't it? we have a thriving industry and we are producing more oil and gas in the country, that leads to more good paying jobs of all kinds. everything out there to the petroleum engineers and those across the board. more good paying jobs and economic growth for our country. and we have seen that is where production continues to expand largely due to states like north dakota including pennsylvania and ohio. in other parts of our country.
to put this in commonsense terms. let's say that you have the first-order produces a product and a second store the produces the product, store b, but store b always gets five to eight or $10 more for the very same product versus a. so they always get a $10 more. which story is going to grow and prosper and which will stay in business and which will go out of business? simple stuff. the fundamental economics. our industry will grow and prosper. and energy is a foundational industry.
we have to make our allies stronger and we need to reduce the strength, the geopolitical strength and economic mentality of our adversaries. and so that is why we need to talk about a lot of things. and it looks like iran's productions coming back on the market and both sanctions have had a biting effect. and right now they are down to about 1.1 barrels of oil. but that looks like it may be coming back on the market.
and that makes it imperative. one final point that i will make before i wrap this is that has to be paired with something. some other kind of energy measure. and if it's a clear benefit to job creation, what are we just do it and why don't we do it now. i believe that we should and that the time has come and we need to act. >> thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you, senator. i have been asking today about the prospect of political ramifications. well, do you think that that is
going to be a political necessity. >> there may be things that we can pair wed. but the first thought is one that i just finished. if it is clear, let's do it. the other point i would make is the process is not always a direct addition process. if you pair it with something or add something else, you may potentially lose more votes than you gain. i think that you get every single vote and that's 54 votes. that means that we have to pick up about seven because you have to have a little extra there. and so keep in mind if you start adding things that drop off more
votes that are added, you have to be careful when you talk about that. in the transactional aspect. >> how many votes do you think you have right now. you mentioned this. how many democrats do think that you are. >> the reality depends on the vehicle. in other words, it is more likely that it will be attached to someone else. so it will depend on what that underlining vehicle is. in some cases the subsets are overlapping and the people that are for it are also favorably not shutting votes. and on the flipside the votes would otherwise say i'm for it or not winterville port on for bonneville, i don't think that that works. and i think that there are some
that lineup pretty well. and there are more than seven democrat and that is why put it in those terms. >> look at some of those vehicles be? >> and reauthorization of the law, the way we handle chemicals, particularly hazardous chemicals, to make sure that they are handled with the transparency, it's something that is going to need to happen. i think that it is well structured and it comes out of the committee and i think it would be a very good fit. and i have been and continue to push forth with dealing with that underlying legislation. >> have you had any active -- on
the possibility? >> i have been pushing hard because it's something that we need to get this year. >> we have several individuals on very different bills. and for one reason or another decided not to bring them forward. >> it's something that we want to bring up. it's important so we are able to pass it. the thought that is if we don't bring it up that we could have people vote no that would otherwise say yes and then when we do it might be harder for them to support because they
have already voted against it. i've been very involved make sure that we keep it in that framework so that we get a result. >> what about the ability to steer this through congress 2. >> why do you think the price is down? people have to understand what is going on because i think it drives the policy argument. many are very concerned about losing the market share. saudi arabia has been willing to be the buffer absorbing the impact of moral oil coming on the market. this time they are concerned about continuing to maintain this and so with all of this
coming from the geopolitical event we have been pushing a tremendous amount of oil onto the market that is bringing prices down. so what happens when they quit doing that. what happens when they reassert their market strength and control. and does that sound familiar? doesn't sound like they are repeating themselves? and that is what we are talking about. let's take a look around. or do we want to repeat the same pattern of the past. countries like russia and venezuela, that is the point i am making. the american people have said
let's make the right policy changes. >> allowing them provided muscle boosters under this missile? >> exactly come it's about making sure that we sustain and grow our industry. at the end of the day all we are talking about is taking sure that our industry gets a level playing field and isn't that what america is all about 2. >> particularly when it is part of security. you know, look at some of these realities and let's make sure that we are not repeating the pattern to the past.
>> he doesn't get to make the decisions on it. but they say i have asked the other senators this as well. we have had some on mexico. is that a sign or is it a sign that they are willing to take small steps for restrictions? >> the signals pass this legislation. and they say why wouldn't we want is to grow and prosper in the united states. this industry has grown in so
what is this, i guess i would ask what is the problem. this is an industry that has been doing very well so how is this policy step to prevent the industry i'm having a much rougher time? >> that's a great question and i appreciate your asking and that is why we have given you the analogy. as any two types of businesses, just think for a minute that if one business does this, the first is going to succeed. think about that in terms of oil production where they have that.
so it's the simplest thing we want to make sure that those types of countries continue to have an advantage so they will continue to produce oil and gas and we will not and that is the underlying economic theology that we face. why is it happening now? because the other competitors are taking the energy markets over. and so why would we say yes, we would like you to have a 10-dollar advantage for producing energy in your country versus those that we would say yes, we will want to continue to depend on you other than getting energy here at home. why would we do that? why would we want to continue
that. we do not, it doesn't make any sense. but of course they are trying to strengthen themselves. >> wanting you have worked on it is what we have by rail and given the accident that we have had and that's already part of the situation that the and made worse. >> we also have to have the right energy infrastructure and we have to remember that we compete in the global market. so someone wants to take one type of energy versus the other
and ignore the global market forces, they are set by pricing and the consumers and what they want to buy and at what price. and we have to have the competitive industries to grow. so we have to consume this is safely and cost-effectively as possible and that means that you need the right mix of pipelines and we need transmission. you have to build the energy infrastructure and that is part of the plan that makes us secure. >> taking steps, do you think that those steps are sufficient to handle this production.
one of the signals are getting, what you hearing on timing come out come, and when we see another capitol hill legislative effort? >> the next thing to watch for is october 19. the president would have turned it down already, but it got embroiled the prime minister election in canada which i believe is october 19. for that reason the administration did not want to get caught up and has held off on a decision. i would expect it's very likely who we will see the administration turned down keystone, although we are in year seven of delay, strategy of feet through delay, but will see. remember, 62 votes this past
with the support of the american people. in the long term i think that means we will get it. >> i wanted to move on to the questions were getting from social media and for folks out there, you can submit a question on twitter let's see what we've got. here is one. with a possible shutdown, could the gop basically make the decision to move away from the emphasis on defunding planned parenthood and instead somehow trying to attach export legislation to funding legislation? >> look, i think we should defund planned parenthood, not only approve keystone but build the necessary energy infrastructure to make this country energy secure.
why does it always have to be this or that? let's do the things that help our country move ahead and prosper and get consistent in terms of making sure that government is funded and meet the challenges that the american people want. i don't look at it as an either/or. expect the best case we can, have the debate, but the measures on the floor, and let's hope. >> looming fiscal deadlines weighing heavily on a lot of minds. where are the discussions in terms of advancing the priorities while avoiding a shutdown? how we will the democrats thread the needle? >> i'm a member of the appropriations committee. they passed all 12 appropriations bills through our committee, most with big
bipartisan majorities. let's get them on the floor, vote on them, not have filibusters command people can offer their amendments. we will see how it turns out he put the measure on the floor. >> dimension of costco is interesting. kind of a bedrock environmental statute. that is a difficult thing to get through the congress. what are other vehicles we could see? >> almost any energy measure now realistically is going to have to have it. i don't know how you move any kind of energy bill without adding it. also obviously infrastructure and other commerce measures. momentum is building. you see what's going on in the house.
and i think that we do have the votes in the senate, and it is time to vote. >> i think we will make that the last word. thank you for being here. [applause] >> thank you, senator. appreciate you monitoring today. also all of you in the audience for being with us and thank you to jack gerard and api
>> our guest today is interior secretary sally jewell, her 1st visit with our group. we appreciate very much for making time in her schedule for this. i guess was born in london and grew up in washington state and earned a degree in mechanical engineering from the university of washington. she and her husband started their career at mobil oil in the oklahoma oil and gas fields and then moved to commercial banking joining the board of rei and 96 and became chief operating officer and 2,000 and was named ceo in 2005. during her tenure rei tripled in size, the 51st interior secretary in april 2013, and thus ends the biographical portion of the program. as always, we are on the record.
please know live blogging or tweeting, no filing of any time. the session will end promptly at 10:00 o'clock. we will e-mail several pictures of the session to all of the reporters here as soon as the breakfast inns. if you would like to ask a question please do athe traditional thing and send me a subtle, nonthreatening signal and i will happily call want to no. we start off by offering our guests the opportunity to make opening comments. >> thank you. it's great to be here and nice to see familiar faces. i'm going to keep my remarks and formal and hopefully short so that we can get to what you would like to talk about. today is september 15,
slightly more than two weeks away from the end of the fiscal year, september 30, 2015, which has, which has made for the department of interior and government in a number of different capacities. let me walk through why september 15 in 2 weeks away from september 30 is so important. first, we inherited a number of pending lawsuits around the endangered species act when the obama administration took office. a number of species had been petitioned for listing, and essentially very little work it been done. my predecessors entered into a settlement which put a date certain on when the fish and wildlife service would determine whether the
decision was warranted. a number of those deadlines that have been coming up over the course of time and one of the major ones coming up on september 30 is for an honorable so that is the one reason we are 15 days away from an important milestone in our history,, and not talk a little bit about that to begin with. i want to pause and say another species that was a candidate was the new england cottontail rabbit. i was in new hampshire to announce alongside senator jeanne shaheen the fish and wildlife service determined a listing of that species was not warranted because of collaboration of all the new england states. it is endangered on some state registers, and they have been working collectively to reclaim
habitats are critical for that. the event took place on the land of rick and donna ambroise. he is in the construction business. he said he knew nothing about the new england cottontail the learned about habitats which means with a canopy opened up, shorter trees, crabapples, and low-lying ground brush. thatthat is the kind of habitat the rabbit needs to thrive. i spoke with him. on his property for this event. another landowner clear-cut and planted some of this, and it is those kind of actions that have saved this
particular species from extinction. the new england cottontail is a species that is an indicator the help. what rick ambrose told me was he has never seen so many birds so that is a preview of the epic collaboration happening across 11 western states. 60 million acres of habitat on public land alone. about 165 million acres that has been without away and threatened by a variety of different sources the course of many decades. on or before september 30 15 days away the fish and
wildlife service will make a determination. i will say that the effort that has happened across these 11 western11 western states, seven core states in particular, the effort on the part of states, private land up to five landowners, nonprofit organizations, energy companies, developers, transmission companies has been incredible.incredible. i will remain optimistic and hopeful we can have a similar outcome. we are all waiting for their determination. second, i want to talk about to legislation that has lasted the test of time, the brilliant piece of legislation, land and water conservation fund that was put in place by a visionary congress almost unanimously, the 88th congress in 1964
that said, as we open up the outer continental shelf waters that are owned by all-americans, let's take a small amount of revenue of to 900 million year, no escalator, and use that in a a broad sense to offset the impact by investing it in public land and waters onshore. the program has invested in states and public lands across every single state in nearly every single county, something like 99 percent of the counties, 42,000 different projects, things that people care about in every community, and i have been to many including a community with senator shaheen in new hampshire which is doing a connector on the greenway project. they have connectors and small pocket parks, the
national wildlife fresh -- refuge, all of which are beneficiaries of the program the fifty-year authorization expires 15 days from now. i want to acknowledge that the senate energy and natural resources committee under the leadership of senators murkowski and well added a permanent reauthorization to a bill, an energy bill that passed their committee that has not had action on the senate floor. the president's budget has called for full mandatory funding. it was a much higher proportion as you might imagine in 1964 then today command get that number has not,. congress is only appropriated about half of that. that is the 2nd reason why we're 15 days away from an
important decision and are urging congress at every level. this is bipartisan. the senator burr and i have been hiking together on the appalachian trail where the trail could have houses right up to the edge of it on the connector piece between an existing state park. so using that as an example and backdrop, very powerful statement in favor. that was quite a while ago, and no action has been taken also 15 days away from her budget running out. very, very frustrating. my 1st year was sick restriction implementation, and immediately following that was the government shut
down. i cannot tell you how ridiculous it is to try and run organization the 70,000 people who are committed to their mission which is of great importance to the american people to have to work with them on shutdown planning right now because congress has not acted on the budget. very, very frustrating. obviously we are hopeful that the shutdown will not happen which would be consistent with a pretty much everyone on i-uppercase-letter was feeling. but it is frustrating to not have any certainty at all about whether the program you have a place willin place will continue in the people you have a dedicated to this work every level will be able to do the investments they know are necessary to fulfill the mission the american people have given them. that is another reason it is frustrating. mi over? i am way way over. i said i would be short. one of the critical parts of the president's budget is
the national park centennial. >> let me pick up on that. let me ask you about the national park. i was at an event, national park director talking about staggering figures. a four-year backlog. in 2014 they're were 292. what do you no so far? how bad is the backlog? >> it's bad. the park service alone is in excess of $11 billion. half of that is in road infrastructure. the highway bill and the ability to fund our roads often times coming from the transportation package is important. the other half is in the infrastructure, the historic structure, the facilities the people rely on.
as we approach the centennial we will have people around the world. i have had conversations with director jarvis with the kind of experience people will have because we have not made the investment in the people with facilities needed to put our best foot forward. >> i want to ask you about fires. the national interagency fire center. givegive us an update on what you have learned from the fires? the ones currently raging and others is year, how does it affect your department's budget? i no you talked about wanting to ask congress to change how they fund firefighting. >> very obvious right now to everyone watching the news that fire is capricious.
you have bad fire years, ones that are more benign, and you cannot put in place aa budget that effectively anticipates what kind of year will be. there has been more than just talk, bills on the floor. every year i have been here the president's budget has had a fire fixed. let's budget coming year in year out a level of fire suppression. we calculate that by looking at our historical records saying that 1 percent of the most catastrophic fires absorb about 30 percent of the budget. let's take that and call it the disaster that it is. what you see happening, and i was just there on the fire line on the indian
reservation which is losing a massive amount of future income in timber has gone up in smoke. let's take that 1 percent and call them disasters that they are and put them on the just -- put them under the disaster where hurricanes are funded and earthquakes are funded and tomatoes are funded, that is the disaster fund that has been authorized where the country goes we have a catastrophe. back one of the making of hurricane sandy, but of the year in year out kind of unpredictable disasters that happen like wildfires. take that out, budget 70 percent of our ten year average of suppression and year in year out some years it will be fine, but we will
gogo to the disaster as opposed to what we are doing now which is going to the barges reduce the risk of fire, the budgets that too burned area rehabilitation rain events, flooding, damage of infrastructure. that will happen if we had stabilizing hillsides and the topsoil and self is allowed to run downhill. right now we are taking money out of fire suppression -- excuse me, fire prevention, burned area rehabilitation come out of the kind of programs that enable us to replant native habitats, going to suppression, and while the department of interior is a major player, the for services bigger. fires a 52 percent of the entire budget. the 1st year ever have
gone over that mark. they are dipping heavily into the fire prevention account this year as we speak. taking collectively is crazy the way we fund. senator wyden, congressman simpson, schrader have companion bills if they are not enough to inspire action, i don't know what is [inaudible] >> later this morning, the development of public land,
a lot of pushback on arctic drilling. basically putting out there is a conflict within the administration. where would you say the administration is in terms of balancing the climate concerns and how do you see that fitting under your tenure? >> i will say that we are a nation that continues to be dependent upon fossil fuel. the president's climate action plan has said clearly we need to move to a lower carbon future, and i am proud to work for president that has been is direct and forceful in his michigan as president barack obama. his climate action plan speech in june of 2013 was a very clear call to action for all of the agencies to do the things within our power without congress
acting to reduce our carbon footprint in this country, and there were a way to doing that pretty dramatic goals. we continue to raise the bar. that is an issue of reducing demand and providing other sources of energy to continue to power our economy, but right now we're sitting under lights most likely powered by coal. maybe some of you walk here, but most of you burned fossil fuels to get here. there are millions of jobs around the country that are dependent upon these and to have industries, and industries, and you cannot cut it off overnight and expects to have an economy that is a leader in the world. i take my job seriously, which is thoughtful development, safe and responsible development,,
thoughtful regulations that need to be updated in some cases from some that are 30 and 40 years old, but i think that it is oversimplified to suggest that one can simply cut off leasing or drilling on public land and solve the issue of climate change. we all have the responsibility to act,, and there are things that we are doing and will continue to do to reduce the carbon footprint and put incentives in place for all of us to do a better job at how we use carbon than we have in the past. >> the coal leasing program sessions going on, what are you thinking in terms of what interior can do? is it reducing the overall amount, charging higher fees? >> well, there are multiple
issues of play with regard to: this country. we had our own inspector general report and one from the government accountability office that suggested the taxpayers were not getting a fair return on the coal being released from federal public land. we have an evaluation underway right now with the office of natural resource revenues take a look at that make sure that royalties are being paid on arm's-length transactions rather than non- arm's-length transactions. there are many communities dependent on coal, and there are -- like this one, for example, in terms of power generation. there are also impacts, the impact of mining the impact of using carbon that we
believe need to be highlighted and understood. thethe sessions we have had around the country get it just that, bringing stakeholders to the table. many of themany of the listening sessions have been in coal countries were people's jobs are affected, and we have heard a variety of different opinions. i think it is important that we listen. we know that coal is a significant carbon emitter within this country. a new power plan rules promulgated by epa are an effort to work with states to reduce this carbon emissions. ..
there has been talk about a cost on carbon that is on something administration can do but i have spoken with a number of energy companies that don't think that is a bad idea either. so right now we are working with the hand that we were dealt but it would be helpful to have the hands with congress to get to raise the point that people agree to the right behavior's to reduce the pollution we are experiencing right now. >> the interior secretary could extend the artistically sister tenures and what you think about that and when it comes to arctic drilling doesn't have the discretion that it
can throw all year round our job is to make sure whatever is done with abundant safety precautions where people can be reassured the impact of those activities so we will pay close attention and to the five-year plan to working on the appropriate course of action. >> with offshore leasing that is relatively limited interest for our though oil prices and the gas prices
dampening from the offshore industry for more offshore production? >> given the results from the gulf of mexico that is a reasonable conclusion. you have will companies that have experienced significant drop soon their revenue and as a business person in the industry you look dash how much money you have available and where to spend resources and when that drops to a substantial amount you are pickier about those investments and i suspect that is what has happened in vice suspect that will influence the be received that people are interested in pursuing versus those who are not interested as oil prices sank gas prices have a significant impact.
>> finigan it is unwarranted could that win congressional support? and what about cecil the lion? [laughter] >> the decision rests with fish and borrow less service everyman optimistic and not warranted this thing is possible but in terms of that decision i will say that there have been bills working their way through congress to deal with the critters space to relieve the sage grouse but what has
happened in this collaborative work is the way the endangered species act should work to recognize it is about habitat and if we work together to collaborate we can find common ground to protect these landscapes that the hunters and the fishermen in georgia as well as having a tough full development whether human expansion with the transmission lines or all of the above but i do believe there will be support for a the blm and fish and wildlife service if we're able to get a budget out of congress. the discussions that took place on all sides of the aisle that with
60 million acres on public land with a limited budget we have to do the job but in invasive species from asia is a grass that will take off after a fire and basically repopulate the amateur landscape and exacerbate the fire cycle to replace that requires a lot of working and native seeds and plantings. that elected officials and i believe we will have the support that we need if we
get the budget passed. is a very complicated issue. but the fish and wildlife service has approved of the trophies. i don't know specifically of the rhinoceros are the elephants because it isn't a country that has demonstrated the funding a hunter may use to invest or that they will go to conservation. and then to have a demonstrated track record of investing in conservation and. emotional and difficult issue to think the incident
around the famous line and raise everybody's avernus with the species of wildlife trafficking has been our primary area of focus, how do we reduce the illegal trade of approached species projector the with african elephants or other species that are in trouble because of trafficking issues and that is refocus our attention than there is a silver lining to the situation actually it has raised awareness because there is a platform to make the case. >> salt lake tribune. >> there is no national monuments named in the state of utah.
will the president act if it doesn't have been? is there any agreement with the states to keep the parks open if there is the government shutdown that they acted is there anything in place to keep them open? >> if you are not aware if very comprehensive effort going on with jason she fits with spectacular landscapes we have a lot of people that are promoted in the landscapes to be preserved and i have heard from a number of tribal communities who don't often times the
agree on things or they are united to agree there is land and what to do protectants some ways. i haven't seen that in any detail but a very small map so i appreciate the fact they work very closely with local communities also with tribal communities. there is an effort on their part to push it through and that is what we're working with them on at this point. i will not suggest there is a plan if it doesn't work if we need to react and we look forward to seeing that at their earliest convenience.
but in the southern part of your state there are cultural resources that have little or no protection. >> if there is a government shutdown is there anything in place? >> we hope that there is no shutdown. that is the basis on which we're operating we do have to planning and unfortunately we're getting good at that i have not put in place anything that addresses that other they and two years ago i did work with a number of governors to recognized that natural parks and public lands were critical to their economy and should there be another shot down that situation will not change. we had 15 buddying saugh -- weddings and had to be
canceled and another in shenandoah park and this is what governors are called about. but they'll see the hidden catastrophe to lose one year's worth of scientific data because there is the three week gap. they've is the ability to make sure satellite data is well interpreted for things that people rely on so there are many things there is not as visible and i would say it is very important that congress don't go down that path again if they do the national parks are visible but there's so much more that is not visible that they need to pay attention to that i hope we don't go there again.
>>. >> we have blm trying to come up with the rule for public lands will the present people to take a new agreement when he goes? >> we will not have a final rule by december. no way. we're working hard on releasing rules. >> have we actually put the draft and yet? finigan should be going over soon. >> that process of rulemaking is cumbersome not to be without employ it or thought but our team is finalizing a rule they will
review that there is a public comment period and once then we can do a final rule so definitely not between now and then but it is crazy to vent natural gas into the atmosphere when it is a fuel that can produce elect to a city with a much lower curve bin footprint than other sources like coal. is economical for companies to vent that particular the flaring that is burning in at the wellhead because the target is oil. that is not okay. maybe it for emergency situations from a pressure standpoint but there is no
reason we should not look at capturing that valuable public resource to get a royalty to use that in a more constructive way than to blow with up in the atmosphere or burning it. that is what we will address. the epa is also addressing the performance standards for new venting and flaring. we are working of those search transparent process but that will not be felt -- finalize. >> you mentioned some of anniversaries this year. vetting weeks ago you intervene to to order that mount mckinley be renamed to that was celebrated by the alaskan groups but also another controversy one is
in south dakota many indian groups find it offensive because live was named after general foods slaughtered a lot of men and women and children and your predecessor had in order that the blanket to renaming of any feature named for any edward epithet so under what circumstances would you consider using that power for other features to be redeemed? >> i didn't realize i had the ability with the case of denali to make that change. as the climber and northwesterners i have always called the mountain denali as most people do from that region.
the alaska state legislature 1975 under the leadership of their governor passed overwhelmingly that the name to be changed to denali. after that time the park service change the name to denali part can preserve but there was legislation filed by members of the ohio delegation at that time to continue the name mount mckinley and there is a provision that says it there is existing legislation they will not act until a reasonable period of time has passed at which i'd the secretary of interior may act.
i consider 40 years to be unreasonable period of time every year the ohio delegation has the legislation now there parietal think it has been heard or for jedi and it is just out there and the board had not acted but i could act after a reasonable period of time for girl bin not aware of any other circumstances where there is legislative support from a state and a counter proposal as was the case in the mckinley / denali situation to a trigger the secretary to step up to say we should look get it changed. i think the board of geographic names would welcome import from local communities and local officials from what they believe the sites in their states should be named in would be taken under consideration but none of
those have them brought to my attention. those that would trigger action and those under the names that was specifically very obvious. >> with the water district and irrigation and drainage ditches very controversial critic scalded a sweetheart deal. had you been involved in this case and how to respond to those you say is a sweetheart deal? >> secretary mike connor was at the bureau of reclamation and inexpert and knows the situation inside and out so i really have deferred to him but i will say we have a
water catastrophe in california and this morning the "washington post" said they haven't seen grade and 500 years based on the tree ring records based on the treaty jiang going west. we have a lot of difficult circumstances between agricultural users and bader contractors and those you want to see the appropriate flow for the ongoing environmental test whether it's the reverse that depend on them i am not familiar with the rest of the situation but i do know we are being very thoughtful to strike a reasonable pathway to recognize that water rights to pythia the purview
of the state's and our role is as a provider of water to live with their interest on a reasonable path forward. >> as you know, a judge and wyoming will rule about locking the it but let me start with the last question and is the judge is in wyoming i've believed it had given all the three chanel said judges are assessing that. restated the rules going into effect while legal action is pending.
the deal the rules are over 30 years old. i started my career in real and gas and i a understand the process. the rules they currently have the plays were in place when i was in into the area and -- in engineering. i of 59 years old of what has happened the regulations have not kept pace we have directional drilling. which we did not have to any significant degree so you could go over to cleave the enteral horizontal a you have far more fluid than was ever used back in the days with a different mix of chemicals that the fault of retirees to the process
somewhat to modernize their regulation you had seen a lot of controversy around fracking but let day expect of their regulator whether the federal or state government is that whenever practices are done in their communities are on their lands are in their states is not going to damage their health gore and firemen. that is what the american people expect of their regulators so ultimately i am confident our rules that our common sense based on science that take into account or whether there is challenges one in wyoming maybe in another state but i will also say that we have
provisions in rubles that our more stringent than ours. looking at baseline minimum standards in the state has more stringent rules they will apply. they have a process that is true in a wyoming strong beer then we put in place we hope to work in a constructive way to reassure that the activities are safe bet the 40 year-old rules with modern practices does not make sense and we hope that will be heard a thoughtfully by the jobs and others. >> the ap rand and in