tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN January 15, 2015 5:00pm-7:01pm EST
the issues that were clearly put on the table with the ukraine situation, looking at in particular european energy security. but the first point to make is when we say it is european energy security we really mean it is the collective energy security of allies and friends. so even if we have -- if some of us may be tempted to have a complacent view of energy security in the united states because of our production, the fact is we have a serious interest in the broader energy security issue with our allies and friends. it has huge geopolitical implications for us and so that is a discussion that we are very, very deep into. part of it was first of all presenting an updated view of energy security. it is not just about diversity of oil supply or natural gas
supply. it involves many issues including market structures. and we could go on and on. substitution possibilities, etc. but -- but what we tackled so far were the difficult issues of things like helping ukraine face the winter, etc. this year -- and that will continue. but this year frankly a harder issue. we are due to report onto the g-7 leader summit. and that is a real intermediate to long-term plan for integrated collective energy security. and that gets into some very fundamental policy issues in different countries. but that will be a big agenda item for this year. finally let me say a few words
on the quadrennial energy review. i have to say a few words about it first. some of you are familiar and some are not. this is an admission-wide effort that is looking to weave together all of the equities and threads of an energy policy across the government. the first of the quadrennial. it to us it's one plus one plus one plus one. and in the first one, we are focussing on energy structure. transmission storage and usage of energy. that is already a pretty big bite to be honest but at least somewhat restricted. the department of energy through the energy systems and analysis
officechy referred office, which i referred to melanie earlier is really the head of this effort. it is a major effort. let me say a few of the things. we are looking to february as the time for getting out this first installment. it will have a lot of information about the situation of energy infrastructure in our country. and also in the north american context. but it will also move on to make recommendations. about what are some of the issues that we have to address. i'm not going to go into this in great detail but let me tell you about four areas that will be very much part of the agenda. in the qer and for implementing in the rest of 2015 and beyond. one is first of all -- you might say narrowly.
but our petroleum reserve really needs modernization. certainly in a variety of physical elements. and partly because of the changed production profile in the united states. the different geography of producing oil and gas has led to a number of distribution issues that we partially uncovered by doing a test sale from the petroleum reserve earlier this year. we will be laying out the program that one needs to address the petroleum reserve and the distributional capabilities of the petroleum reserve. another big area will be the smart grid. by which i just mean in general the electricity delivery system, and particularly its integration with information technology etc. obviously many reasons to drive that. for example, large scale remote
renewables integration into our system. but then again on the other side of the t&d system, distributed integration capabilities and how we manage all these in a reliable resilient robust system is clearly a major focus. we'll have recommendations there. another is related to the adaptation question that i skipped over on the climate action plan. again, resilience recovery and safety of energy infrastructure. a lot of that will involve states working -- government states and private sector. and we will be, again, moving that forward. it also means addressing the infrastructure problems pointed out in the integrations methane strategy. the methane emission as a
climate challenge but also on the distribution side as safety challenge. because we have seen unfortunately some of the problems there with literally 100-year-old pipe in some of our cities and major challenges. so we will be making some registration recommendations there. and finally -- and i'll end -- is in doing this quadrennial energy review what has come into much sharper focus, for us at least, is the question of not just the energy infrastructure per se, the pipes and wires that move electricity or fuels, but also what we might term "the shared infrastructures," the infrastructures that move many many commodities including energy. the poster child of course of that in the press now for quite a while has been railroads and the enormous increase in moving oil by rail.
but again, i'm sure many in this room are quite aware of the enormous congestion in moving a whole variety of commodities. right now we have issues of coal in the upper midwest. because of railroad congestion. so that is one big example. and also a case where we have data issues. inadequate data, frankly, for understanding these flows and what they mean for policy makers. but i have to admit, i've learned a lot about other shared infrastructures. and i'll just mention one other one -- inland waterways. in terrible shape and enormously important in moving lots of commodities. we'll also be recommending a variety of approaches to address these shared infrastructures
which are important for energy but important for how our whole economy works coming together. so that gives you hopefully a flavor. these are some of the big ticket items that we will have in the energy and climate realm for 2015. thank you. [ applause ] >> well thank you very much mr. secretary. that is an outstanding presentation. and even though it is 12:00 noon, i think if we should if it's already with you spend five or. >> ten. >> ten minutes maximum. >> fifteen. >> ten minutes i'm told by our supreme leader. so ten minutes it is. let me get the ball rolling by saying the words "low oil prices" and asking secretary
moniz moniz. >> -- relative to what. >> relative to what. larry summers had an onp op ed on monday. and lease been discussion there's been discussion of carbon tax. and is there anything you would like to share with us in the low oil price environment, which by the way was the subject in the panel that preceded your remarks. >> well first of all clearly we are -- we are trying to put together a comprehensive picture of what current oil prices mean. i do want to of course emphasize that it starts on the plus side, for sure with consumer impact. impact on our energy intensive
industries our manufacturing industries. so we -- you know, there were some comments jane made about the size of vehicles. but it is -- but i would start by saying the number of vehicles sold has certainly gone up. so look there is no question that obviously this provides a major, major consumer direct benefit. also we will see. we don't know yet. but one of the obviously great issues in the global economic situation is for example, the rather shall we say sluggish european economy. if this could help get that really going, that will then come back and help in many many -- many many dimensions. now clearly there are also geopolitical questions that are
difficult. and i can't sit here and say where we are going. but we obviously have a whole bunch of countries that depend on especially oil revenue, dramatically. some friends. some others. and i just don't think we have fully -- can fully understand today what the implications are. we are thinking about them. we are looking at options, etc. finally of course we come to united states -- the united states hydrocarbon industry specifically. and again adam sminski is welcome to pipe in. but adam -- the e.i.a.'s i believe still current as of a couple days ago expectation is
that we will still see increases in our oil production in 2015. the increase has been tempered. but i believe the latest number is still looking at getting up into about a 9.3 million barrel a day whereas before it was 9.5 or 9.7, something like that. clearly if these prices persist for a long time, then the reductions in cap ex that we are seeing are clearly going to start coming in down the road. but right now i think, you know we're -- we're looking carefully. we're being prepared with analyses for alternative pathways forward. and right now consumers are having the benefit. >> excellent. >> question over there. and the mic will be made available. please identify yourself. >> i'm public policy scholar here at the wilson center.
can you talk about what the role is for bio fuels to remain in the future nrg mix? >> well i think -- well first of all we certainly continue to invest in bio fuels. in fact just in -- i guess it was october, i was pleased to be in yucatan, kansas for what is now the largest commercial functioning cellulosic bio refinery in the country. our loan program helped put that in place. so if we go back to what i mentioned about this -- our entry in this book. first of all -- sorry, let me go back a step. as we celebrate our incredible
increase in oil production through with shale, i think we also do have to keep in mind that we still import 7.5 million barrels of oil a day. so we continue to have a very strong focus on reducing oil dependence. reducing oil dependence has multiple threads. one is efficient vehicles. so things like the cafe standards for light-duty vehicles. things like our super truck program for 60 65% increase for class a trucks etc. is very important. we continue to push alternative fuels, most especially next generation bio fuels are
critical. costs are not there yet. but they are coming down fast. again, i think often -- by the way as an aside. we don't pay enough attention often. we tend to be some years behind in terms of where the cost curves are for many technology technologies. third, we continue to -- doe and obviously companies continue to advance elect rirification of vehicles. but what i want to emphasize is we are committed to reducing oil dependence even as we produce more oil. the big effect there of course has been in reduced imports of oil and the associated improvements in our balance payments. >> [inaudible]. >> all right. let's have a few questions at this point. and.
>> my answers have to be short shorter. >> and then we'll have a comprehensive answer to do those. >> okay. >> there is one over here. please identify yourselves. one i see over here. and one in the back. >> my name is jim blanchard. i've dealt with these issues for about 40 years and i never thought i'd see a day with incredible abundance, growing good technologies growing renewables, awash in oil and gas here, none of which i realize we should take for granted. but what i can't figure out is why our president doesn't associate himself with such a good news story. and what can you do mr. secretary, because we're delighted you are here to make sure that the public gets the pick picture and doesn't just focus on one or two issues which always seem to be negative.
this is a fabulous time and the options you have and we have as the country and north america has, the options are fabulous. how do we get the pigbig picture out to the american people and our own congress? >> the next question. good hard-hitting question there. yes? >> david carpenter. i guess my question is similar to the previous one right here. what is your outlook for fuel cells and hydrogen energy? i know the tokyo limpolympics, the olympic village is going to be powered hydrogen energy and fuel cells. if you could go into that i would appreciate it. >> and finally? >> i'm richard kennedy retired retired -- [ inaudible ] i read some people at m.i. tirkz are aric look at the earlier ideas of the nuclear energy. and i wonder if you can comment on that. >> and now really finally.
>> i just wanted to express gratitude for not only words but deeds of secretary in building european energy security. and common energy security. and as you know we just built lng terminal called "independence." our only hope is u.s. increases lng exports for places likes lithuania that one day we have energy supplies as well. >> okay. maybe say a few brief words, maybe in inverse order. in terms of the lithuanian colleagues and the -- first of all, on lng exports -- just want to repeat where we are. to date, every application that has been prepared for a public
interest of termination specifically meaning that it is completed environmental impact statement, to date every one has been approved. this is to non-free trade agreement countries. approved 5.3 cube ek feet per day. which is roughly 6% of gutters export today. it is not a small amount but obviously there is going to be more in the queue. if you look at the common missed predictions -- of course it was prior to recent events. but generally speaking i would say from the low side of say 5 to the high side of 15 billion cubic feet forper day is the kind of range the economists think the market will support. the issue right now of getting lng to lithuania or anywhere else at the moment is building
the facilities. so the first facility is due to come on at the end of this year or early 2016. and two others have now put at least, i think, spades into the ground. but the reality is it is going to be years until a substantial infrastructure is ready to do that. on nuclear energy, i think for example you were probably referring to the molten salt reactor as an example of a "back to the future" possibility. there is no question that there are a number of innovative approaches, many of which had some work done in the '80s, for example, which have some very interesting characteristics. and we are supporting research in those areas. but i got to be practical.
we all know that the gestation time of a new nuclear technology is very long. going through the building up through pilot stages and demonstration phases. it is a lot of money involved. it is hard to get from here to there, frankly. and there is the regulatory challenge. so right now, in terms of a new technology, our main focus right now in terms of the deployment end is on small modular reactors. so much smaller reactors built around light-water technology. precisely because it isn't as big a step as going to some of the other technologies. so our view is right now we are trying to work to get some of those deployed in the early twenties. 2022 kind of time frame. and while we continue to support at least the research on these
alternative approaches. but certainly on paper for sure can have some advantages relative to light water reactors. fuel cells and hydrogen. well again lots of progress. the -- the reduction in costs, it is the same theme in fuel cells, has been pretty dramatic. and i think it's fair to say it was the first commercially offered for sale fuel cell vehicle. the toyota vehicle announced in california in december. and since it is public i mean -- you know, and we can say that i think the list price they put on that was 57 1/2 thousand dollars. as a reminder when president bush in his state of the union speech i think in 2002 announced the freedom car, a vice president of the one of the
major auto companies said, you want a fuel cell vehicle in i'll sell you one. it will cost you a million dollars. a million dollars to 57 1/2 thousand in just over a decade is pretty good. but right of course the infrastructure, the fuelling infrastructure is just an enormous challenge frankly to get there. and i think that events like this are a wonderful opportunity to get out the big picture and inform the public. i have to say i think -- you know, the president is very much in tune -- you know obviously with the kind of picture i laid out out. the climate action was a major pusher of this.
and he has done and continues to do lots and lots of public events on this agenda. in fact, today. today he is at an auto manufacturing plant. a beneficiary of one offer our loan programs. again, i keep putting that plug in. and has been quite a few events around manufacturing including for energy space etc. i wish we had a solution as to how a get a much bigger broader audience listening to this story. but i would say -- and i will stop -- that there was an interesting little article in "the new yorker" just at the end of the year. and it said, you know, 2014 was a good year for government. that everybody says everything is dysfunctional etc., etc. well a number of things were
pointed out. oh by the way, including our loan program. but also -- but also where we've come in terms of the deficit. frankly the reality of what's happened with the healthcare rollout -- a whole bunch of issues. and it was an interesting statement. i'm just repeating what it said. said, you know, there seems to be a phenomenon. and the example used was the individuals who were incorrectly accused in the press with regard to the olympic bombing in the united states and the anthrax scare. and said boy, once those first stories are out, it is hard to get the good story over. so i don't know. there may be a bit of that but all i can say is we're working it. and -- and other ideas, other venues would be most welcome.
because you are right. this is a great news story for our countries. and i think ultimately for the global economy. so thank you. >> well thank you mr. secretary. and the cameras in the back remind us that the story is not only here in this auditorium at the wilson center. but it is a national story. and we're very glad to be part of helping you make that story happen. so thank you for an excellent and outstanding presentation. >> thank you. thank you. [ applause ] thanks. >> great to have you here.
>> today and tomorrow hois republicans are holding their first joint retreat in ten years. earlier today mitch mcconnell held a conference with reporters and introduced joan ernest of iowa. here is a look. >> the announcement i want to make is that senator ernst will be delivering the response for state of the union this year. she is a perfect choice for american's voting for change and the senator ernst plain what is the new congress is going to do. lieutenant colonel ernst has dedicated her life to iowa and
her country. serving in the military iowa national guard for more than 20 years and has deployed overseas. he she's big on economy and expanding the middle class. >> thank you everybody. thank you so much. thank you speaker and thank you leader also. i am truly humbled and honored to have this opportunity to deliver the republican address. and it is a long way from red oak to washington d.c. and growing up on a southwest iowa farm years ago, i never -- never would have imagined that i would have this opportunity. so thank you. like so many of my colleagues our folks back home sent us to washington d.c. with a clear mission.
and that mission is to get to work. that mission is to craft and implement good policies, good solutions, which will enable us to get america on a better path. and we are anxious to do this. we are very anxious to get to work and implement these good policies. so i look forward to that very much. because we want to ensure that the america we are building leaves a stronger economy, and more opportunity for our children and our grandchildren. so again i want to thank you very much. and i look forward to sharing more about our collective agenda this next tuesday evening. thank you all so much. >> if you missed any of our coverage of the congressional republican retreat in hershey
pennsylvania. log online any time to c-span.org. coming up tonight on up our complainen network c-span kansas governor delivers his state of the state address live from topeka. and at 9:00 governor brian sandoval gives his address in carson city. and see all of coverage online any time at c-span.org.
doing on energy. it is let from january kalicki. you will hear from him in a moment. this short book you can all read it by tomorrow -- no it is truly an expert take. they have done two editions of this, an expert take on energy security -- energy and security, as they say. looking at global trends in energy and putting it together and looking at where we're going globally. today today's event we have looked regionally at eurasia and east asia and north america. we'll continue on africa, the 34i8d east and other parts of the world as well. the idea today is to take stock globally where are things goingich. and we're at the time where oil price is dropping and a number of conflicts around the world in which energy is in one way or another part of the equation. and there are other opportunities in places like north america where energy is also a huge opportunity in people coming together. so you are going to hear really a broad overview today on what
the trends are. this is an issue that matters a great deal to the administration, it matters a great deal to congress that was [inaudible] yesterday. and hope flyfully we'll have great ideas for the future. we invite you to be part of the discussions moved forward and today you will have a fabulous overview of the entire world and you will hear later from the secretary of energy as well later today. let me turn you over to january. take it away. >> thank you very much andrew. great pleasure and thank you for your kind and welcome introduction. and as andrew mentioned this turns out the on that particularly important time four regional event here at the center. and also we'll be joined by secretary ernie moniz about
11:30. so we can look very forward to that. we're fortunate in the meantime to have a canal of the ed morse andrew slay and david goldwyn. ed morse heads global commodities research as citi group. ana depalacio is the former foreign minister of spain and will speak to the 2015 european energy outlook and key issues in the e.u. and the e.u.'s neighborhood, including ukraine. and david goldwyn is the former special envoy and international energy coordinator under former secretary of state hillary clinton and david will focus on the u.s. domestic and foreign
action agenda based on ed and ana's remarks and as a segue to ernie moniz. in fact moniz joined me and our authors of the book. and there is a sample of the book and even order forms -- that is the oechbtdend of the advertisement -- outside of the auditorium. and it was published by the wilson center press and johns hopkins university press. energy and security. and the sub title of our second edition is "strategies for a world in transition." and little did we know what this transition would be when we were putting this together. second edition already in its second printing and it is a book that offers both regional and global perspectives on energy, the environment and technology. and service as a framework for our bimonthly energy series here
at the center. in the book we acknowledge the progress made, especially in the domestic front. although a lot more has to be done. and we point out that that has to be done not just here domestically but in developing regional and global policies. and we propose a global energy security system, or what we call gess with five main components. first to propagate the unconventional energy revolution abroad. second to create a global natural gas market. third to forge greater coordination of emergency response measures. fourth, to lead a multilateral effort to end energy poverty. over 1.4 billion people still do not have access to electricity in the world. and fifth, to commit to global engagement and protection of sea lanes. so that is a framework that you see edwards thetowards theened end
of the book it is full of regional ideas. with the shift of the global energy balance from east to west and advent of lower oil prices, we have opportunity to make real progress on this agenda, and more broadly environment, energy and technology. and i look forward very much to our panels' views on these items and more on our policy agenda. and without further ado, i will segue over to ed chief of global commodities research at citi group to get us going on the overall situation in 2015. >> thank you very much. good to be here with people i've been friends with for a very long time. the chapter that amywe were
responsible for in that big book came to the question of the opec. and answered the question if it was likely to be as important in the next 45 years as in the previous 45 years. and the answer was almost certainly not due to structural changes happening within the world. happening within oil-producing countries, if not slightly less than the consequences of high prices and bringing to bear new technologies to exploit. including u.s. resources shale resources that reeves ss previously had been beyond the complex of the international exploitation. a lot of that chapter is unfolding and in sets the stage for 2015 which opens with significantly lower pricer than the year before and opens with significantly additional disruptive changes that are likely to be occurring in the oil market over the course of
the next few months the next year. as oil prices test the cost of producing oil around the world including in the united states. and has as one of its consequences kind of unknown disrupted, unintended consequences that result from a world of ultimately lower oil prices. so what are the three trends that the market is starting with now? trends that are continuities from what had transpired in the latter part of last year? first a weak economy. last year we reckon global gdp growth was 2.7% that. compares to expectations of 2014 gdp growth as of the middle of 2013 for 240u014 to see 3.4 5 or 6% for the world as a whole.
a lot of that decline, some .9% was situated in emerging markets. china which performed less well than people had thought. the other large merging market countries as well india, brazil russia for obvious reasons related in part to sanctions and turkey. so there was a radical deceleration of growth in emerging markets. we think this will be a weak year too although not as excpected and that is because low oil prices tend to have repercussions around the world in terms of spurring on economic activity. the imf blog had has some very interesting calculations on this. our own calculations are similar to those of the imf. we expect that if prices stay more or less where they are, the gdp impact of that globally by the first or second quarter of
2016 could be as much of .8 of 1% of gdp growth. and that will bring more oil demand although probably less demand than what's associated with the global gdp growth because global demand has become less energy intensive, less oil intense. and china is kind of leading the charge in losing the energy growth and --. a second feature has been the shale revolution in the u.s. we expect that the continue. we expect there be no way in the first six months of the year to show a decline in the rate of growth of u.s. production. so u.s. production is likely to grow by a rate of over a million barrels a day per year for the first six months and then the
consequences of lower cap ex on the upstream will come in probably an accelerating way over the rest of 2015 so that by the end of the year we expect u.s. production growth will have slowed down from 1 to 1.1 million barrel a day increment on analyzed basis to something on the order of 2 to 300,000 barrels a day analyzed. the third feature of the year has been saudi marketing problems. and yes, the saudis are selling less crude oil. they are consuming more production at home. they have more refining capacity than they used so. so rather than being an exporter of 7.3 million barrels a day of crude they are around 8 or 900,000 barrels a day lower. still the largest exporter of crude in the world. as they discovered over the course of 2014, they were losing
market share considerably. in the u.s. market they were exporting around 1.6 million barrels a day just under that in the last four months of 2013. in the last three months of 2014 it looks as though they were exporting less than 850,000 barrels a day to the u.s. a drop of more than 45% overt the course of a year. they found it very difficult to market that crude elsewhere. europe because of difficulties in the european refining system and competition against other crudes. china though in particular where their exports have been falling and where their market share has been falling even more and where due in part to u.s. sanctions and chinese buying habits, by buying oil on a pre export basis, the market available to those competing in a market are
shrinking. and particularly in a country where we reckon incremental oil product demand last year was less than 2% and we think it will be less than 3% in 2015. so we've had this well publicized clash between saudi arabia and the shale revolution in the u.s. as the market unfolds. briefly we think the market will be more disruptive in the coming weeks and coming months. we have a new pipeline structure open to bring canadian sour crude to the u.s. gulf coast market. the flow is going through the seaway system at the moment. look as though it is an incremental 400,000 barrels a day coming from canada into a market where competition by the saudis venezuela and mexico, among others is particularly acute. and this will probably have significant -- pose significant
challenges to sour crude producers on the u.s. gulf coast. to say the least we have iraq ramping up and russia increasing exports, actually, into europe. all coming in the first quarter. leading to lower prices and in all likelihood if we separate the financial flows from market fundamentals. but weaker market fundamentals going into the second water when oil demand tends to plunge compared to the middle of the winter. so we think there will be much more difficulty ahead before the market begins to settle. markets balance. they always balance. it takes a long time to balance. there are many ways that the market can balance. i suggested one in terms of lower increments of u.s. production growth by the end of the year and another, increments of higher demand by the end of the year. but i think the year will be challenging because of the inintended consequences. -- unintended consequences of
very low oil prices on things we don't really know about. we have opec countries. other than iraq by the calculations of adam sminski's e.i.a. calculated that opec revenues other than iran were around $825 billion in 2013. and it looks as though their recent calculations are going on the on the high side. and it may be that 2015 will bring less than 400 billion of opec revenue to countries that are challenged by fragmentation problems by general governance problems, by problems delivering to their publics. the concentration of paying from lower prices is a sovereigns that depend on oil and gas revenue, whether they are opec countries or non opec countries like oman or russia. and we don't really know the unintended consequences of this. i was in g.c.c. countries in the
middle of december talking to -- more to locals and to ex-pats who reminded me about the unintended consequences of saudi arabia and kuwait raising production by about a million barrels a day a right at the end of the iran/iraq war when the world expected more oil coming out of those countries. oil prices went down and one of the unintended consequences was the iraqi taking of kuwait. so we don't really know what the unintended consequences are. but they can be chilling. and they could give rise to more disruption. so with that i'll pass the baton. >> thank you very much. and yes over to ana. >> thank you. first of all if i say it is a great pleasure and a great honor for me to be here. it is not rhetoric. this is the transatlantic relationship with content. and if there is an area where
today because of geoeconomic reasons that you have hinted at, but mostly because of strategic reasons there is is precisely in energy. so now a disclaimer. i will be with paint with big brush strokes, and when you do that you exaggerate. my disclaimer is that the energy policy of the european union is a policy in the making but it couldn't be otherwise. and it has a lot of contradiction. it is not easy, but honestly this is a working progress. why, if you take the prospective of the construction energies and there was an ambition of
having a common energy policy but ambitions that have not yet been fulfilled. we have just kept pushing the common market in electricity and gas. this was the last deadline. we are far from there, but this business today. it is what we do, in common. the best way and more descriptive way. and in the last -- the one that just what we do there is an important novelty and you will say it's worse, but we are a construction of law, and it means a lot. for the first time we have solidarity. as for the rest a lot of
contradictions. the community has to -- is in charge of security of security of supply but at the same time every member state has an absolute freedom to have it's mix, energy mix, so on and so forth. the second, the second issue is that in this evolution, we have gone from a policy of the '90s, the policies that we're now in. in the '90s, it was market oriented and short-term oriented. this was before 2000 and in the run up to 2008 the other marking moment energy policy had nothing yet hijacked by
climate change policy. 2008 could not mention competition because you would be -- immediately. there was no security of supply. there was no concern about the competing. everything was geared towards this issue of climate change. second characteristic is it security of supply, which is really our biggest problem. why? first because of our resilience of our system. i will speak about it later. because of our external dependence it goes to almost 90% -- almost 70% in gas, and 40% something in solid.
with this, how come that woee don't -- in the situation but we could do -- never with the ambition that this would be a changer as it has been in this country. the ambition should be there. it isn't. this is really simplistic. there are also reasons of how our property is structured. you don't own -- you have no rights on what is under the -- but the last thing is when they say you have a reason -- okay but this is not realistic. the european union makes it reasonable, but it is not
realistic. the defense is 98% on oil. with this, i think that i would highlight four challenges. the first is to keep abundance between realism and ideology. okay. do it, realistically. today, the industrial electricity in germany is 13 cents. it is 5.5 cents if my figures are good. or another residential electricity price it more than double in europe than in the u.s. in spain my country, because of our betting on renewables we generate 30 billion euros which is a lot of deficit that we, we change that by changing the frak
framework of the responsibility. the first thing that we have to understand is that 60% of our infrastructure has to be renewed in the next 40 years. this means 2.2 trillion euros. at the same time what we have is that -- it is getting out of generation. in spain and germany we're closing plants because it is -- companies, many companies have existing models on the brink of just bankruptcy. the third important challenge is to balance public and private. 2.2 trillion.
it must be an imbalance. you know that president of the european commission launched this idea of 313 billion euros in the next 30 years. it's for infrastructure and i don't know how much is marked for energy, but it is not sufficient. we need to find a better balance between private and public. but we need to have a short vision, and the united kingdom is a good example. they have bet on nuclear, and because nuclear means such a big investment, they have proposed a fixed price to warranty the price. and today, in europe many times the wholesale price of electricity is zero. which by the way doesn't benefit
the consumers. . the last challenge for me is the national nalal association. as i have hinted, we think we have the market. policies are made in the member states. for instance germany goes out on nuclear from one day to the next. not at all. but this means a lot for the system. and this is something that there, we have to really put our words and our deeds in order. because we speak about this internal market. now, if security of supply is important, because of our dependence this has a name today, it could happen any time but not to the same extent.
we import around 14%. but for the moment, the name is russia. and the concentrate today in ukraine. and this is where this transatlantic community of interest and purpose makes sense. we need to stand together in the sanctions, but as you know the sanctions for us and are important for you. many americans told me that they will never accept the sanctions we did and we are there. there are some that are unfortunate. and a disclaimer. what he is said to have said. he said that if conditions improve, we should scale down, which is different from what we have been reading in the news.
so our policy towards russia is a point where we really need to -- with this space. sanctions first, and the support of ukraine. ukraine, we cannot expect a success to start tomorrow. we have to be persistent and consistent. and they have to get their act together. in order for ukraine to have their act together we have to support them and to support them in an effective way. there have been criticisms and with this i will finish and we can touch up on, there have been criticisms on the world bank, the imf have been doing. i think that these are not really that founding but let's not forget in the world bank and the imf between you and us, we
have 37 or 38 of us, and you 16 point something, so we have a majority. so let's just put here together our -- where our mouth is, and just understand that this is a challenge in the long term. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for your leadership in this series and in the book. i want to acknowledge robin west, one of our contributing authors in the house today. all of what we heard this morning about economic volatility and policy confusion in other places questions what we in the united states should do at this moment. i offer three framing comments. now when we talk about energy security, it's really not just oil security any more. in the u.s. we're talking about comprehensive energy security, the security of the grid the
stability of the grid the resilience of the system, oil is still part of that, but it's more of a comprehensive picture. the second reality and political reality is that we can't talk about ways to increase domestic production without talking about the environment and the consequences that come with it. it's two sides of the same count and we will not have a reasonable political conversation about any of these issues unless we deal with both of those. that may mean as we try to grow the productive bait that we have to deal with issues like methane. right now the polarization of the debate leads to paralysis. also avoiding complacency. being self sufficient, not caring about the middle east, and that's an understandable perspective if you're looking ahead sixth months. this is not the time to drop the strategic agenda.
we should be thinking about what will happen when we come out of the cycle. right now with things like low interest rates a light jpgs competitive advantage, this is the critical time to act. there are a lot of suggestions in the book, probably hundreds of them but i pulled ten that are still relevant right now that i think we ought to think about. we had to take care of business at home before we take care abroad. but there are five steps domestically that remain important. the first is investing in infrastructure. this is really the time as we're building our economy where we're investing in a smarter grid, or a safer grid, but also building out the energy transportation system for the country. we have great production and it's not close to the command centers. we need a system of pipelines to move product to the southeast move oil east to west. and along with that, most of
that will happen for private sector investment and there is a lot the government can do to expedite that infrastructure. you also have to think regionally. it's not just us. there is an enormous amount of resilience. the ability to help each other in the case of energy to have reserves over the border. that's important. the second is that we suggest in the book and there is a huge consensus, is market based approach. larry summers had a different version that came out a little while ago. we think revenue neutral is the easiest to do, but a market based approach says we deal with this issue, we create a level playing field, and we have predictability. the third is to continue investing on the key bottle nexts, that is battery storage
and sequestration. it is a key for coal, a huge rourt worldwide. in 2040 it is projected. it might be high efficiency boilers. but we have to deal with coal, so that rnd agenda needs to be sustained. the fourth fourth is to harden the productive base. making sure that we can sustain the growth we had in oil and gas, the biggest boom for our foreign policy that we have had in decades. it has given us norm capability. we have to make sure that when we come out of this low price cycle that we have the ability to sustain that so we don't go back to import dependency. we thought about it in 2011 and said it in 2012, to liberalize exports of natural gas and crude
oil. a lot has been done on the imported gas side. crude is really next. even the issue is when demand picks up and we're below margin, will they participate in that rise? will they be able to produce the supply and meet global demand or not. and that means we have to join the global economy in the way that others do. so rather than saying if you lifted the band today we would not have much exports. now when it is close to zero. we should think about how that is important going forward. also when gasoline prices will rise, and they have nowhere to go up but, but they will slow that rate of growth. and that is -- the fifth one i think, is to address the climate repercussions of increased production. that comes down to methane and
the d.o.c.s. they're thinking how they will regulate through methane. we need to think about global production and gas prices without acknowledging it will have an impact on the climate. we will do it in the smartest and safest way. it has to have a concrete man manifestation manifestation. the first of our recommendations is the boom abroad. it is about the technology and the regulation. you would be surprised or maybe not about the great concern in european countries. people worry about their water and air. there are ways to do this. we have tremendous practices at the state level. we should be teaching that to others and i think in this hemisphere next, the two top candidates and it is an enormous
help for paris. if you have serious climate reduction, it will come from substitution from natural gas from coal and from diesel. i think the more that we can make gas cheaper, we forget that gas is here but not cheap anywhere else in the world that remains important. creating a competitive market in oil and gas, really, part of that is exports, but a lot of it is the european agenda. what are we going to do to make a real integrated market in europe. we can't deliver more l and g to europe right now. but if you could sell it, if you had a real competition policy if you could not buy the capacity and use it there would be space for other supply. it is really helping the europeans help themselves. that is a diplomatic agenda for us and top of the order. and russia and youukraine is the
reason why. the pending implosion is a big hit on central america. we talked about that here before, but they have extremely high electricity prices. uncompetitive, and a lack of finance that would blow a hole in all of their budgets. we have to help them convert to use gas, and integrate renewables that will cut emissions and electricity prices and it will be a sweetener and it is something we can do. africa will be helped by low prices and gasoline but it harmed by the lack of resource revenues. helping africa get access to electricity is an important agenda. some of that is distributed. other resources. but some of it is base load as well. for them it is also a conversion from coal to gas. in asia a highly insecure area
from a resource point of view, exports help in that agenda too. one is whether we ought to get a two for. one to help asia get better oil security, and to help ourselves repair and renovate the spr by thinking about taking some of what we have in the reserve and selling other countries special drawing rights to access. we have more oil than we ahead to, but don't think we should sell it off or make it go away. we could give other countries the right to purchase draw down down rights. and the final recommendation is a process one. we're in washington. you have to have a process recommendation. it is not a kpre hen si energy policy which we don't and
shouldn't have. it is still a hodgepodge and still a competition of agencies. i think president obama had a great idea with his counsel on energy and climate change. you have to deal with those finishes together and you can't wag the dog from the tail. it and all of the efforts, you have to have white house leadership to pull these folks together. and an agency can't lead it the secretary of energy can't lead the whole government. you have to have white house leadership on climate and neither one of them should be silent. >> i will just ask a question of our panelist and look forward to
questions and comments from the audience. the question is, in low pressuring to the recommendations that david gave to us are there any others that you would add to or any comments that you would add on to david's list in the contest of the following question. we're talking about low oil prices. some people feel they will be here for a longer period of time. if that is the case, does that shed any different kind of light on the kind of strategic opportunities or the proposals they have sent forward? shall i ask for comments from -- >> i was going to comment on the assumption of low oil prices for a long period of time -- >> but it's a question not an assumption. >> no nothing -- nothing cures low prices like low prices.
i expect that there is a problem related to market operations that eluded that agenda, and that is markets left to their own devices and likely to exacerbate -- we can see it in the shelving of projects that would be bringing new supply on in the framework. and unless there is some concern of that, which is hard to generate in a period of low oil prices, the markets will be sight and there will be inevitably an energy security problem on the horizon. >> i fully agree i think the main impact in the rest of the energy panorama is a show of --
is how to assure that we keep long term programs with a short term market reality. i want to make another comment. i think that you have highlighted and you're absolutely right about the regulations that you have, and that you have experienced -- i think that this goes beyond. of course i'm going to do a pitch. from a perspective we have of course the mechanisms of -- to solve the controversies and we cannot. this goes far beyond. i think that one of the important parts of this is the energy chapter. and we should -- this issue of
being together on one of the biggest challenges that we have which is russia and ukraine. it should push us to work and not to be hijacked by the exception of france or by how you measure. that we measure it through the water. you know, it just -- i'm not sure that, if it was this is, we cannot let this -- it is geopolitical, first. it is to be hijacked by these issues. i think that working on the energy chapter could be good. >> it is an interesting point, it is about the low oil price cycle. i'm curious also.
i remember in 1998 when oil was $10 and the people were panicking and it was not more than a year and a half before it went up from $10 to $18 to $25. and the swing from 2008 was fast as well. it turns quickly quicker than we think. and i agree we need to be prepared for it. how long do you think it will last? >> that is a question that you don't leek to be asked. >> i think there are good reasons to think that you can find stability in the market for a period of time, could be an extended period of time. in a $70 to $85 range. if you want to debate the adjustment it is another issue. i think there is something very
new about the revolution that has a lasting impact and it is hard to summarize it. i will do my best. we typically think of a conventional oil well exaggerated by reservoirs in deep water, or found in iraq where you drill and drill more. and typically the first drill is the cheapest. and then has you extend production, and production conventionally becomes more difficult, it becomes more and more expensive. and the ultimate well before you close a field is the most expensive well. and we're seeing very expensive wells because the cost of the recovery is not worth it. it is just too high. and the unconventional revolution, the first well is not the most expensive, the
least expensive and the first, the it is really unbelievably extensive, they are not only extensive but they're dispersed throughout the world. i think as we have seen in part on the natural gas side there are a couple things to think about. one is drilling for natural gas in the u.s. it is down about 78% and each year we have more production than before. the growth from august to when ever the last report was out, it is 4.1 per day. so you are growing but you still get more. it's like an accordian. if the price incentive is there to drill more you can produce more. so we are changing from an
expectation of the world where we're used to thinking about the call on opec, the international energy agencies, and others that talk about the call on opec, and it is more like a call on shale. it is the expandable resource base that didn't exist before. so i think there is hope. escaping some of the history of while springs between low and high prices. that depends on how much the shale revolution can be exported around the world. and what the mark mechanisms are in those places. >> thank you panel, and now it's time for the audience to put a few questions before them. i see a hand up there, yes? and would you please identify yourself? >> did you -- >> we have a mic we would like
to hand over to you as well. >> did you say that the shale output would be how many million barrels. >> i said in six months it is likely to be what did was over the last 12 months. a rate of growth of about a million barrels a day or so. the reason for that is multible. there are efficiency gains for the first -- it will be a cushion of a significant drop in the cost of services. there is a half year of uncompleted wells. been the cost to complete is very low. the structure of the system if you add up especially add up
and go forward the bay son if you forget about the others, it is such that the momentum will continue that rate of growth for a long time. and it may surprise those who are testing the resiliency of the system, how resill yept it is likely to be for awhile in a hour price environment. >> just another question. >> yes i said we would slow down. we will slow down the rate of growth. i think it is unwide tose to say it will go negative. >> does europe make it's own forecast for when the united states natural gas might be available to europe or do you rely on the eia estimates. >> no, we pray for it to happen as soon as possible. frankly it would be symbolic. of course what happened from one
day to the other but symbolically it would be extremely important. the feeling of dependence on russia for the gas, and we mentioned many things, but the pipelines. the north stream that leads germany to russia it is a european company. they own almost 25% of the storage capacity in germany. >> thank you. another question in the back. lady in the back? >> hi i have a question for ed, could you, you touched upon this briefly, could you say a few more words on how, in the short and medium term low oil and coal prices will affect the energy mix and policy decisions
in china, and also turning it around perhaps in the longer term, and low the hour growth command in china will affect the markets for coal and oil for these commodities in the future? thank you. >> very briefly. i think since china's economy is partly top down, partly bottoms up, it is directed, and part of the direction is essentially to be able to produce twice the amount of electricity with the same volume of coal. to increase the btu content. reduce the sulfer and ash emissions. i don't think it will reject the
per project projectory. nay have been very reluctant to accept oil and prices. they won that battle on a export -- a low oil price environment, is a low natural price environment and is one where a spot market is likely to provide a significant growing volume of gas, imports into china where the infrastructure is more than ample. so i think the lower oil price environment translated into a lower gas price environment will have an impact that will change the trajectory expected by agenciesly the iea.
>> very good, question from the gentleman in the back. >> i understand that a great many oil fields have become exhausted over time leaving behind about 50% of so called unrecovebles. do you know if the recent developments that got a great deal of publicity will make it possible to revisit these oil fields and recover the unrecoverables? >> the shail reveal revolution has
total recovery of fields that once thought to become close to exhaustion. recovery rates have gone up considerably and they can be as much as 25 to 30% with resources in place. a number of that is roughly double what it was thought to have been two decades ago. on the unconventional side around 5% of the known resources are currently expected to be recoverable. but the technologies are growing at a rate yielding 20% to 30% gains per year. going from 5% to 15% of recoverability. >> i think we have time for one more question. the gentleman in the red sweater
there, please. >> it is for david i think, mainly. i guess i'm curious about this notion of coal continuing. and getting to sort of zero emissions with some sort of carbon sequestration technology. is it really likely and what approaches make that cost effective compared to the greatly decreased prices for renewables and other kinds of things sources of electricity. >> i don't think we'll get to zero emissions from any coal combustion any time soon. i think the point i was trying to make is every projection even if they assume a very large share of renewables, baseload
energy, and in order to deal, i think we have to deal with that issue, i think there are multiple ways we have to deal with that issue. if you have a large hole in the ground nearby, carbon sequestration would work for them. the other thing is more high efficiency boilers. what you have right now would be a huge improvement over what you have right now. in china you have a huge amount of coal consumption and you want to steer them in that direction. and there may be other technologies that the d.o.e. can look at. it is ways to capture emissions or using better coal. i don't think any of them are perfect solutions. i think it is a reality that they will be dealing with them.
it's not cost effective in a lot of places. we're much better off continuing to invest in ways to minimize the impact of coal combustion than just trying to wish it away. >> there is a quick question i think we can do that, do you qualify? all right, please. >> thank you david nelson with g.e. my question is what is needed politically to get european countries to exploit their shale resources? how would you encourage it? >> first thing, i would find a way to reward the owners and all of those that -- honestly this is not all. i, in spain for instance we had a big debate. one thing i would do, the second thing, i think that for many
years in europe there was an idea of don't ask don't tell in terms of electricity generation. so people don't know. and this is fine, but people don't know what it cost because you don't -- i mean i'm not able to read the reseat of the electricity every month. i don't know what i'm paying for the renewables. people should know and should know that we are bound to be dependent on a import and the efficiency is very good. >> thank you on that very spirited note, let's go back. they will be joining us very shortly.
[ applause ] today and tomorrow they're holding their first joint retreat in years. represent john boehner spoke of recent security threats. here is part of what he had to say. >> the possible attempt on your life by a bartender from your country club in westchester ohio. how are you feeling about that and in light of a foiled attack how do you feel --
>> we live in a dangerous country and we get reminded every week of the dangers out there. we saw what happened in paris a week ago. my personal situation i will not get into it, but it's one thing to get a threat from far away, and it's another when it's three doors from where you live. obviouslyly this young man has some health issues, mental health issues that need to be addressed and i hope he gets the help he needs, but i do want to thank the fbi, capital police westchester police and others who resolved this issue. with regard to the threat, to the capitol, it was frankly not far from where i live. the first thing that striebs me is we would never have known about this had it not been for the fisa program. and our ability to collect
information on people who pose an imminent threat. i will say this one more time because you will hear about it for mornts and months to come. an attempt to reauthorize the fisa program. our government does not spy on americans unless there are americans doing things that frankly tip off our law enforcement officials to that threat. and the officials that helped us stop an individual before committing a heinous crime. >> apparently he was on social media talking about this. >> we'll let the whole story roll out there but it was far more than just that. >> if you missed any of our coverage of the congressional republican retreat long on any
time to cspan.org. coming up tonight, sam brownback delivers his state of the state address live from topeka. then brian sandoval gives his for the state of nevada. see them online any time at cspan.org. cspan travels to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literaryly life. >> i wrote these books, they're two values. the reason i thought it was important to collect these histories is that wheeling
trance transformed into an industrial city, and it's kind of uncommon in that it drew a lot of immigrants in search of jobs and opportunity. to that generation is pretty much gone. it is an important part of our history. most people tend to focus on the frontier history, civil war history. they're important, but of equal importance in my mind is this stri yal period that whealing had. >> it starts as a outpost on the frontier. that river was the western extent of the united states in
the 1770s. the first project funded by the federal government for road production was the national road that extended to wheeling, virginia. when it comes here it will give this community that at about that time is about 50 years old the real spurt it needs to grow. over the next 20 to 25 years it will just about triple. >> watch on sunday afternoon at 2:00 on cspan-3. dr. anthony falchy our guest this sunday is on the battle line fights infectious
diseases. >> there are drugs now that is giving to people that are hiv positive if they came in half of them would be debt in eight months. now if form when i go back to rounds on friday, and someone comes into a clicknic, and i put them on the cocktail of drugs, i can accurately look them in the eye and say if you take your medicine regularly, you could live an additional 50 5-0 years. to go from knowing that 50% of the people will die in eight months, to knowing if you take your medicines you could live
essentially a normal life span just a few years less that is a huge advance. >> dr. p anthony falchy, sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific. next rosa delauro speaks about "fast-track" trade legislation that would give president obama more authority for trade agreements. this is an hour and 18 minutes. >> hi rosa delauro. okay, thank you, thank you one and all, i said as i said earlier, what a crowd, a great day. we're very pleased to be with
you. thank you. i appreciate you being here today,ly be brief because we have a lot of speakers eager to tell you why they feel so deeply about stopping fast track. you see before you one of the broadest coalitions that i have taken part in since i came to the congress some 24 years ago. in addition to our speaker we have representatives in the room from a huge range of organizations. we have environmental groups including the center for international environmental law, friends of the earth, green america, the league of conservation voters community organizations like the institute for agriculture and trade policy. consumer protection groups. unions including the american federation of teachers, state, county and municipal employees. the united brotherhood of
carpenters the international brotherhood of boilermakers electrical workers, teamsters, and the international foundation. trade advocacy groups the citizens trade campaign united students against sweat shops. faith groups like the american friend service committee and the french committee on national legislation. ga rights groups including the human rights campaign, pride at work, and the national lbgtq task force. all of these diverse viewpoints are united. they are united in their opposition to fast track. a policy that is designed to ram
trade deals through the congress without serious debate or opportunity to amend. why? why have all of these different groups signed up for this coalition? because they know that trade deals go well beyond trade. they can compromise the quality of the food we eat, raise the prices that we pay for medicines. they can attack our environmental regulations, weaken our financial regulations, stop our government from supporting american businesses, and they do nothing to stop the injustice of juris manipulation. this coalition exists because trade deals affect everybody. we need to be able to scrutinize these deals page by page line by line, world byd by word.
read the bill and we need to read it just as we would do with any other piece of legislation let alone legislation with such far reaching implications. under fast track all we get is an up or down vote on each trade deal, that is simply not acceptable. it is the opposite of our constitutional duty as members of congress. i, for one and my colleagues here are not going to stand for it. american workers have suffered great harm under deals like nafta. they must be able to consider carefully the con consequences of future deals. fast track would be yet another insult to the american worker. that is why i, and my fellow members of this coalition say no to fast track. it is now my pleasure to introduce a public figure that
spent his career fighting hard on behalf of american workers. the president of the afl-cio richard trunk. [ applause ] >> thank you, rosa, it's good to be with all of you, let me say happy new year. up hill on capitol hill you have a simple choice, you approve fast track and by doing so pull a curtain in front of another effort to drive jobs out of america and push down wages, or deny fast track and give us a chance to raise wages and narrow the ever widening income gap. that's as easy as it gets, but there is mrp. i have a lot of friends in politics and there isn't one that says you want to lower wages or drive down our standard. no one says they like to drive our communities to ruin, and that is kpangtly what our lousy
trade deal-- exactly what our lousy trade deals have done. it allows poll suggestions to speak out of one side of their mouth to voters and the other side to special interests. you can't have it both ways, fast track is out of date it's poorly conceived, and it is bad for american workers and america itself. now the afl-cio does not just oppose fast tract, we're going to fight to kill it and we're going to win that vote. you see trade negotiations should be open to the public. these deals affect our lives. let us see the process. it is past time for congress to reassert it's constitutional authority over trade. america needs a new trade model.
they oppose fast track, but we stand ready to work on a new trade model to benefit all americans. we need more than a new trademark, we need a whole new conversation. let's look at ways to build america, focus on forward-looking initiatives that help hard working american families like raising the minimum wage and addressing currency manipulation. look, the american workers are asking, the american workers are demanding that each of you oppose fast track. trade dealing should be hope to the american public and benefit everybody, not just wall street. it's my pleasure to introduce
represent louise slaughter. good morning, america. i'm so pleased to see this crowd, this is overwhelming. we have been worried about americaning really understanding what's happening here. thanks to all of you, everybody you represent, the labor movements doing such a wonderful job you have my abject thanks. fast tract came on the perview of the rules committee. we were the largest manufacturers on the planet, and we were sure we always would be. and that is when they decided they would let the executive department, the president, determine the trade bills. and that we would not bother with them in congress, we would simply never go to a committee meeting. send it up here and we will vote
yes or no. over the years thanks to rotten trade bills that were never enforces. there was never enforcement in any of the rules of the trade bills. look at what we were promised then and what we got. partly because of that, our economy has fallen. parts of the northeast and other parts of the country have been decimated because we cannot keep our jobs here because people were chasing a cheap dollar. and there is still parts of the pass code in the united states of america that encourage the movement over seas. we're trying to get rid of a lot of those. so last one that we did was the trade agreement. let me talk about it just a second. i say this a lot, i can do it in a second. south korea is a country that we are obliged to fight for.
and all of south korea whose economy we rebuilt with our contracts after the war and all of south carolina, 26 car dealers would sell american cars. we go into a trade agreement, and we say is this a good thing for us to do? i stopped voting for trade agreements a long time ago. so let me tell you what the trade agreement that promised all of these wonderful good things have done. we are just got figures. the new korean trade agreement last month was the worst trade agreement we ever had with korea, it used to be much more balanced. we lost $2.8 billion in a single month that we transferred to korea. think about that. they're still not buying anything from us. what we have to have if we want
to do the trade bill here, we all believe in trade, our manufacturers need places to sell their goods, but we don't want free trade we want fair trade. we want a bill that enforces that and we're introducing a bill to do just that, we're taking trade enforcement and putting it into the labor department and away from the people that wrote it. we need to renegotiate some that we have. we have to do the boast thing we can for the world. the best thing we can give them is not our jobs, but a strong economy hear. we are need to help lift them up which is what we intended to do. i want to thank you rosa, i'm so proud to be on her team, and i can introduce someone that is a
heroin to every last one of us, and that is sister campbell who is with us. >> thank >> thank you. what an honor to be here. i'm sister simm kohn campbell. i'm the executive director of network, the national catholic social justice lobby and sort of known as the leader of nuns on the bus. >> yay! >> and what we know is based on our contactsar in local areas, and i'm here today to oppose fastrack because we know from catholic sisters in central america my sisters in mexico, that these trade agreements create a huge imbalance and disequilibrium, especially in rural communities. this past year we appeared shocked that we had a lot of central american kids on our borders. but there is a direct correlation between having those kids on our borders and the fact of the dislocation in the central american sending
countries because the economies, especially in rural areas, have been so disrupted that the power of violence and fear was driving those children away to safety. what happens in these negotiations is too often the negotiators get so fixed on their business interests they don't think of the rest of the impact on society. so i'm here today as a member of the faith community to say the faithful way forward is to have a full discussion where other points of few, not just those of the business economic interests, can be engaged in the conversation about these trade agreements agreements. we knew from nafta that the pressure on immigration was going to be great in central america and yet we acted surprised when it happened on our border. we know the consequences of these poorly crafted trade agreements for the 100%. so we're saying give the 100% a chance to engage in the dialogue, raise the issues, and
prevent tragedy in the future. that is the way forward. so fast track, a seal of approval without even looking at it, as congressman delauro said, is the wrong way forward. give us a chance to read the bills, to engage in conversation, and let the voice of the people be heard for the common good for all. that's our position. thank you. and now it's my honor to introduce congressman pete defazio, democrat from oregon. >> well, yesterday was a big day in the fast track. mitch mcconnell came out for trade adjustment assistance. does that mean that anti-labor, anti-union mitch mcconnell suddenly developed a conscience and a heart and cares about people? no. he knows that this agreet is going to cost america jobs and therefore he's trying to
facilitate some weak-kneed democrats to vote for it because of a sop. what are you going to retrain those people for? mcdonald's? if we give up all our manufacturing base and our quality jobs what are you going to retrain people for? very simple question for congress. are we going to be a doormat for an all-powerful secretive executive negotiating an agreement against the interests of the american people while constantly consulting with 500 multinational corporations and freezing us out? are we going to be a doormat for those multinational corporations as they ship american jobs overseas or are we the people's house going to stand up for the people of america and begin to write the inequities that have been wrought upon us by all of these failed trade agreements? it's a key point for us. this is a turning point for america. we will not be a doormat. sorry. i forgot my cue.
>> your cue is larry cohen from the cwa. >> here he is larry cohen, president of the communication workers of america. >> thanks. no worries. great speech. three things. one, this is the biggest coalition on trade ever. it's tens of millions of americans. and we heard the list from rosa at the beginning. and we're prepared in every district to work as a coalition not siloed as labor or farmers or consumers or environmentalists. but together to talk about what the global economy should be and how it can work for all of us. second, america will never see a raise for american working families if we continue to make trade deals like we have in 20 years of nafta. 80% of americans have had no raise in 30 years. we can't stop that. just with the minimum wage. though we support it.
we have to stop trade deals that only move in one direction. we look at a city like detroit. the bankruptcy in detroit. our members are 90% service sectors. every one of our members in detroit, high-tech or low-tech know that the trade policies that devastated detroit devastate their lives also. that they can't get a raise when people don't have a job. our members in st. louis and ferguson know that the root causes of ferguson lie in the shutdowns of st. louis. until we connect the dots with this coalition and these members of congress and we say loudly to what we are arrayed against and say right now this is the president, this is mitch mcconnell, speaker boehner and the u.s. chamber of commerce. we are committed we're not going
to have another raw deal on trade. we're going to come to the 21st century and negotiate trade deals that work for tens of millions of americans, not just for hundreds of corporations. now it's my honor to introduce my brother from wisconsin who thinks this is a warm day in washington. representative mark pokan. >> thank you, brother cohen. and it is a little bit balmy. i have come to follow trade long before i came to congress. for 27 years i've been a small business owner of a specialty printing business, a union shop. and part of what we do is find american-made and union-made products. i've watched bad trade deal after bad trade deal send those jobs overseas. it's almost impossible to find a pin or a pen that's made in the u.s. in rock county, wisconsin a company that paul ryan and i share in representing in congress, we used to have parker
pen. 1,000 family supporting jobs that in 2010 the last job left to mexico because of bad trade deals. we have seen the jobs go away the wages go down and it is time the public have a say which means congress have a say and fast track takes away our voice. if this trade deal is as good as they say, well, let's just hear how good it is and share the details. but there's a reason why it's negotiated in secret and why we can't find out all the provisions round the environment and consumer protections. we need to have our say in congress and we can't support fast track. we have to let the public have their say. and i am very happy into the deuce a congresswoman who has been here for a lot longer than me and done a lot of amazing things in congress. representative barbara lee from the great state of california. >> thank you very much. thank you very much, congressman
pokan and thank you for your leader hipship. also congresswoman delauro. giving us the opportunity to speak out and more importantly to work against fast track and these trade deals that are bad for american workers. as the representative from california's beautiful 13th congressional district i have the honor and the privilege to represent the port of oakland, one of oufr nation's busiest sea ports and airport. i support international trade. it's critical to america's economy. it can be good when it's open transparent, when it creates good paying jobs at home. however, i join the vast majority of americans from both parties in opposing fast track, the transpacific partnership. i oppose fast track because i oppose bad trade which of course tpp is. american workers, american families, and american businesses and especially in
communities of color are going to continue to be hurt. we can and we should craft trade deals that grow the american economy. many of these jobs that we lost as relates to nafta came from california. in fact, communities of color mind you, were disproportionately hurt by nafta and the united states china trade deal. make no mistake. 35% of jobs lost to china which totals over 1 million american jobs were from communities of color. this is outrageous. after those workers lost their jobs their situation grew even worse. when those workers found another job they suffered nearly 30% cut in their wages totaltion more
than $10 million per year. as we continue to see poverty rates in the african-american and latino communities grow jobs and wages lost to offshoring, continuing to prevent these communities from building wealth and work into the middle class. so tpp is bad for everyone. if the united states is going to pursue a free trade agreement of the pacific congress needs to have full public debates and hearings so the deal is fair and the american people know what's in it. that's why congress is so important to these deals. otherwise, people have no voice. they have no say on these trade policies that affect their livelihood. so we need to take fast track oft table. we need to do that right away. and we need to start talking about creating good paying jobs for american workers and american families here in america. i'm very proud and hon