tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 10, 2015 2:00am-4:01am EDT
talked to reporters after that closed or meeting. this is 15 minutes. or meeting. this is 15 minutes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org] >> can you tell me what you were saying? >> quickly. >> we have a very good conference, working together, trying to work together. i know a lot of speculation about who should run and others. paul is looking at it, but it's his decision.
he'll beides to do it, an amazing speaker but he's got own.o it on his [multiple reporters speaking] his at a going to take t slow pace. take a break and try to figure out what we need to do to get this country moving. >> would you bring that up? >> i would hope not. looking for words, integrity, create so much trouble. i don't think so, to be honest with you. >> or said when it would be? >> i did not. affair?ing about an >> well, then that's their that way.o interpret this is something that i think is important to the american anybody in leadership, male or female, should be a man
integrity. that is nothing personally about anybody. >> that's kind of an assumption, when you reference livingston. he talking about? >> i was here at the time, and it was total chaos here. i don't want to see that happening again. now, were oom just members urging paul ryan to run? >> no. here's nothing about the next speaker or anything. it's about taking this in a slow way and see if we can find common ground and that's what we the rules, on, changes of the rules and things like that. >> what did boehner tell us? >> he's just going to be there to elect a new speaker. >> is that families of the caucus members? >> i would think so. --ht now, i think we need to
multiple speakers] speaker made the right decision. by caught everybody but shock and surprise. >> having a speaker of some sort? > i didn't hear any of that discussion there. >> are they going to have a conference?the house >> clearly, somebody that i would support. >> would you drop out? >> he has been a drum beat in onsistency in saying he's not going to do it. >> would you drop out? >> of course i'd support him. he's the person i could get excited about. but part of the reason i got into this race because people ike paul ryan weren't stepping up to do it.
paul ryan. run again i'm a huge fan of paul ryan. i would support paul ryan. but he has consistently said that he won't. we've got to get somebody who says they'll do it, we'll fight for it and make the most of t changes.s approach but he is certainly, in my mind, he most qualified person to do it and i hope we do it. >> have you talked to him. >> is speak eer boehner still s to step down at the end of the month? >> he wanted to get through this process before the end of the month. >> i'm glad you're all going to come to it. it's going to be a great one. please, own the hall, let's take him through. >> right side, please. >> thank you.
>> do you think it was appropriate to delay the election? >> do you think it was election. e on the >> it was probably necessary. >> do you think it was necessary? >> i do. > do you think they would have delayed the election if you would have dropped out? >> no. >> i don't know. i'm i said, i'm not -- talking about candidates or personnel. and e one thing in mind, that is principle-based, number driven.
>> did anyone say hey paul? >> will there have to be two weeks worth of internal discussion? people are of thinking about it. >> on the next washington spent onon the money capitol hill by gun-control advocates and gun rights and groups. for the american council capital formation and from public citizens discussed the house vote to end the ban on crude oil
exports. and discussion on the allegations that the secret service retaliated against a congressman by linking -- leaking is confidential files. washington journal's live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> the sunday night, former senator investors are candidate gary hart on his new book the republic of conscience condemning our current government of the republic he says our founders intended. of the use the language agent republic of greece and rome. they warned against corruption. their definition was not a wasery, or quid pro quo, it putting special interest ahead of the common good. by that definition, washington today is a massively corrupt place. easterny night at 8:00
on c-span's q and a. c-span has your coverage of the road to the white house. you will find the candidates, the speeches, and most importantly your questions. this year, we are taking up a road coverage into classrooms across the country with our student contest. that gives students the opportunity to discuss what important issues they want to hear the most from the candidates. follow the contest and the road to the white house coverage on tv, the radio, and online. is the strategic petroleum reserve is a stockpile owned by the federal government.
this is two and a half hours. [inaudible conversations] >> got a lot of ground to cover this morning. let us begin this morning. honored and pleased to have the secretary of energy, doctor ernest moniz. welcome back. we have an opportunity and other energy security related issues. i prepared for the committee report on the strategic petroleum reserves, a turbulent world and defense, if i say so myself. it is pretty darn good.
i commend it to you all. we have some unparalleled opportunities in the us with regard to our oil and oil production. while it is good and strong, it is important that we be ever vigilant. capacity has fallen. and further trouble seems to work always over the horizon. the strategic petroleum reserve remains critical and it is an asset, and you will here me repeat as often as i possibly can that this is about a national security asset, and it is important we focus on the energy security aspect of it.
it is an insurance policy, absolutely, source of leverage and stability for us. while i believe that it should be modernized, the question we have asked is what does that mean? andnow will make for brief points in that direction. the administration proposes some 200 billion in new funding. i think that these proposals merit careful consideration and look forward to hearing from secretary ernest moniz. i had an opportunity to tour one of our strategic petroleum reserves and ensuring operational effectiveness should be a 1st priority.
again, taking us back to energy security. the administration is setting the creation of petroleum product reserves on the west coast, and on the east coast, pat on. i am not opposed to building additional product reserves, but i have reservations. a much shorter shelf life in a much more direct impact on the american consumer guarding against the use for political purposes should be an enduring concern for all of us. and i am not opposed in principle to revising the emergency release authorities as the administration and some of my colleagues have proposed, but i am wary of proposals that expand the power and ability of the federal government intervene in the free market. preemptive release must be
carefully examined, and while the quadrennial energy review briefly discusses this proposal, ii do not think the administration has made a convincing case and look forward to discussion on that. final peemack, and i raise raise this in the white paper released in july, strategic petroleum reserve does not exist in a vacuum. the transatlantic pipe kind -- pipeline is important to national security. we security. we are seeing a decline in a deeply troubling place. we have the resources to ensure that it does. our focus should be pruned. i am going to close comments
by reiterating that we collect the strategic petroleum reserve for a reason. as the name suggests, we hope never to use it, but we keep it around for good reason. in the event something happens, if there is an event, in case the world's lives and we find ourselves in the comeau we need to no that the strategic asset, this national energy security asset is there, and i have said before that it would be a mistakea mistake to treat the reserve as anything but a reserve. it is not an atm for knew spending for a vestige of our national energy policy.
>> thank you for holding this hearing on modernization. i want to thank secretary monies. i especially want to thank the secretary for his leadership on an important document that helps frame the discussion. this committee successfully reported out. and you and i had many discussions about the pieces of that legislation. the critical importance of the strategic petroleum reserve. forty years ago we created it. that is exactly what
happened. in 1975 the law that created the reserve specifically authorized the president to draw down. the core policy reason had not changed, nor should it now. it is an important asset that we need just as much today as we did then. perhaps the energy markets.to that of the global oil markets may have changed, but so does the nature of the threat to the infrastructure. they make commitments to the international energy program supply interruptions can happen at any time whether a response to volatility somewhere else or a natural disaster, we are seeing
increasing frequency and devastation, so you never know when it will be needed. even with the us being in oil producer today we need to have emergency crude oil contingency plans. there are several immediate intermediate-term geopolitical risk such as a possible attack on major middle east supply notes are outs or what would be severe disruption originating in places like nigeria or venezuela, and even these situations could result in disruption or triggering a drawdown. challenges remain. ways that enhance our competitiveness.
this network has changed significantly. the ability to protect the us has been diminished by infrastructure congestion control the truly the congestion of too much product and not being able to get to market when and where we want. the department of energy is a test sale identifying a series of challenges with distribution. investment is needed to modernize this growth. in need of 2 billion worth of repairs and upgrades. it is estimated that can help save the us economy approximately 200 billion in the event of a sustained large oil supply reduction.
we will hear about the fact that the salt caverns were built in the 1930s. i know that two of them have been taken off-line. so i'll more than 60 years old. issues like brian disposal, power distribution, all of the things that will help us respond to an emergency and because pipelines have essentially reversed direction, that is where this issue comes in the strategy of how he will deal with that so they would have the intended impact. again, i think the secretary for his work. a long but good roadmap for telling us what we need to do. i think the chair for having this important hearing. >> thank you.
we will turn to the sec. of secretary of energy. welcome to the committee, and we look forward to hearing from you. >> thank you. i have submitted a detailed testimony. clearly we need an energy security policy based on 21st century changes, vulnerabilities, and needs. key components are a modernized fpr configured to enable appropriate drone down and distribution capacity, energy infrastructure, resilience, reliability, and a broader concept of energy security to include our international
engagements, allies, and partners. i will touch on the latter to points briefly. it is our nation's most central federal energy security asset and should be treated as such. some have concluded that it will have no or little impact, and i do not subscribe to those views. in fact, i believe it it remains an extremely powerful and valuable energy tool. we must take into account several factors including relatives in 1975 the change in nature of oil markets. we are linked to the global market and are exposed to global prices.
and these historically have had a significant economic impact. even if there was little direct impact on our imports today. our international commitments based upon oil use, not import which is our obligation based upon the last data to provide 43 and a half percent of the amount of the total coordinated oecd response to a disruption. it isit is important to emphasize that we have an important obligation and then oil use dependent operation. and the actual distribution capacity, the 2014 test sale identified a significant. much of that is driven by what has happened in the last several years in terms
of the change scale and geography of our oil production, and to address disruption scenarios, a key need would be the ability to get oil onto the water to supply coastal refineries. changing markets of international commitments are not the only concern. they need additional investment to maximize value for funding and three distinct areas. one is deferred maintenance proposing a major down payment, cutting it in half. unfortunately the house and senate appropriations bill marks if enacted would not support that. we might be going in the wrong direction. life extension, almost 40 years old.
a significant life extension program is needed to ensure effectiveness for decades to come. third, modernization. we need to modernize to accommodate the dramatically different locations and volumes of oil production and changes in oil markets. the quadrennial review examined what would be needed to protect the us economy in an energy supply emergency. roughly $2 billion are needed. 800 million for life extension and 1.2 billion for modernization such as dedicated marine terminals to respond quickly and emergencies. the return could be used. adding 2 million barrels per day distribution capacity could save our economy tens of billions of dollars
depending upon the nature of the disruption. we need a robust growth to guard against the economic harm of such a major disruption, and this is not theoretical. if we look at events in the middle east, including just last week, adding another element of geopolitical uncertainty. just to finish with a couple of words on energy infrastructure, this was discussed extensively. existing infrastructure is not always well matched to supply, aging facilities prone to failure, climate change impacts that must be guarded against which but facilities at risk and, of course, enhanced concerns about cyber and physical attacks. the qtr had over 60 recommendations.
finally, i we will end by saying a collective approach to energy security in the international sphere is what we need today. the situation in ukraine and growing european dependence is my stimulated discussion within the g7 plus eu in terms of this collective responsibility. i just returned from istanbul with the dialogue continues. the reality is that this is an important and sensitive time in this arena, one would we are courage and other major countries to build up petroleum reserves to work collectively with hours. i think that we need to be careful about the signals we send. i appreciate the opportunity to come here and look forward to the discussion
and working further with the committee. >> thank you, mr. secretary. your concluding words other ones i find most intriguing. here you are over in europe, istanbul, working in this collaborative and collective approach with our chief of staff and allies, and the focus is on improving energy security from a broader perspective. you come home from that meeting, and the discussion here is the congress is looking to take money and sell off part of the strategic reserve that we are encouraging other nations to participate in two, again, buildout and enhance this collective energy security. tell me how this works from
the us is trying to persuade china, india to participate in these international energy security conversations? is it not a little -- hypocritical for us to be saying come on in and yet we are basically treating our energy security asset as a cash machine here? >> of course we are, as you know, and as is called for, carrying out a strategic study which we expect to finish next may in terms of what we need to do in terms of the size and the authorities of the petroleum reserve. now, without those i will not talk about a specific size, but the fact is that,
as i, as i said, the markets are different than they were in the 70s. the real issue is a major disruption which leads to a substantial price excursion which affects all of us which is why we are working with china and, the collaboration is excellent. they have, and visited ostrow. we have a visit in november. theynovember. they are building up toward a 500 million-barrel petroleum reserve. india is billing of prisoners. again, this is a time of considerable geopolitical uncertainty, and we need a more unified international collective response to the economic risks. >> i hope that we would agree we need a consistent response and cannot just ask them to move forward in this collective approach well at
the same time weakening our own energy security commission, if you will. i appreciate you saying you cannot comment on the rightsizing. you are going through the studies. i was walked through the very layers of analysis that will be part of that review, but wouldn't it be premature for us to be selling off portions of the reserve before we have that considered analysis and really know what the right sizes or understand how express to have aspects of modernization need to proceed? >> i would assume that is why congress has asked us to do the study, have a detailed and significant analysis which is being
performed with many, both analytical companies and universities to bring together i think the 1st really integrated strategic look in a very, very long time, and we would like to have that answer. >> and a necessary review. it is something we asked for for a reason, and, and i would certainly help we would take advantage of this considered review before we weaken our ability to utilize the recommendations that come with this. ..
are trying to ascertain is what is it that we need and how can we be smart with our energy assets? >> thank you for your work on a the document explain the 90 day requirement should be the only requirement talking about modernization. >> this day obligation based and imports but as i said based upon use of the drawdown capacity but beyond the international obligations i believe it is an investor interest to have a strong petroleum reserve
to give us the flexibility to respond if there is the major disruption we have had brainstorming sessions and workshops with experts looking at the risks of major disruptions and a day are there perhaps more than 3 million barrels per day and the risk of local disruptions so that has the expected impact and we are in a situation with a diminished global reserve capacity so it is being able to use government stocks in a rapid way to ameliorate
the economic harm we face. >> should the chairman have new authority in this area? >> we said it raised the issue of a variety of authorities and some are specific such as the two product reserves they have different authorities were used and should be harmonized with in the reserve but there are bigger policy issues such as how one defines a major disruption in the sense to have the ability to respond with there is likely to be a major price spike in as well as after that is that we need to discuss with get what is now a genuine global market in contrast to the
'70s. >> in the quadrennial review about a commodity congestion the inability for people to get utilities based on the competing needs so i think that quadrennial review does a good job to outline the fact we need to improve there as well i wish people here would swim in their own money but clearly we have to do both to improve infrastructure commodity talk up the utilities in minnesota had requirements to get the coal supply to them so that is the same problem of the underlying issue is getting other
commodities to market is that correct? >> yes then turns of the congestion issue with the gulf of mexico but that issue is much broader in terms of energy infrastructure i believe the rest lose them progress to the trained congestion to understand the steps they are taking so there is a lot of work going on in the private sector but we have not yet caught up to the incredible increase of oil -- will and gas production like large crops of coming together leading to some congestion so in addition to specific infrastructure rehab recommendations
because it was the administration guide document that all commodities used as part of the focus. >> talk about the of rule in your testimony advocate for the expanded view of that encompasses the needs of the united states allies and trading partners to highlight the vulnerability of our european allies of a single supplier for energy supplies not only with natural gas but crude oil. you cite the finding refineries are optimized in the capacity is in the hands of a shrinking number of russian owners i encourage the administration to approve liquefied natural
gas exports although it seems to dither with the crude oil experts. day you agree the exports would benefit our allies and trading partners? >> it is important to distinguish between natural gas and oil situations all located in imports we are self-sufficient and we will shortly sturdy exports for the of lower 48. a much greater exporter of oil products the specific issue raised in response to the department of commerce
but it is also true the last summary steady requested studies on exports show the impact for the next 10 years are likely to be modest in terms of exports. >> if this is your litmus test for it supports crude will we all know that much of the refining capacity is built to handle heavy crudes not what is produced as a result of technological advances so it is very different of the real fighting capacity is that the litmus test before we can export -- and next for a
different product? >> i did not say that. i do think it is 4 million barrels so they're getting the benefit of increased production is the first point. i forgot my second point now [laughter] >> the last month the white house press secretary said we don't support legislation that is put forward but a democrat will repeal the crude export ban so it doesn't seem the administration supports efforts to move the bill according to the spokesperson does the obama administration oppose all legislative efforts?
>> i thought of my other point with the additional production if you look at the spreads it is hard to argue there has been a lot of production from the current rules and commerce is responsible one is the ruling on the lady processed oriole with the approval of the swap so congress has taken steps it is on their desk. >> of course, to be having dinner that means flitted
day consideration for the economies period the difference is the analysis would say that if there were substantially greater production in the united states then there might to be an impact right now it does not suggest such. >> to circumvent the eastern europe and understand a number of leaders have expressed opposition what steps is this taking? >> we're working with our european colleagues at the european commission and we have made it very clear that
they are looking for diversification so we have had advocates and these were discussed so we remain very strong advocates of the caspian gas that needs additional interconnection and in addition we are very interested and don't have a direct role but to maintain discussion in terms of production and minuses -- the modernization and now with egypt so those are the issues that add to diversity of supply to increase european energy security. >> we appreciate you and
your input mr. secretary. you mentioned we have 7 million barrels per day of imports and i think it has even been forecasted 4 million of crude oil into the future. your predecessor was here and asked a question since we have 250 million no reserve tons of coal to barrels could be produced from 1 ton that is 500 million of reserves only saudi arabia has 260 million that sooner or later we have to use the resources we have effuse that with biomass feedstocks would have a
reduction of a carbon footprint? do you feel the same if we advance that type of technology? we're asking for a pilot project to show that we could do that. >> first of all, the interest in technology is called with curbing captured together to be completely carbon neutral so these types of conversion and technologies are research right now. >> but on the research side this is the type of potential home run that
we're very interested in using tear develop because we think down the road we will need an energy policy. >> and i may add the military is interested to explore this technology. >> and to find out if performs extremely well if not better. >> to make that as a perfectly replace the bleat -- replaceable fuel is possible we could talk about that. >> i hope he would consider that because we will do the heavy lifting if you could work with us. on the export of crude and
why their prices can be sobol a title but the more you look into it if it is done from a strategic standpoint it makes a lot of sense i support it wholeheartedly to give the president a chance to stop the export enterprise despite -- if the prices spike would that be advantageous not to be dependent on those around the world? looking at exports strategically. >> we are a significant net importer of crude oil. and major exporters of oil products sold the issue is
for example, if i take the mexico situation congress approves a swap for light and heavy so the mexican refineries are quite short of light oil so that is the case but also the reality is in terms of the big picture it does not suggest this is the inability to handle that oil so again the analysis requires a season impact only when the production gets significantly larger you see that in terms of spreads of the various
prices. another result of six months ago part of the series of five that congress requested it showed clearly our domestic product prices are linked to the global price not to the domestic price. >> the state would be very interested to partner up with a cold biomass curbing capture to show what could be done it could be a tremendous advantage to make us very much independent of foreign oil. >> 2.0 we could do a love for retrieving congestion moving crops to market if the state department would say but reside in the car
bin footprint i don't know why we don't but that is a political decision but it your testimony repeatedly referred to the relative sea level rise in the gulf coast of louisiana. it is much for from the rising sea levels. so is the coast line more resilient? for the refinery capacity even in another statement? >> that is a critical hub for the country and the
storm surge issues are very important for the of gulf and for the country's energy system. >> i will point out senator cantwell would take the money they are slated to receive has to be used for coastal restoration to be elsewhere that shows the national importance th importane of. and then not partaking resources away from louisiana and by the way in
the report it points out spreads as much as $20 in the recent past the louisiana light sweet soul that a premium so when you say significant the it goes up 13.five by 2025 which would be reasonable increase we can do that and it points out if we did so to export oil and gasoline prices would fall for the american consumer is we have 2.0 if we lift the export ban gasoline prices fall that may have been lost. >> 812 emphasized that was
in a high resource case not in the referenced case so without a of low-price with there was a significant impact. >> was also from the aspen institute bed if we allow all the oil exports to increase as much by 1% resulted in hundreds of thousands of jobs those independently of the price of gasoline i will point out the aspen institute to increase gdp by 1% which is really good for the american family right now. it may not happen because of market conditions but it
would create more jobs in the same sex something we should be doing purely at of curiosity chris smith testified blast april and made a statement that i don't quite follow the impact of the overall supply disruption would have the same effect on domestic petroleum prices regardless of the import levels whether or not they import from all disrupted countries i read that in preparation and about what is the purpose? do you follow?
>> i will have to discuss this quotation but the issue of abuse in the current market could be very important even scenarios that is not to the direct imports. to have incremental barrels to back out those imports so the global market can be balanced. >> it seems counter to the whole thing if you could get back to us. >> faq for holding this hearing i could not agree more as well as the ranking
member about the fact to be kept for energy security and that makes no sense. so thank you very much for holding the hearing and i will also say that this really is a long day we would all agree that would revoke at energy security it is a long game of the strategic petroleum reserve or how we expedite lng exports or end restrictions on exports of crude oil is all the al long gave for us in terms of our country and where we go. just one comment. it seems interesting we talk about selling off reserves right now when prices are so low it seems from a
financial standpoint with the taxpayer dollar standpoint we would want to sell those reserves when prices are high this does not make any sense resold by ian bought low with the test sale. >> my point. slightly different on energy security with that piece of that it is something that has impacted michigander beckley which is the safety of our pipeline. we have had a devastating break-in 2010 the largest domestic cleanup of 1.2
billion dollars to clean up the kalamazoo river and it was a disaster. now we have a situation soda straits that connect lake michigan and lake tehran that if in fact, there was a break would devastate the great lakes 20 percent of the world's freshwater it has been a number of different models but it is devastating so we have introduced legislation to redress the safety concerns around the pipelines that run throughout the great lakes under the water along of waterline as well. accelerating natural gas pipeline replace mates is one of the 60 actions of their review recommendations
as it relates to enhancing energy infrastructure. fisa relates to the oil pipeline but is there an opportunity for the department of energy to modernize and improve the safety of oil pipelines? whether a safety standpoint? >> a critical question with the aging of our energy infrastructure. i personally think and while doing it making it much more
resilient to the risks we are seeing. such you have the responsibilities secretary fox is concerned about this week to work to provide technical assistance we don't have the regulatory authority for technical assistance. >> looking at the infrastructure we include safety even with their broader jurisdiction so it has a broad implication and again and we are deeply concerned to see the
devastation to make sure that pipelines are open and safe. >> thanks for appearing. we talk about energy and national security to of a domestic source of enriched uranium. also for the commercial power plants with the proliferation and around the world so with that capability as when the notices were given to have
236 employees with the centrifuge project they are angry understandably. with the cent angry understandably. with the centrifuge announcement with new technology. tell us how much you need. and second give us the plan. unfortunately department of energy has done neither. candidate obama talked-about cleaning up the site and in
2009 that was the secretarial commitment made the agency was accelerating the cleanup now they're told the cleanup will not be completed through 2044 at the earliest. the federal government has a responsibility to clean up the site as it was set in the comments to keep the commitments to the work force. passing a spending bill a number of us worked on this
with the american in a centrifuge plant while it continues to in operation and you plan a using that bonding authority with the work done to prevent the involuntary layoffs from happening? >> as we discussed we're close to finalizing a plan rate think we can accomplish of involuntary layoffs but it does depend upon. >> i am talking about the sea are. >> what we're finalizing to entail risk for the rest of the year.
>> i will get to that a yes or no to use that authority given to you. >> again we are finalizing the plan stick you cannot even give us a commitment there will not be layoffs between now and december 11? >> i am confident we will get their idea of a little more time to notify the contract we are working towards that no involuntary layoffs. >> that is a surprise because it thought we had a commitment not to have any layoffs through that time we were given the authority. >> spend a heck talking about the next steps which is after december 11.
>> i appreciate your interest two's suggest last night. >> and with the idea that would deal a - - continue for the rest of the year. >> that is what we all hold for we need a commitment in your budget for next year which your already preparing that will be here after the first of the year to have adequate funding you underfunded by 80 million last year can be given say commitment. >> i cannot talk about the 17 budget at this stage we're trying to get adequate
funding for all cleanup activities. >> day cleanup request was $80 million less than was appropriated and again extending the cleanup even further and but you have committed to overtime to talk about keeping the of funding level. >> i have every intention and hope to do that but i cannot discuss the 17 budget and tell we go through the trade-offs. >> with regard to the cleanup we cannot even get a commitment on the continuing
resolution to work with us beyond that to have that anomaly in the of longer-term budget and with regard to the new technology this centrifuge project i was surprised to learn you were learning to pull the plug on new technology that we need to have a domestic source of the naval reactor program have you changed your mind? >> the program continues the issue is for the last two years operating the pilot facility that we have learned things to resolve a
technical issue with the machines but two things lead to that. >> i completely agree with the decision number one the scrubbing real hard on the need for enriched uranium we were able to extend the time frame very, very dramatically that i can discuss with you in the days ahead the technical judgement made that continuing to spend the machines will not give us any more technical knowledge of the technology we will preserve we're not pulling the plug but is hard to do justify the $50 million but
has little to no technical. >> there 120 centrifuges it to go to commercial grade you are pulling the plug on that entirely $6 billion to reconstruct that you said you only do that after issuing a report you never gave us a report i got the report last night. last night after you already made your decision to expel without informing us we had to hear about it in the press those workers deserve to know what is going on we will that have that ability to say we cannot enrich uranium the ku madam chair
very. >> these are important questions but i will remind my colleagues we have a second panel. >> as you note in your testimony for the strategic petroleum reserve this suggest it comes from diversifying the transportation and pules portfolio the best way to supply that is to reduce the need for the oil in the first place. can you talk about the appendages of the alternative fuel sources as they relate to energy security with an abundant source of alternative fuels
to lower the likelihood we could drive down from the strategic petroleum desert -- reserve? >> the security principles that were updated in 2014 reflected that point that efficiency and alternatives are part of the energy security so '02 continue to focus on oil dependence is threefold with substantial technology development and second from the advanced alternative fuels and electrification says three pressed to lower the independence.
>> with the biofuels one of the key motivations to diversify there is a a bill that is proposed in the senate that targets ethanol it is something that increases the octane of gasoline in the next that helps us to replace lead and is something that is required dp maintaining that helps to reduce u.s. reliance on international
oil? >> i will not get into the issue of those standards that the epa has responsibilities. >> come on. >> we will develop those technologies for the advanced biofuel. >> that is 10 percent of our gasoline. >> i am conscious of titus went to be sure i get in and under the five. what i took from your testimony is basically not so fast. oil is lower now. who says that these markets change in there is a reason to have this there to prevent shock and part of that mate the we don't
export will now but we export the oil products and if there is a spike around the world we cannot let it hurt the global economy that we fall victim to shock even though now because of the oil and gas revolution we're in pretty good shape but we need this to make sure we're able to respond to the global shocks to help of local partners so their economies are strong i am
summarizing your testimony testimony, of the faq for that i want to urge my colleagues to read that very thoroughly. >> if i may add some color to that. >> sorry for my cover less description. >> that is takeshi were reading my testimony. [laughter] if you look back to the fall of 2000 that is where britain was having the slowdowns they were exporting 1 million barrels per day it did not protect them from the global price by and then it turns out we
didn't use it for a sale but for a tight swap so it took a lot of froth out of the market. >> could you add that color the next time your written testimony? >> not in particular but it could be more interesting. [laughter] >> i am not sure my colleagues would appreciate that. [laughter] >> going back 1973 with the oil embargo senator franken was a writer for a brand new
show called "saturday night live" looking at the statistics senator murphy would have been two years old senator gardner was one-year-old 40 years ago. said to think about that it was the eagles and i was in seventh grade this a response to the acute crisis that we had and i remember that. so now a free pass for word, secretary moniz your a forward thinker and a brilliant man i am surprised to have a policy in place to serve a purpose that is irrelevant today now the united states used of largest producer to surpass
russia and saudi arabia so my question is, it looks as if a ban on iranian exports will be lifted. what countries have a ban on the oil experts? >> obviously we have a partial ban. >> want to make sure we have our facts right i am not sure there is any other? >> why should we have the ban in place? why isn't the only country in the world with a ban on most oil exports? coal, natural gas, gasoline gas, gasoline, when not wield?
>> we're major parts of exporters. >> obviously that is a policy decision i go back to that dia analysis shows like the projected markets is a small impact if that is in place or not. >> now the united states is the leading producer of oil and liquids number one in the world and we have a bay and on exports because of a law passed four years ago why does that make sense? >> just to repeat we are $7 million - - barrel per day importer that is the fact.
>> but the force that drives that is refining capacity the way it is laid out head the verses like i am looking forward looking forward to have a good vigorous debate to allow those forces the tax revenues to be back on energy security and the importance there of a hope we move forward to remove that and -- the ban. >> that is a lot. i hope we can get the white house to work with us think it would be tremendous for national security global security for the economy we have one regret now in montana and i recognize
their ups and downs in prices but that is a tremendous amount. >> the current global market does not seem to be in reality of looking for that oil. >> why not allow the forces of the free market? would-be the only country in the world to ban exports? now in iran is lifted why would be the only one? >> i look forward to your answer. [laughter] >> i don't have what i am looking forward to yours. >> we keep trying to get any answer senator? >> to ask about the strategic petroleum reserve
i understand drawing down the emergency oil reserve could make good financial and strategic sense we should have a conversation whole long in the is to be going forward but there is a proposal to sell off a large amount of the emergency supply to focus on to features of the bills that are proposed they're not there because anyone has made the case we need a smaller reserve nor is there a proposal because anyone thinks it is a great time to ruth sell the reason is to find the government it would set the lois with years in advance if oil prices are
low it could drop to a dollar a barrel like emergency needs to hold on smoked is this approach and efficient way to manage the strategic petroleum reserve? >> it is key we we're doing the unprecedented strategic study to be ready in may and this committee is encouraging is that so obviously you would like to have the results of that analysis and there may be other factors that have not yet been discussed but there are special authorities to use 30 million barrels of the reserve only if there is
a base of at least 500 the international obligations are based on use with a drawdown so our analysis will greatly in foreign this discussion. >> the one to be clear what is happening with these career proposals the inefficient sell off of the strategic petroleum reserve years in advance is one more bad idea how to finance government. oil prices that our strategic close this is a high-cost gimmick to have some people face the fact to be bused to a little money to fund essentials services
it is time to act like grownups that will build the future for everyone and we will never get there if we don't get serious to make sure everyone is pulling their weight. selling of the strategic petroleum reserve is not a way to do that. thank you madam chair. mr. secretary during the test sale you said repeatedly today the situation in terms of infrastructure whether pipeline capacity and i share your concern it is
estimated 1.$532 billion is needed but here's my concern all the states i am certain my state has a lot of coal we also have a lot of natural gas to put the pipelines to the residential natural forest is getting more and more difficult so if they need is as big as $2 billion what kind of leadership can respect from the administration will note that it was vetoed what type of leadership can expect to health meet the challenge not just making sure those existing pipelines is safe but the ones that we know we will need.
>> but that distribution requirements are about 1 billion of that total because roughly speaking 800 million is what we need for the extension and for the maritime distribution. >> this is a petroleum reserve so basically it is all we need to extend its life. >>. >> the pipeline distribution , and no. >> what do you estimate on that? reheard senators have been no talk about that. >> i don't have an answer to that i can give you an
answer to a slightly different question for a scale we estimate the modernization and replacement and upgrading of natural gas distribution pipes better in urban areas are in the hundreds of billions of dollars. >> we have a huge infrastructure issue i don't know how to pay for it but we do need a enormous and the structure renewal program. >> behalf to have a leader here that will lead the way through the very difficult permit issue whether it
drags your heels to not meet the deadlines or breaking up a roadblock and we have a problem here and not to mention the money but even if you had it we're still not able to move the projects forward and that is frustrating. >> natalie the pipelines but others that have challenges to bring the distant wint to market. >> but then you have to move it to. . .
there is already in law a threshold for being able to use certain authorities in terms of likely impacts on prices. intersectionicated but the analysis will be a major, hopefully, major stimulus to our discussion. i certainly hope so. >> they could have major implications. if we were to sell 200 billion barrels next year, that would generate a little over $17 billion, $17.3 billion, whereas if we sold the same 10 years later, 200 billion barrels, that would generate $22 billion. there is a $4.7 billion delta between what that would yield
net year and what it would yield 10 years from now. we have to be careful. >> for example, i know you picked a number, but that is an example of something that would impact the authorities that are currently available in law. in terms of this threshold. to maximize the energy security. one of the things we discussed earlier is that we have this analysis from oak ridge that that is what we
have to balance. we also have to balance it. we spent $24 billion in getting it together and maintaining it. >> it is about $200 million a year for annual operating cost. $50 million for maintenance. >> another question i wanted to ask, related to the fact in order to become a member of the andrnational energy agency as part of that organizations agreement on international required the u.s. is
to hold stock that is equivalent to no less than 90 days of net imports. that could be satisfied either through a government held reserve or through reserves held by industry. u.s.derstanding is also private industry held stock as of june 2015 that are equivalent to 208 days of net import. -- does the industry's does industry's large petroleum reserves in any way lessen the need for the government owned, operated strategic petroleum reserve? >> not in my view. let me comment. i will spend most of the time on when you asked, but our international obligations are twofold. one is the import metric and the other is the oil use metric of 43.5% of coordinated
distribution. --ng to the first metric today, if you talk about crude oil, we have 99 days but if you talk about the net crude oil and products, 137 days. that is just a fact. again, i'm to the -- not saying it is a right metric -- those are the facts. now, if we go to this question of the private stocks. first of all, today, though stocks are somewhat anomalously high because of the market conditions and supply and demand questions. those will go up and down. however, when other countries, say european countries and the their privateof the private st. stocks, all,
it is because they also have statutes requiring what the private sector does. we don't have that. i'm not sure that is the place we want to go. or you want to go. so, that is one point. the second point is that obviously government's motivation really is the public good. know, there can be in some circumstances mismatches between a private sector imperative which, after all, the imperative is to minimize inventories consistent with their operating requirements and, you know, etc. that is what their job is. i just think there is, certainly in the absence of the legislative approach i mentioned stocks, it is because they also have earlier, i just think that having it in the public hands to respond to a disruption that affects our entire economy is the place we should be. sen. lee: thank you, mr.
secretary. >> thank you, mr. secretary, for being here today. i'm perhaps in a counterintuitive way -- is in it very important we lift the oil export ban in order to reduce our dependence? based on studies performed by the energy information i administration, part of the department of energy, for a industry to expand and grow in this country, our energy industry, it is important we are able to compete in a global market. we are disadvantaged by the ban on oil export. if we want our industry, domestic industry to expand and grow, we need to lift the ban on oil exports per the studies put forward by your agency. therefore, that would make us less dependent. mr. moniz: i'm not --
>> the more robust industry. is -- one point -- the mainok point i will make is that i don't really see that. first of all, the eia reference case to 2025 did not have any material impact in terms of the ban. it is only in the very high resource case stretching it and without low-price that you got some material impact of a few hundred thousand barrels a day ingrow, we need to lift the bann oil 2025, but not in the reference case. the expected case. secondly, even if we are producing, ok, a few hundred thousand barrels a day more,
that in no way t changes our linkage to the global oil price and the exposure to a price spike. in fact, if anything, is both the fact that we are connected to the crude oil global market and the fact that we are, and i believe, continue to be major oil product exporters. we are exposed just as in an attic don't i gave about britain in 2000, we are exposed to the global oil price spike and that is the modern issue in terms of what it does for us. >> if we are allowed to compete in the global economy, we would have a more robust oil and gas industry in this country then we would if we were not allowed to compete. we are less dependent on the sproll. the other studies that are shown
by lifting oil export ban, we not only expand our industry, we create more jobs and economic activity in our country so why would we not want to do that and in fact make ourselves less dependent on it by having a more robust industry? mr. moniz: the reference case in the recent report does not predict a big increase in production at all. it simply does not. secondly, we have a very robust industry right now. not shield it does us from the global -- >> you would argue even if we are not able to get the global price, the crude price, and we compete in the global economy, you are saying that would not affect the size and scope of our industry? again, if the points were allowed, it certainly, it
certainly could lead to an increase in production. all i am saying is the eia reference case did not show any material impact to 2025. only in the high resource case did it show that. >> but it did show an impact? mr. moniz: in the very high resource case only. >> with what is going on now, you would not assert that is having an effect on our industry when our ability to compete, when our competitors purposely put our companies out of business? you don't think this impact the industry in this country? the global oil price is obviously affecting the industry in our country and everywhere else. it reinforces the point we are exploiting -- exposed to the global oil price. the global oil price is obviously affecting the >> which you would say it is how much opec in our competitors produce. mr. moniz: it is what everybody produces and consumes. >> maintain and share market
share at our expense. mr. moniz: that is the market. >> the nature of competition. let me shift to one other question as i have limited time here. quadrennial energy review, you talk about the importance of having the energy infrastructure we need to truly get energy security or energy independence in our country. that is one of the key points in the review. my question to you is if somebody is going to follow all the laws, the regulations and invest millions of dollars and still wait seven years for a sighting sai decision -- whether somebody is trying to reach traditional or noble energy, what is the message? if they cannot make the investment and rely on the laws -- regulations and still get have to wait for a decision for seven years, how are we going to get people, companies to make
the investments to build the energy infrastructure to make this country energy secure? senatorz: well, as center cap anito said, we do have challenges. quadrennial energy review, you talkinfrastructure . many parts of the country and all we can do is, we keep pushing on that to go forward. our authorities with regard to international energy is energy exports and electricity. >> would you invest millions of dollars in order to build either a traditional or renewable project if you might have to wait seven years to get a decision on whether you can cite the pipeline or transition line? mr. moniz: successful companies make decisions under risk evaluation. >> whether you had to wait seven
years, 10 years -- even if you spent millions of dollars and comply with all the laws and regulations, that would not deter you from making an investment? mr. moniz: i said one makes decisions -- that is what he owes get paid for. to make decisions under risks and understanding the situations and then -- >> gentlemen, we will interrupt and wrap it up. >> wouldn't you favor certainty in service of trying to getting investors to make the decisions to invest? mr. moniz: i think it is a fair statement in any of the dimensions, it is good to have, have certainty for a long time. i would especially note for something like carbon emissions. >> thank you for coming. i will not have time but i want to bring up -- you understand co2.we are doing in
>> thank you, madam chair. >> at this time, we will invite admiral dennis blair, former director of the national intelligence and commander-in-chief u.s. of civics command and cochair of the commission on energy and .eopolitics joinso mr. kevin book will the committee as the managing director for clearview energy .artners
he is a founding director for the center on global energy policy at columbia university and the final panel member will be sarah, the director and senior fellow for energy and national security program at the center for strategic and international studies. at thisblair, you are end. and that quick introduction a thank you for your patience this morning, hopefully, you have gained good insight from the questions that were posed by the committee members to the secretary and his responses as well. thank you for your willingness to be before the committee. if you will please proceed, admiral blair, and i will remind you that your full written statement will be incorporated