tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 1, 2014 1:00am-3:01am EDT
create a risk that successful candidates will pay more attention to the interest of nonvoters who provide them with than those who elected them. >> we appreciate your willing tons share your remarks with us today. you are excused. >> senator ted cruz made the case for limiting campaign contributions. >> and i will tell you this, i am certainly one who will defend the rights of our citizens to speak out whether i agree with their speech or not, the sierra club has an absolute right to defend their views as does the n.r.a. planned parenthood has a trithe
defend its views as does the right to life. that is the way our system operates. and campaign finances reform is about lower the limits, restrict the speech, restrict the speech and what happens is the only is e who can win election incumbent politicians because they have those that raise the money and any challenger has to raise the money. if you don't have an army of thousands and thousands of buppedlers you cannot effectively challenge an incumbent. that is not the unintended effect of these laws, that is the intended effect. we have super pacs that are speaking on the sidelines and you have politicians who play games. they speak since they cannot speak directly under the law they will say who will rid me of
this trouble some clerk. if a group is supporting you, you hope what they say bears some resemblance of what you believe but you can't talk to them so if they get it wrong, there is nothing you can do. a far better system would be to allow individuals unlimited contributions to candidates and require immediate disclosure. as john stewart mills said threat market place of ideas operate, let more speech counter bad speech ratherer than this illy game we play right now. money has nothing to do with speech. that statement is categorically objectively false. money is and has always been used as a critical tool of speech whether publishing books
or putting on events or broadcasting over the air waves. and i would suggest to each of the witnesses and to everyone thinking about this issue ask yourself one question for every restriction that members of congress are advocates put forth, ask yourself one question, would you be willing to apply that same restriction to the "new york times." and let me note "the new york times" is a corporation so everyone who says corporations have no rights, fine, there are some who say let's restrict political speech within 90 days of an election. would you be willing to say "the new york times" would not be allowed to speak of politics within 90 days of an election. you can't support nine candidates if they want to support 10 or 11 or 12, they are entitled to do so. if you think mccutchen is wrong would you be willing to tell "the new york times" you may only speak about nine candidates
or only candidates in new york. those restrictions are all obviously unconstitutional and i would ask you why does the corporation like "the new york times" or cbs or any other media corporation in congress' view enjoy greater first amendment rights than individual citizens. >> on the next "washington journal" congressman rob bishop on the efforts of republicans to have federal lands transferred to state control. and mark pocan will discuss the u.s. economy and job creation. "washington journal" begins live at 7:00 eastern. share your thoughts by calling in and your comments on facebook and twitter. >> there was a city slicker driving around lost and he came across a cowboy.
> not that old joke again. >> ladies and gentlemen, i've been attending these dinners for years and just quietly sitting there. well, i've got a few things i want to say. [applause] >> this is going to be fun because he really doesn't have a clue about what i'm going to say next. george always says he's delighted to come to these press dinners, bologne. he's usually in bed by now. i'm not kidding. i said to him the other day, george, if you really want to end tyranny in the world, you're going to have to stay up later.
[applause] i am married to the president of the united states and here is our typical evening. 9:00 mr. excitement here is sound asleep. and i'm watching "desperate housewives". >> watch this years white house correspondents dinner live saturday night. president obama and joel mchale headline before an audience of celebrities and journalists and the white house press corp live saturday night an c-span. >> at an event marking nato's 65th anniversary, vice president biden talked about the importance of the military alliance and how nato members should react to russia's
violation of ukrainian sovereignty. his remarks at the atlantic council in washington are 20 minutes. >> see the respect this group has, mr. vice president? on behalf of fred kemp and the atlantic council, welcome to our family. we have members of the board of directors. we have members of our international advisory council and most important, we have got some serious leaders from europe who are trying to determine their destiny around europe full and free. so over the last day, we have had the pleasure of hearing from many of these leaders. and it really is a distinct honor to conclude this
extraordinary and timely conference with remarks by the vice president of the united states joe biden. so it's fitting that vice president biden would conclude our conference because few have done more than you, mr. vice president, to promote and advance vision of a united europe. during his tenure in the senate as chair of the foreign relations committee, then senator biden provided critical bipartisan leadership to the cause of stopping genocide in the balkans and bringing former warsaw pact countries into nato. after his election as vice president, he has continued his role as a leading architect and voice on european policy. and most recently, vice president biden has again been in the lead on providing reassurance to u.s. allies in supporting the new government in kiev in light of the recent crisis in ukraine. last month he visited poland and lithuania.
and just last week he returned from meetings in kiev to offer u.s. support for the interim government. i am delighted the vice president can be here with us today to offer the obama administration's perspective on the challenges facing a europe whole and free and how it intends to respond. so please join me in welcoming the vice president of the united states -- joe biden. >> thank you. well, governor, thank you very, very much. and what a distinguished crew that i'm about to speak to. and i tell you, i've been trying to follow, as much as i can, the -- all that's been going on the last couple days, and i'm delighted to be able to be here to give -- and i'll try to make it as brief as possible, brent -- the -- our perspectives, so -- because you've been going a long time.
to the current and foreign -- the current and former foreign ministers of albania, bulgaria, the czech republic, lithuania, macedonia, montenegro, poland, romania -- all places that i've spent a lot of time -- i'm delighted you're here. and to the defense ministers from estonia, georgia, czech republic and montenegro as well, and to the many ambassadors and our close friends, i want to -- i want to tell you what an honor t is to be before you. and also, steve hadley and brent scowcroft and secretary lbright, it's an honor to be
ble to speak before you as well, and to nato's future leaders, who we're relying on a great deal. we're here today -- we're here today to celebrate the fruits of two actually very audacious and consequential notions -- maybe two of the most consequential and audacious notions of the last hundred years -- the idea that after centuries of conflict, culminating in two world wars, europe could reinvent itself in a single community defined by peace, anchored in political and economic integration, collective self-defense, and a free flow of commerce and people, and no less important, the idea that the door to this transatlantic community would remain fundamentally open to free nations who share the values and commitments we have, and to those who dream from inside the captive nations of the day they too might join a europe whole and free. and from those improbable, remarkable roots, from the principle of integration, collective defense and an open
door grew the post-cold war enlargement of nato and eu that e now commemorate. and today i want to talk about the road traveled to get there and the word ahead to complete this project, because it is not complete, in my view. all in all, the growth of the euro-atlantic community has turned out to be one of the greatest forces in human history for advancing peace, prosperity, security and democracy. and i don't think that's hyperbole. i think that is literally the case. and this year we celebrate 15 years since poland and the czech republic have joined -- and hungary have joined nato, 10 years since seven more nations from the baltics to the black sea expanded nato's ranks, and the big bang that grew the eu, and five years since albania and croatia became part of nato. in hindsight, it's tempting to suggest that this was inevitable, but those of us who lived through it know it was anything but inevitable. i remain in awe of the determination and moral courage
the people and the leaders who willed their country forward through political, economic and social upheaval. and the glory is all theirs -- all theirs. like so many of you, i was proud to play a very small supporting role. i had the opportunity, ironically with my colleague bill roth who was chairman of the finance committee at the time, to help bring the baltics and central europe into nato. it's easy to forget that this was a hard-fought battle on the floor at the time. there wasn't unanimity in the united states senate. some of the brightest and most articulate members of the senate thought that -- thought that expansion was happening too soon. others said it went too far, it would generate a reaction in russia that was inappropriate. but i was strongly in favor, joined by my fellow delawarean senator bill roth.
we were so passionate about it, madeleine may remember, that president clinton joked that ato must be offering to move the headquarters to wilmington, delaware -- because -- no, i'm serious. it was -- do you remember that's what he said at the time of the official vote. but you know, all these years later, there are some who look at russia's aggression in ukraine and say -- maybe we should not have extended security guarantees to poland, romania, bulgaria and the baltic states. but i think it shows we had to extend that guarantee, because we reject and continue to reject, have rejected the notion of a sphere of influence built on the backs of the people who deserve freedom -- freedom that we always supported and that we believe is as vital today as it was then. and let's be clear -- the current crisis born in the enlargment of nato and the eu 15 yeras ago has nothing to do with
-- 15 years ago has nothing to do with the enlargement of nato. it was born in the kremlin. it was born in putin's mind. t has nothing to do with the fact that we expanded nato. and here's another debate we don't hear much about anymore -- and i don't know how many conferences over 40 years i've attended about whither nato. so no longer is there a debate about is nato still relevant? i stand before you as a proud atlanticist like most of you, if not all of you, my entire career, and a firm believer that nato and the trans-atlantic relationship have never been more relevant than they are
today. in the last three months i've had the honor -- and i see some of my friends here -- to visit or talk with over 28 separate meetings with presidents and prime ministers from the region. and i'm pleased to announce that in june president obama will be returning to europe. he will visit poland for the 25th anniversary of the democratic elections that took place there for the first time in a long time, brussels to consult with the g-7 on ukraine and other issues, and france, where he will celebrate the 70th anniversary of detail -- excuse me, of d-day with our oldest -- america's oldest ally. as president obama told the people of strasbourg, quote, "our shared history gives us hope, but it cannot give us rest. this generation cannot stand still." he means it, we mean it. i suspect you all share that view. we have a lot of work cut out for us in the very near term, and it starts with focusing on the upcoming summit of nato in wales. as you know, in response to
russian aggression, america's taking steps to make clear that our allies will honor the solemn commitments under article 5 of the nato treaty. there are no ifs, ands or buts about that, that is an absolute ironclad guarantee. and it's amazing to me how welcome the reassurance of that guarantee is in our newly dmitted members of nato in central and eastern europe. we've been urgently stepping up our military presence in air and land of the balkans -- excuse me -- of the baltics and poland and in the waters of the black sea, and we've asked our nato allies to make similar contributions, and many have. and we hope by wales all nato members will have increased their commitments to nato, to nato's reassurance efforts and to their own defense budgets. it puts this back in sharp relief once again, because shared security has to be a shared responsibility, and as the -- excuse me -- as isaf and
the mission in afghanistan comes to an end, we need to invest in training and maintaining the expertise that we've collectively built. we need to continue to build on the security capacity of our partners outside of nato. and we have to tackle threats together. economically, people on both sides of the atlantic are hungering for greater economic opportunity. that's why i'm such a strong supporter of the president's initiative of trans-atlantic trade and investment partnership. it will be tough, but it is necessary. it is necessary. it will create growth in jobs. it will strengthen the global trading system and make us both stronger at home so we can be trong around the world
together. and when it comes to energy, russia should not be able to use its resource as a political weapon against its neighbors. i believe, and some of us in this room have believed this for some time, that it's time to make energy security the next chapter in the european project f integration and market expansion that began with the european coal and steel community. it's long past time. nd it can be done. it's time to replace country-by-country strategies with a coherent collective effort focused on diversifying supply, improving efficiency, which badly needs to be done, making investments in market reforms, including greater flexibility for infrastructure to transport natural gas and a good deal more. i applaud and encourage europe's efforts to take a more reasonable approach because a more stable european supply of energy means a more secure world. this would be a game-changer for europe, in my view, and we're ready to do everything in our power to help it happen. and through it all, we need to be finishing the business of building a europe whole, free
nd at peace. when i visited ukraine last week, i saw and heard and felt the people's aspirations for a better and more dignified future. i know that senator kerry spoke at length with you about ukraine, and so i will be brief on the subject. ukraine's struggle starts with an acute challenge of russian violation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity, and all the rules of the 21st century taught us that must be upheld, they have been flat violated. what russia has done violates not just ukrainian sovereignty but the fundamental principle hat european borders cannot, will not be changed through political intimidation or military force. and we have to be resolute in mposing costs.
and i'll note parenthetically that costs are going to be shared in some cases disproportionately. that's the reality. but the community's work in ukraine can't end there, by imposing costs on russia. it is -- it is -- quite frankly, t's equally mission critical that we focus on what ukrainians are for. for 25 years, it's been free. for 25 years, it has not met its goals. for 25 years, even including the orange revolution, it has not een realized, in significant part because of corruption and as a consequence of institutions that need significant
modernization. this needs to be a government that exists to serve the people, not enrich the powerful. i found when i met with the prime -- oh, excuse me, was the prime minister -- with the president, with civil society, with three of the leading candidates for president and with the members of all parties in the rada, there is a common view, east and west, that the government has to begin to deliver, that corruption is incredibly corrosive. it may not be politik to say, but it is a reality. the -- they need an economy where there are jobs and what you know matters most to them, where, in fact, ukrainian -- there's respect for the diversity of people, and there remains a united ukraine. i think that is all within their grasp. we're working to provide u.s. civilian experts on the ground who can help realize each of these aspirations and provide specialized knowledge in holding elections that are monitored so no one can question the legitimacy, in building institutions that are transparent, more modern, more effective than those ukrainians have had over the last 25 years,
in fighting corruption so that time democracy -- in time democracy can be delivered to the ukrainian people. in my view, it's the most significant bulwark against russian aggression, because ukraine will need all these things to succeed. nd finally, there's the matter of our relationship with ussia. since the end of the cold war, america and nato allies have reached out to russia in a hand of partnership and a place in the partnership for peace, the g-8, the wto, the council of europe. we did this because russia's integration into the international order remains in everyone's interest.
but russia -- it cannot -- and i believe they do know -- have it both ways. if russia wants to benefit from the international order, it has to respect that order and abide by the rules. otherwise, it's going to face rowing costs and growing isolation. ladies and gentlemen, the challenges we face, i need not tell anyone in this audience, are real, but they're able to be faced and we're able to succeed if we face them together. america has stood with europe and always will, just as europe has stood with us. and the progress we have made has been remarkable. when i think of how far we've come, it calls to mind the words of the poet seamus heaney in his poem "the cure at troy." he wrote, history teaches us not to hope on this side of the grave. when the wall fell, hope and history began to rhyme. let's not rest until they rhyme once again in a europe that is finally, finally whole, free and at peace. it's a big order, but it is possible to get it done if we remain joined at the hip, if we remain united and steadfast. thank you all very much for
listening, and i appreciate the opportunity to speak to you. [applause] >> senator bob corker the lead republican on the foreign relations committee announced he and other senators will introduce a bill to respond to the ukranian crisis. he went to the floor to discuss what would be in that bill. >> mr. president, i rise today out of a genuine concern that the foreign policy that our dministration is conducting is creating danger for the united
states citizenry and creating danger throughout the world. let me just speak a little bit about that. i think all of us have seen what happened in syria when the administration had an opportunity on the front end of a conflict to put its thumb on the scale and to tchange dynamic of what was happening within the country and stated that it would do so, it did not. this weekend i was at a security conference and people on both sides of the aisle expressed dismay at the way the administration had conducted its operations or actually hadn't conducted its operations in syria and yet stated so many times what it was going to do. today we find ourselves in a situation where i'm absolutely certain that one of the policies that we will end up carrying out in syria will be a counter terrorism policy because of our concern about the fact because
we didn't act when we could, not with american boots on the ground, that's not what anybody has proposed but when the administration could have done something to prevent the disaster that has occurred there, to prevent 60,000 for syrians from being killed in many cases from helicopters dropping bombs on innocent citizens there, when the administration could have acted to keep those atrocities from occurring when it said it was going to act and didn't, when it could have done that, now we are going to find ourselves quickly in a situation in my opinion where we realize this say threat to our homeland and we're going to be engaged in counter terrorism activities. i say that as a predicate to the issue that i'm going to discuss which is ukraine. mr. president, so many members of our body have reently been to
ukraine, as a matter of fact i count 12 members, members on both sides of the aisle that have spent time visiting ukraine and going and seeing what the people there did. they rose up to hope for a free world, to hope for human rights, to hope for democracy and to rid the country of corruption. today we have a prime minister that is young whose who is taking on the issues of the day and doing everything he can to usher this country into a new era. a country that is dest tinned to join the west on its current path. at the same time we see a country whose greatest threat to that occurring is russia. a country as we know illegally went into crimea and an exexed it, a country that has 40,000 troops on the border and black ops inside the industrial part of ukraine that it hopes over
time to become a part of what they are doing in russia. we see every day the destabilization occurring. we know the next important step in ukraine is to go to this may 25 election and have an election which is a valid election and we know daily putin and russia do everything they can to destabilize ukraine and de legislate mies this process of elections going forward. a number of us out of grave concern for what is happening, out of concern about where this is going to lead america, where this is going to lead europe have come together to write a piece of legislation because what we've seen from the administration is a lot of rhetoric. unfortunately mr. president what we see is an administration that can't help itself but to try to
be in every 24 hour news circle talking about what it's going to do. but then when it actually comes to the time of actually doing it, that's not what occurs. this week, mr. president, i was very disappointed when the i was disappointed when they unveiled the next round of sanctions. sanctions that would have an impact on the russian economy so that putin and all those around him nor carrying out of these activities what understand they would pay a price for what they're doing eagle legally -- doing illegally. there are agreements we came to around the budapest memorandum. is everyone on wanted the sovereignty of this country. mr. president, for that reason, a number of us have them together to write a piece of legislation drawis intended to try to
an outcome. it is a piece of legislation that moves away from the way the administration has been dealing where they are always a daily and a dollar short. and they're always responding to what russia does. thats doing something deals with something after something that has occurred. this legislation is designed to drive out come, show the administration that there is a strategic way to deal with this issue. mr. president, let me tell you what this doesn't do. i was disappointed to pick up the wall street turn now this morning and look at the front page that those of us who are concerned that is strongly a partisan are -- that are bipartisan are concerned about what is going on in ukraine.
i was very disappointed to pick up the paper and read that the whoident said those people want the military action by the united states in ukraine -- that is not what this bill dollars. what this bill does -- that is not what this bill does. this bill tries to keep that from happening. both members on both sides of the owl are concerned. -- i'll are concerned. they are continuing to allow policy that is a could lead to significant problems down the road. we understand these are how major conflicts unfold. we understand we're talking about two countries that are armed with nuclear weapons. mr. president, today at noon, number of us will gather around and introduced use of legislation that does three things. one, strengthen nato.
i think everyone would agree that the commitment of nato to its allies, our commitment to nato, our partners commitment to nato, it has waned. by the way, this is not just something that has occurred. it has been going on for some time. only three countries as a matter of fact that are honoring the commitment relative to the support of nato. the first piece of this is to strengthen nato. planadministration's own relative to missile defense, they say it doesn't change the technology. the second piece of this legislation is intended to deter russia from what it is doing. wouldo president, putin move the russian troops from the
border -- i think what we have seen now is that "redline" has changed. they're focused on not going inside the country. russia is accomplishing what it wishes to accomplish inside ukraine without even sending troops in. they're able to do it with black ops. thatdoes this legislation many others were involved with in developing, what this does is .ay down clear sanctions it begins with sanctions that hit several important entities in that making. it would affect the russian economy until such a time as he pulled those troops away from the border and remove those
black ops operators from inside the country. this bill imposes much deeper sanctions on russia. , earlier this week when the administration put marvelanctions, it was a to see that the stock market in russia several days in a row continued to go up. it had no effect on russia. none. mr. president, editorial writers and people on both sides of the a understand that this was nothing more than a slap on the wrist. putin understands that. russia understands that. they understand that we as a nation so far has not signify that we are willing to use these economic sanctions in a way that
is true the president's own executive order to change the behavior. we are concerned about the direction this is taking. the third thing that this bill would do is that it would harden our non-nato allies. mr. president, i think you know ,here i have recently returned we know that there are numbers of things we need to do as a nation to help then harden their country. this bill lays those things out. area ofussian speaking eastern ukraine, the only whormation that the people are russian speaking in that part of the world is coming from russia. it is a began to. it is talked about things that the u.s. is doing, which we aren't. and the great lines they will have that they're able to annex
that part of the world. we need to make sure that the information they're receiving -- there are so many things we can be doing to ensure that ukraine will not destabilize. let me say this and closing. i see my friend is ready to rise and speak on another topic. mr. president, this bill that will be introduced today is a serious piece of legislation. manyratified by that so make thisve put in to legislation as it is. it is strategic. it is serious. it tries to accomplish a good outcome. what i hope introduction of this legislation will do is it will cause administration to step away from the microphone and that cameras, step away from that empty rhetoric that has been shared all across this
world. cause them step back and say hey , wouldn't it be good if we laid out a strategic approach to europe? isn't it time that we realize that russia is destabilizing europe and that affect us our citizens? benefit from 22% of the world's gross domestic roddick. the fact of the world being secured not only important to us because of the human rights and democracy and freedom, but it is important to the livelihood of the people. i think those involved. i look forward to discussing this more fully when we unveil this. i hope that they will step back and step down begin to do those things that strengthens nato more fully.
they will do those things that russia tocause understand exactly what will happen if they continue on the path they are on. thirdly, strengthen our non-nato allies which because of the policies that we have not put in place, are continually being destabilized. we're going to be taking a look at a new back -- book by c-span "sundays at eight." the web editor joins us at the news desk. why a book like this? >> it is our eighth collection of stories here at c-span. the main reason to do this book is to share the stories that c-span has covered over the years. the sunday evening program that airs at 8:00 started 25 years ago. it became q&a -- years later.
the stories that have been told over the years are moving it from the screen to the printed page. >> what is in the book, "sundays at eight"? >> there is a depth to this book. a number of different sections. we have five sections in the book beginning with the stories and we have american history, media and society, money and politics, post-9/11 america. the chapters themselves -- the book formed itself and shaped itself. the book or kind of a reflection of our times and ofq= "q&a" over the " over thef "q&a years. you have one guest for one hour and you go through a discussion
on whether it is up public policy issue or what have you. what we did is we took up the questions to facilitate answers. the kind of fade away at a certain point. the answers are what matter. what we have done with a minimal amount of editing is to guestlly allow the yes -- articulate their story viewpoint on whatever the issue is. let it speak for itself. the reader will basically get the answers in their own words. >> what are some of your favorite stories? >> it was a path of discovery for me and for the team working on this. there are so many fascinating stories. .here is one in particular
she was talking about her politics in virginia and how she things we knowhe from american history is the rosa parks moment when she's forced to give up her seat and she declines and then you have a history unfolding before our eyes in the south. she said when she learned about that store, her mother said to her, before that happened, i had a rosa parks moment. what do you mean? in richmond and they went to the fact of the bus like i was supposed to do and i sat down and an older white gentleman got on the bus and asked me to give up my seat. she said, what do you want me to do? i already at the back of the bus? what you have in that moment was personal history and politics. that is what the program is about.
an extension of everything we do here at c-span. it was a candid moment in an extended interview. it revealed something that was both fascinating and also something about our country. >> working people learn a little bit more about the book and watch some of these interviews that has taken place over the years. to c-span.org /sundaysateight. there are 41 in total. you can click on any of the images there. other transcripts for those who want to see how the program and the interviews unfold. you can watch clips. you could watch those and read about the authors themselves. their websites. -- a lot quite all i of information there. " people canat eight
buy the book now. what happens to the royalties for this book? >> there is an educational foundation that we have. c-span. i think it is important to stress that this is a collaborative effort. you wear a lot of hats. a lot of people were involved in this process. they work together to make it all come together. all of the proceeds go back into the continuation of the work that c-span does. that is basically the educational foundation. that was our c-span digital media and web editor. thank you. the book is "sundays at eight." on c-span, a hearing on exporting natural gas in europe. that is followed by hearing on nuclear arms in russia. ater, bill clinton speaks at
georgetown university about public service. do find it curious that nasa did not script it? [laughter] the late chair who i met at nasa relations in the outside world in many ways was absolutely adamant that headquarters never put words in the mouth of the people. beyond that, not to my knowledge they ever controlled the
statements, the public statements of others. >> historian douglas brinkley describes his 2001 interview with neil armstrong. sunday at 4:30 p.m. eastern, part of america i history tv this weekend on c-span three. over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting in the room at hearings, briefings, and conferences, and offering complete gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industry. he, created by the cable tv industry are defied years ago and brought to as a public servant -- c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to as a public service. >> e-house hearing on natural gas export look at how allowing
the sale of liquefied natural gas to europe could help advance u.s. foreign policy by helping allies currently dependent on natural gas from russia. members of the house oversight subcommittee on energy all as he heard from state and energy department officials on the matter. this is two hours. >> this hearing will come to order. with two begin fundamental pencils. people have the right to know that money taken by them is well spent. we must protect these rights. our responsibility is to hold government accountable. we will work tirelessly as watchdogs. we will bring genuine reform to bureaucracy stop this has been the mission of our committee stop we will discuss the role of natural gas.
how we are handling exports and national security policy. wester, we focused on the department of energy strategy in reviewing applications. at that hearing, we were joined by various guests from the u.s. state department, thank you both for coming. it is obvious that the u.s. is in the middle of energy reduction revolution. that gives us access to resources that were not previously recoverable. as of 2010, that number has risen to over 300 trillion cubic feet. economic studies have informed decision-making. it indicates that the united states will see indefinite
economic benefits. energy exports will be an important foreign policy tool. many of our friends and allies are forced to buy gas from russia's vladimir putin. ukraine imports over 60% of its natural gas from russia. this gives russia an immense amount of power. russia has a habit of squeezing its neighbors' energy when it wants to affect their actions. the u.s. has the resources to come to their aid. we need the political will. as mentioned previously, this subcommittee is focused on a process for proving natural gas exports.
countries with whom we have a free trade agreement -- that export is consistent with public interest. authorization must be granted without delay. for countries with which we do not have a retreat agreement, the natural gas act presumes that. unless the department finds proposed exportation not consistent with public interest. natural gas has been part of a proposed pipeline through canada and mexico since the 1930's. the lower 48 states granted the first permit. the facility is currently under construction in louisiana. it will begin soon. when we had our last hearing on this topic, that was the only facility approved. there are still 24 applicants waiting for approval. i encourage the doe to process
these applications. it is in our international interests. in december 2012, president obama said that the united states is going to be an exporter of energy due to new technologies and what we're doing of natural gas and oil. he recognized that these energy developments could have a huge geopolitical consequence. his remarks are embodied in the state department's bureau of energy resources. one of its goals is to manage geopolitics of state and economy through energy diplomacy with major producers and consumers. when objective that i hope to a college is to get a sense of how -- one objected that i hope to get a sense of is how the administration is taking advantage of national security opportunities. it seems clear to me that this administration has identified
exports as a valuable part of u.s. diplomacy. i would like to make sure that different parts of our government are functioning effectively and efficiently. the doe and these agencies are working harmonious way. are there any barriers we can fix to move this along? this will have a clear effect on the settlement of our foreign-policy agenda. we must safeguard our allies from political volatility. we must have crossed agency coordination to carry that out. i look forward to your testimony. i recognize the gentlelady from california for her opening statement. >> thank you. i look forward to an informative discussion. i agree that russian control of ukraine is a critical issue. the european union gets 24% of its gas from russia. some countries are dependent on russia for the entirety of their
supply. considering the obvious imperial ambitions of putin, the u.s. must help focus this on russian gas. in the short term, proposals to help ukraine by fast tracking approval with export terminals will quickly get the u.s. help to europe and ukraine. the u.s. has only one export terminal. there is another one in louisiana. building more terminals to find them will take several years. i am all in favor of getting the department of energy the resources they need for this process. it is a complex and slow process. it could benefit from additional
resources. we should not pretend that this is a panacea. the main barrier to u.s. exports to europe is not the permitting process. it is the fact that u.s. gas would be substantially more expensive than cheap russian gas. most experts agree that exports from the u.s. would be far more likely to go to asia for prices that are higher than in europe. that is not to say that the u.s. should not market gas in europe. taking note that conducting foreign policy via energy exports is complex. how can we help ukraine, given these constraints? a number of efforts are underway. the u.s. is working with you and the imf on a number of efforts to move europe toward greater diversity. reversing flows of natural gas from existing type line into ukraine and further developing
ukraine's natural gas resources. encouraging energy efficiency rarely makes headlines. in ukraine, it could be a game changer. ukraine produces as much gas as it uses. the ukrainians are notoriously profligate energy users. banks get government energy subsidies. by implementing efficiency measures, ukraine could be nearly self-sufficient. i think these efforts to use american resources to bolster foreign policy are admirable. it will become increasingly important over the next decade. however, we must not lose sight of the side effects of our current energy boom. a brookings energy initiative study found that u.s. exports would have a modest impact on domestic prices. even this modest increase, estimated to be around $50, would be damaging to low income
consumers. they would have to choose between heating their homes and buying food. an increase in exports should go hand-in-hand with funding of low income energy assistance. let's not also forget the businesses and manufacturers. they have built plans around low price gas. creating jobs would be offset by the loss of jobs elsewhere in the economy. increasing exports would also increase the environmental risk factors associated with drilling. a strong foreign policy cannot come at the cost of polluting american drinking water refund and chemicals from fracking. my district may have uncontrolled he level rise. level rise.
there are substantial benefits to exports, but we must think about what is feasible and control the cost. thank you for holding this hearing and to our witnesses for being here today. >> we will now recognize our first and only panel. mr. christopher smith, and the deputy assistant secretary for diplomacy, and all witnesses are sworn in. please raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. after your testimony is finished, your notes will remain part of the permanent record. >> thank you very much.
i appreciate the opportunity to discuss the doe's policy of regulating the export of natural gas. the abundance we are experiencing in our supply is unprecedented opportunity. over the last several years, domestic gas production has increased significantly. there has been declining natural gas imports. growth is primarily due to the development of new technologies to stop that includes technologies to produce natural gas trapped in shell formations. there was a dramatic change in 2012. there was a important role played in the development of
technology. beginning in the late 1970's, the department contributed to the development of hydraulic rupturing and new drilling technologies. private sector investments continued industry innovation. there have been billions of dollars in economic activity. the united states is now the number one natural gas producer and is poised to become a net exporter by 2018. that is according to the energy information administration. natural gas prices are lower. in the united states, demand for the natural gas is growing rapidly. the department of energy has received a growing number of applications to export natural gas to overseas markets. the authority to regulate the
export of natural gas rises from the natural gas act. there are two standards for processing applications. as of march 24, the department of energy has approved 35 such applications. for applications to export natural gas to not f.t.a. nations, the secretary must grant the authorization unless after opportunity for hearing it is found not to be consistent with the public interest. the department of energy established a robust process for the public interest which provides for public comment and transparency and allows balance of the many aspects of public
interest that are potentially affected by the export of natural gas. while section 3-5 of the act establishes a presumption for authorizations, it neither defines public interest or criteria that must be considered. in prior decision, the department has identified a raping of factors it evaluates. these factors include economic impacts, international considerations, security of natural gas supply, environmental considerations and others. to conduct its review the department looks to record evidence developed in the application proceeding. applicants and intervenors are free to raise new issues or concerns relevant to the public interest that may not have been addressed in prior cases. date the department has
approved an kvitova lint to nine billionle cubic feet per day. the department will continue processing the end ing export applications on a case by case basis following the order of precedence set forth on the department's website. during this time, the department will continue to monitor any development and assess their impact as further passion -- information becomes available. the department considers international factors as part of its determination. of course we are monitoring the situation in europe closely, and we take energy security of our allies veersly. we have taken recent global events into account in making decisions in recent applications.
entire increasing production of domestic natural gas has reduced the need for import l&g. improving energy security for many of our key trading partners. to the extent exports can diversify l&g supplies, it will improve energy security for many aleyes and trading partners. inconclusion, i would like to emphasize that the department is committed to moving forward as expeditiously as possible. we are committed to getting it right. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> mr. chairman, thank you for having me appear before this committee, ranking member speier and other members.
it is someone good to be back in the house. i appreciate the opportunity, especially on this critical topic. the hearing comes at a critical time. with the illegal and ex-ation of crime' by russian, we are witnessing the unacceptable and shocking violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of one country by another. the department of state is not the approval agency for export licenses. my colleague has addressed that issue. many have argued accelerated exports is the magic bullet for allies and partners. while critically important, they are one tool among many we are utilizing to address the energy challenges in europe and elsewhere. we have been working around the
world to contribute to that energy security and will continue to do so. there are renewed fears that russian willle use energy as a political tool as it did in january of 2009 when russia cut off gattis supplies to ukraine. all supplies were halted for 13 days. a can't showed european union moved towards divorce feingold its energy. e e.u. began to have regulations and build an infrastructure. the u.s. has been working closely with the e.u. to prevent a repeat of the 2009 crisis. we established that year an energy council, chaired by the secretary of states of state and energy. the first meeting was held that year in november of 2009, the fifth meeting was held just a few weeks ago. we have to take into consideration as we look at these issues is the global
context in which we are living. the supply and demand changes that have occurred around the world. first, the supply mechanism has changed from a small number of countries supplying the world to a much larger number of countries supplying oil and gail. while eodc countries were driving the demand until now, in the coming times it will be driven by non-oecd countries. we have worked to address the energy security of ukraine and europe. we are looking as ranking member speier said in her testimony at not just the l&g exports but the issues that would require europe to address their own needs. that means addressing the infrastructure shortages and
shortfalls that europe suffers from. with pipelines that goes from russian into europe to make sure they can reverse flow so they can supplying ukraine. the fact that poland and hungary have been able to reverse their flows, and two days ago a maim deal was reached to reverse flow. these are steps that could not have happened had we not learned the lessons of 2009 and spent the time working with our e.u. partners to make those changes available and capable. the e.u. passed as a result of 2009 the third energy package which changed the regulatory framework. without that today the reverse flows into ukraine would not have been possible. but it is not enough to look at this from russia to ukraine and into europe. we have to look at appliance that got not just north-south and south to north, but east and west.
there must be capacity to receive the l&g and done in a way bankable and financeable. as we look at this, this is not about the united states and its exports that will come in the years to come. this is, as i talked about before, the supply change. i am going to get to what ranking member speier said. we are looking at australia coming on line with enormous amounts of natural gas in the oming years. mozambique has made discovers. there are other exporters in 2017 and 201. same for cypress, lebanon on the eastern mediterranean. other areas are all looking to become new producers. there is a global context that we have to understand how to address and we are doing so today together with the department of energy, department of state and the rest of the administration to ensure that we can be there to allow and to make sure that not
only europe is supplied, but that energy is used as a resource for coorpgs and not a resource for conflict. in conclusion, mr. chairman, l&g exports may become an important factor in assisting our allies and friends, but it is only that one factor, that one tool, and we have to work on all these other areas that i just mentioned in order to make sure that our commitment to energy security, as we did with the pipeline in the 1990's, and we are doing now, to make sure that energy security is achieved. we are strongly committed to europe's energy security and will continue our joint efforts with the e.u. to make that a reality. thank you. >> thank you. we begin with a five minutes of questioning. we will go around and do a second round in a moment. i would like to enter,
ambassador large and the doctor from the minister of foreign affairs a statement she has written. without objection, so ordered. she has a statement in this that i want to read to you quickly. she testified on the hill march 25. she said i used $400 as an example of how unrealistically high russia may rise the price of 1,000 cubic meters of gas delivered to ukraine if it chooses to use gas as an economic weapon. this was before they invaded crime'. moscow went above that number and now quotes $485. the current price is around $268, four times the amount that is the hub price. ukraine had difficulty setting its invoices, the new price seems well above what kiev may be able to cover. they may have to face a winter without gasses from the east or
cave in politically. one of the statements she makes is pertinent. on april 11, vladimir putin accept a letter to 18 european correspondents warning them about potential supply disruptions in the winter. this is hard ball, and this is one of the situations we have to respond to and respond to with clarity in the process. let me read one more final statement. panacea export is no in the long-term. it will not save ukraine and possibly other parts of central eastern -- other parts of central eastern europe from a very cold winter in 2014. yet, it makes the medium term solution very clear and this prospect would have immediate impact on pricing and maybe even availability. her request is interesting. her request is it will begin to act. it at least sets a marker out
there that shows russia that we are serious and they know we are moving. two years ago when we started the process of these conversations, i had two different individuals specially who came to visit my office immediately. the japanese and members of parliament from ukraine. two years ago. their question was the same. how quickly could we get american natural gas? since that time period, multiple other countries have visited with me with the same question. how quickly could we get american natural gas? this is one of those conversations we need to be able to determine. i understand full well we have the first responsibility to take care of america and americans. hat is in our national sp. -- our national interest and our first responsibility. but there is also department matich strength that comes from the export of energy, this is one of those issues i continue to ask, why is it taking so long in the process?
that was a long statement for me to make. mr. smith, let me start this conversation. depending on the different permits, sometimes it has taken 11 weeks, sometimes eight weeks, sometimes it has taken the different times to be able to actually get a permit one after another. the initial one, obviously the is a bean pass approval took approximately eight months after the application. but we have had some now that are 27, 29, 23 months after the application. is this process getting faster? i know you are working through the process. is it getting faster is the department of energy getting more efficient in the approval process? >> thanks for the question. first of all, as you note, we are working through the queue on a case by case basis. the first application obviously took more time because we had to do the full study. since then a lot of scrutiny
has been made of the time between applications, one might be nine weeks, eight weeks or seven weeks. what i can say to that is we have a great team of people working to write these orders. our focus is on making sure we get the public interest appropriate, we get it right, and we get an order that is going to withstand the scrutiny it is sure to receive. so our task is to keep moving force as expeditiously as possible. there is not a time line we are we follow.ck each is going to take different times because they require different analysis. once each order is done, we move on to the next order. >> let me interrupt because i want to transition. at this point you don't have a requirement on your team, whether they take two years or two weeks to work through the
next permit? it is just whenever they get done at whatever speed? >> the requirement is to move forward as expeditiously as possible but to make sure it is right. >> so it takes two weeks or two years? make a bound that we good public interest determination. >> the issue is the clock is ticking internationally. it is not only domestic by special. ms. speier? >> thank you, mr. chairman. let's address the likelihood that liquefied natural gas will go to europe if it is manufactured here in the united states. st of these are companies, domestic companies with shareholders, correct? do they not have a responsibility to acquire the
highest price for their gas in order to maintain a profit that s appropriate? >> thank you for the question. certainly i think you raise the point that once approved by the department of energy, the department of energy does not determine where the gas will go. it is going to be determined by the companies who received the authorizations. those companies will certainly move to send the gas who has the best return. >> what is the price differential between europe and asia? >> the price of natural gas as you state is not like crude oil where there is more or less of a balance price around the world. people talk about the hub as a $4.60, rope is around
and asia is around $10 to $18. you can't simply take one price in one area and make the transport of that equal. if you take the price from the united states l&g exports that are approved here, you would ave to add the cost of the lick wie if i cation and transport. it puts it right in the range of what prices are today in europe. it wouldn't be much above it, but it wouldn't be much below it either. >> so the likelihood of it going to europe is not nearly as great as asia in any case? >> we as a government don't tell our companies who to sell it to. the companies make that decision. the issue here is not where we send our gas. this is about a global market, and wherever our guys will go, and it likely to go to wherever
the traders feel they need to put the gas based on a variety of factors, it will make a difference in all other regions. as mr. smith said in his opening testimony, we have already made an enormous impact on the market of removing the expectations of what we would be importing in 2014 just a few years ago. that delta is enormous. >> i want a couple more questions to get in. one point that hasn't been made well enough yet is that the infrastructure in europe to receive the l&g is not yet robust and that these import terminals need to be built. do we know how much need to be built? do we know how much they would cost? is that something that the runs would or could invest in? >> we have been working with the e.u. for the last several years. there is quite a bit of capability now that is full.
there is more being built. the e.u. has had some regulatory challenges in getting these through. there is one in lithuania that is being built and one in italy. there has been a sharp decrease for l&g demand in europe over the last couple of years because the price of cole -- coal has come down in the united states. there has always been very warm winters for the last couple of years that have affected demand. so you are right, i don't know that we would be as investors. that is for the private sector to do. but we are working with the e.u. to make them more bankable. >> according to the center for studies, saving ukraine from its gas relied diplomatic disadvantage to russia is a matter of political reform. the only way to extract ukraine from the immediate payment crisis is to provide money for
ukraine to pay down its debt. however, that does not address the fundamental problem that resulted in ukraine's indebtedness in the first place . do you agree with that view and what do you think we should be doing about that? >> i do largely agree with that view. we have to look at this in a number of ways. the i.m.s. package is hopefully going to be approved fairly soon. that will with it will release american money. the need to pay down the arears immediately is urgent so that additional supplies can come and we don't have a cut-off. but we have to address the reform of the industry. this crisis is an opportunity for ukraine to open a new page and to address the reform that the sector desperately needs so that we don't end up in the same place that we are today a few years down the road after paying the debt.
>> mr. walberg. >> thank you. as i understand it, companies that are seeking to export l&g today are required to go to the department of energy seeking a determination on public sp. could you tell us the criteria that the department of energy uses to determine that term, public interest? >> thank you for that question. the natural gas act essentially creates a rebuttable presudges that export is in the public interest unless a department determines that approving such application would be del tear yuss to the public interest. the department is left to interpret that. we have a wide range of
criteria. we look at impact on the economy, job creation, energy security, price impacts on consumers, foreign issues, issues of international affairs. there is a very broad range of factors we use. >> any of the factors weighed differently? >> one thing we don't have is a formula or matrix that we plug numbers into to get an answer out. what we allow for is a period of public comment in which the public can opine on these, we think that is a very important part of the process. we then have to make a qualitative decision on all of the arguments made for and against l&g exports. when you see the orders we have written, they are extensive documents. we are required to make clear and transparent the roping we make no each one of these applications. so we have to talk about the arguments that are made and accept or rebutt each of those individual arguments.
>> are international consideration weighed in a different way? do you work with the department of energy on making international considerations? >> with the department of state, we work very closely with them on all issues. but in terms of international considerations, you will see in e most recent thing we put out, there is a reference for united states allies and trading partners. that is something that is very important to us. >> but not heavier than any other factors? >> congressman, i think all factors are important. we care about prices and impact s. >> is the pro's working as well as you would like it to in your determination? >> i think that the team is doing an excellent job of aking very important long-term
energy decisions in terms of looking at public interests. >> how many are awaiting approval right now, projects? >> thus far we have approved seven projects. i think we have more than 20 that are waiting in the queue. o date we have approved 9.27 billion cubic feet per day, and we are working through the basis.n a case by case >> mr. hochstein, if you could tell us about the capacity initiative and the fedotenko program? >> for the last several years the department of state and our offices have worked together with the department of energy and other agencies with friends and allies around the world who have sought to look into the possibility of addressing their
unconventional and shale resources. what we have done is we don't encourage any country to do or not pursue that. but if they are going to do so, offer them the support of understanding the regulatory medicare nixes to ensure it is done in a safe way. we have a number of countries. we have worked closely with poland. we started working with ukraine before the crisis about a year ago. we are looking at expanding that program now to be able to bring about more resources there. the program you mentioned, congressman, looks at the governance of the oil and gas sector over-all. as we sue new countries come on line as producers, that they are not suffering from the same trap that others have gone before them, and to make sure those resources are made available to all the people in
that region and country and done so with a governing structure. >> are you achieving that right now? >> on the unconventional, yes, i do. it is a very difficult task, but i think it is important that countries make the decision on unconventional based on science and not on emotions. if they do so, we support them in being ablele to increase their production from conventional and unconventional sinces. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. in order to expedite l&g exports, environmental concerns and what is in the public interest, it is my understanding you are involved in the process. section three of the act requires companies to aobtain approvals from the department of energy, office of fossil energy and the department of energy regulatory commission. you said this section, no
export of natural gas will be permitted unless it is onsistent with that. >> thank you for the question. there are two primary agencies involved in this process. there is the department of energy, which essentially grants the authorization to export the molecule. and then there is the federal energy regulatory commission that frants permission to actually build the plant. they are freight but critical and important to get a project up and running in exporting natural gas. >> thank you. mr. smith, what are the specific criteria for making the public interest determination? >> thank you for the question. there is a wide range of criteria that we use when we look at each application on a case by case basis. we have to playbook at a wide range of factors important for american consumers, industry and a national security. we playbook at energy security,
supply availability, environmental impact, international effects, prices, impact on consumers, on industrial customers. those are all things we have to consider for every one of these applications. >> thank you. mr. hochstein, you i don't know if i am saying your name properly. i want to make sure i respect how your name is pronounced. re you aware of anything under public determination for benefiting foreign policy? >> we are not involved directly in the approval process, but the department of energy and department of state work closely together, and we share information. when they make their determination, they have our views in mind. >> mr. smith, what if any environmental determinations does the office of fossil energy make in determining public interest? >> that is on a case by case
basis depending on the application we are looking at. we are compelled to look at a wide range of issues, where the gas is coming from, how it might impact local communities. those are things that are considered. >> and what about other agencies? >> well, the federal energy regulatory commission, ferc, also has to do an environmental analysis. we are a core agency, and they are the process that looks at the impact of the terminal itself, the footprint of the terminala the impact of constructing the facility itself. we are a coordinating agency with ferc in that process. >> mr. smith, would you describe the involvement of these processes as very simplistic or complicated? >> i would say it is an important and complicated decision, and we have processes that match the gravity of the decision we have to make. >> for example, if somebody
were to put in an application in january of 2010, and then all of a sudden somebody puts in what looks to be on the face of it a similar application in 2014, would you say there are some variables that may have change between these two? >> there certainly would be variables that would change just temporally. each of the individual applications will have factors that might be different. so we have to consider the comments made by the public in this trance parent process, and we have to consider each of those on a case by case basis. >> in a hearing like this, would you imagine in 2010 somebody would have mentioned ukraine, ukraine, ukraine, whereas now they may be mentioning it often? is that a variable that perhaps complicates it more? >> that is something that has changed dramatically over the course of the past few months. >> one of the things i find fascinating is a lot of times
when we have public hearings like this, people like to try to force the issue to be simplified more than it possibly can be. i got my degree in engineering, and the one class i remember most and applies in almost everything i have done is something called feedback systems. that, simply put, is a class that every engineer of every kind takes as a freshman. it explains that what goes in and what comes out is very different based on what happens in between. no feedback system is identical to another and that is the kind of thing that departments have to deal with on a daily basis. i want to thank you very much for doing a very good job of simplifying it as much as possible so we and the public can understand how complicated it is. i yield back my team. >> mr. jordan. >> mr. hochstein, when can we expect a decision on the
keystone pipeline? >> sir, unfortunately i can't answer that question. >> do you know when the application for the keystone pipeline was filed? >> i don't have the date in front of me, sir. >> six years ago. september of 2008. when do you think we can expect a decision? >> the process in the department of state is ongoing. >> are you involved in that decision? >> i am personally not involved in the process. >> my office is. >> is the deputy assistant secretary for diplomacy, and you are not directly involved? >> we have different people working on a variety of different views. obviously i am part of the leadership -- >> are you aware that the e.p.a.'s final report released in 2011, stating there were no environmental impact? >> yes. >> folks making the decision, are they aware of that? >> yes, sir.
>> they aware that 2 1/2 years ago congress said makes a decision. the president delayed that and said we want the sand hill issue to be resolved. are you aware it has been resolved? >> i am. >> are the people. are they aware that the governor of the state is for it? >> as the process continues, and we look at a variety of different issues affecting the decision -- >> do you think we can get a decision before the year is over. if you do it by september, you can do it in six year. >> i can give you what i think is happening at the moment. that is that the -- as we have new data coming in, such as the decision of the court in nebraska. we are not stopping the process. >> the washington post said that waiting any longer -- and this is not jim jordan, not the
washington times. this is the washington post. it said to not make a decision is absurd and laughable. again, not chairman lankford, not members on the republican side, the washington post. it kind of is, six years. you are telling me you don't know if you can get it done before september of this year to meet the six-year time frame? >> we are trying to make the process move as expeditiously as possible. >> that cannot be true. you are trying to make it move as expeditiously as possible. the post says it is absurd not to make a decision now. it has been six years. you can use any other adjective you want to use. >> we have a significant volume of public comments to go through. we have a court decision in nebraska announced just a few weeks ago. >> my point is when? or maybe a better question is
will you ever make a decision? >> yes, we will make a decision. >> you will make a decision at some point. that is a step in the right direction because there are some people who are starting to think there is never going to be a decision. do you think it will happen before the november elections this fall? >> sir,ic -- >> is it likely to happen before the november elections this fall? >> as i was trying to say -- >> do you want it to happen before the november elections this fall? >> did you want me to answer, sir? >> i want you to answer that last one first. >> i would like to be able to go through the process in the way that we are acquired to do, addressing all the issues that have come before us, including the recent data. you asked me this question a few weeks ago before the court decision in nebraska, we would have been in a different situation. >> the washington post used the
term lamble knowing about the court issue. >> i am aware of what the washington post says. they don't speak for me. >> will there be a decision before the november elections of this year? >> as i said, congressman, i can't stick to a specific time line. >> a yes or no. do you as deputy assistant secretary for energy diplomacy want there to be a decision before the november elections this fall? >> i would like to be in the position where we have done all the work required to do to be at a position in the type line that we can do. if that is before the election, then i hope that is done. but what i cannot say is whether or not we are going to be able to make that time line. we are trying. we have a lot of people working on this. there are a number of factors we are looking at, including the enormous volume -- >> we want you to try harder. it has been six years. frankly we want a decision yesterday, but we know that is not going to happen.
at a minimum, the american people can know about this before the midterm election. >> it is becoming increasingly apparent that to stop any permit, you just flood the office with public statements, and everything stops. at some point leaders have to make decisions. with that i recognize mrs. duckworth. >> thank you. returning back to the topic of today's hearing, which is liquefied natural gas. the crisis in ukraine is yet another reminder of how our independence and national security interests are closely tied. countries like russia have shown they are more than willing to use energy as a weapon. natural gas exports have the ability to provide security interest and advance our security sps and increase energy security. while this discussion of the
international picture of energy security is important, i want to focus on the domestic side and what these effects tampa bay for our domestic consumers of l&g. mr. smith, studies that the d.o.e. has commissioned have found that export of natural gas will have a net benefit on the economy and that there is significant potential here for bringing more wealth to our country and creating more american jobs, something i think we all agree with. the gas technology institute, a not for profit research lab that i am proud to have in my district has been at the for forefront of technologies that make natural gas development saver, more efficient, sustainable and has helped make the natural gas success story a win in our industry. do you see that efforts and capital investments in exporting more natural gas will also have develop greater use
of natural gas domestically? the use of l&g as transportation fuel or to meet its domestic demand to generate electricity? >> thank you for the question. first of all, the department of energy has a long relationship with the gas technology institute. that relationship has actually been very instrumental in developing many of the technologies that have led to this increase in our domestic production of natural gas. in terms of the interaction between l&g exports and domestic use, if the united states does move forward to export additional quantities, if these terminals are built by the private sector, it is going to put greater command than 0 our domestic supply, and that is going to have impacts on a variety of things. that is what we look at in our public interest determination. in terms of exporting l&g,
increasing the use of liquefied natural gas for transportation, i don't see a strong correlation between those two issues. i think they are driven by different factors. but indeed we are seeing a greater use of natural gas in the transportation sector, particularly in fleet vehicles. we are seeing that being picked up, and right now we think that is important. it creates greater options to consumers and businesses. it helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions. >> i represent a lot of small manufacturers. i have the largest con transition of tool and dye manufacturers in my district. money of the folks i have talked to have expressed real concern that increased exports will lead to price increases at home and in turn harm our businesses and consumers. what effect does d. offerman e. expect natural gas exports to have on consumption and the
prices we will have to pay for natural gas? > thank you for that question. we are concerned about consumers in poland and ukraine, but also ohio and oklahoma. we have to take both into consideration which is why they are complicated. the department of energy has commissioned a number of studies that have looked at price impacts. specifically the study done before. it showed in most cases a modest impact on industry and showed a modest impact on consumers, but one we have to take into consideration and balancele against the benefits of l&g exports, balance of trade, job creation in producing states, greater production and other things. it is a balancing act. but we certainly are interested and concerned about potential impacts on consumers, and
importantly on those businesses that use natural gas to create jobs. that is a very important factor in our considerations. >> thank you for holding the hearing, i would like to focus more on the domestic side of that for a moment. i represent the state of georgia, mr. smith, where i'm told depending on the day of the week, our utility down there is either the number one, o or three consumer of natural pass. they have come out in support of l&g as part of that mix. our pipes are full in our part of the world. we can't get anymore gas in our infrastructure. i look at the map on the website of where the natural gas is coming from, and i am
thinking how in the world are they getting that stuff out of the box. i listened to that conversation that mr. jordan just had here and i think what is the impact that prices have on domestic manufacture has to be dramatically different if we have an infrastructure that can get every diesel gallon equivalent of natural gas out of it and into the state of georgia, and we don't have that infrastructure in place. talk to me about what type of infrastructure needs to be created, which i suspect will be dominantly pipeline infrastructure for us to be able to maximize our use of natural resources. >> thank you for the question. he d.o.e. has a very important collaboration with the
southern. that has been a really important initiative that has the potential to benefit both the company here and internationally. in terms of the infrastructure question, that is actually a really big topic. when we look at the growth of shale gas and the success we have had here in the states versus the challenges you have in europe and china, one of the big factors in our favor in the united states was the fact that there was already a very robust infrastructure in place. fields were drilled, and you had a way to get that gas to market. that was built and sexanned by the private sector as new gas was developed. there is the potential for infrastructure to lag. in areas where you have rapid growth, and we have seen a bit of that in north dakota and south texas.
officer all there is a direct profit motive to build these infrastructure facilities that are necessary to make sure we get the energy to consumers that are going to be using it. we believe that is happening. >> and you believe that profit motive exists irrespective of the answer to the l&g exports questions. > certainly. >> when you have a lot of associated gas produced with oil and georgia is a buy
product. sometimes it is difficult for building to justify the infrastructure. there is a market inefficiency there somewhere, but certainly state regular litors and industry are working together to make that work better. >> but from a d. offerman e. perspective, d.o.e. is willing to let the market forces be at play. to no benefit of the consumer. if those market forces require we need to build a pipeline to get those resources to consumers, they would be supportive of that as well? >> i wouldn't characterize that as willingness. we have a mission. i over-see the national energy laboratory that does much of the r and d with industry and academia that lead to solutions for environmental sustain
ability and safety. we are working together with state regulators. there is a question of over-sight, a lot of them are complex and involve multiple market actors in the private sector. of e support your mission creating a safe and sustainable structure here in the country that hopefully will not only lead to the manufacturers that ms. duckworth talked about but change our balance with the world. i yield back. >> ms. norton? >> thank you, mr. chairman. you are holding this hearing at an interesting time when there is a lot of talk internationally about natural gas and perhaps new opportunities, new marketing opportunities here where we see very low prices. even given the technology and
environmental challenges. my question is really for mr. hochstein. i promise to give you time to answer my questions. you hear much of it off the top of heads of people, of talk about our natural gas supplies being of aid to europe and even ukraine during the crisis that ukraine is now experiencing. according to the figures i have, europe gets a quarter of its gas from russia and half of that -- and that was really news to me -- half of that passes through ukraine. we remember that early in 2009 the pipelines were shut down through ukraine. what was the reason for that gain please?
reshe shut the gas down to ukraine first and then europe a few days later. >> so that didn't have much an impact because of the duration. >> 13 days of no gas in the dead of winter. europe uses gas for heating. the timing was not accidental. >> what did it do, increase the price? i mean was there a real scarcity going to europe? >> it lasted 20 days in total, 13 days for most of europe. and as a result what it really did was drove home the the ation of vulnerability that europe has in its reliance on russian gas. the pain was short-lived. >> does that mean that europe is less didn't on russia today? did it diversify? >> europe did a number of
things, and we worked very closely with europe the last five years to do that. they are less relipet today on russia, while still are extremely reliant, and they will be for a long time to come. because they passed the third energy package which required that the destination clauses will be gone, it meant when russian exports gas into the e.u., the first country of transit, germany, ukraine or other e.u. countries, they cooperate dictate you may not pass this on without my permission to another country. what it allowed it to do, the minute the gas comes into the e.u., it is now e.u. gas and can be transferred further. when we talked earlier about reversing the flows into ukraine, that would not have been possible in 2009 because of the regulatory structure that was in place. so by working with them to get the regulatory structure there,
they are less relipet today. but as russia will continue to be a supplier into europe, there is more we can do together to make sure that reliance is diminished, and quite significantly. >> forgive the pun, but? is it a pipe dream for americans to see themselves in anything like the near future providing natural gas to europe, and would that have any effect on our domestic market? or do we have so much that it would simply mean a new market and a new perhaps reduction in the trade imbalance if we were able to do that. >> i think the united states has a role to play and that our exports are an important factor. >> we are not exporting at all, are we? we don't have any facilities to
export. >> so when people talk about us becoming a supplier, that would mean a large and immense effort to construct the infrastructure to do so? >> yes, that is true. ut some of that is already entrained, and the first one would come on line about 18 months from now. the gas that has already been approved by the department of energy is about half the amount of gas that europe imports annually today. so it is an enormous amount of gas already approved, but the market forces have to be there. >> thank you. i am going to open this up for open conversation. anybody can jump in. i just need to get some clarification. you mentioned we are not exporting natural gas now. would you include kap, mexico -- canada, mexico? >> i meant l&g things that have
been approved. >> so we are a net exporter of natural gasses. but we are exporting, not importing natural gas? >> we are also importing natural gas today. we are not a net exporter yes but poised to become one. >> what is our time frame? >> it is hard to predict that. i can say that by 2018, which is the prediction we have for becoming a net exporter. i would let my colleague address that. i think it is important to say as we give permits for it, they have to be built and decisions have to be made to sell it. >> coming back to mr. smith on that, he has minxed the amount we have permitted. how many export terminals do you anticipate will actually be constructed? >> i can't really say, mr. chairman. >> give me your best guess?
you have been on bowe sides. how many do you think will be built? >> i can say a number of position. things have been passed and terminals are being built right now. in terms of making predictions about what will happen subsequently, my experience is that i came to this job from industry. i spent 11 years at chevron before i came to government. i worked on the is a bean pass terminal when it was an import terminal. if you had asked me at that point, you would have asked me how many terminals to import l&g would have been built. ddemure from giving a collective total. >> we have seven permits out there and 24 permits that are still pending. do you think we will build 31 terminals? >> i can safely say that i do
not think 31 terminals will be built. >> do you think we will build 15? >> i don't know. >> let's ply this out a bit. one of you said that what has already been permit -- permitted that we export half the l&g than what they use. these companies are big boys. they can make decisions about whether or not to build. they made decisions to build import facilities and got burned. i would venture to say they are going to be reluck tan to move too swiftly because it appears this particular market varies a lot from time to time and in short periods of time. in hal of the natural gas that is already being used in euro day and we have australia,
mozambique israel and others coming on line, what are we saying here? they are not going to try and provide that energy to europe in many respects. >> which is my exact point on this. mr. smith and i have had this conversation. if we already know all these terminals are not going to be built, we are giving a competitive advantage to people that filed a permit request a couple of days before or a couple of weeks or months before someone else, where they may have filed -- and some of these folks filed their permit requests the exact same day, but they actually won't find out two or three years later than other people on it. we are giving an advantage to some companies, and other companies have to wait two or three years. i agree. all these facilities are not going to be built. there will be a lot of
competition worldwide. but well lose the competition if we continue to delay. we are saying to australia and other countries, you go compete worldwide. we are going to discuss it. >> but the flip side of that coin is part of our resurgence, part of our economic einvillegas ration is the fact that the cost of fuel is so expensive in china and elsewhere, and they see the net benefit. we are creating jobs in that regard. we don't want to cut off our nose to spite our face. >> agreed. we are at four in the united states, $12 in asia. my conversation is how do we balance this out? how do we use the economic engine? when you look at job growth over the last several years, the largest area of job growth in america has been energy.
how do we continue to maintain that engine and continue to work in a very difficult economy to see the least? you continue to provide new marks for them to go to. so we have an economic benefit here in the united states, and we have a geo political benefit. i one-and-one to sexooped on this. there is a lot of conversation between india and iran about natural gas. we can continue to talk about ukraine, but this is a world-wide issue. is the stapleton comfortable with india's natural gas supplier being iran, and if not, what are we going to do about that? >> thank you. my office has been leading the effort to implement the iran sackses on energy -- sanctions on energy. first let my say this. we do not believe there is any kelihood of gas from iran to
india. they are a net importer right now. we have had very close, open and frank conversations with our indian friends about their oil purchases from iran, as well as how we would view iran exports of gasses. but currently iran doesn't have the gas supply or the infrastructure, and that is due to sanctions. they sit on the largest reserves. but as a result of sanctions, they have not been able to build out that infrastructure, and there is no infrastructure in sight to do that. if they do that, our views are very well known to our friends and allies how we feel about that. >> but are we in a position to say india well provide your natural gas needs, or will they go on the market and find it? >> india is one of the first that has contracted for natural gas from is a bean pass. >> all right.