Transcripts For CSPAN Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz Testimony On Quadrennial Energy Review 20240621

Effort the president took in iraq to the level of doctrine. We will have to see how history treats this issue over time. I think it was a reaction to the circumstances that arose after 9 11, possibly some legacy issues from having bush 41 deal with iraq as well. Examples where mr. Obama felt very comfortable carrying on the policies that his predecessor had bequeathed him. Thank you. [applause] prof. Eisenberg i am hoping that they will finally find a microphone i can use. As a professor, i want to welcome director goss and ambassador negroponte for coming here today, and expressing willingness to come here and talk about the issues. I do not think it has been openly acknowledged here, but the reality is that those members very few members of the administration have been willing to come here and talk about these issues. I really appreciate your presence here. Some of you may have forgotten dean firestones introduction. And case there is any confusion, i want to make it clear that i am not now, nor have i ever been a member of, the Bush Administration. I thought you might be confused. I am a historian at this university, completing a book on the nixon administration. Before that, i wrote a book on the early cold war. For both of those projects, i spent thousands of hours reading topsecret government documents. These are records that were declassified after the fact. I reading all these documents in reading all these document, it makes you seriously weird for one thing. There are also certain expressions that you get. Some of them are pretty obvious. One is that very often Public Officials say thinks to the public that are not true. Actually, i have to say, sometimes i reading something in a document that is secret, and then i look at present nixon or secretary kissinger, and they come and say the exact opposite that they said one hour ago. Im always amazed when this happens. Sometimes, officials are not truthful, or they exaggerate, or deceive themselves, or they can be misled by advisers. From reading all these documents, the most important impression that i have gotten i have been struggling on how to articulate it is when you look at the deliberations of people at the very top level, the use of language, and have a way of talking sort of a National Security vernacular that has the effect of actually insulating them from the human reality that they are talking about. Somehow, that does not even enter the room. You can read minutes of meetings and memos about cambodia, laos south vietnam, or wherever, and what is happening in those places is like a million miles away from what is going on in this room. One of our speakers earlier was talking about the president at the top of his game, with all the information that he needs to have. Bush was familiar with all the world leaders. Actually, i think bush would have benefited from going to a village in afghanistan, which we accidentally bombed, and talking to the people there. I think it would have been helpful to him and our country. Those deliberations at that high level have the effect of making those realities may obscure to the people who are sitting in those rooms. It also has the effect of generating a kind of grandiosity by the people in those rooms who have a tendency to say things that are actually fairly simple, and make them sound profound. I think investor negroponte was getting ambassador mega party was getting at that. The bush doctrine, i am not entirely sure what it is. I tried to look it up online. One, the military of the United States needs to be stronger than any other in the world. Two, we need to retain the right to attack any country. Three, we not be bound by the pressure of allies or the United Nations for, a threat does not have to be imminent to attack the country. Boiled down to the essentials, we are the only world superpower, and we can do what we want. This does not originate with bush. This goes back to 400 bc. One group told another comment you know as we do, right in the world is only in question between the equals of power, while the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must. My initial point, that is the bush doctrine in that it is much less than what meets the eye. That does not imply that it is meaningless. What it signaled was a newly aggressive militarized Foreign Policy, which came into its own after 9 11. We are told that is what the American People wanted. How brilliant of president bush to stand in the middle of the rubble on ground zero with a bullhorn and yell, i can hear you, and soon the whole world will hear from us. There was another choice on an 911 and a different mood in new york city. I cannot make generalizations about the whole United States, boy what i can say is i was in new york during the entire time. The city of new york was still sad, incredibly compassionate. Everywhere, people were seeking to help one another. We will hear about apple corps for an eternity. I want to tell you a little story about my book the neighborhood, right across from the World Trade Center. Our homes were covered in ashes, but our neighborhood was diverse with muslims, christians, and jews. The arabamerican families in our neighborhood reached out to a synagogue and proposed a candlelight vigil to honor the dead, first responders, and pray for peace. It was organized very heard in the hurriedly, and it was unclear how many people would come, but wendy moment arrived hundreds of people came streaming wendy moment arrived, hundreds of people came streaming down the streets. It sounds like kind of a corny thing that a professor might bring up in contrast to the harsh realities of fighting terrorists out to destroy us. To shift grounds for a moment, in opting for war, invading iraq and afghanistan, creating secret prisons in locations around the world, torturing detainees insights around the world there was nothing very realistic about the way the bush and Administration Responded to 9 11. Keeping us safe from terrorism we all think that is important, which illustrates the choices that were made. I will give another story. I want to talk about firehouses, the ones in my neighborhood, just across the river from the World Trade Center. The trucks were called in right from the beginning of the attack. They drove across the Brooklyn Bridge and rushed into burning buildings, and help to save hundreds of lives. Many of our firemen died and those buildings collapse including one of my friends. What happened a year later is that our firehouse closed because there was no money in york city to pay for firehouses. They did not have enough money to keep them open. Meanwhile, the bush and administration was sending millions of dollars to iraq in suitcases, for which there was never any accountant. The unbelievable sloppiness of handling this money, millions disappearing into iraq, millions to pay warlords in afghanistan millions to private contractors schools never built and hospitals never finished. But, not enough money for firehouses, and frankly not enough for our Veterans Health services either. What does that say about keeping america safe . Whatever it meant, the bush doctrine found its culmination in the war in iraq. A war of choice. For the purpose of saving us from weapons of mass destruction which it turns out did not exist. This episode is now described as a fake, a failure of intelligence. We did not know that the weapons were not there, we did not know the invasion would cost so many lives, we did not know that we would spend more than 1 trillion to. People make mistakes, but in this instance, people did know these things. There were weapons inspectors in iraq saying, wait, there might not be anything here. There were military people saying, we cannot run an operation like this on a shoestring. There were middle east expert saying over and over again, if you try to occupy this country these warnings were ignored. Can i get some water . Thank you. What are the results of this realistic choice i would say, unrealistic choice . Waste as many as 5 million iraqis were driven from their home. By any calculation, the decision to invade iraq can be counted among the most disastrous in modern history. I have to say at a little bit incredible to me see here in the context of the truly disastrous decision that he made with the horrendous human cost that was involved. One my story. On september 12, 2001, rescue workers pulled out a woman aged 30. She was the last person to be saved in the devastation. Most of you are too young to remember as those last people were pulled from the rubble, it was an incredible moment. Somebody was saved. One person was saved. People wept when they pulled that one person out of the rubble. Why was that . Because one of the things we werent on 9 11 is that every single persons life is important and precious. And that points to the tragic legacy of the bush doctrine. The Bush Administration which was so profligate about the taking of human life whether the afghans or rockies or our own soldiers in unbelievable ways, the Bush Administration never caught osama bin laden, but he did immense damage. We are still living with that now. The responsibilities for these mistakes no longer rest of here. Rests with all of us. When we forget or minimize the gravity of the mistakes that we may over those years, we will continue to make those missed a into the future. Many many many more people will die. Thank you. I too would like to thank you for hosting this. I appreciate you all for coming today. Let me just begin by saying that the accusation that president bush abused his power and presided over a lawless administration which is frequently leveled against this administration, is certainly nothing new for partisans on both sides of proverbial displays of hypocrisy regarding president ial power will tend to criticize the sitting president. Whether hes a member of their party or not. On partisan grounds. Putting that aside, i can say that george w. Bush has been suggested to some of the worst in the gallery. Unfortunately he comes from a number of my scholarly comrade. Especially historians and law professors who consider themselves experts on the president. I find this particularly disturbing and that historians especially are supposed to wait for documents to come out. They are supposed to wait for oral history interviews to be conducted. They are supposed to wait for memoirs from figures. Theyre supposed to do the unsexy work of going to an archive and spending lots of time looking at boring documents. Unfortunately, far too many historians abandoned any pretense of objectivity and seemed unwilling to place the president s actions into historical context. That the bush presidency was already an epic disaster. Im not standing up here saying that george w. Bush was a great president. Hurricane katrina, the economic collapse. The war in iraq. There are a number of issues that need to be put into the equation when assessing a presidency. But at the very least, it struck me that my scholarly comrade had an obligation to wait until presidency was over before proclaiming it is one of the worst ever. I would even argue that here we are 567 years out. Its still very early to make sweeping judgments about any presidency. Just as a reminder, if this thing after Harry Trumans departure, he was still a remarkably unpopular figure. And certainly in scholarly circles at this point, after eisenhowers departure nonetheless, this conventional antibush narrative which also sometimes suggest that Vice President cheney was pulling the strings which is a myth persists to this day. It persists among people who should know better. Im referring to my fellow scholars who have avoided the hardworking history. In terms of doing some actual digging as opposed to reading the oped page of the New York Times. Curiously, many of the same scholars who have condemned george w. Bush as a lawless presidency celebrate the presidency of john f. Kennedy who plotted the assassination of fidel castro. Many of these folks not all, there is some consistency but its a set shouldnt. They also celebrated fdr use the fbi as is evident detective agency. To make matters worse, many of my fellow activists dollars abandoned the precepts of their craft by pronouncing this judgment prior to examining a single document or conducting a solitary interview. I think this deep scholarly animosity towards president bush and Vice President cheney was the result of the fact that bush was the first president to face a serious challenge to americas security since the enactment of a new regime postwatergate. These reforms have the effect of enhancing the power of congress to check the executive. And produce the kind of permanent hostility to executive secrecy that Alexander Hamilton called secrecy and dispatch. Since the founding of the nation, congress is deferred to the executive branch on these issues. The courts expand the role in National Security, they would frequently lie themselves with congress in order to check the executive branch. In a sense, bush and cheney tried to play by the old rules. By the prewatergate and prechurch committee rules. As of 2014, we can at least say that they appear to loss in their effort to restore the system back to its prefrank church prewatergate committee mode. I would warn you that history can be fickle. At least in regards to bushs war on terror, i believe that someday they will come to be seen in more favorable light. I dont expect that to occur fast. I dont ever expect the bush for bush to emerge in that top 10 list of president ial greatness. Where harry truman resides. If we want to talk about torture we can have a very lengthy debate over the truman administrations use of hundreds of thousands of xmen number of the ss as intelligence sources in dealing with the new cold war. If were going to look at waterboarding. If we are going to look at rendition, we also then need to do with history justice and reexamine the president sees of harry truman or jfk or any number of progressive president s who unfortunately are frequently caught cut a lot of slack by my fellow academics precisely because they are progressive president s. George w. Bushs loan standing i believe among academics reflects in part the rise of partisan scholarship. The use of history and theology and as a political weapon. Which in my view means the corruption of history is history. Again i dont believe that george w. Bush was a great president. In fact he is probably going to come out at some point either is below average or average. But the conventional wisdom regarding the presidency of george w. Bush i believe is ms. Target. And a revisionist account of this presidency at least in regards to his National Security. Ultimately new with this. We. Were not too far from the World Trade Center site. Put yourself in bushs position. But 9 11 aside for a minute. Put yourself in his seat on 912. Ask what you would have done. I know what he did you know that they are the next, he told his fbi director and his attorney general to do whatever it took to make sure that this did not happen again. I have to say had i been in that seat i probably wouldve said the same thing. 9 11 was clearly defining moment. Close to 3000 people were incinerated. The question was once a rock have to do with 9 11. If you ask yourself is the last week are suggested, what would you done on september 12 . Why would you attack a country that had nothing to do with this terrific attack on the United States . Just today, a report has come out from the nobel prizewinning International Physicians for the prevention of nuclear war. Theyve done some calculations. They released a report saying this investigation comes to the conclusion that the war has directly or the killed around one Million People in iraq, 220,000 in afghanistan. 80,000 in pakistan, a total of around 1. 3 million. Not included in this figure are further war zones such as human. That figure is approximately 10 times greater than that that we are aware of. This is only a conservative estimate. The total number of deaths and the three countries named above could also be in excess of 2 million whereas figure below one million is extremely unlikely. One Million Deaths in iraq. In the last a bit more than a decade. In a country the Bush Administration said there were going to say. That would as they famously said creates u. S. Soldiers with flowers and sweets. As the Vice President that were going to liberate the people of iraq. Sadly, the Bush Administration exploited 9 11. The blueprint for what happened and i think its important to go back even not so far history. Was drawn up years earlier. By the project for the new american century. Im reading for my first book. The exception to the rulers. The think tank formed in 1997 to quote promote American Global leadership. Its founders are a whos who of the Neoconservative Movement which seamlessly more into the top officialdom of the bush to administration. Secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld as president jake cheney. Cheneys chief of staff. Deputy secretary of defense. National Security Council staff member. Among others. The members had a reputation around washington explained the retired cia analyst as he did it for president george h he observed. When we saw these people, coming back in town all of a sudden. We said the crazies are back. Mcgovern said their wild eyed geopolitical schemes would typically typically go right into the circular file. In 2000, he issued a report that called on the United States to dominate global resources. The key to realizing this was a catastrophic and events like a new pearl harbor. Until you have the allegations of weapons of mass destruction the pretext for larger scheme, while the unresolved conflict with iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American Force in the golf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. And so on the morning of september 12, 2001, donald runs well reacted the World Trade Center and pentagon attacks by declaring to bushs cabinet that the United States should immediately attack iraq. It did not matter then or later that iraq had no connection to al qaeda or the 9 11 attacks. Condoleezza rice said quote think about how to capitalize on these opportunities. She compared the situation with 1945 to 1947. The start of the cold war. Not all people in the National Security council felt the way that those Administration Officials it. Richard clarke devised advised rest of the reagan and george. He was carried over to george w. Bush is administration. And also was with president clinton. He was shocked when rumsfeld said we got to look at iraq. He was shocked when president bush told him to look at iraq. One of the things he told cbs i think when talking about president bush, i think you done a terrible job against on the war against terrorism, because he said months before the 9 11 attack and warned the administration to look at al qaeda. But to be told the day after you must look at iraq . And think about it today. One million iraqis dead. But the Bush Administration did not do it alone. They had a compliant press to amplify their allegations. Thats also has to be looked at. During the years that the Bush Administration, where was the press. The white house propaganda blitz was launched on september 7, 2002. British Prime Minister tony blair stood sidebyside with president george w. Bush. Together they declare that evidence from a report published by the human the show that iraq was six months away from Building Nuclear weapons. President bush said i dont know what more evidence we need. Actually any evidence what else. There was no such report, but at the time few mainstream journalist question the leaders outright lies area instead the following day socalled evidence popped up under the New York Times under the twin byline of Michael Gordon and u. S. Mail judith miller. They wrote a rock stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons. This according to Bush Administration officials. In a revealing example of how the story amplify the administrations van, the authors included the phrase soon to be repeated by president bush and all his top of desktop officials. The first sign of a smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud. The publisher new what to make of this frontpage bombshell. He wrote in a disgraceful piece that of stenography. Gordon and miller inflated at Administration Link into something resembling imminent armageddon. The Bush Administration knew just what to do with the story they had. The data story ran, the Vice President made the rounds on the sunday talk shows to advance the administrations focused bogus claims. Cheney declared that iraq had purchased aluminum tubes. It didnt matter that the report refuted the charge before and after was made. But cheney did not want viewers to take his word for it. He said theres a story in the New York Times this morning. This is the classic disinformation to step. The white house leaked alike to the times, the newspaper published it is a startling expose and in the white house conveniently masquerades behind the credibility of the New York Times. What mattered was the unencumbered rollout for commercial for war. What matters now is that we had a media in this country that acted as a Conveyor Belt for the life. And why does that matter . Is it just an academic exercise . Because the lies took undertaking lies lives. Not all of the press were complicit. There were many on the front lines trying their hardest to get out the truth on the ground in iraq. Which takes us to the moments the day before u. S. Marines pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein. You had a young reporter who had just joined al jazeera in their cairo baghdad offices he went on the roof to set the camera and he was killed when u. S. Helicopters scrape the building across the street. Across the street posts were shouting on the air help us as they were being straight. Within a few hours, the Palestine Hotel became a target for the u. S. Military. Now all knew it that time that the Palestine Hotel in baghdad was where well over a hundred and embedded journalists were staying. They were working hard. When the tank set their sights on hotel and opened fire, they killed to reporters. One was on his balcony filming when it happened. He was with reuters. And then there was another on another docketing also filming for tele think it. Both of them were immediately killed. Many others were wounded on that day. That was april 8 2003. Then you come to the summer. This is the summer of 2003. Another reuters videographer was outside of what would later become worldfamous upgrade. But not yet. He was there with the soundman covering what was happening. They talked to the soldiers, but within minutes he found his own death. As the u. S. Soldiers attacked him. The soundman said wed just been speaking with the soldiers. Later a pentagon spokesperson said they accidentally engaged a cameraman. Take this forward to the beginning of 2004. Eason jordan the head of cnn was inadvertently caught on a microphone at the World Economic forum saying the u. S. Military had targeted a dozen journalists would been killed in iraq. There was a great firestorm. Ultimately, he resigns after 23 years at cnn. Not wanting cnn to become a target. Journalists targeted in iraq. Those of the journalists. Now i want to talk about the whistleblowers. The very brave people who steps forward, for example soldiers who were horrified by what they saw area while the New York Times are a much paved the way for war, they also published a few very good oped pieces. Honoring those who said no. They began in january 2004 specialist joseph m darby, a 24yearold reservist in iraq discovered a set of photographs showing other members of his company torturing prisoners at the abu ghraib prison. He struggled over how to respond. He recalled later i have the choice between what i knew was morally right and my loyalty to other soldiers. I couldnt have it both ways he said. Presented to the Army Criminal Army Criminal investigation command. He had no regrets. Justify testifying that the abuse violated everything i personally believe in and all ive been taught about the rules of war. Yes there are many brave people on the grounds who did speak out. Sy hersh who publish those photos in the new yorker said you actually havent seen the worst of them yet. So now lets talk abouts what mr. Gough and mr. Negroponte didnt talk about. The word torture. There is no doubt torture played a major role in the push for invading iraq. In 2009, mcclatchy reported that the Bush Administration applied present relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees. A former senior u. S. Intelligence official said there was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees. Especially the highvalue ones. When people kept coming up empty they were told by cheney and rumsfeld to push harder. The iraq torture connection its only bear mention in the Senate Intelligence report. But its still significant. In a footnote, the report cites the case of u. S. Sources that forces that sense a man for torture in egypt. Secretary of state used his false claim in his famous february 5, 2003 address to the un Security Council. An address he would later call a stain on his career. That speech at the u. N. Falsely alleging iraq possessed weapons of mass distraction. The Senate Report says that he later recanted the claim claiming he had been tortured and only told them what he knew they wanted to hear. Torture. It is so important to talk about this today. What has gone on and who should be held accountable. The Senate Intelligence report the executive summary was released in december. It covered between 2002 and 2006. Even senator john mccain a man who himself was tortured in captivity as a pow in vietnam calls for its release. Graphic new details of the post9 11 u. S. Torture program came to light in december when an Intelligence Committee released that 500 page summary of its investigation into the cia. With key parts redacted. The report concludes that the Intelligence Agency failed to disrupt a single lot despite torturing al qaeda and other captives in secret prisons worldwide between 2002 and six and details a list of tortured methods used on prisoners including waterboarding, sexual threats with broomsticks. Medically unnecessary rectal feeding. The report also come to terms the cia ran black sites in afghanistan lithuania poland in thailand. And a secret site on the nontech Guantanamo Naval base known as strawberry fields. So far no one involved has been charged with a crime except for the whistleblower. Who just came out of two years of prison and is currently under house arrest. It is so important to assess the Bush Administration and i hope in a few years you will be doing the same for the Obama Administration as youve done in the past. Should president bush and Vice President cheney secretary of defense rumsfeld and cia officials be tried for torture . That is a very serious question. A Human Rights Group in berlin has filed a criminal complaint against the architects of the Bush Administrations torture program. Its called the European Center for constitutional and human rights accusing former Bush Administration officials like cia director george tenet and Donald Rumsfeld of war crimes calling for an immediate investigation by a german crossing your. The move following the lead release of the Senate Report. It is not only International Law groups that are calling for this. President bushs own counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke has called for the same. I want to congratulate ostroff for holding the discussion. But i think now it has to go beyond assessment. This is to a larger audience. If we really care about National Security, and being a model for the world of justice, it has to move from assessment to an accounting. And to accountability. Thank you. Thank you very much. Would any of our panelists like to comment . I would just like is this on . Can you hear . Theyre not on. It was certainly working at the podium. No. I think its cia dirty tricks. Doesnt silence mean consent . It is working now. Ok, we are ok now. I just simply in the interest of fairness, would respond a little bit on the Senate Select committee on intelligence study on rendition, detention, and interrogation, was a partisan political study. It was not twosided, and there are four that further facts that need to come out from those who are able to correct some of the misstatements in the senate study. That has not happened yet. I hope it will happen, because i believe the American Public needs to know the truth of all of this. The senate study is not the full truth. Was there any truth in it . Was there any truth in it . Of course, there was some truth in it. It was a cherrypicked selective presentation of information supporting a narrative that was made before this report actually was started. The announced purpose of the report of the study, if i am correcting chairman feinstein, if im quoting chairman feinstein properly, was to make sure this never happens again. Im not sure what the this was, but apparently, as you have gone through the report them as you go through this study, there are a series of observations that involve information that the decisionmakers could have provided to the people doing the report and would have given a fairer and more complete understanding of what happened and why. If you want to know why something happened, it is a good idea to go back to the people who made the decision and ask them. They determinedly avoided going back to anybody they thought might spoil their narrative. So consequently, yes, there is some information that is cheerypicked, some out of context, and some factually correct as far as i know. I have not read a word of the report. I have not read a word of any of this stuff, because, to me, it is purely partisan political and the politicization of intelligence in this country is going to hurt only one person, and that is every citizen in the United States. I just wanted to quote senator mccain, who i love senator mccain, and would agree with you that senator mccain is the icon of prisoner of war conduct. He has suffered greatly for a country and made great sacrifices, and deserves to be listened to. But he does not have all of the information, either. Ms. Goodman he said it is a thoughtful study of practices and i believe not only failed their purpose to secure actionable intelligence to prevent further attacks on the u. S. And our allies, but actually damaged our security interests as well as our reputation as a force for good in the world. Mr. Goss he is welcome to his opinion. I doubt if he has read the report. In any event, he has certainly not ask the people who were involved in this activity what they think because they have all indicated that he has not asked them. Even he is dealing with less than a full deck. Ambassador . I think i would love to hear some questions from the audience, but i would recall for those of you who might not have been here this morning, and peter baker i thought put it well, and it is a point i made in my initial presentation, that the administration was a dynamic one. It evolved. There were certain behaviors that occurred in the early part of the administration. Baker talked about waterboarding and said, yes, but the last case of waterboarding was in 2003. Mr. Goss took his job in 2004. I did in 2005. This was an evolving situation. About my point about the president being a good customer of intelligence, lets remember that neither mr. Powell nor president bush mr. Powell did not mislead the Security Council when he made a presentation in february of 2003. I was sitting right behind him with george tenet. He believed it in good faith. It turned out that the source, who should not have been believed, and this was a Real Intelligence failure, had deliberately deceived his handlers and deliberately said that fabricated the information because he was an iraqi source and they found out that he wanted us to exactly what he did in the wake of his testimony and that of others. So this was an intelligent failure, and it led to significant intelligence reform, but neither bush nor mr. Powell were trying to mislead anybody. They believed that intelligence themselves and were very deceived by the fact that it turned out to be false. The last point i would like to make is i know this is a talk about the bush doctrine and counterterrorism, but i think we want to keep in perspective that the Foreign Policy of the Bush Administration ranged over an enormous variety of issues whether it is the freetrade agreements that the president accomplished, his policy toward africa, and the petfar program to save people from the effects of the hivaids virus, his strategic move towards india establishing relations with the country of india that were unprecedented in recent decades between the United States and india, and his outreach to china, the peoples republic of china as well. So just remember president s have a very full plate in addition to their domestic responsibilities, and i would say over time it is not going to happen today or tomorrow but over time i think the president bush is going to be evaluated for the entirety of his foreignpolicy and not just the war on terror and the two wars in afghanistan and iraq. Mr. Goss and then dr. Eisenberg. Goss i was good going to say, if those who remember that era 2001 and 2002, when we were talking about weapons of mass destruction, the conventional wisdom was they were there, and it was not just something that was manufactured. It was every Intelligence Organization on a global basis with whom the networks were talking to each other, and there was a lot of different information coming from a lot of different sectors. It was all a little bit sort of whifty information. There were some things that were pretty clear. One was that Saddam Husseins sons had given information and went back and was summarily executed at some point. I think that was correct. It is a while since i remembered all of this. But i remember a celebrated moment was when director tenet had announced to the president this was a slamdunk. Yes, of course they had mass distraction weapons. I dont believe anybody was intentionally misleading anybody. What i said was our intelligence was not up to snuff as we had because we had hollowed out our capacity as part of the peace dividend. The fact that we did not have the best information is sad, and it lead to tragic consequences in a number of cases, i am sure. But, what we did learn the lesson, and the lesson was revealed our Intelligence Community, which is what we are trying to do. But it will never work if we politicize for partisan gain or some other agenda the facts and try and tell only a part of the narrative rather than the whole narrative. And that is my beef with the senate study. Ms. Eisenberg when we talk of the politicization of information, it is certainly well known and understood by this time that Vice President cheney, not once, not twice in not five times, not seven times, went to the cia headquarters and pressured them to come up with a certain result. If that is not politicization of intelligence, i do not know what is. So it is very important that we keep that in mind them and again, particularly, because that pressure on that agency and other agencies of Government Policies that proved to be inordinately costly for other people. I do not want to spend a huge amount of time about who did not know. I want to say if the beer president of the United States turns to the cia director and asks if the intelligence is really reliable and the cia guy says it is a slamdunk, and that is persuasive. I do not necessarily find that is the most intelligent consumption of information on the part of a president. I think it would have been important for george bush to ask more questions than that. To go beyond all of this, i think ambassador negroponte alluded to this, a thing to keep in mind is there were weapons inspectors in iraq, that because of the u. N. Resolution, Saddam Hussein in those last months admitted weapons inspectors into his country without restriction. There were inspectors going there from the International Atomic energy commission, other inspectors who are looking for chemical weapons. They said that they found no evidence that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons. Remember, rumsfeld and cheney kept saying over and over we know where these weapons are. We know where they are. Here are these u. N. Inspectors that presumably communicated with americans who knew where these weapons are, and they are not finding anything. And you are the president of the United States, and you are being told by two teams of weapons and inspectors that either definitely not or we do not seem to be finding it, give us more time. And instead of responding to the inspectors in that way, he says we are finding anything, get us more time, and the International Support is eroding every day because people were becoming more suspicious because if they were there, instead of doing that, the president decides to invade. Whether or not the cia did job or not, the question still is, why didnt the president of the United States if he wanted to avoid a war, why didnt he listen to the u. N. Teams. It is time for a take questions from the audience. I think there is a microphone. Somebody is holding a microphone. It will go around if you raise your hand. When you ask your question, if you want to direct it toward one of the panelists, just indicate which of the panelists, and if it is a general question you are throwing out, then it will be up to one of the panelists to take that question. Please remember we are here to ask questions and not to make statements. I believe you had your hand up on the way back there. Yes, that is right. Wheres the microphone . Ok. This question is for professor knott. You mentioned what you would do on september 12. What would you do from january until september 10, when he ignores warnings from the intelligence agencies . I think that is a more important question to ask, what would you do in the days leading up to that . Mr. Knott i think both president s bush and clinton deserve criticism for not giving the threat of al qaeda the priority it was due. I know that Richard Clarke would disagree. He said that the Clinton Administration did focus on al qaeda. Al qaeda declared war on the United States in 1996. They repeated the declaration in 19 98th. In the meantime, you have the two Embassy Bombings in africa. You have u. S. Is the fall of 2000. You have the uss cole in the fall of 2000. There is plenty of blame to go around. Both president clinton and president bush in that interim period did not give al qaeda the attention it was due. And to be honest i think a field in a very Critical Role which the president has to play, which is to educate the American Public. The fact was this group was determined to strike the United States and kept escalating, and look how Many Americans were surprised when 9 11 happened. That should not have happened. It should not have been a surprise to anybody. Can i ask a question of director goss rather, of mr. Negroponte. Mr. Goss said if we knew then what we know today, we might have done things different which i think is a very reasonable thing to say. Do you think that mr. Negroponte, that knowing what we know today, the iraq war was wrong, and do you think that torture is wrong . Mr. Negroponte torture is never right. Ms. Goodman you think the bush mistake administration was wrong to engage in it . Mr. Negroponte you can find quotes. I was asked if we should use force in iraq, and i sit in questions like this, i think we ought to approach the issue with a great deal of caution. I also said that we ought and i felt that we ought to allow the inspection process more time to do its work. I was disappointed that it was not allowed. You have one president at a time. He is the commander in chief. He has the constitutional authority, and that is what he decided to do. The last point i would make to your issue about hans blicks blicks and i had a chance to reminisce about this, and i said to him, it is amazing. We set up this inspection thing and we never found anything, and what the heck happened . He said, that is right but he said i still do not understand why saddam behaved so guilty, and maybe that is why he had some doubts, because saddam sort of emanated this sort of sensation that he was hiding something. Some people have speculated and think it was an fbi agent who interviewed him, he wanted people to think he had a couple of wmds in the neighborhood, so this was part of his strategy. If indeed it was his strategy, a it boomeranged. Next question from the audience. During your time as ambassador, he expose the role of the u. S. And death squads within the Iraqi Security forces, i am wondering if anything was done to crack down on that. The second question is, that could be part of the dark legacy that the u. S. Was associated with some very vicious elements in iraq. Your thoughts on that. The second element, youre talking about other elements of bushs Foreign Policy, we know that there are human rights abuses of the colombian military, which is been a model for mexico. Is that a success . Also, what about the u. S. Support for the congo war . You mentioned africa. I agree that the aids initiative was positive, but what about the u. S. Role in supporting the rwa and the wanton and ugandan militarys and their plunder of congo and the 5 Million Deaths that occurred in conngo . Is that a success . Probably we do not have time to go through all of these issues exhaustively, but i think the thought that colonel steele was training death squads in iraq is utter nonsense, and certainly our objective when i was ambassador, there was a standup a professional national army, and i consider that a priority objective. Our success until now has been mixed, but that was the objective. On colombia, the plan for the country has been a great success. It was started by bill clinton. It was continued by george w. Bush. Colombia is a democratic country and is a lot safer than it was before. War is hell. We know that. To think that the president s both approached the conflict with democratic ideals in mind. They were not trying to be dictators, not trying to behave in some kind of a beastial way. There are trying to win the security of their country, but preserve its democratic framework. Yes. This question is really for mr. Goss or just about anyone. After the post invasion of iraq in 2003, there were these massive bloodshed within the civilian population because of the brewing insurgency. Why did it take the Bush Administration so long to realize that they had an insurgency in iraq, and why did they fail to protect the civilian population . I suspect the ambassador has a better key on iraq than i do but my answer to that would be simply, the situation in iraq evolved rather quickly from what we thought was going to be the desired result and what some thought the policy makers thought was going to be the desired result. Somebody said flowers were going to be strewn and our soldiers were going to be greeted. It turned out that we really did not have that. He had a proconsul out there. We had an ambassador that brought things along. The process, while we were trying to build democracy in iraq, there were people in nearby countries and in nearby groups trying to destabilize iraq and trying to make sure that those efforts to plant seeds of democracy did not succeed. I would give you iran as a case in point, where killing our soldiers or providing equipment to kill our soldiers, while at the same time we were trying to bring the Democratic Institutions to bear and set up friendships between people who were not friendly to share the power of the country and assist them, that would look like a potential way to bring forward change in government in the future without violence and bloodshed. The problem is we are dealing with something that has been going on since 640 a. D. , if not longer, if you take the condition of humanity, and these folks are still trying to settle a score. We withdrew, a vacuum took place, the surge worked for a while, we left, we did not have a status of forces agreement look at what we have today. We have isil. Would we have had isil 12 years sooner if we had never gone to iraq . A fair question to ask. All the way in the back, yes, you. Hi. My question is somebody made a reference to sort of historians rushing to judgment about george w. Bush. It is not my place how true that is. Dont forward to how possible would it be to do real work, research wise, history wise, when so much of the information is demonized . I think of the iraqi war logs, as an example. That is my question. So much of the history. I missed the word you use. So much of the history is what . Demonized. Oh, oh. Well, im not a professional archivist. I know we have the director of the bush library here. I am sure he can answer your question for you. Im not sure what you mean by demonized unless you are talking about leakers who are still within the government and then decide to follow Edward Snowdens path. There are people who demonized them. If you are a president ial historian, a good one will tell you you have to wait at least 20 years, because you have to let the passions cool. You have to do the spade work. The problem is worse than use suggested because nobody puts anything down in writing anymore, is a point was made earlier today by one of the first panels, cause they are afraid of getting a subpoena from capitol hill or a special processsecutor. I would still make the case that if you are a president ial historian like arthur sledges arthur who said that george w. Bush was one of the worst president s in history, and what the cheney thats what cheney was trying to do was what cheney was trying to do was world domination. Next question, please. Two of our panelists have to leave right now. I want to thank them on behalf of hofstra for coming here today. [applause] we still have a few minutes ahead of us. Lets take any other questions. Yes. A student over here. So, professor knott you said with the events leading up to 9 11 we should have taken more count and put more focus on the events, like the threat of afghanistan. So do you believe al qaeda in afghanistan. So do you believe that now with isil we should be putting more focus on them, or should we handle the situation any differently than we are . Mr. Goss look, i am not trying to be evasive. Even though i teach at a war college, that is not my specialty. At the moment, the antiisis offensive seems to be primarily led by iran, but the American Public has zero appetite for the boots on the ground expression. While we can contribute airpower with indigenous forces, with iranians, whether that will work or not, i do not know. I would commend a report that came out today called after liberation destruction, and it is about the areas of iraq that were taken over by isis, isil. I would commend a report that came out today called after liberation destruction and it is about the areas of iraq that were taken over by isis, isil. And now with iraqi militias moving through, they are destroying full towns, and a have the video of this, and it is important understand what is happening today, how extensive the devastation is. Marty . I am sorry, the other panelists had left because that question applied to them. It has to do with the fact that we supposedly have 17 intelligence agencies with tens of billions of dollars expended on socalled intelligence, and yet we did not predict the end of the cold war. We did not predict 9 11. And we have not predicted isil coming to power the way they did. Can you explain why . Yeah, i agree, and im glad they left, because there are some Serious Problems in the Intelligence Community. Ms. Goodman we have to bring them back. Mr. Goss they might have killed me. [laughter] no, look, what i am about to tell you is not the majority view. I do president ial history, but also do intelligence history and in my view a lot of damage was done, and i know my colleagues here are not going to agree with this at all, but if you want to penetrate a group like al qaeda or isil, you got to do some pretty nasty stuff. And that just is not sit well with the congressional oversight committees, which were created in the mid1970s after the church committee, that i alluded to earlier. I think there has been a lot of restrictions put in place and a lot of things that make the congressional overseers uncomfortable, which is why and explained some of those intelligence failures, not all of them. The language problem i think director goss alluded to is critical as well. I think we have made some improvements there. But the fact and i grant you we need to have a debate in this country how much of a player do we want to be on the world stage . If the answer is we want to be, then you need an Intelligence Community that will do things that are not necessarily going to make us proud all the time. But there is not an Intelligence Service in the world that does not undertake uncomfortable actions, to say the least, and especially if youre talking about a group like isil or al qaeda. Ms. Goodman i think the practice of torture threatens our National Security. What it did in the lead up to iraq, it is interesting to hear mr. Negroponte say he had serious questions about going to war in iraq. This came from faulty information from people. When you question whether congressional oversight serves a democratic society, i think the only thing that does not serve it is when Intelligence Community is not overseen. That is what we have seen through the Bush Administration. Mr. Goss i would point out on the question of waterboarding, we know that key members of the Intelligence Committees were briefed, including nancy pelosi, and we will not go down this path, because i think she has since denied that, but theres good evidence to indicate these folks were told and in the immediate aftermath of 9 11, the word was do whatever you have to and if need be do more. At the least, if youre opposed to torture, do not focus your fire exclusively on the bush white house. A lot of it was coming from capitol hill as well. Do you believe there was any chance that any intelligence that indicated a contrary conclusion would have prevented that war . I know what you will say, i think. If they were here, i would have addressed it to them. Mr. Goss i do not share the view that bush on 9 12 was determined to go after iraq. It is clear that people like Paul Wolfowitz were. He was the secretary of defense, deputy. I also did not live view it was because saddam tried to kill his father. Theres a lot of crazy stuff out there. I think bush was radicalized by 9 11. What is the connection . Mr. Goss because it radicalized bush. The al qaeda stuff is fiction. I believe that bush himself was radicalized by the events of 9 11, and opted to go big, and go big was to send a shockwave through the part of the world, and the phrase was used at the time, drain the swamp. The swamp was the semistates that provided shelter for al qaeda, that you might move that region of the world in a more positive direction. We have time for one more question. Kayla . To broaden the conversation back to the decision to invade iraq, kofi annan said this was an illegal war, a war of aggression. So based under the nuremberg tribunal, what about accountability for that . Amy goodman mentioned accountability. Would you call it an illegal war right off the bat . Mr. Goss in terms of strictly american legality, i know the authorization to use force, you had the initial authorization to use force against afghanistan in the fall, winter of 2001, and you had congress go on record essentially giving bush the authority to use force if he thought that was appropriate. And again, we should point out there was decent bipartisan support for giving bushs authority. Hillary clinton, Joe Biden Harry reid, john kerry, richard gephardt, etc. , etc. So from a strictly american standpoint, i have a hard time viewing iraq as an illegal war. It is certainly where obama it was certainly more legal than president obamas use of force in libya without going to congress at all. I think weve been very clear in suggesting that this was a violation of International Law. [indiscernable] i cannot speak for amy goodman just sit closer to it, that is all. Ms. Eisenberg i cannot speak for amy, but its clearly a violation of International Law. United states went into iraq without the backing of the United Nations, attacking a country that had not attacked us and where there was no imminent likelihood that they would have attacked us. This seems to be part of the very selfevident point. The practical situation is that theres nobody in the world that can call us to account. I think it is very important to keep an overarching perspective. The extent to which folks in the Bush Administration were really people who were looking around in the aftermath of the cold war. I think it took a while for that to sink in that we did not have the soviet union as an enemy anymore. We do not have to be careful about those things that we hesitated to do before. And you really had coming to power in the Bush Administration people who were taking the view that now that we were the sole superpower that we were able to exert our influence and use our power in ways we had not done previously. And so in that context, the idea that you would go and attack another country that does not threaten you directly, that has not committed an act of aggression, that became somehow unacceptable idea. Im not sure we learned from that either. I do not see any possible way of justifying this in terms of International Law. I think it is important, so important what hofstra is doing, evaluating presidencies but i also think it is important to evaluate the grassroot movements that are the true movers and shakers, the bravery of those who have spoken out and continue to speak out. Barbara lee, the Congress Member from oakland, california, as you pointed out Hillary Clinton and many others in the democratic leadership voted for the war. Theres no question they voted to authorize at the end of 2002. Barbara lee stood alone saying war is not the answer, that she would not sign any blank check for war if we wanted to make ourselves safer. And i think 14 years later in 2015, as we look back, this woman was prophetic, and it is the movements that she represented and those that she did not, these also deserve University Examination to give voice to those who lost their lives, who continue to speak out, who are imprisoned, who are the targets of u. S. Foreign policy. We have to hear from all of them and their loved ones when they cannot speak for themselves. The last word. A very relatively minor point, but i dont think its been mentioned yet. There is no question that the neocons were itching, many of them, to get even in a sense or to go into iraq. It is important to note that under president clinton, with congressional acquiescence regime change became the official policy of the United States government during the clinton years, not the bush years. That does not justify the 2003 invasion, but there were a series of steps they could see leading to the invasion. I would like to thank our surviving panelists, and i want to thank all of you. Thanks very much. [applause] working hard to pass a trade reform bill. In an economy or trait is hard to come by that means new markets and new customers. Did you know that overall we have a trade surplus with the 20 nations we have a trade agreement with your it consider this. Between 2004 and 2013, employment declined but trade jobs grew by 19 . Every day i hear from folks that it is trade that gets them through their businesses. The problem is the way things work right now president obama can negotiate trade agreements on his own and in secret. He doesnt have to keep you or me in. It is certainly not fair to american workers. Especially when there is no accountability for the president. This is where the trade Promotional Authority comes in. Concern about transparency . Americans have 60 days to read the trade agreement the for can be signed. Concerned about a bad deal . Tpa makes the president follow dozens of strict objectives so that your priorities come first and not his. If he doesnt fulfill his obligations, we can vote it down, your truck vote it down. My father was a steel worker who lost his job and his pension. The trade wasnt the culprit globalization was. Technology was. I have told manufacturing now there is one worker making the same products. China knows it. With us on the sidelines, it is writing the rules of the global economy. They are working on agreements that exclude the United States and undercut labor standards. The world is engaging and trading like never before and we must pass tpa so that we will not be left behind. If we pass tpa we will be able to make agreements that give us access to billions of new customers and our workers will be able to compete on a level Playing Field where we know that we can outwork anyone. We have passed it in the senate and we have an important vote on the senate. It unites republicans and democrats. Farmers, ranchers, manufacturers and Small Business owners. It even unites barack obama and ted cruz. You will hear the usual scare tactics but americans are more hopeful and determined than that. American jobs, American Growth and American Leadership all at stake. Have a great weekend. Next, a house hearing on u. S. Energy security. Then i hearing on how terrorists are recruiting new members. Live at 7 00 a. M. , your calls and comments. On newsmakers vermont senator Patrick Leahy discusses the impact of the law on surveillance and privacy. Today at 10 00 a. M. And 6 00 p. M. Est on cspan. Today on road to the white house, a conversation with former virginia senator jim webb. Discusses growing up in a military family and his service in vietnam. Congress politics and what he likes about campaigning. I enjoy facetoface campaigning. Talking to people and listening to what their thoughts are and clarifying mine. What i dont enjoy is campaign finance. To be blunt about that. I said when i announced the Exploratory Committee that the one thing i can say is that i will never go anything to anyone owe anything to anyone if i am elected. It is a tough proposition to raise enough funds to conduct a viable campaign. Today at 6 35 p. M. Et. On tuesday, a panel of Energy Analysts offered its recommendations on policy and proposed legislation. They commented on Energy Issues related to Climate Change, crossborder infrastructure objects and liquefied natural gas experts exports. Just over an hour. On our second panel with mr. Rudolph dozer. And we have mr. Gerald caps who is the Vice President of Stream Research and casting. And the director of the Domestic Energy policy for the center of american progress. Mrs. Emily hammond who is the professor of law at George Washington University Law school and i will call on my colleague mr. Pips of pennsylvania to introduce one of our witnesses as well. Thank you, i am pleased to introduce mr. Scott martin, the county commissioner from Lancaster County pennsylvania. And active in the statewide association of county commissioners, outstanding commissioner who could travel down from pennsylvania to be with us today. Thank you for being with us. I want to thank all of you, we look forward to your testimony and i am sorry that there was such a delay in your testifying, we had to reschedule a little bit but mr. Dozier you can the longest distance and you are in the German Parliament at the time and a professor also at the university of von. We genuinely appreciate you making this effort and i will recognize you to start off with five minutes and then ask for everyone who has concluded that have questions for some of you. Thank you chairman whitfield and the members of the committee. My name is rudolph dozer and im a German National who has lived about eight years in the United States. In germany i became a law officer and subsequently i was the director general. This is where my gray hair comes from. Then i was appointed three times to the German Parliament commission of inquiry. We had that in germany that you can be appointed to Parliament Without the right to vote on the president. In the u. S. I suffered studied at spokane, washington and then i stayed for a longer period at the harvard law school. I later taught at five u. S. Universities, the last time in dallas at texas. In houston, im a member of the Advisory Board of the association of independent petroleum negotiations. A month ago i published a laerjer study of International Cooperation in Global Energy affairs. Mr. Chairman, the year of abundance as you say opens up new opportunities of leadership for the United States and the world is looking at the United States. The reminds us also, at least me, that energy is not just about energy, its about foreign affairs. Its about National Security, its about finances. But ultimately energy has its own characteristics and dynamics. And this is my first major point. Foreign affairs National Security and also issues such as trade must be folded into the fabrics of Energy Politics and not the other way around. This is also my view as regards Climate Change. Energy politics, mr. Chairman, and when i look at your draft on Energy Diplomacy, Energy Politics also cause for arrangements of its own when it comes to International Cooperation. Title three of the present bill represents an innovative modern approach also from an International Point of view. This may even be strengthened by a transatlantic trade and investment partnership. Trade is just one aspect of energy. Recent events this has been addressed this morning in russia, ukraine, europe in general, have yurn lined that Energy Independence will require safe Energy Supplies and will require political foresight and a robust long term strategy. Together we must understand the nature of that issue. Europe this is not well known. Europe as a whole, will become more vulnerable as our resources dwindle in particular in norway. This is europe as a whole. The forum as proposed in your bill will serve to provide a common basis. But i propose that we go further and establish a more advanced concept which i called the Transatlantic Energy agenda. We need to update and broaden existing arrangements. We have long standing arrangements for cooperation in foreign affairs, in National Security, in agriculture for example. For energy, arrangements of this kind, i think it ought to change. We need more exchange. We need better exchange. We knead to know what were doing and we need exchange about best practice. Americas abundance leads itself to strengthening relationships. In europe we have particular experience in this respect. Since 2009 the European Union has the confidence to deal with the establishment of a Single Market but the Member States have retained their sovereign power to determine the energy mix. The frerj made sure that no one touches their right to work with atomic power. This is a very complex jurisdictional situation we have in europe. We now have a set of rules promoting competition in europe with liberalization. We have less progress this is of interest here so far with regard to internal and cross border connections to overcome isolated domestic market ps. Key concept which has been worked out in the last 24 months has been the idea of project of common interest as its called. The new rules i think this is of interest here, for a much more rapid process of approving permits. So far that time, dont be astonished, took about ten years or more to have a permit for a transport arrangement. This is not going down to 3. 5 yeeshs at a maximum, according to the new law. Also Member States now must introduce one step authorities instead of the multitude of institutional arrangements weve had so far. Now the funds needed for a Single Energy market will be considerable, but i think the advantage will justify the costs. Costs in terms of secure supply, new infrastructure urgently needed, more options for the customers, more, better position negotiating position on the international endeavor when you negotiate with russia or the opec or venz way ra laezuelavenezuela. The larger your market, the better it is. It might help to emulate a unfied energy strategy. Mr. Chairman, i conclude, in the past Energy Issues have at times been a bone of contention between the United States and europe. Sometimes of bitter contention. I think your bill with title 3 has the promise and hallmarks of a new year of cooperation with tangible benefits on both sides of the atlantic. Thank you very much for attention. I very much appreciate this opportunity to express my views before your important committee. Thank you very much. Thank you dr. Dolzer. Our next witness is the president of the Bipartisan Policy Center and thank you very much for being with us and youre recognized for five minute. Thank you very much chairman whitfield, mr. Rush and the resilient members of the committee. Its a pleasure to join ru on this important discussion. My testimony can be summarized into three main points. First, i want to strengthen north America Energy collaboration. Theyre realistic goals that must be vigorously pursued and not taken for granted. My second point is that increased north american cooperation is a critical component of a larger effort to promote Economic Growth to sufficient markets withen enhance north marks role and project u. S. Power and global interest. And our third point is we must seize the opportunity the translate that streng of abundance and not allow this strength to result in unintended complacency. This committee and congress has the challenge of managing success which is a new problem when it comes to our nation and i think it creates real opportunities that we need to discuss. Let me begin by saying a little bit about the energy collaboration. I believe the provisions in this are all essential to achieving the promise of north American Energy security. The opportunities are particularly pronounced in the case of mexico. U. S. Companies have much to gain in increased trade with mexico its hard to overstate the production to the mexican relationship. After years of decline, Energy Production is responsible for a third of mexican governments overall activities. If modernization efforts success, Energy Production could be a significant driver of Mexican Development and opportunity. Irp occasions are broad. We believe we must reform our nations broken immigration system. While this is not the place to discuss this challenges of protecting the southern border there is no question that improved Economic Opportunity in mexico is an essential component of successful and lasting immigration reform. Let me turn down to the issue of siting. While technology improved dramatically, the permitting policies date back to 1950s and 1960s. We commend the committees effort to make the cross board process more transparent than predictable. Political judgment in crafting this provision to exempt the still pending keystone decision. It is time to have a broad based Bipartisan Energy debate that is beyond keystone and encouraging to see the committee working diligently to avoid focus on the agreements agreements. Id like to move to the second point which is a focus on the component that north america plays in the larger global picture. Our nation made Good Progress of late. But current restrictions on crude oil are undermining our commitment to sufficient markets, deminutish our ability to promote free trade. I cannot build upon mr. Bartons site of studies expect to agree that there is a space of andalyses that conclude it will continue to exert downward pressure. My final point is on the challenge of how we use this abundance to promote the long term sustainability and security needs. Theres a broad critique of the abundance agenda that must be grappled with. The concern is that stable low cost supplies of oil and gas are undermining investment. The nation and the world will require in the next century to meet global demands, protect our security interest and to confront the risks of Climate Change. This concern leads to different policy pathways. The Bipartisan Policy Center believes center believes action must be taken to confront Climate Change but reject the idea that we have to pursue a low carbon future by undermining barriers to the resurgence of oil and Gas Production. Perpetuating the markets and creating bottlenecks to hope to reduce fossil fuels is not an effective strategy, and if anything, it results in increased emissions. Instead, as we vigorously pursue benefits of abundance, we have to be determined in conducting research and creating incentives to developing and commercializing the next generation of Energy Breakthroughs through storage to utility scale solarew lore biofuel, and array of Energy Saving technologies. We have to find ways to encourage greater investment despite low price environment. Americas renaissance has given us the gift of time. The question before the committee in congress is what do we do with this time . In closing, the Bipartisan Policy Center looks forward to continue to work with the committee as you build and architecture for abundance that enhances security and confronts domestic and Global Environmental threats. Thank you. Thank you, and our next witness who is already been introduced but is mr. Scott martin, a county commissioner of Lancaster County, pennsylvania thank you for being with us, and youre registered. Its lancaster. What did i say . You said lancaster. Well have to work on that one. Ill let you and mr. Pits work that out. But thanks. Youre welcome, mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, its an honor to be here. I serve on the board of commissioners, and the United States must work to develop a coherent logical and clear National Energy strategy. I applaud the chairman for ark terkture of abundance to stimulate a wide ranging and bipartisan debate for the need of a Long Term Energy agenda based on economic development, common sense regulations, a modern and safe Energy Infrastructure, greater efficiencies, increased exports especially with lng to support our Foreign Policy goals, and environmental sensitivity, minimal government involvement and utilization of free market economic principles. Theres many positive developments in energy, however, thats numerous challenges and issues that urgently need to be addressed. Longer we wait to address and solve the issues make them more difficult, expensive, and complicated, and controversial. One of the most pressing priorities is energy indpeps. Of course, Energy Independence can be achieved with only new and acquirable sources, the infrastructure exists, the environment is not hostile capital is available to finance the expansion in domestic and international markets. Thankfully due to fracturing known as fracking and discovery of vast new reserves, america is now the Worlds Largest natural gas producer. As they should, Energy Prices have been decreasing. The United States is increasingly able to export large amounts of lng around the world and especially to european countries. The volatile and tense situation in ukraine can demonstrates why we have to build the keystone pipeline, increase facility, and work to expedite the building of pipelines and compressor stations. As noted above, a significant improvement is the use of fracking and extracting natural gas from shale. The use of fracking in pennsylvania and the construction of necessary infrastructures had widespread and Significant Economic Development impacts. Some of these include 96 of new energy hires from the appalachian area, 45,000 new building trade jobs in that same region, 243,000 new energy jobs in pennsylvania, over 1 billion invested by the shale industry in road and infrastructure improvements, and including grants to Community College and trade schools to train the workers needed by Extraction Companies in the region with an average core wage of 68,000 a year. This increase shale Gas Production in pennsylvania is also saved the average pennsylvania family between 1200 to 2,000 annually in Energy Savings costs. Businesses and other Institutional Energy users benefitted from the greatly increased availability of cheap, natural gas. The Pennsylvania National guard and army reserve components, the garden spot Public School district, and the Shady Maple Companies all in our area have experienced significant savings in their energy bills after switching to natural gas. Cheaper energy will further develop an industrial and manufacturing renaissance in america. In brief, Lower Energy Costs create more income and greater aggregate demand, decreased transportation costs lead to lower prices, and american prices are globally competitive. The domestic oil and gas reeve lugs is only successful long term if the nis pipe looibs are quickly built and brought online. The Williams Company proposed to build an 180mile interstate pipeline from northern pennsylvania and connect it to the main u. S. Gas pipeline from texas to the northeast. The actual connection point would be in southern Lancaster County. 37 miles go through my county, thats a 2. 6 billion Economic Impact throughout the construction of this project. Williams is cooperative and easy to work with, various concerns have come up. Over 100 route changes, more than half the original route had been made based on stake holder input. They are committed to making the pipelines open access so potential customers can directly access the pipeline. As you imagine, a project this size generates controversy and opposition. One early controversy was proposed routing of the pipeline through an environmental sensitive area parallel to the river. The board of commissioners is working with local organizations went to williams to express strong concerns regarding the route. Williams found a new route and completely moved away from the sensitive areas. They did so with native american sites and water source areas. The county has five significant pipelines running through our county. Many Property Owners are not even aware of the pipelines that crosses their land. Based upon discussions with local farmers having existing pipelines on their property williams including with their major u. S. Pipeline, has been very responsive to their needs. Lancaster county is one of the leaders in agriculture production, not only in pennsylvania, but across the country. We also preserve more farmland than any other county in the United States with over 100,000 acres preserved. Needless to say, the county ordnances that govern Farmland Preservation program allowed pipelines pipelines. Since november 20 14, two elections where it was in a de facto manner in the ballot and voter were clear in rejecting efforts to stop the proposed pipeline including have two townships adopt a Community Based ordnance to declear that federal and state laws do not apply in these municipalities. Voters recognize this pipeline represents the greatest good is served. In closing, i emphasize how incredibly important the on going Energy Revolution is to the future of the United States and the world while renewables greater efficiencies, clean coal, next Generation Nuclear and smart grids are vitally important and virtually unlimited supply of clean, recoverable natural gas from shale that lead americans to the future. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Martin. Next witness is mr. Gerald, Vice President of upStream Research and consulting. And thank you for being with us. You are recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Members, thank you for having me here did you turn your microphone on. Ill do that. Does that come across . Ok. Mr. Chairman, members, thank you very much. Pleased to be in front of you today because in my world, which is forgive me for interrupting. Can you take ms. Cassidys microphone and try that one . Thank you very much. Again, my apologies. I hope this does not eat into my five minutes here. Mr. Chairman, members, thank you. Im very pleased to be here today because the world that i usually am in is the Business World and the exploration and production business. Im a geologist, been in the business for 30 years. You decide whether that makes me objective or not in the business, but im fairly knowledgeable and representing the work, analysis, and experience of my colleagues at my company. I want to talk about competitiveness of the sector, and more than the volumes that have been produced, supplies from shale, just as important for you to think about is the competitive of the Energy Industry here, and the reason is that it means costs and reaction to market conditions. For example, looking at this period with many benefits for the economy, consumers, et cetera, at one point clearly perhaps the saudis, others thought the u. S. Oil industry was a phenomena of high oil prices. That is not the case. In other words, many thought that this industry, the shale oil and gas industry could survive only with high oil and gas prices. That is not the case. This is one of the points today. By the way, we had low Natural Gas Prices for about six years right now, and shale Gas Production has sustained, in fact, grown. Thats critically important. And why is that so important . Because when if comes to thinking about Energy Diplomacy, the idea that we can export the volumes that we have because we will match or meet their internal requirements is not just about volumes. What were really exporting is competitiveness. I want to make that point is that anything you might consider in terms of the Energy Diplomacy objectives or goals, which are actually quite admirable, they will be sustainable and viable as long as this competitiveness exists because its not just offering to send supplies somewhere. The market place is what is pulling them. Whether its ukraine or parts of europe or mexico as ill talk about next year, a great example. They would not be doing this if these supplies were from u. S. Shores were not competitive in a lower priced alternative to other factors. And this is particularly important because if we define very simply what Energy Security is, which is really we would argue reliable supply at affordable prices. Lets take mexico. Right now, theres a lot of interest in mexico because of the opening of the enp sector, Exploration Production because of over 70 years of monopoly of the state oil Company Going to be reversed, but thats actually not the Biggest Issue going on. The bigger issue is that fact that mexico imports a lot more natural gas for the United States. The committee knows they import 2 billion cubic feet a day. That number could go up to 5 or 6 billion cubic feet a day within the next ten years. Its a bigger impact because two things. One, all this will drive much more gas fire Power Generation if reforms work in the midstream and downstream in mexico, and we hope they will. That should result in lower Energy Prices for the entire economy. We dont know yet if its 10 lower, 20 lower, 30 lower, but the impact on that on the mexican economy competitiveness this is the big picture. Its not so much the oil side is what im trying to say. Its the gas side and what were about to do right there. Thats an important factor. Now, it is said, and it is quite true, that mexico has substantial Natural Gas Resources, but in this case, the decision they made was if they tried to develop their own Natural Gas Resources right now, its so expensive that it made far more sense to import less expensive u. S. Natural gas. Thats a choice for competition. Its a choice for competitiveness, and, again, if you want to look at it from an Energy Policy program for the u. S. , a tremendous success because as this goes forward that competitiveness, that lower price in efficiency is what is going to have a larger impact on the mexican economy in a huge contributor to what has already been troubled at times, but a very successful u. S. Mexican relationship, so thats the arguments i want to put in front of you, that, one, shale production is not a high priced phenomena. Also intrinsic to the supply volumes we have is the competitiveness of that. One, if its part of u. S. Energy diplomacy initiative, then that competitiveness needs to continue. Thats going to undergird all of that in order to be successful. Timely, u. S. Infrastructure processes of regulations naturally, have to be equally competitive in order to allow this to be sustained. Thank you very much for giving me the time. Thank you, and the next witness is alison cassidy, director of Domestic Energy policy for the center of american progress, and thank you very much for being with us, and youre recognized for five minutes. Thank you, chairman whitfield, Ranking Member rush, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Im director of the Domestic Energy. This is a Nonprofit Organization dedicated to improving the lives of americans through progressive ideas and action. Before i jump into my more specific comments on the Energy Diplomacy section of the draft i would like to highlight a topic that is not a subject of todays hearing, but i think should be, and that is Climate Change, which, to me, is thee most urgent and challenging Energy Diplomacy issue of our time. Climate change has become a priority in International Relations because the Climate Science is so clear. A failure to act on Climate Change risks severe irreversible impacts on a global scale. As the Committee Considers the nations Energy Policy and its interaction with the rest of the world, cap urges you to put Climate Change front and center of any policy you development. We can no longer afford to separate Energy Policy from Climate Policy. So with that introduction context in mind, ill jump into a few thoughts on section 3104 of discussion of the draft about Cross Border Energy projects. As you know, under current law entities wanting to construct or operate cross borderlines are required to obtain a president ial permit. This section of the bill eliminates that requirement, and instead requires the Relevant Federal Agency to issue a ser tiff cant of crossing, that is unless the agency finds the cross border segment of the projects is not in the Public Interest of the United States, and i have a few concerns about this approach. First, the new process presumes that the project is in the Public Interest, placing the burden of proof on concerned stake holders to demonstrate it is not rather than asking the apply captain to make the affirmative case that it is. Second, under the new process, the applicant needs federal approval for the portion of the project that physically crosses the u. S. Border, even if the project itself spans hundreds of miles. Finally, it omits review to just the cross border section of the project. This makes little sense because we know these projects have environmental impacts well beyond the border. For a truly transcontinental project like a pipeline running through numerous states down to the gulf coast, the current permits process is the only venue for the public and stake holders to examine and understand the potential impacts of the whole project thats under consideration. Under the process established by the bill, the review would be fragmented, state by state, and no one other than the project applicant would ever examine the project as a whole. I also have a few concerns about section 3106, the export section. This section sets a 30day deadline upon completion of Environmental Review for the d. O. E. To issue a final decision for any organization to submit natural gas to a nonfree trade country. The United States is well on track to become a net exporter of natural gas. To date, they issued final authorizations to six facilities to export up to 8. 6 billion cubic feet per day of lng, more than 10 of daily u. S. Natural gas consumption on top of what we already export to free trade countries like mexico. The existing d. O. E. Permitting system appears to be working. It puzzles me, therefore, why we need a bill that seeks to fast track new d. O. E. Approvals. To be clear, cap does not oppose lng exports in principle, but we have concerns about placing an artificial deadline on Agency Review of permit applications. Congress should not preclude d. O. E. From taking the time it needs to make a consider and wellinformed decision particularly on the most difficult projects. The stakes are simply too high for natural gas consumers here in the United States. Last year, the Energy Information administration concluded that increased lng exports lead to increased Natural Gas Prices, and these higher Natural Gas Prices create economic winners and losers. Certainly natural Gas Producers and employees of natural gat producers are the clear winners, but, for example, manufacturers that use natural gas as a feed stock would face Higher Energy costs. In short, the decision to export significant volumes of natural gas, even to the allies, is a complex one that should not be made lightly given the potential consumer impacts here in the United States. This decision is made even more complicated given the growing demand here at home for natural gas in both the Electricity Sector and transportation sector. So if the United States over commits to natural gas exports via long term 20year contracts, consumers here could pay the price, and thats why the deliberative process is so important. With that, i will end my testimony and happy to answer any questions. Thank you, ms. Kaz dicassidy and the next is ms. Emily hammond, professor of law at northwestern University Law school. Thank you for joining us. You are recognized for five minutes. Thank you, chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, i appreciate the opportunity to testify today. In my testimony, i would like to highlight several concerns that undermine the discussion drafts, important goal of aup mied Energy Policy. These concerns relate specifically to sections 30102 30104, and 3106. In short, those provisions fail to properly account for the reliability, fuel diversity, and environmental implications of Energy Policy. They fail to undertake work in a deliberative and well reasoned manner. Starting with the Interagency Task force. Despite the lines between energy and the environment no longer truly exist, the composition of the task force has significant gaps that will hinder rather than help the development of a comprehensive Energy Policy. Most critical is absence of agencies within environmental expertise, but other key agencies like those whose missions relate to jobs, to the economy, and to transportation are also omitted from the task force. As demonstrated by the qer which we heard about this morning, all of these agencies can successfully Work Together towards unified energy policies, and Administrative Law will show that when agencies collaborate in this way, they are more successful in that they tend to have broader stake holder support and the criterias plan should include Environmental Issues and especially Climate Change. Failing to do so will only deepen the current dysfunctions in our Energy Regulatory system and in the energy markets. Sec, the authorization for cross border Infrastructure Projects does not make clear how d. O. E. Implements authority differently from how it currently does under the president ial permit framework. Current procedures do account for Environmental Issues and those should be retained. I note as well that the provisions striking portions of the federal power act and in particular section 202f threaten to undermine important backstopped authority that the federal power act retains that allow it to ensure grid reliability for projects that Cross International boundaries. I urge the subcommittee to carefully reexamine the striking provisions of this section. Finally, the applications of are concern. Even if they are able to act quickly in circumstances, it needs flexibility given the very complex issues at stake. Opposing a rigid deadline threatens more delay. First deadline suits, which are contemplated by the discussion draft tend to impose additional delays, even if those suits are successful. And second, with stakes so high with such engaged stake holders, judicial challenges are inevitable, all right. We can predict lawsuits no matter does decision, and if d. O. E. Is rushed in making a determination, the record is less likely to be carefully developed. The agencys reasoning may not be clear, and, again, its likely to be more vulnerable to remand and in position of further delays. To summarize the relationship between energy and the environment must be considered as the United States seeks a policy. Careful to Administration Procedure in role in promoting Good Government must accompany any new energy statutes. If we move forward with u. S. Energy policy with these principles in mind, we can make substantial improvements for the future. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and i look forward to your questions. Thank you, and that concludes the opening statements. I just want to make an announcement that were expecting some votes around 1 1 30 or so. Theres only six members here, so we each get five minutes, thats 30 minutes. I think that we can make it through and give you all an opportunity to respond if we go efficiently and quickly, so im going to recognize myself for five minutes to get mine in bobby, and then well go from there. Ms. Cassidy and ms. Hammond both made comments about Climate Change, and that is something we are all concerned about, but in the federal government theres 68 initiatives on Climate Change. Theres been a total of 36 or 37 billion dollars spent by the u. S. Government alone each year just on Climate Change. So the difference is we have with president obama truthfully is that he views it as the most important issue facing mankind and some of us have different views that a job, access to health care, clean water affordable energy, Economic Growth are very important also. I appreciate yalls comments and now mr. Palone is coming thats another person. I have to hurry. Ok. I want to make that comment. Now in france, theres a large percentage of electricity produced from nuclear, and germany made the decision, i guess, to stop all production of energy by nuclear. Is that still the policy in germany . That is the policy. We decided three days after the fukushima event in 2010 to phase out. We had an earlier change in 2000 with another change in 2009, and fukushima fukushima, the key event in germany, and at the moment, the Current Situation is that half of the Nuclear Plant as have been phased out after 2011, and the rest, the eight of them are still in operation. They will be phased out by 2021. Of course, you have been in germany, they are moving quickly to Renewable Energy wind, solar, whatever. Whats the result been . I mean, has it affect your reliability . The Retail Prices of electricity or not . Its affected the price of the consumer considerably. I think the price went up by 30 for electricity for the private house households. Perhaps one conclusion is, and im not here taking any particular position, if you change policies to a pragmatic manner without too much momentary intervention, i think the change in germany has forced us to react very quickly. It had some rather unintended consequences at the moment. We the main importer of u. S. Coal. Now, of course this is a little bit odd and awkward to have more coal. I was told that last year twothirds of u. S. Coal exports went to europe. Correct. So were supporting west virginia. A consequence of our decision to phase out nuclear was de facto to promote coal. For the moment, by prediction is this policy will not change, none of the Major Political parties including the one to which i belong intends to change, however, i think if i listen to correctly to what my wife tells, 34 me, opposition among the people are growing to this policy. The question is is that affordable what were doing at the moment in the long run . Germany has many issues as most other states. We need more schools. We need better universities. We need more streets. The question is, can we focus our budget in the way we did on one issue alone which is you know, in your testimony you talked about europe being more vulnerable, is that what you refer to . That is correct. The policy about the renewables and the push policy about renewables together with the policy of phasing out Nuclear Power means that we need more energy in the future as regards gas. We have a very special situation. We can get more gas from russia from iran, from algeria, or at the moment from norway, but norway is about to peak. In other words, our choices are not considerable here. For a moment, i want to come back to u. S. Policy. The u. S. Has criticized us, of course, for being dependent too much on russian gas. Correct, almost 40 . At the same time, now, of course, in an era of abundance one would hope the europeans would hope that the United States allows for more gas to be exported to europe in this situation where we need stronger support with our alternatives, and i think even small additional imports from the United States would help in a symbolic manner. In other words, the position in europe you hear often is on the one hand u. S. Criticizes we are too dependent on russia or iraq or whoever, on the other hand the u. S. Does not allow and facileitate exports to europe. I think this is a position that may be reconsidered. Ok. At this time, were going to recognize mr. Rush for five minutes. I want to thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. , i just want to take a moment to welcome to the committee, ms. Cassidy, who served for many, many years as an expert staffer under our former chairman, and she was on this side of the table, and now shes on that side of the table, but i just wanted to welcome her back, so good to see you again and youre continuing outstanding work. Thank you so very much. I want to ask you a question and also ms. Hammond. Its in response to comments from the chairman. In your opinion, and both of you can respond is fine, our energy and Environmental Issues inherently related, and why is it so very, very important that any kind of comprehensive Energy Policy also integrate Environmental Concerns in that policy and anything specific with the [ inaudible ] ill ask both of you the question. Please. Thank you, mr. Rush. Did you turn it on . Yes. Project. Yes. You have a great voice. Yes, it is true that energy is in the making, and inevitably impact and impacted by Environmental Concerns. The Energy Sector is where we see the great estest Greenhouse Gas emissions. That is pure fact, and the question is what to do about it. If we make Energy Decisions that do not consider environmental duplications we will see further market dysfunctions. Well see the loss of fuel diversity, and we will see decreasing environment. The very minimum the task force include environmental agency, and environmental considerations are enumerated as the criteria for the consideration of the plan itself. Thank you. Thank you. I would add to that. The Energy Infrastructure decisions we make today will last decades. So we decided to build a pipeline today and new Energy Production facility. Were looking in decades of new emissions or not, and that is why its very important to consider whenever we consider Energy Policy consider Climate Policy as well and think through how will this Energy Project affect negatively or positively our future. The gentleman yields back. We have call vote, and ill reduce the amount of time to three minutes for everyone so everyone gets a chance. Mr. Olson, you are recognized for three minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman, im with you. Witness, i apologize, we are behind, energy superstar, and new votes come in at 2 00, so i have one question for you, and its about mexico. They are on the verge of revolution for energy. Changes, changes, changes. Moved to texas in 1972. 1979, got my license. Sent down to get in line for gasoline. It depended upon the long line get gas it was an even number, long line, and now with all this new production america, our neighbors to the north, canada and mexico, i see a vision of opec going away. My question is, sir, whats the one thing we and congress can do to make that reality, make this ahead of opec . Thank you, excellent question, and i will note usually we put the warm up before the rock stars. Might help that for the next committees. All right. Im back. Thats a very important point. Opec had a meeting, and there was a chill through the land and now, you know, they can meet or not meet, does not matter to us, if, in fact, we seize the opportunity of abundance, and i think our opportunities with mexico are profound. Give credit to the president for trying to reverse 60 years of the policy that basically discouraged first world technology. The opportunities to spend a lot of time working with mexico on something thats pedestrian but incredibly important which is data quality. The ability to have north American Energy security depends on having good data, shared analysis, shared understandings and transparency across our analytical platforms. Thats a boring, but incredibly difficult and important thing to do. Our Energy Administration here is the gold standard, and i think we should spend a lot of time, requiring resources, we want mexico to join us. If we have a shared data foundation, and we have thoughtful laws that as our colleagues suggestsed provide time for environmental deliberation but then actually require a decision, we can have a system. Shared data, number one. Congress set thats the best to do right now . Thats something you can get done right now. Thats better. I like that. Yield back, sir. Yielding back, and i recognize the gentleman from new jersey for three minutes, mr. Plum. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I just wanted to follow up on a few statements made earlier about section 3104. This makes and end run around the policy act eliminating meaningful review of theimpacts, narrowing the review to the cross border segment of the Energy Project. The tiny portion that physically crosses the National Boundaries so ms. Cassidy, does limiting review to just a small sliver make sense to you . What are some of the draw bakes of looking at just the cross border segment of the pipeline or transmission line . Thank you for the question. No, it does not make sense to me simply because if you look at the controversial pipeline and others kmmed, the controversy is never around impacts at the border. We all know even the best constructed highest policy pipeline pipeline, and accident can happen. It spans through hundreds of miles and aquifers over private and public lands and Environmental Review, the purpose of the review is to make sure that policymakers have all of the facts about the impacts of the potential impacts of the project overthe entire course of the prompt, not just the small part at the border. In order to better understand how to mitigate potential impacts, so in order to understand the potential consequences of a project, we need to look at it in its entirety and not just at the border. How about the legislations presumption that cross border projects are in the Public Interest . How would just looking at the cross border impact an agencys ability to determine whether theres projects in the publics interest. The presumption of approval stacks the deck against a stake holder with concerns about whether or not a project is in the interest. It forces concerned stake holder rather than forcing the applicant to make the case it is. That is a higher burden of proof. The way the bill is written, its focused on a narrow part of the proposal, did does not look at the potential impacts. Its harder for a concerned stake holder to make the case that this tiny part of the project is not in the public skbres interest. Well, thank you. I think the energy Infrastructure Projects are more than just a border crossing. They will last for decades, and fundment tally we have to look before we leap, but thats just basic common sense, so we should not be carelessly narrowing or creating loopholes in the law. We have to understand the impact of the projects before they are constructed so that we can protect public healthy and safety in the environment and ignoring impacts is not going to make them disappear, thank you, again. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Lancaster county does not have any wells, and how is the county benefitting from the shale, the boom we mentioned theres no wells drilled in the county. Well, first and foremost, what weve seen is pennsylvania put in impact fee with well counties and coupes who end up having pipelines. Those kinds of funds that are coming back are used to conserved open space, preserved ag preservation easements, and really replace structurally deefficient bridges, but were seeing the economic pipelines and wells, and engineering firms in the region, more than doubled in size, over a two year period, bought 75 additional vehicles of the. I said shady maple is saveing 175,000 a year in energy costs. Which then Garden Spot School District saw which is in the same area saying well tap in and realize their savings. Now, wed like to see more of it, unfortunately, about half of the pennsylvania does not have access to the natural gas, and given the premgs premise, youll see entities and others who are able to tap in and be able to realize that savings, and where we expect to see it and hear from a lot of the constituents is in the area of manufacturing, especially those who are heavily reliant on energy to do that. We have companies that spend over 3 million a year in energy costs, but they are nowhere near the pipeline, so i think well see further opportunities coming forth, but two great things i see is youre able to get an education in pennsylvania, petroleum and gas industry that you had to go to, like, texas tech to used to be able to get. They are investing in areas, 2. 5 million grant to Community College, two year program, costs for that two years is 22,000. When they are coming out of that program, the starting rate is 68,000. Those are the types of things you are seeing. These are good middle class jobs that not only use your head, but they also use your hands, and were seeing that grow, and thats something we hopefully continue to see grow, not only in Lancaster County, but throughout pennsylvania. Thank you very much. My time expired. At this time, i recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. Green, for three minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman, i appreciate hearing from the county commissioner. My accent gives me away, but, obviously, every school in texas has energy courses from the Community Colleges up to not only tech texas in lubbock, but texas a m, houston, and everywhere else. Ms. Cassidy, welcome back to the committee. I know youre familiar with the nepa regulations and environmental quality, and agencies specifically prohibited from segments projects known as piecemealing. The code of federal regulations state proposals or parts of proposals related to each other closely enough to be in action are evaluated. The discussion draft requires the state department to prom mull gait rules on cross border pipelines, and you heard the agencies are require to do it. Ms. Cassidy, wouldnt the federal agency in charge of the review be charged with the review that satisfies these sceq regulations and looking at the whole project . My understanding of the bill is that the review only applies to the cross border segment of the pipeline project or transmission line, and so it the federal approval only applies to that portion as well and there would be state by state reviews if it was passing through a state in terms of federal review, its just applying to the cross border segment. Thats my understanding of the legislation. Well, shouldnt that, you know, cross border of you, but so much of the process is done by other federal agencies, and a party to it. For example, if you have a pipeline coming from texas in eagle ford to mexico, that cross border pipeline, you know, state law covers it on the property thats not federal, but it may be crossing federal lands, and so the nepa process would come into play on that, but granted, the cross border, international, of course, is taxpayers, we own our part of the border, then they would do it, but dont you you dont think the bill calls for them to look at project . It may not be one agency doing it, but there are other agencies doing the process on their requirements on what they are required to do in that pipeline from whether it be eagle ford, you know, of course, into mexico, and thats what worries me because i know in my colleague from new jersey said that the process is not covered. I think it is because if its not department of energy, for example, for electricity transmission, it would be another federal agency if they had the authority in there or in some cases state agencies. So the process would be included. Mr. Chairman, i know im about out of time and about out of time for mr. Green, thats our view as well and would love for the staff to sit down with ms. Cassidy in more detail, but its our understanding this does not change the process. Yeah, now, i have to admit, my few seconds, i have a problem with the state department. We have a company in texas who was a canada pipeline, that was dormant. They wanted to change the name because they bought it, and their goal was to not only bring, recruit oil from canada, but it was also to attach into the United States from balcan and the state department decided to review what was on the u. S. Property. Now, i want a federal Agency Looking at it, but the state department shouldnt be deciding whether the pipeline out of balcan is good or not. Granted, were Getting Crude Oil in trains in the houston, texas because our refiners do that. Its so much safer and easier to put a pipeline in there than it is to bring 100 car trains of crude oil from canada. Gentlemans time expired. I recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. Griffeth, for three minutes. Thank you very much, i appreciate it. I take anyone who can answer it. Are you all familiar with the regulations relating to production of electricity in mexico by coal . No is a fine answer. If you dont know, you dont know. Nobody knows . The reason i ask the question is that part of the proposal here, and one that im interested in has electric transmission facilities. Its not just pipelines, and one of my concerns is that were putting coal miners out of work