tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 17, 2014 9:00pm-11:01pm EST
i welcome thehñ((ñ debate. but our reason for going to the conference was a practical one and thatjh is we felt it very importap8yz get our side of the story out there. and i hope opportunity to continue, you know with openp] mindedness among the community to hear what0 have to say as uptwell. and so i think that's how i'll answer your %0tdñ#, )szquestion. so thank you.eet >> hi, my nameññ4ñ is rebecca gibbons.xjnu"tr provide contractor support for with that) yw in .iñmind,w/%m i want to ask you about thepzp 9 m!%aforyy:úñ verification< will be involved in that effort and if it's going to be an innerioiqñ agency effort. >>h0 [x9c interagencyr effort.
for those you have served i-0"z the government, you know how delicious that is.jçrp÷ it's necessary. we are welcomingczsóy i said in myv)ú. remarks, we want to work with nonnuclear weapon states as well asl!fw nuclear weapon states and so we're at this point open minded about who will be participating. ihx!ñ also want to sa"ndñç)y however that £n hope!e>ñ,3f? invigorate the work the p5 because we also think it's very important that the nuclear weapon states develop some sophisticated #%simq9 9 ofigfod these mao2. in the last year, we have had success in establishing a p“é7zs working group1cfgh that meets in 6rt vienna at the same time that working group b is thevx&ó÷ verification working group that deals with a comprehensive test treaty and looks at technical verification issues in that
i think it's fine for the p5 to begin$$ work- ñ focussing on ctbt verification because that provides a lot of veryn technical information that can then in the future be broadened out in other directions so the verification initiative is a great new approach, i think, but i don't want you to say orv@ abandoning our efforts to discuss these matters among thex 3 5 o >> i thinkshvñ that's the first time as delicious. >> hi rose. stability. one isp share about efforts in south asia to share bestxb2f&117g practices, confidence building measures with couf?dwcs outside the ÷'nrp5. andókwv second types as well as
numbers obviously matter to stability. have any thoughts on prospects for constraining or discouraging land based nerves in the longer term. >> well, that's one point i wanted tol stabilizinoúáactivityrzlñ over the last generation@,j really has been"5ñ our move to hlw÷demerv sit.[i we see thatx-it:/ey steps. yes, as a we constantly focus onek he jtr(t&háhp &hc%>omm%qe of4hhj avoiding multiple warheads oìtpñ2y4 missiles because they createñmp speaking of valuable targets. and that is what you want to avoid if you want to have a stable strategic relatd[o#ip. so that is a constant of our discourse on these/m internationally and will continue to be so. with regards specifically to!khd south asia, i want to sayg% again
really great track 2, track 1 1/2 activities with both india i commend those of you around the roomjev that in fañthem. i think they've been very interestingygñ sometimes productive from what i've been able to see when people have briefed or told me about them or sent me trip reports and so forth. i think there have been-h=c some really, really solid discussions bringing up the issues youk![ñ talk about the classical issues of strategic -:8kility. we do have discussions of these÷e matters on an official level as well. we have atñ strategic dialogue w[êq!india. we also hiv%no the so-called snap+ talks with''j pakistan. iyj&ir always forget what snap stands for, security, nonproliferation and strategic stability n0 which take place as welljqv with d áj (jip r(t&háhp &hc% so we have opportunities to raise these+ well. i will tell you one of myi ñ goals
in the coming year is to broaden this discussion/&ry kind of regional ghetto, to be honest. these issues, such asúpaz conventional global strike they affect the whole asian international community. i think we needed to be talking about themm+c:i in a broader community of countries who are ÷ xther deployi@r to deploy these kinds of capabilities. it's the same with any of the other systems you might name, including something like a k< "÷merve system. soé to broaden these discussions andu regionalan important as a direction for policy. i hope 9 we canj> good morning, madame t3q secretary. mark sheland. i'm interested in your statement
on÷=a weapons-free zone conference and would ask youâ on practical goal setting howfsbrc=yt prepared is israel to engage and be transparent in some measure, how prepared is egypt in terms of its current governmentkv structure tor z engage andf oç2bujsu(r the iran >> that's an interesting -- you knowh(fnp%6q been quite -- we had a preparatory process goingb4& thr i don't want to again get into t details of diplomatic exchanges, but it's been quite positive preparatory process that has, i think, dealt with some of the initial tensions and anxieties over this middle east#n(%] weapons of mass destruction@p free zone conference that emergedh9otfrom the npt review conference inlhm jq qh!2010. we have brought the core;w actorslsh&÷ together, the arabs the israelis
and irah] ñ have1qbjparticipated. i don't see that as acm big kind of negative influence"arg on this. the necessity now is on all states interested in thisb"ç÷ to get together and agree on an agenda. our view iske(pq ifñ=: get together and agree on an agenda, there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to convene this conference prior to the review conference in so, i have you know, reason to say there iséâgnificantr @> @r(t&háhp &hc% progress since 2010. our view is4 #ñ we are right ongñy+ the cusp of jtç to conveneeçñóz this conference. we hope that the$i)q) in everybody's interest to agree on an 06n8genda. that's where it(l,vszh stands at the moment.q>b,çty@ =sph
>> hi. thank morning. you mentioned that the russians have been x[k2unwilling to discuss0]= further reductions until new start is implemented. what are thesm berlinp/f0é÷ewi hitting its mark betweenm 2018? thank you. >>u on in this case broader political issues. i did take note that president putin which united states in many,÷dl many ways butvq)e wasgp one key paragraph% e said that ita/ indicative of some russiank"÷ cjz
that there is a interest requirement as well or a strategic interest rational? would sayf reductions would not only be67o in the u.s.iw(> thanks. i just wonder could z financial conditions inweyç russia and united states for thewuñ politics andsz nuclearz3(nq talk on ""ótñtjìáhp &hc% negotiation. >> yes. i believe that you'reswñ]iy talking about the cost modernizationg%tíkt/ba÷$] time?.qbxñmá>ñcçyá
[ inaudible ]. >> okay. i understand now.##: the question is with regard to whether the economic crisis in the russian federationu affect their further modernization efforts, as i#y understand, and whatdviy the impact of ówq jowz?pnu jar but i was reading with interest this morning the financial times has an on what'sqízzpoñ happening with the russian economy right now. one of theh+' points that was made is that putin severalv signed outo% federation's national budget for fyus 2x6]xx assumption underpinning it that oil would be at c9çbarrel. and today as we know, oil is --é well, it's going up2lw8 som #7 but i think the trend ishr$lx÷hmñ pretty much z8gddown,a"! heading belowç
on)é$ that matter.ol >> hi, rose. óuw my question tis as the clock? -n5ñ ticking down on theísñ administration and moscow is showing very little interest in")faç pursuing further)'zc negotiated cuts ihz arsenals will $y point will the administrationã reconsider linking its own -- the size of the u.s. stockpile with the size ofdnbym russia's stockpile and just accept nuclear postureg recommended judgmentwaeñ the u.s. can get& ÷ by with a smallerd,xñ arsenal┌ñ >> i believe the question about unilateral reductions and i will say as i've said repeatedly>s9#4 includingb4ázjw in public testimony that>8 unilateral reductions are noa-x the table.%%" not on the 7ñ i can
say.ja 4ñ@h:4q< >> yes, good morning. tim gent from the defense threat reductionq thank you for all your hard work madame secretary. as a member2xfñ and treaty imply'8 meanter, we sit back and look at somes 7 of the effect treaty year five, six, and out to 2018. as we see the likelihood of new sanctions being announced as early friday do you believerø that the: willing0rpw to sacrifice all.zch the hard work that your office has done/yç over thequq years aroundczm]p euu zm5"' continue with sanctions or[zçwçl can remain separate and continue
on separate paths that the treaty and your efforts in the future may continue? thank you. >> thank you.h%]n let me express my appreciation for the defense threat reduction agency and the entire team of inspectors who go out and also on our side the air force the navy people whozw9rp accept ther@;ú inspection teams coming from the russian federation 18 times a year the russians are cominglb6 here to ourç at submarines yuy looking ate it takes a lot ofifñbujui to ! prepare for those inspections. that's on the air force. navy as well as accompanying theu1 russian teams. when we go 18 times a year to russia to look at the strategicic rocket forcesççñ bases their lra bases, you guyspsc'÷ are real on the cole>,'s it÷f implementing the treaty. thank you. i will say the signs3fs4ç far -- i
think the crisisgha was at theecn moment that the ñ ukraine crisis was bu2hdzwt on the scene, some of you may recñv it was actually march 8>4aath which is international women's day, that's a big russian " i wasj19ñ astonished to see -- when i woke up in the morning, russia was consideringr axy pullingogm the plug on / uk1q%=9 on) :uz new star treaty. i got on the phone immediately with my counterparts in moscow.n that report wasñ p÷ linked to an ibhñf.3r unnamed source in the ministry of defense. so i got on the phone immediately. i said, and i was told you '%a>uknow, we'll look into this get backìáhp &hc% so within(#;"em fivek< back and, againtuhzz not just to me but an official announcement of russian federation that theyñ/s#bígye &cpe f1 o
invaded afghanistan. so, that's just an example historically of wha about that, oy@again, despiteuuñ serious7& mnñdifferences serious problems efmbbilaterally we have continued to see tu mplenation of ghxq control treaties and agreements affecting the nuclear forces to 'wiws in our mutual interest. and i hopehm9teá that will be the >> good morning madame secretary. i'm jayu4k÷ycramer. i'm a lawyer w(:yk worked in nuclear export control and proliferation areas. you work to be done ató2st the p5 and the partnership with respect@f verification. an b wonder ifd ñ that workulfñ anticipates a qzmulti-lateral
organization toks5ñ?ó eventually implement verification as disarmorment moves as it ultimately must into the fca4z rather than just bilateral and whether the!z&jz anticipation is8hj> thank you. that's a very interesting question. first of all> ghfev+ox i will say that from the perspective of u.s. (l policy we see this as essentially a national function for the foresee9xyo future, although here is my6 point, we do with internaahb!shltionae lñ organizations. i mentioned>" being at the on site exercise in jordan. we& put a lot. of 8:bnmresources ando#j$ñ people into the implenation of
that. we workn1qgñ very?@fñf1qp closely with i!chv iaee works very closely as well. i seei3vw it for the foreseeable future as responsibility. however --wj1a and here is something i wanted to note that ii there's been some really interesting work done historically on what will happen when we get close to zero. this is not aáát7j national the moment but i would welcomea??w 7 continuing work on what would be required institutionally procedurally technologically historically there's been some good studies done in this area and it's worth the academic d< community considering -- continuing to consider theselfm issues because i think it backs up -- again, our m emphasis is on
zero8&í how can we practically get to hi(8÷ zero? and to do ld]vthat, we're going to havecsrlto do some very hard thinking about what it will take again, whether it's constitutionally procedurally technologically and certainly in the realm of regional security as well. tgthát different topic we could spend a morning z session talking about theé-.gnuts and bolts of an arms control regime i think there cou÷@hpz some good work done on that topic again.q2!÷! >> good qmymorning. matthew council. thank you so much for doing thislñ event to" reported that russiateifñ is considering deploying rail mobicia@u(sqp) missile systems. &háhp &hc% i wondered if you had anyçf]ég comment on that reporting. thank you. >> well talk about back to the futureaìáhp &hc% that's where wj>:qf in the '80s.
and we've really+py been urging !ñ russians to again, consider? what's going to be stabilizing and what's not going to be&]vd stabilizing going forward. i did mention that i see their modernization thus judicious. numbers for delivery vehicles are below -- well below theyc central jujuá the central í$sp) of new start when 2018 will be1sa 700 delivery vehicles. the russians are well below those? use ñ numbers now. we don't seec 7uz surging up and i'm ) #pf>z delighted we have=;u tú/1ñnsyeñ kiñç(uñ of central limityf f ceiling for how far they canaf#u c $@e*uá i3r&lo think the railqx mobile system is a9@ñúwññr>px good example of one where there are some questions aboutm&ty its economicqaf feasibility as well as its strategic stability rational at the moment. so we'll see. it's notfahñ upv!#3 me to m!ç those
decisions, but>acx we would certainly, i uñáythink, urge consideration of the st÷'lájt stability impacts of such 9ñ system especially if delivering -- to deliver a merved missile. there was a question duringq(ñ the5 new-start covered by the new start treaty. they would, in # >> well, ifs r)urj intercontinental][ sve to be brough7ffmunder theg!ál treatyl[ñ essentially. ooy gu >> madame9ñ e%dzsecretary good morning.a john cc+dunn. i would like to cobble a coupler r(t&háhp &hc% questions here based onfémgt some,x"ij @r(t&háhp &hc% theé you8°÷z mentioned that 90% of the world's nuclear armorments are
in the hands of the united states andx+j) russia. that unilateral disarmorment snotifm í2p?jz the table from the united states' perspective. recent statement fromx?uputin that hes.ucs values future disarmorment but there's also+á beenb;4mx statements from russiann3kbq officials that they're not any further bilateral disarmorment steps with the united states beyond the new start treaty and anypçhs future disarmorment needs to be in a bilateral yk] >> thank you for raising that. that's one@ they laid out in the earlier >>k d#=que that)á4y given 90% are in u.s./russia hands,>)4 first ofa you confirmed one of the questions is that a multi-lateral prerequisite does in fact exist based on your discussions with your colleagues in moscow. have you had any discussions with other nucj( states that kind of indicate what theirdk+z threshold is below which the united states and russia@ to?-
participation in anyn' zyl2@ih [÷i multi-lateral efforts? >> wella:: historically there have been, q@asvl again, i wouldn't say official positions out there fwlu have/yçfhrç been a lot of expert ñf@nf comments russia getj óñ warheads then maybe it gets more interesting. but i'm not saying these are official positions of paris or london by any means. i would just noteq ub`@hrr(t&háhp &hc% number of dzúqo1,000 in u.s. and russian arsenals has been out:u there as something thats countries haven communities and expert communities have one thing about this if1s xn )k&ateral q#5÷point,c$ñ i hq,v) always(,i$m stressed that i don'ttiqhñ even see how you would structure such a negotiation because there is such a disbalance tha l%$hk#c>cuy unitedú&f over 90% still of theh;,é nuclear
what nuclear weapons provide. i've been going to -- i went to the un conference on climate with #an÷ mediators beyw5ñ borders and one of the things we've been doing is getting language into the conflicts mechanisms for dealing é2sj"át conflicts first. i think that that -- what3bts are yourrçñ thoughts about if we could deal -- we have many ways of dealing with thez we usually deal with the symptom ofáim conflicts thatbbaaçèd@4 j need these. would you comment. cs@ >> thank you @diane. i know a lot about your work. we've had a chance to talk about it before in this setting and 9i others. one thing i will say is that we recogni ons]cñ the regional securx@ awáj asr7b intensively as possible.
been out on the road, you know, non-stop and in recent weeks veryzuéñ much focussedr6gtñ on middle east and thebó4w÷ hopes for rejuvenating the middle east peace3e so we have,x the regional security piece of it veryeiç veryl much in mind and constantly work it as a matter of6ipg national policy. but my comment is 45ádç neetq!mf to dostt recognizeypñ what some of the difficulties
but you have to do both at 02phonce9 i think. >> i'll give myself the opportunity to take thenéyóg last q5taú=9 and that is -- rose, you talked about the$faq russians being serious in terms of imply mentation in terms8&r of new start.c3 obviously because they calculate that that's in their interest. but you also mentioned that the russians haven't been prepqegfqzq to go beyond that and i think you used the term some of the
and get rid ofám y fizz aisle material. i'm really proud of the fact that we've1tw) gotten rid of the equivalent of three metric tons of vixñ the russians@ w have been great partners in that effort. o rj another area where"6$ we had a great partnership: russians despite, again the ups andk downs in the relationship. so,: r t's a very mixed picturet
side. and since thev crisis has emereem it's taóo on some political aspects to itga)bñ as well.049op r(t&háhp &h ground. we're grateful that you took the time out ofp!lb,slease join with me in thanking @+ñ÷qav )wya her.iz ÷ [ applause ].7y)kvpxxñlw ssuzcçxyy,÷a6 k6ngya÷ó÷8$i=.ei]yá2u0 tell you about.'y9: on uñ u (ñc-span2:00 at 8:10 a.m. director forda white house economicmc t)s dul!áeb1úçyoutlines president obamaji!s w agenda. and on c-span, what republican congress need to do to pump up economic growthv@1zb and how should itu>áuozreform the tax #8yv c/ -
eastern. with live coverage of the senate on ibc-span2, here on c-span3 we show you the most relevantmf.r congressional hearings and public affairs events. then1 on fúgñweekend,%8fu[ c-span3 home to americ$7e! history tvhsarg with programs that tell our #&/÷nation's+ story,s-- including six unique series.icf the civil :@dwar. visitingv battlefi3.íñ and key events. >> american artifacts touring museums andkcd! historic sites tov8$j@ny discover whato the presidency, looking at the policies and legacies ofh 8z our nation's commanders in ub"kchief. lectures indx history with top college professors devilling into america's past and our!faa new series,÷ o! ]eté real'a$c america.a@s c-span3, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or provider. facebook and folloîq%vo elqch( us
o>d" u hat is approvingl 1($ ofhgc be a new k surgeon general whoin will be thewyl youngest 37 and his nomination beingsñot" for a year. union, what did thiszéx delay mean for the fight againstd dñ ebola? >> first c&kñoff we are a 1. million tjt union and second largest nurse'sy0ñ union in the ainst united states. e we've been very involved with al our nurses in terms of being wi front in africa, in terms of that f fight against ebola and also don't have a surgeon general, and you don't people in africa, west ma terms of thaket r,fight. health. and when that -- in the absence of that, policymakerkg s[héey and when thad t --ha in thed uñ absence n of that, you don't have the preparation that the united statesh needed to have when we%9? started.5÷ seeing thatñhá this iteration of the scourge of their ebola. so once -- it is prettyi
preparation and, in this hospitals throughout the country working with their o:]znurses, doing the kind of preparation and even there. because it is huge. the amount of money that's need said presidekús piecezuf about ebola preparation gothcng it is5i÷ huge. need said huge. needed is huge if you're going4a!÷ screen, throughout the united s and the training that's needed is huge because it's centers, you have to doan screening important on that and hospitals but then you have to was said, this s know what they're doing.s taken so a surgeonvx8 general is rea40-súñ important oné víyl'ñ tb8t and what was saidej fact that he has taken those positions should not have disqualified hi positions about common sense gun: safety and!b the fypa2w tha t he'sy5z taken those positions should notñó&( have disqualified tha i'm0azx t mo'bola he's going- edition. >>+: y on theuíf,a]/ ÷ on ebola now that it's not dominating the news cl%zjju will this continue calling for and will the nurses get the have for? >> right.fiyal ú$etuu real equipme
one was that[ you need to have --l for bpeveryone, but you also needl!b r(t&háhp &hc% to have separate places where there is willing people who areem ÷3÷a whe stepping up to actually do the ith kind ofd happen. and what'qbcv we've seen pla is thatñin7ú!; r(t&háhp &hc% places wherea9b66 (sj worked b,$]%q! ourçhénurses, that was happening. inqn3ñ when places wheres that they were readyit when they ti) weren't, it created too muchb9ae(t6
>> andop!'t do you think, though, that earmarked money s$e-#ñ on that path and doesn't get diverted? >> well, bhz one hopes so but remember -- and that's partwm:ñu of the reason that some peop,9bawy ca sometimes thinkj5v ñ we'rewaa doesn't. annoying$ 6ç because that's our job to actually call that out if ittjñ doesn't becaus_that's whatxr-ykliut do inaátráal justhi likú2n;b÷v we do in schools when0ñ wev9btñ say wen sm(
also fourth line foôi educators,$h$s 202-748-8003. another issue that this congress dealt with before they left town and closed theaç]çr books on the>?fç it, included pension trillionqs, your union not impacted in it included pension cuts. your union not impacted by that d but others this was what did ityb t aft noto wh impacted? happe >> so1 numbera ñ one,ç&ql this wasq= about to what's happening throughout frank licks the building trades were very, very much pushing closing private sector pensions. so' a ability some were very, very much pushing coll this bill because what they wanted was-ó they+÷ wanted ang3w tor ability, they wanted some tools>cuy to be able to collectively m>c,ñse a lot bargain,gq&ójui together to fix some+eq of the private sector pension!! plans
things. f1 o of themñt recession and in some ways it's so ironic that the spending bill also allowed a sto change in dodd-frank which was#m=74dd needed to actually stop anotheros)@61#3qa recession caused by a!fdz wall hp so theñ/!,y building trades actually pushed for this kind of bill to give them someh5 ools so that they could fix theiriúbru plans so9q that those plans would be available in the& it&!7t didn't(=l affect publicgú sector ñ pensions because those arexú1%one through states. but let me just also say this 4t/pwe have ab+ retirement security crisis. if you lookc!b!q6pz at thet& median ?+.uát that people are saving close to iofq%iq1jeu?chabout $3,000< qe for -- and so if youzgxqñ look th?y)how are we going to make sure that people have retirementxrx savings to rely on when they're in their [6acñ1d;> bs or theirudd[ 80s?
defined pension thier because people are doing the contributions they >> are they healthy because wall streeto >> that and people are doing theut in kind of contributions that they need to do over the course of bution time.a1 n employees have put in their it deferred -- contributions in""+ vernme terms of theirmf. it wasi÷8t the government that actually said,e4c going to put ours in. >> because you'z necessarily a friend of wall (, street, but if wall street does better, pensions do better andy#zi employees do better. >> look,st you can't have90 economy that=za;sz$rpa /ñ the greatest not wealth gap -- you know, we cannot have wage stagnation for everybody else and the 1% we can't have wage stagnation for everybody else7xzq and the 1%wn booming. but wee know thatfa2:ju)jju s actually formed huge investments for wall street which is_! why it. it's so ironic that some of wall street actually;qfi÷ ight against the very same thing ause tñ u$at's feeding with it. took >> let's talk politics a little
bit because the former florida governor jeb bush took one steprq closer to running in [a2016ñjz deciding to set up!y& raising committee in january.+1: he's been very vocal on common t: core. >> right. potential bid by him? j >> so, look. jeb bsqyx is añw very -- you know date, he's a5z7x veryit.dh smart3fcz guy and if k,y he9== becomes the republican gh candidate, it willófgt)y there wille bo be am[f9 very very tough)ñ contested election, but the/it look in is terms of education it'` f1 o not what youeducation and if you look at what jeb bush of public education. and if you look at what jeb bush he did in florida he'sdafdñ fantastic salesman, butá8h+ the focus was on which virtually all of grading, gradingjml+÷ grading and2"fu he]t scr created a system which virtually all the school boards in florida have right now are saying, stop. we actually need to teach kids.usic, ph we have to engage kids&bz inrb$d terms
spending bill that was passed by congress and critical of it because of a-á+ú provision that would ease#zg up on a dodd-frank regulation over wall street. you wrote that at thet÷u)sq time we found out who stands on the side ofá0jájjt families and who stands on the side of wall street. working people know that we can count onule sto progressive caucusod u and senatorla elizabeth warren and others,ry c all those who stood up 8@é and said we're not going to vote for this legislation. is3 a wall street? >> hillary clinton knows how,#e to get things done. i watch that when she was secretary of state. i watched that whenmi&4=o9hárq as a.ha y, so senator from new yor>0z@ stateslvíñ or k u.s. senator from new yi and iien watched it when she was the first çlady. s she hasn't announceday m yet, so it's premature to talkt this andmy frankly let me also say my union has -- it doesn'tif matter what my personal position
is. my unionat t has a whole endorsement process. but there is -- whenpñ you look at the senate&q!pñff=ñ spending bill, two provisions -- i'm sorry the spending bill that was passed. there's two provisions in there. how do you derail dodd-frank when that was the checks and and balances? and that's what nancy pelosi andñ z that elizabeth warren were saying and they were right. and then how do you actually in insert> into that bill some?there are good things in that bill. it is iny&4b ére. so there are good things in that1&p#1 o bill, you know. it's good5g÷ñ that theit i ebola spending is there.úwt7(pr(t&háhp &hc% it's good that there were all sorts of new tools that we have wage to turn around low-performing'w !>, schools, but what -- how do you o recl do thatai when you have wage m stagnation? when the middle class needs to reclaim the promise of the american dream? andg8qqz what happens is wall stre"lk isx preferredí0÷ asr opposed to everyone else. >> let's get to calls.thank virgil ha[
go ahead. ?v>> caller: yes. listen, back up to the part about education.1gñd be f to me it's like obama care.8s)ñ i think education should be free because other countries do it and our cou.hñuí- u because that's one3q÷ we=l"w÷ need is r[ this they say there will be is maybe being for this doctors and i think the sch of doctors and nurses here to ge pretty soon a.o(é3 scholarships ought to be free if anybody wants to get into thatf field that or any other that's vital to our nation. >> all right. >> look sir, you'reç yz erica right. and one/eh8ldios of the things that made america different than almost any other country was that.zp÷ we had -- and sorryeaace i am an old social studies teacher and, you kn teach my high schoovnp students in
iu&]4 and 12 hjth grade about the social ygm&wimpact which meant that had safety, community policing, and we had public education. freedoms, we had w5[qytaxation, we had safety, community policing g- andpf 6z(ñ had public ÷%>xeducation. and that we had that as2 part of k5z5nf1 o our ed to be paid for throughout the country by the taxpayers >h+z%ájt good.f'0# it is supposed to be paidá÷ but we have t throughout the country by the2z(v taxpayers of the nation but[os we hav%2st to use that money wisely 4j i p'dljeá t to give it0 just saidu,zvh$9p@ñ añ to the kids that are t most in needíkkt if someonk wants to go to havin college, they should be able to hey go to coll3 < without[12.ñs@u? aving staggering debt. because what's g!÷ to$kyhappen is then they're going to be right, and we need to do more of that in terms of helping all to u)u nd we need tod more of that inf1hí÷ terms;e:q of helping all kids succeed and get3ev to e in l theiray >> on the lica mike inñadiller utah.
go ahead mike. >> caller: yeah. i've li 4ztd z this president so many times and i just wish he would go get in politicô8 insteadat is of igkg just wish she'd get in out money and she covers everything under0#y the sun. what really disturbs me is, de wor everything is about moneyé investment, and it taxing. and that they need and more money. m and the code word is investment, and it just goesç[vx on and on and bu on. how much iseñ2q too t kidmuch? i had a great public education. tho but when i wasug a93#kjez growing up home schoolers were thoughti"&@x of as strange people. but now i see home schooling to h be aap wonderful answer. if i had to raise my three sons again, i"i would be sou it at home and teach them the wonderful things about=!9p life and (3.u%- of this. always more look, i have a >>zé- well, iúsb]ir look, i actually much have a cut ucççnvq,] don't we sto]p ting so much, andk whyvv1dz o don't we use and invest somee8rother things that we
need tojo& c&!u it on. but let me just ií think two hip. things, number one, yqd3e,lp÷ totallyxpl righteh8z about how there has to be a/÷r 6 partnership. we can't!anp substitute for the home and i'm sure you do a terrific jobñcn with your family.dfbós4rate >> if you thj 0t is for every dollar we spend right now, we will spend eigh money on that right now, the rate of,bor return ond for every dollar right now, we're going to spend $8&pñbr÷ihót6 tp less later on.pávt n1tñt then t >> if we areg@ going to teach5m"-ñ kids how to do welding, we need that equipment right now and that equipment is different than the equipment 20 or 30 years ago.as tal and that costs money. the stuff that i was talking about in termsl#atin s deation, statetate budgets states
used tohpyj9xx payú5cpñ25% more!+g>x( >> so you'r¡c)ñ horight we got to use th% need more ofit an investment.8:ww7jt&háhp &hc% >> called invest in u.s. obama hasz,e years finds a nonprofit advocacy organization. $750 million in new federal grants to states to expand pre-k programs for over 35's and -- over 35,000 infants and toddlers. an expanse high-quality preschool programs and excited to enroll in additional 33,000 in this. $333 million in private dollars. this is less than what he proposed in 2013. guest: $333 million in private dollars.one is this is less than what he proposed in 2013. >> right. >> it's good that one is trying
to pieceut together -- with the kind of skills -- is really important but the quality is kids really important. think about it this way. low-income kids know about 13 or 14 or 15 million -- let me say 15 m it this way. kids get 14 or 15 million words spoken to them when they're 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 years old. then
if parents aren't reading to you, if you're not listening to that, then you're at a irst gra disadvantage disadvantage. that's what early childhood education does, so they're not de at the disadvantage when they go into first grade. >> walter hello. how are you? a >> caller: i'm just fine.l you all i want to say, if you want to look at the republican plan for education, all you have to do is look at chris christie who cut a billion dollars out of c education. you know, i listen tosh elizabeth warren say that when she was coming up she could pay $50 a lege semester to go to a community college. we've got to invest in our now. education. if we don't in invest in our education, look where we are now. everything that we buy now, it's coming from china or japan. we're so far behind.ceed.
we need help. >> well you know kids want to yester succeed.with k look, i was just in ferguson son, m yesterday. and we'veis spent some time with suc kids in st. louis and kids in ferguson, missouri. kids want to succeed. part of what both public universities ought to do and k 12 does it creates a lot of opportunity. you have to still crime up it, but it creates that ladder and and i if we don't give them that doing ladder when they're young, then we're not doing our jobs. and so part of it is, it's costs something to do. we need to do that so you're totally right, sir. >> mel in new york. independent caller. >> caller: hello! i would disagree with the premise that public education isducati for the public good. humanis government-run education institutes a kind of like secularisticth humanistic world
view which undercut the ool foundation this country was established upon. the i feel like the money should follow the parents and the students not the school district and the unions. and thiseds monopolistic practice that runs american educationnity needs to be replaced by a more free opportunity for parents to to be educate their children the way they want, rather than the government telling them how it's to be done. >> so sir, let me just very respectfully disagree with you. because in our country, and frankly i'm a pretty observant jew who goes every friday night. has our country has a separation of s church and state and that is secular. that's the way our country has been founded. it doesn't mean that -- if parents want a choice for catholic schools, parochial schools, they have that right.
but our responsibility is to make sure that kids have great neighborhood public schools, and broad they do have to be secular. poin and they do also have to be broad, so that there's not one oint o single point of view. but frankly, inere math, there's tudi notes a single point of view. in science, i don't think there's a single point of view.cher, in and social studies, as i was a social studies teacher, we need to make sure kids can make their own decisions. sa a substitute for what parentsat rig do? absolutely not.hat we need to have parents engaged. but we need to make sure that kids have that right. sc in the countries that have done shape what you suggested, like chile, sweden the schools are in worseand we shape and the achievement levels are in worse shape. >> we have a fourth line set aside for educators this t to h morning. want to hear from you as well
and the lines are up there. let me go to molly next in california, a republican. hi molly you are on the air. go ahead.e >> caller: thank you yes. just a quick word here about indoctrination of our small hands children in government schools.rten bec now they want to get their hands on the ones even before kindergarten because it's much easier to indoctrinate children into a socialist or communist nother point of view. as far as common core goes there's another way for teachers not to teach. america, remember when carter we formed this teacher's union, we igh were number two in the world. we are 34 now.ool and try to talk to a high school a kid who just graduated. he can't talk. he doesn't know geography. for if he's from a public school.h so let me tell you, common core is another way for teachers not to teach and spend more time a indoctrinating our children into
a godless, hopeless society where they'll never be any good to themselves or anyone else.st >> okay. >> so ma'am, you know i -- let, bu me just say, i hear your anger.ns, and but our job is to help kids be ldhood able to make their own hat decisions. and the reason that we talk about having early childhood is ythi that nobodyng wants to indoctrinate any child to do dreams anything. we want aream them to dream their dreams and achieve their dreams.d my but at the end of the day, if you know my -- my -- my parents and my parents' friends, my parents were able to -- they had the money to put me into an - early childhood education program. and we were read to, we had play for and things like that. and what we're saying is that d the should be an option for all kids. that's -- and the research shows that that really helps in terms of what happens with the brain.
but, you know, what we need to do, we need to also make sure that people believe again in public education. because that's something that the country gives to all of our mmon kids. last thing i'll say is on common core, and there's a lot of teachers that actually agree with you, that common core should be much more flexible. you'd see a lot of support from a lot of teachers. b but what common core is supposed is to be about is critical thinking.ers ha and what has not happened is that it's been -- that teachers have had the time to actually do it the right way. instead, they've been told to in eng test, litest, test. >> it has educational standard for k through 12 for english arts and a math, and it's designed to ensure high school graduates are prepared to enter college orhe the worse force.social s >> some of the teachers of social studies have said, why
are there not these kind of standards in terms of social studies. i think if you had them, you'd see a lot less consternation about what we are teaching kids. >> shirley, a democrat hi o shirley. >> caller: yes good morning. thanks to c-span. i'd like to engage in kol quee if i could referencing the fact that we've had an historical dislike, rather, disconnect, it seems. we had theav man from utah, dersta california. soout clearly we have a distribution of a lack of understanding throughout the nation as it relates to our public education. public education is a public uld no good. if we did not have educated workforce, we would not have a civil society. when i think about how i'm 60 and i come up through segregated school system.e diall thereof o was a time that we did not
educate all of our people.family m in fact, i think about how many could ofyo my family members were educated.re could you speak to this content that now we are saying education is a public good, a nation that is founded on the principles of odern equity, equality, justice for all, and yet we are now in a modern world, 2014, saying that we do not value the public good of education, and we are in fact, not respecting the education. we have a private structure that's trying to now divert all to t funds. the gentleman who stated that we the money should follow the a child. my husband and i have no child. we are high educated people, pay, and high propertyso taxes because of our location and value of property. and so what will happen to my money? will then it go to the private
religious schools? jeb bush, you talked about earlier. he was the one, talk about this alex. this actual politicalo di funded private lobby that is trying to divert our educational dollars. pearson. $135 million on testing which could go to improving the actualy, i h structure of education -- i wein >> okay,ga shirley, i got to jump in at that point and have randy weigh in. >> look you're totally right. i mean in my judgment you're right.for public education has a lot of ng kid purposes. we ares th preparing kids for life. we are preparing kids so they emocra can engage as citizens in this country. so it's the anchor of democracy. kn we're also preparing kids so they c that they have the skills and knowledge that they need so thate they can access and have opportunity for jobs and for a
good life. childre so that is what we, as americans, give our children. and we need to actually give the kids who have the least, the most. which is what some of the brown federal intervention was supposed to be initially. it's also, when we see inequity like with brown versus board of education, we have a for responsibility to help change that, to try to make sure that sex kids regardless of race, hey ca regardlessn of sex, have no nd obstacles in front of them so that they can climb the ladder of opportunity, economic and educational. so look, that's part of the reason that for my whole adult m life i've been involved in the labor bmovement, and i've been the involved in public education. but you anger that you hear is the polarizers and the people the who basically have sold a bill s of goods. and what's happened, the evidence shows when you do these things like charters or
vouchers, that doesn't help all kids. we need to have systems that have the responsibility to help all kids. that's what we're trying to do. >> june is an educator in e. wisconsin, independent. hi june. >> caller: hi. you know, english has always been the love of my life.ge, and there's something so special about the english language. and the sad thing is, it's not privat being taughte properly throughout this public school system and i me perhaps not even throughout the n private school system.know i mean, just listen to even the commentators on television, just destroy the english language. you know, whatever happens to een plurals, there are, you hear people say i seen this and i have s seenee that. it's just absolutely tragic. i have seen young people who will see one word in small letters and then when they turn the page and it's in all caps,
they don't recognize it as the same word.e it's because -- listen testing is good, but they have to be caught how to take the test, how to properly understand the english language is a science. the and if they don't get that ies and correct, that's why they're erly failing in social studies and everything else because they p can't properly read. t they don't understand properly g to m just the basics of the english language. and it's very distressing to me.ink >> okay, randy? >> i actually think testing has ple hurt this. because when you fixate on bubble testing, instead of he two actually having q multiple different measures of answering the question -- the two questions, excuse me. did i teach it? and did my students learn it? i think we should have much more. project-based instruction. we should have many more avenues for kids to excel. kids need to learn the love of
writing, not just the love of reading, but the love the writing, the love of discourse. as you know better than most, it's practice, practice, have a practice, practice, practice. and many of us, you know you have to edit edit, edit, edit, edit, in order to have a real wonderful paper which somebody could read from beginning to end that en and say, and understand in a heart beat. >> what do you make of that teacher saying english is say science? >> someone who's really proud -- science and i don't know the lady but somebody who is really proud of their subject, because science and math have such a premium now. people will say, it's a science. a sci but english is both a science and an art. social studies is both a science and an art. because it's you know, what we u want have to k do is create that joy of learning. you want kids to want to and
i'm sorry if sometimes i sound like i have rose-colored glasses on but i have to be optimistic about kids. schoo so you want there to be a joy of kids wanting to go to school and where schools meet them where to be, they are and take them to where they want to be, and you want them to be. so they are both, all of our subjects, language too. they're both arts and science in terms of there's a real -- there's a real basis to it in terms of literacy and english. there's a basis to teaching elp reading, but it's also an art because you help kids dream and think and have joy and ingenuity. >> on sexual assault on college campuses you wrote a piece on jez bell's website.e i rape is part of my truth and her wo the truth of many other women.
>> why did you decide to share your personal story? >> so you know it's -- i'm not normally that -- you know, in p thiseo job, you feel like you have to actually represent a lot of represen people, as opposed to representing yourself. but we represent a lot of college campuses where also the largest union in terms of adjunc college university, adjuncts professors, things like that.of every when you hear students who are on college campuses right now, 1courage out of every 4 women are sexually assaulted. you hear the pain and you see the courage of them saying, no. assault is the crime. i am not the criminal. we need to stop this. and i thought then what happened in terms of "rolling stone" and the issue about the -- about
whether -- the veracity of the case. then t all of a sudden i saw the curtain ofnd i silence come down and people starting to blame these withou very courageous young women and i just said i needed to dig deep in myself and without fa wanting to relive the experience, just talk about the fact that i was sexually assaulted between my junior and senior year in n college. and what i didn't expect was theare that amount of tremendous support that i've gotten since then, in terms of when you can share that kind of pain in a very personal way and say, i felt ove that it was my fault. people are just all over saying thank you for coming out and thank you for having that courage. but i think the larger point is tion, or this, our jobs as adults who work in public education, we have to -- or who work in politics -- we have to take the whoe obstacles away so that kids can hen
actually be whoever they want tous who be. and so when you have a student at a college campus who has been that violated, that survivor, we bo have to help the survivor. we can't say, boys will be boys. we have to find ways to help the survivor. >> and you're not calling for policy changes here. you say in your piece, this needs to be a cultural change. >> look, there needs to be some policy changing. there's a great bill that should be passed that creates someo transparnsy and more ne accountability, but this is a cultural issue. this is, when someone is assaulted, when there is some s, racist incident when someone has something terrible that has happened, based upon the color "e of theirno skin or based upon in so their sex, we need to stand up and say enough is enough.
and that's part of, in some ways when you see both -- all the protests about black lives t basi matterc and all the protests against sexual assault, it's really talking about basic dignityph and respect for all. >> we got a couple more phone republ calls in here. david in inglewood, new jersey, a republican. hi, david. >> caller: yes, hi.ents a i have twond quick comments, and c then i have a question.in new j my comments are that miss wine garten has a short memory because i've lived in new jersey for 25 years and it wasn't just one administration that didn't make those pension payments.eve jon corzine was the worse governor in the 25 years i've been in new jersey, and he nor ey mad mcgriefy made the pension payments here. so let's have some balance here. the second comment has to do shoul with miss wine d garten is a socialist, she should just come ca out andpi reveal that she doesn't
believe in capitalism, but what she doesn't really understand is that her rooting against wall street. without wall street being successful, there won't be any yoi lo money to pay those big pensions that you and your members are going to be earning. look at what's happening in california where all that big tax increase jerry brown put nkly together, it's all going toward public pensions. >> so frankly the -- you're right, it wasn't just republicanther governors, and if i said that, my apologies. choic there have been democratic governors as well who made those kind of choices. but frankly, sir, what i said was, we need shared prosperity. we can't have the income gap we r have right now. we need to actually have -- people can't have their wages flat when the people on wall street have done so well. not and frankly, what happens is that, these pensions are not $50,00 you know,0 $26,000 a year
$50,000 a year after a life of th afteros working your entire life. and after paying into it for all those years. i think that's what people should earn and frankly, i'm a big believer in progressive f americ capitalism. i think we should have a private, enterprise system in thean united states of america but it has to be fair, and it has to work for all. like it did after world war ii lass as it was growing and growing los and growing. we need a viable middle class cl not just winners and losers. and we need everyone to be able to climb that ladder of economic opportunity. call it whatis you want to call it, but that's what i am pressing for that's what the labor movement is about. >> this is a piece written today ceo of in the "wall street journal" by the ceo of youtube who used to be at google, moved her way up ity
le through google. google now owns youtube.t what she's calling for paid maternity we leave, saying it's good for's business. >> absolutely. think about what'sil going dh on.. when we were at the president's ount early childhood summit we heardld this over and over and over again. in other countries of the world when a woman has a child she is not automatically out of the ly out labor o movement. she's not automatically out of you know, the -- the ability to be part of getting ahead. and in the united states, as soon as someone is pregnant and opts to have children there's a secondary and many times, inferior career path. if we ended up having paid the maternity leave, attending to
what the childcare costs are, think about the brain power that that brings back into the we workforce and the labor force.then so we end up something all of vi these amazingab women who then become part of -- a viable part of y of leadership throughout the country. >> the ceo of youtube writing in her piece in the "wall street journal," that paidie maternity leave isn't just a first world es perk. the u.s. is one of only two actua countries of the wub 85 surveyedll that does not offer it. >> exactly right.hese s we can learn from other or countries in the world. when somebody says we're 34th or 35th, in terms of the pizza k at the results, the international comparisons, what does that really mean?ea if you look at the schools of kids who are either middle class or wealthy we're number one in the world. 2/3 of the achieving gap is tries, because of social economic issues. what's happened, we have a t wider gap than most other countries, and we see the same thing in
terms of the work world. we need to actually help people have that kind of economic opportunity and if l it is issues such as paid maternity leave or r job childcare, you can't say to a parent you have to decide between your job and your kids. >> randy wine garten, we appreciate your time thank you mo for being rehere. you can find the information read more about them on their website website, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> have a great holiday. >> you too. >> on the next washington journal, former acting cia director for the bush administration, john mclaughin on the cia's enhanced interrogation techniques. and david roth kof on his book about national security. that's followed by a look at the
impact of the medical -- [ inaudible ] you can join the conversation when washington journal takes your calls, e-mails, facebook comments and tweets live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> here's a look at some of the programs you'll find christmas day on the c-span networks. holiday festivities start at 10:00 a.m. eastern with the lighting of the national christmas tree, followed by the white house christmas decorations with first lady michelle obama, and the lighting of the capitol christmas tree. and just after 12:30 p.m. celebrity activists talk about their causes. then at 8:00, supreme court justice samuel alito and jeb bush on the bill of rights and the founding fathers. on c-span 2 at 10:00 a.m. eastern, the art of good writing
with steve pinker. and 12:30 jill lepore searches the history of wonder woman. and pamela paul and others talk about their reading habits. and on c-span3 the fall of the berlin wall, with footage of probe george bush and bob dole with speeches from kennedy and reagan. at noon, fashion experts ones first ladies' fashion choices. and then at 10:00, tom brokaw on his more than 50 years of reporting on world events. that's this christmas day on the c-span networks. for our complete schedule, go to c-span.org. >> a couple of live events to tell you about. on c-span 2:00 at 8:10 a.m. eastern, the director for the white house economic council outlines president obama's economic agenda.
then on c-span, the heritage foundation is asking the question what is the new republican congress in 2015 need to do to pump up economic growth? and how should it reform the tax code? that's live at 10:00 a.m. eastern. now part of a conference in examine coal as an energy resource. representatives from u.s. and energy companies offer their views along with remarks by julio freedman, the deputy assistant energy secretary for clean coal. this was hosted by the center for strategic & international studies here in washington. i think it's completely crazy we're doing substantive work on the 17th of december. i can't imagine we're holding real conferences here right the
week before christmas, but we are, but that's because there's so much to talk about, and i'm so glad to have you all come. thank you, thank you all for being here. my name is john hamre, i'm the president at csis. i wanted to say special thanks to julio friedmann who is a friend. we have known each other for many years. he's fortunately in town serving in government more directly. he's a government guy, he's out at lawrence livermore labs but we're so pleased he can be here leading at a crucial time when we need to be thinking through a lot of important issues. for very strange reasons recently i've been doing some personal reading on the history of philosophy and was recently reading about thomas robert malthus, a british cleric, who in the early 18th century, who was a very provocative
philosopher because he had very philosopher because he had very dark views about the future of humanity. you now know him as an adjective. people talk about a malthusian problem. this is robert malthus. he had this very dark view that the population was growing much faster than the capacity of the world to feed the population and people were doomed to die of starvation. he took it over the edge by saying, therefore, we shouldn't help poor people because they're going to die anyway, and so let's not give them anything to help them through this. you know, pretty bleak and dire sort of a philosophy, which is why he's now known by the adjective, not known himself. and i thought about it, that it's -- you know, it was relevant for our conversation today. he was wrong because he didn't understand one crucial thing,
and that is that where the supply and demand curve intersect, it's not static, and a supply curve changes with technology. so back in his day when he was writing in 1820s, '30s, you know, there were 2.5 billion people in the world. today we have 7 billion people in the world. we have three times as many people, same size globe, probably a lot less space devoted to agricultural and we still have hungry people. i'm not minimizing that, but technology has allowed us to address a malthusian problem and to find a solution. and i thought, you know, it's a little bit a good context for today. you know, we are -- you know, we've got a lot of people in the world that are talking about a very, very dark future because of climate change, and that may be true. i'm not commenting one way or
the other on climate change, but what i'm saying is we have to understand that technology is giving us new alternatives, new solutions all the time, and so we are going to spend some time together today to really explore that. what is technology giving us in terms of clean coal? now, in one sense, you know, you can't get around the central dynamic that in coal there's four carbon atoms for every one hydrogen atom. in natural gas you have only two carbon atoms for one hydrogen atom. there is an irreducible quality to coal as producing more hydrocarbons and putting them in the atmosphere or carbon atoms and putting them in the atmosphere. but there is an enormous possibility for greater efficiency, and i think that's part of the landscape of what we're going to be talking about today and we're going to be spending a little bit of time digging into that.
now, i'm absolutely at the extreme edge of my knowledge and now i have to stop because i don't know anything and it's time for us to turn to julio so we can really get this conference going for real, but i'd ask people to start with this frame of reference, that the world is constantly evolving and giving us new options and new choices, and instead of locking ourselves into just a rigid position that something is possible and something is not possible, let's spend the afternoon thinking together. sarah, are you going to kick this off for real? why don't you and julio come on up, and thank you all for coming today. [ applause ] >> well, thank you very much, and dr. hamre, you sort of have outdone yourself. on the one hand you tease us for doing something substantive. on the second hand you start off with an introduction that has a malthusian dilemma and a carbon chain. that seems pretty substantive to
me. thanks for the good introduction. i'm sarah ladislaw, the director of the energy program here. thank you for coming today. we're really excited to have this conference today for many of the reasons that dr. hamre highlighted, but because, you know, we've been doing so much work on different fuel sources around the world, natural gas and oil in particular because of the sort of renaissance in unconventional oil and gas production, what that's meant for the economies around the world, and, you know, sometimes i think it's actually a good friend of ours charlie ebinger who will be involved in the session today, as well as the head of the international energy agency -- or excuse me the world energy outlook at the iaea. reminded us that sometimes we forget about coal and yet most of the world has not forgotten about coal. there is a significant sort of coal market dynamics, drivers both for the production and consumption of coal, and also a significant focus on how to make it cleaner and more efficient so it's compatible with sort of our
climate change goals and needs. we were very, very pleased when our sponsors for the event today, mitsubishi heavy industries, power systems provided us with the opportunity to put together a longer than our normal session focused today on some of these dynamics and what it means, both from a global and a u.s. perspective. so we're very pleased you're going to spend the afternoon with us here today. before we get started and before i want to be very conscious of julio's time, just two quick reminders. one quick reminder. we will have a reception following this so we do hope that you'll be able to stay and participate in the discussion that will be part of that reception. now, to kick off today's event, what we wanted to do was invite julio friedmann here today the deputy assistant secretary for clean coal at the u.s. department of energy and runs the r & d program in advanced fossil energy systems. large demonstration projects,
carbon capture utilization and storage and clean coal deployment. just that, yeah. we're very pleased to have julio here to talk about the role of coal in the administration's all of the above energy strategy. i believe you have a presentation and we can go ahead and do that and we'll take some questions. >> sure. >> thanks very much. >> thank you, sarah, thank you dr. hamre. i'm delighted to be here. for those of you who don't know me. i'm julio friedmann. i am confident i am the only one you will ever meet. there's one other who lives in chile. weirdly he works at alstom, so go figure. [ laughter ] i feel compelled after the introduction, to mention not only philosophically, but scientifically how often people are wrong. and that gives us humility.
a very storied figure, lord kelvin, was also wildly wrong. lord kelvin who is by any measure a good physicist calculated the age of the earth based on the heat flux from the crust definitively laid out that the earth could not be older than 10,000 years. based on the heat flux. there were things he didn't quite know at the time, and as we learn things, things change, and in that context we enter this space with a certain amount of humility, with a certain amount of objectivity as we get into this. we like to lead from a basis of facts and that's what i'm going to try to talk to you about today in the context of where coal is at and based on where coal is at what we see and imagine not only as a global role but the u.s. role continuing into the future. one of the things that most people sort of instinctively understand but don't explicitly understand or state is that we are in an era of fossil energy abundance right now. that was not obvious ten years ago at all.
ten years ago there was a lot of discussion around peak oil. ten years ago we had imagined a nation and a world in steep natural gas decline. kind of not that way anymore. the united states is having record oil and gas productions for both. in fact, natural gas is now i think about 60% unconventional production, something like that. well above 50%. we're now the number two oil producer in the world. we're going to eclipse saudi arabia sometime next year. that's a little different. from many perspectives, this is very welcome news. there's a lot of good news in this. not so much in terms of the atmosphere, not so much in terms of the global climate system. i'll be spending more time talking about that but from a number of perspectives, from economics, geopolitical stability. this era of fossil energy abundance is not only important to recognize but to sort of internalize as we go thinking about our business. thankfully we're not the only people who do this. i never thought we'd see coal on
the cover of "wired" magazine, but it is. and it gives a sense of the fact that this is starting to enter into the zeitgeist a bit, that the presence and abundance of coal, the role it plays, its persistence is one of those things that has to be sort of recognized and in some context managed. because, in fact, the future of u.s. fossil energy, global demand, sees an awful lot of fossil use and coal use specifically. under most scenarios certainly within the eia, 75% of global primary energy by 2035 is still fossil. majority of that is coal. coal is about to surpass oil as the number one energy fuel worldwide. even with robust natural gas growth, coal remains a major fuel in the u.s., everywhere. in the context of the united states, even given sort of robust scenarios of low priced
natural gas and high abundance, we're still looking at 25% coal use for the indefinite future. that's a lot of coal. and it's a lot of emissions with that. fossil energy remains the dominant power supply. it's always a mix of coal and gas up to about 70% in the united states. again, that is expected to be that way for a very long time. with that continued use, we will continue to see greenhouse gas emissions grow as well, and that is, in fact, the hard part. coal has come a very long way. the first use of the phrase clean coal was somewhere in the 1830s. people were talking about the fact that clean coal was about getting your linens dirty. because coal was dumped into people's houses, clean coal meant it wouldn't get all over your apron and i think the industry has moved quite a bit since then. we've had in the past couple of decades something on the order of 90% reduction in sox and nox. we've been able to figure out a basket of technologies to manage mercury emissions.
carbon is the hard one and it's the central issue in terms of what will the role of coal be in the united states, how do we think about that carbon profile and how do we manage it. for the rest of the world, coal use is still there. it continues to grow in china, in europe, in japan. europe i think may have been a surprise for some. it is, in fact, the fastest growing coal market in part because germany is shutting down nuclear power plants, and gas wasn't what it used to be in europe these days for a number of reasons. so they find themselves using more coal. same thing in japan with the closure of the nuclear power plants, japan is building gas plants and coal plants and expects to be using them for a while. there is increased trade in export in coal, and there are new energy security concerns. this is a central issue in the way that china thinks about its work. for them domestic energy security is a big issue and coal is a big part of how they see their robust energy
infrastructure. same thing in eastern europe. it's not just poland. poland, romania, ukraine, hungary, a number of eastern european countries and adjacent countries really rely heavily on coal for their energy supplies, and, of course, with all that dramatic increase in carbon dioxide emissions. in that context, if we are in an era of fossil energy abundance, carbon capture and storage or carbon capture utilization and storage, ccus, this is the key technology. for an era of fossil energy abundance. if you actually want to deeply reduce emissions, if you want to stabilize atmospheric concentrations, it's one of these things you need to do. this has been recognized formally in the president's climate action plan. in fact, it is central to the -- literally central, if you open the middle of the document that's where the ccs piece is. there's a number of things that have flowed from that. there's a certain amount of controversy around the epa draft
regulations for 111b and 111d, new and existing sources. ccs is listed as compliance option for both of those. and people are busily going about trying to figure out whether or not that makes sense for their state or for their region. in addition to that, there's some important technical findings. the most important finding is the climate change is real. and continues to be a persistent issue. the intergovernmental panel has doubled down on that and says yes, we really understand this and yes it's very dire. in addition to that there are new challenges associated with things like resilience. some of it is resilience in the face of weather threats or climate threats of various kinds but some of it is resilience issues having to do with renewable loading. that's a good challenge to have. we've been adding renewables to the grid, and we've learned a series of things from that. in doing so though how you actually maintain resilience as part of the mix is a new and important question.
the department of energy has not been idle about this. my program has put $6 billion into this effort since president obama took office. it is a massive investment in trying to keep coal part of a clean energy future, and central to that, again, is carbon capture and storage. for those who aren't familiar with it, it's not that hard. there's two parts. carbon capture is basically you take carbon dioxide from dilute streams, 12%, 14% from a coal plant maybe, 3% to 7% from a natural gas plant, and you have to concentrate it up to 95%, and the reason why is for the second part, for storage. you inject carbon dioxide deep underground. it has to be highly concentrated for that to work properly. once it goes down, it stays down. the earth's crust is well configured to store carbon dioxide. we have a huge body of knowledge to demonstrate that now. it's not rocket science, it's rock science. there's a lot we know about that.
to a first cut the united states is not just the saudi arabia of coal, it's kind of the saudi arabia of everything these days, for oil, for gas, but also it turns out for co2 storage volume. we have somewhere between i think 1600 and 3200 billion tons of storage. we have a huge natural resource for storing carbon dioxide in the united states and that's lovely, that's really great news because it means we have an option that we will want to consider as part of what we do under an all of the above scenario, and i can't state this enough. i'm not here to be a tub thumper for coal. i think coal has an awful lot of benefits to it and those are manifest in terms of low cost, diverse supply, ease of transport, domestic production and a number of things, but if you're really going to be serious about climate change, you do need to do all of the above, all of the above includes coal but it's not just coal. very robust finding from these kind of general equilibrium models.
this is the eia's but it could be the iea's or stanford's or any other group. if you look at 13 different vintages and bases for these kind of equilibrium models around the world you get a similar result. you do efficiency, you do renewables, you always do nuclear and always do carbon capture and storage and always do fuel switching. you always have all those things and the numbers are surprisingly robust. this analysis has ccs at 14%, but that's a robust result. one of the things the iea, the international energy agency, made a point of in their 2014 outlook was to say we've come a long way on a whole bunch of other things. we could go even farther in the ccs space and, in fact, there's grounds for it. one of their ways of thinking about it is this. if you look at all those different equilibrium models and you say what does it take to hit a 450 target for atmospheric
stabilization, if you take ccs off the table, half the models don't converge. they actually don't solve the problem at all. a typical estimate from this kind of thing is if you take ccs often the table, the cost of hitting that target goes up about 150%. so more than doubles. and the international panel on climate change has actually put more emphasis in this, and this is from david victor at uc-san diego. if you're trying to hit a 550 target and you take ccs off the table, the cost goes up about 50%. it goes up 30% to 80%. if you want to hit a 450 target, the cost triples. goes up between 200% and 400%. that's a lot of money, and it's just because in some markets coal with ccs is the cheap option. not everywhere, maybe not in california, maybe not in arizona, but in a whole bunch of markets, in a whole bunch of places in the country and around the world, ccs with coal is the
cheapest option for deep abatement, and if you get rid of that cheapest option, you have to replace it with something more costly or less efficient. the good news is we've made a lot of progress on this. this slide is actually a little old, but basically the lower two bars are stuff that's built and operating or will be operating soon because it's being built. so right now we're here at 2015, we're putting about 50 million tons of carbon dioxide a year under ground. that has a decent volume. that's real abatement. that was co2 going into the atmosphere and is not anymore. by the end of the decade we should be at about 100 million tons roughly twice that. right now we have 20 large projects worldwide. we're on track to have another 20 or so by the end of this decade. that's awesome. we want that knowledge, we want that demonstration, we want the technical findings that come from that kind of an undertaking. it advises decision makers very, very well. this is an important one. this was the birth of a new
species and i was happy enough to witness this october 1st a boundary dam in canada became the first place where someone's retrofit a coal plant to capture the emissions using basically off the shelf technology. this is canadian technology, but it's very similar to mitsubishi's technology, similar to the norwegian technologies. basically the steam coming out the top means it's operating. that was venting 1.1 million tons a year. it's not anymore. that's all going underground now south power really likes the idea of doing another one of these, or another two of these. they've already learned enough from the first project to cut the cost by 30% on the second. that is a very important finding and it's something we find is robust across the portfolio. as people deploy these things they say we know how to cut the cost on the first project a lot. we'll just do the second project instead because the second
project is always cheaper than the first by a lot. 20% to 30% is a very typical kind of number. i want to dwell on this for a moment because it helps make the point that i made earlier. an environmental group approached sas power and said you're going to spend $1.4 billion on this project, that's a lot of money. we got a different idea. how about you put a bunch of solar panels, put in a bunch of wind farms, you do a bunch of efficiency measures and that will be a better use of your money, it will be better for your company and it will be better for your customers. reasoned, impassioned pitch. the president said you know we're in canada, right? it's dark here half the year, and when it's dark is when we need the energy. so solar isn't a really great solution for us. also we can't put up wind farms because we have chinooks that run 90, 100 miles an hour and they rip apart wind farms so we'd lose our capital and wouldn't have the energy. and can't's already put through
a lot of efficiency measures. for our customers this is the right solution. and i want to underscore that line. for our customers, this is the right solution. not for everybody, not everywhere, but for some part of the world this is what clean coal looks like. virtually no sox, virtually no nox, no particulates, no mercury arsenic, and a 90% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. we have not been idle about this in the united states. canada got there first, but it's been a good run and we've got a number of projects coming online which we've put a lot of money into. the total investment from the u.s. side on this so far is a commitment of about $4.5 billion. a substantial commitment to see these things up and running and the reason why is because it all comes down to projects. projects are the source of innovation, not just in technology, not just in engineering design, but in business, in policy, financial models, financing, all these things, it all comes into
projects because when you put that kind of money on the table it focuses the mind and people get serious about trying to figure out how to make the thing work. let me give you a couple examples. this is one of our favorite projects, the kemper project. this is a success in many ways. part of that is we're scaling up a useful technology. it took us 25 years to develop that. we're testing it now at scale. this is a 582 megawatt power plant, a big plant, and the thing i want to draw your attention to is really two things. one is that little black pile in the corner. they're mining local lignite and coal. they're mining that at $10 a ton. they've got an 80-year supply. it is an incredibly cheap source of fuel for this plant. and in this part of the country where they need to maintain resilience due to weather disruptions and all these other sorts of things, a southern company thought this was an important component of their portfolio.
another thing that is not obvious from looking at this but it's a fact. this is a net water positive power plant. this power plant produces water. as a consequence of its function. part of the reason is they have to dry the coal to make it work. when they do they recover the water and return it to the environment. we don't often think of fossil energy plant as sources of water but, in fact, they put water into the environment. that's one of those things we could consider and the d.o.e. is thinking about it in terms of its r & d portfolio. you may be familiar with the petronova project. it's a huge power plant. the total outpit is something like 4400 mega watts. half gas, half coal. they went and we gave them some money to do a 60 megawatt retrofit and they crunched the numbers and said 60 megawatts isn't going to cut it. let's make it four times as big. they did a 240 megawatt retrofit with no additional investment of government money but they innovated their business model. this is first vertically integrated power plant, merchant
power plant. so these guys own the power plant. they also are owning the capture facility, that's all those blue things. those are being built right now. we broke ground in september and we're off to the races. they poured the concrete for the cooling tower but they also own the co2 pipeline and a quarter of the oil field it's being injected to. they are able to make the finances for this project work by trying a new business model. it's important to note that this is also a model of what the future looks like in terms of international partnerships. this project is 50% financed by japanese banks and, in fact, has japanese technology at its core. this is mitsubishi's technology for post combustion retro fits. we think there will be other projects like this with international financing and other projects of ours in which other governments are looking to play a role as well. this is a utilization project. it's one i'm kind of fond of.
it's small by our standards, 750,000 tons a year, but i love this project. they are making baking soda. there's not a huge market for baking soda, but they're nf% capturing the co2. their feed stock is salt which is very cheap and they're selling the baking soda and hydrochloric acid. the acid is a big global market, so they're doing okay. they're actually turning a profit on this and they're looking forward to their second and their third and fourth plant. important to understand, once they saturate the baking soda market which they will basically do on their next plant, they're going to sell road aggregate. basically at 11 bucks a ton. it's a cheap product but it's thermodynamically favored and they can make it with their feed stocks and there's a market for it. they're being very straightforward and cagey about what they're going to do. it's another stimulus project. this is just outside of san antonio. i encourage all of you to look at the cement plant where they're capturing the co2 and putting this into the market. so when it comes to what the department of energy and particularly my program is
doing, our top, top priority are projects like this. it's just getting these commercial demonstrations into operation. one of them is already working from an industrial source in texas, a refinery. it's the air products project. we've put 1.6 million tons of co2 underground on that project, operating very, very well. part of what we have to do is deliver a deep rich set of public learnings from all these projects because this is what they're for. they're actually to advise the public. among our projects we have precombustion, post-combustion. weier injecting into oil fields and saline formations. doing new builds and retrofits. carbonates and plastics. we're trying to deliver the richest set of public learnings back to the nation. we take that mission very, very seriously. second priority, we have to re-imagine our r & d portfolio.
if you want the nine-hour version of that talk, let me know. i'm happy to give it. but really our program was conceived in 1997. the world has changed a bit since then so we're busily going about trying to think what is actually important, how do we make the ccs and the clean coal r & d portfolio what it needs to be for the modern world. the third priority is international partnerships. our research program was conceived in 1997 in which a unilateral united states seemed obvious to all. not so obvious these days. there are many international players in this space. there are many partners. the world has become more integrated, more complicated, more multinational in its actions, and we feel like that's an important part of making this situation work. i do want to take a moment and talk about the financing of these plants, and the primary reason why is because this is where if the focus is projects, then the issue with projects is financing.
a lot of people come to me and say the issue with carbon capture and storage is about cost. my rejoinder is the issue with carbon capture and storage is about financing. cost. my rejoinder is the issue with carbon capture and storage is about financing. i will unpack that in the next couple slides. it's i think fair to say that the cost of a plant with ccs is more expensive than a cost of a plant without it, but we're not really talking about that. we're talking about something different. what clean energy alternatives are out there, how do we spend that emissions curve in an important way. it's also not just about the technology. a lot of people say to me that this is an unproven or untested basket of technology. it's hogwash. we have been capturing carbon dioxide since 1938. we have been storing it underground since 1972. at these large commercial scales. there's maybe a dozen vendors worldwide who will sell you a capture technology heavy equipment at a price with a performance guarantee. so the potential to improve is
also very, very large. i'll just speak briefly to that. we'll talk about it more. right now we do these gas separations at about 15% over the thermodynamic efficiency. we're leaving 85% on the table. there's a lot of room to improve from an engineering basis, from an integration basis, from a material science basis, from a thermodynamics basis. there's just a lot of room to improve this. and it means there's a lot of room to ratchet down the cost. with respect to finance, that's really the issue. how do you finance these things? many options which are open to other clean energy technologies are not open to carbon capture and storage today. these include things like investment tax credits and production tax credits, renewable portfolio standards which allow you rate recovery, tax exempt debt financing, utilities that will provide that service, and i absolutely want to be clear on this, i do not have a dog in that hunt.
i do not make or recommend policy, period. not what i do. but if you want to get the financing done, it's worth asking what kind of policy choices are available to us, and that's a conversation which we are very happy to have and eager to discuss. the punch -- and other countries, they're actually pursuing that as well. in the united kingdom they have a different of contracts which they're exploring. white rose is the first off the block. and the european union, they have feed in tariffs. feed in tariffs have not been applied to carbon capture and storage yet. just the question is how do you get these things built? one of the ways we're trying to do it is through the loan program office. in addition to the $6 billion we spent on my program, we have approved $8 billion of loan authorities strictly for fossil energy projects. clean coal is very much at the top of those lists. and peter davidson, who is the
new executive director of the loan program office is keen to get these proposals and is starting to get them now. now that that program is proving profitable, we are keen to see how it can be -- how the success of this program can be leveraged into clean fossil energy projects. i think the majority of which will ultimately have ccs. to talk specifically about the cost issue, i wanted to show you this analysis. this is a levelized cost of electricity analysis. let me start by saying the obvious. these are thorny, divisive estimates. i don't want you to draw too much from the specific numbers here, but this is an analysis done by world resource institute and published in their seeing is believing document, back in october. this shows very nicely what all of the above actually looks like. if you look at the cost of this, there's coal without ccs and
coal with ccs. natural gas without ccs and with ccs and a change of cost estimates for nuclear, geothermal, solar, photovoltaic, solar, thermal, all of these technologies. to a first cut in some markets, some of these are the cheapest. in other markets they're not. you can see that here. one of the other things i want to draw your attention to is we don't have a lot of data points yet for ccs. one of the things we need to do is figure out the range around that, where will it be higher, where will it be lower as we start thinking about this going to different markets, what do the costs really look like? at this point basically you're talking about something that's a few cents per kilowatt additive maybe. there's a lot of assumptions that go into that, how much capture are you going to do? is it 50%, 90%? there's a lot of questions in terms of what technology to use. but when you look at the range of these costs, one story emerges which is it's all of the above.
there isn't a silver bullet that you can point at and say this will always be that thing for the market. and you'll do efficiency to some extent and then you do all these things. and one of the things that comes out of these kinds of analysis is the recognition that as a policy option, as an engineering option, as a deployment option, coal with carbon capture and storage is a very important one and a real one. one of the things that makes it work in the united states may be harder in other parts of the world is enhanced oil recovery. i can't overstate this enough. the low end estimates are many tens of billions of barrels of production that could come from co2 injection underground. that would provide tremendous revenues. if you look at the difference in cost associated with some of these projects, the tax revenues that come from eor basically are break even on the order of seven or eight years which means they're net revenue positive to the government after that. you don't always think about it that way, but it's an important
finding done by northbridge engineering. in terms of storage potential, when you do enhanced oil recovery, you store carbon dioxide. we're looking at something on the order of more than 25 billion tons of storage in conventional eor. that's a very large volume of carbon dioxide. that would be half the u.s. coal fleet for 20 years. it's a lot of carbon dioxide, and, in fact, we are short about 100 million tons a year right now in terms of what the market would buy if you could supply it. so there's grounds to think that this would be helpful and it helps with the financing. again, if the financing is the issue, getting some of the financing done through co2 eor is a good thing to do. in that context, this is something that's being considered in the context of the epa's draft regulations. what's interesting about this, and i don't want to dwell on this, is that ccs and ccus with eor is a compliance option. especially under 111b, that's pretty straightforward and explicit, but also how this is treated is flexible.
so the way that this is accounted for i think is something that's still being sorted. we're talking with the epa and trying to figure out how to make the best recommendations we can to what it is they do. they're a regulatory body, they take their jobs seriously, and we provide input to that. we hope it's received, but we think having these successes with eor getting these projects built is important in thinking about opportunities in the power sector. something usually not spoken about is residual oil zones. for those of you who are oil and gas economists, you probably don't think about these because they're not resources and they're not reserves. if you inject water into a residual oil zone to produce it, you get nothing. so it actually only works when you inject carbon dioxide. something you might not know is people have been busily doing this around the country for about six years now. there's eight fields in the united states that are producing from their residual oil zones. a recent study done by advanced resources international looked at just four counties in texas.
that's the yellow box. the blown up box is one county in texas. that's the red box. their conservative estimate for how much oil could be produced from that is 109 billion barrels in those four counties. one of the things that i'm glad to say is actually we've negotiated a way for them to continue and expand their studies to develop a methodology that could be applied to other parts of the country. one of the things that i care about in this is that those residual oil would store carbon dioxide, an enormous opportunity. also important in this is, in fact, that that would be net carbon negative oil. let me say that again, net carbon negative oil production. today when you do enhanced oil recovery, if you inject between 6,000 and 7,000 standard cubic feet of co2 that's close to break even at about 7,500, 8,000
scuffs per barrel on a molecular basis on an energetic basis, that's decarbonized if you're using anthropogenic co2. if you're using natural, it is just out of the ground. however, if you're using more than 8,000 scuffs per barrel, it's net carbon negative. i had the great pleasure of meeting with an oil company the other day which only using anthropogenic co2 for their enhanced oil recovery and injected between 10,000 and 15,000 standard cubic feet per oil. they're producing negative oil today. the oil they produce has a lower carbon volume than what they inject. it's an important finding, one of the things the department of energy wants to be more clear about and more demonstrable about in the coming years. but in thinking about these residual oil zones they're almost always going to be net carbon negative. i want to close with a short discussion about international partnerships. i would be remiss if i didn't.
this is where a lot of the action is. these are required. the global environment is shared and one of the things that came out of lima is every country has a job. so we're trying to figure out what this looks like. in my program we have things like the carbon sequestration leadership forum actively supporting not just information sharing but the development of new policies and the development of new projects. we've been very excited by the leadership the secretary has shown with this group and the leadership that other administers have shown in response. the next ministerial will actually be in the kingdom of saudi arabia next november. watch this space. there's going to be interesting things to come. international partnerships are also required for the commerce. at the end of the day, what will help the climate negotiations is good trade. and so if we can figure out ways to support commercial engagements through ccs projects