health care but really believe in, you know, decriminalizing illegal border crossing, as we saw an 2019 in the debates. republicans believe in securing the border, but they will never talk about health care. so it is a total crapshoot which party they vote for. these, you know, 98% of legislators who have a college degree, they come out of college and come out of the university very much believing that whatever the party platform agenda is, that is there sort of spiritual, political truth. working-class people don't have that at all. if they were in charge, what you would have is, you know, universal health care, basically a total moratorium on immigration, you would have very strict trade policies, tariffs on many imports. you would have, you know, very strongly pro-gay marriage but very against trans women in women's sports come in bathrooms. parents would have total say over what kind of bugs are allowed in their children's schools. there is a radical moderation to

this man is somewhere in between. neither party is really speaking to where these people are at. the person who comes closest to this set of policies that i laid out is donald trump. host: we will go next to nancy in houston, texas. hi, nancy. caller: hi. i stopped watching your program a long time ago, because you never had anybody on there that made any sense to make of it was all these "washington post," "l.a. times," all these papers and newspapers that, you know, are so for the democrat, democrat, democrat. never anything republican. and if you did have a republican on there, oh, my god, they got slammed. this woman, i was going through the menu when i got up, this woman absolutely hit a chord with me. this is what i have been saying

for years could i remember going to looking for jobs come and if you do not have a college degree, you were left out like you were a worthless piece of crap, and they would not hire you. always the person who had the college degree, i have been a college for four years and i got a ba and all this, i'm self-taught and i worked my finger to the bone my whole life, but i was looking on as less than. and this woman hit it on the nail. it is all about how colleges -- if you went to college, oh, you were out there. if you did not go to college, you were nothing. thank you so much for finally having somebody on your program that makes total sense to me. host: batya? guest: wow. thank you so much for calling in, nancy did i really feel your pain. it is something i heard a lot when i was interviewing people.

just, you know, to be looked down upon when you are working yourself to the bone at a job that this country would fall apart without, it is so wrong, it is wrong morally and spiritually come of it is also wrong economically, and if you care about democracy, you cannot treat the majority of your citizens like garbage. you cannot have a stable democracy without a strong middle class. and what we have done is we just squeezed that middle class, we have an oligarchy of the credentials on one side and then the working or on the other, and it is almost impossible to make it now if you are somewhere in the middle, just based on your hard work. and i so feel your pain, nancy. thank you so much for calling in. host: glenn in newtown, pennsylvania. hi, glenn. caller: hi, how are you doing today?

i seem to have a different recollection of what people did come and i started out in the 1960's. in the 1980's, ronald reagan said what as wrong is having stuff made somewhere else, to make it cheaper for the average person. but with all the electronics moved out of the country and moved to japan, the steel mills started closing up. then we had his vice president, bush senior, he wrote nafta and bill clinton signed it. at that point in time, i said nobody is for the working man. these parties don't care about the working man, so i voted for ross perot. now, the horse is out of the barnyard. is never going to be like it was coming i really don't know what these young kids are going to do for a living. that is about what i've got to say. i know she's not going to agree with me, but that is the way it was when i work through it. thank you. guest: i totally agree. [laughs]

to me, this kind of -- the move away from manufacturing toward college is very much a democrat proposal, but i think before trump, the republican party obviously did not care about the working class at all, and, you know, people on the left will often say, you know, trump is all bluster when he talks about supporting working people. there is a lot of bluster there, but he has a very strong record. and if you just look at trade, you know, the caller's right, there was a handshake agreement on both parties on trade that we should ship all manufacturing overseas and in exchange we will get cheap products. it is not matter that americans will no longer have a home to put their flatscreen in, because they will be able to get a new flatscreen every year for $75, right? that was what both parties believe clement trump really took -believed-, and trump took

an ax to that and said, that is garbage. we will have a trade war with china, what about that? steel and aluminum, the average steelworker who works in the south, in right to work states, so nonunionized, makes $80,000 a year, solid wage. he slept 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum. this stuff really works to we had a caller from virginia who called in and said he thought of money coming back into his accounts. i really object to the view that a person living on a shoestring budget does not know which present policy is better for them. they have no cushion with which to do -- when you have two feed kids and get them to school and back and fill up the car with gas, you know how much everything costs, and you know which policies are helping you and which are hurting you.

policies should reflect where we are, and i agree with the caller , there is a sense that both parties but abandoned the working class. by the way, president biden kept a lot of trump's trade policies in place muscle when the caller said the cow is out of the barn, i do think something has shifted, and at least on trade, there is a new view in washington that you cannot just shift good american jobs overseas, and it is time to start bringing them back. i think that is taking hold on both sides, which is a great thing to see. host: we will go to matt in wisconsin. hi, matt. caller: hi. i agree with everything the guests said. i washed over the years, having changed a lot. i rememb

we have lost over 2000 square miles of our coast and this is where the majority of our population lives. the last thing in the world that i would want to do is come in and proposed solutions that will further put the folks of the representatives in jeopardy. why we will continue saying that i think the best solution is looking at the strategies that have worked and figured out how to doubly triple down on those very things that have not caused energy prices to skyrocket. this whole conference today is about the lng pause. whether it was a good idea or a bad idea. the motivation that we have seen

just last year it sitting there talking about how the united states has an abundance of natural gas and how we actually need to use it as a tool to help out our allies did this year coming out and saying they will put a freezer bed in place. indicating to me that there. to be some politics. using natural gas specifically using lng exports. looking at it as a solution. if we had simply taken one year, one year of russian gas that was provided to the european union, one year of russian gas provided to the european union and supplanted it with u.s. lng,

that would have resulted in a 218 million-ton reduction in emissions. not to mention vladimir putin helping to address the trade deficit issues, increase the economic ties with our allies and i will state again, the tune of approximately 218 million. i am out of time. i am looking forward to the congressman. rather than letting this become an emotional issue, i think more appropriate to form the decisions moving forward. >> ending the timeliness. i am open to your thoughts as well. >> thanks so much. i'm just really happy to be here let's start with areas of violence agreement. unbelievable energy technology. it should be our national interest to export those.

a moral obligation or an economic obligation to make sure people have cheap and affordable energy in our country. and our allies around the world. where i think i differ a little bit is i am very much, the energy that matters is the energy that makes your beer cold in your shower hot. we would never say that the purpose of the auto industry is to sustain our auto liners. we conflate inputs with outputs of what really matters to have access to heat affordable light and power. it is true. the united states has vastly exceeded where anyone thought we could get to the co2 reduction. i am totally with garrett on this. we should do that in a way that uses markets to innovated not direct. the deregulation of the power sector in 1992 and the quarters that followed, for the first time in our history created a world where powerplant owners could make money by saving money

that did not exist prior to that point. within a 10 year. we built 200,000 megawatts of combined cycle and 20% of the whole grid that roughly almost doubled the efficiency of the u.s. gas grid. nuclear fleet 60% factor to 90% capacity factored because it was cheaper now you could make money operating. emissions 1300 pounds per megawatt hour to where we are at 900 or a little less. largely because of that. now, look at what happened to the u.s. energy system. i just pulled up some numbers before i came here. over 10 years ending 2023 because i can get that data easily. u.s. gdp up 61%. u.s. coal use is down 40%. because i cannot compete. oil uses basically flat. it bounces around.

total u.s. oil consumption is flat. natural gas use up about 24%. we have actually d fossilized our economy. we are now getting more with less. a higher standard of living in less dependent on fossil fuels to get there. our homes are more efficient. our vehicles are more efficient. that is wonderful. as well as the competitors are. natural gas consumption up. 55%. to the natural gas act if we are going to approve these

facilities, is it in the national interest for us to drill holes in the united states , run pipes in the united states, take supply out of the united states and send it overseas if the price is right. i would argue on several occasions that i think the biden white house what not asking that question as much as they should have before. having this dynamic in play where even before you get to the pause, right now we export about 15 bcf a day of natural gas. projects currently in construction will take that to 30. a huge increase. we will double that again. projects permitted, not affected by the cause, taking that to about 41. almost threefold increase before we ever get to the pause. the only question right now is should we do more than that. i think that that question has to take into account, you know, does it matter that the freeport

export total explosion the price fell 30% because all of a sudden we had this domestic supply. there was that same terminal under repair a couple months ago you sell some in texas that were negative. it is really good for u.s. consumers not so good for gas producers. the export capacity that is already permitted and approved has basically failed europe's needs. the new capacity, i think 18% of the new contract will go to europe. 30% is going to asia and the balance is going to commodity traders. this is not about helping our friends in europe at this point. this is largely helping commodity traders and secondarily is it in the interest to provide sweeper -- more interest. that is a question that we can ask.

we need to be honest about the mobile warming impacts here. sitting in a coal plant and you have a burner tip with : a separate with natural gas it is objectively true that gas is much cleaner. if you have more than 3% leaks in the system up to that point, gases were speared a 20 year period. i would suggest that you be looking at a 10 year global warming. we simply do not have the ability to track much less force that the whole distribution system will be weak free once it leaves our shores. if you have anything more than about 1% leak of that gas after it leaves year, you are worse than coal from this perspective. we don't like that, but that is sort of the truth of where we have to sit here using to ask this.

primarily an exporter. only 20% of production. gas production in the country right now will go to export. going to export because that is where the money is. because you can make more money selling it overseas and you cannot home. if we are not honest about the impacts on price volatility, pitching u.s. to consumer prices to the rest of the country, reducing supply, i think we are not ending the environmental issues. the last thing i will say on technology is all of those technologies we have deployed in the united states that helped us decouple growth from fossil fuel use, those are also exportable technologies. if we think that we are worthy of those technologies, then let's also think about that. i will leave you with the conversation we had with the ukrainian parliamentarian. coming over about six months ago

, he had a job overseeing the rebuilding and construction. what people need housing in ukraine because they just got bombed? crappy soviet cinderblock housing. we would like to build them efficient home speared they will take a little bit longer to build spirit we will have to figure out how to get it on the backend. that is technology that we should be thinking about. let's flood that market with gas , not only are we doing them a disservice but we are exposing them to more volatility in the future. >> thank you both. a lot to draw on both sides. i will talk a little bit about the climate considerations. >> there is a lot of politics on this decision. i think that is pretty evidently clear. getting deeply involved in a lot of the reporting has been young voters.

i think it is an underlying issue that is, as you said, getting very close to one and a half degrees of global warming. there is a fear amongst many analysts that if you overcommit to this kind of asset, it will be used for too long. you kind of made the comparison, nicole, but i love your thoughts on the long term issue. if you are trying to build a world where you are net zero by 2050 should that be important or as you say here, even on the margins it is you are suspicious that there is a climate benefit to be had. >> if you take the forecast, decarbonization world. they forecast even more strongly decarbonization world of

countries made their various commitments. i think when you look at what they are doing on the margin look at it relative to the world that they think we are going into not relative to the world that existed 15 years ago. in those forecasts, you know, like our country, look at us. ten years ago, 50% of u.s. power came from cold. that is not because of the ira, it is because it is cheaper. if you build a coal plant next to a windfarm there's not a single developer that says i'm so nervous because they may out compete me. the reverse is very untrue. if we build assets that cannot compete against other future technologies as long as we deploy those technologies don't get outcompeted. i think the struggle is, you know, i used to joke that anyone that thinks that energy markets

were actually capital have never tried to get a capital project approved in energy markets. [laughter] these are hugely capital-intensive products where there is a finite number of banks and entities who have the sophistication to pull those deals together. once they are built you have a very strong vested interest in making sure you maintain the capacity factor to get your return. a very important political player in your state county and country. you tend to box out that competition. so, you know, coal would have shut down a long time ago, but for the fact that they were so good at keeping better technologies out of those markets. and, arguably, very few cold plants in this country shut down before their capital it was just there was end-of-life and you have other stuff coming up. that is not because there were not other technologies out there politically, hard to fight

against someone who was a primary source of property tax in your community. 3% is the number of methane emissions. it sort of makes coal versus gas wash. a 20 year global warming potential, correct? you decided, well, if that means beyond our shores, about 1% we need to be concerned. kind of seeing a lower one percentage on this site. >> yeah, so, you all know this. the few people that may not know this. you put a piece of methane into the atmosphere. a much more potent greenhouse gas than co2. it runs into an oxygen atom and become co2. after a decade it all become co2 during that first decade it is way more potent to greenhouse

gas. you get into this academic exercise say what is a greenhouse gas equivalent of a molecule of methane in the atmosphere. it depends on how long you are looking. maybe it is 10 or 15 times as potent. twenty or 30, okay, roughly 3%. if you look over 10 years it is 80 times as potent. that is when it sits in the atmosphere. if you said there right now and you have lots of people, die near every scientist that matters, what is going to happen 50 years from now is not relevant. we know that sea levels on the gulf coast will be 2 feet higher by 2050. we have already locked that in. so, i would argue that you should be looking at that 10 year period even if you take the 3%, you know, leak rates, leak rates in the u.s. are arguably maybe 3%.

we are starting what do you think the opportunity associated is? how do you think about our responsibility and national interest talking outside? >> great question and think you're beginning to dig into the real sticking points of this. if you work to take that previous tenure. 2012 -- 2022, he saw energy producers, methane emissions by 66%. two thirds reduction methane

emissions. missus once again world leading. all concerns but i do think it's important we look at numbers. i want to go on this a little bite, once again we can't let emotion governor, who got to get back inside so look at the biden administration's agency of the increase in demand for natural gas will be about 87% between now and 2050. global demand for natural gas will go up about 57% so it's right, there has been a surge in the export of natural gas the

technology which is part of the department of energy study the lifecycle u.s. lng 47% invitation. the european union and reduction. we need to be realistic and short this demand for natural gas is coming from states because that results reductions

so we can sit here and say i just think it is going to are the globe and say that all day long but if there's no math and nice to prove it's an option that we are in dangerous and frankly, he responsible blocking tools help reduce will be emissions, what is the responsibility? one thing most important the different energy technologies. one thing to keep in mind, 17 here's from 2005 and forward. united states reduced emissions more than every other country but as we did, here's the kicker. for everyone time of emissions we produce china went up by six so what are we doing for the global environment?

let me say it another way during the same one taking all the developing countries, we collectively reduce missions about 15% for the same period of time. developed countries reduce emissions over that. by about 10%. it increases the emissions team%. we got to be cognizant about what is happening globally just like the one production in the united states increasing think china, we are crushing the global environment on the wrong trajectory and got to make sure that solutions globally and sure we are on the trajectory to have the entire world reducing emissions so we have 57%

increase in natural gas, why are we we have the lowest density gas in the world which happens to be off the coast of louisiana and gulf of mexico reflective of the data together and i'm not saying we abandon wind or solar or nuclear, we need all of the above. >> now pivoting a little bit but this is already part of the conversation, the growth has been enormous from zero to now the world's leading exporter of lng and enough pipeline we looking at close to doubling and there's an obvious commercial care. i would love your thoughts on

what economical domestically and internationally the will of the industry and potential impacts on prices versus commercial case which i think probably are pretty helpful in louisiana. >> from commercial incentive for the doe counter market forces the national interest needs to be evaluated and energy rises domestically so how do you think about the national interest in that regard compared to china and valuable resources. >> number one, we have a significant reduction in natural gas prices were to take the price index, natural gas prices have gone down.

folks tried to use this red herring, trying to keep prices competitive. they are down below the average api are not short what problem you're trying to solve. as far as we know, we cut increase in natural gas so supply and demand thing is important but in this case there aren't indications suggesting the export is causing domestic price issues so that's a second one. i think we got to be careful about politicizing this issue and let's go back and look at examples we saw this administration sank we are not going to allow the stone pipeline. he cannot be dealt because it will result in increasing emissions.

the keystone pipeline is being produced. it didn't.net production from is transported through means. this is what politicizing ozzie looks like it's resulting and higher emissions, resulting in higher prices because of exporting and lng big uncertainty caused by the pause.

in his investment and because you have to go back to the jimmy carter administration could find any comparable amount of oil and gas in the united states. to put in perspective, jimmy carter administration opened up leasing to 100 times more for energy production than the biden administration. somebody may be able to correct me but i don't remember anyone saying going back to that energy policy so i think it is a mistake, we can't allow this to be politicized by publicans or democrat. >> physical small collection on twitter who really likes sweaters and there is a niche there. i'd love your thoughts on this, how to think about the domestic price issues. he said american in their

interest. it is also true long-term demand can help generate i. we set on motion gas is the u.s. continues fluency potentially downward intense pressure with a.i., i'd love your thoughts on how we should be thinking about. >> i just want to address the history of how gas cheap. back in 2008, are trying to finalize the deal to revert biomass and they were running the map under the assumption that natural gas $9 and debating whether to use 12 because i was the price of the time and the price came down in the forecast and i remember were caused the project to think i work for a fortune 500 company and make

long-term energy decisions short-term energy prices affect that is the reality. what was going on in 2008? every electric utility for the country was talking about spyros and every gas utility gas appliances in the steam systems are shut down in the gas industry was bullish and fracking wasn't really think get. there was a weird guy and ohio and not living on equity. that's a joke for those of you that. those lng terminals far in part, thought export so you get was because we need to get gas but would be offensive and we will have to go the price of gas came

down because of the amazing fracking revolution and a lot of people did lose their shirt third orders always make money. [laughter] i you have electrification. going forward basis we got this issue where we are starting to couple. regulated gas utilities, they have a much less bullish trip and they did 15 years ago, people are should away that's for market reasons. going forward so i think this part two argue that you can sit in a market that has more gas supply than demand and the price wouldn't go down.

this is like the first three pages of economics super complicated you see when the terminal went down medially it felt% and that's really company. it's also true ten, 15 years ago there was little correlation between the price of natural gasoline states in the price of natural gas europe. if you are a natural gas export and have a facility, a commodity player taken 50% on a contract you love dobby arbitrage opportunity? which would you like to have? they will be capitalist, nothing wrong with that but there's no reason you aspires saying i want to keep your going to have to pay that higher ice we are going to start localizing gas markets

and the way we've already localized markets. the last, just, i think you get to the problem with the conversation many times, i think we have to ask ourselves the purpose of energy policy to benefit energy consumers are producers and when we conflate upstream supply with down we talking about we need to be honest it as a sinus how dishonest we are, how many of you remember in april 2020 psyche work when the price of gasoline was so low? because at the time senator cassidy introduced a bill that said we should tell troops out of saudi arabia must be cut down

on oil production to raise the price of oil to help refiners hurting right now. donald trump followed up, april fools' day in 2020 and they dutifully responded and trump was appraised as a hero. did anyone say we are going to pull troops out unless you rebel production? how energy works. what is the purpose? hours paying 250, i'm selling it all day long.

it was, it's good for the consumers and tension as we decouple from multiple, sugary see the resources we have as a rainy day fund for when we need it should we see it as something to have on the top? >> i like that concept so much and i love your response consumers producers or not the right economy to drop. >> obviously those are my own two choices, i'm choosing to resolve a long is why i refer back to the day president biden took office in the colors of the court the galley. this administration, cast isis for a dollar 74 a gallon. if you can't find anything even

remotely close about. i want to remind you echo in your weird category, i have a letter i remember right, some your murky, senator menendez and one or two others center president trump schedule societies oil production so i don't sometimes what planet we live on outside again, menendez and markey said please have them increase oil production. awesome retail but should he also do the reverse?

>> going back, i don't think better start to write answers. either consumers or users. i think it is americans at large because the reality is the considerations go beyond how much people are paying at the pump that is the only metric in this administration has been a failure, energy prices skyrocketing in terms of utility gas prices and even emissions,. [screaming] gas prices are good. >> natural gas companies stable, he looking collectively to examples front and center. as a result, how many of you remember when there was a negotiation with iran and his people set the biden administration explained dollars

in revenue and south korea brief revenue under this negotiation and always people up in arms sent you should have given us. there experts have skyrocketed. somewhere around $5 billion. the energy policies that have allowed them, pick your terrorist and now just provide tens of billions of dollars to fund the other side. what are we doing? russia, same thing. we are to seek increase. imports in the united states, prices up grown up so russia is doing for. the numbers happen to calculate probably around hundred billion russia is using back to front invasion of ukraine.

again so let me say again, because producers are tumors, what's in the best interest of america? the best interest of american citizens collectively and just some examples where we are not looking properly of the overall consideration. >> the last place i want to touch on is the geopolitical. the american research and consumers but also the largest exporter of lng in the world geopolitical benefits still trying to understand from the european experience last couple of years and in the same for you are getting economic events

american shareholders are regimes abroad? at the your thoughts on this geopolitical aspect. very important for the u.s. >> i think you are right. we call them freedom molecules and you use not as you drink your petroleum-based water bottle back. i'm sorry. i wasn't back. i think back. not the generation i went back and pulled this transcript from a hearing we had a resources committee and i asked what

happens start reducing domestic action of energy? does not have an impact on demand? the scene of the nutrition officials the analysis of this five-year program which is offered production, they see stop was at the substitution would come from important oil so extrapolating this answer what he's saying is there's nothing can do domestically to influence what sources of energy and united states. what will happen is local avoid. with of the brightest domestic in the united states company over these, other countries.

in. i said that citizen earlier developed countries are about 15%, development country develop the 8%. it's so boring if we achieve this goal, america continues to be an american leader globally, helping to reduce emissions. we got to make sure we are looking at applications, global locations of emissions based on policies put forth in the united states. our to remind you hillary clinton acknowledged russians for spending optic trying to trash back and they knew it was against the interest just like i believe china's out there pushing for the united states and others to use minerals they developed a monopoly on. we got recall how we move forward. >> the same geopolitical

question european -- unique characteristics and flexibility, a lot of experts are two trading houses, we don't know what the future holds and the value in this capacity class in the global market. >> are to be a broken record and energy policy, doctors talk about three. we don't do that and any other space and the single best thing we could do domestically and internationally is increased energy productivity. there are only three imports. labor, capital and energy. we track labor productivity on a weekly basis. there isn't a company in the world that would keep their ceo

no capitalist and was putting against their peers. nobody tracks energy productivity and if you tried to get the numbers, primary energy but it measures out the same way. we generate about $200 in gdp for every million btu, happy energy productivity of the uk. one third energy productivity of switzerland. imagine if the united states was able to deliver the same body of living we have right now with only a third as much energy input. that's third less exposure to the volatility, isn't it

wonderful to say i don't care? wouldn't it be great to take the technology other -- these are countries that have already can't about level the bride this because options, the volatility. that's also, what about the export markets ability. let's not deploy the technologies that will make it more efficient. we are guilty about, i get it, i russians and iranians would not like energy efficiency deployed. there's a lot of the rest of not like to play that. a lot scars on my back fighting against police. samara we every. >> i agree but we say what is in

the rest national energy policy? we got to blame it from a downstream perspective thing how do you get to a world where you have affordable, reliable useful energy? not how you get to a world where it's on your doorstep. [laughter] >> battery make that a matter of u.s. policy? >> let me start with things that have been critical on. when russia invaded ukraine he said supply ciders, lng exports precluding talk about how we efficiency technology to help make them, i worry using the production get tools out there

and reduce the energy. another place to have an honest conversation, we both like to you early on. when we say the united states is cutting emissions as soon as we hold the united states to a lesser standard falling contractors to the united states. you can't say we are simultaneously ramping up missions sending oil and coal overseas and only going to take credit for our country like throwing not do this conversation. [laughter] >> but measured on recent energy productivity and export productivity. we should not be measured or awarded to say i'm going to take my problem and should your

credit. >> i want to make sure i understand what you're saying your basically endorsing that but the most efficient production becoming an ramping up regulatory red tape and hurdles, all you're doing is forcing activities overseas and allow sufficient oddly. >> energy markets are not efficient. >> something to be proud of coffee can do much better and execute opportunity and then we should exploit those technologies to do that but we shouldn't say you're talking about russia, why is so dirty? it bit them. a downside of the u.s. gas

producers economic interests they want to sell more gas but they are exporting gas eastern distribution systems, we should not assume they are not wiki or they are subject to the market forces we have i realize you are having a little fun there but i think we are as efficient as we could be. i think we should set the as it will to aspire to say where the best, everybody should just -- >> a certain sense of obligation on how we think about emissions and exports. like what happens in poland or china or the u.s. energy matters. exactly right. we are out of time and up to do this longer have to take my kids

up baseball. i love to give a final word and apologies to the audience. >> thank you all for coming is a great topic for coming. a pleasure to do this with you. these really are big issues and i guess i will just leave you with an anecdote. i was having this conversation with one of european and piece of saying what are you doing typically you generate much more than we do? what should we copy? >> he started laughing and said what the problem is. he said the french and americans, you came up with democracy obtain time. doing the same work came up with

the same basic ideas and our case we have this legacy of monarchy will spread out over the land with access to resources. how do you make democracy work so you didn't have to worry about that. relieved this giving away resources basically the united states is now spread over the land haven't we want to be grow up. >> i think is tensions between

we to get us in the essence of being american expect resources and monetize. make sure everybody has equal opportunity to succeed and access to resources and distribution. i think that is the core of the debate we haven't decided who we want to be when we grow up but we are out of time. >> we can work on it. the met i think all of for the opportunity to share ideas and assist one of the most important issues the face of the got to focus on this.

sustainable long-term impact. one of the most dangerous things we can do is what you're seeing today. when you go from about administration policies over here to trump administration over here to biden administration over here. tommy energy industry, it doesn't matter if you are a component of renewable or what have you. you are looking at this thing what is going on? got to keep in mind what investors are doing if they are looking for certainty, looking for certainty. we are known for stable regulatory environment, economic

climate. if we undermine that stability, we undermine our ability and gain investment be the innovation leaders for the world. as with got policies moving forward you may think administration only looks at economic and in some cases i think you're right but i think what we have to do is change that. we have to look at solutions that check the economic box they can't go out and expect we will build this perpetuity technologies that otherwise wouldn't have a prayer of existing. we can't go out there because you distort economics so it got to check the economic box and

the environment the box. that is the only way you will have wishes that are durable that will sustain these administrations which is why it is important and through the solutions that can be more durable to changes in the house and senate and the white house making sure we can continue leading the world reducing emissions and i'm sure he americans have affordable energy states have proven solutions are unreliable usually have technologies that are avoidable and we can go intentionally on a

faculty have countries like china that quarter the market refining. that is a dangerous direction to go so in closing, i talk about certainty. who would look at what assets we have natural resources, what assets have and we would develop a business plan to ensure libel portable been exportable secure supply chain energy strategy based on our resources, the things we do well and have that we can control and what continue reducing energy insurance we have united states and one of the most efficient economies in the world so appreciate the opportunity to join happy to hang back.

>> visit couple of threads worth pulling on, consumers and producers in their interest, how fallacies geopolitical, forces and keep our eye on long-term goals. >> thank you so much. he wouldn't mind giving a warm appreciation. i think our crackers and soft drinks in the lobby. [inaudible]

>> recently irs commissioner has definable 2024 tax filing season and president biden's 2025 budget request for the agency. you can watch the hearing on the

senate and its comttee tonight it rocky start on c-span2, c-span now, free mobile video out or online at spam.org. >> if you ever missed product from you can find at any time online@c-span.org. videos of the hearing, debates and other events each of markers that guide you to interesting news for the highlights. points of interest markers on the right hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. this timeline exit easy to quickly get an idea of was debated and decided washington to scroll through and spend a few minutes on.of interest. ♪♪ remarked c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including costs. ♪♪

♪♪ cox supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row to democracy. coming up, a conversation about priority for the united states u.s. ambassador to nato and defense minister. they talk about russia ukraine for and other global security challenges the discussion by the atlantic council. ♪♪ >> good morning and welcome the atlantic council for today's, priorities but the 2024 nato summit in washington. my name is matthew, vice president and director center for strategy and security. north atlantic alliance 75 years