tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 13, 2015 9:00pm-11:01pm EDT
we don't make this stuff up. and the key is, for us, how can we have cleaner air. how can we address the issues of cleaner air. i'm not interested in seeing epa jam anything down your throats. but we need to think of how to work on this together. one of the issues to create a lot of electricity, my understanding of the rules that are being con testimony plated here, you don't get a lot of credit for that. and the credit, i guess, goes to california and those e those other states. we ought to be able to figure out how to deal with that. we ought to be anyone to use some common sense in figuring out how to deal with that. okay? i want to ask a question -- the lady from california. it sountz to me like the economy is doing pretty well. and the question is a cleaner environment and a stronger economy. i think you've answered that. we think the answer is yes, you can. but it's a false choice. i think most of you at this
table would agree with that. >> i think your comment earlier, about statings needing to work together is exactly correct. to my friend from wyoming, my local utility, the los angeles department of water and power just concluded a very large agreement with a wyoming wind company to import wind-generated electricity from wyoming to help replace some of the coal-fired energy that they have been relying on. they are actually takeing responsibility for being the largest demander in our state even though the electricity that we were using was coming from utah, as it happens. and there will be costs
associated with transitioning away from the coal and into the wind. but overall the net of it is that los angeles rate-payers will still be doing okay because the utility is taking steps to help their customers become more efficient in their use of energy. and that, i think, is kind of the critical ingreed yent here. if our rates go up because of new investments we're making, that has to be offset somewhere. but given some time for the transition i we can do it. i do think that it was right to come up with a crediting mechanism. i think epa needs to do this if
they want to encourage regional cooperation, as they say they do. they're going to have to allow states to work together. either bilateral or regional basis to come up with programs where they can effectively share the costs and the benefits. that's what we're dealing with the canadian province of quebec where we're running by state, by national program with emissions allowances. obviously, not everybody is going to want to go that far afield. but the con september is one that has been proven to work. >> thanks. very briefly, can each of you give me what you think is a fair compromise? the issue of why they're shipping this electricity by when? and not getting the credit for it? it sounds like the credit goes to california or the other states. what's the fair rate of deal. what's the fair compromise?
last week a new analysis found that the clean power plant can jeb rate up to 49 gig watts of electricity. it's the equivalent that's used to power 50 million homes. this was one of the studies recently released that calls into question the reliability issue. are you concerned about reliabilitity in indiana?
>> we've had record days that were a little better handled this year. so we have increasing demand, decreasing supply. it's valuable, but it's not reliable. sometimes the wind is blowing sometimes it's not, sometimes the solar panels don't have clouds or snow on them and sometimes they don't. so you can't count on them for either thing. their name plate capacity is much higher than their actual
considering the network delivery expected today be retired. again, the modelling used by the epa doesn't appear to consider any of these very fundamental or necessary factors. >> yeah, i would note in my state, we are heavily reline e lient on coal for a lot of reasons. but we're obviously heavily related to gas: to build new ones takes a lot of time and a lot of energy. you've also recently exposed one of your nuclear plants in wisconsin.
the loss of that plan is huge for wisconsin. it's going to have to be taken over by a larger, neutral source. >> let me ask you a quick question. we had a hearing last week on ozone. is every county in california compliant with the current ozone regulations that we have? presently? >> no, senator, we're not. we have remaining challenges in both the southern california and in the central valley and meeting the ozone stand alls and the new ozone standard will add an extra challenge as well as some extra time to that effort. >> so you put that on top of what we're doing here with the clean power? >> we care about the health of oush citizens, senator. >> well, i care about that, as well.
>> yes, we rely on the science. >> in terms of how we're going to meet this challenge what's the easiest thing to knock down this clean power plan that's going to make the biggest impact for you to be able to meet the challenges. >> deadlines, timelines, lower standards, less reductions. >> certainly, timelines are a big kpoeblt e component of this when you consider developing a plan and the time invovrled with that and the complexities in the amount of agencies and states
involved. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. underline this entire discussion is the challenge we have with carbon pollution, methane pollution and the impact it's having across the world. we have an oyster industry that's having great trouble because the ocean is 30% more acidic. we have a farming community that's suffering cig nif kabtly repeated wost-ever droughts because the soil pack is steadily declining. and this year is one of the lowest ever.
as we see this impact on farming and fishing just like delaware senator carper was talking about land that's now under walter. should the entities be able to sue? >> i'm not a lair, so i can't answer could somebody sue. but, remember, the world is under constant change. the things you talked about, some scientists would say, are due to specific oscillation --
>> would you like the answer? >> i would echo those comments. >> shouldn't your bare some responsibility? >> i think this is complicated question. so, from a legal standpoint -- >> okay. you don't want to answer the question, that's fine. >> if the utilities and ebbtyties are filing an existing law, it would have a chilling effect. >> okay well the area in their first year of economics learns about extraalties.
add it. >> we'd be about 40%. >> you've got to aim for oregon. we're at 70%. >> we envy oregon. they came from right wing think tanks. and the concept was not to regulate every smokestack, but to proceed to set up a marketplace and verify the most cost effective would you agree? >> senator x i'm very proud of the success of that program. it did reach itsds goals in terms of the amount of sulfur
dioxide that was reduced. it did so less expensively. >> it was off the chart to success. congratulations. why wouldn't that same strategy work well with carbon dioxide? >> well, we believe it would. it was as you know defeated here. but, in california it was chose to be kept on the ballot. i think they became convinced it would lead us. >> isn't the clean power plan
based around states developing their own plan with a range of how to address carbon? that is a possibility that the state can implement it? >> it's clearly allowable. it's not required. i know that the epa was very familiar with our plan. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator. senator grasso would be next but he's graciously let the senator go ahead of him. >> following up on senator
markley's question do you feel like individuals should be able to sue you for noncliens? >> under the clean air act, citizens have the ability to sue epa or indirectly the state for noncompliance with any el gant of a sift. we are in compliance with our plan. we are moving forward steadily every year bringing down our levels of ozone and we actually come into compliance in many counties. >> if you're doing things required by law, then you shouldn't be sued. >> it helps us with our ozone
standard, as well. we need all the help we can get. >> but in regard to the question, you agree with ms. nowak in the sense that if you're in cliens then you shouldn't be sued. >> there's no way that you're going to be -- when do you feel like you're going to be ozone compliant? >> at this point, we're projecting off into the future. it will be as challenging if not more challenging to meet the ozone stand aurd as it is to meet the greenhouse gas
standard. i can't verify the number. i would say that the economic analysis was using all the same tools that we would have used in the same way. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, chairman. climate change is happening. human activity plays a huge roll in that. role in that. the consequences of doing nothing could be dire and
expensive. do you agree with the milwaukee journal sental? >> i did not -- or do not endeavor to take on the policy behind what is before us. my role here has been analyzing it and rules that come before us: i look for three things. the environmental rule is coming. that's the lens that i look through this rule. >> environmental rules cannot uncompromise. >> there is a balance that needs to be struck.
>> how do you strike that balance if you don't know whether climate change is balancing, will the consequences could be dire and expensive. >> the impact on rate payers could be felt by climate change. that's not part of your analysis? >> the benefits have been put forth by the epa and their plan. >> the executive director has called that will result in business growth, job creation, cleaner air and a quicker path to energy independence.
draft options for come plying with proposed standards, including options that would not require montana to shudder its coal plants. >> well, first i'll address montana's five alternatives. we've been told that we would get no credit for wind energy consumed outside the state. as far as a multi-state discussion, i will say that we've been involved with the same group the center for new energy environment and participating in those conversations, along with montana and 13 other states.
to plants. finally, mr. easterly, how have you built your analysis of the clean power plan. >> i don't think you can quantity any cost of huge climate change on the state of indiana. let's go back to your other question. >> why do you not think you can quantify it. isn't that part of your job? >> there's nothing concrete to qualify. there's speculations that say 8-23% likely increase in energy costs could come to -- >> the energy costs are from the clean power plan. yes.
>> when it comes to how the epa credits renewable energy wyoming still stands to be severely disadvantaged. like you said, 85% is exported. but the epa has said no. not where the energy has created the hosting state. how is this going to impact wyoming's ability and how much additional renewable generation
would we have to develop just to meet the epa's proposed tar glet? >> this makings it difficult for wyoming to achieve its star get. theest mat of renewables would be somewhere around 9 million megawatts megawatts right now, wyoming consumes about 600,0 0 megawatts. and you mention a lack of flexibility. this has a significant impact on meeting the man dates coming out of the ep aerks. your reference to permits and the esa requirements, for which
wyoming has no control and it doesn't seem the epa is proposing any sort of relief only one sixth is actually available. >> they're refusing to acknowledge that washington's foot is still on the brakes. can you go sb a little more detail about the red tape that goes with developing energy resources on that land is a washington roadblock?
>> they have higher bills as a result of the epa mandates here through that specific court. >> there's a portion that's part of that system. >> a growing number of states are raising concerns that any type of implementation plan is immediately going to become federally enforceable. epa's entire system could become sublt. we've heard it from the texas public utilities commissioner, as we.
>> thaing, mr. chairman. and thank you all for being here today. >> when we had ms. mccable here earlier in the year, i asked her some question about the heat rate efficiency assumption for bimding block one. >> do you have any other concerns with that 6 bnt heat rate consumption? >> part for building block one assumed that you would operate the plantds in a way that gained efficiency.
but then we have building block two, which says oh your coal plants are the last resort. and that will just make it much worse. there's also mission controls that you have to add on to the coal plants. they all decrease the efficiency of the plant. there's a huge parasitic float. there's a bunch of reasons that the plants are going to be less efficient on a per-megawatt basis, but more efficient. >> so do you think that improvement is achievable in your state?
let me go to another panelist first. do you think we're encouraging states to look at a balanced portfolio when it comes to their energy needs with this plan that's before us now? >> it's to go to other types of energy sources to replace coal. so it's not looking at a mix. it's really aimed at reducing coal. >> you know, i'm from the only public power state in the country.
this will be a very large impact. >> thaing. thank you, mr. chair. >> so it says you were the figs one here and the last to speak. >> a little budget committee hearing. >> i don't like this idea that there should be a mix of power. i think we should have more nuclear power. i am of the belief that if you become too dependent on one source of power you're not able to have the competition that keeps costs down.
it's so hard -- it's not likely to come in my lifetime. >> it's disappointing, i've got to tell you. i think the unifying issue is more healthy environment things that make people sick and kill trees, i think we can do better. i am not prepared to press down on the brow of my constituents billions and billions of dollars in costs.
over the co2 issue. in your state, do you think it would go up also? >> yes, that is correct. >> and mr. eesley? >> yes we're not sure how much, but more than double dijts. r. >> i'm not sure what you said do do you believe it will go up or not? >> there's been a trend u i would say, over decades for if the cost do goes up. >> and these are new impasse?
>> e y, i believe so. >> i would concur that you can keep electricity prices down. >> now, you indicated we spent a lot of money -- you spent a lot of money, to make coal cleaner than it's ever been before. and if those plants are closed are ewe saying those are the stranded costs to lost payments in your state? >> it doesn't fake into account paying for units that have recently been build e built. pow ere plants are paid for over many, many years.
mr. eesley, let me ask you a simple question. it seems to me that happen dates regulations, are the same as raising taxes and having the government do it. the government can raise taxes on everybody and then pay for cleaning up power plants, or whatever they want do do to achieve a certain goal. i just want to traps late
this in reality. >> different people benefit and don't benefit. so if you're in a regulated utility and your rice goes up, that goes up the same. i think that's the question. is the tax worth what it's achieved. now, the increase in co2 over the next 60 years is not going to be a detriment to the world. in fact, it would be a net benefit. le e he will agree that if this continues out to the next 100, 150 years, you'd begin to have a cost.
so he questions some of the expebd e pepdtures we're talk about today. i think that's the fundamental thing, thank you. >> thank you. so we'll recognize you for po seconds and then me for 30 seconds and then it's over. all right? >> it's never over. >> objection. i ask unanimous consent to place into the record a very important chart that shows californiaians are paying 20% less and i'm so grateful to mary nichols for playing a role in this.
ben cardin discussing issues facing congress iran's nuclear program and the use of military force against isis. he also talks about maryland politics and battle to replace her. news makers airs sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. taking a look at the u.s. senator floor debate on loretta lynches nomination to replace eric holder. she would become the first female african-american attorney general. her nomination was approved on february 26th. on a 12 to 8 vote with three republicans joining nine democrats and voting to confirm.
watch live on c-span2. >> the promotion of a drug starts 7 to ten years before a drug comes on the market. while it's illegal for company to market a drug before its been approved by the fda it's not illegal to market a disease. drug companies have sometimes invented diseases or exaggerated the importance of certain conditions or exaggerated the importance of a particular mechanism of a drug and plan
keted medical journals and medical meetings and other venues with these messages that are present to prepare the minds of clinicians to accept a particular drug and prepare the minds of consumers to accept a particular condition. c-span3 belongs to american history tv the programs that tell our stories. discover what artifacts reveal about america's past.
created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local satellite provider. john cook joined us to talk about hillary clinton's e-mails. this is just over 40 minutes. >> thooes >> he's the investigation editor. john cook, thanks for being with us. start off with our first question. what is gawker? what does it do? >> gawker media is a network of eight websites gawker.com is a
gots got gossip and news site. there's a site called jezebel that deals with women's issues. we cover all manner of news and entertainment. >> c-span and other networks covered the press conference with hillary clinton but your organization, you in particular, have been looking at this issue trying to get her e-mails since 2013, correct? >> correct. a series of hacks got into the e e-mails of kolcolin powell and other members of the bush
family. released screen grabs of the e-mails showing he had been sending e-mails to hillary clinton at an e-mail account that was hdr22@hillary clinton.com. i did a story and mentioned she was clearly using an off the books server which had been an issue before. as you move the paper from the white house to the libraries. they become public. it was clear that she was doing this.
i asked are you archiving on this server to and from the account. i got no response from the white house or state department or no response from hillary clinton. a filed a freedom of information act at that time for communications. i received a response saying they didn't have that request. >> the screen grabs that you talked about was this the first time that e-mail address, that hdr22 had been reported on or revealed? >> absolutely. there was no inkling prior to
that hack that she was using a private address. federal employees from use inging and make sure they hand over custody of government records on those accounts to the government. it would have been legal to use a gmail address or whatever as long as she was taking care to hand over those e-mails to the custody of the government so when i file a request for those e-mails they can have basicaccess and process. >> when you e-mail this address
it didn't go and went somewhere. >> i'm confident she received that e-mail. >> just a couple of days ago said they were going to sue over getting access to those e-mails. where does that stand in term offense lawsuit? >> we are filing probably today. we're going to file we have one active request with the state department, which is for e-mail
correspondent between one of hillary clinton's top aids and recorders and a listreporters and 34 news organizations. felipe has been known for his colorful exchanges in a very brusque and bullying style in how he manages the press. that was his job to deal with reporters. we filed a request back in 2011. we received a statement they had no e-mails between raines and the reporters and every major
news organization. years later they are still searching. now we know there's a plot at the highest level of the state department to shield e-mail communications from senior staffers. this is not just hillary clinton who had one of these e-mail addresses. one of her top aids had a clinton.com address. he says he did not have one. we're told and have reported that he did use a non-governmental e-mails to transact state business. i don't know if he handed those over to the state department as he was supposed to. maybe he did, maybe he didn't. we're filing probably today, if
not today, we'll get it in monday. >>on >> john cook is the investigations editor for gawker.com. we welcome you to the conversation. by twitter@cspanwj. this freedom of information act what's that process like and how easy generally has it been? >> the obama administration is terrible record on freedom information act requests. when he came into office he made a big deal out of an effort to make his administration transparent.
eric holder issued guidance in terms of being more productive and take less of a secret sans. the bus administration promulgated policy to all agencies in the federal bur bureaucracy saying if you can find a way to not release a record then don't. that has not happened at all. the reverse is true. state department is worst defenders in my experience in terms of just like denying requests that there's a record for. it's not just for recordporters.
i've not seen a list who has access. there are many other people who need to turn their e-mail accounts over to the state department. so those records which are just as releasable need to be so they can be processed and made available if anyone wants them. >> plenty of calls waiting for john cook. michael, thanks for waiting. go ahead. >> i have a couple of comments. i'm small business owner. all this talk we don't care about the e-mails and jobs. why we can't have health care. wild spending by the congressmen. my small town i've got people in jail there that can't pay a $10 medical bill. they're in jail. single mothers. it seems like we spend all this time fighting over old things that no one cares.
it does not affect our lives. you got all this organization this man represents, five or six news organizations. something that will change our lives and affect us on a daily basis. we don't see that. all we see is the national enquirer on our national news channels. do something for us. thank you. >> i appreciate that comment. we do cover other things. we are not exclusively devoted to this issue. i understand this is not a bread and butter issue for the american people. i think it's important. i think it matters how the secretary of state comports with the law. it's way for the press and the
people to hold them accountable. if you care about jobs and how the department of labor is conducting itself, if you care about how the federal bureaucracy is conducting itself, it's how you use the tool to be accountable to the people. i think it's an important story and obviously it's not the only story. i don't think this will be a political issue. i don't really care what the politics of this are and whether or not the people are going to vote on this issue. i doubt it will be a fantastic issue for voters. it's a significant issue for people who care about government transparency.
sglo >> you cited the initial source that triggered your investigation. the name i didn't catch. it sounds like someone was hiding behind the hacker. is he anonymous and is he taking advantage of privacy rules that other people don't have access to and then your source is really anonymous and what would you think about people like edward snowden, et cetera. thank you. >> the name was gouchifer. he's in prison in romania. he was apprehended. i'm not entirely clear on the details of his case. i believe he was indicted in the u.s.
he's been apprehended and is no longer doing those criminal acts. he was not a, he would e-mail, blast e-mail news organizations. these were documents and arti facts that were real and accurate. they were newsworthy. we didn't induce that. we can't want that to happen. if he's out there sending out newsworthy information, we're going to report on it.
i'm a big admirer of ed snowden. i'm fan of what he did. >> on the phone from alabama. >> this is concerning hillary clinton. if you'll read the book hell to pay by barbara olsman it will really open your eyes to her deceptionde deceptive ways. >> do you know anything about that? >> i've never read that book. >> hillary took part in the investigation of nixon in the
watergate tapes. she knows how damaging recording information can be when a 20-minute gap in the nixon tapes resulted in his impeachment in which he resigned. i wish she could resign and stop meddling up the situation. >> i'm going let you go. 30 days make sure you give it 30 days before you call into c c-span program. what do you know of that? >> it is very nixonian this plot that was hatched to keep her governmental communications and private communications out the hands of government. it's about controlling information. the idea this was for convenience because she didn't want to two devices is insulting
to the intelligence of the american people that she thinks that would be a reasonable explanation for why she took the extraordinary steps of setting up an e-mail server apparently in her home monitored and administered outside of the bounds of the state department team that is there to ensure the security of communications. they reason they hatched this scheme so when i filed the request for those communications the state department could say we don't have them. the reason they hatched this scheme is so when congressional investigators asked for e-mails about benghazi or whatever, her e-mails wouldn't be included in whatever state turned over. it was about controlling information. it was also about controlling
information. if you really don't want to use state department e-mail there are other e-mail services. you can use gmail. you can use yahoo whatever. gmail would have been more secure than a server sitting in your basement. they have people whose jobs are to protect the accounts from various adversaries who would try to gain basic says to them. they didn't use google or gmail. the explanation is they don't want google having custody. she wanted to own those e-mails so if there was subpoena, if there was an effort to gain access to them, she was the one who would control what got
turned over, which is exactly what happened. >> republican line, next. >> good morning. she cherry picked those 55,000 pages. i have a few more months. ap didn't request any information around and about benghazi. i hope you do that. they said there were like three months time period missing in what she turned over. also, this whole thing is preposterous. you can't have two e-mail accounts. you have to have a different phone or device for each e-mail account. how insulting to us americans. it's a big deal to me. the other thing is obama, again
said i heard it from it was in the news. what the heck is he doing in there? i mean that's also unbelievable. he never got an e-mail from hillary clinton. >> several points there. thanks for that. any thoughts? >> well, in order, we're not seeking any records concerning benghazi. some of the e-mails that sydney bloomenthal sent did concern benghazi. those were leaked by gouchifer. they were not conversational informal e-mails.
they were intelligence reports. they included source intelligence about benghazi and source in the german ministry of finance says xyz. they were official seeming reports from a previous citizen who is not employed by the state department. we're curious about reporting what that relationship was and why there was this freelance agent who seemed to be doing work for the state department. who was paying? was he paid? we're not seeking anything about benghazi. we're seeking the communications with one of her deputies with reporters.
because we didn't appeal it we can't sue. we could refile it but we know that those e-mails are being processed right now, the 55,000 that she released. we'll see if they are in there. >> just a couple of comments. we want a couple of comments on twitter for john cook of gawker. this from vivian who tweets because no one knew she had a private e-mail no hackers would try to find to hack. why do you have faith in old
servers. hers was probably more secure. you thought using gmail would have been more secure. >> that's what security experts i've talked to and reporters have been telling us. first of all, gouchifer knew. i don't know how long he knew before he released it. it was able to hack in and see he was communicateing with hillary clinton at this off the books e-mail address. gouchifer chose to release that information. i have no other people gained access and seen this address was operational. foreign adversaries are very sophisticated. it's by no mean a stretch of the
imagination to think that the chinese or the iranians or the russians may have learned through their various streams of intelligence about this address. in terms of the whether the state department servers are more secure there are security personnel at state who are, who's whose job it is to ensure the safety of communications. there are teams of people who are good at what they do. i don't know how many people were on duty 24 hours a day to monitor the server that was sitting in hillary clinton's home. i don't know.
i don't know how up to date they were on security patches. we would know what steps were taken by our government. we have no idea what steps were taken by hillary clinton to secure her communications while she was secretary of state because she undertook on her own, unilaterally to mover those communications into a private server that the government didn't know about. >> just under 15 minutes left with our guest john cook from gawker on hillary clinton's use of private e-mail account. we go to madisonville, kentucky and keith on the democrat's line.
>> my question is, hillary is rejecting the fact that we want to have her server. i was wondering if maybe the reason for this is because the bill was using it at one time and if it was turned over to the government and government had computers on there whether it would incriminate bill as well as hillary. >> i have no idea. communications between government employee and her husband, what time you coming home tonight would not be releasable. i would not have access to that. no one would have access to that. if bill clinton were sending her advice on how to handle issues of state, those would be releasable potentially depending
on what the information. >> on those e-mails, that's the individual either secretary clinton or whatever the individual with the government account would have a say over what was a personal and what was a governmental or official business e-mail. >> that is true. in the mornormal course of operations if i'm a state employee well first of all, the employees do not have a say on what is a personal e-mail and what isn't on state e-mails. if i'm a state department employee and i e-mail my wife on my state.gov e-mail, i do not get to say whether that's personal or not. the attorneys who review requests would look at that. if you filed a request for all of john cook's e-mails they turn up the e-mail to my wife saying i'll be home for dinner a state
department staffer or attorney would make the judgment about that e-mail. they would likely say that's not releasable. it's covered by privacy exemptions. if they are using a gmail like say i am at state and use my gmail to say to a co-worker we need to get that report in by 6:00 today that's releasable. let's hear from alfred. republican line. >> thank you for taking my call. i would like to say good job. you've done a really good service to the american voters. the other caller that was condemning you for the investigation that you've done
i would say ignore that. you're allowing us to make a credibility decision about hillary clinton and whether or not we should vote for her or even consider her to be our president. i don't think that we should have a president in office that wants to hide information from the people that they're supposed to serve. thank you very much for taking my call. >> onto dallas texas. hayden is there. >> thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to say that so troubling. it's disgusting to think the our society accepts hillary clinton regardless of the outcome. the problem with that 30% is it's probably makes up about 99% of the media. my question is she's clearly hidden things, broken laws maybe done under the table deals
with saudi arabia for money. my question is how do we get past the liberal media going forward and get to the end result of getting the real information and maybe even prosecuting if it warrants that how do we get to that stage? >> it would be a very very very big stretch to try to gin up criminal charges out of this. it is a conspiracy to defraud the government and defrauding the government has been defined as frustrating the government's abilities, it's a crime to have a conspiracy to defraud the government. that's been defined as frustrating the government's abilities to carry out its normal duties in due course. that's not going to happen. >> would she be under obligation if the committee on benghazi asked her to testify? would they subpoena her and force her to testify? >> as far as i know, yeah.
she's no longer -- yeah. i believe they could. the liberal media is the one pushing this story. i am a liberal. i was first to report on the existence of this e-mail address. they're the ones that broke the story. >> i want to ask you about another issue in this story. that's the per use of a blackberry. her spokeswoman yesterday addressed that. i want to play you her comments and see what you had to say. >> secretary clinton was not issued state department blackberry. that wasn't a requirement. no one is required to be issued state department blackberry. >> communications would require a higher level of security than
just an ordinary blackberry. >> correct not required. >> is that still the policy? >> no. any employee including the secretary is not required to receive a state department issued blackberry. >> why not? why wouldn't you want to control the security of devices being used for official business? >> i'm just stating what our policy is. i'm answering your question. there's no reason to take the tone. obviously she had a personal device. i can't speak to what was done on that and what was not. >> john cook of gawker, what did you hear in the comments by the state department spokeswoman. >> i heard defensiveness. it's astonishing that the security of the communeications of a key government official
were just completely privatized, out sourced so whatever steps hillary clinton decided she was going to take or not take. we have no idea how vulnerable she was or her communications were to interception. what steps she took. it's shocking. >> washington, d.c., doug, good morning. democrat's line. >> good morning. thank you for taking my call. mr. cook, you've used words like scheme, plot. i think you have a bit of a bias here. i have two questions. one, can you tell me why it's important for the public interest and not just feeding the media political complex that this story be covered so aggressively? secondly, do you think there's a double standard where governor bush had his own private server and used his private e-mail
account, secretary powell used a private e-mail account. i'll take my question off the air. >> i think it's public interest because for the simple reason that the law matters. it's the freedom of information law and compliance with that law is important. it's important because the principles embodied in freedom information act are important enough for barack obama to pay lip service to and say he cares about transparency. he wouldn't have permitted this kind of scheme to been operated in the highest levels of his administration. it goes not just to hillary clinton. it goes to barack obama and his hypicrisy and failed false commitment to transparency matters.
i think it breeds lack of accountability. we have a huge problem with excessive secrecy in our government. in terms of a double standard. with colin powell hillary is running for president, colin powell is not. there's a reason there's a lot more attention paid to her side of this. i agree that's a story. it's not a story that gawker is covering. jeb bush you're right. jeb bush has purported e-mail release is a con job as far as i'm concerned. what he released is e-mail from an address at jeb.jeb.org. it was there for citizens of florida and low level administrators to contact him with problems they were having. most of them are from random citizens saying with municipal problems. gawker has filed sunshine law
request in florida for other e-mail accounts that jeb bush used. i am confident that he used other e-mail accounts. the reason i'm account is if you go through what he released from that firstname.lastname@example.org account and look at the morning of september 11, 2001 you'll find from 9:00 a.m. from 1:00 p.m. he got three e-mails. it's impossible for me to believe that the governor of the state in which the president was at the time of the 9/11 attacks only got three e-mails on that morning. i'm confident there are other e-mails that other e-mail accounts he was using that he did not release. we have taken steps to find out if there were and obtain those e-mails. >> let's hear from tony sugarland, texas. independent line.
>> i'd like to thank john cook. without the organization most of the americans wouldn't know what was happening in the country. my question is two parts. what's the difference between petraeus what he did and what allegedly hillary did? that's question number one. number two, as a former government employee, i did have to, when i retired sign a clearance form and now the clearance form came up i believe the other day from a lawyer and i'm reading it it does say that as far as you could be guilty and on and on. i'll take your answer offline. thank you. >> in terms of what preetraeus released information that he knew to be classified to someone cleared to see the information.
i believe he also stored classified information on an insecure system. it will be very interesting to me to see whether any of the information in the 55000 pages of e-mails that hillary clinton has turned over is classified. when this story first broke her defenders and staffers said two things that we know, one of which we know to be false, which is that this doesn't matter because hillary clinton's only e-mailing people at their state addresses. all of those e-mails would have been captured any way so it's a non-issue. we found out that her top aids use these addresses in which their communications would not be reach state department servers. the other thing they said is she did not discuss classified information on her e-mail. maybe that's true. if the state department goes
through 55,000 pages of e-mails and processes them under the freedom of information act and does not try to claim any exemptions it would be an unprecedented vent. the state department is incredibly aggressive. all agencies are incredibly aggressive about redacting information. that would be very difficult to believe. it will be an interesting thing. the state department will have to decide they'll look at an e-mail and say this is
classified. there are people who have been criminally prosecuted for store storing classified information on unclassified systems. it's a crime. >> you can read more of john cook's reporting. he's the investigation editor on gawker.com. thanks for being with us this morning. >> thanks for having me.
i'm proposing we overall the lifeline program and they get make it concurrent and in sync with the information age pm challenge the providers to give more to their consumers, the prices and opportunities have gone down, have been more exposed for the rest of us. it should be for lifeline consumers. get the providers out of certification business. that's been the number one problem that we've been seeing with not so positive headlines. it is vulnerability in the system that we need to plug. >> monday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the communeicators. a discussion on the future of the feminist movement from friday's washington journal.
this is 40 minutes. >> here with us this morning to talk about the release of a couple of reports on the progress of women, including the full participation report. no ceilings report from the clinton foundation and the bill and melinda gates foundation. thank you for joining us. >> good morning. >> what does this report reveal about the progress on women? >> it shows a lot of progress and major gains. it also shows there's still gaps and major gaps in our progress. there isn't improvement and it shows a need for goals world wide but we also have a lot of work to do. >> in terms of the timing of this report coming out, how
frequently does something like this come out and what's the protocol for developing the research on it? >> it's a very important time line. it's 20 years since the fourth world conference on women that the united nations had in 1995. it measures the gains in that 20 years. there was a plan of action developed 20 years ago for all the member nations, about 189 nations that participated in we call the beijing conference because it occurred there. it had 14,000 people. a huge effort and had all these goals. what the gates foundation and the clinton foundation and the clinton foundation did was that they measured the gains. it was like an army of researchers that they deployed.
each of the major goals. this is huge effort. it was health care education economic gains, political leadership. it's fantastic. it's a fantastic report. also participating was the world center at ucla and also the economists intelligence unit. it was really a large team. they looked at all the data that could be viewed as reliable country after country. some of the countries the data isn't there but we have a great deal. we have a lot more knowledge of where we are. you can't make progress unless you know where you are. i found it very encouraging and very impressing report. >> i'll open up the conversation for our c-span viewers and
listeners. how much progress have you seen? just looking at some of the top line figures from the no ceiling report from the clinton foundation and from the bill and melinda gates foundation they found more laws and countries protect women's rights but the laws often go unenforced. girls still face unique obstacles and discriminatory treatment.
what what's the number one thing that you would like the see in the next 20 years of progress in women's rights? >> we have the maternal mortality rates which is very good. there's a mayor gap injor gap. we still have areas that we have to improve health care. evening though we have actually really cut maternal mortality rates but we could do much better. it's goal by goal. i think that one of the most encouraging things is that the united nations is going to develop another 15 years of goals. we know one thing from the last
20 years. when you develop goals things happen. you said that laws aren't enforced. that's true unfortunately. they now have an equality provision for girls and women. you'd be surprised. >> let's look at the figure in terms of a number of women that are participating in legislatures this parliament around the world. >> that's right. >> rwanda has the highest percentage with 63%. bolivia, 53%. the united states with 19.3%. does the number of women in a
legislative body translate into better legislation for women's rights better progress for women? >> yes it does. there's no question. the higher the percentage of women participating, the more emphasis on the social programs and health care and the quality of life. the more women that participate in the civil society you have real gains. it's just like, in education. if you educate women, you have a multiflier effect. everybody wins. you have an increase in the gross domestic product. you're hitting poverty at a much higher rate. this is not just theory anymore. >> we have dave in north carolina.
independent line. you're on the air. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i would like to know what president has appointed women to highest position in american history? which president has done that? >> do you want me to answer that? it's very easy. the most appointments have now come from president obama. it's been amazing. almost 47% of his judiciary appointments have very high but also the executive positions. he's also done a great deal in improving the representation from diverse group of women from more women of color as well as in every field much more leadership has been appointed from president obama for women. >> obviously, one of those
points was hillary clinton as his secretary of state. it was the backdrop of the united nations meeting on women that former secretary clinton held her news conference this week on her e-mail use. hillary clinton releases a report on women at an audiocassette kwardawkward time. what's your thought how this will work out for her politicallypolitical ly ly? >> the u.n. had a meeting. it does this every year for two weeks. that's why i'm up here too because we have a delegation of girls here. there's women here from all over the world. the united nations women program is very extensive. that's why hillary clinton was here. she's one of the greatest advocates worldwide for increasing the position of women, status of women in all
areas. the press conference was dominated by her e-mail issue right now. it shouldn't of shadow why she was here because she's really given encouragement to women worldwide. >> let's hear next from derick in michigan on our independents line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. here's my question. basically, since your organization has been around basically, let's talk from 1975 forward, the decline of the american family is in the worst shape it's ever been. we have more single mothers. that's one of my main points. we have the decline of two-parent families. we had 50 million abortions.
my question to you is, do you look at it as a failure there's more single mothers. do you see he'll be favorable about your activities? thank you. >> let's go what happened in the last 75 years. women's economic opportunities have increased. women's educational opportunities have increased. as far as single mothers the president of the united states two presidents of the united states president clinton and president obama have been raised by single mothers. the reality is the more opportunity for women there are more opportunity for their children. health standards have improved. we've, the one area that i'm not very happy about here and there's others too, we're lagging behind in political representation although it is
going up. the poorest levels in our own country the mortality rate has increased. it's still low compared to the developing world but it has increased. lagging behind in some areas. we should have paid family medical leave. if the feminist policies were more followed we have been having opposition constantly, we would have a stronger family because paid family medical leave helps women take time off from work when they have children. it also helps them take time off of work when there is a sick family member. in the united states the only advanced country without paid family medical leave. i totally disagree with you. we have made real progress for girls and women that have helped the entire country.
>> and that caller said your organization you are president of the feminist majority foundation but many years president of the national organization for women. what is your current organization? what's the focus of the feminist majority? >> the feminist majority foundation we have been in existence 28 years. basically we have educational projects. we have a large college campus program. we have a program for girls 6 to 12 from 6th grade to 12th grade which they study human rights and help. they have partner schools in developing countries. we do a lot of work on reproductive health care and rights. we work on violence against women. we have a very extensive program project by project working to improve the lives of women and girls. and i believe the entire
community because girls and boys one thing we even show in this report as girls standards and opportunities increase so do boys. and the entire society has benefitted. >> comments on twitter. this is a comment from victor who says that there are improvements, there are undeniable improvements for women in the last 50 years but too many stagnant situations with no improvements for women. could you address maybe a situation or two that you would find here in the united states as a stagnant situation that hasn't moved forward for women in the last 20 years? >> we don't have paid family medical leave. we have been -- i testified for it in the '80s. it's just ridiculous that we do not have paid family leave and it hurts. we have 48% of the workforce of the women who are working do not
have one day of paid sick leave. this only hurts not only them but their family. and it's a disgrace. we have worked very hard for it. we have had persistent right wing opposition to it. and frankly business opposition. and it has done nothing but hurt poor women. also, our minimum wage has not kept up and the bulk of the people at the minimum wage are women. to live in a big city and have a minimum wage of $7.25 is just ridiculous. that is why there is a $15 minimum wage movement. when you look at minimum wage and the fact that women don't even have sick day paid leave let alone family medical leave when they have either a child or sick family member, this only hurts our society.
i think we have to change this. this benefits no one. and it's really cruel and unusual. >> here is seattle, washington and amy is on the democrats line. >> caller: i'm not sure we are talking about the u.s. or the whole world but i'm wondering if there is anything in the report about gentleital mutilation? >> there has been some progress but this is an area where it has been slow. everything that -- you know, we wish it was stronger let's put it that way. and it is a report the clinton foundation report, it's on the whole world. we are talking about 190 countries. but there is much area for improvement still needed especially in subsahara africa
where, for example we have increased the health care for women world wide. we have halved the maternal mortality rate but the face of aids has become a woman and especially a young woman meaning they have it at about twice the rate of young men now. this is an area that we have to work harder on. it goes country by country. and united states does need its own improvements. that's why i also talk about the united states as well as key areas. by the way there are some areas where i don't think the united states americans are so aware. in afghanistan there has been a market improvement in the maternal mortality rate has been very much reduced. the number of girls in elementary education has
increased significantly. we are about 40% of the girls who are now going to school there. there is about 8 million kids in elementary education or in educational facilities. about 20% of the college kids in afghanistan are now women. we hear maybe some of the really bad things and don't hear the improvements in areas like afghanistan. but, of course there is a long way to go and we know that. that's why it's so important that the united nations and multi lateral groups institutions are concentrating on we have to improve the living conditions of girls and women in the world. >> our next caller is in spring valley, new york. republican line. >> good morning. can you hear me? >> yes we can. go ahead. >> sure. >> caller: i don't know the details about it but the fact that i know is that the last two
years since the changes in the insurance with the obamacare my friends that struggle a lot with woman's issues, they became like a lot harder to get things paid and everything else. >> because of what? >> caller: the amount of women's issues people have trouble a lot more with to get insurance and insurance to pay for ever since the last two years and the changes in the insurance companies because of obamacare or whatever it was. >> obamacare or the affordable care act has improved the number of women that are now covered. in fact, i think it is something like 14 million more people in the united states have health insurance than they did before. and it's also improved the number of people who have
accessibility to medicaid which is very important. so it's really been a gain, not a decrease. and i would say that most authorities would say that without question. and it's very important that it continues because it's increasing the number of people who have access to health insurance and to health care. so it's very important gain. and for women a very big gain because it has a health care package for the well women that covers immunizations. it covers checkups, annual visits that gives you access to immunizations all for free and also for family planning or contraceptives with no cost and no copays. so essentially it covers, for
example, domestic violence. it has counseling on breast feeding as well as prenatal visits. so it's a very -- the well woman package actually -- it covers more than just the people under the affordable care act. it's a requirement now nationwide for health insurance. so it's a very big advance. >> a piece in the career section in the "wall street journal" this week is headlined that men enlist in fight for gender equality. they write in this piece that about 60 male bosses from three other major employers completed a 6-month program organized by catalysts. participants learn to improve by building alliances with men. guys listen to guys notes
catalyst president deborah gill s. it's advised 17 fortune 500 companies last year to increase men's involvement in advancing women. i want to ask you in absence or in federal or state action on gender issues what sort of progress are we seeing in the private sector? >> we are seeing some progress. we are seeing an increase in women on corporate boards and a small increase in women in top leadership. so there is -- i do think the involvement of men -- one of the things about reports like this is that you can see in real terms -- anybody wants to see the report you can get it through the clinton foundation. they also have an interactive database that you can access country by country. but you can see how the society as a whole is improved when conditions for women improve. and i think that everybody's winners.