tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 5, 2015 9:00pm-11:01pm EDT
we have come pretty far in a very short time within dhs building unity of effort across the various components. >> do you ever see a time coast guard returning to the department of defense and out of homeland security? >> probably not. one value we bring to dod is we can go title 10, we're title 10 service which means we are a military service but we also do title 14. if you look at any campaign plan, there's probably some embargo provision written in into that that may require a law enforcement authority which the coast guard can bring to the table. then if we have to go to title 10 we can just as easily do that on the fly as well. our systems are interoperable. i think that's a key part so we don't come with systems that can't speak with dod zips terms so our new platforms have navy type, navy owned but fully
interoperability with our allied brethrens. >> when it comes to migration especially from the caribbean, do you support the feet dry policy? how have recent diplomatic efforts in cuba likely to affect that? >> i'll let you draw your conclusions. we have brand-new response cutters. they are great platforms. there was an expectation that a migration policy was going to change around christmas. it didn't but that was the perception back in cuba so we had a spike in migration. we were able to apprehend almost every one of those boats destined for the florida coastline. but then it takes five days to go through a screening process before these folks are brought back to cuba. within the last two weeks we had two my grants that shot
themselves, then were medevac'd before we apprehended them so they were medevac'd back to the united states. we have others that will self-mutilate to do whatever it takes to get their feet dry in the united states. meanwhile our crews are trying to safeguard these folks for five days while they pick up more because of a feet dry policy. it puts our people at risk. it puts others at risk. when you rook at our policy versus what's played out, off the north coast of offer kafric. many of these folks are in unsea worthy and they'll probably go back and try to cross again. the feet dry policy makes it chal lepg for those doing
enforcement to a safeguard them. >> just a few seconds left. i'll first present you with a national press club mug. >> thank you. >> noting that we are the leading organization for professional journalists and fight for a free press korld wide, i'm going to ask you one little question about the mets. are you going to -- are the mets going all the way this year? >> so 1969. so you had a late acquisition, mvp of that world series. the names have changed a little bit. now there are names like aribe, mets have already had the tom
severs. they've got the pitching staff, the lhitting. when i throw the opening pitch tomorrow, ifty throw a warm burner and it hits matt scherzer in the shin and he's taken out for the next two weeks? i wouldn't do that as you know, the mets were skaut up in the bernie madoff scheme and they auctioned off a good part of the team. i go back to 1962 when they had no place to go but up. when you look at a coast guard sometimes you can relate to the mets. you've got no place to go but up. you got the mets destined for the world series and you got the coast guard doing the same thing.
>> how about another round of applause for admiral? we'll see you back here hopefully on august 12th with reverend bishop. if you'd like a copy of today's program or to learn more about the national press club please go to our website, the www.press.org. thank you, we are adjoined. hear the supreme court oral argument that played a part in top movies.
hear the supreme court oral argument from four cases that played a part in popular movies saturdays in august at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio. listen to c-span radio at 90.1 fm in the washington, d.c. area. or download our c-span radio app. reuters has reporteded that the state department office set up to independently grade global efforts to fight human trafficking was pressured into inflating assessments of 14 countries. the result is that cuba and malaysia upgraded taken off "the blacklist" of countries that have failed to combat modern day slavery. members of the senate foreign relations committee will hold a hearing at 10:00 a.m. eastern on
c-span. the times has a futility index when it comes to looking at congress. >> vimi started it in 2011 when congress was hitting the depths of what i call legislative utility. nothing was getting passed. i came up with a system of measuring how much action is going on in congress. given where things were, i called it the legislative futility index. the latest one suggests things are getting better. we're still sticking with ledge la length legislative futility. >> you chart total floor votes cast. with those two in mind paint a picture of the activity of congress. >> it is a number of bills that are passed by each chamber.
number of bills signed into law by the president because sometimes the house will pass a bill and the senate will ignore it. i go with the amount of floor time which is just a measure of how much time congress is in session versus away. i go to the number pages added to the congressional record which is a compilation of everything that happens on floor. it is a way of measuring other activity. then floor votes. overall -- congresses are two years, first and second session. the second session is almost always more productive because you don't start from scratch. you basically start at zero for bill numbers when you start with a new congress. so this is the best first year
of a congress since the first year of president obama's first administration. you have about maybe one-third more bills being enacted into law and you have about -- substantially more floor votes than the previous two first sessions of congress. is can see the marked difference notice floor pace on both the senate and house floors and? on the attitude of members of cathol congress. they are actually offering proposals, trying to strike bipartisan deals. we haven't seen this years, possibly decades. two bipartisan deals that came
out of the house. one was on medicare it was known as the boehner-pelosi deal. they were basically the drivers mind this deal which created -- this doc fix has been in issue for years, it was a payment formula for doctors who treat medicare patients. it's bedevilled congress for year. they never had hundreds of billions of dollars lying around to spend on it to fix it. bap bap boehner and pelosi came up with a deal, they agreed on it and they basically dropped it on the senate and the senate was
forced to take it or leave it. the senate usually drives the conversation if you'd asked me at the beginning of the year if we'd been talking about a boehner-pelosi compromise on an entitlement program, i'd say you're crazy. the minority of the democrats in this case see the that the republicans are in the majority and butted heads with republicans on issues where they think they can find cooperation. democrats are looking at the political landscape. in they want to have a role innen legislation it is going to
have to be through bipartisan compromise. the usa freedom act that is in it the process of undoing the f the senior members of the judiciary committee, also a take it or leave it proposition. they palsed it overwhelmingly, went to the senators and said you don't have bipartisan on anything, you got to take our bill. mitch mcconnell was forced to accept that. >> the productivity of congress is our topic this morning. if you want to talk about congress and what they're doing legislative
legislatively, we're taking your calls. stephenen dinan of the "washington times." how much of actual productivity is attributeded to what the leadership doing? in both sides you have republicans and tea party conservatives who go against the establishment sometimes. >> that was part of the problem in the previous few years. take the house. in the house you had some 230 or republicans of which anywhere from 100 to 170 might have taken the so called tea party position and the republican leaders had to deal with that. there were a number of instances
where he would basically keep ooh republicans and ten thurn to nancy pelosi and ask her to deliver democrats votes for these things tea party republicans didn't want to do. you saw a number of these bills passed by one chamber and died in the other chamber. with both chambers now controlled by republicans that dynamic has changed. the less friction there is the more likely you are to get legislative activity. the other big thing, the senate does control a lot of this. withal filibuster and the fact that now it takes 60 votes. even if you don't have a real live filibuster, a lot of the
time just to save time leaders will agree to a 60 vote threshold for this amendment. they just agree. everything major in congress is going to take 60 votes in the senate. given those powers in the senate for any single senator to force the issue, a couple of things have changed. the biggest thing that republicans committed to allowing more amendments. last year there were 15 floor vot votes. a lot of the rank and file senators are having a say in the legislation. they have a chance if you can write a good proposal and get 60 votes for it, you can get your way. you get your piece of that bill. it gets buy-in from those rank
and file. senate democrats have not blocked as many bills at the outset as republicans blocked at the outset in the previous couple of congresses. it is partly leadership decisions. it is a significant but not monumental change. >> caleb in washington, go ahead. >> caller: i almost had a car accident when i heard you lament slow pace of new laws being added to the books. that's crazy for several reasons. one, slow pace compared to what? the last few years? it is certainly not slow is had historically. we had a rash of new laws added to the books.
why would you think that's a good thing? most of the time when new laws are asked, it is an encroachment on civil liberties. i know you're talking about what you perceive to be the slow pace of congress but that fails to take into account the rate at which regulations are added to the books. >> we'll let our guest answer. >> there are a lot of interesting points there. when i do the legisladggislativ utility index, i reader conservative readers who say it is better when congress doesn't do anything. whenever they do something, they get in our wallets and raise our taxes. we prefer they not do anything.
i am trying to figure out a way to mesh significant laws versus less significant laws and i haven't figure out a way to do that. from the conservative standpoint, the argument that i do hear that would oppose the caller is so much of government is on auto pilot at this point. spending with iss eon auto pilo. if congress wants to rein that in, they'll have to pass that to rein in recovery reach. legislative action doesn't necessarily mean new laws are going into your pocketbooks.
sometimes it means trying to undo regulations these folks don't like. i guess the first thing the caller mentioned was the pace. these records are from the library of congress collects them and publishes them every month at the beginning of the congressional record. they go back to 1947. it is a slower pace than in the '70s, '80s and '90s. >> if you go to our congress page we keep our own tracking of debating and voting in a bar graph form you can look at various factors. c-span.org. carol from new mexico, hole lel. >> caller: good morning. i guess i am wondering about the
metrics that this gentleman is using. do you have a different way to count silly votes, repealing of obamacare or amendments that they tack on and as it in the house because they're going to attach any republican bill or amendment in the house but ones that have no chance of going anywhere either in the senate or being signed by the president? do you have a way to separate the goofy ones out from the real ones? >> it's a good question. part of the issue is i don't want to make judgment calls about what a silly amendment is. you have both chambers in charge of both parties -- we've had all sorts of combination.
we've had republicans in control of the r senate and visa versa. what's a silly amendment for one party is not silly for the other party. in the future i'm trying to make the call of renaming of a post office which does take legislation and i guess i would say a more significant bill such as the affordable care act or passage of the usa freedom act, big legislation that will rewrite a major part of u.s. code or solve a major issue. i'm happy for folks poking at the metrics i use.
one thing i would say that i go back on is because the numbers stretch back so far the bipartisanship of that. every part in the majority in the house does what the caller was talking about. >> burt from columbus, georgia. >> you got to remember it is election year and they don't want to pass any vote that's going to let their constituency made. therefore they're all out trying to get votes and so therefore they just going to run their mouths and be politicians for a while, try to be states man. but i don't see a staltesman up there as far as i'm concerned because they are all doing things for the best interests of
them getting re-elected. they don't hear about the american people. they don't hear what people think outside the beltway. all they care about is going back home and listening to people that vote for them and trying to do something that those people want to do. then come backs to congress, make more money, pass more laws to make more money and therefore -- then you got obama up here passing all thesicstive orders and trying to be the congress. he's passing all these executive orders to benefit his party and also benefit him and the muslim minority that he represents. therefore it is just stupid to think that they going to do anything. they done this forever. ever since i been poll dix since i was 10 years old. it is the same story everynd o
every. n nop. >> there are number things to quibble with there. if you look at last year which was and election year you saw some of what caller was talking about with congress not taking votes on some of these thorn ya issues. republicans believed harry reid wasn't allowing a lot of amendment votes because he didn't want his own members to face tough votes that could come back to bite him in the election. republicans promised a more open process. this is sort of the corollary, democrats didn't get a chance to show independence from president obama last year.
a will t there are a lot of reasons why -- the system in congress only works if we as voters know where our folks stand. one of the most important ways we know where they stand to take votes on amendments. that's one reason i'm happy to see all the extra amendments coming through the senate. >> steven dinan from the "washington times." >> caller: hello. thanks for taking my call. his point about.
>> you're on. >> caller: yes. mr. dinn dinan's point about cos working together now is the most significant. i think it is good and i think it is encouragement for us to see that. but my question is, do you believe that they are actually working for their constituents, these congressmen and senators, or the special interests have a lot to play in that? how can we rein them in? should they make their own ameniti amendments say, if we come to ahood here we have to be forced to compromise or the bill dies
so there is not a lot of waste of time. >> voters obviously always hold the ultimate rein here which is re-election. i'm thrilled the caller mentioned the boehner-pelosi xh compromise. that issue has bedevilled for years. we're likely to see other instances of bipartisan compromise. the highway bill right now top democrats and rams aepublicans
working on a way to come up with funding. the key problem has been where do you get the money in a time with pressure to cut budgets more. looks like we may end with bipartisan compromise on that. the house is looking for a big deal on this. the other thing, you've already seen -- the bill has both chambers compromise, criminal justice reform. we could see another huge bipartisan compromise out of criminal justice reform. if we get either or both of those this will be an important
congress. >> what does this signal do about this deal, this idea of people getting along to get things done? >> you're going to see majorities of bolt chambers vote against it. this is where president obama because of the way that the review act as written congress will pass resolutions of disapproval overturning this. the president will almost certainly veto those. he needs a one-third vote in either chamber to establish his position. he's going to do exactly what you talked about, convincing
those democrats. tim cain was involved in writing the whole process that allows congress to rewrite the sanctions. yes yesterday we saw a member of house democratic leadership in congressman steve israel come out and announce they can't support it. all of these are very influential names. i don't think -- the president hasn't won this debate yet. though he is getting closer. >> there is the resolution disapproval that you saw.
what does a resolution of disapproval? >> the process says kpg gets 60 days to review the deal that the president submits. the administration said those aren't our deals. we've submitted what we had to submit so you've got what you got. we're in the 0 dare period right now. congress had a choice to either introduce and try to pass a resolution approval, president obama we give you an affirmative yes. they could take no action in which case after a certain period of time the deal would go into place. or they can try and pass an act of negative saying we disagree with what you did, we're going
to try and overturn this what we think is bad policy. republicans in congress and a number of democrats are following through with trying to overturn it. >> ken from hudson, florida. >> caller: good morning. i have a comment in looking at the congress which has been labeled as recently the most unprou unproductive congress in history. think america is frustrated because it appears elected officials in congress appear to be per pet actually campaigning all the time, they're not focused on getting work done but showboat and create sound pieces for condition campaign ads, for
example, ted cruz on the floor of the senate with his filibuster. seems like they're not interested in getting work done. under the affordable care act the repeal and replace. they've never been held accountable with what they would replace it with. more recently iranian nuclear deal. they were already on the news giving statements about how they're going to vote against the deal and that it is a terrible deal. however as the brpresident had asked, what is the alternative and they cannot come up with anything. so my question is to your guest there who has been doing the research, does he have an opinion as to why this particular congress during this administration has been so obstructionist to the point of closing down the government. second, is there any data to show in the history of our union that we've had a congress that has been so obstructionist. thank you.
>> the data we did hit the depths of productivity over the previous two congresses, they were far and away the least productive congresses going back to 1947. a stunning lack of productivity. this congress, through the first six months, is definitely better snan those previous two congresses. i guess it is important, congresses are two-year congresses. we're in the 114th kpg right now. tieing it all together with the past couple of congresses which are when you had republicans in control of the house and democrats in control of the senate. it is not the same congress. this congress is slate --
slightly more productive than the previous two. when they take votes even if some people think they are ridiculous votes, voters get to see where they stand. republicans, their standpoint for why they've taken some votes on obamacare is in order to try to let all the voters where their lawmakers stab nd on the individual mandate part of it, the businessman date, conceptive mandate, there have been votes on each of those. even those those votes are likely to fail, they go back to voters and say here is where i stand. then we make the decision. i'm stlithrilled with more vote. somebody else does want so see
the votes. >> tom in clinton, maryland. >> caller: can you hear me okay? >> you're on. >> caller: this is an historic time. this would be great time to put a 5 cent tax on a flon gallon o so we could fix our highways. i think who's holding this up, i think we should be doing something in that regard. as far as iran, are you going to send your child over there to fight a war? we cop handle this diplomatic for a period of time. we have a strong army. we have an air force that can handle our enemy if we have to. why put ourselves in that
position? >> olged fung hlg krilgd are are a . >> on the five-cent gas tax, that would have been nancy pelosi's position, a user fee essentially on those who drive cars in order to pay for more roads. almost all republicans have flat-out ruled that out. there are a number of folks in congress who believe that gas tax would have been the way to go. obviously this is the need to come to an agreement. democrats will continue to talk about option a, gas tax increase and make that position known, once that's clear that's not going to happen, congress needs to move to position b, in this case, the solution that the house republicans and democrats are looking at is a repatriation
tax. that's basically a one-time tax on corporate income earned overseas that would be brought back to the u.s. in a one-time tax to get a at some of that money. the tax would fund the highway building bill. there's supposed to be enough left over to do some of the other things that congress might want to do. >> margaret where laramie, wyoming, independent line. hi. >> caller: hello, good morning. i have a question for stephen dinan. could he tell me a bit more about actual snap, that's supplemental nutritional assistance program and the congressional activity that took
place in that particular program in the 114th congress? thank you. >> i'm actually not familiar with the status of s.n.a.p. we're coming up on the time for the spending bills to all be passed. all the things i said about the productivity of congress could very well be dented by this appropriations process. >> paint the scenario. >> the problem is republicans for the first time in years -- well congress for first time in years reached a budget out of both chambers of congress. house and senate. it had been 2009 since we last had a unified congressional budget. republicans in control wrote that budget and wrote the spending levels such that defense got a boost over what the sequester would be using what i will call a budget gimmick. the democratic programs did not
get a boost in spending. democrats have said they can't live with that. you need to boost all spending, domestic and defense spending. a couple of snafus in the house on other issues, including the confederate flag at national parks which derailed the house appropriations process. the house has passed 6 of its 12 annual spending bills. the is that hasn't passed any. the senate hasn't passed any. they'll come back in september with a lot of other things on their plate including the iran sanctions. . deadline for fasting funding to keep the government funding through fiscal year or into fiscal year 2016 is september
30. it is almost impossible that congress gets all 12 bills done. they're likely to pass a short-term i think on capitol hill we call a cr or continuing resolution to keep the government funded into the beginning of the fiscal year. some of these things like planned parenthood still anger enough republicans who say we'll continue funding for most of the government we don't want continue funding for planned parent ho parenthood. it goes back to -- it depends how many conservative republicans to the right say we can't vote for anything. if boehner and mitch mcconnell can create a coalition in the center without them they'll
probably do that. if they can't you are left with a real stalemate. how we get to a point where there isn't a shutdown is not clear. >> derek from pensacola, florida. >> caller: yes. good morning. i want to make a few points. one, why? the american news media telling the people that this isn't american's obama deal, that this is a multi-national deal and all why don't they also tell american people that the rain yans are fig iranians are fighting along with us in iraq and why do we care so much what israel thinks when it is not in our interests? >> there are a number of members who are making those points.
in addition to the fact they think the inspection regime created to verify whether iran is following through on its terms is long enough. others say they are wary of the side agreement that the iaea has reached with iran. it is going to be a very interesting vote. i think the president probably ends up getting the support needs. >> the house is out, senate finishing up on cyber security. >> the breaches we have seen have brought a lot of attention to this. this is an issue that's been around forever. it popped up on the senate floor a couple of times. they basically couldn't get agreement on it. they finally have a bipartisan agreement out of the committee. now they're stuck in stand --
they're stuck disagreement over how many amendments to allow. if they didn't have vacation at the end of this week it might be easier to get something done because mitch mcconnell could say everybody will have their say. he can't do that because everybody everybody is eager to get out of there are. it's negotiation how many amendments they'll allow. >> how many legislator days will they have when they get back? >> you have certain holidays built into the schedule for the jewish religious calendar. the peep is coming to address congress and the iran nuclear
sanctions. your viewers are very familiar with the scene of the snaenate. you might see something stunning as they're all on the floor. that's going to take up time. i'd say you probably have three, four, maybe five, six days of actual time that you could devote to this but you'll probably never see it reach the floor until there is a continuing resolution. >> artie, hello. >> caller: good morning, how you guys doing? pedro, i just want to bring up something to stephen here without about this republican party and how much they're not
getting done in congress today. right from obama's first inauguration, mitch mcconnell came up with this idea of obstruction everything president obama wanted to do. then to go further into coming up with this oath to grover norqui norquist. how come these people are allowed to do such things? they already took the oath to the american people when they took the office. you talk about obstruction. these people are causing the division in this congress. that's all i got to say about that. >> i know a lot of people have different opinions about grover norqui norquist, americans for tax reforms, no new taxes pledge. . he's noft the only group that asked people to sign pledges. we as voters should want our lawmakers to tell us what
they're going to do, and then we get to judge them on how well they live up to that. norquist's pledge is a pledge they won't raise taxes during their time in office. if they break that we get to jump them for breaking that. as they face voters they can use that pledged a say here is what i will do because i've sign my name to a document. i think those sorts off pledges -- you may disagree with the specifics of one pledge or another or one statement or another but i think telling voters wlaur's going to do is a good thick. >> plano, texas, pat. >> caller: hi. i'm a long-time follower of c-span. i think c-span is really good. this really issue of obstructionism. i've washington nancy pelosi under bush bragged about it. obamacare went through without
any markups, went through reconciliations without the senate without a closure vote. my big issue -- i used to watch mark-up hearing all the time on c-sp c-span. just don't see those things anymore. we don't do appropriation bills. i don't think many americans are aware of what the process is an that we've so dramatically deviated from the process that i grew up with in america and we just throw these names back and forth. i wish c-span would more, if you will, teach people in an objective way. i used to get all of moo news on c-span because you see the facts, not the spin on tv and the tables. somehow we need to get back to that. >> i actually -- the caller raises conference committees. it is a really good point. that's another plemeasure i use my futility index is the number.
conference committees because it a sign of legislative health. the last few years why had zero bills come out of conference the last few years. we've had several bills go through this congress in just six months of this session so there is more health there. i have actually been wantinging to say this on c-span for a long time. c-span is invaluable -- i've been covering congress for 15 years. i run "washington times" political team. your viewers get the best view that's out there of what goes on in congress. you see what a reporter's day is like. you reach our conclusions same way we reach our own conclusions it is the greatest resource, the
data you guys have online. it is spectacular. your viewers are so lucky. >> lou from carmichaels, pennsylvania, hi. >> caller: yes, good morning. c pennsylvania. >> yes, hello. >> you're on. go ahead. >> i have a question about the nuclear option that the senate used when the democrats were in office. and i wonder if you can explain that to me buzz it is my been dauz it is my -- because it is my understanding they got around the closure roads by using all of that and why don't the republicans go ahead and do the pay back. thank you. >> i'm glad you asked that. it is a really good question. the nuclear option has two parts to it. the part that we call the nuclear option was the way that the rules were changed, the democrats used a parliament tactic that required a majority vote in order to change the rules as opposed to going through the rules committee
which required two third votes. and that was the nuclear option. but the change to reduce the threshold for over coming a filibuster on nominations other than supreme court nominations but it only requires a imagine order to over come a filibuster. the republicans have left that in place. so if a republican president were to come in the future and would you see democratic opposition, and republicans still control the senate, they could get the nominees through the same way they did for president obama. >> and i know you track this, when do you release the information then? >> usually at the six month mark and the year mark. and it is -- yeah, i'm going to take very heart illy whether i change it from futility index to productivity index. >> because we are in an election year, do you expect the numbers will change because it is an election year. >> they change but for a different reason which is what i
was talking about earlier, the second session of a congress, because so many bills are still active and live for the second session, it is not like congress is starting over, when they are coming back they are getting right into it. so you will see action, you might not tackle as many big issues which is why if i could i would find a distinguish the post offices from major insulation. >> and it is called the washingtonin flex, steven dinan, thank you. >> the recent rise on violent crime in cities. then miami herald correspondent carol rosenberg on white house move to shut down guantanamo bay. join the conversation. washington journal is live each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.
the leaders of canada's four major parties participate in a televised debate. this is the first debate scheduled with all four party leaders. they are prime minister stephen harper. new democratic party leader thomas mull care. just intrudo and green party leader elizabeth may. the debate hosted by mcclain's magazine will be live on c-span and c-span radio. here to join us about the president's of the administration's plan for climate change are two guests, myron ebell of the competitivent prize ins tout and joined by jeremy symons of the environmental defense fund, the assistant vice president for climate political affairs. to both of you gentlemen, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> we saw the specifics of what the president wants to see as far as filter and power. mr. simons, let's start with you
if, gets his way, what is the result. >> we'll see less pollution and a stronger economy and better health benefits for the older suffering from asthma and other air pollution because fundamentally the clean power plant is the first ever national standards on carbon pollution that puts limits on the smokestack pollution coming from power plant and that is a big deal because power plants are the biggest source of carbon pollution in the nation. >> and mr.ee bell what do you see as a result of this effort by the administration in. >> if they are successful, i see a continued stagnation as prices go up, electric rates go up, particularly in the heartland states that have the lowest price of electricity and that is where the manufacturing base is and people who cannot afford bills and put out of work as manufacturers have to move out
of the country to find lower cost production areas. >> just to offer you specifics from the deal, the plan would produce carbon dioxide by 32% by the year 2030 and add up to 30% more renewable production by 2030 and compliance by the states set to begin in 2022. as far as 309% reduction to both of you, is that a realistic goal to reduce everything by 30%, mr. simons? >> when we've reduced the cash bon pollution in the last ten years and now we have another 17% reduction over the next 15 years. it is really a continuation of the trend but the important thing is the mission continues to go down and instead of up and that is through clean energy. the clean energy revolution is here. what i think will happen is we'll see the targets achieve much faster than is called for in the plan now the direction is set and it is clear that carbon
pollution is no longer rewarded in the market place and rather we're troying to get to clean. >> what about the point as far as the industries that it will hit most, particularly the coal industry. >> well here we go again. i mean, every time the epa comes out with a filter act rule it attacked by industry as the end of the economy and the huge burden on consumers and the reality is with extensive analysis on the filter act this bipartisan piece of legislation has worked well and benefits have exceeded costs cumulatively across all pollutants by over a factor of ten and we significantly reduced other pollute abouts like sulpher and ox and other in the ozone while growing the economy and we can do that again here but the companies that fundent prize institute continue to make the claims because they are afraid of embracing the clean energy smuft but for consumers it is a good deal. the cost of solar has come down
by 80% since 2008. and the cost of coal, according to the energy information station administration the cost of coal will go up 40% between now and 2030. that has nothing to do with the clean power act, it is just that fossil fuels are more expensive and clean energy is the future. mr. ebell. >> we are trying these in some states, particularly california, new england and new york. and we see economies that are dead in the water. people who can't afford their electric bills who have to choose tween heating and eating. and so we've already seen the future and we've seen how it works. if you want to look at the parts of the country that are comparatively economically prospering, that is where you see coal-fired power, gas fired power and lower electric rates and cost of production and people who don't have to pay so much for their energy bill. look, all of the plants, jeremy
and all of the environmental groups and the administration administration talk a very good game but let's look where the policies have been implemented. let's look at california. it is an economic basket case. the energy costs aren't the only reasons, there are other crazy pursuits out there but for all of the advantages it has to be in the mess it is in awith a bankrupt government and $1,000 a month electric bills in many places, we've seen the future and it does not work. >> that is just not true. california is the seventh biggest economy and they are in the position to win the race to the top amongst the states to get to the clean energy future first because if we improve energy efficiency that will create jobs and clean energy is creating a job every 10 minutes in this country. wouldn't you want it to be in your state. it is not just california and new york. the plan, one of the key
features, it lets every state pick the way that is best for that state to meet these pollution reduction targets and you look at states like south dakota and nevada that have had strong reliance on clean energy, they are already on target to exceed these targets and in a significant way. so it is just a false argument because when you look at california in particular, they have an emission trading program that has created cheap and inexpensive ways for companies to innovate and that is what programs like this can do, is when you aline the markets, when we set the goals, american ingenuity can get it done and i believe in that future and i know your companies don't believe that in future but i think the public are the ones that hang in the balance and they stand to benefit from this rule. >> may i respond. >> you may response. >> i don't represent big energy -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> i would like to see our budget get closer to yours in the environmental defense
budget. i think years is -- [ inaudible ] [ overlapping speakers ] >> i would like to see a lot more funding from all of those companies but unfortunate natally many of the -- unfortunately the coal companies are going bankrupt. >> you say you don't represent the companies but you want more money from the companies. >> i want to combat the nonsense put out by the environmental movement. >> we do appreciate our million members supporting the environmental defense fund. >> there is a problem here between reality and governmental dreams. government can plan all kinds of things but let's see how they work out. the california electric rates are double the national average. new england and new york are double the national average. those areas used to have a lot of manufacturing. that has gone to china, mexico or to the heartland states like indiana and ohio and kentucky, tennessee, that rely on inexpensive electricity.
so if we want to have a future where people have to spend more and more money for energy and jeremy said that all of these alternatives are now becoming cheaper and cheaper, well if that is true, then why is the wind industry swarming on capitol hill to renew their tax subsidy. why is the solar industry determined that they have to have their tax subsidy? it is because those kinds of power are not competitive and one of the reasons is because the wind doesn't blow all of the time and the sun doesn't shine all of the time. for example texas has a lot of windmills but in texas in the summer, which is when everybody has their air-conditioning on, the windmills with blowing 2% to 3% of the time. now in the other seasons, they are 30% of the time, perhaps. but when they really need the power in texas, they have 2% of the entire mix coming from wind mills. so this is not -- this is not the future. windmills are very old
technology. we need to get off of these dead end technologies and on to letting the free market innovate and produce real solutions to our problems. >> you've heard the thoughts of our guests so far. they continue with us as we talk about the plan released by the administration earlier this week. if you want to ask our guests questions, you can do so on the lines. republicans 202-748-8 thousand. democrats, 202-748-8 thousand. and ravel is in washington, d.c., ralph, good morning, go ahead. >> good morning. i've been following up and i've been reading the jurm for 30 years an i'm a systemed engineer and i'm pretty familiar with a lot of these things. and what i've seen in general news reading in people in the heartlanded which are funded by the koch brothers, they have fought and are responsible for any delay of action on global
warming for 20 years. hanson just came out and said the feature, right. hanson just came out and said that by 2050 and hanson is the nasa scientists who had the theory and he's been proven right aall along. he said by 2050 we are looking at five feet sea level rise. it is accelerating. which means a major portion of florida is gone. if we're looking at 10-15 foot sea level rise or 75 foot, we are looking at a major economic environmental dafter where you have people dead and others dislocated and starving. this is no longer a game for some corporate speech guys to get on the air, these are crimes against humanity. thank you very much. >> mr. ebell, you want to start. >> well i'm not a big fan of dr. james hannon whose long time at nasa at the goddard institute
for space studies, he said 15 years ago was asked what manhattan would look like in ten years and he said looking out his window at columbia university, a lot of this will be under water. so that is just one of many predictions he's made that has turned out to be completely ridiculous and untrue. but the rate of sea level rise is about right now about close to one foot per century. in the 19th and 20th centuries it was about 7-8 inches per century. so that is the level of sea rise we're talking about. you can get anything you want from one of the dr. hanson's computer models but if you look at the data, you'll see that sea level rise is -- is a problem but not a crisis, it is not the end of the world. >> mr. simons. >> well climate change is the race of our lives. and it fundamentally comes down to a question of are we going to leave for our kids and future
generations a less polluted planet, a better planet, a planet that doesn't have the kind of impacts that the caller was talking about. there is one thing that is uncertain about climate. we don't know when the nonlinear effects of climate change will strike. we know we are fundamentally disrupting the climate system and it won't be the smooth gradual change of inching. we're looking at what is happening in the ice caps in greenland and in the about art tick and other places and starting to see very large disruptions. at some point the carbon pollution we're putting in the air from smokestacks, it lasts for 100 years or more. a srnts or -- a century more more so within our lifetime or the lifetime of our kids. when my son is sitting there
saying gee, i guess that caller was right, we don't know how many years that will be, when it happens, if we don't act. there is not a chance to go back and change it. so we have one planet and we can all acknowledge there is a big risk we're running by dumping into the atmosphere and let's help deal with climate change, let's get going. >> from pennsylvania, mark, good morning, you are on with our guest, go ahead. >> good morning, mr. bell, yes, i agree with mr. bell on about the windmills and stuff. i want to ask him a question, does he know about the wobble of the earth, the rotation of the sun, that we re-set -- nature re-set its clock in 2012, and this effected everything as far as our weather goes, and as time
goes on, the taps will rebuild themselves and it is nature's way of re-setting the clock in other words. does he know anything about that? >> thank you. you know, there are a lot of theories and there has been a lot of research and things like the orbital wobble of the earth, the wobble on its axis, solar cycles, sun spot activity and so on. and i think clearly there is a huge natural variability in the earth's climate and over long periods of time these big things, these big astronomical things and sun spots and earths orbit play a role. i would just say in terms of the data that we have, we see natural cycles, over 100-year periods and over roughly 1,000-year periods and we're in between the ice ages and the
interglacial periods with 10,000 to 12,000 years an the ice age is 100,000 years an we're late into the interglacial cycle and that is allowed human beings to develop and flourish since the last ice age but just looking at the data from where we are now the key thing is president obama and his allies in the environmental movement have been talking about all of the terrible effects of global warming that we're already seeing but in fact global temperatures, the average temperature for about the last 18 years, has been flat. that is according to both surface data, satellite data and balloon data. they all agree. the models say we should have seen warming. but they are claiming the effects of global warming precede the cause. we haven't had warming for 18 years but we are seeingterrible effects. that is not my view of how science works but perhaps the
people are in a post modern scientific world where the effect precedes the cause. >> well you keep making up new facts to fit the extreme. you are trying to cast confusion on science because you are trying to protect the industries that do the most pollution. the real -- the reality is that nasa, backed by millions of measurements, noaa and the national academy of sciences and all science organizations have taken a careful look at the natural cycles. all of them. and compared them to the human fingerprint from the fast rate at which we're pumped carbon pollution into the atmosphere. when you look at that, there is -- it is unequivocal that the pollution we're putting into the atmosphere is the driving factor the climate change and it is just flat wrong to say the planet is not warming. last year was the warmest on record. 14 of the last 15 have been the warmest on record. tell the people dealing with a
drought right now as a harbinger of the problems that climate change bring. we're not just talking about hot temperatures, we're talking about a disruption of the rain patterns across this country and the world that brings drought where water is scarce and then dumps the water that is there in episodes that create huge floods, largely through the midwest and we're looking at sea level rise and the effects of that inundation taking place in cities like miami and charleston. that is not a future threat. it is here and now. and co2 in the level atmosphere are the highest they've been in 800,000 years or more and this is here and it is now. >> and let's here from mike, white plains, new york, democrats, go ahead. >> am i on. >> yes, go ahead. >> i'll put it this way. the problem is a lot deeper than this. obama came in too late. he should have done this when he
first became president. in 1981, when they gutted everything, they should have started then. [ inaudible ]. cell power, public transportation, too many people drive their cars to work singly like on the l.i.e. and now the gas that we waste and we're using a barrel of earth oil and we're using these and we have to cut back, we have to learn how to conserve, turn off our lights and we're going to have to produce garbage for fuel and into solar power and start changing our habits and it may be too late or too little. >> mr. simons about his point of being too little and are we just creatures of habit when it comes to transportation and otherwise
that we couldn't make a significant change any way? >> well on the too late point, i think the dwe we have to ask ourselves is what are we doing on our watch ? it is not too late. because all of the estimates of the climate change impacts as frightening as they are are conservative estimates. we don't know where the trigger points are, from the impacts to much more severe ones and it is prudent for us to do everything we can to make the transition to low pollution and clean energy and as soon as we can. so we need to get going. i don't think this is about fundamentally less choices, i think this is an opportunity to embrace more choices. we feed more choices -- we need more choices on how we choose our energy. we have some clean energy options. and some have that and some don't. and some have barriers on the books to have companies come in and put free solar panels on
your roof and get a lower utility rate than the current utility is offering you. we need to break down these barriers and make sure that we have cars and fuel sources from transportation, and for our homes and our businesses that really unleash clean energy options for us and the way to do that is to set the goal to clean and the way to do that is to put standards on for pollution and let companies innovate. that is what we did with sulfur dioxide and other filter problems. if we can set the goals, american companies can get this done and lead the world. that is the good news. we may not be going as fast as we should and i agree with the caller on that, we need to go faster, the reality is we're leading the world at this point. we are demonstrating we can get this done. that makes sense because our businesses are leaders across the world and if we can do it here, i think we can get it done globally and we're seeing other companies respond to the president's leadership and that
includes china for the first time it has agreed to cap its emissio emissions. so we are signs of progress. don't give up hope. we can get it done. >> mr.ee bell. >> i do not share your callers view of the future. i think that the environmental movement has been proclaiming doom right around the corner since it was founded in the late 1960s. it is how they fund the environmental movement. it is how they attract political support, by saying that we have this crisis, we've had one crisis after another and many of them were real problems but not crisis. human beings with deal with things because we're innovative and the reason that the united states is more innovative than most countries or really any country tan the history of the world is because we have the most freedom. we have free markets. what we have now is a federal government and in particular this administration that wants to control everything.
we are driving innovation out of the u.s. economy and that is why we are economically stagnant. i don't think it is too late to save the u.s. economy, but i think we're going to have to get going at it. or we're going to be in the same position as some of the southern european countries that have huge debt, have no business start-ups because they are smothered by regulations and the so-called clean power plants which are expensive power plants they are designed to limit innovation and to suffocate innovation and the u.s. economy. so i think it is not too late to save the u.s. economy but we need to get going. >> from new york, here is bob. you're on with our guests. go ahead. >> hey, thank you for c-span. myron, you are notten titled to your own facts. you are entitled to your own opinion. you are notten titled to your own fact and i can't believe i'm looking at an elderly man like yourself and you look
sophisticated but you talk childish. you are talking rhetoric, gloom and doom. i'm a democrat, i'm not an environmentalist but the science is speaking and you are in denial. but you know better. you're getting paid for your lips and your mouth -- >> so bob do you have a specific question for our guest? >> yes. look at germany. they are a land-locked country which is now approaching one-third of the energy use from wind and solar. so look at the rest of the world. so my question is how can this man try and disconnect the reality of wind and solar? look at germany. look at what is going on in germany. they have a 30% -- 35%. they are ahead of the estimate. they were supposed to be at 25%. of the total country's energy use is coming from wind and solar and this man is telling -- this man is telling you it is no
good. >> bob, thank you. >> well, you know, i try to look at the fakes, not at the -- the facts and not the dreams and the m modeli modeling. the entire global warming is based on modeling and not data and i encourage you as a person who cares about reality and the facts to look at data and not what the computer models say and which have diverged wildly from the temperature data or the impacts, the heat wave data or the i pc c report, the most recent one, the chapter or severe weather events said there is no long term trend in severe weather events in intensity for frequency. as for germany, i happened to be there a couple of weeks ago and i talked to a lot of people about what is going on in germany and they are all shaking their heads because the electric rates are going through the roof and manufacturers are leaving as fast as they can to go to
eastern europe this is still based on coal-fired power. germany can try to create this energy wonder land but it is harming the german people and the german economy. those are the facts. >> mr. simons? >> i appreciate bob's call. and just picking up on germany, last week germany set a record in one day, they got 74% of their electric power from renewable energy. and it just demonstrates that we're not up against a technology problem, we're up against old institutions. there is no freedom, as you like to talk about, in old electric monopoly models backed up by regulations. we need to catch up with the rut we've been in and make sure the path is clean for the way in front of us. an the facts, and the facts you keep making up regarding there is no climate change impacts, go
to environmental defense's website, defense funds website at edf.org and get the fakes on what is happening to the climate system and the impacts out there. >> and mr. simons there is a chart in "the washington post" that talked about the 14 states that produce coal, saying is generated 50% of the electricity. assuming the coal goes down because of the regulation what takes it place and is clean energy ready to make up for the demands. >> it is a good question. michael bloomberg the former mayor of new york has a piece out yesterday talking about what is happening in coal. and he rightly points out, coal is no longer at 50%. it is declining. it is more like at 40% now. as clean energy has become more competitive and come online in greater numbers and people are choosing clean energy when they can and where they have that option available. so those options are out there, also big improvements in energy
fishy. what is happening with coal is it is losing the competitiveness battle. coal has very limited -- there is only so much innovation one can do in pulling coal out of the ground and load the train cars and send it around the country. and whereas solar energy, the smartphone has so much more computing power than the big maybe frames from 15 or 20 years ago at a fraction of the cost, right. that is what renewable energy -- there is no limit, particularly in america, there is no limit to how much power we can get from the sun and when if we can get the technologies out there to do it. so costs are coming down. the cost of wind power has come down by more than half and the cost of solar power has come down by more tan 80% but the big prize in the future on electricity is still figuring out how to get more efficient products in the market place so that the bills go down and the demand goes down over all.
that potential still is largely untapped. that too is just -- there is no technology frontier we're up against. it is just setting our sights on the right goals. >> and mr. ebell, the same charts talk about natural gas and is that a replacement for coal if coal production goes down. >> the united states has the world's largest reserves of coal. it turns out because of technology revolution in the oil and gas industry called the hydraulic fractioning or the shale, we have huge reserves of natural gas. groups like the environmental defense fund have been trying to wage war on natural gas and coal and so we see this reflected in the president's plan because the first proposal last year was to say that to force states to move from coal to natural gas the new plan said we'll force states to move from coal to wind and solar.
if wind and solar are as competitive as always claimed by the wind and solar industries in their supporters in the environmental movement, we should see this happening without a huge federal tax subsidy. wind industry, whenever the tax subsidy expires and it is currently expired, the republican congress is busy, the senate is busy trying to renew it right now, but whenever it expired, windmill construction ceases. the solar credit has a longer term so we haven't seen that up and down. but the fact is that the wind and solar industries depend on tate mandates that require a certain amount of renewal energy and the federal subsidy. if it we got rid of those, we would still find that yes, wind and solar have become cheaper, particularly solar, but they are still more expensive than coal and natural gas. so we're lucky we have the world's largest reserves of the
coal but huge reserves also of natural gas and that is the future because the technology revolution has not been in windmills, which are really a dead end technology, it has been in the free market companies in the oil and gas industry, small companies, becoming very large companies, by innovating and finding huge new resource that no one thought could ever be tapped. >> can i clarify edf's position since myron misrepresented it. so we want to reduce pollution. that is what we're about. and we want the market to compete to reduce that pollution. pollution is not free. when you keep talking about the freedom of markets, the markets are wrong right now. the markets have not incorporated the fact that cash bon pollution is causing the damage. we want to make sure that businesses are making choices based on the total impact of the choices they make. given that, given the power of markets, we can get the kind of results on carbon pollution that we got on sulfur dioxide and 102
to deal with the other trading markets. so natural gas can and should compete with the clean energy. there is nothing that makes any state do anything in terms of picking winners or losers, it says the pollution needs to come down and the companies can pick out the way to get there. and natural gas does pollute less than coal in terms of carbon pollution when it is burned but it emits more than clean energy and the best option which is energy efficiency but there is one piece that needs to be dealt with and that is the methane emissions from the oil and gas production transportation sector. menlain is a potent greenhouse gas, more important than co2 for methane. so we need to plug the leaks that with wasting natural gas
throughout the system and stop the pollutant and it is good business and stewardship and so let's do that. let's make sure that we get the markets right and let the technologies compete. we're not picking them. >> jeremy symons, and myron ebell of the competitive enterprise institute. jim, from ohio, you're up next. >> yes. good morning, gentlemen. i have a couple of comments i would like to make and the question i asked, number one, gina mccarthy herself admitted on her questioning the other day that if we do all this, we will not be effect the temperature of the global warming temperature any more than possibly one 100ths of a degree. which is all pain and no gain. and i think it is ridiculous the condition the economy is in this country that we need to show the rest of the world how to do it, i think they laugh at us, the
rest of the world. china has made an empty promise to do a little bit by 2030. they are not bound by anything. neither is india, you've got all of those dirty charcoal burning countries that use that as an only fuel. i don't think that you are ever going to get third world countries to come around to this when they can't even afford to burn coal energy plants. it's just kind of what i would say a -- it is insanity again. we're trying to remake the world in our image and likeness and we've been doing it over and over and over again. and people just don't go along with us. >> okay. jim, we'll let our guest responds. mr. simons. >> i don't think anybody is laughing at the clean power plan here in the united states or around the world. 90,000 asthma attacks avoided every year and that is nothing
to laugh at. and the climate and the carbon pollution reductions from the clean power plan, we're talking about over 800 million tons of reductions by 2030. that is equivalent to about -- from about 160 million cars. the over all benefits when it is monetized, which again is completely missing from the market place right now, over $50 billion. so these benefits are important, they are real. i think we can do more. i think once we get on this path, we will find that we can do more faster. but it is a great start. >> i appreciate what your caller said. he noted that gina mccarthy admitted that under the epa's own modeling, this plan of -- to reduce emissions from power plants will have no effect on the global climate. an unmeasurable effect it will be so small.
but jeremy let the cat out of the bag. he said we need to do more. this is only the first step. and so when people say oh, well we can afford this, it is not that bad. okay. we'll have to sacrifice a little and pay a little more for our electricity, they ought to understand this is step one and as we go along each step is more and more expensive. so the obama administration and the environmental movement have big plans and this is only a small piece of it. >> it is a false choice though to say that not acting is going to protect electric bills. as i said, the price of coal is going up and up. >> no. jeremy, the question, you just make these things up. >> no. the eia said the price of coal will go up. and the clean power plan, the analysis that came out said it will save consumers $7 a month on electricity beales for 2030. so when you look at a comparison of the futures of energy, there
is no way that increasing dependence on fossil fuels will save us money compared to the efficient technologies where the costs keep coming down. >> it is a nice story. >> from bella vista, arkansas, charles, up next. >> good morning. jeremy. the gentleman from ohio that called was correct, believe me. and you said china was following your footsteps. china is still opening one coal plant per week. indy is doing their damnest to catch up with them. you are spending our money for no reason. i remember the ice age you folks had coming in the 70s. i want to tell you, you blew that out of the -- every paper and everything. it is gone. you were wrong on that. i remember your snail darter on the tennessee dam that you cost
the dam a ton of money. alar, the apple people up in washington, that put out of business because your facts were wrong. jeremy, i think you better start reading. i think his name is tom bell, he's a professor up there and he'll explain to you what hanson has done with his hockey stick figures. you have a good day, but i'm getting tired of listening to you people that have no -- economy sense in your head. >> we got you charles. mr. simons? >> well i have to say, i wasn't part of those fights but i'll tell you some of the fights that i'm glad that those before me were part of. making america stronger by reducing the air pollution that was darkening our skies. that is a success story and that is the clean air act. the cuyahoga river catching fire, that was a symbol of the
dismal state of our waterways but the clean water act has been very successful. i think we a -- apply the same principals here. it is not about sacrificing here in the united states for the sake of overseas. far from it. we need an american plan that works for us. and that means something like the clean power plan. because the clean power plan delivers on the clean energy promise of our future. that will also have the benefits of showing leadership to countries around the world. we have a long way to go. no one -- no one is saying we don't have a long way to go in terms of the global progress that we need. but there is also no question that other countries are stepping up to do their fair share now there is leadership on the table. >> with that in mind, ban ki-moon was with the president and one thing that did come up was the climate plan and the effort on climate change and we
want to show you what he had to say and get your thoughts on it. >> this is hugely important and additionally leadership. us can and will be able to change the world in addressing a climate phenomenon. and we are the first generation as president obama rightly said yesterday, to put an end to global poverty. and we are the last generation who can address climate change fundamentally. i think this clean power plan powers economies and generates a drive. and also it can help generate huge dividends here at home in the u.s. economy and i'm sure that this will impact other countries. >> make the case that possibly
what we do here, other countries will play along like china and india and other countries mentioned by the callers. >> i think is makes a difference in a number of ways. first, a lot of the pollution in the atmosphere from past practices, we have a strong share of that. and we have a leadership role to go ahead and reduce that emissions. and people will take note. but i think the more important thing is that around the world the united states is recognized as innovative leader. in our ability to tackle big problems, and the ability of companies in the private sector, when the goals are clear, to tackle big problems, that something that with new technologies and cheaper technologies that they can also export around the world. so people are watching very closely to see what we do. and they are responding. and the deal with china was a break through.
for 20 years groups like the competitive enterprise institute have been trying to undermind climate change to create the argument that other countries aren't acting. that era is over. every country is stepping up and saying we have to do more and get the ball rolling and see how fast we can go. >> mr. ebell. >> i was interested by ban ki-moon's remarks because last time we were told this is the last time to change our world at the koppen hagen conference and that conference collapsed and we should say we no longer have a chance to save the world but this year we're doing it in paris with the same actors. but in 2009 represent secretary of state hillary clinton flew in and saved the conference from total collapse by promising that the development countries led by the united states starting in 2020, that is after president
obama was clear out of office, nothing to worry about, would start supplying $100 billion a year to poor countries. now the president has asked for $3 billion over four years to get this going right now, before 2020. it will be -- the u.s. contribution is going to be $20 billion to $30 billion a year. that is what secretary clinton committed for the united states and president obama said yes. the congress said no to the first $500 million so far. there is an amendment in the house bill that said no money can be given to the green climate fund. so i think this is going to be an interesting debate between those who think that we can get the support of the developing kushes by these -- countries by these massive wealth transfers and those who oppose that and think that that is not the way to help a developing country. the way it is to open their
markets and to have investment in these countries, not to have wealth transfer. so this is a very interesting debate over the next few years. >> from mechanicsville, virginia, stewart, good morning. >> good morning, good morning, i've learned we can learn from our elders and the last two gentlemen that just came in, i totally agree with them. >> would like to expand on it though. if you were to transition to this, during the transition period, manufacturing would be a stand still or a lot lower. and with regards to a military and our national security, if we got into a very serious shooting war and we had to really gear up, would this -- with these -- would these new policies be as efficient and what would our tax run on, on electricity and how
would we fly our jets because you are not just going after coal, you are going after oil and it all. let's be honest. and last point is this. who are you going to hurt? a middle and lower income people. they are going to pay the price. also, you know what, sir, i haven't heard you say anything about [ inaudible ]. what about the nuclear plant. >> okay. got a lot out there. >> thank you for your comments. of course nuclear is kind of the -- the unspoken part of our energy mix. we currently get 7% of our electricity from nuclear, our naval ships and submarines, many of them run on nuclear reactors so the question about nuclear that i have is the same that i have about every technology, what is the cost. and the united states hasn't built a new nuclear reactor for so long because of political opposition and economic -- the economics, that we don't really know how much it will cost to
building a new generation of nuclear reactors. two are your construction and let's see how that goes an what the future of nuclear is. >> mr. simmons. >> just finishing up on nuclear, we do know the cost. again, all energy sources should compete. and nuclear is low carbon, but the economics is not a question mark any more because they are building those two plants and they are already sticking large bill increases to rate payers because the cost is starting to overrun. so i think nuclear is going to be an economic question that gets back to the first point. that the caller makes about manufacturing and the pace of this. again, the clean power plant is a very modest plan. 15% reduction in emissions from the electric sector for the last ten years. and there has been all kinds of flexibility built into the plan
to make sure that transition doesn't happen. in fact, the plan doesn't take effect for seven years. seven years for industry to anticipate these rules going into effect. and make sure they are on the right trajectory. and when it does take effect, again we're talking about another 17% reduction in emissions over the next 15 years. very consistent with the pace that we've seen lately when the technology options are getting more and more. and the one last thing i wanted to say because you brought up the military and i think the military is an important point of our transition to clean energy because i mentioned the private sector but the defense department has been at the leading edge of the transition to clean energy and they've done that because of the dependency on fossil fuels, particularly oil, as a huge security threat and the amount of lives that have been lost in protecting oil convoys. so they've been working quite extensively on fuel efficiency, on energy efficiency and on
alternative energy sortss and leading that paradigm just as the military is leading some of the thinking on dangers of climate change and the joint chiefs have released points of how climate change is no longer a future security threat it is a threat multiplier today effecting our deployment and our actio actions. >> andrew is up next from san diego. good morning, andrew. >> good morning. would you like to comment on the idea that companies move to china because of high electricity rates. the company that move to china move to china because there were so many ways that they could exploit many facets of the chinese economy and the economy in china is one of the most regulated, if not the most regulated economy in the world and right now look at the beijing olympics where their air was so bad that we were worried
our athletes would die running a 5 k. in california on my street, 15 houses out of 18 have solar on their roof. and guess what yesterday sdg and e and other electricity and utilities went to the p.u.c. to try to find a way to charge us more, $280 installation fee, and other fees that they are attaching to -- because they are afraid that people will become independent. if tesla's battery comes in, i'll be able to generate electricity all day long and then the battery for $3,500 will allow me to use all of the electricity i want without being harnessed to the rates that the corporations want me to pay. and yesterday it was reported
that the department of defense is doing huge studies on what to do when the water rises at norfolk, virginia, and the largest defense accumulation of bases will be in jeopardy and they have no place to put all of the ships and everything because the people will be flooded. so i'm hoping that the gentleman in washington is thinking of putting his house on stilts because he's going to need it. and then pain he can put solar on the roof and he can also survive the influx of water. >> okay. andrew, thank you very much. mr. ebell. >> thank you. well i'm glad to see you up so early in san diego. i love san diego. >> used to live there. you have a lot of sunshine and i'm not surprised that people have solar panels because they probably make good sense there. particularly considering that you are being subsidized by the
federal taxpayers and by other rate payers who don't have solar panels. so it is a good deal for you and i'm glad you've got that. we don't all have the amount of sunshine that you have and moreover i would point out in your state california used to have a vibrant manufacturing and light industry sector. california had an iron mine, a steel mill, an automobile assembly, airplane manufacturing, arma meants manufacturing and all of that is gone because of the policies of your state through environmental and other regulations, one of the big factors was raising energy costs. so californians still buy close to 2 million cars a year. they used to is a semble in california 1.5 million cars a year. you now outsourced all of that except for a few thousand teslas to places like kentucky, tennessee, indiana, that still have affordable energy and don't have the regulatory structure that you have in california.
so you have outsourced your main energy intensive goods. what happens when there is no place to outsource them because everybody has california's policies. how are you going to afford to buy 2 million cars in california. the answer is you're not. >> well thank goodness that we actually have sunshine in places more than san diego, because your pessimism sometimes in terms of what we can do in technology in our future is daunting. but let me ask you something we might agree on and i don't know the answer. but the caller andrew mentions that the utilities want to put on prices to help block the installation of solar. you are a free market advocate. can we agree that putting up new price structures and tariffs to make it harder for families and small businesses to put solar on the rooftops is a bad idea. >> we can agree on that if we can agree to get rid of the
subsidies of people that put on solar panels -- that is paid for by people who don't have solar panels. so if we can get rid of all of that, yes, we agree. did you if you still insist we need mandates and the tax subsidy that goes to installing solar panels an building windmills then i'm afraid we still have a disagreement, we. >> well let's take the point of agreement as a small way of moving forward. but i do think that across party lines, across ideology and people come with the respect and people standing in the way of protecting businesses are going to swim up stream and it is time to get in line with creating the opportunities -- >> unless of course they want inexpensive power then they won't have that choice under the obama administration's plans because the pafrts of the country that enjoy lower
electric rates will no longer have those rates. >> that is just not true. so the clean power plan has state by state targets that entirely recognize and start with every state from where they are now so that no state is unfairly disadvantaged. and they have the option of figuring out the best path to get there. and it is going to be an affordable plan. >> so as we go on, this debate will go on but we're out of time. both of you gentlemen, myron ebell, and jeremy symons, thanks for coming by for the conversation. >> thank you very much. >> on the next washington journal, montgomery county maryland police chief tom manger on the recent rise in violent crime in cities. he's president of the major chiefs association. then miami herald correspondent carol rosenberg on the latest white house moves to shut down the guantanamo bay prison. join the conversation by calling in or posting to twitter and our facebook page. washington journal is live each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on
c-span. reuters has reported that the state department office set up toin dependently grade global trafficking was sent into 14 countries and the results is that cuba and malaysia were upgraded and taken off the blacklist of countries that failed to combat modern day slavery. members of the foreign relations committee will question sarah seawall live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. theodore roosevelt becomes president after the assassination of william mckinley and to accommodate her family, edith roosevelt renovates the second floor of the executive mansion, thus the creation of a west wing to house the staff offices. by adding a social secretary to the payroll, she creates the office of the first lady. and changes the name from
executive mansion to the white house. edith roosevelt, this sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span original series furs ladies, influence and image, examining the public and private lives of the women who filled the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency, from martha washington to michelle obama. sundays at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span 3. colleges and universities should be more proactive reaching students when they are still in high school in order to make higher education a reality for more students from diverse backgrounds. that was the message from university of north carolina chancellor carol folt when speaking at the national press club earlier this week. this is an hour. >> our guest today is carol folt, chancellor of the university of north carolina at chapel hill. the first woman to hold that post, felt the appointment in
2013 after a nationwide search following the resignation of the former chancellor amid a scandal that put the school's accreditation and ncaa standing at risk. an investigation found that that 3000 students and many athletes took sham classes over two decades and received grades not based on academic reforms. and the acredible body and the ncaa have initiated inquiries. sanctions are not out of the question and unc which ranks among the top 20 public universities an one of the best bargains in college education is on a one year probation from the southern school commission on clujs. folt was a fak umt member and administrator and serves as interim president for a year before moving to unc chapel hill. folt is keenly interested in
boosting under graduate aggravation rate as marley among low income and first generation and underrepresented students. a covenants, a program that awards low income students a combination of grants, scholarships, and work/opportunities to avoid student loans and graduate debt free. today our speaker will address the importance of preserving access to an affordable college education. please give me in giving a warm welcome to chancellor carol folts. >> thank you for introducing me. it's such a pleasure to be here. i'm looking forward to this and also your questions. be sure to put down a lot of good ones. i have to tell you i wouldn't have any other job in america. yes, chapel hill people!
>> [ applause ]. >> if you're interested in higher education, i think this is the best time to be a president or a chancellor in higher education in america. what happens in higher education is so important for the nation. our business is a very serious one. people take it very seriously. we have a huge impact on the individuals of the nation. it is a time when we have the opportunity to shepherd in the great changes taking place. so it's a real pleasure to be here. carolina itself has a bigfoot print. it was the first to graduate -- the only public university to graduate students in the 1700s. and it has an extremely proud legacy. and we are as proud of what we're doing to get past these issues that you raised. we're very, very proud of what
we're trying to do. i will say working in higher education, the new normal is to be facing some of the greatest issues of the day. we are trying to deal with sexual assault. we are all trying to help that country understand the value proposition of higher education. these are the issues that we face. these are the issues that those of you in the press cover all the time. so i think it's really important that we have these conversations. it's exciting to be at the kick-off of the month of august speaking to you today particularly about the importance of preserving affordability, accessibility, and attainment in a great college degree. i would also like to thank the national press club members, everyone at the head table. i'm looking particularly at mary cooper will be our speaker. first time to have a graduate speak.
welcome. it's wonderful all of you here. we have members from the north carolina delegation. staffs are here. thank you all for coming. of course carolina alumni, thank you for being here. >> i thought i would start by giving an overview of what the university of north carolina chapel hill is. we rarely understand what's going on in a university. to understand the context of affordability and accessibility it's good to know what are we trying to bring our students into. unc or we call it carolina has a budget between $4 billion and $6 billion a year. it depends whether i'm including our hospitals or not. so it's a major enterprise. it has more than a $3 billion endowment. we raise a lot of money through philanthropy.
that is in a single year. that happens to be carolina's best year ever in philanthropy. so our alums are absolutely sticking with us through the times of trial. and i think that makes a really great statement. we also get a lot of money from research. carolina has been increasing its research portfolio. almost a billion dollars in research. that's mostly washington based federal funding from the nih. it's the top seventh in nih. this is a huge investment in research that will save lives and change the world. we bring in more than $7 billion estimated in revenue to the state. more than $10,000 people employed in various aspects of our institution. we have more than 33,000 applications for less than 4,000 entry positions. and top 10, top one programs in so many fields, from medicine,
global health, pharmacy, humanities, social sciences. and i think one of the points i want to make is accessibility and affordability, especially of low income, first generation should get them to the best universities in america. i think that's really important that we consider that part of that mission. it's important that they come in and understand what's happening in the world. we just recently had a number of stories you probably read about in the paper. historic partnership with gsk for chapel hill to solve aids. that program is going to have a number of under graduates that will be working in it. we have a population center that got $185 million grant from usaid, the largest grant in history last year to basically look at the metrics for global health and gender relations throughout the world. we received a $100 million gift to build entrepreneurial through pharmacy.
this is what we want students to learn about as they are going to college. so exactly two weeks from today, hard to believe classes are going to begin at carolina. it's clearly one of the best times of the year. you just can't beat the buzz that happens on the campus. it wakes up. it's exciting. there are people every place. and it is a school where people smile and they sing as they walk along. i think it's the light blue. that helps. it is really exciting. but they also are scared to death. this is a big deal. they're coming to college. and it is our job when they come to make sure they can be successful. i think that's a part of everything we've got to think about doing. for many of them, at carolina, it's over 20%. they will be the first generation to attend university. we're really proud of that. that's so important. more than 14% of them are going
to come from the lowest income families, median incomes on of $22,000 or $23,000 a year. we will have students coming from all reigns of the socioeconomic across the country. but that's what that place feels like. i tell students at the start of the year to try to remember the magical feeling they feel on that very first day. that anything is possible. whatever they want is what they are going to really be able to find their work to do. and i think that's my message always to them. feel as good on the second day as you did on the first. or remember that there is no limit. of course that first day on august 18th, between that day, there is another important day on the calendar. that's friday, august 7th. tuition bills are due. i don't know how many of you have students going to college right now. how many in here have students paying tuition bills? okay. well, i'm going to give you a number i think will shock most people. the tuition at unc chapel hill is about $8,300.
it is among the lowest tuitions in the country and among the top peer institutions, peers in public universities. it's at the bottom. we have very low tuition. the debt for students at north carolina has not changed in inflation scaled dollars for more than 15 years. so this is going to be a story about things that do work to try to do it. and i think it's really important because we have to understand how to scale the parts of our institutions that are working to be more effective. we have about 20,000 under graduates. and of those 43%, even with that tuition, will receive a form of need-based aid. so there is still great need out there. the median income in north carolina is less than $50,000 a year.
so this can still be an important part of their experience. north carolina is one of possibly two public universities that still is need blind. which means we don't consider patient income in the application and the only one that meets full need, which means after they fill out their equations, we cover the rest of that need. this is enormously important to obtain a degree. students at carolina the start of the academic year is of great excitement. less than half will be going to college. they don't have that same sense of optimism. many self-select and think they aren't going to be able to do it. they're fearful they won't be able to afford it. and they're afraid to assume a debt load that they think they will never be able to pay. new data show that the average grad -- debt at graduation is
about $35,000 for students who do go to college. at carolina, it's $17,000. so, again, keeping those costs low is a way to really help attract capability students to try. it's very important. if you look at the united states statistics, we have about 3.2 million students graduating from high school. about 1.8 million of them will apply to a four-year university. but in the end, only about 900 million of them are going to graduate. so that means about 2.3 million of our graduates right now, high school kids that could do anything that are the town pool of america, aren't even making it into college. more than 50% are on average not graduating. so there's a lot of work here. many students who start don't finish. it's known to be a very negative cycle for them. we also know that educational attainment is one of the most