tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 31, 2015 4:00am-6:01am EDT
states has put forward -- you hear $100 billion and you think a huge number. the amount that the united states has put forward both from appropriated funds and from funds that opec has provided has been in the range of about $2.5 billion, and the overall $100 billion comes from a lot of different sources, the world bank, multilateral bank, development finance institutions around the world, public, private, and so forth. a recent report was issued by the oecd which indicated that we are so far at about $62 billion based on 2014 numbers. and with additional pledges that where made my france, germany, u.k., and some of the multilateral development banks
indicated that we are real into the 80s with probably the u.s. amount i already told you. i don't think this is a huge problem. >> senator udall? >> i yield my time to senator boxer. >> and mr. chairman, here we are again. we have two different venues where we can argue about climate. [ laughter ] and always very pleasant. we're friends. but here we go. i continue to be perplexed by those who wish to obstruct action to reduce carbon pollution. some are deniers, and we've been through there before. they say they're not scientists and i would agree with them. they ought to be listening to the 97%, 98% of scientists who tell us human action and activities is causing too much carbon pollution. and some just don't seem to grasp the incredible advantages that we have in moving toward
clean energy and i'm not going to go into it because we're not the environment and public works committee and it's not about public health, but it's so clear that when we do this we also create a tremendous number of jobs that cannot be exported out of this country. you'd have to have very long arms to have someone in china putting on a rooftop, a solar rooftop. the fact is, these are good paying jobs and the proof is in the pudding in our state which is on path to cut emissions. by the way, that's california. on a path to cut emissions 80% by 2050 during the first year and a half of california's cap and trade program, the state added -- listen to this -- 491,000. a growth of 3.3%. and we have the tenth cheapest
electricity costs in the nation. so it's the right thing to do. america's always been a leader on every issue and i agree with you, mr. stern, this is not an option. we need to lead on this and to say let's wait until china leads, i'm not waiting for china to lead on anything, frankly. i have much more faith in our systems here and our commitments here to the right thing. i want to thank you for your work on this. i've had the opportunity to talk with you several times. i think that our resolve that's going on here has brought others to the table. par paris offers an important opportunity to reach global agreements, and my own view is that the reason we've been able to make so many strides, even with the obstruction in
congress -- congress is the only place that doesn't seem to want to do something, it seems, is because of the clean air act, the supreme court upholding the fact that, yes, carbon emissions are covered and the president of the united states. who has taken jabs every single day and still understands this question. so i want to talk to you about developing countries because it's always a problem. people say, oh, the developing countries doing anything. are developing countries submitting the indcs with firm commitments to reduce carbon collusion? senator, first of all, i want to thank you for your consistent leadership on this issue this year and throughout the year so appreciate that very, very much. yes, developing countries are submitting indcs to limit their -- cut their greenhouse gas emissions. we have 152 total indcs that have been submitted. i believe it's around 110 or 112 from developing countries, which is an extraordinary thing as
compared to the history we've come from. >> let me follow that up. i know that developing countries are -- mexico and south korea are considered developing countries. and i know that they have made significant pledges to reduce carbon pollution. can you explain why these countries see it in their self-interest to reduce carbon pollution? >> sure, senator, i think it's for a few reasons. first of all, people all over the world see climate change as a serious threat. it's having impacts all over the world, whether it's in the form of droughts or floods or huge stor storms, stress on their water supplies, fires, just a whole panoply of issues and countries see that. that's one thing. the second thing is the international negotiation is
also a very useful tool to bring countries into a place of wanting to take action and of wanting to take ambitious action,maybe even more so than they would have thought at the beginning. >> so you think they see the damage that can be done? there's a movie out called -- it's a really old movie, "climate refugees." it's a documentary that was done and i tell you, mr. chairman, it's stunning to see already some of the island nations that are essentially losing -- people are losing their homes. losing the place of their birth and for generations. mr. stern, some have criticized china's 2030 carbon pollution pledge, claiming it means the country don't have to do anything for 15 years. do you agree with that? >> no, i emphatically don't agree with it. the targets that china agreed to with president obama in the
joint announcement last year are quite significant targets. first of all, they agreed to peak in 2030 or earlier, and they also agreed -- a very important second piece of this is to get 20% of their energy mix from non-fossil sources. that's a pledge that will require them to build in the order of 900 gigawatts of renewable energy, non-fossil energy between now and 2030. compare that to the fact that the entire united states system is 1,100. so they have agreed to build 900 non-fossil. so they have got to start now. you can't turn an ocean liner around on a dime. they've got to do big things. they have to start now and they're going to do that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, senator udall, for your generosity and thank you. >> thank you, senator boxer. senator markey? >> thank you, mr. chairman, very much. mr. stern, did the united states
join the u.n. framework convention on climate change in 1992 after the senate ratified that treaty? >> yes, senator. >> are you negotiating this agreement under that framework? >> we are, senator, explicitly so. >> so there is an existing treaty, you're negotiating under that treaty which is an authority which congress gave to you and i just think we should make that clear. you're not in violation of any historical precedent. it's something that we want you to do, and it is something that the congress passed. this foreign relations committee had to pass it first. now, what i hear in the voice of those who object to this agreement is this -- that we may
not meet those goals, and of course that's a very pessimistic way of viewing what is unfolding here in the united states. we're going to pledge we will reduce our greenhouse gases by 26% to 28% by the year 2025. we're on pace right now to reduce our greenhouse gases by 17% by the year 2020. so we're well on our way towards this goal of 26% to 28%. now, the hypothesis that the chairman is making is that you can't rely upon congress or you can't rely upon america to uphold its commitments so to the extent to which the president has propounded a new law, the clean power plant rule that will reduce greenhouse gases by 32% by the year 2030 in your utility
sector there's no question that the chairman and others in the senate and the house, they can try to overturn that but right now it's the law of the united states and the president is making a commitment based upon that law. it's on the books. secondly, the president propounded a new fuel economy standard for the vehicles that we drive which hits 54.5 miles per gallon by the year 2025. it's the law in the united states. it's not going to stop members of this panel on the senate for trying to overturn the law but the president is making this commitment to the world based upon the law. we only installed 70 megawatts of solar in the united states in 2005. last year we installed 7,000
megawatts, not 20. and between 2015 and 2016 we're going to install 20,000 megawatts of solar. the price is collapsing. the same thing is true for wind. and so what we now have is 6% of all electricity coming from wind and solar in the united states in 2005, it was 1%. we keep on this pathway and we keep the state renewable electricity standards on the books, we keep the tax breaks on the books as law, we'll be at 15% to 20% renewable electricity by the year 2025 unless people work hard to repeal the law that the president is operating under. so the chairman is right. there is always within our constitutional system an ability
to overturn what is existing law, but there's nothing the president is doing which is not consistent with the law which we have and if those laws stay on the books, this goal will be met. so there are climate deniers. there are those that obviously don't want to see this goal met, that would be principally the fossil fuel industry. but under existing laws the president is making a commitment which is completely and totally achievable and legal. now i think it's interesting for us to then move to what's the assessment which the chinese or the indians have made with regard to this commitment made by the united states. so it's my understanding that two weeks ago, three weeks ago when the chinese president was in town that he committed to installing as much clean energy, renewable energy, by the year 2030 as all of the existing electricity capacity in the united states today combined. now that's a response.
and then in turn, the indians then had to respond to the united states and china and they made a very huge commitment. can you talk about that and the impact the united states is having as a leader in showing that you can do it in terms of unleash i unleashing of new technology around the world, especially in the areas that people were most concerned about, that weren't, in fact, meeting their obligations, countries like china and india and others? >> thank you very much, senator and, again, thank you very much for your historic leadership on this issue. i've known you for a long time and it's been tremendously impressive. the u.s. role, what the president has been leading this administration on has had tremendous impact, i think, with respect to other countries and china -- the agreement that you
cited dates to the joint announcement from last year and then again reaffirmed and extended by the joint statement this year. hugely important. in india prime minister modi has made a pledge for -- to build 175 gigawatts of renewable energy. that's a gargantuan amount for india and to do it by 2022. 100 from solar, 60 from wind and 15 from other renewable sources so a tremendous amount. again, i think very much -- >> to put it another way, that would be equal to the entire installed nuclear energy capacity in the united states today and they're going to do that in renewables. >> right, and i think you see countries, whether it's brazil or mexico or others also inspired by what the united states is doing so i think it's had a very, very important impact.
>> thank you. and i just want to thank you. your work is going to go down in history. paris is i think on track to be a big success and much of it is due to the incredible skill and leadership that you brought to it. thank you. >> senator murphy? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. there are a lot of scary moments when you're a new parent. first trip to the e.r., first day of school. but for me i rank up there as one of the scariest moments as a young parent the day that i learned the waxman markey bill was not going to be called up for debate in the senate, thus effectively ending for the time being congress' participation in
this exercise that as i think senator boxer pointed out everyone in this world has been engaged in in the private and public sector. the idea that the body that i sat in wasn't going to do anything about the fact that by the end of the century at a moment when i hope either or both my 3-year-old and 7-year-old are going to still be on this earth, global temperatures will be six to ten degrees higher, sea levels will be 7 to 23 inches higher, as many as a million species on the planet today when they're 3 and 7 that won't be on the plan ent
in their final days of life. that was a scary day. but i took some solace because the primary argument that i heard from opponents of the united states congress' unilateral action was that we shouldn't move forward on something as ambitious as waxma waxman-markey in the absence of serious commitments from developing nations. it was in part an invitation for this vexing catastrophic global problem to be solved at the paris negotiating table. and now it seems as if opponents are back to the same old game, do everything they can to undermine these negotiations as well, and so i'm so grateful for your work, your team's work, and i think you have done an amazing job to set the platform for
success but remain as scared as i was back in those fateful days of 2009/2010. mr. stern, i want to just talk to you about what yard stakes we should use to measure the success of the talks. the president has been open already that we're probably not going to be able to get enough commitments, binding or non-binding, in order to hit that two degree celsius mark that has been our standard in many of our conversations over the last few years. what should we use as a measurement of whether these talks have been successful if it's not two degrees celsius number? >> thank you very much, senator. i would say two things. first of all as a broad structural comment, it will be enormously important for us to achieve an agreement that is ambitious and durable, transparent, that moves beyond the old firewall we've been talking about between developed and developing countries, that elevates the important of adaptation and resilience which this agreement is going to do and in general advances us toward the global transition to low carbon and resilient economies. with respect to the specific of two degrees i would say this. i agree with what the president has said, we're not going to be all the way there yet. but two things to keep in mind. first of all, according to one of the most reliable analysts of what we stand with respect to
the temperature goal, carbon -- the climate action tracker, they came out recently with an analysis that says as compared to last year, go back one year their assessment was we were on track for 3.5 or 3.6 degrees. now on the basis of the indcs, the target now, the new number this month is 2.7. 2.7 is not two, but that's a powerful move in the right direction, more than halfway in the right direction. so that's step one. the second point is we are looking at ambition as essentially a five-part package. the first is the initial indcs need to be as strong as possible and i just referenced what climate tracker -- how the climate tracker looked at them. second we've argued that the agreement has to include success periods to update and strengthen and ratchet up ambition over
time. we would like to see those every five years. it's important that successive rounds be included. third, we have supported a proposal that calls on countries to put forward what we might call white papers. not commitments but an outline, a strategy on how you would reach deeper level of reductions by mid century. and, fourth, a long-term goal by the end of the century, the course of the century, for deep decarbonization. and then the fifth element is the non-state actor arena which the french have been quite freque frequently -- correctly and we also have had collaborative action among countries. all of those things are part of what the french are referring to as pillar 4 but it's basically non-state actor activity. if you put those together,
that's a package that i think is the best answer we can give for ambition, not as far as we can get, but a big step already and then these other elements. >> mr. chairman, i thank you for having this hearing today. i want to make one final comment which is to build on another by senator markey about the commitments in law that have been made at the federal level. i'd also note there are a lot of commitments in law being made at the state and regional level as well that are serious and have enough history behind them to tell us what happens when you make a real commitment to reducing carbon. connecticut is part of the regional greenhouse gas trading program called reggie. and we've been in this for long enough to have some really good data as to what it means when you make a commitment to reduce carbon. it's pretty miraculous what's happened since we've entered into the agreement. we've cut carbon from 133 million tons to 86 million tons.
that's a 30% there or about reduction in carbon. but here's the real story. independent economic analysis shows that during that same time, because of that investment in clean energy, we added 1400 new jobs to the region during that period of time and maybe most impressively reduced the cost of electricity and heating for consumers by $460 million. why? because we took the vast majority of that money and put it right back into energy efficiency. so we helped individuals use less, find more cost-effective means of heating their homes, and providing electricity. we got a triple whammy. we created jobs, we reduced costs and carbon and this isn't guess work any longer. it isn't theoretical. we're doing in the the northeast. we have the practical results to show what happens when you make these commitments. thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. stern.
>> thank you senator murphy. senator kaine? >> thank you. mr. chair and to you, mr. stern. my understanding is there's an independent report out from the oecd about the compliance with goals set out in copenhagen in 2009 and that the report indicates that the developed world is well on its way toward meeting those obligations. do you read the report the same way? >> thanks, very much, senator. yes, i do. the specifics -- the specific focus of that oecd report is on the joint donor pledge to mobilize $100 billion a year from all sources, public, private, carbon markets, etc., by 2020 and the oecd report showed based on not even all the information yet but based on most of the information they have that we are at about $62 billion as of 2014. probably a few billion more will be added when they get everything counted. and then on top of that there have been some new pledges made
by the u.k., france, germany, asian development bank, the world bank which totalled together will probably add perhaps $20 billion more on top of that over the course of the next few years so if you think about this as a 2020 pledge, we're probably at least in the mid 80s based on where we can see things right now and maybe even more than that and there's still six years to go, so that was encouraging. >> that bodes well. in addition to the climate finance goals of developed nation, copenhagen involved the u.s. making commitments as well. talk about how the u.s. has achieved on its own path toward the emissions goals that we embraced in copenhagen. >> sure. thank you, senator. we're doing quite well. the president has put in place a whole raft of actions under the
climate action plan he announced in 2013 and some of those are actually -- predated that. the fuel economy standards senator markey referred to earlier were at the time referred to -- i still recall from an environmental activist, often a critic of the administration actually, said that that action back then was the sing biggest action taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than any country had ever taken. that was in the first term. now you have the clean power plant, heavy-duty vehicle standards. you have probably more than two dozen, somewhere between two and
three dozen appliance standards that the department of energy has issued. all the building and appliances and equipment that are on buildings we have a methane strategy which includes mandatory methane actions to make some significant reductions of methane in the oil and gas and landfill sectors. we are also trying to implement a broader amendment that comes under the montreal protocol, different treaty. so the president is acting across the board both in service of meeting that 17% target and also to set us up for being able to meet the 2025 target both. >> you have been involved in this process since 2009. my understanding is that there are about 150 pre-paris climate pledges that have been made. how does that level of pledge before the meeting compare to kind of past meetings?
>> well, it's extraordinary, senator. this is part of a result of structures that we proposed and got a great deal of support for. so the basic underpinning is that we proposed the structure of this new agreement was going to have nationally determined commitments, not that you couldn't negotiate -- >> top down. >> have countries now they were going to be scrutinized by other countries, by the press -- >> so you have competition. >> so you've had this drum beat of submissions of the 152
so-called indcs and there's never been anything like that before. go back to kyoto, there was no expectation, not only no expectation, but developing countries flatly were not expected to do anything. even if you go back to 2009 in copenhagen there were a number of developing countries came forward but, a, after the fact in most cases and, b, it was about 40 or 45 developing countries at that time. we have about 110 developing countries right now and all of the developed countries. >> last question i want to ask you is about the clean power plant. i support the president's plan. i've spent a lot of time digging into its effect on virginia. the virginia government and governor and others are strongly in support of it. the reason i like it and i want ewe to analogize this to hopefully what we would see coming out of paris, t -- the cn
power plan is not one size fits all, so states are treated differently depending upon where they start from, what their particular mix of fuel production is so the goals are not one sized fits all and how the goals are met are flexible to enable local initiative and creativity. so to me those are salutary. analogize that to what you hope to see come out of paris. >> i think it's right on point because the whole idea of a nationally determined contribution in the lingo of the negotiations is that each country will have to decide based on its open circumstances, its own capabilities, hopefully with as much salutary pressure as possible to do your best, but each country would have to make
the decision about what to it and how do it. and it goes for developed countries as well as developing. but even developing countries trying to reassure that they can take on the fight for climate change without imperilling their own priorities for development and growth and the eradication of poverty. so that flexibility is absolutely essential and is really in some sense the sco score -- core of our approach. >> thank you very much. thank you for holding this hearing and mr. stern for your hard work and creativity in pursuing such an important global goal. let me start i think in some ways where senator kaine was pursuing a conversation about some limitations of previous agreements and how this hoped for agreement will succeed where others had some challenges. kyoto really did not envision a comparable framework for developed and developing countries. at the united nations last month, new sustainable
development goals were announced. calls for all nations to take urgent action to combat climate change. so talk to me how we will incentivize developing countries. i think the agreement with china and the trajectory we have going into paris with china is very encouraging. but tell me how you think we will incentivize that and how that will make a difference in this round of climate negotiations. >> thank you, senator. look, i think that there are a number of ways to think about this. one of the things that is -- or one of the areas that we think are important in this regard has to do with the whole way in which financial assistance is provided. and what we have said is that there really needs to be in essence a partnership between all countries. that there needs to be a shared effort among countries so that, yes, many developing countries, not all, but many of them do
need some assistance, but they also have to bring their own action to the table. so if you look at the kind of provisions that were in the financing for development negotiation that just finished in july, it talked about not just the importance of countries in getting some assistance, but the importance for those countries to mobilize their own domestic resources, the importance for those countries to build the enabling and investment environments within their countries so that there's a pull for investment to come in. we've seen this happen in any number of developing countries with extraordinarily positive impact. the most recent case is nicaragua which decided just a few years ago i think around 2010 or so that the power they were getting was too expensive. that they were going to make a move by putting in place some regulatory measures that would open the door, that they were
going to make a move toward renewable energy. they have had an explosion of renewable energy and well over a billion dollars of foreign investment come into to build it. and you can see that in morocco, malaysia, and the philippines. we're trying to spread that message to developing countries so that you can get investment, but don't look at this all in the sense of -- in the context of government grants. that's just a small piece of what should be the total. let's take care of your own situation and let's have assistance where needed, technical assistance, to get the regulatory environment and such right and then you can bring in bigger amounts of money by attracting it. >> so let me follow up on that. we've been presented at times with a picture of a competing choice between sustained economic development and
reduction in carbon footprint. can we curb carbon emissions without having a negative economic impact? can we provide access to electricity for millions more people without sacrificing our work to improve the trajectory of climate change and if you would, reference the summit that happened at the white house yesterday. i was excited to see that more than 80 companies operating in all 50 states employing more than 9 million people made pledges of their own to take their own steps to improve their sustainability, reduce their carbon footprint or increase their investment in sustainable financing as part of the lead-up to negotiations. does the private sector agree that we can both improve the trajectory of climate change and continue with economic growth? >> thank you, senator. well, i think absolutely. let me make a quick comment. first of all, the answer has to be yes. you can't expect countries to go
backwards with respect to their own economic development. the two things can go together. my office started a program together with opec a few years ago called the africa clean energy facility and through that program, we have provided a a small amount of money from my office to go with what opec can do and now there are a few dozen projects under way. there was a problem of projects not being able to get going just for a lack of seed money. those are all projects designed to help provide power but in a clean way, but i think really about $20 million from my office joined with opec money of about $40 million. i agree with you about the event yesterday at the white house.
we have been working hard to communicate with and bring in corporate participation. and i think companies do see this. you've got 81 companies now who have signed up for this particular pledge, but a great, great many more in the united states and around the world who see that climate change is real and we've got to act on it. i forget which, but one of our colleagues referenced pledge by ten of the biggest oil companies in the world to support paris and to support the goal of two degrees. people who are fact based fundamentally, it's the military, the intelligence community, ceos, if you're fact based, you're going to see that actions got to get taken. >> in my home state of delaware, i've been stuck in meetings where a whole series of ceos
where their companies have already taken steps and they have achieved bottom line results that matter for their shareholders and their companies in addition to a positive public benefit. my last question is i'm from the state with the lowest mean elevation in america. so others are swampier, but ours is flatter. between natural subsidence and sea level rise, we're seeing lot -- loss of coastal habitat. i think virtually every american coastal state is seeing the impact of climate change faster. islands nations are even more at risk than we are. so if you'd give a comment big picture, why does it matter to states like mine that we make progress in paris? >> it matters enormously. i heard john holdren my friend and colleague at the white house yesterday talking about what we could face if we don't do the right thing and it could be many feet, many feet, of sea level rise by the end of this century.
paris is important because there is action important at all different levels. you need at the local, the state level, the national level. you need action in civil society and among governments. but it is enormously important for all of those areas and the private sector of course to get a signal that the leaders of the world get it, that the countries of the world are taking action together, that the countries that have the confidence that they can act because they see that their competitors and partners are also doing it. as people say, for years we've said how are we supposed to act if china and others aren't. that's part of what an international agreement is supposed to do, to give confidence to countries to act and send a signal to everybody below the international level that what they're doing is in the right direction and to spur and accelerate the action that would otherwise be taken.
>> thank you, mr. stern. >> senator udall. >> thank you chairman barrasso. one of the things i think, mr. stern, that i'm really impressed with what you've done is gone and tried to learn from kyoto. you have tried to take in account what republicans and democrats said as a result of kyoto and one of the big concerns for many republicans has been that there should not be an international agreement that imposes climate action on the united states beyond what the u.s. already plans. beyond what we have in law. do you expect the paris agreement will obligate the united states to meet an emissions target that goes beyond what the united states has already pledged? >> no, i don't, senator. >> and another big ask from republicans is enforcement should not be left up to the
united nations, that black helicopters shouldn't pounce on the united states if commitments are not met. do you expect the paris agreement will include compliance penalties, sanctions or other external enforcement on the united states? and i think the key word there is other external enforcement on the united states. >> that's not part of the discussion, no. >> and republicans have long decried any international agreements on climate change that do not conclude meaningful action on climate change from developing countries. do you enviesion the paris agreement will include meaningful commitments from developing countries? >> absolutely. >> and since i think you're at about the estimate now is about 150 countries, so obviously many developing countries. in your opinion, is it a significant commitment that these developing countries are making in terms of trying to tackle this difficult, difficult issue?
>> yes, senator. >> so my opinion is that you've been very responsive in terms of trying to pull people together and looking at what happened the last time around and coming up with something that is very solid. and i thank you for that. now, i mentioned earlier about business support and we're seeing an outpouring of support among business leaders from all sectors of the economy for a strong agreement. and mr. chairman, i'd like to put in the record here -- this is a in support of paris agreement letter from major companies. and just read one -- with your permission, mr. chairman -- >> without objection, yes. >> and this -- they say a new climate agreement in paris can help strengthen the role of and minimize risk to the private sector in a number of ways.
and this is just one little part here. providing long-term direction. i think that's absolutely crucial. and aim of progressively decarbonizing the global economy can provide a clear signal to markets to shift long-term investments towards energy efficiency and other lower carbon alternatives. this letter signed by companies that we all know, these are major companies, alkoa, bhp billington, bp itself, intel, bp&e, rio tinto, shell, siemens cooperation. these are major corporations that have stepped forward and said this would be very helpful. now recently ceos of the top u.s.-branded food companies like general mills, kellogg, nestle and others called on political
leaders to take decisive action and clear achievable measurable science-based targets for carbon emission reductions. major companies are calling for action from some of our political leaders to continue the strong climate action, that it's a threat to economic well-being. have you been engaging directly with business leaders in this process? why do these companies say that we need a robust agreement in paris and why do you think they will continue to thrive as all the world's countries take action? >> yes, senator, i have been engaging with business and the white house is particularly active in this regard, as well. as has secretary kerry. but i think again, i think for those who -- business leaders live in a fact-based world. and it's not a matter of
ideology. they can look at what is happening. you can look at both the theory and the evidence of what is happening with respect to climate change. and i think that it is useful for -- in the eyes of many to start to put together a regime that is predictable and understandable and points, as you said, the direction in a long-term way to give guidance to the sorts of things that they need to do. i think business -- again, business likes facts and businesses like predictability. and so obviously this is not universal. there's some businesses who don't agree, but more and more you see this kind of thing, that businesses support action, they can see that we're in big trouble if we don't act and it's better to act now. if my understanding from numbers that i've seen recently, for every decade that we wait, the cost of taking action goes up by about 40%. so it's better to get going. >> and those estimates you're
talking about are in the billions and trillions when you're talking about estimates going up, right? >> yes, yes, yes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. appreciate it. >> thank you very much, senator udall. mr. stern, during a hearing july 8, experts testified that even under the best of circumstances, it was unclear how the president could make good on hispledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions up to 26% % to 28% by 2025. so where does this 26% to 28% come from and can the united states meet the administration's pledge under the current law? >> thank you, mr. chairman. the number came from analysis of the various authorities that we have, authorities that are based on the clean air act, energy policy act, energy independence and security act, existing
authorities that had already been provided by the congress. there was an analysis of completed action such as the fuel economy standards for light and heavy-duty vehicles, the appliance standards i referred to earlier, building codes and the like. there was analysis of pending rule makings at the time like the clean power plant, further heavy-duty vehicle and pliens standards, new action being taken on methane and hfcs and so forth, as well as the federal government's own executive order. there were then -- there are still additional elements of the package that include actions by the u.s. forest service and others to improve what's called a carbon sink provided by forest
and grasslands. there's a whole set of voluntary actions being led by the department of agriculture. and there are also state policies that are part of the equation and market trends, things like the abundance of low-cost natural gas, which can substitute for coal in many cases. decline of costs at a more rapid rate than people anticipated. the possibility and indeed the reality increasingly of innovations in areas like electric vehicles and advanced manufacturing. so looking at all of the totality of co2 reducing activities under way, we
determined that 26% to 28% was a number that made sense and that we could meet on the basis of existing authority. and i would point you, by the way, to an analysis that was done by one of the most respected environmental think tanks, the world resources institute, that has concluded the same thing and that target can be met. >> u.s. chamber of commerce found about a 33% gap in getting to this reduction. i want to get into the china and india concentration and the contributions of china and india. before expected china's emissions to peak around 2030.
iea data shows china's intensity of emissions fell by 60% between 1990 and 2005, therefore a pledge to reduce intensity to 2030 just as a continuation of the existing trend. so not only does china get to continue business as usual and increase their emissions, the same is the situation in india. the economist said that the concessions made by the united states are more costly and more real than those in china. the india's prime minister has set a target of expanding by 8% a year. if it comes close to meeting that target, emissions will soar just as china's has done. the article went on to say with economic growth, india's total emissions of carbon dioxide would triple, triple, by 2030 from 1.7 billion tons in 2010 to
5.3 billion tons. india is on its way to becoming the biggest contributor to increases in greenhouse gases in 15 years. india's intended nationally determined contribution did not set a peak date for emissions, they will continue to go up. so considering that china and india's intended nationally determined contributions, will their greenhouse gas emissions be higher or lower than there are today? >> thank you, mr. chairman. so let me take china and india one at a time. >> will slowing the growth of l temperatures be achieved at all if all these major emitters are given a waiver, allowing them to continue to have higher emissions 15 years from now than they do today in spite of what the united states may or hmay nt do. >> we do not agree with that at all, that they have a waiver. what we see from china is the
first-ever agreement to peak its emissions, which is a crucial step on the way to getting them to go down. we see that 20% promise to get 20% of their energy from non-fossil sources to be an enormous pledge. they're going to need to build 900 gigawatts that compares to the electricity of the united states and more than the coal used in china today. so that is a huge, huge undertaking and will constrain what china's able to do in terms of their emissions. they've also agreed to a 60 to 65% improvement in the carbon intensity of their economy by 2030. so i think that what you will see, with respect to the china indc is that it is quite solid.
that the climate tracker that i referenced earlier assesses china to be a quite solid indc. india, i think the strongest part of the indian pledge is to get 40% of their energy from non-fossil sources. 40% of their electric power from non-fossil sources by 2030. the pledge to get 100 -- and part of that is their pledge to build 175 gigawatts of renewable energy, which for an economy the size of india is a vast undertaking. so i'm not here to defend every element of every country's indc. some are stronger than others. i think that the 40% non-fossil pledge for india is stronger than india's carbon intensity pledge for example. but that is a quite significant
undertaking that india has proposed. >> you'd agree the total numbers are going up. the amount of emissions, in spite of what percentage is coming from the renewables, the pledge, that the numbers are still going to go up over the next 15 years, in spite of the fact that the united states has been coming down over the last 12 years. >> well, senator, if i may, the numbers are going down as compared to what the numbers would otherwise be doing. i mean, if you're -- >> no, no, they'll go up. >> if, if -- >> you can't dispute the fact that they're still going up. in spite of the fact that the united states are going down. >> it is also true that if you're an economy that's growing at 8% or 9% a year, it's pretty hard to say you have to slam on the brakes and go negative overnight. >> there are people in the united states who want our economy to come back and move up as well. the hearing was originally supposed to be a joint hearing with the senate environment public works committee. it was supposed to be a hearing
where all the experts who have worked on the president's scleen power plan and the targets, the climate negotiations would all be in one place to answer our questions. i'm grateful that you're here today. the full committee, minority blocked that from happening. so, it's interesting when we asked the epa to testify, they insisted that they had no witnesses who could actually speak about these issues, which is astonishing, given what the epa does in the claims and listening to others, and i know you're from the state department, so appreciate you being here. they stated on october 13th, one week ago, the epa sent a letter to the environment and public works committee chairman who said, and the letter says i respectfully continue to assert that the agency does not have a witness, does not have a witness who can speak to the issues that are topics of this hearing. doesn't have a witness that can speak to the topics, this is
despite the role the epa has played in developing the bulk negotiations that will meet any targets, the despite the fact that the administrator has played a role in the climate change conferences in the parks including lisa jackson, attending and delivering remarks at the u.n. copenhagen climate change conference from 2009. gina mccarthy and the epa have no idea about any of the topics of this hearing, yet i anticipate ms. mccarthy will be attending receptions in paris with international bureaucrats and statements, touting her regulations to anyone who will listen. so i'm grateful that you're here today. i think it's absurd that the head of the epa would say oh, no, there's nothing that we can add to this. so do you know of any plans that the epa has in joining with you as part of the official u.s. delegation to the paris climate change conference? because apparently they don't have anything to do with it or even know anything about it.
>> mr. chairman, i am not aware at the moment of who from epa is coming. there's always an interagency group that goes to these cop meetings. >> so you admit that the epa will be represented there in spite of their inability to comment on this or attend a hearing. you're just not sure who from the epa. >> mr. chairman, i can't comment on today's hearing because i'm not -- >> i appreciate you being here, but there are obvious issues of the epa and their failure to be here. it's interesting, and i did hear some of my colleagues on the other side refer to reducing pollution. and i have another quote, this from gina mccarthy, the head of the epa. now she testified before the senate environment and public works committee in july of 2014, at a time when the democrats actually chaired the committee and were the majority in the senate, and she stated with regard to her existing power plant rule, which makes up a major part of the president's carbon reduction pledge, she said, quote, this is not about
pollution control. but i heard my colleagues talking about this is about pollution. this is gina mccarthy, this is not about pollution control, but about increased efficiency at our plants. let's be clear with regard to the president's carbon reduction pledge, this is not about reducing pollution according to the epa. it's something else. senator udall? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think that the first thing, and senator markey will also be able to speak to this, because he's on the committee, but i think there has been, the environment and public works committee, the, which has jurisdiction over the epa, this has been discussed with the chairman of the committee, chairman corker and our ranking member, ben carden. and it was agreed that this would be the format, and i really believe we have the best witness here to deal with what's going to happen in paris, because mr. stern started right at the very beginning of the
obama administration. he's been on top of everything. he's been to all the negotiations. i mean, there couldn't be anybody that's more on top of what's happening on paris. and my understanding, epa, the environment and public works committee has done extensive hearings on the clean power plan and things like that. but i'm, and as you said, mr. chairman, you're happy to have him here today also, because i think he's the one that has the real facts on what's going on here. mr. stern, your testimony references the fact that these nationally-determined structure, you know, these indcs of the paris climate pledges actually led to countries submitting stronger climate pledges. can you tell us more about the benefits of this approach that you're engaging in? >> look, senator, i think that a couple of things. i think the fact that we
proposed nationally-determined contributions as a structure allowed countries to get into a mode of trying to come forth, figure out what they could do, not simply be in a mode of opposition and fear about how they were going to be able to manage. so i think that's been important. i think that, i think that when countries see others acting, i think what, the most important thing that happened to kind of kick this process off, if you will, was the joint announcement between president obama and president obama xi last november. and their countries could see that here you had the two big classic antagonists, the countries that had been seen, and if you will, as the leaders of the two opposite, opposing camps coming together and saying this is what we're going to do
and making significant pledges, both of them. i think that had a big impact on countries. we have, the united states has worked directly with some countrying to provide teies to assistance and how to provide stronger and stronger contributions. and i'm sure that that has been going on with our colleagues in europe, you know, working with other countries as well. so i think it's something that has fed on itself in a very kind of positive way. and i think, again, the, the sight, the tableau which was stunning to people seeing the president and president xi standing up really got this off to a got foot. >> thank you for that answer, and mr. stern, you've overseen this process since 2009. could you contrast the current scale of the pre-cop pledges to previous meetings.
in particular, how does the number and scale of pre-paris pledges, my understanding 150 so far, compare with the level of effort in past agreements. so look, looking past and present. >> right, well, if you look back at copenhagen, there really weren't any pledges that were made before copenhagen because we hadn't set fort and secured agreement for this kind of structure then. you did have a number of countries, but a quite small number of countries who had essentially put out press releases saying this is what we're planning to do, but i think you could have counted those on one hand. that was not a large number of countries who did that, so it's a completely different, it's a kpleeptsly different ball game now. and it started with the durbin mandate for this negotiation. which we were instrumental in developing at the end of 2011, where the whole theory of the agreement was that it was going
to be applicable to all. it was going to be the not-kyoto. it was going to be everybody. that was the huge, that was the starting point. and then we, as i said, we've worked through these different structural features along the way. and so fort. a and the impact of the china announcement was significant. >> the 1997 bird/hagel resolution asserted that the united states should not join an international climate agreement that a, only imposes obligations on developed countries, and b, would result in serious harm to the economy of the united states. how would you square the current dialog with those requirements? >> well, i think we've met the bird/hagel requirements, frankly, this was, i, people have referenced how i learned
the lessons from kyoto. it helps when you're actually there. i was in kyoto. i learned those lessons. but i remember a famous ad of scissors taking a map of the world and cutting out all the developing countries. this was in 1997 with regard to kyoto, cutting out all the developing countries because they weren't going to have any obligations, so, and that was exactly what the bird/hagel, that first element of the bird/hagel resolution was talking about. so we have just exactly the opposite now. we have 152 indcs, 110-plus developing countries, so it's a completely different ball game, including all the big ones. with respect to the economy, the fact -- two things, the fact that this is nationally determined means that something is not getting imposed on us or anybody else. so it's not the case that we should be in a posture, and we're not in a posture where what we're talking about would hurt the u.s. economy, and then there has also been all sorts of detailed, voluminous analysis
done with respect to the core elements of ar target. the clean power plan be the most recent one and the analysis that epa did shows significant costs to be sure, but netted out against the benefits i think epa's estimate was somewhere in the $26 billion to $45 billion estimate. so this is not going to hurt our economy, and it is going to include all other countries. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator markey? >> thank you, mr. chairman, very much. so i think it's important for us to make clear that we've begun to break this link between increase in gross domestic product and a reduction in greenhouse gases. so, in massachusetts, we have reduced our greenhouse gases by 40% since 1990.
and our gross domestic product has gone up by 70%. so it wasn't inconsistent. our unemployment rate right now is 4.5%. in fact, one of the things that has happened in massachusetts is that having set ourselves out on this course, we now have 100,000 people in massachusetts employed in the clean energy sector. it's now one of the top ten employers of the state. so this disconnect between increasing gross domestic product and reduction in greenhouse gases is accelerating in massachusetts, and it's happening across the planet as well. in 2014, for the first time ever, the world experienced global economic growth without a global carbon pollution increase, according to the international energy agency. so business will be critical to
extending and building on that achievement, so what's the signal that you want to send to businesses across the planet coming out of paris, mr. stern? >> your point, senator, is exactly right. that's the iron link that had to be broken, and it's starting to be broken. hundred to have economic growth up and emissions down. that's name of the game. and i think the signal is, again, long-term, we're moving long-term in a direction to grapple with and successfully tackle climate change. and it's a start. it's not a finish, but if you have all countries of the world on board to do this, the leaders of the country of the world committing to do that, then, again, you send a signal that this is the long-term trajectory and businesses should get essentially on the right side of
history. not just to be on the right side of history but to be on the right side of their balance sheet. >> so, going back to 2009, when the waxman/markey bill was passed through the house of representatives and died here in the senate, but for a while there, people thought my first name was waxman, as part of the waxman/markey bill, but it was going to reduce greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050 and 70% by 2020. those were the goals. and it was a radical group of people who signed onto it. i mean, a completely radical group. general electric. general motors. chrysler. ford. the edison electric institute endorsed the bill. the nuclear energy institute endorsed the bill. company after company, all across the country, endorsed the bill. when you have the big three auto manufacturers and the edison
electric institute endorsing a bill to reduce greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050, you're no longer in the radical extreme. it's those who oppose it who are in the radical extreme. you have the world's scientists all saying that there is a great danger. and john holdren is now saying that there is a destabilization in the west antarctic icecap. and there's 1,000 miles long and 300 miles wide, and pretty much two empire state buildings high. that that would add another 7 feet to the sea levels of our planet. so the radicals are those who say don't worry. but you can't get a more
conservative group than intel and dupont and dow and pepsi cola, that was 2009. the number of companies that has signed on has now doubled since then. because the science is even more clear, and they know they have a fid usualariy responsibility. can you tell us a little bit about chinese business men, is that your experience now, that that's been embraced across the business community as an epic that they believe that they can achieve simultaneously? >> i think that that's right, senator. the, so we have this group of 81 companies that have signed onto the pledge that we put forth.
the french are also putting forth a pledge internationally for countries to sign on. i don't know what the numbers are yet, if they have the totals that they've calculated yet, but i think you're going to see a broad business support all over the world for the same kinds of things that you're seeing here. >> can i say, can i just add this as well? this is triggering a big technological revolution. in 1993 in the united states, if you had a cell phone, it was the size of a brick. it cost 50 cents a minute. and gordon gecko had one in wall street. that was it. but in 1993, i was the chairman of telecommunications. i moved over 200 megahertz a spectrum. by the year 1996, everyone had
this flip phone in their pocket. it was under 10 cents a minute. you didn't have one in 1993. you had one in 1996. and then a really smart guy came up with a smartphone, built seven or eight years later, because we had begun the innovation, a computer in a pocket. but first you had to begin this revolution. and that's where we are now in the energy sector. when you go from 70 megawatts of solar in 2005 to 7,000 megawatts being installed in 2014, 20,000 megawatts installed in 2015 and '16 combined, another 20,000 megawatts of wind being installed in 2014, 2015, and 2016, the revolution just accelerates. and by the way, when we developed the technologies, you wind up with 600 million people in africa today with these devices in their pockets.
they didn't have any of them ten years ago. we innovated. we led, we showed that we could put in place the business incentives to move this technology in a way that could solve a problem, and we're going to wind up with villages in africa that have solar panels on their roofs so that they can plug in their wireless smartphones, and that will have been a made-in-the-usa as our promise to the rest of the world that we would be the leader. and of all of us, you are the leader, mr. stern, we thank you so much. >> mr. stern, we appreciate you being here today. i just want to point out it was the ranking member of the full committee who blocked the effort to hold the joint hearing, despite a long-standing precedent of joint hearings with epw and the senate foreign relations committee. i think it would have been productive and nice to have them all. and i have a list of times when we were able to do that. i did have one final question, and it has to do with references
to a treaty. during senate deliberations on the u.n. framework on climate change in 1992, because we talked about previous activities. george herbert walker bush in his administration, officials testified that in the view of the administration, the degree of congressional involvement in u.s. adoption of any future protocols to the u.n. framework convention in climate change would depend on the nature of those agreements, and the administration also declared that any future agreement containing specific greenhouse gas emission targets likely would need to take the form of a treaty and be submitted to the senate for advice and consent to ratification, and i can give you everything that was stated. but, looking at that, does the administration intend to respect the commitment made by the executive branch in 1992? i know a different
administration, to submit any future protocols negotiated under this u.n. framework convention on climate change that contains emission targets and timetables to the senate for advice and consent? >> thank you, mr. chairman. we've looked at that very carefully. and the notion of of targets and timetables as that term was used in 1992, that was understood by everybody on both sides of the aisle, by everybody in the international community as being legally binding targets and timetables. that was the nature of what that phrase meant. and that was not included for precisely that reason in the framework convention. so, if we, if we were to go forward with legally-binding targets and timetables, i think that the answer would be yes, we agree with you. if what we do is non-legally
binding targets, i think that we see, i think we read that differently, because we do not believe, based on, based on a good deal of study and consultation with people who were part of those negotiations that that was what was meant. what was meant was legally-binding targets and timetables. >> thank u tyou. the hearing's concluded. i'm going to leave the record open until the close of business october 23rd for any member to submit additional comments or questions. i appreciate you being here. the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
texas congressman kevin brady wants to be the next chair of the ways and means committee now that the former chair, has been elected as speaker of the house. he joins us to talk about new republican leadership sunday at 10:00 and 6:00 eastern. and the two-year budget deal passed by congress this week increases spending by $80 billion, equally divided between domestic and military programs, and it extends the debt ceiling until march 2017, two months after president obama leaves office. you can read the bill on our
website, c-span.org. all persons having business before the honorable, the supreme court of the united states are admonished to draw near and give their attention. >> this week on c-span's land mark cases we'll discuss the historic supreme court case of schenck versus the united states. in 1917. >> the united states entered world war i. patriotism was high. and some statements against the government were a federal offense. of schenck handed out leaflets against the draft. >> this was the flier that was produced in 1917. 15,000 copies of this were produced. and the point was to encourage men who were liable for the draft not to register. the language in this flyer is particularly fiery. it equates conscription with
slavery and calls on every citizen of the united states to resist the conscription laws. >> he was arrested, tried and found guilty under the espionage act. he appealed, and the case went directly to the supreme court. find out how the court ruled, weighing the issues of clear and present danger and freedom of speech. our guests include thomas goldstein, co-founder of scotus blog. and beverly gage. that's coming up live monday at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span 3 and c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch, order your cop ief the "landmark cases" book. the pentagon's chief information officer sat down with reporters earlier this week at a breakfast hosted by the
christian science monitor. much of it focussed on the military. okay, i think we're set. thanks for coming, everyone, i'm dave cook from the monitor. our guest today is terry halvorsen for the defense department. he oversees the role of the largest computer network. he is accompanied by larry bailey whose role is deputy chief officer for the defense department. he holds a master's in educational technology from the university of west florida. he served as an army intelligence officer and later as a civilian. he was deputy commander of navy cyber forces and then became the navy's chief information officer. he's been in his current role as pentagon's chief information officer since this last march. ms. bailey has a bachelor of science degree from the university of maryland and a
master's from the industrial college of the armed forces. she's been a member of the national security work force since 1984. thus ends the biographical portion of the program, now on to the riveting mechanical details. first, thanks to our underwriter, northrup grummond. we are live and on the record here. no live blogging or tweeting. in short, no filing of any kind as the breakfast is under way to give us time to actually listen to what our guests say. there is no embargo when the session ends at 10:00 sharp. to help you curb that relentless selfie urge, we will e-mail several pictures of the session to all the reporters here as soon as the breakfast ends. as regular attendees know, if you would like to ask a question, please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle, non-threatening signal and i'll happily call on one and all. we're going to start with our guests to have the opportunity of opening comments and we'll head around the table.
with that, your breakfast is over. sorry about that, sir. thanks for coming. thank you. i'd like to thank all of you for taking time. i looked at the list, a pretty big list, i figured breakfast must be pretty good. that's why everybody is here. as the introduction mentioned, d.o.d. is the largest private network. i think it gets to our scale. if d.o.d. was a fortune 500 company, we would be fortune 0 everybody starts with us. in terms of how you want to measure it, forms of cash, defense. we are very, very large. we are also attacked more than anything else. one of the reasons i brought maryann with me today, mary ann is my deputy for cyber security, and i thought maybe there might be some interest in cyber security questions given some things that are going on in
the world today. i'm going to focus my opening comments very quickly on three components, that while they are focused around cybersecurity actually apply more broadly than that. i get a question all the time, what keeps me awake, and i think most people expect me to answer it's security or it's dollars. it's neither of those things, it's culture. we're in the midst of having to make some major culture changes, and i want to say d.o.d., but i think we'll have to make some culture changes. one of the things we have to do in d.o.d. is establish a culture of seeker discipline. when the internet started -- and we should take a minute and say happy birthday to the internet. the internet's birthday is today. it was the first arponet connection across today, and i would mention it was a d.o.d. arponet connection when
it first started, it was a research connection built to share information. it continued that way and people got to be that it was a trusted area, and frankly, it wasn't until it more matured that we started to see a series of bad actors on the internet, but they are out there today. but they're not visible like they are in the physical world. so i think it's easy for people to forget that there are bad actors out there. it's certainly easy for parts of our work force to do that, so we are really trying right now to make sure that people understand you got to go to the internet. it is an important part of our business and important part of our culture, but you have to go there with the right rules and right understandings, so you will see a lot of information on that.
we have jufrs just signed out our plan. the chairman and secretary signed out the cyber culture work piece that talks about what we're trying to do. it talks about leadership accountability and transparency. because we face so many different threats, there is just different answers. the other part we have to do is move to the right side of cyber economics which is another cultural change because it means you have to understand economics much better in cyber than i think you do in other areas. as a military area, cyber is one of the first big warfare areas where frankly in phase zero and phase one, we have to worry about non-military targets being attacked, and they can be attacked in areas that don't look like they would be attacked. because we get much more advantage from the way we use cyber and high technology, it's of course going to make us somewhat vulnerable to those types of attacks, and you want to think about some of the things that could cause us issues in a cyber world. just look at what would happen if someone disrupted wall street for the day and we're now talking about a trillion
dollars. a trillion dollars becomes strategic money. you could interrupt potentially the power grid. there are lots of things that you could do that would cause us great economic differences. the other problem we have today in this area is that it is much less expensive for someone to attack us than it is for us to defend, and we've got to turn that around. today we are really on the wrong side of that piece. part of moving to the right side is we need to operate our security as much we can. to go past automation, we want to get to economist tools that actually self-learn and can start taking actions on a network either to stop-quarantine the attack so it doesn't get lateral movement. and maybe the biggest thing we have to do in d.o.d. is develop an enterprise culture.
cyber is forcing us to think differently about that. unlike other areas, cyber truly is enterprise because it's connected. you can't help it. it's going to be a connected piece. and we have to get much better at that at d.o.d. we need to think about what it means to be an enterprise, where we're going to act as an enterprise, under what circumstances we need to act as an enterprise. that gets us to security and cost effectiveness. without that balance we won't achieve cost effectiveness in security. it means we have to look at economic tools much closer than we have in the past. it also means we need to partner with industry, and i mean truly partner. i'm a history major. i actually in college couldn't decide what to do so i majored in pre-med, pre-law and economic science and ended up with a multitude of degrees. if you look at world war ii, we had a much different relationship with industry in
the second world war. we need to take a look at how we reestablish some of that. it was not uncommon for industry and the sector to move back and forth with employment, to have industry partners working right inside the projects. i think we have to start thinking about how we have to do that. that's particularly true in cyber i.t. because we do not own the market space. we're a big influence there, but we don't own it. if you're buying a submarine, we kind of own the market space. if you're buying an aircraft carrier, we kind of own the market space. if you're buying software in technology, we don't own it. in the commercial world, they're actually doing more innovation in that area than we are, so it's really critical that we partner with that. we're doing a couple things to expand that. some of you have reported on this and know we're doing it. for the first time we're putting civilians out into companies. we had done that with military but we're now putting civilians out in six-month tours with i.t. companies, and we're bringing
i.t. company personnel into d.o.d. we've done that with cisco. this year we're going to do it with about 10 companies and they will be either on the d.o.d., my staff, or they'll be on the service cio staff. and they'll be in areas we think we need to expand on, and how do you do software design networking, that's an area we think we need expertise in, auto mated security, we already talked about that. so we'll pick areas that we need that match up with the companies. we'll certainly make sure we have all the right nda so nobody gets any advantage and we've done that in the past. but i think that's things we're going to have to do to make sure that we continue to have the edges that we gain through our use of the cyber and technology. and they will also help us get to an enterprise thought process. i also think we'll help industry through enterprise. i think one of the things we'll
see in industry, there's going to have to be more partnering in the i.t. business. there is nobody who corners all of this. it's going to take much more partnering, i think, among the industry players for this to work. i really think that's going to have to be a major change in the way industry does business, too. i think you'll see more smaller companies partnering with mid and bigger companies so they can scale. that's a problem for us in d.o.d. one of the constant issues that i'll face is i'll have one person say, we have this great tool and we tested it for a million. so i request know -- can know that that will scale. that's hard for smaller companies. i do think partnering with bigger companies is the way that's going to have to head to keep pricing and delivery speed in the industry. thank you, and i'm happy to take questions. >> i have one or two and then we'll go to olivia stromm, mark thompson, and sharon sorcher to
begin. let me ask you about the cyber economic curve. you talked about the fact that an enemy, in another speech you talked about the fact that an enemy can spend, quote, a fairly small sum of money and cause us to spend quite a bit. right now we're on the wrong side of that cyber economic curve, end quote. how are you going to change -- can you change that curve, and if so, how are you doing that? >> one of the things we're doing with our cyber culture and our cyber basics is you raise the playing level. when you get your cyber basics right and you've got people doing the right things, frankly you eliminate all of the small end players. and that's one of the things we have to do. the other piece of that will be bringing on the economist tools so that what we are doing is we're doing that with an automated piece, not with intensive manpower. manpower would cost money. so i think as we get there, you will see that it will get more
expensive to cause us problems. and so i do think we can get to the right side of that curve. >> and is that, in terms of time horizon, is that a 3, 5 or -- >> i think that's an 18 to 24-month plan to get us there. we might not be exactly where we want to be, but i think we'll be very close and we will have eliminated much of the -- what i'll call the canned attacks that are somewhat successful today that you can download from the internet. >> one last from me and then we'll move on. i was interested getting ready for this that you're operating what appears to somebody who doesn't know a lot to be diverse ends of security spectrum. you talked in public speeches about rolling out at the pentagon, quote, secure enough mobile devices, and then the industry was fascinated when you mentioned, i guess earlier this month, working on a top secret
capable device that would let forces communicate anywhere any time at a top secret level. so what are the challenges of operating two different ends of the security spectrum? >> i don't think the challenges are much different. you've got to get the right security level for the mission and the time and the cost. so, you know, you want the ts capability obviously would be for a small number of users in a very select set of missions. the more mobile device that's for everybody, obviously the scale of that is bigger, but the analysis you do to decide what's the right level of security, what's the right cost you want to spend is really not much different in terms of process for the high end of security or the low end of security. it really is getting -- and secure enough actually applies to everything. this is a little bit of a joke, but everybody tells me, i can secure the network today, i
really can. i can secure it completely in the next five minutes. now, it would be completely shut down and we would get no work done, but it would be completely secure. this is a balance. it always is a balance and it's a balance across time, money, mission, threat, and it's getting that right. the other thing, i think, that we have to do that's part of that is understanding your data. most of the data that we have -- and i joke about this, but i'm really thinking hard about it -- i think data ought to come with -- you know how the milk carton comes with "use by"? they ought to come with a stamp that says, "after this date, who cares?" it's perishable. i tell a story back in my younger career where i was part of an operation where we used to have these squad radios so i could yell, "mary ann, duck." mary ann could get that quickly and she could duck. we did this thing where people decided they had to be encrypted, and i will tell you
everything you can believe. this is a truism. if a threat can put small arms fire onto you, they know where you are. that's a given. so we encrypted this so by the time you yelled "duck" when it went through the encryption, you no longer had to worry about duck. it was a different problem. you have to be secure enough for the environment. if the enemy knows where you are and they can put small engine fire on you, maybe that doesn't need to be encrypted. and we don't encrypt that now, we have better ways of doing it, but back then that was a problem. so knowing what your data's perishability is is a problem. >> go for it. >> terry, can you talk a little bit about the cyber implementation plan the chairman just talked about? you mentioned some of the pieces and parts of it. >> first of all, we go after the basics. the basics include things like,
you know, higher education levels and more tools around some of the common attacks like spear fishing, setting up fake web sites, things like that. it's a combination of tools, culture and training and education. that's kind of step 1. step 2 raises it to the next level where we really start looking at more advanced attacks and how do we prevent those. and it's the same type of combination of training, education and tools, but they're just more advanced, you have to have more education, more training. and it's really also educating leaders at every level what their responsibilities are and what they need to know. when you're growing up as -- and i actually started as an infantry officer. they teach you very quickly what things when you go out to your units that you should ask that can tell you rather quickly if the unit is prepared. we have to do the same thing in cyber. what questions should we be asking about cyber as a commander at any level?
we've also developed in conjunction with all of this a cyber scorecard that measures a series of things and will change. as we get good at certain basics, we'll move that up. we just had about an hour and a half discussion with sec def on that. i laid out for him the change and the progression of that. we will measure that consistently across all levels and across all forces. it includes co-coms, each of the agencies, each of the services. everybody gets to be measured. it's an interesting drill because i think it's an area where we were used to measuring readiness and other areas, we frankly weren't doing that cyber. again, i don't think that should surprise anybody. cyber is a relatively new warfare. if you look at the history of aviation, you look at the history of how we develop nuclear, it took us a while to get to this point. i think the big difference in
cyber, though, that we're having to react to is it moves faster than any other warfare area. that's a challenge. the things we do today in cyber probably won't be the same things we do tomorrow. that's frustrating on industry, too, and i'll share that. we did our latest cloud documentation working with industry. we brought industry in, we helped them write the policy priorities. one thing they wanted to do was put in, this will be good for a year, this will be good for two years. the answer is no. it will be good as long as the threat and technology says it's good. when that changes in cyber, you've got to build a role fast. it's hard for any big institution to grasp at that. it's hard for industry to do that. it's accelerated change and we're generally not good at accelerated change as humans, period. >> i thank you for coming.
roughly how often per hour, per day, pick whatever time you want, are systems tested by foreign hackers? have you seen a shift in their targets since the -- >> there is no time i'm not being attacked somewhere in the world. >> have they changed since the attack? >> i don't think they're less. we might find a change of data disruption. >> but not things like food distribution versus missiles, anything like that? >> to the extent i can comment on that, no. >> and you mentioned establishing a culture of cyber discipline. i have some active duty friends who have posted things on facebook they probably shouldn't and things like that. a cyber boot camp, is that something you're looking to establish for people? >> i don't think we'll be doing a cyber boot camp. this is cyber so it will probably be done in the cyber environment. but i think some of the things we're doing would be like the basics you would get in another
boot camp, only we're delivering them through a cyber means. >> chris stromm from bloomberg. >> a russian hacker got into b&b's network. can you elaborate a little bit, when did that happen? do they actually steal any information? >> the answer to your question is no, i can't elaborate on that. >> ian clapper has said that russian hackers are the most sophisticated hackers, or they've been the most aggressive lately. what's your assessment of the threat of russian hackers versus the threat of hackers from other nations. >> given that ian said it, it's probably true. >> what is your vision of hackers? >> i think the russian hackers are a threat. >> we're going to go to mark thompson from "time." >> last month before this committee, you were asked, what keeps you up at night, and you said foremost in your mind was
the fact that terrorists might be launching offensive cyber attacks. >> i don't think i said that, i think mike rogers said that, but that's okay. >> i've got the transcript right here, sir. i think it was you. >> i don't think so, but go ahead. >> then that makes that moot. leon panetta was in our offices a few years ago and he warned of an electronic pearl harbor. clapper said, there's probably not going to be a seeker armagedd armageddon. rather, it's going to be this sort of gradual incrementalism of problems and troubles. is this going to be a persistent thing, it's going to basically become white noise? we've been hearing about an electronic pearl harbor for a long time and industry plainly keeps waiting for it to happen before they're going to roll out a lot of big money. where is the threat? how much is a cyber pearl harbor and how much of it is just a
persistent white noise we have to learn to grapple with? >> i don't know that anybody can answer that. i would tell you two things.1ypñ industry certainly is shifting money now, big money, into cybersecurity. a lot of that happened after the target attack that will tend to get you spurred when the cio, ceo all got fired. we see that. we talk to industry a lot. i'll tell you when i knew cybersecurity was getting really important to industry. i was giving a speech and after a speech i was getting questions from these two gentlemen. lots of good questions and i said, where are you from? they said coors miller. i'm trying to think, coors mill financial -- no, it was coors miller beer. i think the industry is getting this. the financial sector certainly got it a while back. is there a potential for a cyber pearl harbor? probably. i think it will depend on what scale of engagement. in kind of the normal phase 0, yeah, i think there will be
persistent cyber probing, there will be persistent testing of cyber threat technology. i think that is something we're going to live with. i don't think, again, that should surprise us. any time we've had new technology, that's what happens. it gets probed. as it matures, it certainly becomes more available for threat to look at it. i think that's going to continue in the cyber world. and it will depend on a little bit on how much nations decide they want to cooperate, too, and i don't think there is any answer that's come in on that yet. we certainly hope it will get to some of that, but i don't think we will see that -- i don't think we're going to see quite the cyber cooperation we think for a while longer yet. >> here's your quote about it, offensive cyber attacks. >> i see it's an extract from
the transcript. i really don't remember that. i thought mike rogers was terrorism, but we'll check. >> i have been known to make mistakes. >> hey, shawn. >> in terms of j and e, there was a report earlier this week by the "new york times" that russian vessels may be probing underwater cable links, and i'm wondering what role jie can have in warding that off if you've gone through those scenarios and if you think you're prepared to handle that threat. >> shawn, be really careful. cables are always a concern. jie really won't have any impact on that one way or the other. they're looking at the physical part of the cable. no way jie plays in that. >> so how are you prepared to defend against the physical part? >> that i'm not going to talk about. that gets into a whole bunch of
classified programs on how we protect the cables. >> sara sorcher from pesco. >> mike rogers said earlier this year that the government's focus on defense isn't working and it's time to consider boosting the military's offensive capability in this space. curious as y cio for your opinion. what do you think if you're feeling this need pretty consistently, and as the u.s. considers it, what does that look like? >> i think that's probably a question to ask mike rogers. i'll give you my quick summary on it. as the cio, i am responsible for the defense and security side of that. i don't think it's a secret we are looking at what offensive actions could the u.s. take. i think there is always things we're considering. we don't, however, discuss that in public other than we're considering those things. >> so do you also feel a need to move into that space and go -- expand the definition of defense? >> i think what we're telling
you is we're probably already in that space, and how much of that -- i think this is more of the question. how much do you publicize of that so it becomes more of an external awareness that would be in some way a deterrent. again, that's an area that we tend not to talk too much about in public. >> down at the end of the table, mr. marks from politico. >> you talked a little bit about the program you're working on -- the embed program you're working on in private companies. can you go into more detail on who those people are, and i imagine there are people who work from the d.o.d. to industry who already have clearances and so forth. is that the type of people you're looking for? >> we don't actually have the number of people you would think move from industry into d.o.d. and there's a really good reason for that. if you do that, you're generally taking a fairly significant salary cut. what we're looking at is some of our top government performers
who have predominantly been government going out to industry and learning a couple things. there are certainly some technical things we want to learn. we also want to learn how the industry is doing their processes. that's important for us, and one of the things that in the office we spend more time than they have in the past, is understanding what businesses, what do they understand our economic drivers are, understanding what they're investing in in the future to see if we can influence that. so they'll be doing all of those things until areas that we really think that we need to get some better read on. we've talked about some of those. some of that is -- it's called software-defined networking, software-defined route, whatever you want to call it. it's a software-based tool. that has a big advantage for us. it lets you be more agile. you don't have to replace the hardware as much if you can update it with the software.
it's also cost-effective for us to do that. we're looking 13 to 15 grade levels so that they've got a good track record of high performance inside the government. >> we're going -- the two-year programs you talk about we're going from industry to government. >> it's a one-year program that they come in to us. we're looking at industry to help us solve some specific areas. so in the case of cisco, they gave us a routing specialist. that's what they do, cisco routers. as we look at other companies, we'll bring in kind of what their sweet spot is and things. certainly this year we're looking for some software-defined pick your name expertise. modular data center technology. i do think that's going to be bigger as you look at it. we are certainly continuing our effort to close data centers. we have too much capacity. but as you do that, you start
looking at the -- modular data centers can run at higher temperatures, they run with lower manpower and less power. it is true the number one cost in a center is labor. right now in d.o.d., our labor costs are higher than industry. i've got to get those labor costs down, and some of that is applying newer technology, and this industry has been able to apply it faster than we have. >> can you explain for a novice why your labor costs would be higher -- you're saying if you move from private industry to d.o.d. you typically take a pay cut. so the reason you're generally higher -- >> because our data centers are not at the same level technology as industry, the really leading industry, we just -- we just have a sheer number of people hired. it really is count the numbers. it takes us, in general, more people to do the same number of
things that industry can do less. industry is really leading. you've got data centers now in some of the really advanced companies that are lights out. even five years ago in industry, what used to take 25, 30 people to do, they're now doing 10 people in a central location managing three of those sites. we've got to get to that same type of level. >> so, you know, your discussion about partnering with the private industry, and you touched a little bit on the issue of labor costs. this has been a longstanding problem with local government as well as state as well as federal, trying to get private industry to come back to government and avoid that sort of brain drain of government folks, really good government folks, usually, heading out to private industry. aside from trying to get labor costs down, what other ideas do you guys have about ensuring the people that, you know, it's not a one-way street. >> one of the things, and
probably the single best recruiting tool we have is our mission site. we are able to keep people, and frankly attract some people from industry, because the one thing you get to do in d.o.d., there is nobody who has more exciting things to work on. that's our biggest advantage. that will work for a while. but i tell you what i worry about is when you get into kind of your middle years in this, that's when you're having kids, you're looking at college, and people come and offer you what can be two or three times what your current salary is. that's hard for even the mission to hold that. and frankly, we are seeing some drain, and i'm not winning that war right now. i'm losing. we're looking at some special plans. easier ways to recruit. we're working on it. we have some and i can do some hiring under some special cyber
acts, but i can't really compete very well on the pay. i don't think we'll be able to compete on the pay. maybe we get a little closer, that would help. i honestly don't have a good answer how we win that one. >> i'm curious what the trust factor is when you talk about working with private industry. because it seems to me the last few years one of the major themes has been a lack of trust between private industry and the federal government, particularly the pentagon over nsa spying, encryption, et cetera, et cetera. i wonder when you talk about partnering more with private industry, are you finding private industry willing to do that, or do you have a big trust issue you have to overcome? >> within d.o.d., with our partners, i don't have a big trust issue, and i think there are two reasons for that. i'm not naive enough to think the first reason is i spend
$36.8 billion a year. that buys a lot of potential trust. but i'm going to say this, and i actually had a very good discussion on this on my trip overseas. i do think american industry responds to d.o.d. very well and has a very good history of doing that. i was talking yesterday at a table where i was speaking at milcom. a lady gave me a suggestion, and i think i'm going to follow up on it, that we have industry with us on a forward edge. when we tell industry, listen, we need help in getting smaller communications to this far-flung unit and we need people out there, they deliver. when you talk to the industry that get this, they are very supportive of defending the industry. i don't see a big trust problem.
do i think there are industries that worry about parts of d.o.d.? yeah, but that's generally not the industries that i'm doing as much business with. the ones that are doing business with d.o.d., i don't see a big trust problem. as a matter of fact, i applaud them. we give them a challenge. they're generally up to meeting it. >> may i add something to that? >> sure. >> the cybersecurity problem is very complex, it's very distributed, it's very difficult and it's something we all share. we've had great partnerships with them as we figure out together as a nation, as an industry, as a department of defense how we're going to figure out that problem. we share successes we've had. we've had a lot of great dialogue with our big industry partners on how they're doing that, how they're having successes in their companies, things we may want to look at, so i think there's been great collaboration. >> anybody who hasn't had one that wants one. yes, ma'am?
then we'll go down there. yes? >> hi. so earlier this week we saw that the d.o.d. cybersecurity culture and compliance initiative memo came out. i was wondering, what does this memo mean for your office, and how are you carrying out some of the directives that are inside it, like the directives for culture change? >> well, amber, as we talked about, we certainly looked at how we're changing the training to get it down to every level and going up to every level, getting it to all the commanders. we are expanding what we look at in the cyber scorecard. i do think the things you measure are getting attention, and we are now measuring those things. we're having a lot more discussion with industry, as mary ann said, about how we better share all of the data
that's available from both industry and the d.o.d. on what the threats are, how to counter the threats and then passing that around to both our partners and orchestrate it in the right way to get that culture change and that's what we're trying to do. you asked specifically what my role in my organization is to make sure that gets done. we do the measurements and we are trying to make sure the orchestration gets with all the data. are we doing the authentication? are the systems administrators using tokens so we know what systems administrators are on the networks? have we put all of our public facing and forward facing,
meaning onto the internet servers behind the right set of firewalls or other security boundaries? firewalls will change here somewhat. but there will still be a security boundary, whatever that technology is. have we looked at how all of our data is encrypted or not? when -- there's times when data should be encrypted and are we following all those processes? >> thank you for taking my question. you had talked earlier about partnering with industry, particularly smaller partners. i know d.o.d. has stood up an experimental innovation unit in silicon valley, so i would love to hear how that process is going in the early stages. >> i think it's going about how you would think in the early stages. we're making some progress. we're still learning that. it's out there really to learn how silicon valley does business
than to teach silicon valley how d.o.d. does business. i think that's a key that the secretary set very smartly for that. here's what d.o.d., when it comes down to it, if you're a small business and you're doing your innovation, you live on a 3 to 6-month funding cycle. if you don't get money in the 3 to 6-month window, they're not there anymore. that's what they have to do to pay back their backers. we're generally not turning that fast, so one of the things we try to do up there is how do we make the smaller investments we have to make faster? and i think we're doing okay. i would tell you the secretary probably thinks we need to do better and be able to still get faster. the other thing that unit is doing is not educating silicon valley about our business process at d.o.d. but actually educating about our processes and what do we need? what are the areas that we need the most help with? i think that part of it is going really well.
and we've coupled that with -- we've had a couple trips out to silicon valley. we will have -- when i say silicon valley, it's the concept more than the location. we've put one out in california, but we're taking a trip -- my deputy will leave up the east coast, because there's actually a lot of innovation going on in boston, new york, places like that. so we want to make sure we're not just capturing what's out in the physical silicon valley but getting that concept. we're even looking at some places -- you know, there's interesting innovations going on in london and places like that. how do we make sure we capture all that? so in addition to partnering with the industry, we're also having better relationships with our counterparts. i spent a lot of phone with mike stone, who is the u.k.'s cio for their ministry of defense. we exchanged ideas. i just came back to see how they're doing.
they're a little smaller, they can turn faster, but they're the exact same problems. so we can look and see a little bit what fails or succeeds faster, which is a big help for us. >> i'm going to keep moving around the table but i want to ask a question, if i can, about veterans. we were talking before the breakfast started that you were scheduled to testify on tuesday to the house committee on oversight and government reform about electronic records between the d.o.d. and the d.a. as you know, former secretary gates lamented that he never succeeded in cracking the bureaucracy and said if there is one bureaucracy more attractive in defense, it's the va. so how does the record inoperability thing stand? i ask that as an older veteran myself.
>> it's getting better. i don't think it's good enough. i guess i would answer more about what we in d.o.d. are doing. i'm sure all of you are aware we have just signed a contract to make d.o.d. more commercial like. we're going to have commercial and we're using a very broadly accepted commercial software to do that. we're spending a lot of time looking at how to make that work better. we are actually taking more and more commercial practices.