tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 16, 2014 11:00pm-1:01am EST
you. you handled all the questions i think with great integrity. and please now go back to your normal work and we will later epa administrator it was about the president's climate action plan. >> coming up on the next "washington journal" discussion on net neutrality rules and what this week's ruling means. we'll here from michael cops and robert mcdowell both former members of the f.c.c. then a look at how many americans volunteer.
"washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> friday at 11:00 a.m. eastern president obama speaks about changes to government surveillance programs. we'll bring it to you live from the justice department here on c-span. later a panel reacts to the president's speech. we'll hear from a former c.i.a. analyst. live coverage at 2:00 p.m. eastern also here on c-span. >> when gow behind the scenes as a photographer, you are there to seerks not hear, not listen and not repeat anything that you
hear and it's kind of a mutual agreement because we are let into meetings. when you are behind the scenes that are sensitive. i was there when president obama same a rally and at the time the hurricane had just come up the east coast and was up in the north and he was on a secure phone talking to a fema director trying to organize it at the same time of the campaign. really unique time to be in there and hear him in a really heated or serious conversation about what was going on on the ground there and how he wanted things to take place and organizing that. and on the other side of the wall people are banging four more years. it's aee neek thing to be behind the scenes with the president. >> doug mills sunday night at
:00 on c-span's q&a. >> gary cohen the director of medicare and medicaid over sight testified about the empation of the healthcare law. he defended his previous testimony about the website's readiness. see his entire testimony here on c-span friday morning and c-span.org. e at >> thank you mr. chairman and mr. cohen. you know i'm going to bring this up. i need to you address september 13, i asked you a question will the enrollment be ready this year. you said consumers will be able to go online and get a determination of what subsidies they are eligible for and look at the plans that are available where they live. they will be able to see the premium net of subsidy they will
have to pay and they will be able to choose a plan and get enrolled. do you recall that exchange, sir? >> i recall that very well. knowing what you know now, would you like to revise that answer in any way? >> clearly it was wrong but it was also what i believed and what i understood based on what i had been told. i'd like to answer your question if you would permit me. i knew that i was going to be asked that question obviously when i came here on september 19 and i knew it was close to october 16789 and i was careful to get a thorough briefing from the people responsible forover seeing the build of the website and what i gave you was what they told me the function nalt would be on october 1. >> who told that you? >> mr. chow among others. >> i simply do not understand why no one has been held accountable for an error that
egregious. if i were you i would have fired someone under me and it would have happened in october. if tirp secretary i would have fired you and that would have happened in october. and if tirp president i would be so embarrassed by the legislation i8d have fired a lot of you. that was the tack not taken. but i do not understand why do -- why should we believe you now when nothing you said over the past year or year and a half has been accurate? >> because the site is working is why you should believe me now. if we had all been fired it would not be working. >> the subsidies that are supposed to go to the insurance companies they tell me are coming as a result of a paper process that is having to be entered by hand this. thing is a disaster and the providers are going to be the ones that take it on the chin because we are obligated to see
those patients when they show up. o one can verify benefits at 3:00 in the morning. you take care of it and who pays the bills? the secretary is not responsible for paying those bills so the doctors around the country ask who is responsible for paying those bills? >> the insurance company that has enrolled the person is responsible for paying the bills. and the payments of tax credits will be flowing next week. they will begin next week. >> i will submit to you that part of the website has not been built and is going by hand. i've been told numbers as low as 5% to 10% of those payments are going through. i would appreciate if you have additional information you make it available to the committee. i hope we have an opportunity to discuss that in the future. i think our providers are truly at risk from your mismanagement
of this problem. >> federal communications chair tom wheeler spoke about the court decision striking down the net neutrality rules. this is 20 minutes. >> thank you david. i am happy to be here. i don't know how i refer to this distinguished group up here. are these colleagues? are these predecessor colleagues? over the years i've referred to them a lot of different ways. but i'm not sure what but it's great to be here and be this w
this distinguished group of predecessors whose rather large footsteps i'm proud to follow in. i want -- david that was really nice what you said about our first vote. let's give credit where credit is due. when i showed up, you may have noticed there was a little wait before i showed up. nd when i showed up, there was the foreign ownership item sitting there ready to move because chairwoman cly born had made that happen. [applause] s -- . >> i agree, what a job she did. all i did was get the glory of carrying the ball over the line. she did the hard work to get it down to the goal line and in so many things that we've been able to do here early on is picking
up on the legacy that she left us. d.c. policy st appearance. [applause] i was in a town meeting in oakland last week and i said to them that there was method in my madness that i had not appeared before any groups in washington, d.c., that my first speech had been out in ohio at the ohio state university. my second was in silicon valley and followed immediately by oakland because the action is out there. but if i'm to break the mold and make a washington appearance, i
couldn't think of a better place than here. so thank you very much for inviolating me today. -- inviting me today. >> the struggle for minority participation in the media has been long, it's been heroic and it's been right. what i'd like to do today is to visit with you about how we can a those kinds of ideas to ew level, how we can join in a new great campaign that celebrates the activities of the past but identifies the opportunities of the future. i think we need to begin by being honest with each other. supreme court has made it very difficult for the government to take direct steps to create
advantages on a specific group basis. ut it has not removed the twin goals of diversity of voices and diversity in ownership. the challenge is how do we go after those goals and i think the new environment we exist in offers that opportunity. i believe that the new opportunity campaign should focus on yes, the opportunities created by our new network real tiss rather than refighting the struggles of the past. yes, i think it is outrageous that there is no minority ownership of television stations in america. but the interesting thing is
that that reality now exists in an environment where facilities ownership is less critical to .iverse voices than ever before just ask reed hastings, the c.e.o. of netflix if he needed to own distribution before he could produce "house of cards" or orange is the new black or any of the other presentations video services that he's developed. deals ulu who brokered with 11 different spanish language content partners. or ask michelle fawn who in 2012 launched her own multichannel u tube network focusing on fashion nd beauty and has over 5 1/2
million subscribesers today. or ask bob johnson whether he needed to own facilities to launch b.e.t. i was there when that happened. you could even ask some of the next generation of entrepreneurs . o are in this audience the fact of the matter is that the opportunities that are before us all are a result of what i've been calling the fourth great network revolution. it's the greatest revolution in how we communicate amongst ourselves in the last 150 years. what we've learned from previous
network revolutions is that ange is hard, that new etworks are disruptive forces, that encome bents will oppose the change in a bid for self-preservation but that by embracing change you can produce successful results and those who embrace change become transformational forces. that's the new network opportunity that we have before us today. never in the life of anyone in this room has there been fwreater opportunity to exploit the new networks for ownership diversity and content diversity. and that is what makes the open
internet so dam -- damn important. there has been a little flurry in the past few days on this topic so i thought maybe it would make sense to reflect on that. the reason why broadcast ownership was important in the past was baw it gave access to a ighly controlled medium. we will not let that kind of ntrol take over the internet period. [applause] on tuesday the d.c. court of appeals issued a much anticipated decision in the open internet case. since it's been so talked about and is of such importance to the
kind of goals we're talking about here for the diversity of ownership and the diversity of voices, please allow me to make a couple of observations. one, the court invited the commission to act and i intend to accept that invitation. using our authority we will readdress the concepts in the open internet order as the court invited to encourage growth in invasion and enforce against abuse. we've noted with great interest the expressions from many internet service providers to the effect that they will continue to honor the open internet orders concepts even though they may have been remanded to the commission.
that's the right and responsible thing to do and we take them up on their commitment. at the same time, we accept the court's invitation to revisit the structure of the rules that it vacated. the great revolution in the internet is how it empowers individuals to both consume and create. it's the kind of opportunity that we're discussing here this morning. and to do so requires an accessible and open internet and we will fight to preserve that capability. [applause] we also recognize that investment and invasion in broad band networks are essential for
the growth and expansion of the internet. but make no mistake about it, our job is to ensure growth and invasion through an open internet. it is a topic that should join the f.c.c. in common cause. now let me quickly touch on a couple of other topics. the lifeline program is an important component of everyone's right to access our communications networks. the program has been abused. the outrage of that abuse is being addressed. but it doesn't change the underlying purpose. we are conducting broad band lifeline trials right now and we'll base policy decisions on
those findings. but broadband is the future and access to broadband is important to everyone. different topic. the internet protocol transition. as we move from analog to all internet protocol networks, the capabilities of networks to erybody is -- serve people expands. it is the opportunity that is created. but in this internet protocol transition, we need to make sure that those opportunities continue -- are preserved and tonight expand. for 100 years there has developed a values relationship, a set of values that determine
the relationship between those who use networks and those who build and operate networks. those values do not disappear ecause the technology changes. we are going to hold a series of trials of what it means, what happens when you go all i.p. in services to consumers. and the key to those trials is making sure that these values, what we've started to call the network compact, that these values continue. moving to a new technology does ot erase old values. telehealth i know is an important issue and is something that i've personally been involved n. before -- i was telling david earlier that
before the president asked me to do this job, i was chairman of the u.n. foundation's m. health aligns. and this is we were using mobile technology around the world to link those in need of medical care with those who could offer medical care. i'm a huge supporter of telehealth and the policies that are necessary to move telehealth along. that's why i'm really excited that commissioner is leading an effort inside the agency on behalf of the agency to keep pushing these bouppedries forward. and we will follow the lead in that regard. and finally, i know you had a .ession yesterday on stem at we do to make sure that
21st century students get 21st century education using the tools of the 21st century which are the tools of connectivity is crucial importance to our country and countless individuals. a lot has changed with the internet since 1996 when center rockefeller fathered the e rate. that was when chairman hunt led the charge to implement what the congress had done and if the truth be known, worked with the congress to make sure that there was this kind of new vision. but that was 1996. we need an update. let me tell you a story that an experience i had last week that visualized it all for me. i was in a middle school in
oakland, california. going from classroom to classroom and watching how they use new connectivity for educational purposes. and in every classroom along the wall was a four inch conduit that had electric plugs in it and either net ports in it about every four feet. yet in that classroom, in those classrooms students were sitting t their desks with their tablets doing various exercises. is e said to me there rate 1 dot o which is when the computer was over there. you we want to it. it was a special kind of a thing. now what we're dealing with is the computer that is on your
desk, the computer that is an integral part of the learning experience. and one of the interesting things about this was we spent some time with the students. and i said to them, i said ok last year you didn't have computers. this year you do have computers. tell me about the difference from the computer being over there on the wall to the computer being here. and one of the kids says to me, well, we need bigger desks. >> and i thought my goodness, what a great explanation for the transformation that is going on because the desk that used to be big enough for a tablet now needs to have a paper tablet and a computer tablet. and the kids are saying do
something about the size of the desk. that's a transformational activity enabled by networks. we are dedicated to meeting the president's goal of 99% of the schools and libraries in america having at least 100 megaand going to a gig within the next five years or sooner. it will be done. [applause] that's the kind of thing that excites me about this new job that. we are on the cusp of a new network driven future. and every one of us has an opportunity play a role in that transformation. it's a different set of issues than those we've dealt with in the past. but it's the same fight. it's a fight for equal opportunity.
it's a fight for diversity of voices. it's a fight for kids' futures. and the beauty of where we are early that we are at the formative stages of the new network and we can have an impact on what that network is like going forward rather than having to play catchup ball later. that is our goal and that's what i look forward to working with all of you to move forward over the next multiple years. so again, thank you very much for inviting me. it's a privilege to be here. david and julia, thank you very much. [applause] >> coming up on the next
"washington journal" a discussion on net neutrality rules and what this week's court decision means for broadband companies, and consumers. we'll hear from former members of the f.c.c. then a look at how many americans volunteer. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> secretary of state john kerry holds a joint news conference with his canadian and mexican counter parts friday. they need to update the free trade agreement. live coverage at 9 oh 30 a.m. eastern on c-span2. book tv coverage of robert gates
discussing his book. we'll be live from the national constitution sent ner philadelphia at 6:30 p.m. eastern also on c-span2. >> 300 years tag first pioneers crossed the oceans to a new world, a promise. the promise of a land where a man could build his own house, raise his children in freedom. and yet in one of the fwreat river valleys of america something went wrong. in the tennessee valley three centuries later the descendants of the pioneers were neglected people living in a ruined land. for these children the hope and the promise were dead. >> the tep ten valley authority was a project that was one of the early new deal prompts. it was a project and a concept
that had been under consideration for some years before franklin roosevelt became president. frank norris of nebraska was looking to help improve the quality of live in the tennessee river valley, to bring flood control and generate electrical power and to improve the lives of the people living in the tennessee river valley. it was one of the poorest regions in the country at the end of the 1920's and it was a serious attempt at remaking the social and economic lives of the people living in the river valley from knoxville to the ohio river. >> this weekend on book tv a ook at the history and life of chootnoogga, tennessee. -- chattanooga, tennessee. >> treasury secretary jack lew stressed congress need to act on
the debt ceiling ahead of february 7 this. is 45 minutes. >> welcome everybody. we're going to go a few minutes later than planned and we'll have a good opportunity for a robust question and answer session so please be thinking of some robust questions as we go along in your conversation this morning. just a reminder this is on the record. when you ask your questions, i'll ask you to identify yourself. if you can put your ringers off on your cell phones and put it on stun or whatever setting you have, that would be very helpful to us. since we have a lot to talk about, let's jump right into it.
>> thank you very much for joining us. this feels like a historic week. it's not quite like a moon landing but we appear to be close to having a budget which is an unusual thing for the united states of america. it's not without a stop gap or so. but looks like this is going to move fairly quickly now. i wonder if you can talk ability how this might affect business -- about how this might affect business confidence going into 2014, how it affects your outlook on growth of the u.s. and do it in the context of this strange number we got on jobs in december which seemed like it was out of the ordinary from the trend line which had been quite positive, a weak number in december, if there is something that worries you in it. >> it's good to be here. thanks for doing this. i think we're starting the year off strong. we are starting the year off
with economic tail winds, not head winds. i'll get back to the specific number you asked about. i think we're starting out with congress following through on the end of last year which was trying to get back to some kind of normalcy and away from the brinksmanship and uncertainty that was causing a great deal of impact to confidence of the united states and internationally. obviously we are not out of the woods completely. we still have a lot more to do to keep our economy growing. if you look at the last half year, the trend of economic statistics, job strategies, confidence have been strong. it's been strong across sectors and there is potential for more growth in key areas. i think the mood in washington makes a difference in two different ways.
the policy actually matters. the budget agreement which is being implemented through these appropriation bills takes away some of the drag from the economy. that matters. going from policies that push back economic growth to creating economic energy help. but the question of business as usual versus dysfunction is extremely significant. just a few months ago we had a government shutdown. we were in the midst of a crisis over the borrowing authority of the united states. and it was very undermining of confidence. the reason we are not out of the woods completely is that as long as we have so many americans looking for work, our job is to focus on more jobs. we still have deadlines looming in washington.
our borrowing authority runs out again january 7. at that point congress has to act. >> tell us about december, about what happened with the jobs number. >> i have spent most of the last three and a half decades advising policy makers not to react to each month to month number too strongly, to look at the overall pattern. we will only know in several months exactly what that number means. i've read enormous range of views as to what the number means. the trend that has been clear for several months, i don't think one ought to look at a number that deviates from that being in and of itself proof that there has been a fundamental change. economies don't turn on a dime. o all of the evidence that there was strength in the economy is still there. and our job is to make sure we promote more growth, more investment. >> there are things we can
do. will is a debate in washington now about whether or not to extend unemployment benefits. you can look at that in two different ways and both are right. one is a question of simple fairness. people looking for work, out of work because of the deep recession that we took a long time to come out of, they need the help. you can also look at macroeconomic question. all those people looking for work are also putting food on the table and taking care of the necessity of life and every penny they get they spend and that is economic activity. i hope we get back to the iscussion of how to extend unemployment benefits. we can get into discussion of other things we can do. but the more we do consistent with the spirit of the budget agreement that take step after step to make progress, the better the economy is going to
be. you look at the budget agreement, there are things as people focus on them, there is funding for manufacturing centers, there is funding for early childhood education. there are things that will be good for today and the future of the american economy and we can continue to take steps along that path. what the infrastructure needs in this country, it would help in the short term and long term. >> there have been good numbers in the past few months, export growth numbers were good. one number in december that was consistent with previous months is the erosion of the denominator in the unemployment calculation. that is people leaving the work force, giving up looking for work. how does that affect your growth forecast for 2014? are you still expected to be in the 2% range? >> we'll come out with our new economic projections in a few week when is the budget comes out.
i'm not going to thrift curtain early on them except to say we ended the year -- >> just between us. >> we ended the year with confidence that the economy was doing better and we start the year with confidence it's continuing to do better. the long-term unemployment numbers, the labor participation numbers are serious and we spend a lot of time pouring over them and ask what is causing it and what are the policy responses. there are a lot of competing explanations, some of them demographic, some of them cyclical and some structural. >> people getting older? >> people getting older. it's been a long slow recovery from a deep recession. so there is a delay in some of the employment growth. but it's that structural piece we have to worry about. e have to ask ourselves if
somebody graduated from high school or college and didn't go to work, what can we do to make t easier for them to get started? what can we do to take away the skill gap that may be presenting them from getting started and what can we do to work with employers to take away stigma from not having worked for a period of time. if you graduated college or high school when unemployment was close to 10%, it was really hard to get that first job. nd the fact that you are now delayed in getting started is something we have to worry about how do you catch up. that's a question of public policy and a question of working with the private sector to make sure that employers are thinking about how do we give those kids a chance. >> you mentioned february 7. that's another stumbling block for the economy. t's the debt ceiling
deadline. having been through this drama a couple of times now in the last couple of years and seeing the effect on confidence, the economy, the markets, wouldn't it be in the treasury's interest to say here is our battle plan. if this goes to the wire again, if it's a cliff hanger, these are our priorities for spending, this is how we are going to martial our funds, we'll buy enough time past the end of february, not just for a couple of weeks to see the economy through. don't worry markets, don't worry consumer? >> i don't think any treasury secretary of either party has ever said don't worry about what happens if the united states loses its capacity to borrow. t's something to worry
about. if we ever get to the place where the united states cannot keep all of its obligations, we are fundamentally hurting our standing as a country that's always honored all of its obligations. i don't believe there is any plan that could give the kind of confidence you are describing. people ask legal questions about what do you have the ability to do. and i'm asking the more fundamental question why would anyone want to hurt the u.s. economy and the recipients of payments they are entitled to because of a self-inflicted wound, because of something that everyone knows the obligations are not made when the borrowing authority is raised. the obligations are being made when you vote on appropriation bills and tax bills. in the end, the borrowing authority merely allows you to operate under the policy decisions you've made. >> the spending you've already done? >> the combination of policies. now this is congress' unique responsibility. congress is going to have to act. it is not something that anyone should want to repeat the kind of hair raising brinkmanship that causes real uncertainty and
anxiety in market participants and normal consumers. if you went outside of washington in october, it didn't take very much to get people to be worried about what was happening and what was going to appen. eople worry about what happens if payments aren't made, what appens if there is an economic fallout that undermines their stability, their employment. these are not things that congress should play games with. it has to be done the sooner the etter.
we get into a washington parlor sport of trying to figure out the precise moment when is the last minute. it's a mistake to go to the last minute. the buildup to the last minute causes damage. it's a mistake to wait until the 11th hour. congress should do this as quickly as possible and with the least drama as possible. i will say in terms of how long congress has, aye communicated with congress saying we thought that the ability to manage through the debt limit being hit on february 7 would get us maybe to the end of february or early march. it's a very unpredictable time of the year in terms of cash flow because people are filing for tax refunds. when you start paying tax refunds, it's a time of year when money goes out. a month later when people are paying their taxes, money comes in. you cannot get from here to there without extending the debt limit. i think that if congress is looking at the numbers the way we are, we have the best data, they would see that they would be looking more at the end of february than anytime in march.
>> let's talk about the global economy since that has such an impact on if health of the u.s. economy. have you just been recently in europe. you did a trip to china and japan and asia a couple of months ago. you've been counseling the europeans to spend more domestically as opposed to export. that sounds like john snow saying the same thing to china a few years ago you need to build up your domestic economy. the germans said leave us alone, mind your own business when you said that. can you walk through what is happening starting with europe. is the crisis abating to the oint you can see growth? >> i think if you look at europe now compared to europe in 2012, there has been a huge amount of progress. we don't have to worry from day-to-day about a half dozen countries.
but they are not completely out of the woods. they are looking at having turned the corner from minus to neutral or small positive. there is inconsistency as fragmentation in the financial markets, there is different rates of potential growth in different countries. our message in europe has been that you need to do what you can do to get overall growth in europe to a higher level understanding that not every country has an e equal capacity. there are surplus countries that have the capacity to invest more and create more domestic demand that. would be good for europe's economy and the global economy. let me put some pieces into perspective. this is how i think about the global economic recovery. we are now in a growth place that many in the world envy.
we're in the 2's. people are talking about can we hit three. they are trying to get to one. there is a decimal point behind the numbers they are looking at. in our most optimistic projections, we can't make up for europe falling half a point or a point behind where it should be. we can't make up for china falling behind where it should b. when i talk to my colleagues around the world i say we're going to do our part. we're going to keep our economy growing. we're going to shoot for targets that outperform people's expectations but you have to do the same. for europe that means countries that have surplus doing more to stimulate investment and demand. if you look at the german coalition agreement and the policies they are putting in place, they are doing more. they've made a commitment to invest in infrastructure here. i wish we could do that here. it would be good for the united states as well.
you look last february, march, april, the discussion was should countries in europe that have to meet fiscal consolidation targets do it more quickly? they've eased the time horizon. i think we've made progress. if you look at the questions of banking reform, they've made progress. but in each case there is more to do. our conversations, we have friendly differences of view on occasion. but i think they have impact. and we are pushing for more because more is good for them and it's good for us. you flip to china, it's pretty much the same story. when i meet with my chinese counter parts i am pretty confident they are intent on the path of economic reform that they describe. at the same time, i am not confident about the time frame or which targets will be
sequenced early in the cue. we continue to bring an awful lot of focus on the need for market determined exchange rates, on competitive market determination of allocation and price of capital and i think that they are going to move in that direction and our interventions will be designed to speed that process up. it's good for china's economy. we're not asking either europe or china to do things that aren't in their own nterest. >> one of the areas that still needs to be resolved is financial regulatory reform, we're five years after the crisis and there is fundamental disagreement between europe and the united states over banking requirements, the levels of
reserves, even executive pay between britain and the rest of europe with the u.s. why can't this be resolved? we are five years into the risis. europe needs to have that confidence in its banking system for its economic well being. is this financial regulatory protectionism in a way playing out, we don't want to restrict our banks if you don't want to do the same thing? >> this is very difficult stuff. we in the united states have made enormous progress implementing financial reform. internationally we have made and are continuing to make progress. my objective in the g-20 is to bring additional focus to the international -- >> the meeting next month >> >> yes in australia. the g-20 and the financial
stabilization board are the places where the international community comes together to have conversations about harmonizing standards. just this last weekend some significant progress was made in terms of international standards on capital and leverage. for the last year there has been an argument about whether or not our differences were as big as people said or not as big because of difference in the way we calculated. i must say as somebody who likes to be able to compare apples to apples, when you have conversations where people are talking past each other because one is looking at a set of numbers on a net basis and the other on a gross basis and trying to do the conversion in your head is almost impossible. there was an agreement to doug: on a standardize -- do it on a standardized basis. that opens the path to finalize
rules consistent international standards. i made clear as we engage in conversations internationally, we cannot weaken standards to get to international harmonization. this has to be a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. we should harmonize them to eliminate confusion especially when it's technical differences as opposed to policy differences. when i look at the challenges ahead, i also look at what we've accomplished. there is much more capital in united states banks and global banks. we have put in place a resolution program that is something that the world is seeing as a model where we do stress test. we have living also. and we're seeing those become things that other regulators
around the world are trying to put in place. we have country so we pass rules. we have multiple regulators and it's sometimes a challenge to get our regulators to the same place. we've been doing a lot of work to get them to put forth consistent standards. you go to europe and you have multiple countries and multiple legislators that have to take action after there is an agreement in the larger group. we are very sympathetic to the challenges of coming up with policies. at the end of the year put in lace a mechanism that is new and important. it is a path towards over a period of years having a fund that banks contribute to that is loosely modeled on our fdic. we don't think it's big enough or fast enough. as i look to the future, the challenges of 2014 and beyond have to deal not with what were
the risks in 2008, but what are the risks in 2014 and beyond? we are focusing heavily on shadow banking. >> banking that happens outside of decpwhrsh outside of the regulated banking system. >> money sloshing around that is not -- >> there is a natural shift of money from the more controlled environment to the less controlled environment and the risks are not always as visible because of a lighter regulatory presence and because of a lower set of requirements. so that is an area that we are focusing on. my international colleagues also are focusing on it. we have made progress. we can make more. cross border resolution. this gets to your question about the differences of standards. we learned from the collapse that the problems when a major
financial institution fails don't respect international boundaries, the transactions don't live within one country. the implications don't live within one country. it's very important there be confidence when an institution fails, if an institution fails that the resolution internationally works because that's the way you can avoid the domino affect that is an accelerant to a financial and economic crisis. we have more work to do there. we've made progress. we need to make more progress. >> you mentioned china's economic reform program. so far we've heard a fair amount of discussion of this and it's going to focus heavily on developing out the private sector of china. is that good or bad for american usiness? is that something that is going
to be more inclusive of u.s. business or are we seeing the cultivation of national champions in china to the continued exclusion, not entirely but to the continued exclusion of a lot of involvement from the us, this anti-monopoly law to hammer foreign businesses is reminiscent of the problems that american businesses have. it doesn't feel like the situation is changing there much. >> well, the goal has to be to open markets and to have market forces determine the answer to the question that you are asking. if there are artificial barriers in place, then it's not really letting market forces work. i think we'll get some tests pretty soon. when we had our strategic and economic dialogue last summer, we had a set of important agreements come out of it.
i was very pleased that china moved on opening a shanghai free trade zone. they altered a policy of presuming industries were closed to foreign trade to presuming they are open unless individually closed. we have yet to see what the implementation looks like. if it opens up to real competition, that will be a meaningful signal. they go through the designations of what is open and what is closed, if you designate everything is closed, it doesn't amount to real change. it's still early. the direction of the policies that they announced was consistent with what they agreed to in our bilateral discussions. i think that they know that it's critical to the chinese economy to let market forces drive much
more, if not all major economic policy. they look at state own enterprises and they see built up inventory that has nowhere to go. they see empty buildings. they know that is not a way to maintain the growth they need for china to be where it needs to be in 2014 and beyond. now at the same time, transition is difficult in any economy. it's difficult in our economy, it's difficult in their economy. they are obviously concerned about the pace at which change happens and managing it. but trying to stop it would be very damaging to their economy and i think they know that. i can't tell you that at the end of this year, we'll be able to say they made the move we open hoped they would make. we are going to engage with them to keep pressing forward and making the case. i believe that is welcome. when i was in china just a few weeks ago, it was important for
the president to meet with me. we had an exchange that was our second exchange in the time i've been secretary. and when i meet with my counter part, we talk about the tough issues. they don't tell us to stay out of their business. they want to learn from our economic experience. i think our continuing to bring focus to these issues is something that helps them to make progress. i approach it in a very clear headed way. intentions are critical and important. but it's results in the end matter. >> one of the pressures that might be brought to bear on china and europe are the two new trade agreements being negotiated now. can you get those tread greements without fast track from congress?
these countries don't want to negotiate with congress people. they want to negotiate with people that can promise them the deal they are striking will be the deal put in force. >> we made it clear we think fast track authority is important and we are going to work with congress oh on it. i remember when we started working on the trance pacific partnership back in 2009, there were skeptics who said you can't start a conversation setting high standards with some of the smaller countries in the region and think that the big countries are going to join. the big countries are at the table and even bigger countries are continue plating coming to the table. >> japan is at the table and china has mused out loud about should they come to the table.
that is an enormous change since 2009. the principle is setting high quality standards as the future of trade relations in the pacific and the atlantic has already moved very far. there are still tough issues to be negotiated. i've never been a trade negotiator. i would defer to people who have been successful in fact past. the tough issues are always resolved at the end. it's not as if any party before the final round of negotiations make the things that are really difficult for them at home. we have to keep driving forward and getting to the final tough issues and we have to lock in both trade agreements and fast track authority. we need to do both. >> let's get to some questions. and if i could ask to you identify yourself and who you re with. >> nelson cunningham mr.
secretary good to see you. last year in the president's budget for the first time that i can recall a democratic president proposed changing in entitlement programs sbind to reign in that growth. it'd disappoint you that that conversation was not picked up by the other side -- did it disappoint you that the conversation was not picked up by the other side? and begind the year to share at a place where we made some small progress, but important progress, getting back to a more normal way of congress doing fiscal policy. that is very important. we started the year in a place where people were talking about a grand bargain.
we would have been able to put in place what was the core of earlier negotiations that he had been having with republican leaders. -- i would have hoped we could have reached an agreement because i thought that would be in the best interest of our long-term fiscal path. the president's budget will speak for itself in a few weeks. i will not get ahead of him announcing any of his specific policies, but he demonstrated last year that he was -- remained committed to a fair and balanced approach to having long-term fiscal policies that keep us on the right path and i
think last year's budget reflected a deep set of convictions. good to see you. i wanted to ask you about china and aber, he a big issue continuing issue in your strategic dialogue. the snowden revelations have taken the pressure off of the chinese, given them away to argue that we are doing something akin to what they are doing and there is very little evidence that you see much of an abatement in the kind of behavior that you are so concerned about this time last year. i was wondering if you could give us a sense of where that is going. >> i do not think there is any
the kinds ofe intelligence activities that almost every country engages in with the deliberate theft of trade secrets for commercial advantage. there is no comparison. i do not think that anyone credibly believes there is a comparison and i don't think the issue is taken off the table. >> [inaudible] .> we have been very clear i cannot tell you that they have done an about-face. i also think they understand to play the role they want to play in the world as one of the great powers, as one of the rulemakers for the world, you cannot be a rule maker and engage in those kinds of practices.
what about the imf? that all ofpayments the other countries talk about. what about boosting the representation of developing countries within the imf? the united states commitment to the imf remains solid. we are the biggest contributor and participant in the imf. we -- thattant that the imf be strong. was negotiation, which made progress in terms of sharescing some of the of interest in the imf while
positionng the u.s. with a significant enough share to have a controlling voice on important questions. i have made no secret of the fact that i think it is critical for us to finalize the ratification of those. we made a full-court press to get it done and got close, but did not get it done this past week. we stand by our commitment and we will get it done. >> some people argue the treasury ought to take stronger action against russian banks that supply arms shipments to
assad. i know it can be awkward. ought toink treasury be taking stronger action in investigating and designating russian banks directly involved in supporting assad? responsibilities in overseeing the close of financial funds and whether or not there is compliance with international laws, we have been very aggressive following -- we take action without regard to the home country of the financial institution. it does not always make us popular. , whether it is sanctions regarding syria or iran, the designations are not
all the same, but our policy is to be vigilant. we implement these laws and we do not look at the country of origin. >> thank you so much for your government surface -- service. i want to touch back on -- there seems to be a lack of accountability among the federal officers. we cannot get a name or a number and we are trying to provide food, shelter, clothing to people in refugee camps. our banks have a question, we have a conversation, we cannot seem to get everybody at the table.
>> i think they do an outstanding job in very difficult circumstances. there are often cases that are just heart in terms of flows of funds consistent with our laws but have the effect of providing relief at the same time, not just in syria. it comes up in many troubling parts of the world. i am happy to look into the question of access and communication. we strive to a high level of clarity and communication. sometimes the issues relate to specific matters that are not public matters. i would have to look at the specific matter.
>> good morning. my question is about the trade promotion authority in the headline yesterday in one of the papers about the pushback from democrats, we will need approval for fast- track and given the fact that we started the year with this new and deal in congress, which suggests that we will not be as toxic this year as the past, i am wondering what your plans are for whipping into place a bipartisan authority given the pushback from some of the democrats. >> i do not think there is
anything new or unusual about the current need for there to be bipartisan support. it has always required a bipartisan effort. there have always been challenges on both sides for different reasons. we have worked on a bipartisan basis with leaders of the committee and we will continue to work with the congress to get it done. the president has made clear that it is important. there is the ability for there to be a bipartisan conversation. it is never easy. >> do you care to venture an estimate about a time frame? >> i am very hopeful that the next round of discussions really accelerates the pace of process -- progress and that will have
implications in terms of other schedules. >> six months, 12 months? >> i will not put a number on it. he pushed you have the meeting at the end of last year. he will continue pressing so those hard issues that require countries to move across the finish line get queued up. 20 years ago, jim baker engineered the plaza agreement. the japanese have engineered a 20% devaluation of their currency. would you expect it to have a similar impact? facing japannges
and their economy have been profound for almost two decades. it has been a recurring argument made by the united states japan needed to take action to reverse almost two decades of deflation and economic decline. policies.put in place we still have to see what the third arrow of their policies are. those are the real reforms that will determine whether or not the future is one where they will grow their domestic economy , domestic demand, and be able to continue to have the kind of growth they are seeing because of the shorter-term policies. it was very important the last atr there was an agreement the g7 and the g 20 that has stuck. countries will be hold
themselves to the rule that they will use domestic tools for domestic purposes to grow their economy. that is a critically important frame and something japan has to stick to. they need to get their domestic economy growing. long-term growth cannot be rooted in a strategy that turns reliance onoward a unfair advantage because of exchange rates. we have kept an eye on that. we continue to analyze it very closely. as long as they stick though -- to those rules, it is in japan's interest and the world interest for japan's economy to grow. the four big economies of the world, if any one of them is performing subpar, it creates
problems that flow well beyond the borders. it.ave to keep an eye on we cannot let it turn from the kinds of policies that are , but it is aoses port and for japan to grow. -- it is in port and for japan to grow. grow.ortant for japan to thank you, secretary. i would like to hear from you from thens learned free trade agreements. there is a lot of doubt and in the unemployment
we have been experiencing for the last 10 years since the wto has suffered the currency war with the rising power of china. our question to you is as the secretary of treasury, where do you see what we need to do to ensure the implementation phase of our agreements to save our currency and our jobs? inwe have been very clear all of our conversations in the multilateral negotiations and our bilateral conversations that we need a level playing field with clear rules and those rules need to be enforced. taking enforcement actions to make sure the agreements are
adhered to is a critical part of having effective rules of the road. rules that are not followed are not really rules. that is why wto actions are brought from time to time. the goal is to have countries observe the rules, not to be in a place for one has to be taking , to enforce the rules. if you go back to what i was saying a few minutes ago in terms of the negotiation, i was to atly in asia and went range of countries with extremely different economies. japan, china, malaysia, vietnam, and singapore. had a very countries different point of internal economic development, there was
a desire to participate in a trade agreement. there was also anxiety. those of the kinds of issues with negotiated sensitivity to the fact that if we get the countries to credible and enforceable high-level rules, it is good for each of us individually and it is good for us locally. it is not good for us if the rules are broken and we need to be vigilant. will we make agreements, the agreements are kept -- when we make agreements, the agreements are kept. >> you have to get to work before the stock markets open at 9:30 a.m. [applause]
implementation. testified thursday about the implementation of the health care law. he defended his previous testimony about the health care -- the websites readiness. >> september 19, 2013, i asked you a yes or no question. consumers will be able to go online. they will be able to get a determination of what tax subsidies they are eligible for. they will be able to look at the plans available where they live. they will be able to choose a plan that gets enrolled in coverage beginning october 1.
now, wouldt you know you like to revise that answer? wrong, but, it was it was -- clearly, it was wrong, but it was also what i believed. i would like to answer your question if you would permit me. i knew i would be asked that question. i knew it was close to october 1. i was very careful to get a thorough briefing. answer that i gave you was exactly what they told me. exactly. >> who told you that? you of heard me say this before. understand why no one has been held accountable for an error that egregious. if i were you, i would fire someone under me. it would have happened in october.
if i were the secretary, i would have fired you. that would have happened in october. president, i would fire the whole lot of you. why do we -- why should we believe you now when nothing you said over the past year has been accurate? >> but this -- because the site is working. fired, thell been site would not be working.
the secretary said she would not be responsible for paying those bills. doctors and hospitals are asking who was responsible for paying those bills? >> the insurance company that has enrolled the person is responsible for paying those bills. next week, they will begin next week. >> that part of the website has not been built. it is a painfully slow process. if you haveeciate additional information, you will make it available to the committee. i think our providers other ones who are truly at risk from your mismanagement. >> friday the american enterprise institute reviews
telecommunications policy and cyber security. coverage starts at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. the congressional internet caucus looks at those issues. see that live at noon eastern. >> we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings and white house events, briefings and conferences and offering complete coverage of the u.s. house. created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite divider. -- provider. like us on facebook or follow us on twitter. >> euna maccarthy testified thursday about the climate change plan.
your next appointment so please, go right ahead. appointment so please go right ahead. >> thank you, senator boxer. good morning to the committee. i appreciate an opportunity to introduce a member of your second panel. but a man who looms large in our great state of colorado. and that's former governor bill ritter. he helped our state become a national leader in the new energy economy and in our fight to combat global warming. he was our governor from 2007 to 2011. he found really creative ways to build a bipartisan consensus around the need for our state to develop clean energy while also safeguarding our land and our air and our water. the features that make the centennial state. we're the envy of the world.
he was raised on a farm. he brought that rural perspective to questions about crafting an effective state policy on energy development. many of you have heard me talk about our strong removal of electricity standard. it's second only to california's. i helped lead that effort in 2004. we started out with the a 10% requirement. we very quickly met that requirement. governor ritter came along and he built on that accomplishment. he led the effort whereby now we're going to triple the state's use of renewable energy to 30% by 2020. along the way, he created the governor's energy office which was the first cabinet level office devoted to improving the effective use of colorado's vast energy resources. he also signed colorado's clean jobs act. which moved us in the utility front from burning of coal in our front range power plants. we reduced carbon emissions.
that national gas, it may have been from oklahoma, it may have been from louisiana. so we're truly in all of the above energy state. we're now one of the leading states because of governor ritter's great work in terms of the jobs created and money, total money invested in our growing clean energy economy. and since we're here today to talk about climate action plans, i want to add that governor ritter issued colorado's first climate action plan in 2007. it was a bold proposal. it called for a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. so what's governor ritter been doing since he left office in 2011? well, he went up to csu, our land grant college, colorado state university. he created the center for new energy economy at csu. the center promotes the growth of clean energy by working
through with leaders in government and the private sector. they're pursuing business friendly policies that create jobs and promote investment in the clean tech economy. and the center does this all the way by maintaining, through maintaining i should say, commit comment to the original land grant service commission to the people of colorado. the center is expanding the innovative and intrapentreprene. it will bring a role to the marketplace. chairman boxer and ranking member vitter, i'm really pleased. i know he's really pleased you saw fit to invite the governor here today. it's thanks to efforts like governor ritter i can say with confidence and pride that colorado has a balanced approach
to energy that's truly a model for our nation. so i know you'll enjoy hearing from governor ritter. i know he looks forward to engaging back and forth with the committee. but, again, thank you for inviting him. i appreciate the time of the committee. >> thank you so much. so we'll go to the five-minute rule now, paul. today's hearing will cover three topics. first, the president's climate action plan. which is a critical issue. we have four agencies here today to address it. senator vitter and minority members of this committee stated in their december 2013 year end report vitter and the epw republicans will continue pushing for an oversight hearing on the administration's climate agenda that includes witnesses from federal agencies. second, today's hearing will include the budget for the epa. third, we've set aside time for members of of this committee to ask about john beale a, an outrageous conman.
all members were invited. i asked many questions. senator vitter asked over 50 questions. however, senator vitter has more questions and so we are covering that subject too. the broad scope of this hearing was formally agreed to by ranking members. "the wall street journal" said in its editorial today that i am living in an epa fairy tale. for commending epa administrator mccarthy for shining a light on the actions of a rogue employee. well, that's what patrick sullivan said, the assistant inspector general. when he said about miss mccathy's role, quote, to our knowledge, the first senior person to express concerns was miss mccarthy so i stand by what i said. now let me turn to the president's climate action. in his plan released on june 2013, president obama called for action to fight climate change. so we don't condemn future generations to a planet that is beyond repair. i couldn't agree more.
because climate change is a catastrophe that is unfolding before our very eyes. the president's plan lays out a road map for action. it calls for a wide range of reasonable steps to reduce carbon pollution, grow the economy through clean energy, prepare for future impacts such as rising sea levels and storm surges. and lead global efforts to fight climate change. when the president announceped his climate change plan, many companies issued statements of support, including walmart, honeywe honeywell, dupont, dominion resources, american electric power and other business leaders. more than 500 companies such as gm, nike, mars, nestle, unilever, have stated that tackling climate change is one of america's greatest economic opportunities in the 21st century. in addition to many of the nation's largest companies, the american people have weighed in on the need to address this
growing threat. and they want action now. a poll found that 81% of americans think climate change will be a serious problem if nothing is done to reduce it. 75% of americans say that the u.s. should take action on climate change, even if other nations do less. that polls found that americans overwhelmingly support clean energy solutions like generating electricity from solar or wind. here's the interesting thing about people. they all say this. the only place we have a particular divide is right here in the congress. well, i'm encouraged that significant action to address climate change is already under way. including establishing limits on carbon pollution from cars and trucks. the obama administration is also working on carbon pollution
limits for new and existing power plants. together, these efforts address the nation's two largest sources of carbon pollution. now, a new peer reviewed study in the journal nature finds unless we can control carbon pollution, the most severe predictions by sicientists will occur by the end of the century. resulting in the most significant and dangerous impacts from climate change. an increase of more than 7 degrees fahrenheit by 2100. in my home state of california, scientists have been telling us for years what would happen, for years. and they're right on target. years ago, they said, they'll be substantially higher temperatures, droughts, floods, extreme weather, extreme rising sea levels. and it is happening. future generations are going to look back at this moment and judge each of us, each of us, by
whether we started to act on this issue. i look forward to hearing from today's witnesses who are leading efforts to reduce carbon emission. i will pledge to you that i will use every tool at my disposal to ensure that your work will be done. and the reason is, it's a moral obligation. it's good for the economy. and it's good for human health. thank you very much and i'd ask my ranking member to address us at this time. >> thank you, chairman boxer, for calling told's hearing on the president's climate action plan. it's long overdue quite frankly. in 2013, the committee failed to hold an epa budget hearing and held only one climate hearing, which excluded all federal government witnesses. today's one hearing comes sev months after the announcement of the biggest regulatory avalanche in u.s. history. the president's climate action plan. this avalanche of regulatory actions will begin in 2014 and i
believe will further frustrate our already struggling economy. panel a fraction of the jobs commif economists have hoped for were created in december. when president obama announced his climate action plan, it was clear to me he didn't want his supporters to engage in straight economic arguments, overpromise on the impacts taking action will have, orb debate the validity of the claim that the science is already settled. in fact, there are white house talking points to that effect. however, these are topics that must be discussed. now, while the current epa administrator argues the plan is part of an overall strategy positioning the u.s. for leadership in international discussions, the predecessor clearly argued such action would have no impact without international participation first. the administration is moving
forward with a domestic agenda that will clearly damage our ability to utilize our abundant energy resources and to support the growth of manufacturing jobs. i'm afraid these policies just show the international community three things. how to undermine chances of economic recovery and growth. how to achieve the lowest workforce participation rate since the carter administration. and how to increase energy prices by denying the ability to utilize all energy resources. while these policies were squarely rejected by congress in 2009, since then, president has simply sought to legislate them. president obama promised his administration would be the most transparent in history. however, his record, including here, reflects a determined effort to do the opposite. i think the social cost of
carbon is a perfect example on point. since last june, a number of my republican colleagues joined me in asking the administration to provide details on those social costs of carbon estimates which were developed in a black box and are used regularly by multiple federal agencies to justify costly regulations. the first confirmation of even participation in these closed door meetings was acknowledged at a november epw hearing by epa's director of atmospheric programs. she committed to providing further detailed information to the committee. and we got a short, terse, very superficial response to our detailed question this morning. i think that says it all. afterwards, the administration gave in to pressure from congress and the public and announced the estimates would be
noticed in the federal register and open to comment. if they're still being utilized in many ways across the federal government in rule makings. includes a role for almost every federal entity. the epa is clearly at the core. i'm very concerned that the epa waited over three months to publish a second try at propos d ed greenhouse gas standards for power plants. i'm enmore concerned that i believe these roles are still contrary to federal law. i think the epa's delay is designed to postpone during an election year and give more time for excuses about why they're taking action beyond the scope of their legal authority. so, in summary, i continue to be really concerned that the president's climate action plan has deeply flawed legal justifications and perceived
theoretical benefits. i believe it undermines our economic recovery. threatens to keep off limits our energy abundance and manufacturing renaissance. ex-pa nen chully increases federal bureaucracy and red tape. and most tragically, hurts those who can least afford it. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you. senator cardin. >> madam chair, thank you very much for your extraordinary leadership on these issues during very challenging times. i thank you for holding fast on science. because the science is clear. atmospheric science 101 teaches us that carbon based gases in the atmosphere are what keeps the plant warm and inhabitable. naturally help regulate the atmosphere by absorbing carbon. since the industrial revolution, levels of carbon in the atmosphere have been steadily
increasing and the reduction of forest acres around the world have compounded these increases in carbon pollution admission, by reducing nature's carbon sequestration capacity. therefore, increased level also of carbon gases in the atmosphere led to more heat being trapped which is changing the earth's climate. we are accelerating by human activities the carbon emissionings. it is having catastrophic impact. we have to do something about it. these are scientific facts. there isn't any debate in the scientific community on these facts. neither is any debate among political leaders in any other developed, nor many developing countries. because unlike in the united states congress, facts of climate change are accepted. i urge my colleagues to think about how future generations will look back on our political squabbling and inaction to enact meaningful policies.
after all, it will be our grandchildren and their children, not us, living in the world we leave them. the effects of climate change can be seen around the world. across the united states. and in my home state of maryland. scientists monitoring migrating patterns of fish and birds are seeing changes in these patterns as meteorological seasons are changing. in some instance, the changes in certain wildlife species, particularly cold weather and cold water adapted species are changing. while the ranges of pest species like bark beetles are expanding due to milder winters. changing waters in the chesapeake bay will have an impact on oyster populations which threaten the livelihood of maryland's watermen who make their livelihood off the seafood of the bay. climate change is directly affecting human population around the globe. this raises, rises concerns about climate refugees who have
lost their communities to sea level rise and other catastrophic weather events in the decades to come. in my own statement of maryland, i can point to the people who live on smith island. they see their island being consumed by sea level rises. i'm disappointed the politics prevents congress from enacting legislation to address the causes and effects of climate change. able to rise above the squabbles of congress to take bold action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. grow our nation's renewable energy sources. and take critical steps to adapt the steps of climate change. epa has reduced u.s. vehicle fleet emissions through improved cafe standards by setting ambitious yet achievable goals for fuel efficiency. the president's announcement in 2011 to raise cafe standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 in some of the world's ambitious
policies in the world. demonstrate how the epa and industry can work together to achieve what's necessary to protect public health and environment. i might point out this is going to help our economy. efficiencies in energy brings about -- creates jobs. clean energy creates jobs. president obama's epa has also taken bold -- necessary step towards regulating carbon pollution. by using existing authority under the clean air act to propose the first limits in carbon emissions for u.s. power generated sector. all of this is helping. the obama administration has executed successful programs generating clean energy and american jobs, reducing our reliance on foreign oil, boltering our national security and protecting health and the environment. we should help. instead, what we see particularly coming over from the house of representatives proposals that would block this progress.
fortunately, we have blocked, we have stopped that in the senate. but we should adopt an energy policy that will help the nation become energy independent for our national security and also help our environmental future. >> thank you very much, senator. >> thank you, madam chairman for holding this important hearing on the president's climate action plan. i share many of the concerns outlined by my colleagues on this panel and welcome this opportunity to hear from the federal officials assembled on the first panel who have and will continue to generate the president's core policies on climate change. many of my concerns with the president's current action plan stems from issues we've wrestled with on this administration in the past. for instance, the environmental protection agency has, without providing for public comment or peer review adjusted upwards the social cost of carbon to modify the accounting for benefits
claims from regulatory actions. moreover, proposed regulations of greenhouse gases from new and existing sources are likely to cripple numerous large-scale manufacturing and energy projects across the nation. creating an environment in which foreign countries will become far more attractive for future environment, potentially undermining our economy again. in another instance, the treasury department obstructed multiple transparency requests for more than nine months regarding internal work on the development of a carbon tax. as well as sources of funding for international climate commitments that were negotiated behind closed doors. we can all agree that affordable energy is a critical component of having a healthy and robust economy in the united states. and we're fortunate to have tremendous energy resources here at home. as such, i'm concerned that the administration's proposals threaten to undermine an important sector of the economy and the industries and jobs it supports in the name of modest
environmental gains. i'm concerned that the views of those most likely to be negatively impacted by the new epa regulations have not been appropriately considered. protecting and improving our natural environment is a goal shared by many. but there is strong disagreement about how to achieve these goals. in general, the best policies for addressing climate change are grounded in three basic principles. sound, peer reviewed science, protection of our quality of life and policies that promise the greatest benefit to both the environment and the people without harming our economy. the recent climate change proposals issued by president obama, however, will have severe economic consequences and likely yield immeasurable environmental benefits if fully implemented. they would undermine the
utilization of our own traditional energy and increase the cost of electricity for consumers. rather, we must utilize an all of the above approach. which should include a robust expansion of nuclear energy production. hydroelectric power and other promising renewable and emissions reducing technologies. by expanding and reducing our energy portfolio, we can reduce risks to the environment. provide a strong domestic energy sector. and increase our energy security. i support legislative solutions that preserve and enhance our natural environment. however, i'm deeply concerned that unilateral epa regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is already imposing major burdens on our economy without resulting in commensurate environmental benefits. i agree on the need for continued research in the field for climate science in order to gain the necessary knowledge needed to implement effective policies. the issue is fraught with
significant environmental and economic consequences. and it's essential that we get it right. as such, i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, particularly dr. judith curry and her work at the georgia institute of technology. again, thank you madam chairman for holding this hearing. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses. >> thank you so much, senator. senator whitehouse. >> thank you very much, madam chair. just briefly, welcome our witnesses to this chamber. one in which reality is so often suspended. one in which science is so often twisted and mocked. and one in which the power of special interests to manipulate american democracy is often so nakedly revealed. my belief is that the propaganda
machine behind the climate denial effort will go down in history as one of our great american scandals. like tea pot dome. or watergate for that matter. most americans see through it. major american organizations. everything from coke and pepsi to ford and gm to walmart and nike and apple. can go on and on through the corporate community. outside the corporate community, you can go from the joint chiefs of staff to the u.s. conference of catholic bishops to the garden clubs of america. over and over again, organization after organization, accept the science, accept the re reality. frankly, farmers and fishermen are starting to see it happen. ask the ski mountains of utah. so i simply urge you all while you are here to keep the faith. keep faith with reality.
keep faith with truth. keep faith with science. armor yourselves against the slings and arrows of the deniers and the polluters machine and do your duty. i ask this particularly on behalf of my home state rhode island. which is a coastal state. which is at the front line of the undeniable effects of climate change. our sea levels are rising. it's not complicated. you measure that with a yard stick more or less. our oceans are warming. not complicated. you measure that with thermomet thermometers. we know that our oceans are getting more acidic. everybody with an aquarium can take a litmus test. this is not complicated. and it is affecting our people. so bear that in mind. do your duty. and thank you. i ask that the remainder of my statement be put in the record. >> without objection, it will be
done. senator sessions. you are next, followed by senator brasso. >> well, senator brasso was here before i came. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. last week was the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty. the war began when president lyndon johnson visited with tom fletcher and his family on the front porch in martin county, kentucky. npr did a story on this recently. they said at the time the poverty rate in this coal mining area was more than 60%. johnson visited the fletchers on the porch of their home, a small wooden structure with fake brick siding. this is from the npr story. the study went on to say the photographers took what would become one of the iconic images of the war on poverty. the president crouched down, chatting with tom fletcher about the lack of jobs flash forward to today. latest numbers for 2011.
38.6% of the population of martin county is in poverty. npr stated this is twice the national average. 47% of children in that county are in poverty. npr went on to say today many people here rely on government aid. in fact, it's the largest source of income in the county. they say people say that it has helped to reduce hung, improve health, health care, give young families a boost, especially at a time, npr said, when coal mining jobs, let me repeat, when coal mining jobs are disappearing by the hundreds. now, this is national public radio. not known as a conservative outfit that champions coal. those are the ones saying that. the actions of this administration's epa to wipe out coal and eventually natural gas is costing thousands of jobs and it's driving up energy costs for many of the most vulnerable people in this country. i can only conclude that epa is
on the wrong side of poverty. in fact, epa is on the tip of the spear. like martin county, kentucky. like campbell county in my home state of wyoming. belmont county in ohio. back to the very days before lyndon johnson's original declaration. when you wipe out the jobs in these communities and you drive up electricity costs, you create poverty. period. folks back in those counties wonder why the epa is making these decisions that deliberately hurt them. the associated press shed some light on this with an article written on january 10th of this year. just six days ago. the article demonstrates that the epa has been colluding with the sierra club and their beyond coal campaign to deliberately draft a rule that will prevent new coal fired power plants from being built. according to the associated press article, e-mails between
the sierra club and the epa produced through a freedom of information act lawsuit show the green group and senior officials at the nation's top environmental enforcer met and corresponded frequently about the agency's work on cool regulations. the article goes on to say that the epa has repeatedly said the regulations on coal fired plants will not be a death blow to the industry. however, the agency was working closely behind the scenes with the sierra club, an environmental organization that was pushing the agency to adapt standards that would be impossible for power plants to meet. many of the e-mails are between the head of the sierra club's beyond coal campaign and the epa's michael bare jon, both ine office at the time. new e-mails obtained from the freedom of information act, e-mails show more coordination
between the epa and extremist environmental groups. the reports stated e-mails show the epa used official events to help environmental groups gather signatures for petitions on agency rule making. incorporated advanced copies of letters into official statements by the agency and worked with these environmental groups to publicly pressure executives of at least one energy company. madam chairman, i cannot believe that these are the first instances of this type of collusion in this administration's epa. it is clear that this epa and this administration has an agenda. and that agenda is hurting jobs. the agenda is raising energy costs. and the agenda is making poverty worse in struggling communities around this country. the message to energy producing communities is clear. if you like your job, your community and your electricity bill, you can't keep it.
thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you, senator. place in the record an article entitled, the future of coal. despite the gas boom, coal is dead. it goes on to talk about how over the 20 years employment is down because when people are productive, production is up. the news today that the third quarter gdp went up 4.1% compared to the last quarter of george w. bush where gdp went down 3.8%. and that was the time that the administration then was arguing that they couldn't do anything about greenhouse gases. that it wasn't actually in the clean air act. so i think we really need to balance -- to balance this out. and now we're going to go to senator. >> thank you, madam chair.
you see the assault of carbon pollution on our natural resources. we can take and start with farming. we've had three worst ever droughts in the basin in a 13-year period. based on the snow pack this year, we may well have a fourth this coming summer. devastating a key agricultural part of our state. or if we turn to fishing, we have streams that are smaller and warmer, affecting our trout and our salmon. a lot of folks certainly appreciate having a vital or -- streams with vitality, if you will, and do not appreciate this assault of carbon pollution on our fishing. if we turn to our sea life off the coast, we are having trouble with oyster seed, the baby oysters distributed throughout the oyster industry. and they're having trouble because there's more acid in the ocean. why? because of the carbon pollution. carbon pollution assaulting our
natural resource base. if we turn to our forests, the concern is even more evidence. we have pine beetle infestations that are out of control because we don't have the cold snaps cold enough and long enough to kill them off in the winter. we have large red zones that i've taken tours from the air in, that you see red trees as far as the eye can see, as a result. and we have forest fire, the worst ever in 100 years, summer before last, and year after year, with dryer forests, more lightning strikes, more devastation. and part of that certainly, a piece of it, has to do with forest health. which is why i'm lobbying the administration. a lot of it has to do with these changing patterns. in fact, the department of energy has a early version of their study from los alamos national laboratories that says the western forests will be largely wiped out by the year 2100 with the combination of
forest fires and beetle devastation. for the people of oregon, in our rural areas, who see this devastating attack of carbon pollution affecting their fishing and farming and their forestry, we need to stand up for rural america. we need to stand up for this planet. i look forward to your comments. thank you. it would be okay with me, madam chair. we have the armed services hearing at the same time. as you well know, senator sessions. on multiple occasions, most recently on may 30th of 30th of year president obama has said, and this is a quote he's used several times. he says the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even ten years ago and that climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago. both statements are false and through letters to you, and i
appreciate very much the quick response i got from you, ms. mccarthy, and on the record of this committee, we've asked the epa to provide the data backing up these two statements, the two statements made by the president, but they didn't have the data and refers us to the unippc, the enter governmental -- and their scientists, apparently the epa thought they were the source of this. we went there and they had nothing to back it up. apparently the president made that up. i think it's very important. because when you get statements that are made that are supposed to be based on logic and on truth, you have to check them out. last week's record cold temperature brought global warming debate back to the public's attention. that's only important to the extent that it's bringing more awareness to the uncertainty of the science around the debate. when you go back and look at the temperature projections from climate models and