tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 22, 2016 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
p.m. cameron: good afternoon and welcome, it is great to welcome president obama. he has been president for more than seven years and i have been a minister for nearly six years and our two countries have been working together through some of the most difficult and troubled global times. the banking crisis, the need to .evive growth and create jobs new threats to our security from russia and the east to the rise of islamic terrorism in the south. global colleges like climate change gas -- challenges like climate change. when 70 years ago last month winston churchill first described the special relationship it was not merely an enduring expression of friendship, it was a way of
working together. about two nations, kindred spirits who share the same values and so often the same approaches to the many issues we face. justice for our predecessors, that has been true for barack and me, whether delivering economic security, national security, or new emerging challenges. today we have been discussing all three. economic security, we have gotten our economies growing and created jobs for our people. the global economy faces serious challenges but last year britain and the united states where the two fastest-growing major economies in the world. -- wew how important remain determined to achieve our vision of a u.s.-eu trade deal and working hard to push this forward because it would add billions to our economies and set the standards for the rest of the world to follow.
on national security, together we are partners in the eu, we have used our economic muscle to avoid the calamity of an iranian nuclear weapon. we have delivered sanctions against russia against its aggression in ukraine and security force global and legally binding deal on climate change. only signed today by over 150 governments at the united nations. transformed the way we have used aid, diplomacy, and military together to make progress on some of the most difficult issues of our time. in east africa, we have turned around the prospects for somalia thanks to an eu operation led by britain and supported by america , its waters are no longer a safe haven for pirates. in west africa, british leadership secured one billion euros to support the people of the region two dvd outbreak of ebola with britain taking -- to beat the outbreak of ebola. just as we have made important
progress in these areas, there are many more that need more work. the situation in libya is challenging but we finally have a government of national accord. in syria and iraq, we are considering -- continuing here theo stop -- total number of fighters now estimated at his lowest for about two years. areiraqi security forces solely forcing them out of the town -- territory, entirely clearing them out of one town and in syria our partners have liberated a largest kurdish areas and cut off the main road between rocket and mosul. we have dealt with the migration crisis. this does not directly affect the u.k.d states, in
we have maintained our borders and continue to do so. the challenge this poses to our friends and the continent of europe. the sort of challenge that can only be tackled effectively through international cooperation. nato is helping to reduce the number of migrants in the eastern mediterranean and barack and i have discussed how nato may now contribute to the eu's efforts in the central mediterranean. we need to do more to break the business model. together with our eu partners and the libyan government, we will look at whether there is more we can do to strengthen the libyan coast guard appeared we will be discussing this further when we meet with the leaders of other countries and hanover on monday. another opportunity to show working together, how we can better protect ourselves from the threats we face. we covered a number of new and emerging challenging, it will be more important than ever that we work together with our international partners to identify problems and deal with them rapidly.
,ust as we have done with ebola we need the same international cooperation on dealing with the zika virus, on the challenge of antimicrobial resistance and cyber security and on tackling -- britain is holding a anticorruption summit in london next month which secretary kerry will attend. barack and i have talked about some of the things we wanted to achieve come our biggest you have to go around the globe to lobby for help against corruption. we want in international anti-corruption center where invest getters together across different jurisdictions. if we get international agreements on this, both britain and america will contribute to set it up. all this work we have done together and we got to know each other very well. i am honored to have him as a friend. talking basketball. the barbecuendly
we had in number 10 downing street serving servicemen and women who serve our country's together in the united kingdom. i have found barack someone who guess sage advice, a man with a good heart and has been a very good friend and always will be a good friend to the united kingdom. let me finish by saying this -- in all the areas we have discussed come our collective power and reach is amplified by britain's membership to the european union. when it comes to the special relationship between our two greaters, there is no enthusiast than me, i am proud to have had the opportunity to be prime minister and to stand outside the white house listening to this man, my friend, barack, a special relationship between our countries has never been stronger. byave never felt constrained the fact that we are in the european union. quite the reverse.
we delivered through our people through all the international groups we are a part of, through the membership of nato, we further our prosperity through the g7 and g20 appeared like those organizations, written's -- britain's membership in eu gives us a tool to deliver on the prosperity and security our people need to stand up for the values that our country share. i think it is a time to stay true to those values and to stick together with our friends and allies in europe and around the world. thank you, very much. pres. obama: thank you, david. it is wonderful to be in london. to meet with my good friend david cameron. to wishs i came back her majesty a happy 90th birthday, earlier michelle and i had the honor to join her majesty and his royal highness,
the duke is -- the duke of every other guest at windsor castle where we conveyed the good wishes of the american people. i have never been driven by a and it edinburgh before was very smooth writing -- riding. as for her majesty, the queen has been a source of inspiration for me like so many people around the world. she is truly one of my favorite people. should we be fortunate enough to reach 90, may we be as vibrant as she is. an astonishing person. jewel to the world, not just to the united kingdom. the alliance between the united states and the united kingdom is one of the oldest and one of the strongest that the world has ever known.
when the u.s. and the u.k. stand together, we make our countries more secure and our people more prosperous and we make the world safer. and better. that is one of the reasons why my first overseas visit as president more than seven years ago was here to london. at a time of global crisis. the one thing i knew, as green as i was as new president, was that it was vital to the united states and to the united kingdom , working together in an international forum to tackle the challenges that lie ahead, our success depended on our ability to coordinate and be able to leverage our relationship to have an impact on other countries. i met with david on that visit him he was not yet prime minister. share aour nations
special relationship, david and i shared a partnership, he has proven to be a great friend and one of my closest and most trusted partners. in the six years that our terms have overlapped, we have met or spoken more times than i can count. we have shared our country's fears with each other. he vouches for his and i doubt for mine. for mine. we were partners in a ping-pong game. and we lost to schoolchildren. [laughter] i cannot remember whether they were eight or 10, but decidedly shorter than we were and beat us. our better halves have become good friends. it is the depth and breadth of the special relationship that has helped us tackle some of the most daunting challenges of our time.
around the world come our joint efforts have stop the outbreak of ebola and helped iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. a climate agreement in paris that hopefully will help protect our planet for future generations. , our, on earth day governments along with 170 others are in new york to sign that agreement, the u.s. is committed to formally joining it this year. it take effectlp years earlier than anybody expected. we discussed the full array of challenges to our shared security. we remain resolute in our efforts to prevent terrorist attacks against our people and to continue the progress we have made in rolling back and defeating isil, our forces are systematically degrading their finances, safe havens, and removing their top leaders from the battlefield. stemve to keep working to
the flow of foreign fighters into and out of syria. our efforts to resolve political conflicts in the middle east from yemen to syria to libya in order to increase the prospects for stability. in libya, going forward, we have an opportunity to support a new government to help the libyans ruled out extremist elements. in syria, as challenging as it is, we need to see more progress .owards an enduring cease-fire we continue to push for greater humanitarian access to people who need it most. we need to continue to invest in nato so we can meet our overseas commitment from afghanistan. we have to resolve the conflict in the ukraine. allies are concerned about russian aggression. we should aim for a nato target of spending 2% of gdp on defense, something david major
happen in the u.k. to meet that standard. we discussed new actions we can take to address the refugee crisis, including with our nato allies. because a strong defense relies on more than just military spending, on helping to unleash the potential of others to live free or and more prosperous lives, i want to thank the people of the united kingdom for their extraordinary general city as one of the world's foremost owners of humanitarian aid. we talked about promoting jobs and stronger growth to increase transatlantic trade investment that our young people can achieve greater opportunity and prosperity. the prime minister and i discussed the upcoming referendum here on whether or not the u.k. should remain part of the european union let me be clear, ultimately, this is something the british voters have to decide for themselves. but, as part of our special relationship, part of being friends, is to be honest.
and to let you know what i think. speaking honestly, the outcome of that decision is a matter of deep interest to the united states because it affects our prospects as well. the united states wants a strong united kingdom as a partner. the united kingdom is at its best when it is helping to lead a strong europe. power.rages u.k. unionpart of the european . as i wrote in an op-ed today, i do not believe the eu moderate british influence, it magnifies it, it helps spread british values and practices across the continent, the single market brings extraordinary economic benefits to the united kingdom. that is good for america. when onere prosperous of our best friends and closest allies as a strong, stable,
growing economy. americans want written'-- britain's influence to go -- to grow, including in europe. no nation is immune to the challenges that david and i discussed. in today's world, solving them requires collective action. all of us cherish our sovereignty. my country is vocal about that. the u.s. also recognizes that we strengthen our security through our membership in nato, we strengthen our prosperity through organizations like the g7 and the g20. i believe the u.k. strengthens both our collective security and prosperity through the eu. in the 21st century, the nations that make their presence felt on the world stage are not the nations that go with alone, but the nations that team up to aggregate their power and multiply. precisely because britain's
values and institutions are so strong and so sound, we want to make sure that that influence is heard. that it is felt. that it influences other countries and how they think about critical issues. we have confidence that when the u.k. is involved in a problem, they will help solve it in the right way. that is why the united states cares about this. for centuries, europe was marked by war and violence. the architecture that our two countries helped build with the eu has provided the foundation for decades of relative peace and prosperity on that continent. what a remarkable legacy. of whatcy born in part
took place in this building. display -- month on it was a reminder of the incredible innovation and collaboration of the allies in world war ii and the fact that neither of us could have one that alone. in the same way, after world war ii we built out the international institutions that, yes, occasionally constrain us. we willingly allow those constraints because we weerstood that by doing so are able to institutionalize and internationalize the basic values of rule of law. and freedom and democracy. that would benefit our citizens as well as people around the
world. i think there is a british poet who once said no man is an island. even an island as people as this. as -- even an island as beautiful as this. we are stronger together and if together challenges future generations will look back on hours just as we look back on the previous generations citizensh and american who worked so hard to make this world safer and more secure and more prosperous. and they will say we did our part. that is important. not just here, that is important in the united states as well. thanks. p.m. cameron: we have questions, we will start from a question from the british press.
itv. , mr. president, you acknowledge the controversial timing of your comments on the eu referendum and the spirited debate we are having here. in the weeks before your arrival, leave campaigners have said you are acting hypocritically, america would not accept a loss of sovereignty that we have had to accept as part of the eu, america would not accept the levels of immigration from mexico that we have to accept from the eu. in various degrees of politeness, they have said to you that you should keep your views to yourself. with that in mind, mr. president, do you still think it was the right decision to intervene in this debate? what happens if the u.k. does the site in june to leave the european union? pres. obama: let me repeat, this
is a decision for the people of the united kingdom to make. i am not coming her to fix any votes. i am not casting a vote myself. i am offering my opinion. democracies, everybody should want more information, not less. you should not be afraid to hear an argument being made. that is not a threat, that is just enhanced the debate. particularly, because my understanding is that some of the folks on the other side have been ascribing to the united states certain actions we will take if the u.k. does leave the eu. they say, for example, we will just cut our own trade deals with the united states. they are voicing an opinion about what the united states is
going to do, i figured you might want to hear it from the president of united states, what i think the united states will do. [laughter] maybek it is fair to say, at some point down the line -u.s. trade be a u.k. agreement but it will not happen soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big block of the european union to get a trade agreement done. the u.k. will be in the back of the queue. now because we do not have a special relationship, but because given the heavy lift on any trade agreement, us having , with ao a big market lot of countries, rather than trying to do piecemeal trade agreements, is hugely inefficient. now, to the subject at hand,
obviously, the united states is in a different hemisphere, different circumstances, has different sets of relationships with its neighbors then the u.k. does. -- than the u.k. does. i can't say this, right now i have access -- i can say this, right now i have access to a massive market for i feel 44% of i amports, and now thinking about leaving the organization that gives me access to that market, and that is responsible for millions of jobs in my country, and responsible for an enormous amount of commerce, upon which they lot of businesses depend, that is not something i would probably do.
what i am trying to describe is a broader principle, which is, in our own ways, we do not have , common market in the americas but in all sorts of ways, the united states constrains itself in order to bind everyone under a common set of norms and rules that make everybody more prosperous. built after we world war ii. the united states and the u.k. designed a set of institutions, whether the united nations or the bridge and what structures, nato, acrossnk, the board. that constrained to some degree our freedom to operate, it meant
that occasionally we had to deal with bureaucracy. , on occasion, we had to persuade other countries and we do not get 100% of what we want in each case, but we knew that by doing so, everybody was going to be better off, partly because the norms and rules that were put in place were reflective of what we believe. more free markets around the world and an orderly financial system, we knew we could operate in that environment. if we had collective defense treaties through nato, we understood that we could formalize an architecture that would feature the -- deter the russians whether having a
piecemeal alliances to do -- deter aggression, whether having a piecemeal alliance to deter aggression. the last point i will make, until i get the next question i that as david said, this magnifies the power of the u.k., it does not diminish it. issue, whatt every happens in europe will have an impact here and what happens in europe will have an impact in the united states, we just discussed, the refugee and migration crisis. i told my team, which is sitting right here, they will about for vouch for me,l we consider a security issue the migration in europe. not because folks are not coming
into the united states, but because if it destabilizes bloce, our largest trading , trading partner, it will be bad for our economy. it you start seeing divisions in europe, that weakens nato. that will have an impact on our collective security. if, in fact, i want somebody who is smart and common sense and tough at his thinking as i do in the conversations about how migration will be handled, somebody who also has a sense of compassion and recognizes that immigration can enhance when done properly the assets of a country and not diminish them. i want david cameron in the conversation. just as a want -- just i want --
just as i want him in the conversation about information sharing. and counterterrorism activity. because i have the confidence in we u.k. and i know that if are not working effectively with paris or brussels, then those attacks will migrate to the united states and to london. i want one of my strongest partners in that conversation. it enhances the special relationship, it does not diminish it. p.m. cameron: let me make one point in response. this is our choice. nobody else's, the sovereign choice of the bridges people. as we make that choice, it makes sense to listen to our friends opinions and views and that is what barack has been talking about today. as we make this choice, it is a bridges choice about the british
in the european union, not about whether we support the german membership or italian membership, britain has a special status in the european union. we are in the single market, not part of a single currency. we are able to travel and live and work in other european countries but we maintain our borders, we are not any note border zone. on this vital issue of trade that barack has made clear, we should remember why we are negotiating this biggest radio in the whole world and in the whole world's history between the european union and the united states. it is because britain played a leading part in pushing for the talks to get going. at the g8 in northern ireland and britain was in the chair of that organization. we set the agenda for what could be.
a game changing trade deal for jobs and investment, because we were part of this organization. i wanted to add those important points. a u.s. question. >> >> thanks mr. president. what do you hope leaders gather in germany and can concretely do isut it? do you expect nations to militarily support the possibility of ground troops to keep that situation from further straining europe? you can talk about whether you plan to go to hiroshima when you visit japan. president obama: come on, man. that is unfair. >> as a friend and speaking on
the sleek, what would you advise american voters to do about donald trump? >> i will pick up that last one. hobo banning i wouldn't describe european unity as in a crisis. but it is under spring. some of that has to do with the aftermath of the financial crisis and the strings we are all aware of with respect to the eurozone. it is important to emphasize that the u.k. is not part of the eurozone. so the blow back to the british economy has been different than it has been on the continent. seen some divisions and difficulties between the southern and northern parts of europe.
i think the migration crisis amplifies a debate taking place not just in europe but in the united states as well. , at aime of globalization time when a lot of the challenges we face are transnational as opposed to focus on one country, there is a temptation to just want to pull up the drawbridge. either literally or figuratively. we have seen that played out with some of the debates taking place in the u.s. presidential race. that debate has accelerate in europe. but i'm confident the ties that are europe together
ultimately much stronger than the forces trying to pull them apart. -- if youundergone think about the 20th century and 21st centuryury, europe looks a lot better. i think the majority of europeans recognize that. they see that unity and peace have delivered sustained economic growth, reduced ,onflict, reduced violence enhanced the quality of life of people. i do believe it is important to
watch out for some of these faultlines that are developing. i do think the brexit vote, which i thought i am a citizen of the u.k. i am think about it in's -- thinking of it solely in terms of how does this help me? how does it help the u.k. economy? how does it help create jobs here in the u.k.? i do think this vote will send a signal that is relevant, about whether the kind of prosperity we built together is going to or whether the forces of division and up being more prominent. of why it is relevant to the united states and why i weigh in on it. were there for other questions?
have to figure i knocked out two in that answer. libya we botho discussed our commitment to assist this nascent government. there are people that are genuinely committed to building back up a state. that is something we desperately because both the united states and united kingdom, but also a number of other allies, are more than prepared to invest in creating border security in libya and trying to drive out terrorists inside of bolivia, and trying to make sure what we -- what could be a thriving society with a small population and a lot of resources, this is
not an issue where we should have to subsidize libya. we want to help find that technical assistance to get that done. there e no plans for ground troops in libya. i don't think it would be welcomed by this new government. this is a matter of libyans coming together. we can do is provide our expertise. what we can do is provide a aadmap for how they can get six services to their citizens and build up legitimacy. i do think the area that this become heavily progresses, we can't wait until i saw gets a foothold there.
make sure we get the intelligence we need. i have to wait-- until i get to asia to start asking asia questions. >> this is not a general election. this is a referendum. referendum that affects people in the united kingdom deeply. affecto it doesn't others in the european union. it affects partners like america or canada or australia and new zealand. as i look around the world it is a country that
wishes britain well that thinks we ought to leave the european union. we listen to all the arguments, they want the facts, the arguments, the consequences. listening to our friends, listening to our countries that wish well, that is part of the process. for the american elections, i have made some comments in recent weeks and months. i don't wish to add or subtract from them. just as a prime minister who has been through two general , you always look at the u.s. elections in all the scale of the process. i marvel at anyone left standing at the end of it. president obama: fortunately we are term limit.
so i can look at all in the process. >> we have another british question. >> you have made your views playing that british voters should choose to stay in the eu. alsobeing honest, are you saying that our decades old special relationship has been andugh so much fundamentally changed by errant exits? if so, how? any sympathyve with people who think this is none of your business? say it your colleagues is other leading wrong you have dragged our closest allies into the campaign. is it appropriate for the mayor of dachshund to bring up ancestry in the context of the debate?
>> questioned for boris, they are not questions for me. i don't have some special power over president of the united states. our decision as a sovereign people. is right to listen to and consider the advice of your friends. just to amplify one of the prince brock made, we have a shared interest in making sure we take a robust approach to russian aggression. if you take those issues through , i think in union can say britain continues to play an important role in making sure their sanctions were put in place and kept in place.
it is in our interest for europe to be strong against aggression. back -- how can it be at our interest to not be at that table and see the sanctions taking place? that helps to make a good difference. i am passionate about this. i believe deeply in all of the history and the culture. a stronger britain and stronger america is the stronger the relationship that will be. britain to be strong as possible, and we draw our strength out of all sorts of things in the country. european intelligence forces, discussing how work -- how they work together.
fact we are the g20, the commonwealth, we also project power and protect our people -- byake our country being in the european union. the stronger britain is, the stronger that special relationship is, and the more we can get done together to make sure we have a world much democracy and peace and human rights and development we want to see across the. -- across the world. obama: let me start with winston churchill. [laughter] awaret know if people are of this, but in the residence, my privatend floor,
office is called the treaty room. right outside the door of the , so that i see it every day, including on weekends theatch a basketball game, primary image i see a bust of winston churchill. it is there voluntarily. i can do anything on the second floor. i love winston churchill, i love the guy. when i was elected as president of the united states, my predecessor had kept a church hill in the oval office.
-- a winston churchill bust in the oval office. i thought it was appropriate. and i suspect most people in the united kingdom might agree. as the first african-american president, it might be appropriate to have a bust of dr. martin luther king in my to remind me of all the people,k of a lot of who would somehow allow me to have the privilege of holding this office. that is just on winston churchill. i think people should think my thinking there -- a should know my thinking there. i have a staff member who will not be named, because it might embarrass her a little bit.
generally on foreign trips she does not leave the hotel or the staff room because she is constantly doing work making this happen. she had one request the entire time i had been president, and that is could she accompany me to windsor, on the off chance that she might get a peek at her majesty the queen. is, herious as she majesty actually had this person, along with a couple of so as weined up emerged from lunch they could say hello. who is as person, tough as they come, almost fainted. i'm glad she didn't because it would have caused an incident.
that is the special relationship . we are so bound together that nothing is going to impact the emotional and cultural and -- cultural and intellectual affinities. i don't come here suggesting that impacts the decision that the people of the united kingdom may make around whether or not they are members of the european that is there, that will continue hopefully eternally. and the cooperation through g7 andy -- g7 entry 20 -- g7 g20. our best friends is in an organization that enhances
their power and enhances their , then i want them to stay in it. or at least i want to be able to tell them i think this makes you guys bigger players. i think this helps to create jobs. ultimately it is your decision. but precisely because we are tond at the hip, i want you know that before you make your decision. >> mr. president, vladimir putin has not stopped aside as he led you to believe he would. and the cease-fire appears to be falling apart. will you continue to bet on what appears to be a losing strategy?
the u.k. warned its citizens traveling to north carolina and mississippi about lost their that affect transgender individuals. what do you think about those laws? us, indulge indulge all of us back in the u.s., prince passed away. you were a fan, you invited to perform him at the white house. can you tell us what made you a fan. obama: i'm trying to figure out which order to do this. maybe i will start with north carolina and mississippi. want everybody here in the united kingdom to know that the people of north carolina and mississippi are wonderful people, they are hospitable people. they are beautiful states. and you are welcome, you should enjoy yourselves.
i think you will be treated with extraordinary hospitality. i also think the laws that have been passed there are wrong and should be overturned. politicsin response to in part to some strong emotions that are generated by people. some of whom are good people, it i just disagree with when comes to respecting the equal rights of all people, regardless of sexual orientation, regardless of whether they are chat -- whether they are transgender, gay or lesbian. although i respect your different viewpoints i think it is important to send signals that not anybody is treated d for -- not anybody is treated differently. to say we are not unique among countries, where our federal system, in which
powers dispersed, there are going to be some localities and local officials that put forward laws that are not necessarily reflected in a national consensus. but if you guys come to north carolina or mississippi everybody will be treated well. i am deeply concerned about the sustained shouldn't -- about the sustained should -- about the cessation of hostilities. i have always been skeptical about mr. putin's actions and motives inside of syria. he is the preeminent backer of a murderous regime, that i don't believe could reach gain -- could regain legitimacy in his country, because he has murdered a lot of people.
having said that, what i also believe his we cannot end the crisis in syria without political negotiations, and without getting all the parties around the table to craft a transition plan. means there will be some people on one side of the table who i deeply disagree with and deeply abhor. oftentimes you resolve conflicts like this. they take and a norm us toll on the syrian people. held longern bill than i expected. for seven weeks we have seen a significant reduction in violence in that country. that gives some relief to people. i talked to putin on monday
precisely to reinforce to him the importance of us trying to maintain the sustained -- maintain the cessation of hostilities, indicating to him we would continue to try to get modern opposition to stay at the negotiating table in geneva. been hard ands going to keep being hard. what we discussed his we will continue to prosecute the war against isil. to continue to support those that fight against isil. we are going to continue to make progress, but we are not going to solve the overall problem unless we get this political track. assure you we have looked at all options.
none of them are great. this option to play out if in fact the cessation falls apart. we will put it back together again. it is my belief that ultimately that justl recognize as this can't be solved by a on the part ofy those we support, russia may be able to keep the lid on alongside iran. don't have a legitimate government there, they will be bled as well. that's not speculation on my part. in --k the evidence all all points to that direction.
i love prince because he put out great music, he is a great performer. perform at the white house last year and was extraordinary, creative and original. full of energy. it is a remarkable loss. it so happens our ambassador has a turntable. so this morning we played purple rain and delirious just to get warmed up before we left a house for a bilateral meeting like this. >> the ambassador brought a lot of billion talents. i have been to north carolina many years ago.
hope to make it. the guidance we put out gives and it dealsvel, with laws and situations. it tries to give that advice dispassionately and improperly. something a lot of potential is ween to create we believe should be trying to use more to end discrimination rather than try to enhance it. we are comfortable the sand countries and friends all around the world. we make our own views about the importance of trying to end discrimination, and we have made some important steps. thank you very much. although bank thank you very much, everybody. presidentbo ban
obama: thank you very much. , obama will be meeting with chancellor merkel. we hope to have those comments live on c-span. lastresident delivers his speech to the white house correspondents association at the and of this month. c-span takes a look back at some of his previous dinner routines. here's a portion of what you will see. president obama: i want to put this birth certificate matter to rest. we can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter. like did we fake the moon landing? braswellly happened at roswell?
and where our biggie and tupac? arehere our early -- where biggie and tupac? know about your credentials and breadth of experience. in an episode of celebrity steakhouse,at the the men's cooking team did not impress the judges of omaha steaks. you recognized the lack of leadership. you fired gary busey. these are the kinds of decisions that will keep me up at night.
>> you can see more from the president's white house correspondent speeches saturday night at 10 eastern here on c-span. also a little background on the tradition by senior white house correspondent steve toma. is -- we willnner take you there live. it is one of the big social events of the year. it will feature comedian larry will more of the nightly show. delaware's primary is this coming tuesday. to supporters in delaware. and hillary clinton is campaigning in pennsylvania, which also holds their primary on tuesday. c-span two will have live coverage this evening at 7:30
eastern time. eastern, theght supreme court oral arguments over the obama administration's policy stopped implementation of the executive orders that would result in some undocumented immigrants staying in the u.s.. here are the arguments -- hear the arguments tonight. 23 is they, april fourth anniversary of william shakespeare's death. the library here in washington dc, which has the documentsllection of and memorabilia around the world will be hosting an event commemorating his life and impact, on our literature, language, politics, and history. book tv begins at noon eastern time.
not --rds we will have a we will have a live nationwide call list. henry full jury was the president of the standard oil company and a shakespeare buff. spent many years and dollars collecting shakespeare artifacts, documents, memorabilia. us on saturday, april 23. life beginning at noon from the full library, 400 years of shakespeare on book tv. >> water industry executives, analysts, and journalists discuss financing and policy at an event at columbia university's earth institute in new york city. this is about an hour.
>> good morning. i'm based here in washington dc for the ge water business. ge is one of the most advanced leading water treatment technologies. we have 50,000 customers in over 130 countries. on tuesday ofr attending the white house water summit. i know you were there. probably others. one of the interesting things i heard was from president obama's science and technology advisor. he said wall numbers are almost never anything -- never everything, they are almost always a great starting point. i think where you talked about
the state of the nation's water challenges, you laid out some numbers that are very sobering. that the american society of engineers released a report, giving the country's structure a grade of d-. i was a history major. we are losing 7 billion gallons of water each and every day through that even though we experienced routes that our unprecedented in our history in places like california. but i will come back to john , he said that while the challenges are great they are also solvable. this morning we have a panel of four incredible experts how we
-- experts who are going to tell us how we can solve these challenges through policy. we will start with brett walton. it is a news agency that shines a light on water issues globally. then we have marianne dickenson. ceo of waterhe alliance efficiency in chicago. bestovides -- she provides practices around using water sustainably. we have the ominously named broadview collaboration, which i believe works with nonprofit clients to help develop national resources and strategies. -- six six years as years before that, leading the -- johnsonidation foundation wings spread.
a graduate of the university of virginia. which leads me to peter glick. peter is a world-famous water policy expert. read about you before you became government affairs expert. like most grads, peter probably doesn't know he had a basketball team. losing a close game, michael dean to do. that brings us to our panel discussion. i would like each of our panelists to take one to two minutes and tell you about themselves so we have context for the remarks. >> you may have read about us on
the internet. these connected challenges of energy, agriculture, health, economic social well-being. we find water related challenges as one of the most compelling stories of our time telling the stories of the united states of china and australia and mexico and south africa. what we see is systems we built decades ago are no longer suitable for today's environmental conditions. we have a changing climate, changing demand patterns. do policymakers and society recognize that change? and how do they respond to it the story we tell is pointing out the changes and taking a look at what the responses -- response is.
panel aboutbe on a communication because it is a big problem. advocating for change and policy, understanding what the best changes could be. >> hello, everyone. ira present the alliance of water efficiency, which is a nonprofit organization formed in 2007 to promote the efficient and sustainable use of water in the united states and canada. you may wonder why we were only formed in 2007 when energy efficiency organizations have inn in insistence that been existence for 30 years. there were those of us that were working in the field of water conservation and energy and realize there was no platform for advocacy of the issues. we created an organization to provide technical assistance to
our utilities and water stakeholders about what the best practices were, what the most cost-effective options were, but also to do research on what the next leading edge should be. that is why i'm particularly pleased to be part of this about where we will talk what our ideas are for policy barriers. i will apologize for my voice, i have been sick. if i start having a coughing fit -- : it is often said all water is local and we need some. thank you very much. i think this will go better that way. i am the president of broadview collaborative, which works
primarily with nonprofit and foundation clients, but also with water innovation startup companies, so some of the small innovators are looking to break into and change some of the ways we change and do water. when i started to prior to starting my own company, i was with the johnson foundation at unusualead, which is an foundation in which we bring .eople together for dialogue i was leading a national conversation around water. of the first big kind of consensus reports we put out was action, calling it to for national water policy. what is interesting is when we were shopping that around with federal agencies, with local
groups, with states, a lot of the response was what is the big deal about water? gettingay having traction with the u.s. department of energy at the time, i am happy to say for all the wrong reasons that sentiment has changed. first texas is having a trout. people view texas as another country and having their own problem. caused -- very much cut people's attention around water quantity. des moines taking on a lawsuit push upstream on their water column -- water quality problems, that is getting attraction locally, but it has not been much of a national story like it should be. some of the horrible human
stories that come along with that, despite his best efforts is still not getting national attention and national attraction. a chemical spill was probably very preventable. that got a blip of national attention but did not bring about any national changes. not until this fluid situation, i hope this is what is going to get our national consciousness wrapped around water. i think we will have plenty of chances to talk about what may or may not bring about some of the good and the bad that comes from that. the things we will be addressing today is who needs to be at the table with these multi-partnership types of things.
it strikes me that i actually of the campsn most that need to be at the table. a board along with marion dickenson, which shares that board and represents over 500 watershed organizations. the private citizens and the local voice, and the citizen advocate that is such a critical part of the work that needs to happen. academic role,e the very important academic role that drives a lot of the innovation we see. i am on the board of the water environment organization, which represents wastewater utilities, but also storm water to a large extent.
the utility sector needs to be at the table. i think that maybe that partnership gives me a slightly unique perspective into all of those worlds and i looking forward to this conversation and to what the role columbia can play in helping to drive this forward. >> good morning everyone, i am divided to be here. there are a lot of people i know, some of whom i have seen twice in one week. sometimes i go months without seeing them. i am the director of the pacific institute in oakland california, where a nonprofit research group is working on advancing solution to the world's pressing water problems.
we do a book called the global water issues. we did a book a couple of years century water policy, which i will be trying on a bit today. i am a scientist by trade. i realize this is a water policy panel, but that is what the institute does. from water deficit to water surplus. you can't address this only with science and policy. water is a complicated issue. we work on the corporate sector of the institute as well. bringingt of the u.n.
the corporate sector together on stewardship. and the ceo water mandate, which is the water piece of that, working closely on that component of this. i think we have plty to talk about. >> one of the things we heard the white house water summit is that so many issues they are facing our local and regional. yet policies are often made at the national level. i want to start at the national level. peter i think i'm going to start with you.
what needs to be done to address those challenges? >> water is local mostly. issues weof pricing heard about, the kind of regional small-scale water issues, water really is local. there ared that fundamental things the u.s. needs to do. i don't normally like to list things. what a sad comparison. i will go through them really fast. there is different working with water. we need to do a better job of integrating agencies that deal
with water. need to provide river basing commissions and states that share rivers, which is all most every state in one form or another. we need a national water commission that advises the president on these issues. wateris not a national commission in the united states since 1970. fourth, we have to improve data. the state of water data. we don't collect water data or there needs to be a fundamental revolution and there will be -- and they will
federal water laws. they are advocating their responsibility in this for other things. manage -- demand management and alternative supply are keys to this. there is an enormous amount we need to do and ardor arguing on the demand management. alternative supply is key also. desalination is alternative supply. it is pretty low on my list.
let's integrate u.s. policy with other policy. they are not explicitly water, but they are and we don't integrate. it is a key part to the future -- and finally, environmental justice. flynt is a good example. ,he report that is waved around which came out yesterday, concluded that one of the most fundamental failures is an environmental justice failure.
there are issues about funding, about water cutoffs that are raised this morning. the epa has a standard on how much they should be willing to spend, how much they are able to spend on water bills. there are tribal issues. there are sensitive populations to kinds of pollutants that are not addressed. you some sense of the broad nature of these things and the appropriate federal rules that we can bring. we talked about economic tools. we talked about federal funding for local infrastructure. i'm curious about the price of water. one of the things you mentioned in the earlier panel is 52,000
water utilities. i bet most of them set their own water tariffs. of national association water company is something you know better than anyone. water tariffs if are too low, is there something that can be done to change that? to me that seems like a baseline of a lot of the challenges. this a'm going to answer slightly sideways wake him up but certainly we do needful cost pricing around water done in a way that allows for baseline views for people that have the --t challenges in paying the paying. about somebodyis else paying russia summit hang the cost for something else's action.
that plays out a lot of ways in the flame -- in the flynt kind of way. utilities having to handle agricultural runoff, and communities have to pay for that agricultural runoff. quality of life and waters that flow through their communities, but very direct cost to make it potable. is bacteria coming off of algae growth. but this is true throughout the country, and especially in the small poor rural communities that don't have the money to pay for that cleaning. i think this gets back to agricultural policies in terms of how we can -- it is not just putting less fertilizer on.
we have a major opportunity that allows us to not only hold onto to those nutrients, use less of them, you're a less, reduce flooding and on and on and on, we that is one of the ways shift the action back upstream. those wells and communities aren't paying the price for something they didn't do. find thek at how we will that find equitable raise -- find equitable ways, we have to look broadly at ways for people to share the responsibility for keeping the water clean in the first place. >> do they think about water tariffs or economics at something that would promote more efficiency naturally? quite a think about it
bit. that hits to their revenue stream is significant. we developed a model that helps utilities equalize their revenue requirement with what the rate revenue is that they need to , and giving them options with how to restructure their rates to do that. while it sounds like it may result in very large rate increases, i would like to point out that the large rate increase is the equivalent of a hot dog and a coke. in terms of absolute dollar values, it is usually not very much. this is where we need to look at the whole subject of investment whether the investment should be assisted by federal or state supplements.
about the whole rate and water conservation issue, utilities waterfinance any efficiency programs. we don't do it anymore because this accounting problem. they pay for all the efficiency programs upfront out of operating funds. then they take the hit. when the benefit kicks in, it is five or six years later, well about -- well beyond the election timetable.
we have a financial accounting problem with respect to that end we need to solve those barriers in addition to equalizing the impact of the environmental community. >> i want to hear of there is a communications angle to all of this as well. >> we can come up with rate designs that meet multiple that objectives, that are equitable. gives utilities the ability to develop reserves so they can get through periods of time when rates drop. ability -- ated the it is a good example of cross sectoral learning. let's do for the water sector what we did for energy and invest in conservation and
efficiency, which is the cheapest water source we have an >> i think the notion of learning from the energy sector -- brett, did you want to comment? >> just how we talk about these things. the initial question was water bills and affordability. got into a discussion of runoff and farm policy. that shows the big leap of -- big leap between one item and another. utility officials are not all that involved in setting agricultural farm regulations. but if you want to address the afford ability issue that is one of the things that will come into picture. is a big picture and when we talk about affordability we talk
about aging infrastructure. and that is the headline you read on those. to address this it is a much bigger conversation. and everybody has addressed multiple sectors. >> wanted to come back to one of your items. you mentioned a national water commission. and also how would states feel about that? the words national and water are set in the same sentence, these states get nervous. a nationalbelieve water commission would solve our problems. i do believe there has been a tolure at the federal level
discuss -- i see a national water commission as an advisory way of dealing what -- way of dealing with what the federal government wants to deal with. part of it could be explicitly, here are the things we are not going to talk about at the federal level because they are state and local responsibilities. i am not too worried about that. >> does the alliance for water efficiency think about greater ways to promote recycling and reuse. >> i am so glad you asked that question. we have been doing a lot of thinking about grey waterhas had a standard, enabling legislation,
in place for 20 years or more, that there are large-scale graywater installations in california, mostly because local health officers are reluctant to give approvals because they are not sure what the underlying treatment standards ought to be, and if you are talking about black water treatment systems which can completely recycle all water use off-site, like a living machine does, those are and notith a pilot really able to be replicated on a major scale across the country. largely, it is because we lack the national guidance for adequate treatment standards to enable this technology, which is being soldwhich is by ge and others all around the world but not here. we really would like to see a better deployment of that technology and better use of it so that we do not have to expand existing wastewater systems,
where it is more cost effective to do the outside option. with thee to deal national barrier policy issues. there has to be guidance coming from epa. there has to be guidance coming that local officers can rely on where they do not think later they will be sued for it. bet is something that could on the list for the national water commission to look at. that would be a very useful national contribution. jon: lynn? and with it is rainwater harvest, which is a lot easier to clean than sewage is. very few places are looking at that for potable water supply. water commissioners still get a little wigged out about that, but there is work going on to try to figure up his policies and you're out how that can work in a more sensible way. thewhite paper that columbia water center put out leading up to this talks about distributed water, how we can come up with other ways to use
less energy and have a lower infrastructure burden to thetain as we look to decade and century ahead of us, and i think that rainwater harvest is going to be a critical piece of that. jon: thanks, lynn. brett: it seems like even for drinking water, it is a key for addressing these challenges. is there a communications angle here? a lot of times you hear about a reluctance on the part of communities to use treated wastewater for those purposes. t: yes, initially, there was a problem with treated wastewater. i might have to say the phrase, the phrase that peter did not want me to say, but we have to talk about it. toilet cap.
it is a terrible reputation. it got people associated in the wrong way with wastewater. but people are coming around to it. it comes back to having a utility that is able to talk about this stuff with their customers, and people in san diego have come around to the idea of watch or reuse after and a objecting to it, lot of utilities are starting to
it is at least $290 billion a year, depending on how you calculate it, that the energy incentives, about $47 billion, but you do not have a similar investment on the federal side. the revolving funds are twinkling in size, and you do not have any really efficiency incentives like you do with energy. in fact, rebates in the united states are federally taxed, so not only do we not have a tax exempt or a tax credit, it taxes individuals for doing the right thing. so we have to fix this, and i felt the opportunity for the the over $700-- billion, that should have been a big slice going to water issues,
and more billions went to energy and climate-related issues, only $12 billion to water. only 20% of that went to efficiency and green is astructure, so there huge disparity in investment, and that also results in a huge disparity in policy. dwindling over time. srs over a 30r year period has invested money, but that is over 30 years, so we are talking about the health of our exist infrastructure in addition to ask engines to accommodate growing populations, and we have got to figure out a better way to manage this money so that it is funneled in the right place. cell caret area that is what i am always harping on. energy efficiency envy.
i would like to see them have the same federal investment level and the same federal policy attention. jon: lynn? lynn: these days, postponements, i think we have got the attention of the members of congress who represent urban areas, if wesley m of the more down and out urban areas, so people are lined up to add money to the pot in those areas, i take. my concern is that it will be a knee-jerk reaction to kind of build on what we have already got, and certainly flint has already received it badly needed and much-deserved money, but if we just increase the srs, or we just can't doubt federal grants, that doesn't really get us the solutions we need to be resilient for the decades to
come, and i think we also need other bills, to not just to money that goes specifically to the waters after, transportation fuels the ethanol, the water that goes in ethanol. it has a huge impact on our water them over all. energy,nts in renewable renewable energy such as solar and wind. it has a huge impact on our water freeze horses areas i think we also need to open our minds as to what are the other slices of that were policies wanting that have big impact on water. jon: yes, peter? peter: i agree with that. another example is the farm bill. the farm bill over the years has had a little bit of money or farmers to improve the water efficiency of irrigation systems, and that money has disappeared immediately. i mean, the demand for that
money is enormous, and the demand for flex, the need nationwide to figure out how to grow more food with less water, that is this efficiency argument. this demand management mark kimmitt. -- demand management argument. the agricultural sector. we have not talked much about it, but it is pretty critical, and we can grow a lot more food with a lot less water, but we are not funding farmers who need help to do that. jon: thanks, peter, and one of the ironies in california, even though there were water reduction mandate, agriculture continue to pump a great deal of groundwater. i think there was somebody at the white house who said solving today's problem at the aches of of tomorrow, so there has to to think aboutay this. let's move beyond the u.s. borders. around the world, and i am just
reminded of a few years ago when i was in australia meeting with senior government officials and asked how do you -- they were implementing a direct potable water reuse program, and how are you comfortable with this? that is what we are trying to do in the u.s. he said, we have engaged universities. we have research papers. we have stakeholder meetings and syndication strategies, and what we found is it works best when we do not say anything at all, and perhaps better lessons we can learn -- i want to start with you. have you seen anything from this standpoint, or maybe you guys are eating it around the world? : yes, these are not unique to the u.s. all around the world. additionally, the information that we have to bring to people who are making decisions, good information, data collection is
what they and that is did when they wanted to embark on the changes in water policies. much water know how was available in basin after the drought. how much should be allocated to the environment, and how they are going to do that. taking the big lessons from most of these areas, and peter and others can talk about the policy changes that came out of that and other areas, but you have to know what you happy you can do much about it. and this is where the u.s. is, at the knowing what you have phase. jon: thanks. mary ann? mary ann: australia has been mentioned. sustainablee for futures in sydney, and we published a report that was released a couple of weeks ago on australia' us experience with
their millennium drought and what lessons can be applied to california from that experience. what australia did in terms of changes to its policy and the investments it made both good and bad can be constructive examples for other areas. history, of course, is a huge model for us. there was a book recently published, and we have been following what israel has been doing for a long time. and that, we are going to hold a conference they are to showcase their work. 87% of their water use is recycled. they are already doing a lot of what we are talking about here, and they have made a sizable and not only national investment but a national priority. i was at a conference once when wantrime minister said we to be the leading water technology nation in the world, and that was a huge commitment, and it made me think about in
the united states, do we really talk about water on a national platform? i don't think we have had water as a discussion in a presidential campaign since 1936 , since the dust bowl years. we do not talk about water. it is largely an invisible issue, and that is probably the one silver lining with this issue in flint. we will hopefully start talking about it in the national dialogue really for the first time. really, that is a good point, mary ann, and i think the summit was a good step in the right direction. mary ann: huge, huge. lynn: we cannot find a place to try it out here, and this goes to other countries, and i can inc. of columbia, a macarthur fellow this year for his work in developing technologies for
distributed sanitation and theurce recovery that for most part is being piloted in other countries, and we can definitely use it right here, especially in the rural and poor , sos of our nation sometimes the brains are right here. we just do not have the economic drivers or the political will or whatever to use it here. jon: that is a great point, peter, do you want to comment before we open it up? peter: one of the major lessons from australia was nine years of drought really concentrates the mind. california is now -- i have argued in our fifth year of drought. winter,ot get a rainy as rainy as we would like. it took australia nine years to do some other for the little things we still have not done in
california, so crisis is a bit of a motivator. education is important. singapore, which has been highlighted in a number of his of their technology and there'd desalination, in my opinion is an example of communications. an education. they have done a tremendous job educating about water. using it more efficiently. the water quality advantages of recycle and reuse. and the law is a part of this. south africa, when they got rid of apartheid, they had the opportunity to rewrite all of their laws, and when they rewrote their cons regime, they put in their constitution a human right to water. before the you went declared a human right to water, and they also wrote in an ecosystem right to water, which was a legal precedent, in my opinion, so there are lots of internationally apples, and nobody is doing it all right. -- sod argue the lessons
there are lots of international examples. jon: from the audience? a few questions from the audience. ok, great. so multiple audience members inquired about water in the agricultural sector, so how can waterentivize conservation, soil health, and and whatduction in ag, are possible policy options? jon: lynn? sometimes, i think we have to get out of the way. there are some fairly well-publicized examples. i do not know if anyone has seen the video called soil carbon cowboys, where there is a great
line in there. it is working with ranchers and have been trying out multi-species cover crops as a way to feed their cattle that they areraising, and regular old ranchers. there is nothing fancy about these guys, and they are all guys, and one of them said, pardon me if this is offensive to anyone, one of them said, if i had known about this 12 years ago, i would have more kids because i have so much time on my hand because it is so much easier and cheaper to do it that way, and you hear similar things from commodity crop growers, who in trying new ways, really some ways old ways, multi-species cover crops to giveh the soil and help them resilience to drought, reduce their overhead, reduce their capital cost. it can be self driving, but right now, all of the policies that come out from the
department of agriculture and from those that advise farmers are going in a different direction, so how we can kind of stop that, and there is a lot of in the way. that is a hard thing to push against, and i am speaking of those interests that are making money off of fertilizers and herbicides and irrigation equipment and all of that sort of thing. peter, i know you want to comment. peter: that is a great question and a tough one. this is a great example where the federal government has a role to play and already plays a role. they had the central valley project in california and the water from that project, even the cost of repaying the capital cost of that project, so farmers pay less for cbp water, and those are less likely to be certain things comes up
at the federal level, it is important. subsidies for crops, driving the choices of what farmers plant, as to crop prices internationally. the farm bill, as i mentioned, is a way to help farmers make improvements that they want to make but cannot afford to make. energy policy was also raised. i think lynn raised it. as ethanol -- don't get me to the iowa caucus debate, but that has a huge water implication, and those are all just quick examples of things the federal government does play an important role in that could fundamentally change how we use water and how much we use in the agricultural sector. jon: thanks. anyone else what to comment? next question. next question, given that crisis is a motivator, what can
be done now to capitalize on water quantity in california and water quality in flint? brett, do you want to start with that? a motivator, is but crisis can eventually become offputting when people read about a crisis all of the time. , they too doubt, but with people's attention, the full reading more than ever. we have smart devices. we have access information at our finger it's almost every hour of the day, so the ability for people to see something that is important has never been greater. the importance there is making sure the information is understandable, like taking this white paper that has been circulated. it is a conference of look at america's water problems, but it
is 30 different directions, and the human mind can only handle so much, so taking that crisis and breaking it down so it is more understandable but also show connections between all of iese concepts is something think will start to move some action. jon: mary ann? we have largely made our water infrastructure invisible, not because it is buried under the ground but because we have spent 30 or 40 years just not talking to the customer about what it is that they are drinking, and part of that was delivered. the drinking industry is very proud of its record and what it was providing to it citizens, and they did not want the consumer to worry. citizens who would oversee what was going on. that's when i was the chair of the waterboard, my manager told me to. trying to invite people to the board meetings. be white noise in
the background, and that only works when it is good. happens,enly a crisis like in flint, and a consumer has no concept about that system and what it needs where were the money raised from the municipal coffers was costing the ability to do infrastructure repair and replacement, and that infrastructure -- what we need t was -- this is what bret saying. we need to do a lot of baseline and conversations so when crisis hits, they can be in participants in the change. now, there are a lot of angry people. they are still not well informed, but they are angry, and that is the problem with crisis management, but that is how we make policy. that is how we move mountains in government, so recognizing the opportunity that the crisis presents and the creative opportunity it can present is
what we need to take advantage of. lynn: one of the things that there is a lot of low-level conversation happening right now is about the institutions that pushback and that our watchdogs on water. ever since the clean water act, we have had -- the clean water act has a provision for citizens. standing toe a protect and enforce those clean water act laws, and as a result, we have a whole cottage industry of citizen groups that can and will push back on wastewater resource -- the recovery facilities, the term that the industry is using nowadays. when they feel that the clean water act is being violated, and it is not fun for the industry to get that kind of push back, but that is what has moved us
along and has kept the process honest and transparent. on the drinking water's side, we do not have those social institutions in place, which is, it took citizens in flint to keep pushing and pushing and pushing, and there are different individuals -- these are not organizations, and so in the ngo world and in the committee organizing world right now, there is a lot of kind of what do we do? groups, theywater have not gone after drinking water. they have sort of ignored it because it has been so safe, and we are realizing, gosh, how to incorporate that into the work that we do? so i think there will be, there needs to be, and there will be, a shift in our institutions, and one of the really, i think, exciting pieces of that is that this will be -- i am a very hopeful person -- this will be
what finally gets us to take water out of the canoe paddling arld in which i live and into much more integrated conversation that represents america as a whole, and i think that is a pretty exciting opportunity. i think we have time for one more question. >> so considering that states hold the responsibility to implement national policy at the we overcome how can the disparity between states that do this well versus those who are not doing so well? citizen advocates? jon: that is good. anyone else want to take a crack at this insert of a word is that the to 62nd answer? >> i was going to say the same thing.
project arounda lead and water and what should be invested, and when i called scott bryant -- some of you may know got ryan. his gig is innovation and started technology, what do you know what he said first off in terms of where the invest it needs to be? he said democracy. every foundation should be of their, at least 5% grant to democracy. that is what is going to keep our water safe area -- safe. jon: peter? peter: again, there is a federal role in oversight. this hate up inflict also. maybe they did not play as well as they should have. we have federal law. laws.not have the state we have federal law, because we do not want there to be there to two different communities because some states might be weaker than others, in
developing those standards, so there is, again, a federal role, and i would argue in updating expandingater act and hugely the numbers and types of chemicals that are regulated in our drinking water and then helping the state meet their responsibilities in meeting those standards. jon: ok, i think what i'm going to do is ask you have any on about that you would like to share in like 10 or 20 and with the audience, and then i would just make our wrapping up comments. brett? would like to talk about the language used to talk about these problems. in meetings a lot of the russians we have, it is very technical language that makes the eyes glaze over after a little bit, aging infrastructure and silos and mitigation and all of these words that are used all of the time, what we try to
avoid when we are telling stories about what is going on with america's water. this is the triangulation of being able to take what happens in these discussions and show its effect on human lives, and to write that in a way that gets people attention. : translate it into language. mary ann? mary ann: this plays off of what christine said earlier. leaked so much water in this country. there is no excuse for not making it a requirement that water systems apply for that role money need to damage great water loss control, and that is just something we can easily do. jon: reduce lost water. mary ann: reduce leakage, yes. jon: lynn?
the white paper that columbia water has produced, and i think it is so important, and we have a lot of challenges ahead, but as we address them, i think it is really important we do so in the context of climate change and social equity, and we have a great opportunity ahead of us to do that. not solve today's problems with yesterday's technology. we have got new opportunities ahead. the backdrop is climate change and social equity. computer question peter: i agree with that. we have 19th-century infrastructure and 20th century institutions and 21st century problems. we need to build the 21st century infrastructure and institutions to deal with the 20th century problems we did not deal with and the new problems we're adding on, like climate change. n: take