tv First Ladies Influence Image CSPAN December 2, 2013 9:00pm-11:01pm EST
occurring. the universal respect act will establish an interagency review of federal efforts to eliminate racial profiling in the united states by amending the homeland security act to require that recipients of federal law enforcement grants and training facilities do not engage in racial profiling. simply put, mr. speaker, the universal respect act will end the practice of rewarding law enforcement programs that do not respect basic civil rights and civil liberties. we need to stay vigilant in our fight for respect in this country and that has been one of our themes. whether it's on the budget as our colleague, mr. scott, just talked about, or a plethora of bills that have been brought forward by individual members. an essential to the f.y. 2014
budget that has been worked on by the congressional black caucus, which reduces the budget and creates millions of jobs in a fair and balanced way. let me just close by talking about one final area, mr. speaker, that we as members of this body need to stay focused on and that's jobs and growing the economy. in my home state of nevada, we still have a stubbornly high unemployment rate above the national average. despite improvements in certain sectors, there's far too many nevadans who are still looking for work. many who have been out of work for now more than a year, year and a half, going on two years, and i know it's part of the budget debate that will occur between now and january 15, will be this discussion about extending unemployment benefits. which is incredibly important to american families who have been struggling during this sustained
recession. and so i would challenge my colleagues on the other side, allow us to bring forward the number of jobs legislation and bills that would help build our infrastructure back up in this country. allow us to bring these bills to a vote in this chamber so that we can get our country moving again, we can get the middle class economy moving, we can help middle class families who are trying to provide for themselves and their families with good, sustainable, family-sustainable jobs. not low-wage jobs that put people in the same positions to depend on assistance programs by the federal government. that's not what the american public wants. they want a family-sustaining job that allows them to provide for themselves and their family. that is what we are arguing for, it's what the congressional black caucus represents each and every week when we come to this
special order hour and why these issues are incredibly important. and so as we reflect back on this year, this year of millsed opportunities, as my colleague it is york just said, in fact missed opportunities because we could have done so much more, so much more in this body. 435 members dedicate -- 435 member, dedicated staff, people who love our country and want to see it progress. but it's time for us to put the partisanship, the ideological views aside and to allow us to put our country first. what i'm here for, mr. speaker. the i know it's what my colleagues are here -- i know it's what my colleagues are here for and i look forward to working with anyone from either side of the aisle, in either chamber, who wants to work with the president to move our country forward and i appreciate this special order time and i
would yield back the balance of y time at this time. mr. jeffries: i thank the gentleman from the silver state for his observations and for his look forward as it relates to the issues that we all hope this congress will decide to tackle, as we close out the first half the 113th congress and move toward calendar year 2014. this has been a year of lost opportunities, of obstruction, of delay, of distraction, and a failure to meaningfully address the issues of importance to the american people. this has been a very schizophrenic economic recovery. we have come a long way since the collapse of the economy in 2008. but we still have a long way to go. as members of the c.b.c. have consistently pointed out from the floor of the house of representatives, there are people who have been left behind nd the american people deserve
this congress putting aside issues of partisan bickering and attempting to find common ground to solve their problems. stock market is way up, corporate profits are way up, productivity of the american people is way up, c.e.o. compensation is way up, yet unemployment still remains stubbornly high. there are americans who have been left behind but we have not failed to take up a jobs bill from the floor of the house of point tatives at any this year. as my colleague from nevada also pointed out, we have a very broken immigration system. there's almost uniform agreement across the aisle about that fact. there's been a failure to bring a meaningful piece of immigration reform legislation
to the floor of the house of representatives. despite the overwhelming demand for action by the american people. now, we all agree, as the c.b.c. indicated earlier this year, in february, when we took to the floor to talk about the need to address the issue of the broken immigration system, that something needs to be done. and there really are only three possible options. one, we've got mass deportation of the 11 million undocumented individuals who are in this country. that's option number one. option number two is the status quo. just leave the broken immigration system in place. option number three is meaningful, comprehensive immigration reform with a tough but fair pathway toward
citizenship. mass deportation is impractical. the status quo is unacceptable. comprehensive immigration reform is the right thing to do for this country, for the economy, for the american people. and i'm hopeful, as my colleague from nevada indicated, that that is the direction that we will go in as we speed to a close this year and attempt to restart the congress on the other side of the end of the first half of this session. i'm pleased that we have been joined by the distinguished gentlelady from texas who is a member of both -- a distinguished member of both the and judiciary committee the homeland security committee, has worked on many issues, as the leader within the congressional black caucus, but as a leader within the congress on issues of social and economic justice and it's now my honor
and my frive to yield to her -- my privilege to yield to her, representative sheila jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman from new york and it was thought-provoking to hear the gentleman from nevada offer his thoughts of bipartisanship and to listen to the gentleman from virginia on the astuteness of many issues that have been left along the highway of despair. and also to be joined by our dear friend from new york, who we will hear from shortly, congresswoman clarke. will the. let me thank you for -- let me thank you for the leadership that you've given to this special time and let me try to in the e succinct
issues that have been left again along the highway of despair, again, very quickly. you started out with immigration reform and you're kind enough to note that i have served on the judiciary committee for a number of years and form early the ranking member on the imdwration -- formerly the ranking member on the immigration subcommittee. i will tell that you there have been many times that we could have come together and passed comprehensive immigration reform. but i'm going to tout as a bipartisan, legitimate expression of border security, to share with my colleagues h.r. 1417, which many know was passed out of the homeland security house committee, through the efforts of republicans joined by democrats and the legislation assed with no weaknesses, no loopholes, no disrespect for the
importance of the security of the northern and southern border. very strong responses as it relates to operational control, as it relates to the amount of control that we would have at the border, but matching it with the recognition that there must be an infrastructure of immigration reform, but let me throw all of those words away and say there must be humanity. there must be concern for human beings, for families torn apart, from dream children destined to be valedictorians or to be generals in the united states military because this is the country they love, we are losing all that talent, we are losing the talent of those who have trained here, with knowledge about the next level of technology because we do not have a comprehensive approach. those folks are leaving and therefore we're losing the
genius that we trained to be able to help us. so i want to join the gentleman and say to him that if there's any cause that we could come together, it would be comprehensive immigration reform and might i just take note of my button, that honors the fast for families, those that have been fasting for almost 20 days, almost a month, because they are trying to pull at the heart strings of america, the heart strings of this country -- congress, to recognize that they are americans too. they're just a few blocks down the street. a few blocks down the street. families, children, fasting, asking, is there someone who can hear our plea? so i thank the gentleman for bringing it up and i want to just make some other points that we've been lingering on and that we've not followed through on. i introduced h.r. 2585, which is a bullying antiprevention, bully
and intervention, reflectsor on where america is when -- reflects on where america is when you find that most children have been bullied. or something happens to a child in high school and they will talk about being bull idea some years back or a child will be shot or violence will be -- will occur. even to the exent of the nfl. want to pay tribute to a man from the baltimore ravens. mr. rice. this would re-authorize the juvenile accountability block grant and it would provide sort of a sentence road map that allows organizations that would be funded under the block grant to be able to focus on bullying prevention and intervention. how simple a legislative initiative is that? and i would offer to say that i heard from leadership on both sides of the aisle, why not pass
something as simple as that? even before christmas? to be able to move forward on something that would not in fact be a nhl negative. i just constituent -- would not in fact be a negative. i want to quickly indicate that we have young people exposed to violence in ways that we have not known. 30% of u.s. students are involved in moderate or frequent bullying. cases in florida where young people have been arrested because tragically someone committed suicide. or the hearing i held in houston where parents upon parents and students came in to testify how they had been bullied. one out of four kids is bullied. and some would say, well, they're calling everything bullying. well, i believe if we do the outreach, we can find a way to develop an infrastructure so that there will be people who will find, one, the comfort of knowing someone cares, a system that intervenes when someone feels something is untoward, and to break the shackles of bullying by getting rid of the
atmosphere that is tolerated because it is done in silence and fear. i also introduced a gun safety legislation and i would hope that someday we can have universal background checks but as i was drive driving to the airport -- driving to the airport i read an ad in the newspaper that had gun safes on sale. i said, that guy, i want to give him an award. because my simple legislation requires individuals to store their guns. have all the guns you want, but have them stored and safe, particularly if you are with a large number of them and to be able to secure and protect children and those who want to do us harm. one of the things that the c.b.c. worked on that i'm proud that we worked on it, but i will say that it brings me sadness that we're at a point where we've cut $40 billion from the supplemental nutrition program. i went to my food bank and had them explain what a devastating impact that $40 billion -- $4 billion a year will have on the people who are in need in
houston in particular, in my city in houston. the census report said over the last 12 months, 442,881 incomes were below the poverty level. 18% of households in the state of texas from 2009 through 2011 ranked second in the highest rate of food insecurity. so why can we not have an ag bill that would restore the $40 billion? why are we suggesting that those individuals are dead beats when one half of the persons on food stamps or snap are in fact children? that's something, mr. jeffries, that we can come together on and redo, or the conference could redo, that we could look to ensure that we are a place of laws, but a place of humanity. let me throw in two points that i consider are justice issues, the affordable care act, which is a justice initiative,
which is to say, we all have access to good health care. we must change all of our attitudes, do a lot of things to make us healthy, but it is an intervenor and allows us to have preventive care and women not be considered as a pre-existing disease and allow children with pre-existing diseases not to be eliminated from the insurance rolls and allows americans receive rebaits from the insurance companies when the affordable care act is in place. so all of the talk of the technology takes away from the core value that americans should have access to health care. and today, i'm glad to hear that we are making strides in the technological system. it is not always perfect.
let us not undermine this bill. and i'm glad that the congressional black caucus under the leadership of our chairwoman has been strong and educating our constituents about the affordable care act. in conclusion, a remaining challenge that we have. the voting acts must be re-authorized that was eliminated by the supreme court that took away the provisions of pre-clearance, which, in fact, provided justice and the right to vote for all americans. we are gathered hopefully in a bipartisan manner, the leadership of mr. sensenbrenner and others who are on various committees and the congressional black caucus and the leadership of our congressional black caucus to come together to be able to accept the constitutional premise, best said by the constitution, we are
created equal. and we have coddled the right to vote, welcomed the right to ote, reading a story about our puerto rico and citizens. and those of us on the mainland who have had obstacles thrown at us across the pathway that needed to be protected not only by the bill of rights, but by the voting rights act that withstood the test of time and it is important that we get a construct that all of us can support so if there is a voter prevent it does not people from voting or getting an i.d. or in essence, the voting
rights act is one that reaffirms america's commitment that everyone has a right to vote. i want to thank the congressional black caucus on being the leader on so many issues from gun violence, preventing it, to the issue of dealing with our children and anti-bullying and intervention, restoring snap funding, to the voting rights act and yes to a comprehensive approach to immigration reform, particularly, particularly the idea that we worked on so extensively and that is diversity visas and when i go home and speak to people in the african-american community, they understand what work has been done, those from the caribbean, south asia, they understand we have been a leader on the broad landscape of comprehensive
immigration reform. for that reason, i'm hoping that we will not end this session by looking sadly back on what we have not done, but we will roll up our sleeves and before we leave here at the end of this of the 113th sion congress and see an ag bill that will restore a portion of the snap dollars, and will actually have passed an anti-bullying legislation that will draw republicans and democrats, that we will have confronted the issue of immigration reform and pass the legislation in regular order and then as well, that we'll find it within ourselves. in conclusion that we eliminate the sequester in a way that provides funding back to the basic responsibilities of this will government, rebuilding infrastructure and creating
jobs, stopping the bleeding of losing jobs because we have the sequester -- providing for education and the safety and security of our seniors and veterans. let's get to work. i thank you to the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries, for reminding us that we came here to roll up our sleeves and to work for the american people. i yield back. mr. jeffries: i thank the distinguished lady from texas for her leadership on a wide variety of issues and for laying out a very significant road map, a blueprint for the future in terms of what this congress should confront as we close out this first session of the 113th congress and move toward the second session. we are pleased that we have also been joined by my neighbor back home in brooklyn, the
distinguished gentlelady from the 9th congressional district, a woman who is one of the c.b.c. co-chairs on the task force related to comprehensive immigration reform and has been a leader on that issue. she is a member of the small business committee as well as the homeland security committee. representing one of the most diverse districts anywhere in this nation and has made us all proud to call her colleague. i yield now to congresswoman clarke. ms. clarke: first, i would like to thank the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries and the gentleman from nevada, mr. horsford, for their leadership, n anchoring this year's c.b.c. special order hour and thank them in particular for thisening's year in review. mr. speaker, it has been a long
road from fighting to keep snap funding to rehashing the affordable care act to advocating for immigration reform that is comprehensive and the c.b.c. has come a long way. as one of the co-chairs of the c.b.c. immigration task force, i'm proud of the work we have done to ensure that everyone, including immigrants of the african difficult as practice d african-americans were included in this conversation. yesterday, we stood here in february introducing the c.b.c.'s perspective on the urgent need for comprehensive immigration reform. that night, we laid the foundation of what was to be an uphill battle between politics, policy and procedure. the c.b.c., along with our tri-caucus colleague argued that
the broken immigration system does not encome bass one. there are three million in the united states, the vast majority of whom entered the country with legal documentation but there are millions from all over the world including eastern europe and southern asia. as the conversation increased, the c.b.c. immigration task force tried to highlight the issues, which has been large in scale. their contribution had not been mentioned in the mainstream stories. many did not recognize nor understand that the road for many immigrants was significantly different than the proverbial stories in the media. many entered our nation with legal student visas like my
parents did, to pursue careers in medicine, science, education. many are proud business owners of law firms, restaurants, grocery stores, shipping companies and hair braiding venues. there are those who have come as asylum seekers, feeling war, famine and again side. they come to the united states to become productive tax paying members of our society. and like the other immigrant groups, immigrants are dealing with the back logged immigration processing, families being ripped apart, falling out of status because they were eeked out. racial and status discrimination, felony laws that prohibit judicial review, deportation processes that
violate human rights and prohibitive student visa programs limited access to work permits and much, much more. mr. speaker, it is imperative for us to acknowledge the fact that many immigrants arrive on our shores during a time in their lives when they are most productive. the most productive years in their lives. bringing them to the floor would deny us as a nation the opportunity to access their talent, their skill and abilities in the prime of their lives. additionally, it was important for us to note that african-americans, those descendants of the transatlantic slave trade that i call long time stakeholders of this nation have been affected by our broken immigration system as well.
working class americans are -- with a fected broken immigration system. they are dealing with depressed illegal unscrupulous corporate hiring practices, urban communities are being adequately -- thank you. mr. jeffries: one of the things that the c.b.c. has attempted to work on as my distinguished colleague from new york has indicated is to deal with comprehensive immigration reform in a manner that fixes a broken system for all involved and we are certainly thankful for the
distinguished gentlelady's work as a member, a leader of the c.b.c. task force on immigration reform. we both proudly represent districts that are incredibly diverse back at home in the 8th congressional district in brooklyn and parts of queens. i represent african-americans, caribbean americans, russian-speaking jewish immigrants, latinos, chinese-americans. the gorgeous mosaic of the american people and what i have found and this has been the history and experience in new york city is that immigrants are hard-working, entrepreneurial, spiritual, family on the parted, community-centered individuals and america will be strengthened of course by fixing our broken immigration system. let me now yield back to my
distinguished colleague from new york. ms. clarke: i have recovered now and i would like to bring forth a few more points. working-class americans of all backgrounds adversely affected by the broken immigration system. they are dealing with depressed wages because of illegal corporate hiring practices, urban communities aren't being counted by the census and other surveys by reductions to meet the needs of actual populations in our communities, increasing the strain on current public services. urban communities are exposed to more crime as undocumented are more reluctant to report crimes and african-americans are dealing with discrimination as many are subjected to interrogation based on
citizenship. imagine our delight when the immigration reform debate gained some traction this year. tangible legislative fixes in the works. the c.b.c. expressed our concerns over the elimination of diversity visas. we voiced our concern over the ability of american children particularly those from underrepresented and underserved areas to be successful in stem fields without the proper education, especially since much of the emphasis in the debate relied on increasing census of migrants in those field. the current state is not in line with our criminal justice system, leaving many immigrants forced to experience double jeopardy for nonviolent crimes. language does not include
religion or national origin and expressed concerns over the switch from family-based immigration to an economic-based system. . . now imim-- now i implore the house leadership to understand the importance of diversity. that is, racial, ethnic, religious, national and especially economic diversity. the visa equity that must be afforded immigrants from around the globe. if we eliminate country caps, without including other avenues for smaller countries, we are jeopardizing the beautiful mow sake that makes this country unique -- mosaic that makes this country unique and great. excuse me. we must elevate consideration of the safe act, which is a bad idea and a slap in the face to
our immigrant history. additionally, we have to have an honest conversation about the relationship between legalization and border security. alloying those who are here -- allowing those who are here a or way to citizenship creating an obstacle course is not the way to go. we will never realize the true potential of this country if anyone in our society is held back from realizing their individual dreams. and relying heavily on our -- an economic-based immigration system will exclude many immigrants, creating yet another stratified immigration system, forcing people back into the shadows. that is why, as we look at the next session of the 113th congress, i ask my colleagues to take the opportunity to revisit these proposals, sans political pressure. sans the haste to get it done.
and take a real look at how we can improve the lives of all americans and all those who strive with the hope to be an american. mr. speaker, we must get this right. our national security's at stake, our moral standing in the world depends upon it, the american people, many of whom are first and second generation immigrants, have demanded it. if we turn our backs on those law-abiding contributors to our civil society that come to our shores only to embrace the american dream, to labor in the rebuilding of our great nation, strengthen our commercial and to serve honorably in our military, we turn our back on ourselves and our future. i can definitely say that the c.b.c. immigration task force looks forward to continuing this onversation into the new year, ensuring that any comprehensive
immigration reform measures mirror the diversity of this nation. so i want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from new york, whose district is right next to mine in brooklyn, for yielding time to me today. and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. jeffries: i thank the distinguished gentlelady from new york for her leadership on this issue, for the progress that has already been made in her continued commitment. the c.b.c., as i close, mr. speaker, will continue to take its role seriously as the conscience of the congress. a voice for the voiceless. and the guardian of the integrity of the democratic process and i'm just hopeful as we move forward that our friends on the other side of the aisle ill end the obstruction, end the on -- end the obsession with the affordable care act and we can find common ground to advance an agenda for the benefit of the american people and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.
under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher backer, until 10:00 p.m. -- mr. rohrabacher, until 10:00 p.m. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much. mr. speaker, i would ask my colleagues, do we want to be known as the congress that killed the u.s. patent system? a patent system which has served the american people well for 225 years. i ask america, america, are you listening? congress has once again -- is once again talking about reforming the patent system. last patent reform bill, which passed last year, was the american inventors -- invents act and it just went into effect earlier this year and patent lawyers and courts and inventors are still trying to figure out the implications that have change. of the change that that legislation made. and it was the most sweeping change in patent law in the history of our country.
yet even before we are able to judge the effects of the america invents act, a new patent bill is being rammed through this house and through congress. i wish i could focus simply on the bad provisions of this new bill, the innovation act, i like to think of it as the antiinnovation act, h.r. 33 -- anti-innovation act, h.r. 3339, which is expected to be on the floor later this week. but if the bill is bad, which we're talking about, the process being used to stifle debate and ram this down the congressional throats here on the floor is even worse. in the one judiciary committee hearing, witness after witness strongly recommended moving forward slowly and warned of unintended consequences. it only takes a few minutes to consider each provision of this bill to see that, although it
may be aimed at a single thorn in the side of megaelectronic companies, it will create much more pain in other industries. in higher education, and especially to individual inventors. in the rush to get h.r. 3309 onto the floor so quickly, it as not -- it has not been even one single day between when this bill passed the judiciary committee and then thus becoming available to members of the house, once it passes the judiciary committee, and it's not even been one single day of legislative business for members to consider and submit amendments to the rules committee for this important legislation. not one single full day of legislation -- of legislative work done and now we're -- this is being rammed down our throats.
and of course the thanksgiving holiday happened right after they passed it through the committee. the holiday was right in the middle of a very short timeline, which of course virtually guaranteed that all members and most of the staff would not be in washington, d.c. thus they passed it right before we left town and this schedule suggests what? it suggests that the fix was in. the clear message to little inventors. give thanks for your intellectual property rights because you may not have them this time next year. well, this isn't just about rapid, it's also about covert. it seems that we have to pass this bill to find out what's in it. that hasn't worked well for america in the past and it sure shouldn't be happening again on our watch. i'm calling on my friends and my colleagues who haven't had time
to fully understand the implications of this legislation, and that means almost everybody in this body, d we're just back today from the holiday break, if you haven't had time to fully understand the implications of this legislation, join me in demanding a postponement of this vote until after the holiday season, which will give us all sufficient time to consult with ur constituents, with experts, and to better us understand this legislation and the implications it will have for industry, for american progress, for american inventors and innovators. now to the content of this legislation. aimed old this bill is at the threat of so-called patent trolls. these so-called villainous trolls are patent holders or they are companies who represent patent holders. they are engaged in defending the rights -- their rights,
given to them by ownership of that patent, against the infringement of their patents by someone else. they own these patents. they are not just -- these are just as valid as any other patents granted by the patent office. but huge corporate infringers would have us believe that these patents are questionable. invalid. unworthy. they're unworthy of being a patent in the first place. of course, these are the same corporations who have taken these patents and used them without paying the lawful fee that you would pay to someone who had invented season something that you were using. this is not the -- invented something that you were using. this is not the case. they're not paying the inventor. and the patents that are being targeted by these multinational electronics firms is claiming that they're illegitimate. well, most of these were just the product of small inventors and these small inventors quite
often, because they're up against mega-multinational corporations, are without a means to defend their rights if these corporations arrogantly decide to violate those patent rights. and what manges these vilified -- what makes these vilified patents different from the good patents that are owned by these very same large corporations? the so-called patent troll, it happens to be -- most of the time patent trolls are lawyers who take a case on to defend a little guy from theft. but that lawyer didn't invent it. that makes him bad because he's not working for a company, a big megacompany that invents things, no, he's working for a little guy or he has bought the rights the little man has so that he will get something out of his work. well, being out for profit from technology, and from technology that someone did not, he or she, invept themselves, now that's
really horrible. doesn't that sound horrible? well, no, it's not. we live in a society where people litigate to protect their rights. and there's nothing wrong and no -- we are being told that the patents in question, that are going to be dealt with, by this legislation, there's a hint that they're not legitimate patents. they're owned by patent trolls. well, so much for calculated confusion. if a small inventor doesn't have the resources to enforce his or her patent, an individual or company can buy those rights just like if they don't have the ability to farm, to plant on a farm. they can sell those rights. or they can create a partnership so that they can be actually -- ford to actually protect themselves from being cheated out of their rightful compensation. i have spoken to independent inventors, conservative
political organizations, the -- and all of these people are very suspicious, of course, of these changes that are being put into place in terms of a person's right to litigate, to protect their individual rights. well, those people are also -- there are people who are very suspicious of this legislation. the american bar association, industry groups. you've got biotech and phrma, these people -- and universities throughout our country who are opposed or at least very concerned about what's going to happen by h.r. 3309, the so-called innovation act, which as i say should better be called the anti-innovation act. well, we know that this bill, if passed, will further, basically further work against the interest and it will further the disadvantages that the little guys have against deep-pocketed, multinational corporations.
and this is achieved in the guise, of course, of attacking patent trolls. see, they have used this word, demonized this word. i happen to have met a person, a man who was a big executive in major corporation, a major electronics corporation, who was in the meeting with other electronics officials when they coined the phrase patent troll. they were doing it specifically to demonize these lawyers because they knew they couldn't go after the little inventor or the small inventor or the independent inventer, they couldn't go after him and demonize them, even though -- because they were stealing the patent rights from these individuals, so they'd go after the lawyer and this person was saying they went around the room with their ideas, what's the most heinous word we can do to help blind the people about what's really going shown in had suggested patent pirate. but they decided on patent
troll. don't be blinded to the theft that's being justified here. by using -- by demonizing a group of lawyers who are trying to defend small businessmen, basically small inventors. proponents of this legislation are demonizing patent lawyers to draw attention away from the fact that they have stolen someone else's patent-protected technology. now, the big guys want to change the system so they can get away with the theft. that's what h.r. 3309 is all about and that's why it should be called the anti-innovation act. it is inability of defenders to the ownership rights of technology they have invented. it is not about frivolous lawsuits or controls but a cynical cover that was created by the big guys as a license to steal from the little guys.
the former patent office director and other former directors of the patent office have made it clear that we should move slowly with this type of change when making such changes in the patent law. this legislation is too broad. its implications are unclear and effect unnoticeable and that's what other experts have conclude. move forward with caution. i would be asking my colleagues, vote against this bill but ask our leadership, as i have pleaded with our leadership, postponethis so we can talk to our educators and the universities and the various employers in our district and the various people who depend on technology and technology developed in our country rather than just go with a mega multinational electronics companies that are guilty of
multi infringe meant cases as well as antitrust cases. that is not happening. congress is being railroaded on top of the other legislation. what is going on here, it is a heavy-handed attempt by mega multinational corporations to diminish america's patent system. it has been going on this way and i have seen this for 25 years, strong patent protection has been one of america's greatest assets and written into our constitution and given us the ability to have high wages and be competitive with other societies and protected our security and our liberty. that is what strong patent protection has been to us. according to the bill, this isn't something about undermining the patent system, it's undermining the controls, just by the fact that everything
they are doing has a major impact on the ability of real lawful inventors to protect themselves against infringe meant and diminishes the patent protection we have had in this country, every provision. what does it do? for the most part, it will be costly and challenging to bring a lawsuit against an infringer. the little guy is going to cost much more to protect his rights. there you go. these people would like to restrict lawsuits that are totally legitimate to control a few, a few people who have manipulated the system and thus is are abusive to lawsuits. while we face this all over. there are many lawyers who are engaged in abusive lawsuits and they shouldn't be filing them, but they do. does that mean we are going to dramatically limit the rights of the american people to legitimate when their rights
have been violated by someone else, their property has been taken and they have been abused or deserve compensation? we aren't going to limit those rights, but we will limit the rights of the small inveptor and let the big corporations take what this small person has invented. rather than making it simpler, cheaper and easier to defend against baseless accusations of infringement and there are some bases, what we have done to reduce lawsuits all we need to do is strengthen the good guys. but this bill weakens the good guys. it weakens ordinary people who are actually contributing a good teal to our country. in addition, under the claim of technical correction, this legislation proposes the removal of the patent system's only independent judicial review
process. section 145, inventors, who really believe they have not been treated well and treated fairly by the patent office, there may be people in the pant bsh patent office and want to go to work in a large corporation and maybe these things happen in every society and we need to have a review. in fact, since 1836, american inventors have had the right, if they feel the patent office has not dealt with them in a legal way, they have the right to seek independent judicial review and that right was reafffirmed last , which the supreme court reafffirmed the importance of that review to maintaining the rights of our inventors. well, this bill would eliminate
that right. it takes it away, something the right of american invent tors since 1836. i have a quote that i'm smithing from for the record from mr. lamar smith and i ask to insert it into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rohrabacher: he says how important it is to have judicial review and americans know how important it is that not just bureaucrats, but they have a judicial review of what their government officials are doing and how important it is to our freedom. well, i would say, yes, mr. smith, he is the chairman of my committee, science committee, i'm the vice chairman of the science committee, we disagree on this bill, but i will say, this is an important part of the bill h.r. 3309 would eliminate the ability of the court to review what these government
officials are doing in their job if they hurt another individual. mr. smith thinks that's important when it comes to the environment. i think it's important for the environment and for protecting our inventors. this principle applies to patent review as it does to environmental regulations. the patent officials say they don't want the judicial review. why is it? they say it is too burdensome, never mind that very few people have such claims, but we're going to eliminate that right and that option because it's inconvenient for our bureaucracy. it's absurd and for that reason alone that bill should be defeated. the legislation going before the house is consistent with a decades' long war. here are a few of the provisions of the bill. t will create more paperwork
when an inventor has to file a claim, it increases the paperwork necessary for him to file the claim and thus is not more expensive, but increases the possibility that his claim will be denied because of a technical mistake in the paperwork. louiser pay sounds pretty good. if you file a bad suit or lose a suit, the loser is going to pay the legal expenses, what does that do when you have the small invent tore versus the multinational corporation? it says if a little guy sues the corporation and loses that is nothing, paying his legal expenses are absolutely nothing for this big corporation. but if he loses to the corporation, that corporation will have piled on legal expenses that will destroy the economic viability of that small inventor.
it's the little guy versus big guy. in this case, making it loser pays is a big advantage to the big guy at the expense of the little guy. so the court and what's unfortunate, this bill goes even further than that, this bill will allow the court to bring others into the case as plaintiffs if they have an interest in the patent. so if someone is invested in the little guy's patent and invested in it and they lose the lawsuit with trying to enforce their rights to have a compensation for the use of what they have invented, well, if they lose that suit, the person who has invested with the little guy, he is going to be liable for this massive bill that these big companies are bound to pile on. so this basically loser-pay system has some attraction but
in reality will be a disaster for people, the little guy who is trying to enforce his rights. basically, we have also in this bill, it would create new requirements that the patent holder must once filing a claim for infringement must provide information about all parties who have an interest in the patent and thus what we have is a list that even the infringer will have so this man, a small businessman, an inventor will have all of his business dealings will basically be made public and his enemies will have that list to go after. this would have destroyed thomas he had ison and our great inventors of the past. there are people who don't want to put themselves in public view in order to get behind new inventions. this means the total elimination of privacy and dealing with
businesses. and of course, we have another requirement in here that basically, it's a reporting requirement for the little guy. we have the bureaucratic fees that are being forced on the little guy to maintain records that they now don't have to maintain. thus you have the situation where the little guy has to have the expense of maintaining a bunch of records and these things now are just yet another stumbling block. and of course, when one of the other restrictions on the little guys if he files a suit against the big guys, there's a thing called discovery. well, they limit the right of everybody else can have discovery, but these little patent guys, inventors, if they are filing a suit against a major infringer, has to be so
specific about what you want, we replaced the system where there would be one motion and replaced it which will require dozens of motions, each motion costing the little inventor, tens of thousands of dollars of legal fees. we are uping the cost, uping the cost and complication and legal ramifications of a man or a woman protecting his or her patent that is a legitimate patent all in the name of getting those terrible trolls. and the troll might not be involved in this or the lawyer who is volunteering or invested in this project. what we've got, of course, is other thing where the person is there and they call him a troll, but now, the small business education outreach of
this, it authorizes the patent office director to create a patent control data base, that means anyone who goes out to help these small inventors will be out on the data base. let's call it an enemy's list because that's probably what it would be used for. here's the people you should stay away from. no, these aren't people guilty of crimes but people who are engaged in powerful interests who are stealing the economic rights of our small invent tors and as i mentioned earlier, it eliminates the judicial review that we have had since 1836 for our inventors. is there anything that could be more of an attack on the well-being of america's inventors. this is a consistent pattern that i have seen for 25 years,
what we call globalists who are trying to take america's strong patent system and weaken it so we will not have the advantage that we have had throughout the world. we have had in the beginning, these people who wanted to take fundamental parts of our patent system so that patents even before they would be issued to the inventor that they would be published for the whole world to see. that's what these people are trying to get away with. year after year after year, they want a global system that is run by international, multinational companies and people running these companies, you think they are loyal to the united states of america? you think they have our interests in mind as compared to a small inventor who loves the freedom and liberty that our country offers and understands in another country won't have that same freedom. small inventor and technology
development that has given americans the standard of living, and the freedom we have enjoyed and now this body for having a bill rammed through our throats, rammed through the system, why? because they don't want us to fully understand the implications of this bill, h.r. 3309, innovation act, which will call small american inventors in this country. i would ask that our leadership consider postponing this so the american people will have a chance to get a hold of their congressman, their representative, so we will talk and find out what the real effect of h.r. 3309 will have. and i ask my colleagues in closing, do we want to be known as the congress that killed the u.s. patent system which has served the american people so well for 225 years? i yield back the balance of my
time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair would entertain a motion to adjourn. mr. rohrabacher: i do move that we adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly,
excited to be here -- that she's here. this is the first time spokentrator mccarthy is and we're excited to have her here. this summer, president obama the climate action plan. we have applauded that effort. the critical goals. it's important not just for the for the world. that we embark on this effort to reduce green house gas emissions to prepare the u.s. for the and to of climate change lead the international effort to combat climate change. believe these efforts will actually ensure that the u.s. grows economically, we'll create jobs as we do it. and we'll meet the important job
f reducing green house gas emissions by 2020. we hope it highlights the key tance of china as a partner. combatting climate change is not the united states can or should take on alone. hat's why administrator mccarthy is headed to the u.s. next week. or our work on the ground in china, we've been able to see irsthand that the epa is doing amazing work there. i don't think america recognizes the critical role they're playing already. facing carbon emission challenges. the pages of "the new york "the washington post" has shown the challenges that that country is facing. challenges we have faced in the ast and taken on and critical that china has done it as well. what the headlines don't reveal group of e epa has a
experts in that nation working with chinese ngos to help challenges.e the epa is working with china to share some of the best practices developed here. i assume -- i believed that the efforts would come more to light next week on her trip. it is my honor now to welcome administrator mccarthy. she's led an impressive career in public service holding positions in government, previously serving as the assistant administrator a's office of air and radiation. prior to that, the commissioner of the connecticut department of protection.al she served as a deputy secretary of the massachusetts office of and nwealth development undersecretary for policy and massachusetts executive office environmental affairs. there could not be anyone better o take on this critical fight and i welcome her here today after her march, there will be a q&a with carol brawner, a distinguished senior fellow and position in the clinton administration.
both, excited to have them have this important conversation and we'll start off with dministrator mccarthy's remarks. [ applause ] >> good morning, everyone. it's great to be here. thank you for the introduction. to my good friend, carol brawner for taking care of he easy things and leaving me with all of the complicated work. thank you for the years of service. epa did tremendous work at and beyond. irst of all, i want to congratulate everyone at cap, i understand understand you're 10 years old. congratulations on that. it's an incredible achievement where the best minds come to work and look at get tunities on how we together and take action on opportunities to strengthen our country. so it's great to be here. and i can't thank all of you enough for all of the work that you're doing on issues like change that go to the
heart of really asking ourselves kind of a n of what country and in effect what kind of world do we want to leave to ur children and our grandchildren. so these are big questions and big issues and i'm glad to be here to talk about them. i know we want to get to the question and answer. get to the want to discussion with carol. not just a ge is health and public safety issue. i consider it to be one of the challenges of ic our time as well. which is really why i'm looking i ward to the trip and why back this cited ummer when president obama spoke so eloquently and urgently
on climate change when he spoke at georgetown university. it was a speech i had been hoping for from our president so many years and i was proud that it was our president. enormous courage and .trength as well think it as, but i do was his best speech so far. yet.ough he's not done he walked through the climate action plan as well in his speech. plan outlined some common sense, pragmatic steps agencies nd the other across the administration are now taking to cut carbon to invest in clean energy to help our cities and owns build in more resilient ways so they can adapt to a changing climate and keep our families safe.
carbon pollution standards using the authority hat congress gave us under the clean air act. those power plant proposals impact new facilities eing constructed when they're finalized. new facilities using modern technologies to reduce carbon pollution. will propose standards to provide significant flexibility to the states that will protect public health from carbon pollution ing power plants.
a path for clean energy and innovation. throughout the process of power plants new and most importantly at the existing power plants, we have is the d what i think most vigorous outreach and outreach prehensive program that you can imagine well in advance of even putting to paper in terms of a proposal which is not due until june. we held 11 public listening sessions and we've been meeting with whoever wants to talk about this. i welcome continued comment and dialogue. epa.an send that in to i think the most important thing we got 3300 people at just those 11 listening sessions came to us, speaking
their minds and also speaking their heart. and it was a great experience ot only for them but from the great folks of epa who worked and gotly on this issue to see firsthand and relish a democratic process, of really people.g to and it was exciting and i want to thank the folks at epa each every day. what's next. on to we will continue at the ep a, to the lead. we have authority to do it, we are charged with responsibility to do it. that challenge to -- to address the action the report in the plan to engage continue our international partners. because it's all about reducing carbon pollution. it's all about adapting to a changing climate, and it's all about the united states playing role in rship
international discussion, climate change is a global issue. action. global we know that. so we'll do our part and we'll discussions.further so i'm really excited to be going back to china. the u.s. and china represent the world's largest economies, the world's largest energy consumers, and the world's largest emitters of carbon pollution. that t of three isn't good. i'd rather not be the largest nergy consumers or the largest emitter or carbon pollution. but since we are, we're going we're going and talk. we do share the same climate and the same level of concern about think e in climate and i we are well positioned to begin new depth andin a concerted effort to move
forward to really build on what years of as 30 significant cooperation and partnership between our already.s and let me just highlight the fact that one of the i go to chinawhen is to build on the fact that epa nd the ministry of environmental protection in china have had a deep and strong relationship. mep. the clear to china and to u.s. that action must happen and it must happen quickly in china. china. not just about it's also about air quality in the united states and other countries. know that pollution is
emanating from china and heading our west coast. china goes ury from into the atmosphere and ends up in our rivers and streams. public outcry in the to and in the '50s led significant change in the united states. we know it led to significant enacted.ng it led to a significant increase in the infrastructure of local to state to national levels. china is also facing significant outcry. and they have significant challenge s
challenges that they need to address. the u.s. faces challenges. we know what technologies are available. know what planning can do. we know there are many ways in which you can engage your states china's case, provinces, to bring a sense of urgency to issue. and we are going to be working with them on these air quality challenges moving forward. hey have established some very ambitious goals. not only for air quality, but also for climate. nd we believe that they can learn from the lessons of the united states and to leapfrog to at ways of k addressing their air quality which are of paramount importance to them now that you can way energye to build a clean
concert from the u.s. and the of the world. saying they're so we've i know what accomplished in the united states. i know the technologies that i'm companies produce that going to be looking at in china to monitor air quality in people in give the beijing realtime information about their air quality. is success moving forward. hat's success for the u.s., that's a building block for hina that will get them moving forward in leaps and bounds which frankly is what needs to be done and needs to be done quickly. do remain hopeful.
let's stop the conversation. congratulations on cap for baby step to ten years. forward to what you're going to do as adults. i don't know, you've been good so far. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> fun being an administrator. >> i don't know if it will be in eight years. it was fun for eight years. in eight years, you uh got to both start and finish things is hard to do in a shorter
tenure. i want to spend a few minutes talking about the job. go to china and domestic. remind people we will take questions from the audience. hat you need to do is indicate your name, your organization, write your question. we'll have people collecting the questions. we'll have our best to get through as many as possible. intend to take questions through the note cards. so, please, write down some questions. been there, what, six months now? no, not quite. but -- i -- i take out that hiatus that the government -- >> yeah. just delay and mr. gingrich, we were shut down. what are the things that surprised you the most. the e last four years in
air program. the challenges we face most is to get to tell ep a's effectively.le more one of the concerns i have is resources just continue to be challenged and challenged. and congress continues to us, especially on the house side. to i really want epa maintain its stature that it nationally and it has in .he american people we are not telling that storeril effectively. and we need to do that. >> i think that's interesting.
one of the challenges i faced, government , the shutdown helped was telling the story. that allowed us to explain to environmental he cop on the beat. that's why you want a strong, epa.funded it's a story that has to be told over and over. the challenge we have now is that most people don't see the environmental challenges the way it's been o, because very good at the work we've done, that doesn't mean that people aren't -- everybody in united states is breathing clean air. don't n't mean that we have tremendous superfunds sites being added every day. we have -- you know, we have challenges with every industry sector to figure level of he next technology improvement needs to be to reduce toxic emissions hat folks in urban and environmental justice areas are experiencing. climate change.
>> we didn't share our view of neurotoxin.he >> the epa -- it was a difficult rule to get done. but the transition in the energy sector that has been going on of e the abundance inexpensive natural gas, you know, sort of. was happeningwhat in the industry to understand that the time was right in that this in a way that really was consistent with the way in which energy is going to generated.
you know, it was very clear at that point there were a number old coal facilities that were uncontrolled, essentially uncontrolled. 7 years old, no one ever anticipated. >> thank god. >> that they would still be around. nd we really -- it made it easier and more cause beneficial to move that role now because we that those facilities are not being called upon. not being generating. they were hanging on and using cases spinning to set when you want them. it provided the opportunity to standard.onable the way it plays out is because of the standards in the energy market. a decision point hat would provide much more reduction rule. ions in that
that. >> you talked about the president's climate action plan. of the things that doesn't get a lot of attention, administrator er am hugely impressed with is you ave kind of an insurance policy. right? the president signed a memorandum telling them to do a rules. i spent eight years running the epa. never had president clinton telling me why i was doing something. i would prevail in that argument, then i would have to argue how much do i have to do. you don't have to argue about you're going be setting standards on carbon emissions. is exciting stuff to have this memo sitting there and up.ing you a tougher row to hoe. >> its's a remarkable opportunity. of any 't have thought
other way to be in better position. to me, the epa, to get done what think have been essentially acessary for this country for long time. >> except the state implementation plan. talk a little bit about how you foresee that unfolding. epa can set the standards. but the plans are really sort of all of this. and i know as a former state hadcy head and i'm sure you the same experience, that's not lways easy to do at the state level. >> it isn't. that's one of the reasons why e've been starting such a robust process.
it's one of the values of the president going out in front and definition onsuch this issue. the aggressiveness going to look for for carbon production. i see the states really engaged this issue, carol. and we are going to be very flexible on the implementation of the standard. the question we ask in these better is how do we do at standard looking at facility by facility. legallycan we go and be solid with the rules so that it
to get internal and make sure it state. nse for every >> take a moment and make sure that the audience understands the process. and the degree to which the president's memorandum makes sure this gets buttoned up under this president and we get started. task.is no small so you're going to propose in plants. existing power >> and complete a year after that. >> complete the two together. existing role. but we're going to try to be aggressive. in the new standard, it really impact ndard that has right away. it sends a long-term signal. sources,kly, on the new we rely very heavily on carbon
capture and sequestration. to establish a -- a coal standard. hose -- that's what's being invested in now. so there's no rush to complete this. e want to have as much comment and consideration as we can. , june 14.now correct. >> they come back, you review them. >> that's right. them.en we have to approve the state -- the plan themselves don't want to have an nfrastructure in place to achieve the standards. i plan to do this. this is what we're doing, this is what we've done. which is why the states are at the table now. i think the states seem to be engaged and we'll
work with them and hopefully they'll find ways to work and then they'll find exactly what we did with the mercury rule. standard a reasonable and double down on them. >> then if they don't write the happens?t >> the federal government writes the plans. making. done by rule >> one of the things that's true. >> i had fun for eight years, administrator had the first full run at it. and you're able to deal with the threat we've ever faced which is the threat of climate change. think of the sections. i dealt with it different here. very e ways, congress is wise. it gave the states more options or how to achieve the reductions than the -- what the
epa might be able to do -- so to incentivize the states. is that a fair way to think about it. they have greater plexability in what the solutions might be. >> i think one of the reasons dialogue having this is to send a clear signal that we want the states to step up plan.evelop this that is not the intent of the federal government to take over their duties. but if they don't perform as the to, we r act requires that. be forced to do >> so step back for a second. all of this work. you've done all of the cars, trucks. we're starting to see the of the fuel efficiency standards, the green house standards that the obama did with you and lisa jackson and raila hood and of s honored to be a part
that. buy a car today, more efficient. definitely see the benefits of that. cars and trucks and power plants from now. what does it look like. i'm trying to think how much has changed. what -- i -- what we're trying of carbonhe challenge is really long-term to look at fossil move way from energy. but hopefully in the future, going to see opportunities for renewables and ero carbon strategies and you're going to -- i think you're already going to see very ifferent patents of living
today than we ever had before. i think china is a reflection of that. middle class, he you know, bloom in china and with that urban dwelling is happening. you know, one of the reasons why got together tion and is developing joint grant programs to work with we recognizeecause that even bringing energy and together isn't enough. we've got to look at transportation, we've got to look at housing. of a whole different way looking at how you make the world more sustainable, live natural resources of us. it will be an interesting life for my children. china, talk about your upcoming trip. had some questions. talked in your opening comments about what i ould call an emerging
anti-pollution movement. river't want the cayahoga on fire or the splugs so dense we can't see the city skyline. the things i was struck by, the u.s. monitoring equipment. is right to know know. language it's in, what part of in. world it's people want to know. it's how people are helping to uel this movement and ultimately the government changes. > i went to beijing just a few years ago right after some furry epa reported the installation of a monitor on beijing at the embassy. we did it for the purpose of employees he embassy
because people were worried to send their kids to school, play?d they go out and how should they change their ehavior to make sure the kids are sufficiently protected quality was ir getting visually worse. there was concern because the the monitors om were being tweeted. thatarted to be understood that information was available beijingeneral public in and started accessing the information. and it didn't exactly coincide information that was being collected from individual monitors in the city. was a lot of -- it raised and it was was very interesting. the result of it was that -- and it to settlele for ut, is that i think that china and certainly the m.e.p. began to get very engaged in how they monitor in realtime and
began to give people information. a motivating force as well as a significant pportunity to look at whether they have the governmental structures in place to be able to address this and do they know monitoring technology should be? and it opened up lots of folks at epa for to -- and the ngo community that's very strong and supporting work to figure out how they could align together information. technical as well as legal information, government structure information. is the fine particle 2.5 for those who don't flow this, little microscopic particles that can be bemded in your lungs. can't cough them out or spit them out. they can lead to significant premature deaths including older americans. pm 2.5 the original wars. we don't need to go back there. what's the greatest source of pm 2.5.
the burning of all fossil fuel, burning diesel? >> coal burning. the is faced with challenge of having a 1.3 billion people. that are larger than 1 million people. 80% of their -- somewhere in the vicinity of 3 quarters or 80% of their fossil fuel burning is coal. that happens at, you know, at ower plants as well as in industry. mean, they are significant producers of steal and other ectors that the u.s. no longer has robust manufacturing in. nd they -- they also have an abundance of coal -- even coal-fired, you know, house hold and heating units in those cities which contributes significant amounts of pollution.
it's deep for what they're willing to do for the cities. pm 2.5 isstandard for 35 micrograms per cubic meter. registered as high as 900. the goals are now to get down the levels that the u.s. and world health organization need to be phased down. the challenge is enormous. ot just about coal-fired power plants. it's about the industries and about using as many creative they can, learning from our experience. about how to get there. >> one of the issues that there seems to have been some progress dialogue, the our u.s. dialogue with china is the agency, for example. so i'm curious about some of the what we call short lived emissions. gas
is it carbon is associated with the cook stoves. >> it is. >> do you see opportunities there? >> we do. and we're exploring those. one of the reasons to get is to look at what we've done over the past two years and set a course -- actually, three, and set a course for the next couple. been working with china on a range of things. methane, as well as other traditional pollute tants and co-2. looking -- they've established some aggressive standards for them for co-2 end.s on the but we've been working in the methane initiative. the president as well as signed an have also greement to tackle hfcs using the montreal protocol.
hfcs are intense in terms of global warming potential. one source that's continuing to escalate. they are basically a substitute depleting substances. countries, et all most notably india to look at that. diesel, diesel, diesel. much of the pollution in beijing diesel cars and vehicles. diesel now is 150. maybe more, maybe more. >> what are we at now? 15.we are at going down. >> we are looking at fuels.nities for clean one of the things i'm attending
is an international conference. to moving a tted cleaner diesel. looking at engine standards. looking at marine. looking at heavy duty vehicles. we're looking for opportunities gain for lessons learned in technical assistance to help drive that. but i think one of the things carol, which no one else would be excited about but you and i, is they're doing planning. they're doing those plans and they're releasing them publicly. >> niles. they're doing them in a bunch of different what they call reas in beijing like in shanghai. but they're doing in what they clusters. and there's the tremendous opportunity for them through hat effort to build the infrastructure that the u.s. had to look at, the inventory, look at where the pollution is it coming from. at the opportunities and strategies. i'm pretty excited about that nobody else will. ut we know there are significant building blocks.
>> a couple of questions on china, then back to domestic issues. one of the questions is nuclear energy. is that -- what do you see? is that the opportunity in china? what's your sense of -- i mean hey have a lot of people and they need a lot of energy. invested rtainly have in nuclear. i do not have a complete answer for you, carol but i know one of i'm making is in shanghai, which is as you know the most environmentally progressive in china. it will be exciting. to see a lot of fun fuel efficient -- i mean energy and thingskyscrapers like that. but they had a proposal for a -- nuclear facility that's ecome very controversial there since fukushima. so it's really unclear what the is going to be in asia as well as europe. >> the nuclear question is very
complicated. someone not inclined. be inclined. >> constructed in the u.s. is china in the 2013 international agreement. one of the things you hear frequently in congress is why we do something when the chinese aren't doing anything? when india is not doing anything. developed world isn't doing anything? >> well, that argument was rought up when we were looking at the endangerment finding. >> yes. >> for people who don't -- the endangerment finding is the scientific finding that the epa it could e before start the regulation. a scientific finding that green endanger public health and welfare which then led it to have
to regulate the pollute tant that's dangerous greenhouse gases. it's always been a question. it's a dance. and the music is playing. somebody that has to take the first step. so i think we've been very clear global g this is a answer that needs global solutions but we have a responsibility and we're going to meet that. and i think in a 2015 world, i two largest emitters of the green house gases need to the table. it's extremely important to be with us and be aggressive and be established some goals that we can all be proud of. >> let me move back to some domestic issues. who can't see in the back, we have a group of people. very bright colored t-shirts in the front row here which if can an move your hand, i move the whole thing. says no, k, x out. one is - obviously no going to ask you to tell us
what's going to happen because there's a process and it's there be a at process. can you explain the process a little bit. there's been a fair amount of process. about the >> this is so you know. >> this is the keystone pipeline. the process is where this is a crosses the border into canada, that is a project is being led by the department of state who does the impact statement. they have produced an impact as well as a aft revised draft. ep a's role in that is to on the environmental impact statement and make sure state e impact to the department draft. >> that's correct. >> and to make sure that we issues that are related to environmental impacts associated with the project. now, my understanding is that state is -- we've been ctively engaged with them and
responding to those comments and we're looking forward to whennting again when we -- we approach the final. >> so what happens is state comments by -- just makes something public. let's the outside world comment, takes that back in? >> and what epa is general -- >> is that a noticing comment? >> a notice and comment process. for epa is t thing we want them to get the analytics right. e want them to do a robust analysis. the state wants to. we have done this before. and in many ways, commented on these. we're having a good dialogue best thing for epa is we're asked to do what we always do. o more and no less and so it's been a great process for us and one that's been very active. little bit about gas, shale gas. responsibilities for ensuring the safety.
oversight s not have responsibility permitting responsibility for fracking. it's being left to the states. and i think as a former state regulator, i can see some of the positives but also understand some of the shortcomings. do you foresee? it would require congress to change that going and -- ometimes the epa saying safe water act have the authority that the bush-cheney administration strip -- went to authority, went to congress, got it stripped. do you see a time when that authority could be reinstated or do you see the ground water aquifer, what's the word i want? regulation staying at the -- >> let me just narrow it a carol, for those who aren't as familiar as you and i are. we regulate diesel. you'll see a guidance document that --p from an epa >> explain to people how diesel is used. used as a fracking fluid.
fracking explain what is? >> it's shield formations to cracks or fish fissures and you do that by high pressure utting in solutions to open up cracks and hold them open in order for gas to become for extraction. it's a significant amount of hydrofrac fluid going from high pressure to shale and that, both air and emissions which include up for --d eocs come >> they're compounds, they're good. >> the completion could be a 3 or 10-day period. and also emissions the water fluid that gets returned up that needs to be disposed of appropriately. we do retain the
take and responsibility to a look at the compounds for the missions. that look ued rules at reducing v.o.c.s by getting out of the well-drilling process and that.ing that and reusing so that is -- that has moved forward in final form. at that in looking response to petitions. process that ing has a good handle on authority. hat we're referring to is basically now the water quality challenges that come from making sure that wells are properly onstructed so that the --ertion of hydrofrac fluid >> didn't know there would be a word like hydrofrac fluid. mean? know what i
the stuff that goes down to the ground, that it does not impact walter aquifers and it hydrofracturinge is done significant miles under horizontally. so it's a challenge for us and to understand how to ensure that wells are being properly constructed. drinking water is being rotected, that we understand what's going into the ground. there aren't always background samples that are done before and us to ensure that no pollution contribution. it's a significant challenge and trying to ates are get a handle on. they're beginning to be more aggressive in state regulation, that you wouldn't think would be aggressive. but are. wyoming have already regulated. they're regulating more as a of concern.
pennsylvania has issued regulations. so there are a number of them trying to support the states in this effort knowing that our authority is limited. but also recognizing that -- a t developing some kind of uniform standard is very ifficult given different geologies and different uses of water, different aquifers. states in upport the this effort, we want to. we're doing that is a significant research project. our office of research and development has 18 different of the ongoing and one most robust transparent process that we've gone through for peer review. pulling the 18 studies together, working with some of industries that will work with us to understand what's going on in the field. hat the water quality challenges are. what the potential impacts are on water quality and how best to address those.
so we're trying our best to support the states in the also to develop the kind of science that is always necessary for appropriate regulation. for states to do. they have constrained budgets too. if we had been sitting here five years ago, we had been talking about the need to import natural gas. you know? look at how -- >> it's a game change. >> it's a game change. i've of the things that been thinking about, i know a lot of other people are thinking about is how does it -- that's a bad word. uptick in the huge amount of available natural gas and we're seeing it now. ower generation, transportation, short haul. maybe we'll see it in long haul. it mean for the entire transition towards clean energy. you spoke so eloquently about that earlier. and are we building an in the same way we built a coal-based people ucture that thought would last 20 or 30
years and ended up lasting 50, years. do you think in any way the natural gas infrastructure will impacts on further growth growth in the st renewables, efficiency? become a it will all .iece of it challenges pipeline gas. people have raised this issue. investment eed for in pipeline infrastructure for natural gas. it's old. old. of it is it does. major leakage he in the elines that are distribution system. drillingdo oil and gas operation, it is -- the gas isn't cleaned but gets clean. methane gas ee is
which is money floating up. there are opportunities for this economically beneficial conversation to have with investors wand the industry itself. part of i think a arger vision for how this country is going to integrate the gas ables and for infrastructure with what we know o be continued reliance on coal. we know the transition is going to be a long one. but it's one where right now my is not to dictate energy markets or futures but to get at pollution. pollution i'm looking at is traditional pollute tants as well as carbon. natural gas, being abundant is a ame changer in our ability to really move forward with have ion reductions that
been hard to get our arms ar for many decades. of time.out i want to ask one last question. adaption and resiliency. ago, we used the words we wanted to reduce the and start to talk about adaption and resiliencisome some ways to give up. not,er it is to give up or the reality is, we have to talk about it now. epa n't know if we are -- probably doesn't have a regulatory arm on this one. little bit talk a and again we come from the part f the country that we'll see impacted more than other parts of the country? well as where you were as in terms of wanting to focus on mitigation first. that adaption and know the president does, is enormously important to add dress. it's an immediate safety issue, its's an enormous economic sink.
in 2012 alone, the price of the responses to the large disasters $120 billion that nobody planned for. that's a lot of off budget acome date. the thing i've come to realize, that is that we know climate change is real, the science is there. but i think if you start working on adaption and resill yenls, issues -- community by community, mayors that are being aggressive on these issues, it not only makes people inme alive for a way that our lofty discussion china doesn't make it. for communities across the u.p.s. the t also brings to light fact that the actions you need address climate can be important steppingstones for economies. for job growth.
issuesfor also for water water problems plaguing us. we can't just support that from a public health sort of funding situation. be invested in by the private and public sector at level. and there's opportunities for green infrastructure which we is get away nce from the big pipes, keep water local, make the cities more beautiful. that's the best solution to the environment. given my left arm to make that speech 20 years ago. it. i have a place to make we'll be shouting all over the resilience.climate it's important to make climate come alive and make the actions happen. i started my career being from florida where water is the economy. doing air and now to
initial. but i feel like i'm coming back to water. do think when you think about resiliency and opportunities to really think about water and think about it in some smart ways, nature is good. help itself if we get out of the way and let it do it. think one of the greatest proposals i saw. i don't think it worked out too mayor bloomberg's offer to relocate people out of he flood plains because when the floods come, nature could absorb it. you could see other parts. a lot of those sorts of efforts. right. it's at the local level. what can the mayors do? what can they do to make them -- resiliency and adaption are opposite sides of the same coin. quickly can how you respond and recover from an impact. and part of that is can you it?t to
>> we're working with the u.s. conference of mayors pretty closely. mayors. know they are just movers and shakers. they don't -- they don't have luckry of being insulated from the constituents. >> no. sit in washington and -- and not be, you know, to making ntable change when change is needed. hey have 1200 mayors that have already signed climate pledges. these are not republicans and democrats. mayors. they're public servants who have a job to do. they're the people i want to talk to. every day. to figure out how we support get effort and how we actions moving. and i know people across the really ration are working together heart breaking to see the disasters we keep lining up week after week a