it's the way the white house and the obama campaign initially and the white house distanced itself from the comments of democratic operative hillary rosen, the one -- three hillary rosens. the one that worked for the the recording industry one, the one who's been to the white house a few dozen times. that one when she made the

comments about ann romney, she said apologized for and said they were misunderstooded. it was the way that axelrod, all on the campaign took the twitter to basically denounce the comments. and michelle obama, the first lady, the next morning, before president obama commented on any of this, which che did in interviews with tv reporters that had been out there. it can be an effective tool as a way of using us because we're reading all their tweets. >> carol, were you going to add something to that? >> i was going to saw to the photograph comment. yeah. >> there was one example i was traveling with the president to the gulf coast, when -- during the oil spill, it was first trip down there. he took sasha and the first lady went, and the -- was here.

i thought his head was going spin off. mills photographer. his the take away money shot from the trip was when the president got into the pool. we were sitting in a basement with no internet access and waiting to be called out to see when the president was going take the swim in the gulf. we received word that the white house photographer took the photo of the president swim anything the gulf of gulf. the photographers were livedded and there was a big fight about that at the tile. obviously, you get into the -- then it's obviously the substitute for what we do on the daily basis. >> okay. what about the scholarship students. do you follow the white house on flicker or twitter? have you liked them on facebook so you can get the updates. you all do. okay. you're not. not at all. none of that.

any of you follow the president on twitter vice president joe biden? yes. yes, definitely. it's one way to keep up with the white house. sometimes it can been -- caicial makes a great example. fundraisers are going on a lot these days. it's limited press coverage. recently the white house allowed the tv pool recently. just formal remarks. recently it's print. and the justification for sometimes not allowing press is in the example of the bush administration. well, we're doing the way they did it before. he's not giving more fall remarkets. this is the practice on the presidential campaigns now. mitt romney had the own hot-mike moment recently.

are we dire elect in the duty to not push for her access. why should people care what the president or presidential candidates say to the supporters? >> in case of the romney the romney hot-mike incident. two reporters from the "wall street journal" and thb c news were standing on the sidewalk and heard romney talking about how he was going to pay for the tax cuts. that's information he hadn't put throughout yet. and i think, i mean, you know, they overherd it they're on the sidewalk. we romney tends to be relaxed when the prests isn't there. some of these less-scripted events. we were talking, we want the most information we could possibly get. but the mitt romney campaign out and said they're going to let large fundraisers more often. i imagine the events will be

scripted too. when you have a candidate that tends to be very scripted, again, that word again, when you have the candidate moments, it is a big deal. >> our colleague, john, had a remarking or a thought or a question. >> panel for jay, somebody who covered this stuff for a long time including periods when the white house briefing was not televised, when a little bit of it was televised. now it's all televised. i'd be interested in everybody's perspective a lot of what goes on in the briefing now. competitive, waste of time, whatever. [inaudible conversations] [laughter] whether or not you think solely from the interest of expanding that 10% that we know in making that number bigger, whether it serves that purpose to have the white house briefing televised? >> fobbing. okay.

the question is about the briefing. jay, do you want to come up. >> prior to the clinton administration, the briefing was not televised. except on special occasions and things like that, as i understand it. they started televising the top ten or fifteen minutes of it to catch the news of the day. and the cameras would go off. i'd love to hear what the panel has to say about it. because it does -- the difference between when i give a briefing on-air force one, which is a gaggle, it's on the record and recorded but not televised. the temperature is reduced. there's less -- it's less adversarial and combative. there's less sort of repetition. where, you know, people from different news organizations ask pretty much the same question that's been asked a couple times. i understand why that happens because of the televised nature

of it. i'd be curious what you think about it. because i know mike mccurry who started the practice, clinton's second press secretary said it was the biggest mistake he ever made. so? >> i'll take that. ben? >> well, i mean, my perspective from a guy who's spent nearly twenty years as a print guy. so, you know, that shapes my answer in the sense jay's answer to my question, i find is news worthy and useful, it doesn't matter to me if had said he on or off camera. i work for a multimedia company, we do video and multimedia every day. my primary concern is not about the exchange or the food age, it's just about the information having said that. i think i overconnelled -- i think i only covered televised briefings. i think it can be overrated.

to our point, the biggest problem is the repetition. if you vet the transcript of any briefing and i don't ask you to do that. you go through, what did we actually learn? what did we learn today? and, you know, this is it goes to the reporters and it goes to the press secretary and, you know, if i could change it, it would be okay let's stiplite we know what happened yesterday. we know that the president inherented? what is it, jay? the greatest -- hang on, let me finish. all right. [laughter] push a button, you know. right. yes. [inaudible conversations] it would not shock you to say i've heard that before. so, you know, if we stipulate that. let's go on to we have nothing more on that. i'm not going to answer that i've already answered that and

move on. you know what we've said here's the new information until we can advance the story. that goes to any topic. you know, i would love to have. you can shorten the things. it would be more efficient. we're getting somewhere or we are not. so i think the televising of it, i think, sometimes becomes a proxy for that. everybody has to say the same thing. it may or may not be true. that's not all, i think, i'd love to see the briefings before more efficient and transparent. everybody knows what the situation is. here's what we're going to answer, here's what we're not going to answer. let's have the thing move along, and, you know, i think everybody would be better served by that. >> jake, you're from tv, what do you think of that. >> i understand the complaints about the briefings. and i don't disagree with any of them. i don't know that there's any solution.

it is what it is. he's not going give us a list of things he's the going to answer or not answer. i wouldn't want a list like that anyway. it will surprise you not at all, to learn that jay sometimes thinks that the tv people play together cameras. and i have to say, that i don't he sometimes thinks i'm playing to the cameras or my camera, and i have to say, i don't think it's true. i think i ask -- personally, i think i ask questions for a more calmly on camera than i do off camera. because i know the camera is there. i think it has the opposite effect on me, and i think that is the opposite effect. because the disappoint -- >> can you imagine -- [laughter] >> but that's true. you know that's true. and i think that it does a sedative effect in a lot of instance. it the question and the answer

are important -- i learned this early with beginnings gibbs who speaks more calmly on camera than off as i do. i think that gibbs and i, because we have combative with one another for years, early on in the administration, have a couple run y inns that all sudden make us both take it down a notch. which i didn't want. yes. and for that reason, i think i ask my questions a lot more calmly. i diswreeg that premises. this is something that jay and i talked about. >> prospective -- i standby what i said and i agree with what i said. there is a -- putting an official on the grill, if you will. and asking the same questions in different ways a bunch of times to see if you can pry something

additional out of it. and i guess -- i don't know -- the frustration that we have at breastings may be greater than mind. i don't find. it's part of the job. i get it. part of my job is to handle that. so i -- there is, i think, theatrics that come eye long with teff vising the briefings. there's an aspect of the briefings of repetitiveness that is part of the responsibility. >> one of the few opportunities that we as journalists who are proxies for the public have an opportunity to challenge people in power. it's one of the few opportunities that exists. and i know that a lot of times you think we're just being dramatic in other words. dramatic, right, i'm keeping it

down. and, i think a lot of times, we feel that we are speaking truth to power. and i think, i mean, indon't want to speak for anybody. i think that's part of what motivates, sometimes a lot of our questions. i know, that when i asked about libya, how many people have to die before the united states is going to get involved. someone in the administration thought it was an overly dramatic question. it was a serious question. you guys are proud of what you did in libya. >> we changed our policies. >> that's all we have time for. the panel lists will stick around for a few minutes if you want to ask questions. i want to thank everyone. and thank you all for coming. i hope you enjoy the panel. i'm julia mason from sirus x m.

[inaudible conversations] next a town hall meetings with environmental protection administrate lisa jackson. after that hillary clinton talks about the importance of

international diplomacy and the situation in iran. then a house sub committee ways to control medicare costs. restructuring the nation's mail system which is losing $0 million per day. his plan calls for ending saturday mail service, overnight mail, and closing many post offices. he needs to cut $22 billion in operating cosby 2016. news makers sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. born in the northern korean work camp, it's the only world he's ever known. he's the only one to ever escape from camp 14. his first memory at the age of around 4 is going with his mom to a place near where he grew up in the camp, to watch somebody

get shot. and shootings public education cushions in the camp were held every few weeks. they were a way of punishing people of violated camp rules, and of terrorizing the 20 to 40,000 people in the camp to obey the rules from then on. sunday author blaine on his journey out of north korea. of the the biography of the 36th president. now environmental protection agency administrator lisa jackson takes part in the town hall with american university students.

she discusses high gas prices sustainable and renewable energy, and climate change. lisa jackson is the twelfth epa administrator. this is 45 minutes. >> good morning. on behalf of the school of business and the new and sustainable management program, welcome to the grand faally earth week events. a town hall with epa administrator lisa jackson. i'm dan jacobs i'm directors of the sustainability management program. i'd like to introduce the dean. just a brief word on the format. administrator jackson will make initial remarks following which we will have a question and answer period moderated by -- in the interest of time and

efficiency, we ask that you write your questions on the index cards that have been made available to you, and pass them down the end of the row to the folks who welcome roaming periodically to pick them up. it is really a very special privilege and pleasure to introduce administrator jackson. with whom, ideal -- i feel a special bond. we began our years in environmental protection in the same year, when lisa jackson first joined epa as a staff scientist, and i first began representing epa as a justice department lawyer. so i guess you could sigh that lisa jackson and i -- or rather lisa jackson and her colleagues were my clients for many years. the nonpaying ones. more recently we have shared an interest in seeing that justice served in the bp gulf oil disaster case.

administrator jackson's public service has come both at the federal and state levels. prior to serving as epa administrator, she served as a commissioner of new jersey department of environmental protection. since we're here on the college campus, i'd be amiss to not to mention that she obtained her degree from namings and her chemical engineering degree from princeton. i have fond memories from my former client. i want to share one, i was getting on a plane to fly to l.a. to give a talk. just before the plane door closed lisa got on and sat down across the aisle from me, one row up in couch, in a middle seat. i was so excited to see her, again, that i spontaneously

shouted, i love you lisa. she smiled and waived back. then i turned to the startled young man wearing a high school jacket. and sounding as great as i could, explained, you know, that's lisa jackson, the epa administrator. very poised, the high school student nodded and said yes, that's my mother. [laughter] startled, myself at this point, i asked inquisitively, in my typical new york fashion, she's sit anything a middle seat. he responded, she likes to be in the middle. lisa jackson is sure in the

middle of a lot of these things these day. i'm glad she is. someone who has been in the environmental protection business for as long as she has, i have confidence that she will doing the right thing for the environment. please join me in welcoming epa administrator lisa jackson. [applause] hey. how are you? pretty cool introduction. best one yet, jacob, well done. a personal touch. i'll go even further everybody talking about how this weekend is white house response dinner weekend. everybody call it is dc prom. some people call it nerd prom. the prom season if you have a high school student. people always ask me, how do yo balance it out and keep things in perspective? kids help with moments like

that. it does help a lot. so thanks for acknowledging them. i have to say, very special thank you to dean for coming and for staying. he's going to moderate the q and a. i'm honored by that as well. a special shoutout to janes. are you here? i got an epa e-mail from vicky who said you intern extraordinary and representative of the wonderful organization. thank you. i know, we're trying to get you back. thank you for your hard work at epa this past summer. let's spend some time what has been and continues to be the defining mission of our time in office. and that is, of course, our mission to strengthen the economy, and i want to spend some time on how epa and environmental protection in particular fits into that

mission. just taking office president obama and in fact, all of his administration, and all of my colleagues have been focused on the urgent need to continue creating jobs. after the chance of collapse in the economy in 2008, there was nothing more important to make sure businesses get up and running. making sure families had as much help they could get. making sure critical industries like the auto industry could stay afloat. not only because we wanted to sustain the companies in detroit, but the companies that make up the supply chain. that make their money sending their components to auto automakers. the economy is growing again. the u.s. added a total of 1.4 million jobs over 25 months. american manufacturering is creating jobs since the first time in the late 1999s. the american auto try is coming back.

while developing fuel efficient vehicles to save money and cut pollution from the skies. we agreed to cut the receive dit by more than $2 trillion and new rules to hold wall street accountable. good start. we can do more. we can't go based to an economy based on outsouringing and bad debt. president obama has called for more than just an increase in job numbers when outlining his economic vision for our country. what he's called for is an economy and america that's tboilt built to last. for years economic security for the average american family and members of the middle class has been eroding. we come to what president obama called a make or break moment for the middle class and those trying to reach it. our mission today is to build an rebuild a country and economy

where everyone the gets a fair shot. where everyone does their share. and where everyone plays by the same sets of rules. together, on the right track, we focused on four pillars. the first is, american manufacturing. president obama has laid out a number of proposals how we bring about a new era of american manufacturing. to keep those jobs here, attract new manufacturing jobs, and make more products made in the u.s. we need our facilities to be more efficient and give american companies incenttives to keep those jobs on our shores. the second pillar, is american energy. the president wants to move our nation into a new era for american energy. where our economy is powered by home grown and alternativety energy sources. that will be designed and produced by american workers. some of you may have seen that earlier this week, president obama was on late night with

jimmy fallon. i don't usually watch, but, you know, it was my boss. one of the questions the president god, if there was any one thing you could make happen that would change the world by snapping your fingers what was one thing? the president was in short, clean energy. he said we must invest in the clean energy sources of tomorrow. he mentioned solar and wind, he talked about supporting electric cars and biofuel. we need to do those things because it's good for the planet, it will help us deal climate change, because it's good for the economy. but of course, those things can't happen just by the president snapping his fingers. it takes hard work, and we need a lot of help inspect administration has dedicated more than $90 billion to job-creating clean energy

products. when supplemented by private capital, that money is supporting more than $150 billion in clean energy projects. those are helping put people to work. but a new era of american energy is about more than just solar paneling are increased use of clean or natural gas. one good camp is our work with the auto industry to make vehicles more efficient. the historic fueled economy standards this administration put in place will nearly double the efficiency of the vehicles we will drive over the next decade. this single step will save american families $1.7 trillion at the gas pump. it will keep pollution out of our skies, and cut oil composition by $12 billion. i want to stay on that point. it is one of the most important steps we can take to address the spike in gas prices we're seeing

right now and see every summer. high gas prices are painful, especially painful for middle class families. as a result their painful to our economy, and the fact is, there are no silver bullettings to bringing down price prices in the short term. anyone -- anyone promises that is not telling the truth. he is not going to get into false debates or phony problems. we're going to get through the problem to a sustained and serious to developing new domestic energy sources. that means safely and expanding oil productions. it means reducing our overall reliance on fuel efficiency and through the use of renewables. these changes notion saving drivers money have sparked wide spread invasion. from companies to go oning components to innovators making

advanced batteries inspect north carolina an advanced battery is adding 250 more. they are one of many companies operating near our country that have a dramatically increased our global market share for advanced batteries. another example is the company -- not exactly a start up. they are investigating $3 million in their aloom that rolling facility in dave port, iowa. they anticipate more demand for the product as the :

without congressional action, with 7.4 million with federal student loans receive interest rates doubled on july 1 of this year. what to make sure that doesn't have been. donate heavily educated people to drive our economic growthcomments not attempt to make it more expensive to go to college. the president has urged congress to reform immigration system that allows immigrants to tell them they can't stay once they finish.

finally, in the most important in the president has called for a return to american values. value of fairness for all and responsibility from all. everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share and everyone plays by the same set of rules. and all of this, epa has an important role to fill. our mission day in and day out is to protect the health of the american people. how do we protect how? by keeping pollution out of the air we all breathe. by keeping toxins out of the water that we all drink, keeping harmful chemicals on the lands where we bought our homes and communities in schools and churches. the work we do each and everyday is focused on ensuring our economy works for the american people. it is consistent with american values to say that industry should not be allowed to put

treated sewage into waters or need for agriculture. it's consistent with values to save data mobiles should meet standards in the standard should keep everything from dangerous lead pollution to carbon pollution out of our air. and powerplants should have some limit placed on their emissions of mercury and there are toxins that affects children's brain development. it's consistent with those values to say that this food that we put on a play should be quoted with harmful chemicals that threaten our health for the help of our children. as president to bomb obama has said, we will not back down from protecting our kids for mercury pollution are making sure our food is safe and our water is clean. right now there are two ways to go, two visions dominating the conversation. one says you can rely on science, laws, innovation.

i'm an engineer. i like innovation, to protect human health and the environment were clean sustainable economy. the alternative vision says moving forward requires rolling back standards for clean air and clean water. it says we have to increase protection for those who may choose to pollute while reducing save birds for all the rest of us. you only have to turn on the nastier the consistent drumbeat against environmental protection and that has zero consequences. lesser republican leadership in the house of representatives orchestrated a total of 191 votes against environmental protections. much of that happen in response to myths and misleading information about epa and its work. to give one example, there is an assertion made by lobbying and industry groups vp was putting forth a train wreck of regulations that will hobble our economy.

the claim is repeated in a major news outlets and on the floor of congress. in fact one of the bills restricting clean air protections were titled the train act. the only problem was no train wreck. the claim is founded ion american legislative executive council report about regulations that epa never actually proposed. the fact is we can't create an economy built to last by putting our nation into a race to the bottom. the race for the weakest protections than the most loopholes in our environmental laws. for those of you born after 1970, it would be the first time in your life at the health and environmental protections he grew up with and maybe take for granted, i'm not steadily improved, but to liberally weekend. the result will be more asthma, respiratory bonus, more premature death. but the result won't be as a clear path to new job.

no credible economist links our current economic crisis or any crises to clean-air and clean standards. in fact come our experience indicates just the opposite. epa has been around 41 years. during that time americans have seen gdp rise 200%. after all that time and all that growth, it is clear we can have a clean environment, better health and a growing economy all at the same time. now let me be clear. the commish and all of these things that one requires diligence. president obama has directed federal agencies to review regulations to eliminate unnecessary burdens for businesses and ensure that you hold protections remain in tact. that is a good idea. streamlining regulations is not the beginning and end of our plan.

it's not the only idea we have to say we have that leads to face the broad range of economic challenges ahead of us. we need proactive measures to in source jobs that should be created here in america. aggressive steps to strengthen manufacturing sector, new ideas to make sure workers have a fair shot and strong support for innovation, the back bone of our economy and certainly critical to a new era american energy. i'm proud to serve the president and say we can't wait on those issues. i'm proud to know that he believes epa's health protections are vital to the american people and the choice between our economy and environment is a false choice. i'm proud to serve in administration that is committed to building an economy that's built to last. we cannot settle for a company were shrinking number of people do really well. more americans get by or we can build a nation where everyone

gets a fair shot. this make or break moment for middle class has great to serve the american people and strengthen our future. the strategy to grow our economy by simply doing linus is not good enough. it's not how he made the needs of the people we serve. i'm here today because so much of what is at stake will shape your future and yet the power to influence the directions that we go. i cannot say how critical it is that you lend your voices heard discussion here enter our discussions in our country over the next month. many of you are here to talk about your commitment to the issues and i look forward to having that discussion in just a few minutes as well. thank you for coming and thank you for everything you do is score. i've got to let the mom in me say, do really well in school. your parents are paying your tuition. thank you very much.

[applause] >> lisa jackson can't thank you so much for your remarks. i greatly enjoyed them. i can say they resonated very well with the longtime professor. a bunch of conversation but today is my job is to moderate the conversation. the questions are coming from the audience and they are submitting them to jenkins right now. they are coming in via twitter. so let me start with the first one. this is -- what is your advice to a young woman who would someday like to have your own job? >> well, maybe i'll start where i ended, which is presenting the young woman might be in the audience source ones school, i just recently did a lovely white house bid on science, technology, engineering not come

the stand they call it. i know many of you may not be science majors, but it's really important to recognize. i love to talk about the connection between environmental protection, which may seem like something not technical and technology. you know, you are probably don't remember catalytic converters. the simply recognizing that the air over los angeles or houston or some of our major cities is a significant cause of asthma and respiratory illness, heart attacks, premature death and fire his gun innovators to realize there's owing to be a market to make that air cleaner. that's not going away anytime soon. for the epa can't protect health without technology because we cannot adopt rules or put a huge burden on the economy without cost effective solutions to address the problem. so the history that epa is the history of innovation. even if you're not a science and

technology major, i would strongly biased that you keep that in mind from the standpoint of epa and understand that connection. whatever your stunning commode at lawyers, all kinds of folks around the epa more than anything else and this is a city -- a town of lawyers. you are all bucking the trend potentially, that i would say that it's also important to recognize that increasingly and i'm sure we'll talk about sustainability, the areas keep two. there is no such thing as government does or imposes in the area. the private sector being a part of this can mean we can see changes in everything from behaviors to marketing to once genies to an economy built to last. [inaudible] >> hey, there you go. an advertisement.

>> okay, here is a current topical question. what are the epa's plans for conducting more research on the effects of natural gas cracking quick >> sure, epa has ongoing two-year study on the impact does cracking come hydraulic fracturing, which is the primary technology making of this natural gas potentially available for us in our country and its impact on drinking water. it has been scoped publicly with peer review of the scoping of the document right now wherein the data collection phase and we sat that will be rolling out some interim data and information as the candidate and probably the earliest we'll see that is towards the end of this calendar year. this study is scheduled to be completed in about a year from then. so it will be completed sometime -- this is 2012, right?

sometime in 2013. we also just put out, finalized rules for air emissions. affinity of heard me speak for, say all the time natural gas is tremendous opportunity for our country, especially when it comes to carbon pollution. but it needs to be done safely and responsibly. one of the areas that has potential to be of concern, if not addressed is air emissions. right now we inadvertently admit a lot of natural gas in the process of finishing in completing the natural gas wells. natural gas is a greenhouse gas. it's much more potent than co2 yet shorter lived. the standpoint of our planet and also bocs, precursors to the formation of smog. it's been volatile organic compounds like benzene in filing and others responsible for

emissions in wyoming where they don't have a lot of cars are a lot of other big smog producing, but they have really high smog base. its combination of moral and gas development that keeps the array where it is than they have been inversion and people are seeing smog levels of two they lived in time. we can ignore that. the way to deal with that as we have to address air emissions, drinking water concerns. the federal government, the president has put into next year's budget proposal his vision that we should work with the department of energy and the department of the interior to do additional studies to ensure that hydraulic fracturing is done safely. >> on the topic of admissions, is there a timeline for creeping regulations for co2 in existing power plants?

>> excuse me, we just proposed a regulation to deal with co2 emissions from new power plants. so if you want to build a new power generation in this country into the clean air act coming the existing authority under the law at the clean air act, we proposed regulation for actually mandates maximum carbon emissions of a thousand pounds -- per kilowatt hour? okay, i thought then. come back to me in a second. but i think we should -- as you might imagine, these are a nation's and are to limit carbon pollution from energy generation. the largest that during terms of energy -- in terms of greenhouse gas pollution in our country. and so, we need to do them.

we need to do them right. i think we just started sixty-day's comment that i think we should focus on finalizing those rules because they are going to be a think very important around the world as well. by the way, we are to address carbon pollution from cars and trucks. the historic fuel efficiency standards are also extremely helpful in helping us ratchet down carbon emissions from our cars. they feel you don't burn as it huge savings for making cars more efficient. air conditioners and cars, refrigerants can also -- are also very potent greenhouse gases. all that is included in those rules as well. >> thank you. this question is, by what year do you see the u.s. relying primarily on renewable energy sources with oil, gas and coal? >> you know, every forecast from all the energy agencies shows that there is first a doubling of solar power in the last few

years, real take off in terms of solar as batteries become even cheaper in storage for a technology like solar only available when the sun is out and shining gets cheaper and more available. i think you're just going to see that continue. obviously wind -- the president, department of the interior has outlined support for wind projects off our coast and in other areas terrestrial winds taken of in parts of the midwest as well. so i think every forecast shows are going to continue to be dependent on fossil fuels because of economic pressures at the price of gas is down by it -- is reading "usa today," 30% by the beginning of this year, supply is down to $2 for each year or less.

and so, it's very, very cost competitive with respect to cool. so i think were going to see additional moves in that direction following the marketplace. i also think we're going to continue to see as the president has said, need to invest in tech elegy, research and energy efficiency side. please don't forget energy efficiency because many areas the difference between needing to build any new power plant and retrofitting or keeping the ones we have are investing in some of the renewables is the peak time, really hot days in the summer, for example. if you can bring those down come you just need less power. delaware is hope and that there will be growth of electrical private cars and fisk or is building, what is the most

important strategy to improve mile per gallon and reduce the environmental impact? >> i think the most important strategies tempting if you asked about it before it became epa administrator in 2009 i would've wondered what she would think. just give you a sense of how much the landscape has changed in the leadership of this price tag, you know, forever third circuit and clean air act and california. i don't know if you saw the recent report, it either at the top 10 worst cities for many embassies should the american minuses each and the cities and for showing california. that affects the health of litter the minds of people. california has a special place under the clean air act because the programs in many ways are more mature than the federal programs that came first. california can set standards for emissions from vehicles and other states cannot get around. this administration came into a

war where california wanted to set greenhouse gas emissions standards in addition to all the other emissions standards they set and had been denied the opportunity because we now have given california the opportunity to do that because that means cars are becoming more efficient. 12 or 13 states join california and wanted to do that and then we made national and are not harmonized california standards for the rest of the country appears under this president for the first time ever we have a national set of standards that move us toward doubling of fuel-efficient the 255 miles per gallon by 2025 and a huge decrease in carbon pollution at the same time. so that's on the books. the second set of standards has been proposed. rescheduled to adopt those in september -- august or september of this year. so will be done. we'll have the blueprint for car manufacturers from now until 2025 and requires increasing every year reduction --

increasing fuel efficiency, which means reductions every year in pollution. and that's really, really good news. so we've really taken -- we've gone from a place where people thought we couldn't see folks manufacturing hybrid are really efficient diesel. we don't tell people it has to be electric or not. california was pretty far out and trying to go to zero emissions. do you see their missions come you understand why it really necessary like it is in many other is in the thankfully. the other thing that many people are talking about now is natural gas. its potential to affect the transportation here. i'm an engineer and natural gas person for mrs. campanella junior is the chemicals that

remanufacturing years, including things like fertilizer on agricultural lands. but now because so much of it potentially could start to think about using it for power generation and now because we have so much of it, you can really see it as a resource, especially for fleets based in one location might delivery, maybe in some parts of the country can become a knife. >> here's a more personal question. what the hardest part of your job? >> first off, it's a great job. i know people sometimes say to me, especially as i've discussed it can be a tough environment here in washington and you will know that really well. it's an incredible privilege to sit at the top of an agency that i work in. i worked at epa for 15 years. i started as a staff scientist and worked up on the career last and she had the agency.

so i know that we have to do our job. i know it to connect with the american people, which is why i'm not answering the question, but one of our pushes is expanding environmentalism so that people, no matter where they live, especially poor communities, disadvantaged communities can be in the cpa and organization that's fair to help them. so we've made a special push with the teen is. i'm an african-american. african-americans are the first ones to run the agency's fruits that's all great. if there's any tough part, you know, it's a hard job and a hard environment. and if anything, i think we unfortunately spend far too much time talking about things that are myths. i had to go around the country last year and assure our agricultural community is that we were going to regulate

spilling milk under oil pollution controls even though we had announced and i kept saying over and over the were not looking to change the standard for coarse particles, what they would call a dust. and we spend a lot of time on that, all based on this misrepresentation and not enough time really confronting the issues that face us, including climate change, which is going to be determinative for many of you in this room in terms of what your economies will be looking at and having to deal with. >> zimmer sensitive difficult -- how satisfied are you with the country's response to global warming? if you're not satisfied, what do you think these to be done in time to prevent a catastrophic tipping point? >> well, i think it is pretty -- first off, the federal response,

which i think i've outlined to you what we've done under existing laws. we don't have a climate change our energy love that deals with curbing. and so what we've done by law actually by supreme court vision, massachusetts first epa has worked under the clean air act. and that's ever going to do that responsibly, his comments that are not trying to make some big shock to the system because the system -- were all involved in energy and energy touches in the economy and so many ways. but please -- this is an important thing to know. you notice them because there is no federal law that there are state laws. there are state laws it is a compact in northeastern state for the regional greenhouse gas initiative. there's laws in california that would challenge it. maybe 30 to. many come in many states come even if they don't and state

law, communities across this country who are seen and this is why they're doing it. they love doing the right thing, but these are cities and towns and counties and states whose the economic opportunity and cleaner energy. the international energy administration estimates three to $4 trillion the next decade will be sent to cleaner energy. if you're in a country like america is all about innovation, figuring out what the next big thing is the man bringing it to market and then making money and doing really well doing not, on those communities want to be home but that because that's where the jobs are. and so, i think we should not underestimate the energy that is happening. the energy had been around clean energy around our country. and i'm going to say again, whether it's natural gas, which is tremendous opportunity for us.

i'm an environmentalist, but you can't look at natural gas and not see the potential if you do it right. for 40% reduction just like that ends up in greenhouse gas emissions. carbon dioxide sequestration is an innovation is found work in some places, but shifted some are sequestered. bp people see an opportunity from that technology and there will be people who will look at the energy storage area. i mentioned leadership in its battery manufacturing all as part of what is happening in this country. if you think of the states as laboratories of democracy and in this case public policy, i feel certain we are coming back to type about energy in a much more -- you know, we have to confront it. you all will. you absolutely will. >> i know are coming towards the end of our time. one more question. the secretary-general of the u.n. has encouraged people to

tweet president obama to ask them to attend. we are cursed the president to attend and will use tweet him in the process? >> i will not tweet the president tweet the president of the united states. i will speak to the president of the united states on a range of issues they think are really important. and they will, i think we've talked about working with the department of state to try to make sure that we are engaging our ngos and business community prior to the rio summit to ensure that the united state input at the summit and presence at the summit is representative of that which we do best, which is again innovate and create in the sustainability or clean energy or you call up of toxic biochemical where you talk about water when it comes to agriculture. we have to see potentially 9 billion people. we have to address the fact that

at this point in time, more people live in cities around the world than rural areas are not going to change. and i haven't done too much traveling. but when you see what those cities are like in the developing countries or in the bricks countries, you know what they know, which is they have to feed and create economic opportunity. the initial migration is around economic opportunity. but having all the seats on one space means the united states has a lot to give, money to be made around making sure there's clean water, that we rethink ways as an option for energy, that we rethink waste of an opportunity for material spirit of up to talk about electronic waste and now the entire periodic table within our iphone and that we try to figure out where were going to get those materials from to build the next generation -- i was supposed to say iphone.

mark holland at where we get material from two nonendorsement of any product. and now, but as we think about all of those opportunities, you simply can't get their without changing the way we think about things. we are blessed in this country that we are so well i frankly don't he can -- we can think about them, market them and get out of talk about them. last but not talk about is the state department gave the summit i think at stanford radio site palo alto around that collett rio plus 2.0. get it? the use of social media tools, not just as awareness, but the same kind of revolutionary changes we see in parts of the world based on people's access to information can really make a huge change in people's access to clean water. ..

>> we hope that our students will carry on with the decision and high standards that the epa and you represent for the epa. i want to thank all of you for coming. let's give her a final round of applause. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> next, secretary of state hillary clinton talks about the importance of international diplomacy and the situation in iran. then, the house ways and means subcommittee talks about ways to control medicare costs. after that, covering the white house. >> tomorrow on "washington journal", daniel schuman of the sunlight foundation talked about the digital accountability and transparency act of 2012, which passed the house on wednesday. national journal correspondent has an update on immigration reform efforts in congress. georgetown university law professor louis seidman and roger p. long of the cato institute debate the 10th amendment of the constitution, which clarifies its rights. "washington journal", live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> we are at the national public

radio table. you guys are still here. that is good. [laughter] >> i couldn't remember where we landed on that. [laughter] >> this weekend on c-span, the white house correspondents dinner. president obama and jimmy kimmel headlined the event before an audience of celebrities, journalists him and the white house press corps. coverage starts with the red carpet arrival like at 6:30 p.m. watch the entire dinner only on c-span. you can also sync up your experience online, at c-span's dinner hub. find a celebrity celebrity guest list, highlights of past winners, and blog and social media post at c-span.org/w. hcd. the white house correspondents dinner, live on saturday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> on thursday, secretary of state hillary clinton clinton spoke at the woodrow wilson

center where she received an award for public service. she talked about some of the internatiinternati onal challenges facing the united states. first come in introductory remarks by jane harman and imf director christine lagarde. this is about 45 minutes. >> good evening. how did you like it? [applause] i am jane harman, the first president and ceo of the wilson center, who happens to be a woman. [applause] we are delighted to welcome our honored guest, prints from congress, and the diplomatic corps, secretary clinton, and some very special guests. the carl family. geraldine ferraro was a mentor to me.

john and linda, a special welcome to you. [applause] [applause] >> i am about to tell you something henry kissinger wouldn't. where to begin. the trajectory of hillary clinton's career is stunning, and i'm pleased to have known her and work with her throughout much of it. this is no retirement dinner. you hear that hillary? tonight we honor you for the entire arc of your remarkable career. from pioneering attorney and chair of the legal services committee during the carter administration, a white house where geminis served, to first lady of arkansas and first lady of the united states, the u.s. senator from new york, and of course, the secretary of state. i was in beijing in 1995, as part of the small congressional delegation for the u.n. conference on women when first lady hillary clinton uttered the iconic rallying cry for female

quality. you just heard it in our film. that same year, saw the formation of the council of women world leaders. the only organization for women who had countries. now has 47 members, and just last year, relocated, where else? to the wilson center. strong support from secretary clinton and her magical ambassador at large for women's issue, milan purveyor, who is here,. [applause] [applause] we are building it into a major platform to showcase women's leadership and mentor emerging women leaders. i spoke personally to all secretaries of state who just start in that film. each, as you saw, have lunch and saw the extraordinary

accomplishments of senator clinton. also her humor and compassion. most of you know that my husband, sidney, died a few days after our last big washington gala. in early phone call came from hillary. who had lots of time to chat. and then came a personal dinner. in 2007, one of the wilson center's stars, who is here, was imprisoned in iran for eight months, including 105 days in solitary confinement. a heroic effort to achieve relief occurred, and of course, the efforts by then senator clinton were involved, and senator clinton -- the secretary clinton just recently recalled the event. few can match secretary clintons grueling schedule.

but one such person is celebrated with hillary clinton in time magazine's current issue of the hundred most influential people in the world. something that just mentioned. and thank you to matt and fred for coaching the ballot. it pains me to give well-deserved credit to newsweek's rival, but i must. [laughter] of course, i'm talking about the first imf director who happens to be a woman to my friend, christine lagarde. [applause] christine lagarde rearranged your travel plans to offer tonight's introduction before leaving on yet another foreign trip. not long after i joined the wilson center, christine lagarde on us by making her first public remarks in washington as imf director in a morning speech at the center. in that speech, she credited

woodrow wilson for sowing the seeds that underscored the need for bold click of action to achieve global economic stability. surely, we were wilson would be proud of her. before that speech, i invited a group of former female colleagues from congress to breakfast with her. i keep a picture of that meeting in my office. there she is. towering over the vertically challenged senator barbara mikulski and me. one senator presence of something i haven't forgotten. thank you for doing this. we never talk to each other -- we never talk to each other anymore. many former colleagues in this room will agree. our current exquisite congressional dysfunction highlights why the political space at the wilson center is so critical.

why it is so critical to salute problem solvers like secretary clinton and director christine director christine lagarde, for synchronized swimming to strategic networking, christine lagarde's career includes managing director of a major international law firm. finance minister of france. now head of the world's primary financial institution, and maybe a little later, president of france? [laughter] [applause] she is a big player with big ideas. with courage, insight, and humor. at the women of the world summit last month in new york, she said that we might have avoided financial meltdown if lehman brothers had only been sisters.

[laughter] [laughter] >> you should applaud that. [applause] [applause] at the first spring meeting of the imf last week, erector christine lagarde give a mixed report on the economic climate. she said we are seeing a light recovery blowing in a spring wind. but we are also seeing some very dark clouds on the horizon. those dark clouds, of course, include massive protests worldwide, reflecting a growing disconnect between citizens and their government, grave threats to eurozone stability, stubbornly high unemployment in many countries, skyrocketing energy costs, things like that. well, if the problems facing the world economy is dark clouds, christine lagarde said, funding from imf members, including japan and korea, which i visited earlier this week, is like a

novella. thanks to her fund-raising prowess, that umbrella just added $430 billion. [applause] [applause] even fred malek can't do that. so, what an honor to introduce this powerhouse and great girlfriend, the first woman in charge of the world economy, imf director christine lagarde. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] thank you ever so much, jane. it is a lovely, lovely introduction.

[speaking in native tongue] it is my great, great privilege, immense privilege to introduce to you tonight secretary of state hilary rodham clinton. madam, i have long been an admirer of yours from afar. but now we both lead work in the same town, washington d.c. and we both have the same goal, trying to make this world a bit of a better place. we travel the same journey. although we have been traveling the same journey, we are a little bit alike. we are both lawyers, we both served our government. we both have deep ties into chicago. [laughter] which might explain our very

soft and gentle personalities. [laughter] first, she was the first lady. whatever happened, i have always found the country clinton, hillary, always a little bit ahead of me -- a few steps. i will give you a couple of examples. we were both young political animals in 1973 and 74. i was interning for bill cohen, and i'm spending most of my time dealing with his posts, from french-speaking constituents north of maine. impeach, don't impeach, yes, no, for it, against it. all i was doing with these french-speaking constituents in the dark room of the rayburn building, there she was.

hillary was in the thick of the action. shoes on the impeachment inquiry staff, and advising the house judiciary committee. we both served cabinet in our government. i was minister of finance for france, and hillary, of course, is the film beautifully show, is still today serving as one of the most outstanding secretaries of state of the united states of america. [applause] [applause] she's always ahead of me. secretary of state, madam clinton. you have shattered the feeling like no one else, with 18 million votes. [applause] [applause] and i was traveling very hard with your revolt.

[laughter] when i last saw hillary, she was being introduced by meryl streep at the world summit in new york. merrill on trent meryl streep actually handed her an oscar. i can surely say that nobody has ever given me an oscar red although, although in five jobs, the oscar for documentary films. that was my last career in film. a very teeny bit. [laughter] i thought maybe i could outdo secretary of state, so i worked hard on my twitter account. i have 10,000 chinese followers. [laughter] [applause] but you know, the tweet from

christine lagarde, forget it. they cannot possibly compete with the text from hillary. [laughter] i'm sure you have all seen the photo. there she is, hillary, sitting in military plane. reading her messages on blackberry, surrounded by very tense and anxious men, very cool. my favorite text from hillary is the one where rachel matteau now on trent. [inaudible] her response? girls. love it. let's be very serious for a second. hilary rodham clinton is not only very intelligent, very witty, very charming and very beautiful, she is also a great public servant, a great global

leader and inspiration to women all over the world, some of you might remember beijing in 1995. i do. a great inspiration to people everywhere in the world. of course, she is the ideal recipient for the woodrow wilson award for public service. we also know -- we all know that president wilson said that there is no higher religion and human service. to work for the common good is the greatest creed. hillary has devoted her life to these common goods. she has been incredibly impressive from an early age, when she was at wesley. she was the first student to deliver her commencement address. she received a seven minute ovation. she also excelled after wellesley at deal law school, when the time that women made up only 15% of the job field at the best. she was called a star at heel.

she was called a star at yale university by a man named bill. hillary always cared deeply about public policy. when she was in the white house, she made her mark through the commitments on the issues that matter most. education. health care. children's welfare. she was right. it takes a village. after having remarkably served new york and the country, look at what vision, inspiration, and energy she brings to her job. her job? no. permission as secretary of state. she has made it effective around

the world. helping people everywhere. she has crossed many borders and built so many bridges. in fact, in pakistan, she met regularly with organizations and youth leaders and a broad section of pakistani society. and who can forget the iconic photo of her and. [inaudible] a moving testament to the power of leaders to the power of women who have devoted their life and their energy, their brainpower, their life to public good, too common good of humanity. let me conclude with one more point and one more clue. president wilson also said one

cruel judgment is worth a thousand kc hasty counsels. the thing to do is to supply light and not heat. how perfectly this sums up the recipient tonight of the woodrow wilson award, madam hilary rodham clinton. [applause] [applause] [laughter] [music playing] [applause] [applause]

[applause] [applause] is a oh, my goodness. well, i am incredibly touched and grateful and a little embarrassed by the extraordinary outpouring of very kind words this evening, starting with fred malek, who i greatly appreciate for reminding us that we're all on the same team, namely the american team, and my longtime friend mack mclarty and his wonderful donna. i am grateful to all of you. i want to thank christine for

that introduction, but more than that for her leadership at the imf, for her extraordinary strength and vision in these uncertain economic times, and for her very steady hand as she is trying to help lead us through them. i also want to thank all the member of congress and the diplomatic corps here tonight. it is very good seeing a lot of my former colleagues getting, to sit with my friend, susan collins. and of course, i want to, along with all of you, salute our host, jane harman, one of our nation's most articulate, thoughtful leaders on foreign policy and national security. and now as president of the wilson center, she is still shaping public debate.

[applause] [applause] and in addition to that, she is advising a lot of us and helping to make sure that the scholarship we need for better informed decisions is being done. she provides insights and counsel on a great range of issues. and i loved the fact that jane was just referencing that, under her leadership, the wilson center has become the home of the council of world women leaders, the only organization of current and former women heads of state and ministers. they are working together with the state department and others to organize a summit in the united arab emirates on women's leadership in the arab world. and jane joined me last december at the state department to launch the women in public

service project to identify, train, and mentor emerging women leaders around the world, founded in partnership with the seven sisters colleges. jane and i are both proud graduates, she of smith and i of wellesley, and we are including many international and domestic partners. and i think it's exciting that we are working on these kinds of things together in addition to all of the raft of difficult problems, both those in the headlines and in the trendlines that we confront every single day. i have to say, that film was hilarious. and i have a feeling that jane was stage managing every bit of it, but i can't wait to see all my predecessors to thank them for participating. and george shultz, with his don't worry, be happy song - he actually gave me

a little bear that i keep in my office that has one of these buttons. when you press it, it sings, "don't worry, be happy." so i mean, i figured if it's good enough for george shultz, it's good enough for me. so i was thrilled to see him sharing that with all of you tonight. and the thing about henry kissinger is, with that accent, he can anything and you'd think it's really smart and witty. [laughter] [laughter] and so he and i have had some of the most amazing conversations, but i'm never quite sure i've understood everything that was said. [laughter] [laughter] but for me, the men and women you saw on the screen have become great friends, whether i knew them well, like i did, of course, with dear madeleine albright, or knew them from afar or by reputation at events like this. all of them have been extraordinarily helpful to me,

and i'm very grateful they would come together to be part of this evening. well, i know it's been, for me, a reunion. i've had a chance to see so many of-- a lot of my friends and colleagues over the past evening. and i want to make just a few serious points, because you've been very, very patient. i think as both jane and christine suggested in their remarks tonight, we are very fortunate to be in the positions we're in in today's world, and we're very pleased that in our own ways we can be trying to help chart our path through what is a very difficult, dangerous, tumultuous time, as the film seemed to suggest. and we're trying to look at economic policy and foreign policy in new

ways, because the problems really demand that. when you think about it, a flu in canton can become an epidemic in chicago. or a protest in tunisia can reverberate through latin america to east asia. or when a housing bubble bursts in las vegas, it can unsteady markets in london and mumbai. the world has changed. the amount and velocity of change is breathtaking. technology and globalization have made our countries and our communities interdependent and interconnected. and citizens and non-[state]actors like ngos, corporations, or criminal cartels and terrorist networks, increasingly are influencing international affairs, for good and ill. so we face these

complex challenges that are cross-cutting, that no one nation can hope or expect to solve alone. so how we operate in this world must obviously change. when i became secretary of state, people were questioning if america was still willing to shoulder leadership. it's not hard to remember why: two wars, an economy in freefall, diplomacy deemphasized, traditional alliances fraying. the international system that the united states had helped to build and defend over many decades seemed to be buckling under the weight of new threats. and so what we've tried to do in the last three-plus years is to make sure we shored up and secured america's global leadership, knowing full well that it was going to take more than military solutions. we needed to

be sure we were using every possible approach: breaking down a lot of the old bureaucratic silos; engaging not just with governments but with citizens, this new citizen empowerment from the bottom up; finding new partners in the private sector; harnessing market forces to really be part of the solution to some of the strategic problems we face, leading by example and bringing people together on behalf of supporting universal rights and values. we really were having to rethink how we did business, business in government as well as business in the private sector. now, in the government, we're calling what we're trying to do smart power. and it, at bottom, was an

effort to integrate diplomacy, development, and defense. and i was so privileged to find allies not just among my colleagues who were former secretaries of state, but in the pentagon. both secretaries of defense bob gates and leon panetta and chairs of the joint chiefs mike mullen and now marty dempsey have really been advocates for the idea that diplomacy and development could help prevent conflicts and rebuild shattered societies that would, in turn, lighten the load on our military. and so together, we are making sure our soldiers, diplomats, and development experts are working more closely together, are listening to each other, are contributing to being part of an all-hands-on-deck, whole-of-government approach. and we're also trying to make sure we get our bureaucracies in

washington trying to do the same. by next january, when i will have traveled, i guess, a million miles or more, i will look back on this period as one that has been a great privilege and honor to serve. but i will also know that we have a lot of work to do. and when i came into this office, i knew that we were going to have to confront a lot of difficult problems. i'll just quickly mention a few. one, iran's nuclear activities. how were we going to confront what was a clear threat? how could we unify the international community so they were not either on the sidelines or actively trying to undermine our diplomatic efforts?

so what we did was to first decide we had to give diplomacy a real chance. and president obama extended an open hand to the iranian people. in our public diplomacy, we used every channel, from satellite tv and twitter, to old-fashioned snail mail. we cemented our partnership with european allies. we reengaged with institutions like the international atomic energy agency. we convinced the entire security council, including russia and china, to enact the most onerous sanctions that ever had been and to keep up the pressure. and then we added to that through our unilateral sanctions and the eu sanctions. we worked directly with banks and insurance companies to make sure those sanctions were implemented. iran's tankers now sit idle; its oil goes unsold;

its currency has collapsed. the window for engagement is still open, and we are actively pursuing a diplomatic solution. but we know that we have to continue to demonstrate that we're making progress diplomatically. it's too soon to know how this story will end, but the fact that we've returned to the negotiating table makes clear the choice for iran's leaders. we're also looking for how to operate multidimensional diplomacy at all times. building and holding a coalition to pressure and isolate iran is one example, but there are others as well. our willingness to engage showed good faith. our willingness to listen showed humility. our willingness to hammer out the kinds of solutions that would be acceptable beyond the usual suspects who always are with us

is paying off. it's not just with china and russia, but other rising powers like india, turkey, south africa, south korea, indonesia, and brazil, where intensive diplomacy is absolutely essential. aligning our interests with these rising influential nations is not always easy. and in syria we're seeing firsthand how difficult it can be. but it can and has been working. iran is one example. but we're also trying to come together around other global challenges, from working with the imf and others to manage the international economic crisis to securing loose nukes. we're also putting a lot more attention into regional and global institutions that mobilize common action and help to settle disputes peacefully,

that stand for upholding universal rights and standards; and supporting an open, free, transparent, and fair economic system; and having security arrangements that promote stability and trust. because i don't believe that the rise of new powers has to be a threat to american leadership. in fact, the rise of these powers is, in part, the result of american leadership - of the stability and prosperity we brought to and fostered around the world since the end of world war ii. this is not 1912, when friction between a declining britain and a rising germany set the stage for global conflict. it's 2012, and a strong america is working with new powers in an international system designed to prevent global conflict. but we

have to update that system. we have to continue to ask ourselves, "how can we make it work better?" and we cannot do it alone. let me also turn to a second example. early last year, when citizens took to the streets across the middle east and north africa demanding their dignity, their human rights, those protests caught fire and caught most people by surprise. we saw the beginnings of responsiveness and accountability in egypt and even in yemen. but in libya, qadhafi responded with brutal violence, and the libyan people and the arab league, for the first time together, asked for the international community's support. so we did put together a broad coalition, led by nato with a mandate from the un security council. think about it: the arab league not only called for action, but members

of the arab league participated alongside nato. without america's high-level diplomacy, cajoling, hand-holding, and occasional arm-twisting, that coalition would never have come together or stayed together. and now we're working with new partners to support emerging democracies and to help build credible institutions. i was just in brasilia with president dilma rousseff co-chairing the open government partnership, which is an effort by the united states to bring countries into the fight against corruption, a push for openness. and i was so proud that libya was represented at that conference and made a speech about the kind of future - democratic future - that they are seeking. now, we all know that this is a difficult transformation. and we

see countries like syria that are trying to hold back the tide of history with brutal, horrible impact on innocent lives. but a situation as complicated as the arab spring demands a multifaceted response. and so we have to marry all of these tools together: old-fashioned shoe-leather diplomacy and the use of social media, using every partner that is willing to work with us, and bringing disparate stakeholders together. only the united states of america has the resolve, the reach, and the resources to do this on a truly global scale. and that doesn't mean we go it alone. actually, it means the opposite. america cannot and should not shoulder every burden ourselves. as we saw in libya, our european and nato allies

remain our partners of first resort, but new partners like those arab nations that flew the air cap and helped with the maritime interdiction really made a difference. so we have to work on how we keep building those networks and how we give capability and credibility to these coalitions that come up to promote regional stability and security in a lot of hotspots. and we've paid particular attention to the asia pacific and the multilateral organizations there to building new architecture of institutions that will serve as a bulwark for continuing security and prosperity, and to deal with disputes like the territorial disputes in the south china sea. because after all, the asia

pacific region, which stretches from the indian ocean all the way to shores of the americas, is a key driver of global politics and economics. so we are engaging in a wholehearted way. we are working on new trade agreements, educational exchanges, an updated military force posture. we're looking to bring leaders together from across the asia pacific. and just recently, last september in san francisco, we had a gathering for part of the preparation for the asia pacific economic community meeting in hawaii. and we talked about something which i have talked about for a long time but which is really getting traction now. and that is improving women's access to capital and markets, building women's capacities and skills, supporting women leaders is important - not just because christine and jane and i are

women, but because we know that the more women participate in economies, the more successful those economies will be. so we're working all the time on [applause] [applause] the full range of issues. and you've been very patient tonight and very, very kind - my friends who have bought tables to support the wilson center and to come and be here this evening. and i wanted to just give you short overview of why we believe that this kind of full engagement on all levels in our diplomacy and development work is the only way for us to move forward together. so as i look now at the work that the wilson center is doing and will be doing, i am encouraged and grateful because

there are no doubts in my mind that we need this public/private/not-for-profit partnership. the government can't do it alone; business can't do it alone; civil society can't do it alone. we need to be sure that we are all on the same side and, in my view, all on the same team. and i was thinking a lot about this because we're coming up on the anniversary of the raid that killed bin ladin, and there will be lots and lots of wall-to-wall coverage about it. and it was an incredible moment for me because of the extraordinary personal commitment that i felt. people have asked me all the time, "what was going through your mind on that day?" and really,

what was going through my mind were all the people in new york that i served and represented and what they had gone through, how much they and our country deserved justice. and i thought about how important it was to make sure we did everything we could to protect ourselves from another attack. and i certainly thought about those brave navy seals who went out on that moonless pakistani night. but i also thought about how important it is that we don't just focus on the threats, we don't just focus on the dangers; we have to keep reminding ourselves of the opportunities and the necessity for american leadership. it's in our dna. it's who we are. and everyone in this room already knows, so it is a little bit like preaching to the choir. but we have to keep telling that story. and i want to end where fred began the evening. i love

politics because i think it's the way people resolve problems and issues between them. and it's not just electoral politics that counts. if you've ever been in a church, you know about politics. if you've ever been on a faculty, you know about politics. but electoral politics, which is the lifeblood of our democracy, is something that our country has been doing for longer now than anybody else in the history of the world. and we have to set an example as to how it's done. that doesn't mean we have to always agree with each other, because we will not. but it means we have to show what it means to work together, to compromise. when i go to burma, as i did at the end of last year, and i go to their new shiny parliament building and i

meet with these people who are trying to figure out do they really want to try this thing called democracy, and they ask me, "can you come help us know how to have a democracy," i realized that our ultimate strength, as it always has been, rests in our values: who we are, what we represent. we can't ever lose that. so we will need the help and partnership of everyone here. we're grateful for the wilson center, which is a wonderful resource for a lot of the work that we do. but mostly, we'll need citizenship to push and hold accountable our leadership, regardless of party, regardless of whether it's in government or business, to make sure that we never, ever lose what makes our

country so special. when i get off that plane representing the united states, i am so proud and so honored, and i want to be sure that whoever is the secretary of state next and next and next for 20, 30, 50, 100 years into the future will always be viewed with the same level of respect and appreciation for what this country stands for. and i need to be sure that all of you share that mission as well. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause]

[applause] >> next, a white house ways and means subcommittee examined ways to control medicare costs. after that, journalist talk about what it's like to cover the white house. in a conversation with one of our studentcam winners. >> they can routinely buy their way out of publicly provided goods and services. don't they lose a state in the public sphere and in the quality of those goods? >> mercenaries can be paid to fight wars. students can be paid to get good grades. you can pay to jump to the front of the line. sunday night at 9:00 p.m. on "after words." michael sandel. what money can't buy. part of booktv this weekend from c-span 2.

>> what happens at the end of all these things? you still lose. what happens? you are pushed back into what happens. what kind of operation occurs the place to all the federal advantages? this weekend from u.s. naval academy in annapolis, lectures and history. professor wayne shaw examines presidents lee and grant and their american way out of war. at 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. eastern. this way on c-span 3. >> now, the house ways and means subcommittee on health holds a hearing on how to control medicare costs through a premium support model. among those testifying, federal reserve chairman, alice rivlin, and senator john breaux. this is about an hour and a half. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

the subcommittee will come to order. we are meeting today to reform medicare through premium support and the bipartisan support for those proposals. first, i think it should be made abundantly clear that despite what some on the other side might have said, republicans support the medicare program. the program serves as a critical function in our society, and sharing that american seniors and people with disabilities have health care coverage. unfortunately, the program faces significant financial challenges , and is slated to go bankrupt in 2024. we cannot keep tweaking here and tweaking their, hoping to kick

the can down the road for a year or two. as the medicare trustees stated in their annual report, congress must act sooner, rather than later to reform the program to ensure its viability. the medicare program is in dire need of reform and improvement, so that it meets the health care needs of this beneficiary -- the beneficiaries in the 21st century. the traditional medicare benefit, which created in 1965, and it really hasn't been reformed sense. despite the fact, that the delivery of health care in the private insurance markets have changed dramatically. the medicare fee for service design, which is a delay of confusing coinsurance and deductible levels, and its silo delivery system, has not kept pace with the rest of health

care. can you imagine buying your hospital insurance from one insurance company, your doctors office insurance from another insurance company, your prescription drug insurance from yet another company, and catastrophic spending protection from a fourth company. that is exactly what the majority of medicare beneficiaries do today. this outdated design breeds confusion, waste, and even fraud. medicare has an antiquated design that inhibits care coordination, incentivizes overuse, and is led to financial challenges throughout medicare's history. what is to be done? simply hoping to make the medicare program solvent, by cutting payments to providers,

it is unrealistic. the chief medicare actuary has warned that the cuts already enacted as part of the democrats health care law would drive medicare payments below medicaid levels, which could result in severe problems the beneficiary access to care. further, drastic provider cuts may make medicare appear solvent on paper. but it would do so at the expense of the millions of seniors and people with disabilities who depend on the program. instead, we should examine reforms that will protect and improve the medicare program, the premium support is one way to do that. since the term i'm a premium support was coined by aaron

henry, one of our witnesses here today. and robert reischauer, both democrats. and it has received bipartisan support, moving to a premium support model was advanced by the national bipartisan commission on the future of medicare, which was cochaired by democrat senator breaux's, another witness here today. senator john breaux is end ways and means promised that medicare can be more secure when ensuring conference of coverage at an affordable price, rather than continuing the inefficiency, inequity, and inadequacy of the current medicare program. premium support was also a key

component of the recommendation from the bipartisan policy center, cochaired by senator pete domenici and former cbo director and clinton administration omb director, alice rivlin, who is also testifying today. it is in this vein that the 2013 house budget includes a premium support proposal. we have drawn upon the ideas that are witnesses have proposed over the past two decades, and put forward a plan to protect medicare for future generations. there certainly will be different opinions about how a premium support proposal should work. that is a healthy discussion. however, simply hiding our head in the sand is not.

house republicans have made it abundantly clear that we will not simply watch medicare become insolvent. my friends on the other side may not like our proposal, to protect the medicare program, but where is yours? relying on $14 billion in savings from so-called delivery reforms, the health care law is not going to save the program. already built into the medicare trustees estimates, that predict medicare's demise in just over 10 years. there is some time before medicare faces the dire shortfalls that would jeopardize access to care. however, we would be wise to heed the charge given to us by the medicare trustees, and begin to work together now, to place

the medicare program on solid financial ground. it is my hope that today's hearing will be the beginning of this effort. before i recognize ranking member start for the purpose of an opening statement, i ask unanimous consent that all members written statements be included in the record. without objection. so ordered. i now recognize ranking member stark for five minutes for the purpose of his opening statement. >> i would like to thank the chairman for holding this meeting. i think the first hearing the republicans have held in the ways and means committee to advance their plan to end medicare as we know it. basically republicans want to take away medicare's benefits and replace it with a voucher and put the insurance companies back in charge. i don't like that plan. i appreciate their honesty in

flying their flag to dismantle medicare. this year, they have modified their plan by saying that traditional medicare would remain an option. that promise isn't worth very much. traditional medicare might be theoretically available, but would be out of reach of many, money, because the voucher would not be guaranteed to cover costs. traditional medicare would undoubtably attract sicker patients and quickly had us into a death spiral. my republican colleagues like the sound of voucher -- they don't like the sound of that, so they made up a new term called premium support. they are holding this hearing today. they want to share the blame. they are trying to overshadow the fact that every single democrat in the house of representatives voted against their the budget, which includes their medicare voucher proposal.

i can count on one hand the democrats who support vouchers were similar proposals. doctor aaron has the honor of having coined the phrase premium support, but he has written testimony today, which makes it clear that he is no proponent of the brian plan. the only person i have heard say nice things about the plan is ron wyden. he said about the brian plan, i can't imagine where i would vote for it. i'm going to go on record again, making clear strong opposition that democrats have to the house republican proposal by any name, it would be devastating to medicare beneficiaries. raising their costs, regaining the gains made for medicare to ensure that all of our seniors have quality, affordable health care.

instead, they would return us to a time when private health insurers would control what cares seniors get and what prices they are forced to pay. .. ..

>> you don't have to kill the patient to save it. of the accord from hearing from our witnesses today. think you've spent their we're joined by four witnesses would have cheered dead national commission on the future of medicare, alice rivlin a senior fellow of the brookings institution and co-chair of the task force on debt-reduction william h. taylor scholar at aei and

henry aaron senior fellow at brookings institution prepare you each have five minutes the entire statement is a part of a record year now recognized five minutes. >> thank you for inviting me. we have been involved for many, many years. thank you for serving with me in this capacity on medicare reform and have had the pleasure to work with in many capacities. one of the most important issues and most divisive either part d have to face what do we do with medicare reform? i had the privilege serving 14 years in house and 18 in

the senate. i fully understand the difficulties each member has to address the difficult issue to provide quality health care. i am aware some democrats have taken the position the government should do everything private sector do that but there are some who argue the opposite direction the government should do nothing with health care and the private sector should do everything. in order to reach an agreement congress passed to combine the best of the public and private sector and put them to gather. i would submit that is what we did with medicare part d.

that helped to pay for the program and beverage halt to set up the mechanics and structure of the program. third, government can make sure private sector and companies can deliver. the private-sector needs to be involved to create competition. government does sought have competition. private sector can be a innovation and new products. government doesn't do that well. third, private-sector can't allow traces for themselves and family is. of the current program signed by the did johnson 1965.

that was to be a service model the government pays the fees but to control the cost the government fixes the price for everything from bedpans to brain surgery. the program has remained much the same. harris wofford from pennsylvania was a committed liberal surveying endure the can the administration and argued strongly citizens should have access to the same quality health care that congress had built arguing if it is good enough for congress that it is good enough that the retired federal and police it does

combine the best of peppermint and private sector. federal employees health benefit plan requires federal government right to regulations to set the program then pays 75%. the beneficiary pays the rest. over 350 private health plans are offered for quote hot premiums support plans the government approves private plans that employees can choose from their required to deliver service and implemented by it office of personnel management. when i chaired the commission of the future of medicare day to 88 rehab several options how to

improve medicare. no one wanted to end federal medicare and had a strong majority supported new delivery system where premium support is set at 88% of the standard plan. unfortunately we did not require a majority but super majorities of the word never formally submitted to the president or congress. bill frist did i developed a complete statutory language. not just language but legislation to introduce s 1895 to incorporate the fundamental principles of the core recommendation was not to end medicare

restructuring what you have today as a model. under our urban model beneficiaries are subsidized from any competing plan offered under medicare including the existing fee-for-service. contribution is based, this is important come on the national average of premiums weighted by a bold bid to an adjusted for risk and geography. that standard benefit package is all services guaranteed part of the legislation. overall medicare contribution of the standard benefit package and under that it is guaranteed. also for rural areas where

competition is less likely beneficiaries are protected to pay premiums there currently higher. >> i finally the board overseas competition fee-for-service plans through the office of personnel management. to exercise its authority are regulation and the commission estimates the proposal reduces the growth rate by 12%. why tamper with medicare are all? why changes system that has worked for 47 years? i really loved my 1865 chevrolet to keep up with abatements of that car. perhaps to ask why tinker?

the statement made by the chief erich suri for medicare/medicaid services, he said in the trustees' report "without unprecedented changes in health care delivery system in pavement mechanisms the prices medicare pay are likely to fall on the cost of providing the services." edition two fed changes made under 65 to private insurance market of bomb that had promising reforms moving away from traditional fee-for-service fight the you purchasing would they tried to realign incentives and reimburse for the quality of care.

not just quantity. cms already sent audacious started for the center for medicaid medicare innovation to try to lower cost. if we go to their premium support model with the whole system being better off then these promising reforms. >> senator. please summarize. >> i am summarizing. this is the last paragraph 55 i used to say that all the time. >> buff for my former colleagues do they bridge the gap from the loss of these and health care reform

for america's seniors blacks 19551 fee-for-service said back then but in 2012 is still what is in our proposal. please call on me for your questions. >> ms. rivlin your recognized. >> thank you ranking member stark. i am delighted to justify medicare premium support model for but it is a hugely successful program that has to medically increased health care to seniors and life and health care and older americans and reduce their fear of being unable to afford care. we need to guaranteed care

to make sure the program is sustainable as the number of beneficiaries show the cost continues. medicare reform is not just about medicare. it has a crucial coelho into the most daunting to allegis. relation of total spending is devoted to health care if the publicly held federal that. reform presents an opportunity to tour the publicly funded program into a leader of the efficiency of health care delivery for all americans. my believe a bipartisan bill introducing a premium support model while preserving traditional

medicare can help achieve these goals. i will focus on the plan former senator domenici and by devised, but it is very similar to the plan offered by chairman paul ryan a and ron wyden. our proposal preserves traditional medicare as the default option permanently. and also offers the opportunity touche use among comprehensive private health plan on the shaved and is required to cover benefits with the same actuarial fell you aspic year and will except all applicants with the risk adjusted a dual payment based of a age and health status. of a regional exchange

manages the prices of competing plans within a region. and those plans include a traditional fee-for-service. of the government's current to be shin would be said to subject to there have baying capacity. with more accessible and permission cost conscious consumer choice will lead the providers to emphasize managed-care coordination on multiple diseases to adopt a more cost-effective approach to the delivery of care. readout note and advance what competition will do.

we have introduced as a fail-safe cap for premium contribution over time plus 1%. there are a lot of questions about to how well this would work. can't beneficiaries the b-2's private plans under medicare advantage? one quarter of them do. but it was not properly structured to give full competition among plans. we think our plan structures the competition to lower the rate of growth of cost. people question if it leads

to lower court -- or frosted better quality. medicare advantage provides considerable evidence purpose of the impression it is more expensive derives from the fact medicare pays more been the fee-for-service but that is not possible under our plan. competition holds it down. also with older and sicker seniors traditionally it raises cost. of the fear is based that risk adjustment cannot work and cherry picking is not enforced. but we believe these rules can work, working better with medicare advantage then they used to and will work

still better under a new system. we believe health care policy is far too important to be driven by a single part d ideology. matter how the 2012 looks out they should strive to cover commented ground while stabilizing the debt. we believe we contribute to that end. thank you very much for giving me the opportunity. >> mr. antos you recognize. >> thank you pro day-care is by the the important but living on borrowed time. if will be depleted 2024 if

the program of the unfunded liability is with the retirement of baby-boomers the program will consume and the increasing share of less policies are adopted. with of premium support could slow putting us on this fiscal path but to achieve high quality coverage at low cost is essential if we are to protect the program for future beneficiaries. four points about premiums support reform. first, should traditional medicare be offered? that is the most reasonable pro perhaps as many as 57 million are enrolled 10 years from now when most

proposals start competition. a traditional medicare would not disappear even if we don't allow new enrollment. it is likely to have a strong hold in the markets fettered dominated. we must have unnecessary spending in the near -- in the near term. premium support this not need to have support they need to see what has the best value in gives them a stake in the decision. well it shift costs to beneficiaries? the clear. the affordable care act already ships cost with the unprecedented cuts of damon rates with projected savings

over the next decade bettis reductions mean 15% of hospitals lose money on medicare patients by 2019 the racist at 25% during 2013. provider payment threaten access to care it is a real cost that is not reflected in higher premiums for iran-contra asked it changes the incentives that hope to increase their profit margin for necessary here. there is plenty of room to improve to ignore opportunities to crossed. also the market test of private plans offer a good product beneficiaries have

traditional medicare part of this insurer's seniors can be protected. what index should be protected? one that provides discipline with the cdo's $4 os to think the spending targets has the cost of care parks innovation determines if it could be sustained. what other reforms are needed? we need to make the program bear. that means we need reform subsidies structure per barrel in my written statement, sir a main bad confusing structure makes it

more clear to people what they are paying that is a good first up giving people in affirmation so they can make good choices barrel we have to bend the cost curve. premiums support is not an academic theory. it is spent part of the program for the past five decades a calpers cents '90s pro o well-designed program can take fall advantage of competition to decrease spending increase the value to beneficiaries broker it is time we tried it did we can find bipartisan agreement moving forward. >> mr. aaron is recognized five minutes. >> thain keogh

representative herger and you have written statement i would like to begin with what i think is the central issue that divides us that are opposed to the premium support the idea. all of us recognize there are four-- reforms to improve the operation. we will all like to see cost competition played the enhanced role. people like to see delivery system reform that has better quality and the lacoste and we hope they will work. maybe unable to. if not who bears the rest of

costs rising faster their projections? traditionally those risks are pooled across the population over time. under premium support those risks are shouldered by beneficiaries to our faced with higher out-of-pocket cost them sells. that is the fundamental choice that needs to determine a position on the issue per barrel some years ago we co-lead the term premium support with respect to a particular plan. more than the archer's but

the benefits to which they are tied should not the economic and in the 17 years since they put the idea for wordpro i am changing my mind. our applied to list a few reasons why i would urge you to consider us well. the environment of health care policy has been transformed. at the time the projections of the solvency of medicare trust fund was steadily worse and very near term. both elements have changed. in particular the passage of the affordable care act

means we put emplace a key element we are finding it is difficult to implement and controversial. they will succeed and are solvable probe of the population is more difficult we should prove get them up and ready before rehab the population but those innovations that we felt worse than it -- essential to the premium support plan.

at the time wasted no premium support should move forward until risk was kitna of that risk adjustment of revenues under medicare advantage has increased that is the time to see if it merits consideration improved five money the ada competition saves money, as the economist i want to leave that pork-barrel

they're not richard balboa to the solely extra payments made no more but after controlling for all factors medicare and vantage use moller from homes but the parties and benefits and the men below less than a believe competition will work and save money. the evidence does not support at this time. given the risks involved is seen as important to spread

the risk of spending across the general population rather than oppose them on a vulnerable group of people. the elderly with disabilities. >> mr. breaux it is important to get this out of the way at the beginning of the hearing. do you think premium support will quote end medicare as we know it? >> i think old debate politically we want to keep medicare and improved the delivery system i think everyone is committed to have quality health care but we don't have to do with under system formed in 1965. things have changed and improved.

of course, want to keep medicare big change the way seniors get delivery with a better product at a better price. >> he would say premium support does have the potential to approve the program and shore up prices with the ovation? >> yes. don't take my word for it. classic premium support system the carrot helps to pay for it it helps to said it up with the private sector competing with me suggest a program more popular today they and the congress that wrote it. i include myself. second, we have premium

support health benefit plan. that is a classic premium support. the federal verbum dei said seth premium support and also guaranteeing everybody that participate can negotiate for the price. >> is important to mr. antos to focus on what medicare is facing today. they just released the report this week. when do expect bankruptcy? >> i rely on the or to

public trustees relying on mr. foster as the chief actuary. but with parents zero os -- hospitals or other per april traders and then they're predicting running at of funds but under the high cost assumption that the trustees presented comment 2016 it. >> precarious state 2024

quote was the date to to issue their report we're closer? >> rear one-year closer "working closer together with a sense of urgency" pro now was a time to addressing the packet reform do you agree with this assessment. >> cancer. it is absolutely vital. >> ms. rivlin the plan you worked on with senator domenici is similar to the house passed budget with private plans that compete

against traditional fee-for-service. how can you explain how this controls cost not only for beneficiaries enrolled but also for traditional medicare? >> but also many structured change where the consumer can see there are lots of

new innovations how you treat people will with chronic diseases and evidence plans can offer better services to bring down the cost to treat medicare beneficiaries. we believe that would have been and through the bidding process the cost would not come down but not increase as rapidly. the fact the government, to be shin is both would be a benefit to everyboby. >> quality and service could

be higher but cost hubie more efficient improbably get better over time more people would leave. but there is a lot of evidence fee-for-service does not do coordination of care very well and coordination is terrible. i.r.a. use it. i watch that. looking at responsibility you are likely to get better results. >> mr. stark is now recognized by minutes. >> mr. aaron, with the medicare trust fund become

insolvent sooner under the republican plan of the affordable care act? >> it contains many provisions that extend the life of the trust fund. it is a major improvement but there is grounds of legitimate debate to bear everything would be enforced down the road but there is additional revenue and a host of payment reforms designed to lower cost. then it will be virtually every radio that they come up with. >> so without that the trust

fund would expire eight years later for if we have vouchers medicare woodstock been defined benefit plan to be a defined contribution plan? >> that is what i meant who bears the risk if cost rises? >> can i inject one comment? the statement has been made that medicare is the same as it was 47 years ago and it is not true.

it has changed in very important ways and pioneer debt payment reform and dads various people have noted, it does contain it one form or another the options for individuals to choose among competing private plans. >> railways suspected it was republicans those who march outside saying the world will come to an end. they cross that out to save medicare. 2024. i can't remember when they said one year and then when the trustee's report said 20. the fact is to change the

life of medicare cost to so little to extend beyond that 75 your target would cost less and then the 3% total increase or lifting the cap to those types of things. it hardly seems unless you strenuously object that sounds like a tax or a fee, but if you are willing to ask the public who will benefit to pay a reasonable amount over the lifetime my see no reason why it cannot be extended forever without

hurting job growth or putting the country further into deficit. does that make sense? >> gas. i would modify in one direction. i don't have a clue what will have been in health care and 50 years. what is the impact on longevity? trying to look ahead with respect to health care, of pensions are different, that is a fool's game and a bad day when the actuaries are required to look 75 years ahead. look 25 years ahead. there is uncertainty there. there you could close the trust fund gap with the increase in payroll taxes on

employee years bolar additional payment cuts through what we would hope is backed up in payments by delivery which is the colt of the affordable care act. the idea medicare's stance of the brink of a dangerous precipice it is simply incorrect. >> that 75 year target does not bother me. [laughter] think you mr. chairman. >> i would degree we have a tough time say will how been next year little on the 75. but 10,000 babies -- baby-boomers are now going and medicare

everyday. that is something we are aware of two hopefully in a bipartisan way work together so that it does remained stable for children and grandchildren. mr. ryan is recognized. >> i hesitate to say this but dr. rivlin i a agreed with everything you said. everytime i say something nice about a democrat they get a viciously attacked. i am considering to make a very nice comments about you [laughter] let's see if i can direct it to to you. i will work on that. [laughter] so to undermined premium support remember it started

as the democratic idea. the author was in incongruous so there is room for the two parties to talk. if we could call down we might be able to save the program. i worked with ron white. are probably just got him in trouble. first of all, last dain medicare reform, here so it must maintain traditional fee-for-service and needs to protect the low-income and have the strongest protection with adjustment to protect the marketplace. so this is what the committee tells me are these

the essential premium support to move forward. that hardly seems irrational but these are ideas we should talk about and various plenty of room were conversation. we need to put this into perspective. the actuary comes here all the time to say proprietors will leave the system the trust fund is going bankrupt. that is known now but it is so much smarter to get ahead of the problem to compare the programs so it is there for today's and tomorrow's seniors. one the new did convince me is we modified our plan.

it seems a far smarter way. give me a agreed -- synopsys why a bidding is superior. water the attributes and hardy you said it up? >> yes. competitive bidding among plans including fee-for-service medicare regionally with the metropolitan area are large rural area how this work is the plan offers their plan and a bit of the opportunity to serve beneficiaries with the same benefits the second lowest bid determines the government contribution.

if you to soloist bid you get the money back. to go higher you could. you could have maurer in the efficiencies it for having more benefits. most look at how can i get these benefits at a cost by can afford? and the denver mint means if you are in the fee-for-service medicare medicare, and you have the option of the plan was higher to move to one that cost less to get the same benefit. there are parts of the country that might be the best plan.

so that could benefit seniors. >> let me add something that the point* in some rural areas you don't have competition. you have to take steps to protect them we said no beneficiary has to pay more than the plan. you can take care of that to have a competitive model. >> five minutes goes past. >> thank you. >> dr. ripplewood looking at your testimony looking at a well crafted bipartisan bill to preserve traditional medicare and help achieving

the goals then you say the domenici refund proposal is similar to the bipartisan proposal submitted by a run paul -- paul ryan and paul wyden -- ron wyden said you would consider the plan to be premium support? >> yes. i do. and since the plan was incorporated there for it has passed as the premium support plan? >> yes. there are some differences with the budget of budget resolution is just a draft not a lot. it is it -- a bit in elliptical.

i support ron wyden. >> but the citizen takes the payment them purchases of product perseverance is been a fat the premium support but there is a plan that has a risk adjusted pavement to reflect your age and health condition. you do not know what passes for pro -- what that is. >> it was not about that and

have brian and plan is not dr.? >> not as i understand it. >> mr. thompson is recognized. >> thank you to the witnesses. there is a lot of agreement we need to fix medicare and make it work. that is the best news i have heard for a long time. it we have heard of your proposals but if we could see the details to get down in the weeds, until it

happens we will just spend our wheels. but a couple things for sure, as i travel my seven and county district i hear a lot from the people i represent about medicare and what they think. i hear them tell stories to juxtapose a medicare compared to their parents and they like what they have now. now i hear criticism. people say don't cut my benefits and keep your government hands off my medicare. i guess everybody did not

get to the memo it is non-government backed but nobody had said please go to a poacher's system to a wave with my defined benefit program. i don't think i am in the minority. at kaiser foundation agrees. so to provide health care to seniors and disabilities is not a huge moneymaker. i think it is important that we note to put belief and credit that the trustees just said the affordable

characters wang then sell life by eight years. if the cbo said we put emplace at the paul ryan proposal toast mundane grows faster under the proposal with the typical 65 year-old there is the increased cost up at 60%. can you comment the effects on society and what would it do to the greater economy? >> there is not a lot of difference with rising health care cost is a problem. and for that reason systemic

health care reform is the key to moving ahead. there is a serious risk a event on a large and significant element while not intending to the rest of the health care system. the key now is to move ahead with systemic health care reform. a lot of the land is the health care act. we learn new things as implemented and need to change it down the road. to the extent we do that we should be open minded to

consider the changes from what is proposed here today should be enacted and implemented that now is not the time to do that. >> i yield back. >> i would just like to of the size as our witnesses pointed out to the trust fund is going bankrupt. 20204. and is less than one year-ago purpose in your begin but hopefully scare terms like vouchers. i don't know anyone except

somebody on the inside that uses that term. talk about premium support which is bipartisan suggestion on how we could fix system and pre-serve it to. and dr. price is recognized for go figure for holding the hearing and i commend mr. wright and for his or educating people about the need for reform. but to put the lie four with positive suggestions and reforms but as a physician

icahn tell you that will soar pertain out there. with clarification to make sure people understand the proposal is guaranteed, it is stated in all of the communications rehab and in the legislative language. seniors need to appreciate we need to approve medicare in a positive way. but look at the current system in the real world. status quo is unacceptable. there are new medicare patients