come and say we're looking at a global model and talking about what will happen in a locality. ..ed, but again, can we just take the temperature down a little bit on this issue? what can bebout done and what should not be done to handle this perceived problem. recall -- we had a call from a republican who said he is open to some changes. are you open to some changes? specifically for the industries that you represent? guest: we are already ahead of that curve. we are investing in efficiencies. it is one of the scientific things that we really need to focus on here. our companies are investing in alternatives, and other things. but one of the problems is -- i think one of your previous this isalluded to it --

a global warming, and as you indicated, now changing over to a global climate change, it is not the lower 48 climate change. we could dot something unilaterally in the united states while the rest of the world is going to be dependent on fossil fuels for a long, long time? th are burning a coa a cold plant a week. they are barely keeping up with their demand. here here in the united states re pro prohibiting thewe a construction of the newhi coal plants it doesn't make sense to penalize when if indeed this is going on it calls for a global reaction. you are seeing what is happening in europe right now. they were the first group of

countries to sign on to the kyoto protocols. they were the first half to be able to meet the targets. in the united states we didn't sign on to the protocols but guess what the measures are the lowest they've been in 20 years. we beat the system. so what can we do while having a manufacturing renaissance brought back to the united states while gaining the leadership in economic development those are the questions that have to be talked about holistically. >> host: are you denying that climate change exists x. >> guest: the question is how much of it is man-made, how much can we control and what are the unintended consequences.

>> host: do you think the countries that contributed to the mission? >> guest: pr people. people contribute. >> host: but in the product of -- disco fossil fuels are the target. let's face it, co2 comes from the burning of fossil fuels. the question is what do you do in the need? i looked at the report and the models that they used and the report said and for lack of a better term and i hate to say it this way but let's call it the other side, the science is settled. science is never settled. how can science settle if it would still be for medical purposes. socome and the other thing, science but do they find they keep changing soviets to take a step back and say is this a

scientific document, is it partially scientific, partially political? and look at what can be done what's the point. >> host: the report was quickly labeled by the representatives from the oil companies such as conoco phillips and environmental groups such as the conservatives he does is a quote from chevron that recognizes and shares the concerns of government and the public about climate change. >> guest: as do we but is it based on total science or is it based on political science? >> host: what part of it is based on politics and political

science? >> guest: i read a good portion -- >> host: 840 pages. >> guest: one of the things that jumped out at me is that over the last 50 years the state that all of the changes in climate have been attributable to the man-made missions and the model they used t use to predict would happen, the models that are global models are looking at and predicting what's going to happen in the regions. as of it is a little disconcerting that every time there is a hurricane or flood the emotional parts of global climate change. we have been having floods since

noah. >> host: that disruptive weather has increased over the last 50 years. >> guest: they said when we had katrina and rita in 2005, this was a definitive time that we were going to have more and more hurricanes and the more intense year after year. since 2005 what's happened? the frequency of the hurricanes haven't been what they predicted that we are falling into that trap. the question is what can be done. >> host: usa today says that it's expanding its climate initiative which with rules to limit carbon emissions from power plants in june the environmental protection agency is expected to finalize limits and proposed last year the agency also plans to set

standards for existing ones which could prompt the closure of the facilities. some of the gop members have described the rules as they war on coal. what do the regulations need for companies like yours? >> guest: i would join in that choruchorus if i may. this administration has had a war on fossil fuel since january of 2009. i believe they came in with an ideology that we have in energy situation here in the united states and the policies were based upon the u.s. energy dependence on foreign sources and scarcity. that whole dynamic has been turned on its head because of what we can do here in the united states in with our friends and neighbors to the north in canada about not being energy independent and having our energy security. now you talk about them coming

out for existing coal plants. look what happened in this past winter. some of those shut down and we had this thing called the polar vortex. i'd never heard of it until last winter but we used to call it winter. what happened? we have the shortages people were scrambling for the supplies of electricity and natural gas because of that. what will happen? well the biggest expense at the refinery is the crude oil that we process. the second is electricity. that takes a lot of energy to run the refinery. so, when electricity prices go up which they welcome our costs are going to go up so the consumer will ultimately not

only see it at the meter at their homes, they will see it at the pump in their costs because everything is dependent upon energy. so it's interesting. what is ukraine asking for from its allies? natural gas and oil. they are not asking for windmills or solar panels or ethanol. they understand coming europe understands, vladimir putin understands that this world economy is based on the hydrocarbon molecule. the question is what do we do, how muc much in this report do e believe that we can do something about economically and efficiently and how much of the president's plans are enacted into these plans are we back

from 2009. how much are going to debilitated economy. >> host: with extra phone calls. human co2 emissions, solar activity and volcanic activity contribute to climate change. hard to tell which is the biggest factor. we will hear from joe in colorado where the republican caller three of you are on the air with the american picture of chemical manufacturers. go ahead. >> caller: your guests said one thing that isn't quite true in his reference to the science. the science says that nasa measure to the reduction of polar ice caps on mars. mars doesn't have the activity that we have here. they match exactly. so, what we learned was quite a

change is a solar event and that is what has been ignored. it's frustrating and arrogant people say we are not going to pay attention to this fact. people are going to start screaming the sky is falling because we know it is a solar event. we found out what it was but it's been completely ignored and all this other stuff is hoopla that amounts to nothing. we are running around like chickens with their heads cut off. >> guest: we are almost getting to the approach on this thing and again we should turn the temperature down and talk about what is risky for what we can do. i don't think anyone is doubting or very few are doubting that the climate is changing. the question is what is causing

it, is it man-mad that man-madet natural as you suggest that if it is a planetary thing again i havhave to float this on what we can do about it. now again, fossil fuel, my industry, the coal industry, the people that are providing the standard of living in this country that is not duplicated anywhere around the world somehow have become the targets of this and there's an interesting piece on the director for the industrial progress and to his credit he gave a paper called the moral fossil fuel. he states that something is moral if it helps society come

if it benefits society and makes people live longer or makes people have a better standard of living. if it keeps things down. if they can recreate. it's been fossil fuel. to some of the proponents of the shut down fossil fuel or go vegetarian or have anyone in the country about 110,000-dollar tesla may be nice for some people with some of the policies, you asked me what would it do to my industry we are pretty resilient. what would it do to the people the president wants to help the most? it will devastate them. >> host: house out? >> guest: the cost of everything will rise. it will bring jobs back to the

united states. remember i am not just talking about building a new petrochemical plant which is a good thing that we are going to do, but you talk about the supply chain. all the way down with these plastic pellets it will be again the economic dominant force in the world or we can implement some of the plans and continue to shut down and continue to say we are not going to run on fossil fuels and we aren't going to use gasoline or diesel price will rise into the poor will be hit first. >> host: the companies will no longer invest in the united states? >> guest: perfect example. you see what's going on now for 25 to 30 years people have been voting petrochemical facilities overseas. what has brought them back to

the tune of over $100 billion of investments in the united states and growing in the petrochemical facilities it has been a low-cost fuel. it's been because of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling and we have natural gas and natural gas liquids and abundance we can take advantage of it or we can see that and go right back to where we were 15, 20 to 30 years ago. >> host: twitter says science is our understanding of it that is not. mike, independent caller what do you think? is >> caller: i think they are trying to de- industrialized country. breaking it down on purpose by design they want to pay a global tax to the foreign bank to the

imf because the global warming is not even true. they are joking about it in their e-mails. hold on just a minute. >> host: we believe it very and go on. go ahead with a question or comment for the guest. >> caller: hello? >> host: you're on the air. >> caller: i'm from ohio. the amount of carbon dioxide has gone from 280 parts to 400 parts per million. that doesn't seem like a lot, but if this is what the effect of the climate change are having on the planet we earn $23 million of gasoline per day per gallon into the atmosphere.

it's not recycling this the same way. the ice sheets completely melt the oceans will rise 25 feet. we have increased 6 inches in the last 50 years. the rate of 1 inch per year is going to have devastating effects. you're not going to be able to get them back. >> host: jon huntsman writes today in opinion piece the gop cannot ignore climate change. it should be one of neither deny or extremism. science must guide a sensible policy discussions that will lead to well-informed choices which may been considering unexpected alternatives.

especially in the lobby also at least want an intelligent conversation on the subject. they can get to the place of science drives thinking and action and then we will be able to make progress. we need to plan for the impact at all levels of government. we need to empower the republicans needing those efforts to make decisions and investments in the party and the planet. uniting the science will only hinder the success. >> he said more eloquently than i did in the opening statement. we have the temperature down on this thing. let's talk about what's real and what are the right things to do but we also have to talk about what we fear are the wrong things to do. that's why i say you can't talk about, you know, industrial revolution in manufacturing renaissance and in a vacuum to

talk about this together. we are talking about energy predictions and requirements 30 years from now, 85% of that demand is going to be met by fossil fuels. can we do it more efficiently, can other programs -- this control of this administration would like to put on my industry and the coal industry and fossil fuel. people are living so close to the sure i'm not saying to move, but again, look at this thing always the best way to get this economy up and get jobs back here and manufacturing back to the united states and tackle

problems that are out there backs >> host: how about changing the petrochemical youth and thea switch to the hydrogen economy that can be used differently than? >> guest: you can't make petrochemicals natural gas liquids. you need the molecules and the hydrogen vehicle that didn't come to fruition for any number of reasons. if it is a stone or wood butcher chemicals. >> host: guest, c-charlie drevna of the american fuel and petrochemical manufacturers has a ba in chemistry from washington and jefferson colle

college. thank you very much for taking my phone call and i agree with the gentle man that is sitting here. goldman sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the great depression and he's good to manipulate this and the reason being it could become a carbon market worth $1 trillion a year and this gentle man is entirely right there are ways to get to the problem and to sit down and study it like it should be and then to labeevent to label it at

action by the white house is a lot more hot air. >> host: peter you are on the air. >> caller: mr. drevna i agree on your assessment of global warming. the issue that i want you to address and you just about touched on it on energy are bringing back many fracturing to the united states, this i believe is a ruse because right now it is illegal for the united states to export natural gas and oil. but the industry has been working very hard to reverse that through the process and natural gas. and also, they said by 2015 will be a net exporter of oil out of the country. this affects that because then the commodities, both of those commodities will be subject to a global crisis, global usage

crisis. for instance in texas oil is 13 barrels a dollar less than the global price yet we still pay the global price because we still input 12% of our oil. my contention is that if the united states wants to bring manufacturing back to the united states, we need a cheap fuel. and unfortunately what the industry is trying to do is -- there's an article in "the wall street journal" recently about gasoline but the price was being kept down because we have an oversupply here in the united states. now they've got markets and they've been exporting gasoline which has lowered the supply which keeps the price elevated. this is my concern and i do not believe the industry is -- they are barking basically in their own interest and not in the interest of the american people and i think we need to address it. >> guest: first of all, thanks for the comment. there's a couple of

miscalculations in your statement. i appreciate your agreeing with me on one part, but unfortunately i have to disagree with you on a number of things you said. it is not illegal to export natural gas. you just have to get permits to do it. they have 28, 29 permit sitting in front or they had 28 or 29 and they got three or four out the door that would allow the natural export. we build all of these liquefied natural gas import facilities thinking that we were going to be again, that resource scarce mentality. we have in abundance on natural gas. there is plentthere's plenty end like i said, ukraine -- now legal is a different story. it's basically prohibited to export crude oil in the invited states going back to the 1970s. that debate is just starting and it's a long way from being over.

but just exporting oil without looking at the parameters like we talked about on the climate change is above a number of other parameters the factors just have to be addressed before you have a total lifting of the ban. unfortunately though, the other thing -- the price of oil whether it is drilled in the united states or canada or saudi arabia it is only global markets. and that last barrel dictates what the price at the pump will be. we are exporting diesel and gasoline and more now than we ever have and we are the net exporter of the finished product of gasoline and diesel. without being able to do that, given the demand that the decline and the demand here in the united states a lot of those refineries wouldn't be working. a lot of those jobs would be

gone so it is a win-win situation where we are helping the balance of trade and keeping the refineries that are both efficient and in the processing in crude oil in the world, and we continue to supply the american public. unfortunately, if i may, if you look at what's going on or what has been going on or is going on in north africa in a serious and iran and is now ukraine and everywhere else around the world, imagine what the cost would be if we hadn't added a 3 million barrels a day to our own market. that is a global market. now we are not -- that's 3 million barrels a day that we are not required to import, but that's still out on the global market. in the united states we have been able to temper that cost which is still very high that we have been able to temper it. >> host: one of the viewers says please tell us where are

all of the automobile exhaust fumes have gone since the creation of fossil fuel burning autos. >> guest: there is no question the exhaust from an automobile if you go back to when henry ford first put the model out in modern times it went into the atmosphere. there's no question. you look at what is done over the years to control the missions and please let's not confuse toxic emissions of nitrous oxide and other pollutants with carbon dioxide. i think that is a very unfortunate comparison. but as i mentioned earlier if you look at the last 20 years, less emissions than we had 20 years ago here in the united states. the air is cleaner now. the technology has improved so

much. the internal combustion engine and how we formulate gasoline in the capture of the emissions the air is cleaner. are we where we want to be? know what we will get there. look out the window today versus, you know -- and again perhaps mr. waxman is going to be on later today. ask them how is the air in los angeles compared to what it was 20 or 30 years ago. is it perfect? know that we have made some remarkable progress. >> host: the congressman is coming up in about ten minutes. the current climate hysteria is a diversion from the economy and increases in energy costs and scandals. some say today the opinion pages and "the washington times" say this is a divergent from the exile pipeline trying to get some democrats, red state democrats who arstatedemocrats y thinking about voting for approval of the keystone pipeline to keep them in line

and voting against that. >> guest: it is the most studied pipeline in the history of mankind, but i think that the keystone exile pipeline is more of a symbol for this administration and the anti-fossil fuel cry then it is standing by itself. i would be shocked to think of the politics somehow played in washington, d.c.. >> host: in the "washington post" this morning the climate of the contradiction is the headline on the column. he says that as a part of the big increase in the oil and gas production we are back on track to produce more oil and golf in mexico and as for the environmental concern to the production, that can be dealt with through the proper appropriation application of the best practices to produce oil

and gas. it was a jarring juxtaposition. a new warning tuesday about threats to life, health and commerce posed by carbon emissions preceded by votes monday about the wreck or levels of carbon fuel production. if itould love it were indeed all of the above. it has been wind, solar, biofuels, whatever and very little none of the below, coal , oil, natural gas. the president has the power to say, look at what i have done in my administration. we are more oil and natural gas than we ever have. all of the production has been in spite of the administration.

if you look at the land that the president and his administration have control over. they are still off-limits to production. that is the dichotomy we see with this administration. host: we will go to south carolina next. , i certainlyncern agree with you that it is imperative that a recent discussion about climate change and its impacts -- insulted by the suggestion that by dealing with this matter regarding fossil fuels it is for the benefit of low income people in the economy, certainly, we would t expect to have a greater jobs and all than at the same time, the companies that you represent have made enormous profits for the last 30 years, triple digit profits, at the expense of low-income people who

must rely on simple transportation to get a job and can't even get to work in rural areas because they can not afford to pay for gas while the companies that you represent, and the others of this industrial complex that you talk about bringing back to america, are making money -- monumental profits. why simply not lower the cost of the fuels so that the regular person, the average individual, can buy gas and pay his light bill? >> host: nick, we'll get a response. >> guest: last time we had the federal government attempt to lower the cost of fuels backs in the nixon days when he instilled price controls. we saw what happened there. become a scarcity, a scarcity of supply and not an abundance. so i, listen, i understand the caller's passion.

i understand that the need to have, get more jobs here in the united states, get this economy going and get people back to work, but you have to understand that, first of all, these companies, while their profits may be, to some, large, you have to understand where those profits go. they go right back into developing new sources of energy, new supplies of energy. they go into paying of hundreds of million of dollars a years in taxes to the federal, state and local folks, and the employ -- this industry, the combined industry, oil, natural gas, refining, petrochemical, we either directly or indirectly support 9.2 million jobs in this country. just think, greta, and for the caller, justst think where the economy would be today, in the past three or four years getting out of this recession, you tell me where we are, if it weren't

for the boom in oil and natural gas production here in the united states. >> host: tom keller on twitter. regardless of human contribution to climate change, studies show the cost to adapt is far less than the cost to try to change. ken, in alexander, virginia, what do you think this morning? >> caller: there is catch 22. i think everything being said is skirting around one issue i think. that we have, you know, 1/2 tax i'm not going to blame nafta, 15, 20 years or so, we've seen significant spike in emission and fossil fuels but we can't control that because the jobs are going overseas. would be nice to able to control that through our own companies but we don't have the companies here. it seems to me if we would bring companies back, not just fuel-producing companies, companies like apple computer and all these people that produce equipment and things overseas such as electric cars are made in japan and china, we

would then create more jobs here. we would have better control over emissions of those factories because we have no control over the chinese. we have huge, huge, you know, walmart stores that sell nothing but overseas products, yet we have no jobs that produce any of the, any of that stuff that goes in those stores. >> host: charlie. >> guest: that is excellent point. if i wasn't clear earlier i apologize. we can bring a manufacturing renaissance back here it will not stop at the petrochemical facility. it will go all the way down to the supply chain all the way to the walmart that you mentioned. idea, in our mind set when we had a manufacturing decline in the country over the past 30 years or so, the idea was, well, make it there and we'll buy it here. , with the mind set that want to see, my industry wants to see, everyone wants to see let's make it here and sell it there and that's what the manufacturing renaissance can do for us if

allowed to develop our own resources, if allowed to have, to have the intellectually honest and emotional, emotional getting rid of kind of debate or talk on this issue but we can do this. i agree with the caller, one you know mers. we can do this because we have the resources. everything begins with energy. >> host: a few minutes left. we'll go to shane in north carolina. independent caller. morning, shane. >> caller: i'm doing good. i would like to address the subject that you know, i think people need to realize, no matter what kind of tax the government puts on carbon fuels or carbon emissions or whatever they try to bill us, the earth is heating up from the inside and proven by nasa and other scientists. i've been studying this 20 years. we have a celestial body coming into our solar system heating plants up from the back side, not just ours but every single one of them.

nobody is talking about. i talk to people that run the telescope and switzerland and australia. they have one coming back in chile, during the eclipse couple weeks ago. they confirmed it there is celestial body out there heating plants up from the back side with microwaves. there is nothing we can do about it. this carbon tax is something to get more tax dollars out of the american people. that is what needs to be addressed. >> host: mr. drevna? >> guest: i'm not a climatologist and certainly not as stroll gift. i would like to address the thing about cost of carbon. there is a lot of talk here in washington and other places, gentleman suggested a tax on carbon or something and unthe guise of social cost of carbon. that's a very, very difficult thing to address somehow. i would like to address what the social cost of not having carbon is. and you have, you have, i don't know how many people, you know,

85% of the planet still lives on the driest part of the planet. 783 million people on thert plat do not have access to clean water. 2 1/2 billion people don't have, don't have adequate sanitation. billion 1/2 people don't have electricity on the planet. that's a social cost of not using carbon. and i think, i think we have to address that. if we have so many limited dollars to use what is better spent? >> host: white house said you have to address the cost of not dealing with climate change and that is impact of this disruptive weather on the economy. this is their tweet from yesterday. extreme weather disasters fueled by climate change cost our economy more than 100 billion in 2012. >> guest: again, i'm not going, i don't want to argue with the administration but how do you, how, even science, how do you say that was the cause of that? or t this, this tornado in arkansas was caused by its

intensity, whatever was caused by climate change? i can unequivocally state though that the, that the 1.6 billion people who don't have electricity would like to have it and they're not going to getl it by windmills and solar panels.th that's, that's the dichotomy we're looking at right now. so if we have a limited amount of dollars to spend, where are they best spent right now, as callermo mentioned adaptation. but i would like to have people adapt to a standard of living we become act cubbings to manied to. -- accustomed to. only way to do that is with foss fill fuels. >> host: republican caller. >> caller: i commend you put on the spot here on "washington journal," especially after yesterday's announcement. i want to get a relationship between wind and solar. i've been in this business for a while and i deal all over the world and, the relationship with, with wind and solar in

germany, in europe and in the smaller countries up in baltics, have been a total disaster. the wind turbine companies virtually lied to these on exactly how much power these wind turbines put out. merkel can not turn off the coal plants or the lights will go off in germany. they have the biggest collection of solar panels probably in the world and the relationship between the fact that the ukraine is the biggest country in europe and has the most natural resources and they need ukrainian coal, they need west virginia coal. >> host: richard, i will jump in, we run out of time and quick response from you if we can. >> guest: he is absolutely right. ironic it was europe that led the charge on kyoto protocol and led charge on biofuels, switching from coal but who is the one of the biggest importers

of u.s. coal today? we can't burn it here and but germany wants it. this is, this is the irony and i guess irony mr. milbank wrote about with what mr. podesta, this is the irony we face here in the country. we can't burn our coal here but other people want to use it. those are the same people that didn't want anybody to use it. >> host: charles drevna, president of the american fuel and petrochemical manufacturers. thank you for your time. >> guest: thanks for having me and pleasure to be here. >> a live look on your screen coming up of, a live look of mountainview, california. shortly we'll get that to you. president obama scheduled to speak in about 15 minutes there at a walmart, more in just a moment. talk about what the house did today. full chamber passed legislation to permanently extend the research around development tax credit. that measure would provide no offset according to congress's joint committee on taxation which makes the credit cost

$155 billion over 10 years. also the house passing a measure that expanded federal funding for charter schools. the senate wrapped up work yesterday. their members return on monday and continue askings of an energy bill that would provide incentives for energy efficient manufacturing and promote energy savings in buildings. party leaders still trying to work out an agreement that would bring that legislation to a final vote. a vote to limit debate on the bill is scheduled for 5:30 eastern time on monday and we'll have live coverage of the senate here on c-span2 when they gavel back in monday afternoon at 2:00 eastern. >> let me be clear that i am not defending miss lerner. i wanted to hear what she had to say. i have questions about why she was unaware of the inappropriate criteria more than a year after they were created? i want to know why she did not mention the inappropriate criteria in her letters to congress. but i can not vote to violate an

individual's fifth amendment rights just because i want to hear what she has to say. a much greater principle is at stake here today. the sanctity of the fifth amendment rights for all citizens of the united states of america. >> i have never alleged that it goes to the president. i have said that the tea party would clearly and fairly be described as, enemies or adverse to the president's policies and i think that is pretty comfortable to understand and they were targeted by somebody who politics is with the president and who quite frankly was trying to overturn the, sorry, the supreme court decision in citizens united, in support of the president's position, using her power and with that, i yield back and urge support. >> this weekend on c-span, house debate on holding former irs official lois lerner in contempt of congress for refusing to answer questions about targeting

conservative groups, saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. and on booktv, in point of attack, john yu argues that the obama administration's foreign policy will harm regional and international safety. sunday at 7:30 p.m., on c-span2. and on american history tv, a look at newly unveiled restoration of george washington's mount vernon dining room, sunday night nightt 9:30 on c-span3. >> this country was built upon people who have come and emigrated to this country. some of them legally, some of them illegally. in my case i came in with no documentation and no ability to get a job or an education. so when i first came into the united states in the late '80s and i crossed the border between mexico and the united states, and that i'm coming into the san

joaquin valley to work as a migrant farm worker, it was no challenge to find a job. there were not a lot of thousands of peoples trying to get jobs pulling weeds with the very same hand that are now doing brain surgery. i was pulling the weeds. >> and as we promised there is a picture from mountain view, california, inside of a walmart. president obama is expected to make remarks in 10 minutes or so. if you look carefully you can see energy secretary ernest moniz, with grayish suit taking fixtures there at walmart. the president is expected to speak about a series of steps his administration is it taking to increase the use of clean energy and improve energy

efficiency. following a release by the white house this past week of a report that urges action on climate change. again the president's remarks scheduled for 12:55 p.m. eastern. we'll have them live as soon as mr. obama takes the podium, in just about 10 minutes or so we're told. as we wait, more from this week's "washington journal" segments on climate change. ♪ >> host: in the last hour on wednesdays of the "washington journal" we look at recent magazine articles as part of our spotlight on magazine series. today we're taking a look at "national geographic"'s may cover, the new food revolution. it is part of an 8-month series they started here in may, looking at feeding the world. we have the executive editor for environment at "national geographic." he joins news now to talk about this series. so what is the food series? what are you looking at?

>> guest: what we're trying to do is play a picture of role of agriculture across the world, how it has transformed the planet and what it takes to currently -- [applause] >> hello. hello, everybody. hello, mountain view. [applause] well, good to be in california. everybody have a seat. this is actually my third day on the west coast. on wednesday we went to l.a. then we went to san diego. we're here in the bay area but i have to get back because sunday is what? >> mother's day. >> it is mother's day. that is a public service announcement. do not forget it is mother's

day. i told michelle one time, i said, how come people put so much emphasis on mother's day and father's day not so much? [laughter] she said, every day other than mother's day is father's day. [laughter] which i thought -- [applause] -- kind of quieted me down. ii want to thank your mayor chrs clark for hosting us. [applause] i want to thank the folks at walmart. i know this looks like a typical walmart but it is different. and that's why i'm here. a few years ago you decided to put solar panels on the roof of the store. you replaced some traditional light bulbs with leds. you made refrigerated cases more efficient.

you even put in a charging station for electric vehicles and all told those upgrades created dozens of construction jobs, an helped this store save money on its energy bills. and that's why i'm here today because more and more companies, like walmart, are realizing the wasting less energy isn't just good for the planet, it is good for business. it is good for the bottom line. yes, see, we agree. [applause] and it means jobs. changing the way we use energy is just one of the ways americans have been working so hard to move this country forward. in the wake of the worst financial crisis and economic crisis in generations our businesses now created over 9.2 million new jobs. housing market that was reeling is rebounding. our auto industry that was flat line something now booming. you've got a manufacturing sector that had lost a third of its jobs during the '90s and

now is adding jobs for the first time. more than eight million americans have now signed up for health care coverage through the affordable care act. [applause] troops that were fighting two wars are coming home and rather than create jobs in other countries, more companies are actually choosing to create jobs and invest right here in the united states of america but we've got a long way to go before we get to where we need to be, which is, an economy where everybody who works hard, everybody who takes responsibility, has a chance to get ahead and that we have a chance to build an economy that works, not just for a few at the top but for everybody. that's our goal, the idea no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter what your last name is, if you work hard, if you take

responsibility, you can make it here in america and that starts with helping businesses create more good jobs. one of the biggest factors in bringing jobs back to america has been our commitment to american energy over the last five years. when i took office we set out to break our dependence on foreign oil. today america is closer to energy independence than we have been in decades. we generate more renewable energy than ever, with tens of thousands of good american jobs to show for it. we produce more natural gas than anyone, and nearly everybody's energy pill is lower -- bill is lower because of it. so our carbon emissions that cause climate change. we set new fuel standards for our cars and trucks so they will go twice as far on a gallon of gas by the middle of the next decade. that saves a typical family about $8,000 at the pump and for the first time in nearly 20 years america produces more oil

here at home than we buy for other countries. so we're producing more traditional energy but we're also becoming a leader in the energy sources of the future. we're becoming a global leader in solar thanks in part to the invests we made in the recovery act. over the past few years the cost of solar panels have fallen by 60%. solar installations have increased by 500%. every four minutes another american home or business goes solar. and every panel is pounded into place by a worker whose job cast not be shipped overseas. so today no matter where you live or where you do business solar is getting cheaper around it is getting easier to use than before. with more businesses and rural cooperatives and homes choosing solar, prices keep coming down.

manufacturers keep getting more innovative and more jobs are created. last year jobs in the solar industry increased by 20%. well we've got more work to do and i want to work with congress to do it. unto northly congress has not always been as visionary on these issues as we would like. it can be a little frustrating but in this year of action wherever i can go ahead and create my own opportunities for new jobs i'm going to take it. so far i have taken more than 20 executive actions from launching new hubs to attracting more high-tech manufacturing jobs to america, to reforming our job training programs, to make sure more americans are getting skills they need to fet get jobs that exist right now. so today here at walmart i want to announce a few more steps that we're taking that will be good for job growth and good for our economy and we don't have to wait for congress to do.

they will be steps that generate more clean energy, waste less energy overall and leave our kids and grandkids with a cleaner, safer planet on the process. let me list these out. number one, we know that making buildings more energy efficient is one of the easiest, cheapest ways to create jobs, save money and cut down on harmful pollution that causes climate change. it can save our businesses of tens of billions of dollars a year on their energy bills and they can then use that money to grow and hire more folks. it would put construction workers back to work, installing new systems an technologies some this is what you call a win-win. so that is why three years ago i announced what we call the better buildings initiative. it is an ambitious plan to improve the energy efficiency of america's commercial buildings by 20% by the year 2020. and already we've got 190 businesses and organizations that signed on. on average they're on track to

meet their goal, cutting energy use by 2 1/2% every single year. together they have already saved $300 million in energy costs. so we know it works. that's why over the past few months i've been pick up the phone and receiving out to more leaders to get them on board and today they're stepping up. from cities, school districts, businesses, universities, you're seeing folks move on energy efficiency. gm is pledging to improve energy efficiency in 31 plants. university of virginia is doing same thing in its buildings. cities like little rock, kansas city and detroit are replacing regular street lights with more efficient leds. and at walmart you committed to reducing energy consumption across50 million square feet of space. that's a lot. that's enough to cover more than half of the city of san francisco.

taken together, this is going to make a difference and it's the right thing to do for the planet but it's also the right thing to do for the bottom line. because when you save that money you can pass that money back to consumers in the form of lower prices, or, you can use it to create more jobs. so folks in the private sector are doing their part to create jobs and reduce pollution and cut waste. i'm making sure the federal government does its part. two years ago i ordered $2 billion in energy upgrades to federal buildings. today i'm ordering an additional $2 billion in upgrade over the next lee years. -- three years. these upgrades will create tens of thousands of construction jobs and save taxpayers billions of dollars. the department of energy is putting a new, efficiency standard, set of efficiency standards in place that could save businesses billions of dollars in energy costs and cut carbon pollution and it is equivalent of taking 80 million cars off the road and i want to

take ernie moniz, secretary of energy and secretary sean donovan of hud who are here today because they showed extraordinary leadership on these issues. that is worth applauding. [applause] so that's the first announcement. cities, schools, businesses, federal government, we're all going to pledge to waste less energy and we have concrete strategies that we know work. second announcement, is about more americans coming together to use more clean energy. last month i called up leaders from a whole range of industry, and made the economic case for why solar is a good idea and they listened. and today, more than 300 organizations from homebuilders, to affordable housing owners, to companies like home depot and apple announced that they are going to expand the use of solar energy, thereby creating more jobs and cutting carbon pollution. we've got public banks like

connecticut's green bank and private banks like goldman sachs ready to invest billions of dollars in renewable energy. the treasury department and irs are making it easier for renewable energy companies to operate and attract investment and we're going to support training programs at community colleges across the country that will help 50,000 workers earn the skills that solar companies are looking for right now. walmart has already got the most installed on-site solar capacity of any company in america. now they have announced plans to double that capacity. and it is all part of your goal to buy or produce seven billion kilowatt hours of renewable energy by 2020, somethinghahat could save walmart one billion dollars a year in energy costs. so we know that generating more clean energy, using less dirty energy, wasting less energy overall can be good for business and consumers.

it is also good for the world that we leave our children. so together, the commitments we're announcing today prove that there are costs effective ways to tackle climate change and create jobs at same time. so often when we hear about how we're going to deal with this real serious issue, people say we can't afford to do it, won't be good for the economy. it will be good for the economy long term and if we don't, that will be bad for the economy. rising sea levels, drought, more wildfires, more severe storms, those are bad for the economy. so we can'tt there is no reason why we can't even go further than we are so far by working with states and utilities and other organizations to change the way we power our economy. climate change is real and we have to act now. you know earlier this week i issued, or we issued a report

that was years in the making called, the national climate assessment. hundreds of scientists, experts, businesses, not-for-profits, local communities all contributed over the course of four years. what they found unequivocally climate change is not some problem in the far-offutt ture, it is happening now, it is causing hardship now, it is affecting every sector of our economy and our society. more severe floods, more violent wildfires. already costing cities and states and families and businesses money. here in california you've seen the effects first-hand. you know what's happening. increasingly more and more americans do including by the way many republicans outside of washington. so unfortunately inside of washington we've still got some climate deniers who shout loud but they're wasting everybody's time on a settled debate. climate change is a fact. what we know the shift to clean

energy won't happen overnight, we have got to make some tough choices along the way. and we know that if we do it is going to save us ultimately money and save jobs over the long term. that is what walmart understands and walmart is pretty good at counting its pennies. so that's why this fight is so important. that's why the sooner we work together adapt the economy to our, to this reality of climate change, more likely it is that we do right by our kids and leave a more stable world. and ultimately that's what motivates a whole lot of us. you know as americans we don't look backwards. we look forward. we don't fear the future. we seize it, we shape it and when it comes to energy, we have a chance to shape that sector that is probably going to have more to do with how well our

economy succeeds than just about any other. we are blessed when it comes to energy but we're much more blessed when it comes to the innovation and the dynamism and creativity of our economy. if we do our part right now to rebuild an economy in transition to a clean energy future, we will create new jobs, we will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we will leave our children with a better america and better future. thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. thanks to all the companies doing great work and not-for-profits, we appreciate your leadership. thank you, guys. happy mother's day, moms. all right. [applause] ♪ . .

♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ [cheering] ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ [cheering]

♪ ♪ [inaudible conversations] >> president at a wal-mart in mountain view california. president obama scheduled to arrive in washington about 6:30 this evening back at the white

house about 7:00. let me be clear i not be sending him. i wanted to hear what he had to say. i have questions about why he was unaware of the inappropriate after they were created. in the criteria and in the letters to congress i cannot vote to violate an individual fifth amendment right just because they want to hear what he has to say. a much greater principle is at stake here today. the sanctity of the fifth amendment rights for all citizens of the united states of america. >> i have never alleged that it goes to the president. i have said that the tea party would be described as enemies to the policies and that is pretty comfortable to understand. they were targeted by somebody

but politics with the president and quite frankly was trying to overturn a supreme court decision in the citizens united in support of the president's position using her power. and with that, i yield back and urged support.

yesterday a house panel heard from top executives at comcast and time warner about the proposed 69 billion-dollar merger of the largest cable companies. the subcommittee also heard from the chief lobbyist for the nation's small and midsize cable operators when prepared testimony warned against the threat of the merger could have two consumers and competition. the house judiciary subcommittee on antitrust law held at the hearing which also included representatives of small cable networks and internet service providers. >> the chair is authorized to declare recess in the committee at any time, however i don't

think we anticipate a recess unless it goes fairly long and we will have one for everyone's convenience. i now recognize myself for an opening statement. today's hearing is on the proposed merger between comcast corp. and time warner cable. the purpose of the hearing is not to determine ultimately whether the merger should proceed as proposed to be modified or denied. that responsibility lies with the other branches in the federal government. and most particularly it involves the department of justice and the federal communications commission. we are here to provide a public forum in which to discuss potential benefits and harms to the american consumer and to competition that could result from a merger between the countries largest cable

companies. in doing so the committee will perform an important function for the public that is historically provided for cement to the trust jurisdiction. the transparency that the companies open hearing serves a vital role in any association of the proposed merger's potential impact on consumers. one of the issues in the public examination of the proposed merger is how the size of the combined companies will impact competition and choice in voice video and broadband markets. as separate entities comcast and time warner cable now prospectively reach most of the country, although they do not really compete directly against each other in individual markets. if the companies were to combine the joint venture it would be the largest pay television provider in 37 of the top 40 viewing markets, served nearly a

third of all tv audiences and provide internet service to nearly 40% of all broadband customers. size alone does not necessarily harm the competition. in fact larginfect large companr resource and every day to invest in the merging technologies and achieved the efficiencies in scale. in its filing which is available for public review, comcast stated that it would deploy the capital to enhance broadband speed, expand the diversity of its program content and increase the avenues of which consumers can access content. size however can result in the ability to influence market in the anti-competitive manner. there've been countries in the economic history of companies that have used their achieved dominance to exercise

monopolistic powers. various parties raise concerns about the negative competitive implications of this merger and we will hear from some of them today. the purpose of my statement is often fully lay out all of the pros and cons of this proposed merger. that is what the hearing is for us to allow the witnesses to advocate. let me say this there are those that remember when you can count the number of television channels you can choose on your fingers and the number on the strength of your antenna. and you might recall struggling with the rabbit ears to try to improve the picture quality. we are long past that. if there's any industry in america that has had a revolution in the past 20 years, it is the cable and video

business or telecommunications business in a broad sense. we have gone from only over the air broadcast television to cable and satellite and now mobile and internet streaming. consumers have multiple choices. in fact there are some people who are only getting their content on the internet into some services and channels only available online. the structure and economics of the industry continue to rapidly change. so the challenge for the regulators is to determine how the consumers interest is best served in this evolving and exciting environment. today's hearing will give the witnesses an opportunity to share their perspectives and experiences to face each other and answer the question of members of the committee. it will aid that american consumers will be able to review and help the committee as we continue on the ongoing

oversight of the antitrust law and their applications for the antitrust enforcement agencies. with that i look forward to the testimony of the panel of the st and witnesses and turned to my ranking member for his opening statement. i would like to take a moment to thank you for your bipartisan approach to today's hearing. the comcast warner cable merger is to maintain the history of promote in dynamic competitive marketplaces and protecting the public interest through strong antitrust oversight. the objectives of the antitrust law or to promote competition in the markets and to protect the public interest. the objectives are very important. comcast does not compete directly with time warner cable

for broadband or video service subscribers. there's also evidence that this merger would substantially increase comcast concentration on any single market and due to the extremely complex process of building the networks within the competitors territory there is little to suggest that either company had planned to compete actively in any local market. however, it is clear that the proposed merger occurs at a time of immense disruption in the broadband and video marketplace through edge providers like netflix and amazon do consumers have more video watching. more than ever these companies recent success and original programming also suggest that competition between online video distribution and television will continue to grow and benefit

consumers. though the increased choice and quality and video programming is implicated, it will offer more choice and quality. though still in its infancy the broadband marketplace is also undergoing a period of staggering disruption. in 2013 alone, the broadband market grew 29% to 126.6 million subscribers globally according to the research. and according to the findings earlier this week by an equities research firm, google fiber's early success in the kansas city market demonstrates that the fiber surface could scale into 30 million homes over the next several years. i'm encouraged by the prospect

of this expansion considering the announcement earlier this year that he plans to rollout the service in atlanta and parts of the fourth congressional district as well as over 30 other cities. combined with a similar service from at&t and verizon, the rollout of the networks across the country promises more options for consumers online. it is a strong belief that technology is one of the most important tools for empowering all levels of society. we must keep an eye to protect future innovation within this marketplace. but this disruption occurring in the video broadband marketplace i therefore encourage the department of justice and the federal communications commission to keep this in mind

as it considers the effect of the merger upon competition in the video and broadband marketplace. before i yield back to the chairman, i would note that earlier this week, "the wall street journal" reported that the proposed merger of comcast and time warner is already having a ripple effect in the video and broadband marketplace. many companies already are looking for ways, for new ways to compete for customers. it's my hope that the groundwork that we lay out in today's hearing will serve as a strong foundation for future hearings on competition in the dedication co and broadband marketplace. with that, i would yield back. >> thank you, mr. johnson. i would now like to recognize the full committee chairman, our subcommittee on antitrust,

regulatory reform and commercial law is a subcommittee of the judiciary committee and this time i recognize the chairman of the judiciary committee for his own opening statement. >> cable television and internet havtheinternet have become as an as baseball and apple pie. we watched the events of the nation cheer on the teams and follow the favorite characters and on occasion we glimpsed through history changing before our eyes on television. the internet is used to connect family and friends, doctors and patients, teachers and students, cable and the internet. portals from our homes and offices to the world and our vital component of the national economy. today the house judiciary committee will provide a public platform to discuss the proposed accommodation of the comcast corp. and time warner cable to provide internet services to a

third of americans. given the importance of the services to the constituents and the economy, the transparency afforded into the record created by this proceeding is interval to the overall consideration of the merger. as we discussed the proposed merger, we should be mindful of the ever evolving nature of the relevant industries. the rapid technological developments that have taken place over the last ten, 20 and 30 years in the cable and broadband markets have been remarkable and unpredictable. we have seen the growth of cable from a nascent industry that just covered a fraction of the population and only offered a few dozen channels to one that reaches nearly every moment in the country and delivers hundreds of channels. now even in three d.. in addition to providing the voice and internet service. gone are the days of rushing to the living room to watch the news, sports or favorite show when it starts at seven or eight

or 9 p.m.. how consumers can watch content when they want it and nearly wherever they would like. these improvements have not come without a cost. cable bills coverage is -- have risen including a nearly 6% rise just this last year. consumers that have grown tired of the cable bills have begun cutting the cord and are looking for new emerging ways to receive the content. that is how the free market is supposed to operate. when the costs rise, competitors emerge and as they do, consumers have greater choices. today's hearing will examine whether the proposed comcast and time warner merger with impact competition in the cable and broadband markets and explore whether consumers would benefit from the combined scale of the joint venture. the increased choices and service.

it might yield over the key aspects of the cable and broadband markets. both sides of the debate today would allow the panelists to content each others. at the future of the industry. i look forward to hearing from today's witnesses on this issue. thank you mr. chairman and i yield back the balance of my time. >> i would now like to recognize the full committee ranking member, my friend mr. john conyers of michigan for his opening statement. >> thank you chairman baucus. to the witnesses when is the last time we ran out of tables i'm sorry we have only eight here today but we consider the proposed acquisition of these

corporations and the entity to control approximately 30% of the national cable market and at least 40% of the high-speed broadband internet market. it would also dominate 19 of the 20 largest geographic markets in the nation including new york and los angeles and comcast currently is not present. currently, comcast in addition to the cable and internet businesses owns the nbc television network, nbc owned and operated local television stations, the telemundo spanish broadcast network, nine cable

networks, regional, sports and news networks and nine major metropolitan areas and the motion picture studio universal. so, not surprisingly this year size and scope of the proposed merger which would extend well beyond cable television have raised concerns. several consumer groups including the public knowledge, the american antitrust institute and consumers union have raised concerns about the proposed merger, and i ask unanimous consent to offer a letter from consumers union dated may 72014 for the record. >> without objection. >> while neither we nor the

competition enforcement agency should prejudge any deal, there are a number of issues concerning competition and consumer welfare that they would like as many on the panel to address as possible. to begin with, witnesses should address whether the combined comcast time warner cable would have such market power that it could discriminate against rival content providers because according to the critics the company would have the ability and incentive to discriminate in favor of comcast-time warner content including nbc content and given that the entity would have almost 30 million subscribers, being able to distribute video distribution

network could potentially be fatal to the affiliated programmers. ultimately this could give an enormous sway over the kind of content that is available to the public. the witnesses should also address whether the combined comcast-time warner could emerge as a gatekeeper and verify digital to stifle competitive innovation as some critics over the alleged. recently netflix, an online video distributor signed an agreement with comcast that would allow netflix to directly access comcast customers rather than pay companies to carry traffic between the servers and

comcast customers. on the one hand this could be seen as a simple straightforward business transaction, after all netflix is responsible for a third of all united states web traffic. paying comcast to paid directly to traffic through other companies which are struggling to handle its traffic may simply have been categorized as a smart business decision. but on the other hand, netflix it self raises concerns about its agreement with comcast asserting that it was forced to pay comcast for reliable delivery to comcast customers. in that position to the comcast-time warner merger,

netflix ceo reed hastings and david wells explained that the internet business is a long-term threat from the largest isp driving up profits for themselves and costs for everyone else and that the comcast-time warner cable merger approved, the combined company would possess even more anti-competitive leverage to charge arbitrary connection for access to their customers. but the question, however, is not what effect the merger might have on netflix but the next netflix that might emerge as an alternative to the video distribution business. would the combined entity be able to use its potential

leverage over high-speed internet access to stifle potential competition in this way? so, finally i conclude on this point. to the extent that there may be competition concerns, i'm like the witnesses that choose to discuss whether in opposing behavioral remedies would be sufficient. as the condition approval for the comcast nbc universal transaction, the fcc and the justice department required comcast nbc to take affirmative steps to foster competition. including voluntary compliance with net neutrality protections as well as steps to benefit the

public interest. comcast has indicated that it will extend the same commitments through its proposed acquisition on time warner cable. additionally comcast entered into an agreement with charter communications to sell 1.4 million subscribers and another 2.9 million subscribers to form the new rival cable company. nevertheless they are concerned that the behavioral remedies imposed in the comcast nbc-u transactions were unenforceable to the extent comcast didn't abide by and accordingly, we should consider whether such tm commitments should be strengthened and made enforceable to protect the public interest with respect to

comcast proposed acquisition of time warner cable. i look forward to your testimony. thank you, chairman. >> thank you mr. conyers. i recognize the vice chairman of the subcommittee for his opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman. as a free-market conservative, i am on the record stating that i do not think government should interfere in business mergers if they do not violate antitrust law. and i generally support this merger and i don't think it is to be destroyed by excessive government intervention. however, there are some concerns that i am hoping will get cleared up during this hearing. the primary one being the impact that this merger would have how the programmers particularly independent and small programmers are able to compete in the marketplace and gain

access about gaining new ways to distribute video content that may make this moot that they are probably ten years out. you've got video on demand delivery by companies like google and amazon, verizon, microsoft, yahoo! and apple. obviously there is a potential concern that these compete with video on demand services and actually that are native to the cable providers. i'm also concerned again as i said about new companies and new programmers having access to getting on the percentage of the hispanic language market for the merger that would have been the overall national time even though time warner and comcast don't compete in any market to speak of, there is an overall national accepting price as there are more players on the

internet delivery game in particular what people expect to pay on a national basis 30% of the market there is a concern also over a cap time warner doesn't have. proving in a community that is served by the two competing cable providers. the capital cost of that is high, but as we are seeing right investments in fiber and by verizon and google and other companies, multiple options are becoming available. it's the short-term but i'm worried about. and i do hope that some of the witnesses will address short-term versus long-term competition and availability of the programs. finally, i do think that we ought to talk a little bit to distinguish about what is delivered in real-time and what is important to be deliberate in real-time, for instance the news

and sporting events as opposed to the internet content which is shifting more and more towards on demand or pay-per-view model for the delivery be that fruit d-v-r or netflix or itunes and the like. i've been looking forward to this hearing for a long time and hoping to get it all cleared up. >> we have a very distinguished panel, but mr. conyers made a remark about the people being so long. this was an attempt to balance the witnesses. when we add had a witness, youe to balance them on the other end. i hope that balance is fine. our first witness is mr. david cohen executive vice president of comcast corporation, where his responsibilities included the corporate communications government, regulatory affairs, public and legal affairs and

community investment. i guess in other words, everything. prior to joining comcast, in 2002 mr. cohen served as a partner and chairman asked ingersoll, the largest law firms in the country. prior to his time there, mr. cohen served as a chief of staff to the honorable ed rendell, the mayor of lafayette. mr. cohen received his ba from software college and his j.d. summa cum laude from the university of pennsylvania boston. welcome, mr. cohen. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. >> i'm going to actually introduce all of the witnesses and i should have told the panel that. our second witness is mr. robert marcus comiskey of time warner cable. mr. marcus as i said as the is e chairman and ceo and he served in a capacity since january 1 of

this year. mr. marcus first joined time warner in 2005, and since that time he served in various capacities including president, chief operating officer, chief financial officer and senior executive vice president. prior to joining time warner cable, he held hearings and positions at time warner inc. including senior vice president of mergers and acquisitions. before joining time warner, mr. marcus practiced law. mr. marcus received his ba magna cum laude from brown university and his j.d. from columbia law school where he was harlem fifth stone scholar and editor of the columbia law review. welcome to hugh mr. marcus. our next witness mr. matthew polka as president ceo of the

american cable association and 850 member nonprofit association whose members serve nearly 7 million cable-television subscribers, primarily in small rural markets. prior to joining the association, mr. polka with the vice president and general counsel pittsburgh-based star cable associate. mr. polka graduated from west virginia university magna cum laude and received his jd from pittsburgh university school of law where he was editor of the law school newsmagazine and recipient of the law school's most distinguished graduate award to read welcome to you mr. polka. the next witness, professor scott hemphill of columbia law school is a law professor at columbia as i said where his research examines the balance between innovation and competition sets by antitrust

law b, intellectual property and other forms of regulation. from 2011 to 2012, professor hemphill served as the chief of the antitrust bureau in the office of new york state attorney general. before joining columbia faculty, he served as a law clerk for judge richard on the u.s. court of appeals in the seventh circuit. and to justice scalia. he's a graduate of harvard college i and london school of economics where he studied as a fulbright scholar. he received his jd and phd from stanford university. so we welcome you, professor. our next witness is mr. alex grunes antitrust lawyer at the law firm.

mr. grunes advises on mergers and acquisitions and provides the council on the non- merger matters and represents a class before the court antitrust agency in congress. prior to joining, mr. grunes spent more than a decade at the united states antitrust division where he led many merger and civil non- merger investigations in a number of industries including radio, television, newspapers and motion pictures. he received his ba from dartmouth college and received his jd from rockers school of law and holds from new york university. our next witness is in mr. patrick gottsch, founder and chairman of the overall media group inc., the world's leading provider of multimedia content dedicated towards rural lifestyle. he doesn't wear a tie and the

representative asked me if he should wear a tie and i told him that we wanted him as a natural. if you are saying he doesn't have a tie on it's the prerogative of the chairman and of mr. gottsch. the media group as a parent company of a number of multimedia companies including the nation's first 24 hour television network dedicated to serve the needs and interests of america. before launching the group, mr. gottsch served as a livestock auction, the largest livestock option in the united states. prior to joining the superior lisak, mr. gottsch started the installations in nebraska which introduced over 2,000 satellites to the midwest and was recognized in the nation's

largest satellite retailer in 1987. before the installations, he worked on the chicago market change as a commodity broker. mr. gottsch graduated from houston university in huntsville texas. the next witness is mr. david schaeffer of cogent communications one of the largest internet providers. prior to joining coming he founded and operated six other businesses spanning a wide array of industries from communications to commercial real estate. mr. schaeffer's diverse background and business successes have enabled him to build management teams that operate on the facilities based on the oversubscribed multinational network of its kind.

mr. schaeffer received a b.s. in physics from the university of maryland where he was also a phd candidate in economics. we welcome you. our final witness is doctor craig labovitz. is that right? he is the cofounder who founded in 2011 and serves as the ceo and president. doctor labovitz is widely recognized expert on internet infrastructure security and cyber threats. prior to founding, he served as the chief scientist for arbor networks based in ann arbor michigan. his research with over 400 internet service providers and more than 70% of the internet

backbone traffic protected by the products stemming from his research. doctor labovitz served as one of the original engineers for the net which is where the internet as we know it today originated and that is when the six universities -- he received his masters of science and engineering phd from university of michigan and bachelors of science and engineerin in engine university of pennsylvania. we welcome you as a final witness. and at this time mr. cohen, we welcome your testimony. each of the witnesses written testimony can be entered into the record in its entirety. and i would ask that each of you try to summarize your testimony in five minutes. there will be some lines to guide you but there is no

electric shock if you go past that time, so don't take that as a traffic light. mr. cohen? >> we will try this again. the chairman, ranking member and a subcommittee members, we appreciate the opportunity to discuss the substantial consumer public-interest benefits that will arise from the merger with time warner cable. over the last 50 years, comcast has grown from a small cable operator with 1200 customers in mississippi into one of the most innovative media technology companies in america. we are truly an american success story. in a nutshell this transaction will give us the scale to invest more innovation and infrastructure so that we can compete more effectively with our mostly larger global competitors including dish,

apple and google as were referenced in so much rope in a statement. and when we invest us of our competitors. at&t for instance has said that this transaction puts a heightened sense of urgency on competitors to invest more in their networks and improve service. the ultimate beneficiary of the enhanced competition and greater investment is the american consumer. specifically comcast will bring time warner cable residential customers faster internet speeds, more programming choices, more robust wifi, and the best in class operating system. business customers will benefit as well. we will also expand the planned internet essentials program which is already connected 1.2 million low income americans to the internet, more than any program of its kind in the nation. and we will extend many other public-interest benefits from

the nbc universal transaction to the time warner footprint including the commitments to the university and to an open internet. more investment, faster speeds, better technology, more americans connected. even with these compelling benefits, we recognize that the questions arise whenever the two big companies combine. let me address some of them briefly. americans are benefiting today from the robust competition. 97% of the homes in america are in tracks where at least three competitors offer fixed or mobile broadband internet services and 99% of american homes have access to at least three multichannel video providers. objectively cover the transaction is very straightforward from the antitrust perspective. as the ranking member johnson said, the two companies don't compete for customers anywhere.

they have the same choices in the broadband internet providers after this transaction as before. nor will comcast have undue power. we announced the transaction charter to divest almost 4 billion customers thereby reducing the number of our customers to approximately 29 million below the 30% share of the multichannel video subscriber, multichannel video subscribers. some history here. the fcc has twice concluded that a 30% ownership was justified to prevent a single cable operator from yielding undue control over programmers. but the federal courts twice rejected that saying that no cable operator could exercise market power at 30%. nevertheless we will remain below that level that finds its

way essentially the same share of the market we had after our at&t broadband and transactions in the first decade of the 21st century. comcast is a company that keeps its promises and plays fair. since our nbc universal transaction, we have successfully negotiated dozens of agreements for nbc universal content without any withholding of content from consumers and no arbitrations have been needed under the provisions of the nbc universal. we also play fair in the exchange for internet traffic by which sometimes is called internet connection. this is distinct from the isp market and the two markets should not be analytically completed as some will try to do. for 20 years we have successfully negotiated very common business arrangements with thousands of companies that connect to the network's including direct interconnection agreements with content

providers such as netflix. other isps do the same thing. the internet market is fiercely competitive with dozens o playes and their prices have plummeted by 99% over the last 15 years. nothing in this transaction will affect the competitiveness of the market. comcast wants to bring more investment technology and services to more american homes and businesses are you doing soo will incentivize our competitors to invest more which will benefit still more consumers. we have a track record as a fair competitor and as a company that over delivers on its promises. thank you very much for the opportunity to appear here before today. >> at this time you are recognized. >> printing member conyers,

ranking member johnson, members of the committee i appreciate the opportunity to testify today about the proposed transaction between comcast and time warner cable. i agree with david's assessment accommodatiothe combination of o companies will create a dynamic company poised for the 21st century bringing new choices to consumers and spurring competition in the marketplace. this transaction will give the companies a greater scale told right investments in r&d, infrastructure, software. investments will bring more consumers next-generation technologies more secure and reliable networks, faster broadband speeds and enhanced video and voice services. the combination of content also will bring new competitive choices to business customers that neither company could serve on its own. not only will the merger drive the investment of the new comcast, but it will also drive investments in innovation from the competitors area to consumers will be the

beneficiaries. and as david explained, this transaction will achieve these benefits without reducing competition in any way because comcast and time warner serve as distinct geographic areas. to be clear, consumers will have the same choices of providers after the transaction as before. the video broadband and voice businesses have never been more competitive. today in nearly every market consumers have at least three and in many cases four or more video providers. for years now the satellite providers direct tv and dish offered video nationwide. verizon and at&t offer video and a significant portion of the footprint. google has launched a video in several markets and has announced plans to expand the offering. at the same time there are an increase of national

over-the-top providers including netflix which now has over 33 million customers in the u.s. and google video websites that attract over 157 million unique visitors each month. especially because of the increased competition in the video distributors, programmers including small independent programmers have more options reaching consumers than ever before. time warner cable and comcast kerry scores of independent or grabbing networks and i'm confident that the company will continue to be a leading platform for such content. as the larger programmers their ability to impose a significant price increasesignificantprice r demonstrates their extraordinary bargaining leverage. programming costs and time warner cable per subscriber will write 10% this year and i have no doubt large programmers continue to negotiate from a position of strength after transaction.

with cable facing competition from large broadband providers such as at&t and verizon rapidly expanding services from google fiber and increasingly robust mobile wireless broadband services. in fact recenimpact recent annoy both at&t and google support how quickly the marketplace is evolving. just last month at&t named the 100 candidate cities for broadband speeds of up to one gigabit per second. in february, google stated that its targeted an additional 34 cities for its broadband service. i would also note that the global wireless is rapidly becoming a viable alternative in the cable broadband given the ever-increasing capabilities of lte and advances of compression technology. the market for voice is also flush with competition with landline mobile and a growing number of over-the-top services such as skype is relatively new entrants into the voice business, comcast and time

warner cable contributed meaningfully to the competitiveness of the market and will continue to do so as a combined company. this transaction will also create new enhanced competition in the business market. commercial services traditionally have been dominated by income than such as at&t and verizon that leverage their scale and scope to provide the end-to-end services of the businesses increasing demand. time warner cable gained a foothold with small and medium-size businesses, however, the ability to compete effectively in the dominated business of serving larger multi-regional businesses has been constrained by the limited geographic for print. this transaction will significantly boost competition, commercial services like giving the combined company greater scale a broad geographic footprint and efficiencies necessary to meet the needs of business customers. especially the super regional enterprises to demand a broader network footprint. succumb in summary, today's dynamic and ever evolving marketplace, it presents both

challenges and new opportunities. enabling the new comcast to compete with greater scale will yield more competition and a significant benefits for the consumers and businesses. thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you mr. marcus. the heat was on in here when i arrived, and i have asked them to turn on the air conditioning, which i understand has now kicked on. but have any of the witnesses in the audience particularly if you completed your testimony and you want to slip off your coat or prior to giving your testimony if you want to take off your coat, you may save yourself a lot of shine when you give your testimony. [laughter] so i would invite and encourage anyone who wants to do that to do that.

the analogy of being on the hot seat. >> this is a hotter hot seat than normal and it was not intended that way. i think sometimes he does turn up but we don't do that. >> it's not stress, it is hot in here. >> the proposed combination of comcast and time warner cable would lead the league collator divestitures on the charter is a big deal that threatens consumers and competition. the fact i want you to know is that this is a complicated deal that will negatively impact your constituents and the fcc and the

department of justice adopted the robust release it shouldn't be approved. to begin with it's important to realize comcast is more than the largest pay-tv provider. it's also a very large programmers through its ownership of the television network and the owned and operated stations with 13 regional sports networks and many popular cable networks. time warner cable is a very large operator in a large programmer for its ownership and/or its control of 16 regional sports networks including those in new york and los angeles. ..