no action is a choice. it's a choice that means we leave to chance the future we want and opt out of the solution to a problem that we are a big prop -- part of. we like to speak of american exceptionalism and we want to be truly exceptional with should begin the difficult task of leading the world away from the unacceptable effects of our increasing appetite for fossil fuels before it's too late. this is an extremely complex problem and the solutions are not straightforward. we believe this is the scuse for complacency are not stepping up to our responsibility. >> thank you very much mr. ruckelshaus. governor whitman. could you turn your microphone on? i think you need to hit the button. ..

that are still taking place. the issue has been settled. the epa does have the authority bill in. the supreme court has said so twice. that matter believe should now be put to rest. given that fact the agency has decided properly in my view that it should act now to reduce carbon emissions improve the quality of our air protect the health of our people and is part of an effort to address global climate change. the united states climate change is not just environmental issue or an economic issue. climate change also has very real implications for our national security and those concerns must be an important part of any discussion that takes place. ..

my hope, however, is that the primary focus will be on the substance of the proposed rule and not epa brought authority to promulgate. that being said, it is clear that the act as it now stands is an imperfect tool to address the unique challenges that climate change presents. congressional action and leaders would be a preferable approach, but since congress has declined to act, the epa must. that is the law. actual -- since president nixon

created the -- epa in 1970 it has sought to carry out its mandate a balanced way. environment protection and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive goals. the epa has not always been able to reach a state of perfect delivery, i think we will all agree to that. it has, however, consistently struck a reasonable balance that out protect the environment and economy. from 1980 until 2012 the total emissions in the united states of six common air pollutant stop 67 percent. at the same time population grew by 38%. energy consumption increased by 27 percent, and gdp more than doubled in cost in dollars. more people consuming more energy emitted much less pollution without sacrificing economic growth. that is clear evidence of the balance that epa has been able to strike in the past.

further reductions are both achievable and affordable. mr. chairman, my hope is that congress will at long last to acknowledge that climate change is real, humans are contributing to it, and the potential consequences of inaction are far greater than the projected cost of action. we have specific and scientific consensus on this issue. what we need is a political consensus. the two parties were able to rally around a common purpose in the early days of the environmental movement of policy-making. it is urgent that they do so again. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, governor christine todd whitman. we now turn to mr. william reilly. welcome. >> thank you, mr. chairman, as members of the subcommittee. thank you for convening this session on one of the critical challenges our country faces. it is critical to appear with a

few of my predecessors and governor whitman who appeared after arrest. after i was nominated my first briefing was on climate by president of the national academy of sciences followed soon by briefings on epa reports on climate effects of policy options commissioned by administrator thomas. incidently 11 national academies of science since that time have formally reflected upon studies, climate, science, and have concluded that humans are affecting the climate and greenhouse gases or changing it. at that time climate science was a matter of computer modeling coupled with the reid, notably the greenhouse effect which explains why the earth's atmosphere is hospitable to life. at that time the concern was efficient to prompted the then secretary of state jim baker on is for statement on the topic test simulate policy of no regrets. we will consider those measures that address current priorities and also help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

the 1987 montreal protocol which lee thomas help negotiate is an example of the kind of thinking -- and that was 25 years ago. today models are far more reliable and are buttressed by literally thousands of credible scientific studies documented -- documenting changes under way. there are still many outstanding questions. the pace of change, tipping point, local impacts, methane emissions and more. climate is a complex system. we do not have a complete picture. we welcome serious, constructive teaching. that is house science advances our understanding of such complex issues. changes under way, and we can expect to see many more disruptions, storms, wild fires, pests and diseases, fever will arrive in america, storm surges that overwhelm coastal communities, heat waves and other impacts on health, water

resources and food production and on other sectors of our economy. the longer we delay the more adverse the impact will be and the more expensive it will be to address them. reducing greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon virucide, can help sendoff -- standoff more draconian impact that i increasingly believe we have a second, immediate agenda and props states, communities, and federal agencies to begin to adapt the likely changes and build up resiliency. dealing with flooding and meeting future projections for storm surges will be costly and add to growing demands on budgets. i chaired a task force on adaptation for governors schwarzenegger, and we concluded the 1100 levees in sacramento simply will i survive. climate change and associated

disruption, as has been pointed out, are a global problem. absent action by china, brazil, india, and other fast-growing economies, what we do allow will loss of vice. action by the united states is not sufficient and is nonetheless necessary if we are to have credibility to negotiate with other countries to typically follow the developed world and worry that carbon will forge their legitimate needs for economic growth. i must express disappointment that the debate between developed and developing countries tends to focus more on how much financial aid advanced nations are willing to blood rather than the substance of how much and how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in those nations. i participated for a number of years in the china sustainable energy forum. at first drop in 1990's any mention of climate change triggered a lecture about how those who caused the problems

paid for fixing it globally. as china has begun to experience serious impacts and water resources, it now is a matter of self-interest that they respond and join constructively in international negotiations even as they continue to assert the national interest and development. haas -- china announced they intend to have a cap on carbon dioxide which is obviously a response to the united states, a significant one, and a further demonstration of u.s. lead. markets the world over seat clean energy technologies, well over 1 billion people do not have electricity. for many it will be small-scale renewable technologies that will help improve the lives and offer new economic opportunities.

a fall and constructive response is needed from congress. in closing, i have little doubt the planet will endure major climate disruptions. there have been many such episodes in the past due to natural causes, but you have to reject the greenhouse effect out right to conclude that human activity pumping millions of tons of co2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year are having little or no impact on the earth's climate. that is simply not a tenable position. for me to question is how hospitable earth remains for future generations and four civilizations as we know it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, mr. william reilly. now we turn to former

administrator thomas. welcome. >> thank you, chairman, senator sessions. >> i think you may need to turn your microphone on. >> thank you, mr. chairman, senator sessions, other members of the committee for holding the hearing in giving me an opportunity to offer a perspective on climate change based upon my experience at epa dealing with many complex environmental issues during the reagan years. i have approached the issue using a risk assessment and risk management process. this is the approach we used during my time at the epa as we addressed a range of environmental problems, whether it was assessing the impact of stratospheric ozone depletion caused by claro carbons or the impact of lead in gasoline on children's self. scientific data and analysis were the first step in evaluating the risks posed by the problem. during my six years at the epa, i dealt with many contentious

issues. first, as assistant administrator two years and later as administrator over four years. i cannot remember any matter i dealt with during that time that were not controversial. some more than others. the issue of climate change is one that the epa and the global scientific community have study and analyze for decades, whether it is the intergovernmental panel on climate change or the latest scientific evaluation that was authorized by congress, the national climate assessment. there appears to be clear evidence regarding climate change and its anthropogenic foundation. we know that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by 40 percent since preindustrial times. we know that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are warming the atmosphere. we know that they have contributed to more than one-and-a-half degree fahrenheit rise in the global temperatures

says the 1880's. we know global sea levels have driven by an average of 8 inches since 1870 primarily from thermal expansion caused by warmer oceans. some melting of glaciers. we know that ocean acidification has occurred. coral reefs and marine ecosystems are being harmed, and we know communities and our country are dealing today with the effects of changing climate. in the state of florida where i live we see increasing saltwater intrusion and filch rating drinking water supply along the coast due to a sea level rise. we see coastal communities dealing with the impact of sea level rise on their drainage systems, a major part of the systems in south florida being impacted. the economic impact is undeniable, and the local governments struggled to address today's impact of climate change

while trying to anticipate the increased risk in the future. on a broader scale scientific analysis points to widespread impact across our country. they range from the depleted harvest in the pacific northwest that bill mentioned due to a motion acidification or the increased drought and wildfires in the southwest and a national climate assessment suggested with lange to climate change. given this assessment of the impact and risk posed by global warming, the epa has the responsibility given to it by congress and affirmed by the courts to address the risk management challenge. we know there are many approaches that can be taken and we also know that all of them are controversial. we know that gases that have been emitted will remain in the atmosphere for decades the centuries and recognize the solution will require long-term

commitments if we are to mitigate the effects already occurring and those forthcoming. we also know many of the solutions, some of which senator sessions has mentioned such as improving energy efficiency and increasing our lives on the low emission energy production. widespread a back -- adoption of strategies like these can supplement into national agreements to reduce emissions. in addition, a coordinated national and international approach is needed to assist states and countries, implement adaptation measures dealing with the impact of climate change already taking place today. clearly more action is needed to address the impacts while addressing -- addressing the larger issue of committing ourselves avoiding dangerous levels of future warming. the recent steps taken by the epa to.

there is significant mitigation measures. and once again, the position the united states to demonstrate international on an issue of global significance and confidence. and i would suggest to the united states is not taking the position and then international area will never come to fruition. thank you for the opportunity to present my views to the subcommittee approved -- >> thank you very much. before i go on to the next witness let me thank each of you for your service to our country in the challenging the office of -- for many years in addition to your testimony today. the return now to the doctor. >> thank you, committee chairman. i come here today as a scientist to since 1968 has practiced research on global warming and

its potential as human and ecological effects. some examples in 1970i developed a computer model of forest use from then to the present about possible climate affects on forests. in the 1980's one of my graduate students at it world visitation to major climate models, and in this new century are was the lead author on a paper analyzing methods to forecast global warming impacts on biodiversity. i published a paper comparing arctic sea ice in the 19th century with that of the end of the 20th century. i have spent my career trying to help conserve our environment and it's great diversity of species, attempting to maintain an objective, intellectually honest approach in the best tradition of scientific endeavor i have been dismayed and disappointed in recent years that the subject has been converted into a political and ideological debate. i have colleagues on both sides of the debate and believe we should work together as scientists instead of arguing

divisive lee about emotionally based positions. i was an expert review were. i want to state up front that we have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. however, it is my view that this is not unusual, contrary to a characterization's by the report sees environmental changes are not capitalistic or irreversible i hope my testify will help lead to a call or more rational approach to dealing with climate change cahuenga what. two reports do not promote the kind of rational discussion that we should be having. i would like to tell you why. my biggest concern is that the ipc 200014 white house climate change assessment report presents a number of speculative and sometimes incomplete conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific credit than they deserve.

the reports of scientific sounding lack established facts about the global environment. they would sooner argued the climate forecast by the global climate model is happening and will continue to happen, as you can see from the graph over here these predictions are way off of reality. extreme over emphasis on human- induced global warming has taken our attention away from many environmental issues they used to be front and center but have been pretty much ignored in the 21st century. there are ten issues, and number of which have been issued, including global warming. -- the internal challenges we face in terms of the need to act now, it is on these issues we should focus with the concern of a possible global warming

prioritized properly within that group. there is an implicit assumption that nature is in a steady state and of change is negative and undesirable. for all life including people. this is the opposite of reality. living things have had to adapt, and many require changes. the report gives the impression that we are unable to deal with change. the opposite. the report for policy makers repeats the assertion that large fractures of species based increasing risk. overwhelming evidence contradicts this. overestimates of extension rates surprisingly few species became extinct during the last two and a half million years. some of the conclusions are the opposite of those given in articles cited in defense of those conclusions. the white house climate change

assessment includes a table of 30 ecological assessments. climate change. i reviewed the study cited to support and found not a single one is supported by direct observation. the report states that they are declining in number citing a support of this. these authors state the contrary . the polar bear population never has had an estimate of total abundance. simply a qualified estimate, a cross-eyed guest given the satisfied public demand. some conclusions contradict and are ignorant of valid observations. terrestrial and fresh water echoes systems suppressed a quarter of the carbon dioxide

and treated to the atmosphere. i have done that for statistically valid estimates and can tell you that estimates of carbon uptake by vegetation used by ipc see are not specifically valid and overestimate carbon storage and up take as much as 300%. finally, to the ipcc report, the use that term climate change with two meanings. i have heard that today over and over again. of course the climate is changing. it is always changing and always will. if your statement is designed to be about natural change it is a truism, something people have always known and experienced. if the meaning is known to be human cost the available data does not support the statement. thank you, mr. chairman. >> next we will hear from attorney general strange. welcome. >> thank you, mr. chairman, senator sessions, members of the committee. i am pleased to be here to share

my thoughts. as the attorney general of the state of alabama, it is my sworn duty to uphold the rule of law for the almost 5 million people we have in my state, and that duty includes enforcing environmental laws that help protect our natural resources and the health of our citizens. one of the most important matters i am involved with as attorney general, serving as the coordinating council for the gulf states oil spill litigation alabama coastline was covered in oil in the economy was shut down for months as a result. so i understand firsthand man-made environmental disasters and the importance of sensible and effective in carmen regulations. with that said, my comments reflected continuing concern with this administration's approach to end firmer regulations. the fans of this proposal will be that the states of flexibility. providing states with a narrow

range of costly policy choices which most states did not choose for themselves does not provide flexibility and produces the same outcome, higher electricity prices and decrease legislation. repeating over and over again north flexibility is not an adequate defense or answer to low-income consumers in my state or any other state who were asked why they must pay more to reduce co2 emissions when those reductions cannot and will not impact the global climate. indeed, to prevent impact such as those, congress took care to limit epa authority under section 111d. given the enormous burdens that would be imposed by the epa guidelines it may be obvious that epa has simply disregarded the limits of the law. these limits are not

questionable or controversial but expressed in clear elements of the clean air act. first, the clean air act reveals regulating sources if they are regulating under section 112 of the act. the existing units are regulated under section 112. the clean air act also proved to five based on emission productions that cannot be achieved at individual facilities but instead rely on reactions that require actions by an entire system. epa proposed emission guidelines for the embrace of a system-wide approach to regulation. third, the epa has improperly attempted to implement the statutory delegation of authority to states, and in doing so the proposal not only reject state discretion but jettisons decades of on question of precedent establishing state jurisdiction over electricity markets. in conclusion, the state of alabama vigorously opposes the

epa proposed mandate to lead effectively restructure the structure as it has disastrous consequences. those consequences moreover what all stem from a patent lee on lawful implementation of the clean air act. they seek to expand the scope in an unprecedented manner and would do so at the expense of state authority that is expressly identified and preserved in the clean air act and in the unquestionable jurisdiction of states over intrastate markets and would do all of these things for no discernible benefit given the increased conditions of tried and devolved economies. there is no rationale to support such legislation. >> and now, finally, dr. mason. please proceed. >> good morning and thank you for inviting me to testify here today on this crucially important topic. my research specialty has been

market failures and crises. i began studying captain trade markets in 2005 as a system became a reality. i did so because of the preternatural bush among lawmakers to embark upon captain trade solutions despite widespread consensus among economists that cap and trade does not suit carbon emissions. with respect to german boxers medical analogy earlier i don't disagree with the diagnosis your bill with the proposed treatment you are all presupposing the treatment was known. it is not. in recent history no system, not the eu, are gdi, or california initiative has placed carbon levels prohibitive to emissions. they hover at $5, $11, and between those two. it is widely viewed that prices in excess of $30 are necessary. the reason epa proposal seems to be an attempt to specify

quantity goals instead of price goals. there are two problems with this. first, to control quantity one has to be in control of what one targets. the u.s. federal reserve learn this years ago when it had to move away from targeting money supply. it really had no effectiveness. in carbon markets the common policy of carbon permit fund ability has always rendered this quantity targeting unworkable. in a series of famous cases the eu high court ruled that the states have sovereignty over the amount to permits issued. one famous case when invalid permits infiltrated lunettes the exchange had to close for three days while the permits could be isolated and slotbacks could be arranged for them to be removed from the market. second, as an economist it does not matter which side of the price quantity coin you looked at. the effects of the same. quantity will go down only if price goes up, and when real

price goes up output declines and unemployment increases. corporations already forgo billions in investment due to unanticipated carbon prices. and states in which they operate will feel the effects. it is important to remember that those are not just oil and gas companies but companies like walt disney and walmart. in preparing for this hearing i addressed to the state epa goals a number of important variables. most importantly the regression shows that states with lag the economy is coming of the grim recession have tougher goals to me than others. certainly there are simple adjustments that can be made to mitigate the effects of carbon policy upon economic growth if we think for a moment. no government has yet accepted the lower economic growth necessary to meaningfully curb carbon emissions. officials know prices should go up but cannot bear the feet. in fact, in march 2014 they you

can't -- u.k. announced the government would freeze a tax on carbon emissions as part of a broad plan to cut consumer energy bills. while his party backs carbon conform consumer costs have become a campaign. it a similar issue is growing in germany, which has subsidized renewable growth, and voters are not happy. by far the worst effects of carbon markets have been the regulatory arbitraged, fraud, and theft. if we are not ready to deal with the existing corporate fraud and bribery, tax fraud, investor fraud, counterfeiting, money-laundering, hacking, and fishing on carbon markets that have troubled established markets in recent years we should not be discussing implementation in the largest economy in the world. denying the failure of existing policy risks raising prices without reducing output.

you in climate talks broke down this week over this simple economic fact. extending my analogy with central banking members of congress should remember the national monetary commission studied functions are on the world for seven years before concluding upon the design of the u.s. federal reserve system. let's take our time now in researching existing carbon abatement mechanisms before emulating demonstrably failed schemes around the world enriching financial industry interest groups at the cost of our economy while continuing to allow carmen to grow as a national and global problem. thank you. >> thank you, dr. mason. let me begin with a question that is prompted by the testimony by administrator william ruckelshaus. mr. william ruckelshaus, you described a number of environmental improvements that took place on your watch, and

you mentioned that inherent in all was powerful economic interests resisting control, to use your phrase, and you said that in all of the cases cited the solutions to the problems did not result in the predicted economic and social calamity. now, each of you have had the first hand experience of having to make decisions that were surrounded by fears and anxieties about, perhaps, dire consequences of your decision. each of you has made that decision and each of you have seen the consequences that they played out in the aftermath. my question to each of you, starting with mr. william ruckelshaus, whose testimony probably foretells is entered -- but to each of you, how did the

worst fears and assumptions of bad outcomes from environmental regulations turn out in reality as the rules were applied in your own experience? mr. william ruckelshaus. >> mr. chairman, let me mention one example. the congress in 1970 passed the clean air act which provided that in the law itself that by 1975 the cars would be 95 percent improved. the three main pollutants and law, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and mono dioxide. the claim was that this was impossible to do by 1975. i think they probably were right about that. an overly ambitious goal set by the congress. as an administrator, i was authorized to give a 1-year extension from the meeting of the 1975 goals.

we had extensive hearings, and we decided in the first instance not to grant an extension and in the second instance an extension was granted. by 1976 the use of a catalyst, most of the automobile companies were on the way toward achieving standards as required by the statute. the claims during those hearings and the passage of the loss were all that the industry was born to collapse, ford motor company predicted they would have to shut down their whole company if this law passed. are there was another flexibility and the law. where they needed to achieve the standards, and once they saw that the rule was serious and that we were going to pursue as vigorously as we could the achievement of the requirements into law, they began to focus on reducing cost.

and the motivation of trying to resist the regulation, resist the law that was passed by the congress changed from one of claiming the end was near to one of let's see if we can't do this and do it in a cost-effective way. and they did do it in a cost-effective way and we achieved the standards. there were some leeway granted by the congress after the original law, and today we have almost three times as many cars on the road. and the emissions from automobiles are 95 percent reduced. >> in my remaining minute let me ask you to fill in. if we have a second round i will ask you to come back and fill and. >> the best example i can give is when we were working on increasing the efficiency of air conditioners. it was absolutely impossible to take it. this was going to kill the

industry. we went ahead and found one company that said, no, we can do this. they did it. they started producing and had more highly efficient air conditioners. now everyone has exceeded those rules. about 23%. the ingenuity in the american system cap-and-trade. the minute that they knew that this was real and was going to happen, not only did we see a loss in jobs or dollars, we saw whole industry achieve levels that we did not think or possible. >> my time has expired. let me return to my distinguished ranking member. >> thank you. >> row, we have certainly made great progress on that . american water is so much cleaner than it has been, and we see situations in china. we know that we are proud of what we have accomplished. however, i would say co2 is a

different kettle of fish. it is not a pollutants in any normal definition of it. although, governor christine todd whitman, i will acknowledge they ruled otherwise based on ipcc data. mr. chairman, i would offer the letter from mccarthy from west virginia and regarding epa asserted the authority under section 111 d of the premier act to regulate co2 existing coal-fired power plants and a white paper from 17 attorney general and one senior and vermeil regulator to another state regarding the authority of states under section 111 d of the clean air act to determine standards as applied to individual sources. >> without objection. >> thank you.

>> the president on november 14th 2012 said the temperatures are around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted, even ten years ago. and then on may 209th last year we said that the climate is warming faster than anyone anticipated five or ten years ago. so i would ask each of our former administrators if any of you agree that that is an accurate statement on the climate? if you do raise your hand. thank you. the record reflect no one raised their hands. attorney general, one of the things that -- about what you

mentioned, this is difficult when we have assertions' repeated that are established by the facts. the same is true about hurricanes. you can't help the number of category three, four, five hurricanes each year. this is not a matter of dispute. we do not have more. they acknowledged it. we have a president and officials repeating that and the justification to hammer the coal industry and others driving up costs in the country. so attorney general strange, i have here a question that i wanted to ask of you, and i appreciate your appearance and your fine lead in the state. epa epa administrators today say that we need to act now. would you also say it is

important we act according to the law, and do you believe the epa proposed existing power plant guidelines are consistent with the law? >> thank you, senator. i appreciate this opportunity again. that is why i am here. my concern is that whatever decision the epa makes and whenever policy it decides to implement that it follows the law. i think that they fail to do this. i appreciate you introducing into the record a letter from my colleague, the attorney general of west virginia which goes into a great deal of the legal infirmities of this proposal as well as the letters by several other agees and bipartisan groups and attorneys general around the country. our goal is to make sure whenever the epa comes up with, it follows the law and respect the state role in achieving the type of regulation the country

decides it wants to have. that is the lane -- in the end, that is the reason i am here today. >> our staff has done a study on the federalism aspects of the epa, the clean air act establishing itself, a cooperative federalism between state and epa. do you think the proposed existing power plant guidelines adhere to the clean air act process? >> i do not think so, senator. in a nutshell, i think what the epa is attempting to do in this case is regulate at the federal level removing almost all the discretion that would normally reside at the state. in my experience -- maybe your experience as attorney general, regulators like to regulate, and it is an important role that we attorneys general ploy to ensure that when they decide to regulate that they stay within the bounds of the party. oftentimes if you are a regulator and see a problem or perceived problem you want to

regulate and are naturally trying to exert on as much authority as you think is there and perhaps more. we think that is what is occurring in this case. that is why it is important to me and attorney general across the country. >> we turn now to chairman boxer. >> thank you so much. i will go rapid-fire. dr. mason, when you talk you so remind me of the alarms we heard in the 70's and 90's over the clean air act. the state's undergoing a boon in clean energy jobs. i am here to say, i am going to send you some of the statistics that the hon. christine todd whitman put out because i want to know if you think there are incorrect. from 1980-2012 the total emissions in the u.s. of six common air pollutants dropped by 67 percent, population grew by 38 percent, energy consumption

increased 47%, gdp more than doubled. and i checked. jobs increased 88%. i am going to send that to you for commentary. again, we have always heard this every time there is an initiative and it turns out to be completely wrong. alarmists are wrong. now, i also want to ask our four hon. epa folks to just tell me if they agree with this. that is, senator sessions and i have -- he is my friend, and we respect each other. we have a disagreement on carbon. he says this is not a pollutant that hurts you. there is an endangerment finding started under george w. bush and completed under barack obama. then there was a national climate assessment which was required by law. republicans voted for that 100-

100-0. in this particular assessment it calls out the dangers of carbon pollution and says it will increase overall. asthma will increase, household admissions -- to "it directly, climate change is expected to harm human health by increasing ground level ozone. they specifically cite more carbon pollution as increasing global temperatures, increasing premature death and worsen the ozone particle pollution. is there any one of the four of you that has a problem with that analysis? okay. let the record show that they agree with that analysis. now, i want to talk to my friend from alabama. i want to ask you this question. i have great respect for your office and opinion, but isn't it true that alabama lost all

recent major clean air act cases alabama lost its recent challenge to epa cross state air pollution rule in the supreme court. alabama lost its recent challenge to mercury and toxic air rules in the d.c. circuit, the white versus dahlia case, lost a challenge to the epa endangerment finding in the case of coalition for responsible regulation. isn't that a fact? >> i do not doubt what you are saying, senator. again not recall. >> you don't recall losing the case? >> i do, and i think you're right. yes ma'am. >> okay. i think that is important. let me ask a question to mr. mr. thomas. i know you have talked about the impact in your home state of florida, but you are already seeing. i had the privilege of going in a helicopter over the miami region, and it is just -- when

you see how much is there it takes your breath away. i wonder if you could talk about how local communities in the state of florida are joining together to address the growing impact of climate change, and to many of these local actions have bipartisan support? let me just ask mr. thomas. i only have 58 seconds left. >> senator, particularly in the south florida area, miami area, six counties have basically come together specifically to work on an adaptation measures dealing with the problems already being phased. as i indicated, salt water intrusion, the drainage systems, how to, in fact, deal with today's problems. average sea level rise about 8 inches has a significant impact. you are talking about areas that up because of their level above sea level but because of the

terrain and the subsurface, the limestone subsurface causes a significant issue. so we see local government struggling with the issue, spending significant amounts of money, and my sense is, that is going to be an expanding issue and problem, particularly in the south florida area in the near term. i met with a group in the miami area including scientists who participated in the ipcc process , and their concern is what is happening today and how it will be exaggerated over the next ten years. they're not talking long-term. >> let me close by letting everyone know, when it comes to environment we have differences. when it comes to preparing we have come together.

i wanted to mention that we have taken steps for our coastal states and the sacramento issue that you mentioned. >> senator. >> it is not in order. you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. well, as always, i am frustrated at some of the cartoonish nature of the assertions going after straw man instead of having a detailed, serious discussion. i think the senator's comments and explanation of the 97 percent figure really goes to that. 97 percent believe in this consensus about climate change, however it is defined that virtually all of the republican members of this committee would be among the 97%.

i hope that we can get beyond going after straw man having the sort of cartoonish conversations with that theme of science, real science, discipline, let me start there. of all of our panel's with graduate advanced degrees? okay. so let me ask you, you know, in my opinion one of the areas with cartoonish climbs and outlandish claims is about severe weather multiplying every day. in fact, what is the historical record about the severity and frequency overall of hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods? >> that's fine. you are on now. >> as you have in past testimony

, the analysis shows that these have not increased in terms of major storms. and so the specific question, there has not been an increase in tornadoes and major storms according to his analysis. >> i . that out because it is one of the most common rallying cries about this cartoonish debate. also, let's talk about real science. we have here obviously a huge issue, which is, whenever we do, what is the rest of the world doing? these posters illustrate what is being done, but there are other countries that are a major factory. so with this in mind, will the epa rules as currently constructed have a significant effect on global average temperatures or sea level rise? >> well, the analyses if the

united states acts alone it will have an insignificant effect, but that leaves open whether this is supposed to be a action or a scientific effective. it will have a minor effect. >> okay. thank you. >> could i make a comment about sea level rise? >> sure. >> go ahead. very briefly. time is limited. >> most of the comments were about sea level rise. it is well-known to geologists, oceanographers that the sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age, 12,500 years ago. the average estimated rate has been a century. that is natural background. the mention specifically by one of the senators was that it has risen 10 inches in one place since 1930. actually, that is within the

natural background. >> i don't mean to cut you off, but this is limited time. >> that is completely natural. >> are perry. let's go on to the other big impact that we can measure, economic impact. dr. mason, this is not a theoretical discussion. europe has basically been living this over the last 10-plus years and is in the process of essentially reversing course. the new york times, you are facing economic pain. bloomberg news, kohl returns to german utilities replacing low- cost nuclear. the guardian, soaring energy and housing costs poor's homes to turn to food banks. renewable energy in spain is taking a beating. what should we observe and learn about that european experience?

>> i think you have to acknowledge that in terms of the treatment in this medical analogy hydrocarbon policy has been the equivalent of medieval bloodletting. it has not worked. it is not constraining emissions in world markets, and it -- there are two things that you have to notice. there is already a market- developed -- market developed not only to argue against taking action with respect to carbon but a market developed in setting up these financial trading desks that trade carbon that want to lobby to undertake this option. it is a strong and a large industry right now, and there are interest groups pushing for this as a solution that, in fact, will not work. >> senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am going to go to the epa

administrators. thank you for your service. i have a chart of u.s. gdp since the great depression in 1929. president johnson signed the first clean air act into law in 1963. it was amended in 1970 and 77 as indicated on the chart. i would just like to get a quick answer from each of you. as gdp gone up or down since each of these clean air -- >> senator, it has gone up. >> thank you. governor? >> i cannot disagree with that. it is fact. >> the clean air act amendment that we were responsible for were followed by ten record-7 years. >> interesting. >> you would not say that. >> thank you.

mr. thomas. >> i agree. >> do you think that finding new ways of dealing with climate change and actually create jobs in the economy by unleashing innovation in that marketplace to accomplish that goal? >> there is no question it will create jobs and an impact on existing employment. >> i look on it as not only creating new jobs in renewal will fields that we have not talked about, but one industry already is producing a lot of jobs and could produce a lot more, and that is the nuclear industry which releases no greenhouse gases or other regulated pollutants while producing power. >> the 1990 amendments created an enormous number of jobs of the natural gas and western crinkle. >> without question jobs would be created. on the other hand it will impact

jobs, and we have a responsibility to focus on how we provide assistance to those whose jobs are being impacted. >> let me move to another example, the regional greenhouse gas initiative across the northeast in terms of the impact of that has had in reducing greenhouse gases and at the same time overlapping with an economy across the northeast as continue to grow over those years. since it was put in place there has been a reduction in greenhouse gases in those states on average rate was put in place in addition it has helped to save consumers money, creating jobs, and generated over $750 million in economic value in the state of massachusetts

since 2013. i would like to submit all of that economic data for the record. >> without objection. >> maybe governor whitman, maybe you could talk about that issue, job creation and especially since it seems to be a core argument here, using medieval bloodletting terms to describe the impact since the states have actually seen economic growth. >> thank you, senator. i think it is absolutely fair to say that there will be jobs impacted with whatever actions we take. that has always been true, and we have an obligation to insure we do the best we can hit those -- for those who will be impacted and find other ways of earning a living and recognize that this is real and people get hurt. one of the things you learned as a governor or anyone in a position to make a decision, you cannot make a decision that has an equal impact on everyone. some people will not see the same benefits as others and may

see a downturn and it is in the your job to do what is in the best interest of everyone and mitigate the downside of those who will be negatively impacted. we have seen that time and again >> thank you. we have argued for more direct observations of claman's variables. you mentioned sea level rises and heavy rainfall in your testimony. sea level rise and make -- rainfall have been measured for decades. they are not theoretical. what are the impacts of those directly observed changes -- >> excuse me. could you clarify what your saying? >> on your own state, mr. thomas. >> excuse me, senator. [inaudible conversations] >> allow -- allow him to answer the question he has been asked. >> as i indicated to senator boxer, clearly south florida particularly is dealing today with sea level rise as it

impacts of salt water intrusion in coastal areas, a drainage systems that are critical to the overall well-being of many of the coastal communities in south florida. so today's sea level rise is, indeed, an issue in our state. just as it is in a number of other states. >> thank you. i know the technological change can occur. the obsolete delivery of milk. the fact that there were not more milkman was an absence of jobs created to revolutionize the way in which that industry operated from the beginning of time, and we have to embrace that it is obvious. >> senator. >> first of all, we keep talking about the clean air act amendments. i want everyone to no, not only did i vote for them, but i was

an original cosponsor, and they worked. that was dealing with real pollutants, never meant to deal with carbon dioxide. i think we all understand that. you could actually use that as an argument against going into regulating something that most of us did not believe is a pollutant. we will make that argument. i think that this senator has pretty much been accused 97 percent that we will hear over and over again. i have a question for the three of you. i will skip you now because jeff already asked the question. i have to say this. scott pruett it holds you in the highest regard of all the attorneys general in the united states. ..

zero to the world it wasn't. the u.k. telegraph, i think that's the largest printing publication in the u.k.. that's the worst thing to fix candle of our generation. the guardian, it is no use pretending this isn't a major blow. i ask you as a scientist, why do you think that there are people who still believe that the signs

that was generated and the reason i'm asking this question because if you go back and look at my web site in 2002 you will see that i listed not a few but hundreds of scientists who disagreed with the idc see. comments on that. >> well senator i've asked myself this question many times because what i do is look at the facts and check all the facts and i found that the ipcc reports are not consistent and bias. now you are asking me why do some of the people believe back? >> yeah that's good. >> i am puzzled about that a great deal. what i can say is that one of my favorite books is by charles mckay published in 1841 called popular. >> i will tell you we are

running out of time. >> i don't think there's a scientific answer to why so many people have come to believe th this. it's become a popular issue. all i try to do is look at the facts. i have worked very hard to try to determine the effects of this over my career and i feel the data has changed and that it's less of an effect and danger than we thought before and i'm surprised and shocked. >> very good and dr. mason you being the only economist on this panel let me ask you a question. years ago when this first started a lot of us were really believing it was true. it happened at that time that i chair this committee and when i found out that they were talking about what the cost would be and if you remember the wharton econometrics survey came out, the m.i.t. came out in charles

rivers came out. all of them came to this incompletion that the cost of cap-and-trade would be between three and $400 billion a year. first of all i would ask if you agree with that analysis with them at that time? >> i wouldn't be surprised at all by that. >> that's one thing is pretty consistent. we haven't had a lot of people disagree with that but my question would be this. those bills that they were talking about, the that person was the mccain-lieberman bill and 03 and 05 the same thing and then it went on up to senator markey when he was -- that bill. all of them are talking about regulating the omissions of entities that emitted 25,000 tons or more. now the clean air act regulates 250 tons or more. i would ask you this if it's true that it's between three and $400 billion a year before the

25,000 tons or more do you have any idea what it would cost the american people if they were able to successfully regulate this under the clean air act? >> orders of magnitude more. >> i think that's a good answer. thank you. >> senator boozman. >> thank you mr. chairman. professor mason and your testimony you address the goals of states in arkansas is one of the most difficult targets in the country. he said there would be impact that would affect job growth. we explain how these impacts could impact opportunities in states like arkansas and what that will mean for consumers? see very simply to the extent that consumers in the states derive energy from plants in those states again those

consumers will pay more for their electricity. this is where things get wonky because you will have cropped state effects. will arkansas be able to for instance by admissions from other states to satisfy their admissions? how are we going to control back? weich offsets international from hungary which defrauded investors leading to this market shut down that i cited or other third world countries that have been known not to even bother to check the validity of the permits they are selling on markets leading to this broad and international problems. we need to deal with these details and until we are actually going to sit down and look at these and look at the job losses they talk about raising rates. they look at job losses and they look at economic output. i think we need to look at this with each and every increase in energy costs than just waving

your hands and sing of code it will be fine is another story because we are getting to the level of policy implications than the scores of magnitude greater than anything we have done before and to me my perspective on the financial crisis arises in problems with the market but also scale and magnitude well into the economic system. we have lots of many securitization crises since 1990. none affected the economy until it was a big enough products to throw us into recession. we can do this and we can put the economy at risk but i think we need to think about this real hard before just stopping. this is different. >> that is why we have a congressman congressional hearings to go through all that theoretically make sure that we do it you know not in haste but to hit all the unintended consequences. you mentioned that and it's basic like gravity, that in

order to make something not be used to have to use the price or that's a method of doing it. you mentioned the 30-dollar figure. what would that do to the cost of utilities? >> well rggi right now is that about $5. california is about 11 and it's interesting those might not have pushed back in common growth. they are just adding to the cost of energy with no offset benefit in terms of carbon. $30 is going to raise prices for 45% in the northeast was cited today. i would expect prices would go up by a magnitude greater than that and let me just say that there is not a lot of talk today about leadership in terms of carbon policy. leadership is not just grabbing the system out of the e.u. for an end ineffective system out of california and popping it down nationwide. leadership is thinking more

deeply about the implementation of carbon policy and coming up with something better than the rest of the world is put together implementing it and then having the rest of the work follow. that is why if the monetary commission with perspective the federal reserve would did that. we have the best central bank in the world. we still lead in that throughout the world and i think we over to her citizens to put together a very thoughtful approach and a meaningful approach to carbon that can help the world while also pricing and economic externality. >> thank you very much. dr. botkin you being one of the 97% that has talked about it then certainly you feel like man is contributing in this and that but certainly you're not one that feels like the model is acceptable and i suspect that you have many of your cohorts there in the same camp. >> well i think the key thing

here is that science is not her rule by majority method. that's the important thing. its discovery and i would like to quote general salk with a polio vaccine. he said i get into dialogue with nature but the question to nature not to my colleagues because that is wednesday in sherman's comment that is what i do. i always look at the data and richard feynman wanted the great 20th century physicists that science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. so to keep saying it's a majority that is not a scientific statement and is not correct. i spent 50 years working on climate change and a very constructive way and what i can tell you is since about 1990 that data has started to move in the other direction away from an

important effect like human beings and that is just what the facts show. >> thank you very much. my concern is you know certainly we need to examine the increased risk of this but i can tell you there's tremendous increased risk for the men and women that are sitting back there and the hard-working people of arkansas if we are talking about a 45% are much greater probably in my case increasing utility prices as far as jobs. we talk a lot about income disparity in this country. what does that do to working moms and single moms? what does that do to people on fixed incomes? again thank you mr. chair. >> thank you senator boozman. that will conclude the questioning. let me just say some final thank yous to our witnesses who are here. i appreciate particularly the efforts of former administrato

administrators. i would ask if mr. reilly and mr. thomas would answer my questions for the record. the record will be kept open for an additional two weeks for anybody who wishes to add material to the record. i will ask unanimous consent to put in a review of the investigations that were prompted by what is called climategate but i contend it's more accurately called climategate gate. in my view of the phony scandal was hooked up at the expense of a lot of scientific work that was then reviewed i think by six different authorities including american investigators,

independent investigators, university investigators and british investigators everyone up which gave a full clean bill of health to the science. so i think that needs to be part of the record if members are going to ring up so-called climategate and then there has been some reference to the projections by the chamber of commerce as to what this proposed epa regulation might cost. some of our colleagues have left to cite that report but i think it's important for the hearing that we also include the "washington post" analysis of their claims, which earned four pinocchio's from how far you get from the truth you get more pinocchio's rated back to the story of pinocchio the wooden doll whose nose would grow when

he was not truthful so i will include the "washington post" four pinocchio finding about that. there's also an organization named politicized which analyzes claims that are made in the political debate and tries to do a very neutral analysis of the accuracy and politicized ruled that a false for that report so i think it's in the interest of fairness that those be admitted and i will ask unanimous consent that those two documents be admitted. without said -- >> mr. chairman? >> senator sessions. speech is to wrap up i think the panel for your testimony. this is an important issue. i believe dr. botkin is correct in saying that actual empirical data is not confirming the projections that we have seen so

far in the host of various and i will be spending some -- to that effect so for congress to ask questions and also i would just say that it's unacceptable that scientists like dr. botkin and others are being adversely treated as a result of their statements and scientific research that sometimes contradicts the powers that be. thank you. >> you are very welcome. sighs of pleasure to work with my ranking member. however much we disagree on things he's a very courteous colleague and we always work well together. i think that this is not a hearing on the science. it was a hearing with the experience of previous administrators. if we were to do a hearing on the science than i think we'll be adding the scientists from

noah and the scientists from nasa and the scientists who back our united states defense establishment and the great establishment of scientists, every major scientific organization in the country and perhaps dr. botkin is right that they are all wrong but i'm not sure that would be the prudent course for our country. thank you all very much and we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

see the thesis of the book is there's a whole group of people in america in fact a big swath of america that is being ignored, left behind not included in the discussion i think from either party particularly though i would argue the republican party. i call it blue-collar conservatives, the folks out there that are working people most of whom don't have college degrees, folks that really still understand the value of work and the importance of work and responsibility and people that understand the importance of family and faith and believe in freedom and limited government. you say well wow those are conservative republican voters and in many cases they are not. in fact a lot of them aren't

voting at all because they don't really see either party talking to them about the concerns they have been trying to create an opportunity for them to live the american dream. next former nsa deputy director chris inglis talks about the current cybersecurity climate. he also takes questions on the 2013 at work snowed in revelations and the impact on security.

from "the wall street journal" chief financial officers network conference, this is 30 minutes. c. i appreciate your willingness to engage on these issues. i guess i would just like to open it up with if you can just scare everybody a little bit. [laughter] what danger do you worry about most in cyberspace? >> if you have been reading the papers and talking to friends and colleagues across the private sector i would say four things about cyberspace that are perhaps not well understood by the public and i think therefore we still have some surprises that have crept up on us. the first thing i would say is that cyberspace the internet writ large is not really this massive technology.

oftentimes this is considered as just another version of the voter pool. fix it, whatever the case would need to tilt just do that. it's of course a mix of technology and people in critical process. it's almost impossible to change one up from the others so you can't delegate this to the i.t. shop and say fi fix it. the second thing that is surprising as everything is connected to everything. convergence is the reality of that space over those who think they have an off-line system for some protection that holds them some harmless their hearts are generally broken. there are two kinds of people is mr. schlein likes to say those no-bid then hacked it and those that don't know they'd been hacked. the third reality no-space and increasingly well aware by this audience as we are storing a wealth of treasure no-space. it was once a place where there were communications that reflected or spoke things of value that was outside the space

he would move resources or reflect command plans or intellectual property secrets that were held outside and it was coordinating and large land of the influence of people. saying at this dispute time i will exchange a conference. now these things are stored in no-space 24 hours a day. couple of weeks ago i was about to travel to go to my standard routine and i said to my children who are visiting home from college i'm going to go to the bank and get some money and they said why? and they said that is where the money is. they said that you are so not worth it. money is in the internet. it's in bitcoin said they are exactly right. many of us have not gotten to that fact. it's not possible to secure the space and we should be about securing the space was possible to defend the space. why is it not possible to secure the space because the things

that people do no-space in the technology no-space and the very fact that you want to connect those two transactions and people who essentially jet generate revenue or the fact that you are connecting means you are taking risk by design so the goal of trying to find a way to make this statically enduringly secure we need to give up on that. we need to pursue him preach that these things are deficient by design and defend them accordingly. it's possible to do that but it requires a fundamentally different approach to cyberspace. >> what cyberspace. >> what the worried most about? >> some people are waiting for a boom. there's a lot of discussion about this labour pearl harbor and this is the fact that the problem is already with us. it's not that we are going to hear clap of number -- a clap of thunder in the night.

they will not be because we don't have the necessary investments at this moment in time. in a number of companies have suffered the loss of intellectual property and think they can weather even that because they will out innovate whatever adversaries they have in the world. i think that is increasingly less true than it was 20, 30 or 50 years ago. there are very worthy adversaries of the world and we not only have for intellectual property but can innovate with a bust of us. this is an insidious aspect which is the damage already done is the thing i worry that the most praise be a little bit of news you can use. what companies are most likely to be targeted? >> if you do something that has intellectual property that is value to a target you are likely to be targeted. they want to do it because they want to get a scalp that is less the problem. more of a problem is if your

wealth of treasure stored on cyberspace is going to be lucrative to an adversary. 100 years ago jonas said to willie hudson why do you rob banks because he was in court for the fifth or sixth time and will he said is simple but for the money is. cyberthreats loom large. the things that depend on it beyond wealth and treasure are more critical. whether it's electrical grids power plants financial systems they are tracking digital systems. the u.s. department of defense estimates their ability to move matériel from place a to play. >> is 90% dependent on faith competence they have in cyberspace. even the coronation of transportation occurs in the private sector and they have gone so far to take all of the slop out of the system. everything is exclusively choreographed by cyberspace. you need to think you're not

just wealth treasure but vital processes that constitute your competitive advantage. they are also dependent upon that base. >> to get more specific topping your many years that nsa was the most frightening cyber issue you have run into on wall street as an attacker will not go the? >> i think many of you have experienced this alongside the government plan in 2013 there were series of denial-of-service attacks on the financial infrastructure in the united states and by extension london and sydney. what was surprising at that moment in time was the rate at which the adversary the "washington post" attributed this to the iranians i think the u.s. government is more circumspect about naming names but let's say the iranians hypothetically. essentially they could scale up telecommunications providers

that allows you to provide a level of service scope and scale to serve so many customers per hour per minute. we are prepared for something on the rate of 20 to -- gigabits per second. they were essentially saying i can do that at a rate of 20 gigabits but just to be safe will do 40 in terms of the sanctuary reserved to the adversary quickly went to 16 to 1980 and the only thing that made it such that system ultimately prevailed with the adversary's rate of increase was so slow and the ability of the telecommunications providers to shed infrastructure was so invigorating that we essentially prevail. if the adversary chose to go faster or use for infrastructure those systems would have been gone down to a greater degree. some of them would have gone down hard. we ask providers what does that mean to go down hard and they say we don't now. we don't have much practice in

that. there's a lot of solid work being done to create more science and the robust infrastructure but we are very concerned about that. almost never with security a primary consideration. it was i want to build this feature and build this application in exchange this data and once i figure out how to make the data flow i made sure the user experience is good and compress it so i get more per minute and make us i can squeeze out the cost that was essentially render to me for doing that and all of those things are the common drivers and an economic marketplace. security was always something we would say would catch up with that. we will essentially control the margin that the slow of the

curve is sufficiently steep and control by the adversaries not by those who essentially built the systems. that is no longer the way we should do it. that is why it has to be a poor issue and be coherent across the multiple facets of what it is you do with your internet or your network connections. if there is an i.t. component in an h.r. component in a business component and a financial component and critical business process component does need to be integrated and done in a coherent fashion built by design to be were silly and against any number of threats upfront such the microscale and defending the position it to the adversary who will try to outmaneuver your no-space. >> let's tap the wealth of experience of the audience and go to the first audience response question. >> when i have a cybersecurity problem i think of the government as a comment a helpful resource b entity to be

avoided or c i don't think of the government. >> do i get to answer this question? >> if you want to camp at how would you answer that question? >> hopefully i think by design the government should be helpful and i think that is a nice middle ground. neither imposing burdensome regulations process reporting requirements were essentially standing off in saying this is simply the issue of defending private property. let's take a case in point that i said earlier. let's say iran gets up at morning determines the right way to bring the fight to the united states and take some infrastructure that underpins critical activities with the united states financial systems. is that an attack on private property for an attack on one nation by the other? what is the role of government and if we were to create there were silly system such that we

avoid beating her way out of that who actually encourages bad and incentivizes that using governmental powers? that's not to say the private sector doesn't have the largest 95% owned and operated by the private sector. if the u.s. government is not seen as helpful in this space there's an opportunity to cost if not a critical flaw and neck ability to make the space defensible. >> it looks like got a pretty good rate. 70% helpful resource, no one seems to be avoiding the government. >> could. >> more on the corporate government relationship. what is your sense of the impact of this disclosure at this point on american companies business overseas their relationship with the american government particularly thinking of technology companies that have a stake? >> i'm fairly maligned and

therefore unfairly injured in terms of my ability to take the global marketplace and insert it. there is the country in the world that doesn't have what they call lawful intercept and ability to acquire permission from telecommunications providers under the rule of law. there is in the country in the world that -- he-man 2013 there were support published by a love firm was essentially compared the various systems that the west what we know as the western world has devised a nice that the united states alone brings the judiciary into the mass -- mix. we are essentially maligned by an exaggerated sense of stories in the summer of 2013. there then is this flashback this essential response by foreign nations in some cases because they are generally concerned about a relationship that places them at risk with

respect to dissect government if it wasn't to be responsible in exercise of that opportunity. in some cases they see a market by their indigenous industry so it's useful to chomp that up. the long story made short i think the unauthorized leaks have done damage unfairly inappropriately unfortunately to the private sector and they deserve establishing and reestablishing competence. they do that for the benefits of nations pleural. >> let's compare that to the next audience response question. revelations of nsa spying abroad have one, hurt my business and to top not had any effect on my business. while people are weighing in if you could talk a little bit about the interplay between the snowden relations and cybersecurity. there is obviously a big push on

cybersecurity legislation around the time that the snowden. >> in the spring of 2013 the government and a full open dialogue with the chamber of commerce private sector entities and other governments was close to essentially signing off on legislation the would support that would essentially affect a collaborative affect a collaboratively shipped in the public and private sectors. who is going to be less about regulation imposing liability and more about creating incentives and suppressing liabilties so there would be freer flow of information making it such that not all of us need to suffer a threat before we are prepared to protect ourselves against it on the second occurrence. if somebody while to my right and while to my left detects or understands the nature of threat we should have that ability to exchange that on something approaching real time or at a time. the legislation would be helpful

in that regard and i think it would also increase the commonality of standards. that all got pushed well to the right in part because we are trying to understand if the government is responsible player in this case and my sense is the government has been very responsible in this space. we have to figure out how to get the story back on the rails in part because there is many room left on the legislative agenda to consider that. and in part because the private sector telecommunications companies in particular are smarter with relationships with the government than they have before. it holds us back from perhaps bringing to bear some positive contributions to a collaborative relationship between the private sector and the public sector and frankly between disparate entities within the private sector. >> the poll went away but it seems like the government was

faring well i'm bad with 19% talking about hurting their business although i wonder if we aggregated that by sector might have been a little different. what is your sense at this point of the relationship between the telcos and nsa at this point? how was it changed over the last year? >> i think the telcos and not surprisingly have essentially said i am sarbanes-oxley and looking at my shareholder value and expectations of the global face and i perhaps need to be somewhat more declarative and make insurance stand what is the rule of law and what i'm compelled to do and not simply making sure it's behind a closed door but i can to some degree talk about it and give confidence to shareholders in my international marketplace and i'm doing what i should do nothing more nothing less. they have been somewhat more demanding of the government with

respect to transparency. somewhat more demanding in terms of the government transparently to compel them so there would be no suspicion and they are doing something that is inappropriate. that then sometimes look like an adversarial relationship but i don't see it that way. i see they are simply trying to do right by all the stakeholders they have god and we will have to figure this out with them and through this problem. >> you are -- your successor talked about an openness to the notion of amnesty for snowden and i'm wondering whether you think that's a good idea of? >> rick is a good friend of mine and i respect his personal opinion. i think mr. stowe deserves his day in court and should get his day in court. it's inappropriate for individuals to irrigate and stand it and speak for the whole of government. in the case of the authorities

that were discussed in much-maligned in the summer of 2013 at the executive branch under the rule of law by congress in those particular cases of a fully participating judiciary is determined that is the right discussion. up across multiple nations is interesting to me on the house select committee on intelligence the house committee that essentially writes nsa and other entities that staunch supporters that were died in the wild tea party died in while republicans have died in the wool democrats. long story made short mr. snowden has to answer for what took it upon himself to essentially take the wheel and it may have a perfectly good answers. our system of justice allows people to make that case and

defend themselves and he should have his should have as full save. >> we only have a minute left before we go into questions and answers but what is the main lesson that you take away from the experience? >> there are three things and they might be narrowly focused on the nsa equity but i would remind myself that only the nation has equity but with respect to what nsa does in his contribution to the game would talk about balancing security and civil liberties. i think there's a third layer under the chair that is essential which is sufficient transparency not complete transparency because that's impossible in the intelligence world but people have confiden confidence. even before mr. snowden came out and had a presentation about how to do this and affect the balance as opposed to depicting bad as scales of justice where you necessarily trade privacy for security he said it has to

be like to rails under a train. if they are not straight sitting on a proper foundation and evening having equal fealty to each of those there's no way that you could make constitutional obligations. transparency is the thing that has been lacking to give people confidence that we have that right. efficient transparency by the government of parties like me about what to do and how do we do it and not just in the national context of the international context as well. steve let's open it up. steve ipad is printing out from the nsa office at this time. that was unfair i'm sorry but i could not resist. any questions? i have one. huntsman and dennis blair governor huntsman and dennis blair issued a report last year roughly the said look maybe why should we should be thinking

about is giving business or those hacked license liberally to hang back at least in the form of diminishing the damage that has been done, perhaps locking the data into hackers files that has been taken from their company or shutting down the computers in some manner. this has been described as vigilanteism but these distinguished into bowls -- individuals john huntsman and dennis blair is that one of the arrows in our arsenal for dealing with this? >> it's dangerous to pick an extreme in that regard to say that you can never defend yourself what you say you have the authority all the way back to the adversary.

either of those is an extreme option but their analogs to this. if someone is shooting at you and your own home you have the authority and of right and the responsibility of essentially defending yourself. actually shooting from across the neighbor's charity of the responsibility to be incredibly careful about how you shoot across the neighbors yard. if someone is merely harassing you you call the police and let them stand up and deal with that. the same thing plays here so my concern about that taken to the extreme is this is all about the defense of private property and people can sensibly hacked back to defend themselves. but they will wind up doing is two things that are very dangerous. when they will be hacking back unusual territory. you have seen the attacks in 2012 in 2013 you would not have seen where they were coming from. what you would have seen his places like germany and australia.

he the weapon creating mayhem. >> a server that might be serving a hospital tuesday the second thing is even if he did get it right in the sense was that i'm going to take this end defend this as a nation-state then you provoke them across their red line. you have now crossed their red line and all of a sudden you have the nation on nation incident. now the united states government mrs. stepan still within -- deal with a much bigger mess. u.s. government has to figure out practically and how do we exercise there also the private sector does not need to and in that regard what we been asking too often is who's in charge? who has the baton or the defense of cyberspace? >> is the government doing enough? see what the answer answered that question. >> the government is doing what it can and there are many challenges. first and foremost i don't think

we have a strong enough understanding of how works and what the internal dependencies are. second there are no probative behaviors where you can say hey you have been stealing my intellectual property. they may in turn savers are written that when you put it on the edge net that i can't find it. i thought you wanted to have it. that's a little disingenuous that they are options and side effects are not entirely clear. we need to be clear on how this is the sport and what are the dependencies and clear on what our rules are very clear about the consequences and clear about who has got warped world. those rules can be assigned to individual organizations to governments. i don't think we have done that to the degree necessary and we still think this is a domain into itself. we think the right responses inside space back at it. it might be financial sangemon or public shaming.

>> within that construct mandy and who we heard from last her conference located that hacking activity into a building outside of shanghai the liberation army working at the clock to 5:00. >> taking the chinese holidays off. see they saw the hacking track. given your construct each is presented would have been the purview of the u.s. government to shut that building down with its own packing attack or its own cyber activity? >> depends on the nature of the provocation. in the conduct of national affairs as long as there's a question of what is the necessity and in proportion to that what is the right response to you have to apply limited means. the u.s. government has taken that problem on and given a written answer to that problem. a few weeks ago the u.s.

government is supposed to hacking back against the chinese nation-state or some entity within the chinese nation-state indicted five individuals that they found partially responsible for some of that theft of intellectual property. it's a very interesting application of national power. it's chinese interesting situation where they say it was a mess hey we didn't do it. these individuals now swing in the wind. what message that's sent to others who may or may not work for the chinese government? that is a surgical element application of national power proportion to the jones. perhaps late to me that we are all late to me in this regard. there's a lot more than he should be done but they will have to take steps as opposed to going into the woods in the night in the dark with no headlights on. >> can we get a microphone over there?

just to remind should identify yourself. >> henry from deloitte. my question is on the cost and the level of investment. private sector spending enough currently are under spending and how quickly as that's been going to go up and maybe a second part to the question or their innovative things that the private sector could do to band together, you know kind of reduced the cost in one enterprise by industry type groups or other types of innovative types? >> i think we are spending an anonymous amount of money financial dollars on this problem already and i don't think we are spending that will. we go to most companies and say what are they doing they drew up a plethora of icons of various devices. i am card tuning this a bit but

this massive application of funding those applications are not necessarily well-integrated. they are not taking advantage of knowledge to the left and to the right within that sector or for the government. the amount of dollars probably shouldn't go down but i'm not sure the answer is the increase in the dollar. we have to be much more holistic about defending those dollars examine behavior and essentially of a collaborative effort that makes it such that if you suffer i don't need to because you will share that with me and vice versa. that's separate and apart from sharing intellectual property and frankly you can tell an essay this is not government policy and answers to crazy idea. that might then put it in a position where there's

appropriate abilities to learn more about that and t. that up for the nation that national apparatus to do something about it at that exchange doesn't occur so it's essentially a free man for himself in a boat that has a huge hole in it. >> so that in biblical one more minute that has happened in part businesses because the government is very cautious about what information is going to share and businesses quite concerned that if he shares too much of government the liability that it then fixes for customer complaints ensuring their data with someone outside are too onerous to contemplate. it just seems there is a state law. >> both of those trends have been sure to some degree and i don't know the principle has but the legislation part was going to try to resolve the second part which is suppress liability

acting in good faith shared information were taking advantage of information and then your and then you're liability we will be suppressed to such that you will be held harmless. the government does have a tendency to restrict the free flow of information under the classification of sources and methods. i think there has been much more proactive in trying to figure out how to push that information and how should share that information collected should be pushed harder and faster. if you collect that information simply to protect itself for its own systems i know how we can save a lot of money but it must be a national benefit. another big idea and this isn't a national effort more than a private or public sector benefit. cna last quick question? chris inglis thank you very

much. >> thank you very much. applause cub beat the idea between 250/215 so that kind to tell the entire history of st. louis is a timeline for era by air or we would absolutely miss the vitally important things so

instead of trying to do that unfailingly decided what if we just gave snapshots of st. louis history that would give people a glimpse of all they do first things that happened here and they could use their imaginations to fill in the rest so we chose 50 people 50 places 50 moments 50 images and 50 optics and try to choose the most diverse selection we possibly could. we are standing in the 50 objects of the 250/250 session right now. this is where the object is right in front of you. brewery is such a huge part of st. louis is history. it's an amazing story with positive from breweries and the most famous became anheuser-busch being the largest in the world and in the era of anheuser-busch talking about millions of barrels produced each year we think they are producing so much beer. this is from an era when things were a little bit simpler as fun

to show people this object and kind of gauge their response. in the days before they had cancer bottle caps they put corks in the top of bottles and somebody had to sit on this thing and do it by hand. you can see it's got foot pedals on the bottom. that is where the operator would push down with his feet to down with this feed to get the cork enough force to go into the bottle. it's got three holes for three different sized bottles.

>> governor raskin who are former titles so let's start out talking about the economy. we have had very mixed signal so far this year. the economy contracted in the first quarter and it looks like it's picking up now. job growth seems strong but the housing market seems weak. what is your read and you have a few as having been at the fed another treasure what is your read on how this recovery is playing out? >> first of all very happy to be here and looking forward to this conversation and taking questions afterwards. the economy is definitely doing better. we are seeing indicators of lower unemployment, better growth overall, inflation numbers moved up a little bit but still at the 2% said target.

things really looking good. there's an upside to i think the economy. we are also seeing some things that i think bear further monitoring and that makes us ask whether in fact the economy's recovery is a broad-based one so for example the unemployment numbers while lower still are characterized by labor markets that haven't shown a complete and total recovery. so we see long-term unemployment for example is still being quite high. it is coming down somewhat but it's still much higher than we would imagine it to be at this stage of the recovery. we are seeing low household formation. not clear whether the housing sector is participating in the growth as well as other sectors

are so i think the housing sector is something that bears continuous watching. i think from a financial stability perspective we are seeing banks much better capitalized than they were obviously early on prior to the crisis and immediately after the crisis. but you know again still wondering as to where it may lurk and interested in making sure the financial stability of our economy is promoting economic growth. seattle want to come back to some of those issues like financial stability but on the growth question the fed has been predicting for four or five years now 4% growth and we keep getting 2% growth. can you say with any conviction right now that we, the year ahead or two years ahead we are going to get anything faster than what we have gotten in the last four years?

>> my own view is probably no. i would say any of these numbers could be given with any conviction. this exercise are doing projections is like staring into the abyss. it's a very difficult exercise making projections of any sort. one thing that i do feel fairly good about is that we are heading in the right direction. the growth is sustainable. it's moving in a direction that we would like to see it move them. we are not at all and that teetering point with recessionary fears. we would like to see a broader base economic recovery. [inaudible] picking up. >> i think it is picking up. whether it's going to move in a single or even double digits i wouldn't go that far. >> let's talk a little bit about tax policy. we have been reporting in the

last couple of deals with out a deal between medtronic incorporated coated in something known as an inversion deal. an american company looking to buy an offshore company because the tax rate is lower offshore. how do you read deals like that? are those okay? >> deals are deals and they can be done. i think this one in particular in connection with some others that have occurred as well indicate that something is probably wrong with their tax system. i think it's really unfortunate that the amount of earnings that exist overseas have not been able to be repatriated in a way that would work for our country's economic growth. i think this is a signal that some kind of business tax reform should be taken quite seriously. >> so what is the solution and the process of achieving its?

>> i guess in terms of the solution i would like to see business tax reform plan that lowers the corporate tax rate but spreads the base out so we essentially removed a lot of the loopholes and exceptions and things that essentially take people out of the businesses out of the base that we are able to lower the base. and i think there've been some good proposals but. i think the administration put out a good proposal and 2012. that was followed by some really interesting work that congressman camped in on the house side. baucus and hatch did some good work on the senate side and there is some overlap in these proposals. i would like to see some kind of work in terms of addressing the places that overlap and see if a consensus can be for its.

>> what is your conviction that something like that can happen in this environment? >> it's hard. it's a very challenging environments i can't make any promises in terms of how that would work out but i'm just saying there are variables of overlap in areas that people can start to work on and deals like the deal we are seeing our signals in a sense that reform is probably warranted. >> in the actions of reform do expect to see more conversion bills like this and are they acceptable to the united states government and american companies that are going offshore in an effort to lower the tax base?