what the mobile health services are going to offer and we need to have smarter, faster, stronger networks to perform the connected life activities and it is going to be exciting but we want to make sure that we continue the framework that has shown such a great investment and opportunity that we are leading in the world. >> mr. chairman, the case has just been made by its critically important we do this right. innovation particularly in this industry gives us the tools that we need to get our economy thriving once again and we need to make sure that we do this the right way. >> appreciated the gentle man's experience. we've all turn out to the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> search command, i'm thrilled to be back on the subcommittee and i want to thank you for holding this hearing and trying to get ahead of the issue. also you heard our deep concern about the enforcement authority before the democrats on the

panel and our panelists. i would love to be able to vote for the final package and i hope that we can work together to find something that will work. >> i sympathize with your concerns about the overregulation raising the costs to the providers. however i also have concerns about the enforcement authority raising the cost of reducing enforcement authority for the end-users. my first question has to do with the forbearance of the title to requirements as he's indicated that he is one of the forebears and even if he does this, the current concern is that the legislation may inhibit the ability to react in a just technological advance. do you share that concern that the legislation would inhibit the ability to react? >> i think they have way more to

react to ban is being suggested. the fcc with any act has the first instance and responsibility to interpret those decisions and enforce them across a wide range of activities. even in the context of specialized service if the effect of something someone was doing was to block or ban or toddle i'm absolutely confident the commission could reach that behavior even under this statute. the complexity of the forbearance are substantial. everybody including the chairman has professed an interest in doing so. if one were to pull out the record many of the advocates arguing that it would be a light touch are all on record with with laundry lists of other positions that shouldn't be forewarned groups like public knowledge and others have the requirements that should be maintained. there are also serious questions. >> do you think that the fcc is

more agile than the congress in addressing these complex issues? >> not always to be perfectly honest. the commission has been no bastion of efficiency over time regulatory proceedings, rarely taking less than a year. they often are quite exhausted and take a lot of time. sometimes that is because they struggle to find a clear direction from congress as to how to act. the clearer that direction, the more expeditious process works with fcc implementation. >> we had a chance to pass legislation here i believe that it may be a 2015 piece of legislation that is in effect for ten years so we have to get this right and give the fcc the flexibility that it needs to carry out that intent. at least that is my opinion. ms. gonzález what you briefly summarize the type of litigation risk the fcc will likely face

under the approach provided by the draft legislation? >> i think there's quite a few factual determinations. if we are talking about procedural risks the legislation poses i think it puts a burden on consumers to first of all ss whether or not they have had their net neutrality rights violated and then figured out how to bring up before the commission and its somewhat complicated that requires both lawyers that even many but even many of the startups that do have some resources more than the consumers at least have said they would be unlikely to be able to engage in because they have limited legal counsel. but beyond that over those decisions after they are issued there could be follow-up litigation because this creates a situation where we would have to get to the details on a case-by-case basis which could

just be one lawsuit that would likely come from the fcc order but a series of lawsuits. >> what the gentleman yield? >> i will give you a little extra with unanimous consent. how does what we are proposing here to put in place in the appeals mechanisms for consumers can appeal different from how it works across any other agency in the government? i am confused. don't we want citizens to have that ability to file a complaint? >> we want them to have the ability but we also want the internet service providers to have the burden to show that they are not discriminating. so it is about how we are shifting the burden and it is difficult. there's not a lot of consumer activists doing the work and assume it is difficult for consumers to carry the burden alone. >> we will continue the conversation.

>> mr. dickerson do you think that they have a role to play in the broadband competition? >> absolutely. and one of our concerns would be the draft legislation revocation authority of the fcc to do that. >> do you think the broadband market is sufficiently competitive to protect consumers? >> not at this time. >> thank you. i will yield back. >> i would go down to the gentleman from missouri. >> thank you mr. chairman. you are talking about the technology and the old plan lines and telephone development and choices with a pink princess

phone the pink princess phone or blueprints as phone and i had to think my twentysomething year old daughters what they would do if i handed in a rotary dial phone and said you need to make a telephone call i question whether they would be able to do that and i saw a cartoon the other day of a young man in 1983 and he probably weighed 120 pounds and have a desktop computer like we all have and it showed 2015 and his computer was now this size and he weighed about the same thing i do today so as his computer got smaller and he got larger that kind of with this i am giving the reminder of the story steve forbes used to tell if the cell phone development was left to the united states government but we could have because in the same year 1983 the first phone i had was a brick made by motorola and it weighed 2 pounds and in

1983 it costs $390. this phone didn't cost me $3,900 he told me a story something to the effect if it was left to the government to develop cell phone technology today that same code away for pounds and it would cost 7900. so i think the innovation is a pretty good thing and the government government the more it stays out out of it the better we would be. we've had a long hearing today, had a full table of witnesses. a lot of my colleagues have spoken before me a lot of the questions have already been asked so normally i like to kind of cut through the chase at this point and just get to the meat of the issue. the consensus is that the internet should be open and vibrant. but isn't the controversy really

about the extent of the authority to ensure that it remains open and vibrant whether it should be from title to or section 706 doesn't it make sense for congress to make that call? >> yes, sir i think we have to recognize that it is not for the fcc or any other regulatory agency to create its own jurisdiction. it's to act on the jurisdiction provided to it by this institution. there is no question that the reason this has been a torturous debate for decades is because of the ambiguity surrounding the commission's authority to adopt a set of rules that as you can tell from the panel have almost near unanimous consent around the substantive rules attempted to achieve. the only thing that has been argued about is what authoritative basis that's executed on and every time the commission intends to do that on its own it's going to face necessarily a big asian complexity challenge.

that is within the cover of this institution to terminate and settle once and for all and i think that's why we are so supportive of your efforts to find the bipartisan conclusion. >> the the title ii proponents tell us not to worry about the provision to the title because the fcc can simply forbear from applying it. is there anything simple about it and couldn't do numerous individual battles occur regarding what the commission has and hasn't decided upon their net neutrality once the order is released? >> there's not a lot of understanding of how it works. first there is an institutional risk. it is a pretty hostile thing to say that a regulatory the regulatory agency should sweep away broadly and act of congress without them directing it to do so. if you get the sweeping forbearance that we are desperately relying that we will get is the commission doing

something in an untested and untried way that a sensual eliminates statutorily data signed legislation and that poses a significant legal risk. the other challenge is that the commission must make very specific findings for every rule that it forbears on and it will attempt to do that in a global way that there is a risk that courts will say you are not permitted to do that. you are not permitted to brush away the title. you have to explain in micro- detail what each of the rules doesn't meet the standards for congress to set out for you. if that ends up being of the law we are talking about a morass of the process to go through rule by rule and take pick a separate independent forbearance findings. the commission in the past proceeding has often said that it has to do with my market. so the forbearance definitions as is the market competitive?

the market is different than the market and new york city. there's been times they say you can only assess that question on the specific market basis and if that turns out to be required now we are talking about a voluminous set of calculations about whether the rule can no longer be implemented or not. it's easy to be leave the commission just has a plenary committee free to make the judgments as he sees fit but it is down to very strictly by the tools at this institution sets out and while certainly it can try and i understand the sincerity and we are committed to trying to get that best resolution it is fraught with complexity that can easily be cut through by this institution. >> i was going to save a little time to yield backend but intel is everything good but i think i'm out of time. >> we turn now to the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you mr. chairman for

this first-class hearing and i want to thank the panelists for being an all-star panel of what mrs.. mr. chairman, i want to ask a the panel this question in the numerous fashion with aes or no answer do you think the fcc is on a collision course with the dc circuit again if it exercises section 706 authority to reclassify the internet broadband as excess as a common carrier severance under the instant rules, yes or no fax to

>> yes, sir i do. >> yes. >> if the network operators choose to make it so, yes. >> is the question whether they will go to the dc circuit or whether the dc circuit will uphold the decision or not? >> will they be on a collision course. >> i think it is certain to go to litigation. i do bb that they will uphold the title if it is done well. yes to the collision course. >> chairman i want to ask you again in a forthright manner do you have any concerns that under the republican draft congress would be restating its intent to say the section 706 is not a

direct grant of statutory authority backs >> but they say that it's a is a question for congress but representing my industry, we do not have problems with the commission retaining some 706 authority and breathing room to address changing circumstances as the dc circuit found. i found the interpretation questionable highly in conflict with past rulings but the dc circuit ruled that is what it meant and i think we would rather live with the fcc administering the provision in title to. >> are you concerned that they will not be able to deploy broadband services and invest in the network facilities that provide service to the low

income and minority communities other than this proposed bill quick >> under the current bill i think as it has been said there was additional discussion around the seven of six authority as we all talked about and i actually think to your question is whether the a win-win for what we were looking for for the low the low income consumers as well as the rural communities and as i said earlier it would be a great way to look at the digital redlining that had the potential to backstop and limit the progress of what we've been trying to do with the deployment among the communities. i want to keep regrading that adoption still is at the top of the debate and it continues to get swept under the rug when we talk about these issues and so we are talking about a parody and should stay on top as well as the legitimate concerns that need to be dealt with even in the case of the specialized

services to consumer demand is driving everything so it's important to keep that as the bill is discussed and debated but i think to your point we have to avoid a collision course you just mentioned and we are on a pathway if we don't put the right effects to make sure we don't do that. >> i want you to answer this question and i only have 30 seconds to 37 seconds. if the chairman would give me a couple more seconds. the authorized the fcc to hear and adjudicate complaints brought by individuals against their internet broadband provider on a case-by-case basis. should these complaints be germane to the fcc consideration or whether certain transactions while promoting public interest? >> i'm sorry is the question whether or not this would serve the public interest to allow the

commission to add adjudicate on a case-by-case basis? >> know, if in fact the commission should they consider a that a certain merger transactions in association with these complaints brought by individuals would be fcc consider these complaints germane to its decision? >> on the merger is? when it considers complaints as to look at the ecosystem in general to determine whether or not there's competition. i think the merger determinations are in a separate docket and rightly so. but certainly when considering what kind of protections we

need, we need to look at the marketplace and whether or not there's competition in the mergers and acquisitions and the level of competition certainly is relevant. >> mr. chairman if i could ask for an additional 45 seconds. >> if you go fast. >> as you all know the cash cow on competition around the passage of the total communications act was through long-distance voice that's where they were. congress gave the fcc and state commission the authority to allow competitors to enter the local markets through the retail connection. that was the regulatory and we stole billions and billions of dollars of investments following into that sector but the clientele changed. congress knew about the internet and only a few people around the world is a game changer and the

internet would become. in the decade it has become more apparent that the cash cows of the communication are not long-distance voice but instead wireless voice and later broadband data. over the course of a number of proceedings the fcc filed a broadband internet access services more like information services than total communication service and perhaps congress should have stepped back in and reconsidered the definitions, but we did not. and mr. chairman i think that we are on our way in this hearing and additional hearings trying to settle the question of do the broadband internet service is internet services now service is now fit the criteria for the total communication services more than information services and with that i yield back. >> i will now go to the gentleman from new york of the subcommittee mr. collins. >> i want to thank all the witnesses as a new member we are

playing catch-up with it catch up a bit and your testimony has been very valuable. my question is for ms. baker. i know wireline and wireless are two different worlds and you represent a wireless world the wireless world into the language in the bill does talk about reasonable network management. i would think that is the attempt to give you some flexibility because you are in different worlds. i also seem to understand your industry is opposed to title to which we are here and we are talking and we understand there's a difference. can you expand a little bit on the reasonable network management language, which all of us have raised that it may be difficult to interpret and let me know how you see that impacting the wireless world. >> thanks for the question. yes the wireless industry is different for a number of reasons. number one we have our arms around as the parameters we operate on the spectrum which is

limited capacity that is shared and it's moving so we need dynamic management millisecond to millisecond. and it changes all the time depending on who is sharing the spectrum and it's going to change from today because someone is going to come up with a more efficient way and we are going to upgrade their networks but they are not just technically different you are also you're also competitively different and so our guys need to you to differentiate different services so they can compete more effectively against each other. we are worried that we might become one-size-fits-all. and we want the wireless industry to be made dynamic and competitive and continue to innovate and differentiate themselves that we are also very new so we are worried in the title to that we will not be able to introduce some of the things coming from the wireless

platform when i talk about connected life meaning global health, cars, some of the innovations in education so we want to make sure that the future in wireless we are the world's leader and we want to make sure that we are the world's leader you want to make sure that the definition of the management includes technology. we will work with the committee on other definitions but we encourage the action here because they think that they are headed down the wrong path. >> that's helpful because i'm glad to hear you're increasing what we are doing especially that language and that you feel your industry can live with that language and certainly i think the committee would be very open as this moves forward and i just know there's been a discussion because they are two different worlds that are happy again to hear your support of the critical legislation and the time is running late so i will

yield back the balance of my time. >> it looks like they go to the final member of north dakota thanks for sticking with us and being on the subcommittee. >> thank you mr. chairman for the opportunity. and as you know i spent nearly ten years in north dakota regulating the various industries. and the more telecom cases that came before us the less i was enthused about it because it seems every case that came before us was about a new technology that required less regulation and nonetheless was happy to carry out several cases and i think that we did one of the earliest. we did the case very contentious cable company seeking the facilities i lack and i don't

know that any of them are unanimous. i'm proud to say that i was on the prevailing side in all of them were held up in court, federal and state court. that said, i don't feel as smart as i used to today for some reason. but i have to say that i was amused by the admonition of the catholic confession with mr. shimkus but i noticed he said he came kicking and screaming which is far short i will tell you. i appreciate your reference to the omission because this is a common omission by several regulatory agencies in recent years and it was one that hadn't come to my attention yet but you're right a lot of issues could be solved much better to

the liking of the investment opportunity. i'm also interested in the issue of the specialized services and maybe this will demonstrate a little bit but if we are on the one hand arguing that we should give and we trust the use of flexibility determining the furtherance why wouldn't we trust the flexibility in determining the specialized services under this draft and is there a some ways we can tighten that up if it concerns some people? >> thank you for the question congressman. i do believe they have a special sheets that are to be empowered to help flush out the rules and provide for the rule. the detail and the certainty under the feelings of the congress.

so if the bill goes forward it is fine but they ought to have the need. >> did he want to try to take a stab at that? denigration of the specialized service this commission has repeatedly held that there is room for the special services even in the 2010 will because of the beads that it would have a serious consumer benefiting the characteristic to that. the reason it is an issue is we use the same network for the provision of proprietary services that we build and privately financed and owned a network to deliver. a huge amount of that capacity is reserved and used the paper in the but they were in the business of selling. there is an effort to confiscate the entire platform for the public internet use. with the fcc recognized is that some portion of that infrastructure will always rightfully be available to the incumbent who built the network delivered the service and

innovate for the consumers in and the provision of the service of the business to provide. you have to provide an allowance for special services unless you are creating a taking of property in its photography. can we talk about how you define it or what the fcc flexibility is an interpreting his? i have no problem with that. >> congressman if i made i will add quickly to the other comment. i think there is a conversation that can be had specifically if you go back to my testimony about adoption and relevance and if we look at the case of the program for example for the link on the minority communities that are not engaged there is some space to have a discussion on how those can be used for a public interest. i think you'd cut it back to the legitimate concern and the questions related to who is to say today that tomorrow we will be looking at telemedicine delivery and our ability to get our health records in real-time. so i think that there is room

for conversation and the fcc is the expert agency to help us guide discussion as to what is important to consumers. >> that brings me to another point maybe i am not understanding clearly that we have heard a lot on the title to authority being stripped away and somehow that leaves them powerless and we haven't talked a lot about the ancillary authority which is there to deal with a lot of these issues and the ones that are not there we are here. there is a new one every couple of years. i feel like for too many years the congress has just sort of let the agency become congress and i think that is the balance we are trying to strike if somebody has a segment to add to that. >> i think the reason we are concerned about the stripping of the 706 is because of the court cases in the past decades that have stripped them of much of their ancillary authority and whittled away over the years and so that to us feels like a less

certain solution. >> has the ancillary authority being stripped away? >> the commission has authority to come from a range of statutes not exclusively governed by the taught communication act. the commission has been aggressive in the protection of the access for communities because the spotty past which authorizes them to apply the protections to the internet services and it is aggressively doing so. the commission has authority to protect surveillance and other kinds of issues. there is a host of authorities. and some are ancillary. ..

the >> there is an opinion piece by rick on net neutrality being the low hanging fruit for congress without objection we will put that in the record from the telecommunications industry association and supporting of legislative action from the chief executive officer telecommunications industry association, a letter on the application developers alliance and and then there is a

coalition group and a whole bunch of others as well and individuals representing the educational institutions and elsewhere and legislative initiatives in whole or part. so without objection we will put that in the record as well and we want to thank all of our witnesses and especially we grant for parents to the two that have to go on to the senate and to repeat that. we thank you for your endurance and your participation to all of the witnesses who are very sincere about following up with you soon rather than later. sooner rather than later on language to deal with these issues. the principles that we have outlined in the legislation we feel strongly about, we are not creating loopholes. so we look forward to collaborating with you on that within the appeals process in

these various things. i thank you all and we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> andrew keen author of the internet is not the answer on how they are being used for their own profit. >> in the old days people went to work in factories. they were paid for their labor and they worked nine to five and they did what they wanted with that money. today we are all working with google and facebook and twitter and we are working 24 hours and let's not acknowledge that we are creating the value for them. worse than that we are the ones being packaged in this product because of what these companies are doing is learning more and more about this from our behavior what we publish from

photographs and ideas from what we buy and from what we say and do not say. then learning about it that creates more of this and then they are transforming us and repackaging us as the products of the we are the ones being sold. not only are we working for free, but then we are being sold so that it is the perfect movie. >> sunday night on c-span "q&a." >> senate republicans agreed to a democratic amendment on climate change on wednesday. the measure brought up by sheldon whitehouse stated that climate change is real and not a hoax. some of that debate is coming up on c-span2. then jack real outlines president obama's state of the union proposal on changes to the business tax codes. >> on the next "washington

journal" steve isreal talks about his role as the house and the pratt new policy communications committee. and, conduct on middle-class economics and the president state of the union proposal for tax reform tuition free community college and sick leave mandatory benefits. the "washington journal" is live each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the senate continued on the keystone xl pipeline to move this forward. they voted on nonbinding change amendments the first of ryan schatz saying that human activity is a major cause of climate change. and that climate change is not a hoax. that past 90 "a-team" one. here is part of the debate.

>> i would like to speak about this amendment the we are slated to vote on at some point around here. while i respect my neighbor from nebraska coming from this effort, the proposal misses the mark by a mile. it would set up a new and unprecedented process for protecting land designations. it's as the secretary of interior has to publish in the federal register to findings before any congressional protections would go into effect. the first is the secretary has defined and protected land would not adversely affect our efforts to administer existing protected land and then second the department has to have sufficient resources, whatever that is to implement plans to exist on the protected land. while perhaps these would be huge changes in how we do business around here.

coming from a state that is over a third federal land, i would prefer the drastic reform proposals like this have the benefit of a committee hearing before we vote on them on the floor and that way we can hear extra testimony as to whether this is a good idea [inaudible] and it is simply ensures that our land agencies can afford to keep up with the maintenance of new protective lands. so we asked then year after year after year talking about the artificial condition at first to believe that we need more fiscal discipline. but this is not the way that we should get it. i'm a huge believer that we shouldn't be overburdening these agents. that we shouldn't be over

regulating either, but this takes a hatchet or the absolute most that is needed if anything is a surgical techs and under this amendment part of the protected lands could reduce funding through the appropriations process and then turn around and say that the secretary has to veto the new proposals because sufficient resources are available. as one of my friends from colorado said in the paper this morning that this amendment would be a one-two punch. first confirmation agencies and blocking any new protections as a result. this amendment is drafted in a way that we have huge distraction to approve or veto protections that congress has seen fit to create. if the amendment passed, nothing would stop the future secretary from finding that every single conservation built this congress has passed should not take

effect. all because he or she failed to publish a big set of findings rideout in this proposal. historically we don't let this have any discretion as to implementing the laws that congress passes and that the president has signed. yet this measure would do just that. and i think that keeping that historical precedent, with the legislative branch making it and the executive branch implementing it, we have heard a lot about that recently. particularly in a case like this where we are talking about the national heritage. coloradans and all americans want to see more done to protect them and instead this amendment creates new layers of red tape and makes an inactive protective designation even more difficult than it had been. once again i want to say that i appreciate the senator from nebraska and his effort and i would be happy to work with her to address some of her concerns

i would argue that the investments that we do make in our public lands are worthwhile ones. and i would invite anyone in the chamber to come to colorado and see what i'm talking about. protecting the lands with wide-open spaces that are a huge driver of economic growth all across the country. they help to sustain the 600 billion-dollar outdoor recreation economy and a lot of those businesses for obvious reasons are headquartered in colorado. the top of the economic benefits, national monuments that is a part of this and a fundamental part of the fabric of the country in our countries history. it is important to preserve these lands for our kids and our grandkids just as our grandparents preserved them for us and it is worth investing money to do that so that the next generation can experience the greatness that all americans feel when they first visit the grand canyon or rocky mountain

national park or chimney rock national monument or the everglades. wherever we find the next beautiful or historically significant area that congress or the president decides to protect. this past december we passed a large package of consummate conservation measures into law on a bipartisan basis. that package included the bill to we worked on in colorado called her rosa water protection act. and at the outset our office may have introduced a bill in congress but it was really the people that i represent in southwest colorado the road that bill. the legislation grew from the grassroots up from day one republicans democrats independents working together to cement a long-term plan for the community's future. not only was it at the local level but also in congress. my friend championed the bill on

this, the hermosa creek watershed deserves to be protected and that is why the community came together to keep it just as it was. that was the plan of the community and that is one our ill finally accomplished at the end of the last congress. however if we were to pass the amendment in front of us today, all the hard work that went into passing could be undone by the interior secretary, every meeting in southwest colorado every conversation that led to the improvement of this legislation all day all of that could be gone in an instant. not because the congress unjust law but because some administrator using their fiat is able to do this. so it's not unlikely but it's unlikely that that person will have any idea what is in the uppermost accrete bill or any of the other bills that we have

worked on and that is simply not how we do business around here and there is a good reason for that and i am compelled to urge others to oppose this amendment so we can avoid such a scenario. rejecting this will preserve conservation legacy that goes straight back to president teddy roosevelt, the republican who signed the antiquities act into law in 1906 and includes the formal establishment of the national park system almost 100 years ago. this is an extraordinarily beautiful country that we have the privilege to represent and we ought to encourage conservation efforts and not make them harder to achieve. we should build on the legacy legacy generations of americans and generations in the body of republicans and democrats working together to preserve our natural heritage. therefore i will oppose is when it comes up for a vote and i

urge the colleagues to do the same. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> yesterday i offered an amendment to the keystone bill which is straightforward and will not affect the outcome of the underlying legislation. i think it has the potential to get strong bipartisan support. that is because my amendment states a simple set of facts that climate change is real and that humans are contributing to it. this is an opportunity for people on either side of the keystone debate to agree on something. that is a fact. it will inform what happens next and energy policy because as intense over this pipeline is the real question is in front of us after we dispose of this legislation and it goes to the president veto, then we have to contend with our national energy policy and we need to understand

that this requires evidence and the amendment provides those pieces of evidence and we have the final environmental impact statement prepared for the keystone pipeline by the day department, which says that activities have added to the greenhouse gas accumulation and exacerbated the greenhouse effect resulting in greater amounts of heat being trapped in the atmosphere and this is not controversial but also states that these can affect other changes that cascade to the natural systems to affect ecosystems and society's and human health only in the halls of congress is this a controversial piece of legislation. this impact statement talks about thousands of scientists who have contributed to reports with the national research council and u.s. global change

research program. these factfinders have conducted decades of research related to climate change. they have been subject to intense scrutiny internally and externally and the work has holed up with impartiality and accuracy. we have a lot of methodologies to be increasingly deliberate as they develop the findings and present the facts. and only the facts. it is accepted by fortune 500 companies, school teachers, religious groups, and the united states department of defense. it is accepted by nurses and doctors and professional sports, the majority of other countries more than 97% of scientists and many of my colleagues in the house and senate. for most people climate change

exists and is not a controversial issue and certainly the keystone pipeline, once we accept this, there is plenty to argue about. what approach should we take with respect to solving this problem is a right approach. is it the president green power plant and should we wait for or accelerated our actions with respect to international coalitions and agreements. those are legitimate debates to have and we have to agree on the facts. that is why a vote is so important. the senate has before it a bill to a approved a pipeline touted by keystone supporters as a comprehensive and accurate document that affects the environmental impacts of the pipeline. within that impact statement is a comprehensive review and an acknowledgment of the reality of

the facts of climate change. this might be the same one that questions the reality of climate change and i want to try to create a political state where you can be for the keystone xl and still want action on the climate. i think the keystone is the wrong direction to move in and i think that it's doubling down on fossil fuel energy and oil. so i will be voting against it. but i understand that there are people of good faith and plenty of knowledge who will be supporting the pipeline and what we need to do after this is disposed of it will be relatively quickly, agree on a set of facts and move or work with intelligent bipartisan climate policies. last week we learned that 2014 was the hottest year on record and according to two sets of studies by our nation's brightest scientists at nasa and noaa. the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since the year

2000. this means big changes in weather patterns, and increases extreme weather events. sea level has been rising more than twice as fast since 1990 as it did over the previous century. nearly doubling the likelihood of storm surges like the one we experienced during hurricane sandy. over the years the issue of climate change has unfortunately become a partisan issue. but it didn't used to be that way and it doesn't need to be that way going forward. we may not agree on the solutions or the path forward were some of the details, but i believe it is time for us to begin to agree on a basic set of facts. madam president, the purpose of my amendment is to take a step back and take a deep breath on a contentious issue and give the senate an opportunity to come together with no judgment that we except the work of thousands of the world's most dedicated

scientists, including those working with u.s. agencies and for u.s. companies. we accept the reality that our farmers and families have with every passing season. i urge all of our colleagues to vote for this amendment. it is an opportunity to reach date a set of facts with which a majority of americans agree and it makes no presumptions about where we go from here. i am hopeful that we have a big bipartisan vote this afternoon on this amendment and i think that there is an opportunity for common ground obviously keystone is not just dividing this congress that the democratic conference and i understand that. but agreeing on the set of facts related to climate change is a good predicate for all of us moving forward. i yield the floor and go ahead. >> thank you, mr. president. i'm here to say a few words about amendment 29 which we can

vote on shortly after 3:00 o'clock. that is the simple amendment that climate change is real and not a hoax. it is perhaps and this is on the sixth anniversary of the citizens united position. so before they came along there was actually a conversation between democrats and republicans about solution of climate change and what needed to be done about it. princeton senator john mccain talked about the robust platform of addressing climate change. the senator worked with the current energy ranking member,

senator cantwell, a robust climate bill that paid a dividend back to the american people and senator mark kirk voted when that bill was up on the floor of the house, the cap and trade bill. senator you wrote about the value and merit of this one it is offset by reductions in other taxes that is a way to help workers and address the problems. over and over again there was joy and actions all the way back when they first came to the committee and senator john warner of virginia was the then ranking member who wrote about this. both of them said it was united and then came the massive influx

of money into the political system, much of the dark money and in 2010 citizens united decided in january 2010 that that was the end of the conversation. and so here we are today. we are just now reaching an agreement on several vote by which i believe that our republican colleagues for the first time since citizens united have acknowledged the climate change being real. and indeed we just heard about my friend, the senator, coming to the floor and speaking right there, saying that climate change is real and that we have a significant role and it that was something that we needed to pay attention to. so this is new today. after five years of silence i have spoken as everybody knows

a great deal on this subject and nobody has ever come from the other side of the aisle respond to me except for the now chairman of the public works to maintain the view that climate change is a hoax that is perpetrated by the community in order to get grants and funding. and so it has been a long drought. frankly it has been a drought that does not reflect the best traditions of this body, this body has taken on big issues of the past including civil rights, holding this country together over the issue of slavery this body has been significant in the history of the united states and important junctions and here we are where energy policy needs change and half basically was part of this. today, that is being changed and that is very significant. so i look forward to this vote on my amendment and as i said

it is simple because climate change is real and it is not a hoax. i hope that is something that we can agree on as a body. if we do then it becomes a predicate for beginning to advanced and important conversation because i am not going to talk about how to respond to this problem and i don't expect my republican colleagues to agree with how we should respond to this problem. but the dark days of denying that there is actually a problem could very well have seen their first little break of dawn right now. and if that is so, that is exciting news because as many republicans have noted republicans like secretary scholz and polson republicans like ronald reagan and art laffer there are smart conservative ways to address

this problem. and i continue to think that the idea that the senator signed off on this all those years ago talks about raising the fee by putting a price on carbon that reflects the economic facts that it creates harm for so many other folks. the externalities with this, the costs, the people that live near the sea all of those costs in the place of the product, that is economics 101, then taking every dollar that you raise as lower working people taxes. i am completely comfortable with that notion and that is one that has been over and over again brought up in the context of republicans and conservatives discussion including a good recent paper jointly offered from the american enterprise institute.

and so i had the pleasure of the deputy minority leader on the floor, traveling with him and with the ranking member on the judiciary committee and other colleagues as well. so when we spend time with cuban officials and religious leaders regular folks on the street, over and over again, we heard the same phrases coming at us. it was a time of hope and also a time of comments. if it can be this, let's hope that it can be a time during this body on climate change and it starts with admitting that you have a problem. just like in so many other areas of human life are you so i hope that virtually every member of the senate will vote for my amendment and we appreciate the opportunity to work with the new majority on ways that we can address this telling problem.

i am never going away on the subject. it is too important to my state of rhode island, no senator in this body who if they had an issue as important to their home state, i would not expect or respect to fight all the way through to the bitter end for the interest of the state. the fishermen are not finding the fish were they have been for generations. these people are losing them into the sea in big storms. these are real consequences and i promise you one way or the other we are going to do something about it and i hope that this is the dawn of the new day. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> the senator from illinois. >> let me thank my colleague.

we did travel to havana, cuba. interestingly enough we sat down with the scientists and the people responsible for the oceans and other natural benefits in cuba to discuss global warming and the conversation that started in the same place. even the scientists -- there's no question that they can see the impact. they started their predictions about the rise of the ocean levels and the senator from rhode island noses better than i do that they anticipate that levels will the levels will rise over a foot in just 10 or 20 years and then twice at over eight period of 50 years or more. and it will have eight profound impact in cuba and the united states more than any other senator, senator whitehouse has wrought this home not only does to his home but to the atlantic coast state and has reported on the impact that they face.

i can tell you that we appreciate that there are changes taking place on this planet that are not in our best interest or leave our children and grandchildren a better place to live. .. chosen by the republican majority has given us a venue to finally raise some important environmental issues which have been ignored for too long. i know that the object of this bill was to build a pipeline trans-canada a canadian company, wants to build a pipeline through the united states. they may or may not sell any oil from it in the united states. we had a vote on that yesterday. the republicans overwhelmingly said they would not require them to sell their oil in the united states. they may or may not use american steel to build their pipeline. we had that amendment yesterday. the republicans voted overwhelmingly that there's no requirement to use american steel to build this pipeline. and yet it's characterized as

a -- quote -- "american jobs bill." it's hard to understand that characterization. but if nothing else whatever happens to this bill and it may not have a great fate ahead of it if it's not changed significantly the president's already promised to veto, but what the senator from rhode island just said is significant. after years of denial from the ide he >> >> we're finally on a bipartisan basis going to college the obvious of the scientific facts that have been given to us over and over and over again is a step in the right direction. i will take two minutes to say a word about my pending amendment that may come up for a vote short the that is amendment number 69. but there is a dirty little

secret about the keystone pipeline you take the canadian tar sands to turn the bid to diesel fuel without filtering in refining al pretty horrible things. it is produced in the refining process over 15,000 tons a day it is called petcoke. the byproduct of the refining process. if you look at it and think what impact will that have? it can be very negative in my a city of chicago petcoke piles are a challenge to the public health. i've asking my amendment to establish the standard of safety of storage it to protect america's family and children of the hazards of

pre-the the dust. i yield the floor. >> i and so eager to hear what was said that the energy chairman i am hoping after messier's at this vote this could at least allow us to have an honest conversation about what carbon pollution is to read to archive mitt and ocean is of vital consequence to the ocean state and to many of yours as well i hope there is a place we can get together to have a strong positive vote that sends a signal that this said it is ready to deal with reality.

>> mr. president i would yield one minute to the senator from oklahoma. >> the senate will be in order. >> to be added as a co-sponsor to the amendments. >> with no objection. [cheers and applause] climate is changing theirs archaeological evidence and a booklet of the bids and historical evidence and it will always change. but some people are so arrogant to see clear so powerful that they can change climate to be and can not change climate.

[inaudible conversations] good lord david. we'll come by and the vice president in the director of the economic studies here have brooking someone to start with some housekeeping that everybody stays in their seats as the secretary to parts of would be great be appreciated. is my great honor to introduce a 76 secretary this is hosted from the fiscal and monetary policy and is led by my colleague who will be moderating today's discussion. the mission is to improve

public understanding of fiscal policy that fit squarely within the mission it is the policy of the key to have shared prosperity for all americans and a lot of that alluded to changes of the tax code so that is something i am sure the secretary of leverage shot today. secretary to spend much of there is careering and government with the budget and the economy and approved inviable to all of us although i am sure he would be happy to have those experiences in the past. he was confirmed by the u.s. senate in 2013 and previously the white house chief of staff and director of omb and in my household

he is also very well-known for his creasy signature. something i did check last night we were talking about your signature of lusby a prerequisite for the job. talk about house whole dynamics he is also known as the guy who keeps hiring all of my great colleagues at the treasury they're doing great work although imus them. we're delighted he is here today to share his views of the economy in the administration scrolls for golf ball in his remarks we will be the conversation and take questions. with that mr. secretary they queue for being here today. [applause]

>> thanks for that kind introduction and for hosting this party and for being here today. and the panel that we rely on every day. put -- prickings has been at the center to help create jobs and growth the economy. it is of pleasure to be here this morning. last night at the state of union the president put forward a proposal to keep the economy on track to help more americans with higher in towns and rising wages the book that includes strategy is easier to buy a home where four students to attend college without getting debt and also high-tech manufacturing and working families and

businesses and consumers to defend themselves against cyberattacks into begun in - - three brand the infrastructure. and we need to knock down barriers of child care or saving for college or building a secure retirement so they can all competes to make the nation for the high paying jobs that support that. prior to the "state of the union" the president outlined the plan to raise wages and in comes said includes the strategy to simplify the tax code by eliminating the biggest loopholes to help families

grow the economy. i want to discuss the tax system and why we need to fix it to promote growth and prosperity. our entire federal tax code needs to be overhauled since then it has become heavily burdened i was proud to be a fault on capitol hill with the last major reforms in 1986 would be demonstrated working together across party lines is good for the country. weld use are far apart there is a broad set that which we should be able to agree. the best way to achieve those today's to start with tax reform that strengthens the middle-class, lowers rates coming simplifies the system, levels the playing

field to eliminate an efficient the polls. when we make the switch is also during the transition into create jobs repairing tunnels but the fact is there is a growing bipartisan consensus on how to achieve tax reform with a unique opportunity now to get this done. and i want to do is talk about the strengthening economic recovery. over the past five years the private sector created more than 11 million jobs the longest in the nation's history. last year alone create more jobs in the calendar years as they to 97 into the month of december they added 240,000 to do jobs. the unemployment is the

lowest in six and a half years. but at the same time gdp pose strong gains and many private forecasters projected above trend. the imf revised the economic outlook for the united states upward by lowering the forecast. the overall growth is supported to gradually improve the housing market. the affordable care active place millions no longer have to worry of the unexpected illness or people with pre-existing conditions are now guaranteed access. now there is a watchdog gatt plays in now key agencies responsible to do important work with all of the energy

strategy now leading producer of petroleum and natural gas. because of the economic expansion the federal government financial condition has significantly improved and the deficit has been cut by two-thirds. advocate for american workers and businesses how much better the united states has recovered. it is important to remember this recovery is not an accident but a result of the determination of the american people, the resilience of businesses and policy choices with the prior administration congress and the federal reserve. despite the progress there is more work to do to make sure the economic growth and prosperity is more broadly shared. as part of that the tax reform to help fuel economic

growth and encourage businesses to create good high-paying jobs and expand opportunities to have a strong middle class. and has been three years since the president laid out his framework to make sure the system works for everybody. this year were members of both parties can work together to make progress for the american people. on paper we have the highest corporate income tax rate is and though world but in practice there is a wide disparity. some pay little or no tax at all even worse than it allows american companies to shift profits overseas and drives businesses for the business out of united states over time our tax

code is weighed down with loopholes or subsidies. some were good ideas whose time has passed. the end result is industry specific breaks from tax breaks for one sector to the next. for instance our oil and gas producers are awarded with tax breaks that reduce the taxes of oil companies far below retail and manufacturing even with all these loopholes that makes it too hard for businesses to launch into united states it is too hard for businesses to compete overseas. and the business tax system

is far too complicated one on average spend cellhouses to comply we must reduce the burden had actually skews decisions in ways that makes it harder for the economy to grow summiteer shaped by consideration is when they should cavity as productivity and growth the tax code should favor those best businesses that have economic value said juries blood ashley choice between real-estate every fracturing should not be driven by tax planning and wednesday are it hurts growth in america's working families. with the system alerts to have the most creative accounting addition of services the way of a growing economy and creating

jobs. for example, it is so distorted multinational corporations are several times larger than the eight tire economic output this did not reflect the reality in did erodes the tax base and confidence. last year we saw a broken tax system we saw a spike in the number of companies with public outrage that followed it takes place when it declares it is no longer your american based. he's a little more than the tax avoidance scheme because allows us to lower the tax will provide of consistently said although it may be legal they're wrong.

but due to tax code that encourages these decisions ready to fix them they will not have the incentive for the ability to pay. to be clear for genuine business reasons to be productive a negligible economy we're better off with their free to benefit greatly from the united states as a destination but it is the very different cases mergers for the united states is still the best place for so many companies to do business by rule of law and the interactions -- intellectual property rights and skilled work force are unparalleled. many want to take advantage of u.s. infrastructure but want to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. to damage the finances and

it is not fair because they pay more of the tax bill. to help level the playing field to make sure ready plays by the rules. if they keep most business in the united states they could eliminate certain techniques that certain companies use to avoid. they strip away some of the economic benefit and then we see it decline but some deals were granted an entirely. it is not a complete solution but a short-term response it addresses the root cause it eliminates the loophole to close the door that makes the tax system unfair and overly

complicated. this could only be done through legislation. to be carefully constructed to provide a basis for bipartisan support. i look forward to continuing conversations to make progress on reform. there is a great deal of overlap with the recent proposal including former chairman of the house and waits -- ways committee to rebuild the nation's roads and bridges and we know from past experience which a into a new tax system will generate transition in revenues. the president's plan use the portion for though long-delayed investments to upgrade infrastructure to address the needs to meet

long-term electricity needs. to create a good manufacturing construction job base right away. rebuilding the core infrastructure will have a long-term benefit to make america a more attractive a place to do business our economy is strong for in the future. to meet those infrastructure needs we will pay a price the jobs now into the future with the reduction of quality of life from longer commute times more power outages in the water breaks or services to damage small businesses to take up by data salaries. we need to be careful how we use one time revenue witnessed by use them to provide permanent tax cuts instead we shared use these

to make responsible one time investments of the nation's infrastructure. now let's return to the specific component of the president's framework. his proposal for new business system has a representative attempt with the task for word. we need to lower rates and closed the polls. to make this system of competitive in fiscally responsible. it eliminates dozens of tax breaks and loopholes without adding to the deficit reduces the tax rate from 35 percent down a 20%. this is in line with our trading partners to help encourage investment in the united states. as to broaden the tax base rekeying creates more certainty to make it more efficient. and with the bipartisan support to reform word. second we need to build a

resurgence of manufacturing in the united states that is fundamental to our capacity and an important source of good paying jobs for american workers purple that is why the president's plan makes it more attractive to build and expand here rather than overseas it of lower tax rates at 25% and gives incentives including the research and experimentation in tax credit to make a permanent. that just starts private investment of research and technology to. elevation to spark new jobs or breakthroughs of engineering in production. this is another area of bipartisan support. to the aircraft and republicans alike want to fix the international tax rules to weed out that will shift income overseas.

it is often in look dash out from the territorial system leadbelly pays tax is earned in that country but in the state taxes on worldwide income. the president's proposal strikes is a sensible balance and has a more hybrid system. that we would have a new minimum tax to make it simple to break and come back to his united states. said they cannot use accounting techniques as shifting profits. were over the strategy eliminates those every board companies to shut down operations and those that bring production in back to the united states. we could help encourage investment in the united states with the hybrid structure has been adopted

by some republican tax proposals and should be an area where we could find bipartisan consent. fourth, we all want to simplify and reduce taxes for small businesses of mom-and-pop stores and start-ups for entrepreneurs. small businesses embody the american principle of you were carted back irresponsibly you can succeed. but they're also the ones of the new industries. small businesses employ half of the work force in generate half of the gdp. we're making sure that small businesses can flourish if the president came into office we have extended

benefits to support lending to tens of thousands sarah vengeance can get to the market sooner. we need to do more to strengthen small businesses that the business tax reform plan make spiraling easier for small businesses and to is the same common-sense way it would allow them to spend $1 million of investment. the permanent changes would direct more earnings to expanding and hiring and apply with a complicated tax code. by giving small business owner certainty they can invest. finally to fix the broken

and tax code to increase investment to maintain current revenue. reform should be revenue neutral in the long run is a short-term. we have come a long way independent forecasters project with a 10 year budget window deficits will remain at a sustainable level of gdp. we can only afford to cut substantially to eliminate the polls to use the savings to avoid an explosion of future debt. but it the business tax breaks are made permanent including the so-called extenders better currently reauthorize year after year to be paid for with revenues that offset the expense. it is a form of tax expenditure in because they show lost tax revenue they

will help to foot the bill for these expenditures of course, they make sense and need to be protected by the new market tax credit for research of experimentation and tax credits. but they need to be paid for. and we cannot apply a double standard as some have proposed to have business provisions without paying for them without permanently having critical improvement to the income tax credit, a college credit and tax credits that help working families at the same time. since congress reconvened the house change the way the cost of legislation will be calculated known as dynamic scoring. we think this is otherwise given the uncertainty involved in the assumptions have to be made and the unequal treatment of tax cuts for the annual

appropriations. while there may be different opinions and estimates the effects the matter what barometer you use coming in the end nobody should want to blow holes in a lower budget. . .