and the government to be picking winners and losers, whether it is relating to a type of automobile or energy sources, mr. muscat just let me right into this, by acknowledging that some of the incentives and supports that we currently have are going to need to be around for a while longer. with looking at the charts you provided it is clear that what has happened with the lower price of gasoline at the pump it has influence consumers decision as to whether or not they're going with electric or hybrid. could you speak to this issue of where we try to pick a winner and loser and emerging area. from your members perspective

and preferences, how should the federal government handle, or should they had all in promoting fuel and efficiency related that inadvertently or not may push in the direction that perhaps does put us in a situation where we are picking winners and losers. >> so the short answer is, our members prefer an approach that is technology neutral. so that the short answer. the longer answer is more complicated. we identify with the goal of reducing carbon. we identify with the goal of reducing fuel dependency. all of those things are noble objectives. the complication comes from the

nature of the regulatory regime, and what we have is an approach that were measures by mpg's, epa measures by greenhouse gas and that there is an overlapping state program from california which is executed in other states and the lab program is effectively not technology neutral. it is either to comply to and in today's world most electrification. both were complying but different regimes create friction and at a cost. we get caught the middle between a mandate on consumption, some mandate on what consumers buy in the low gas tax environment consumers are moving away from the stated social objectives of

electrification and moving folks into smaller cars and trucks. it's a challenge. technology neutral is ideal. you have to recognize consumers will respond in a fashion that is rational for them and they are not into optimizing policies. they are into maximizing their pocketbook. >> i appreciate that. ms. ms. : had mentioned in her testimony that contained within this bipartisan energy bill we have moved out of committee and will be on the floor next week that there are some r&d provisions in their that are good for the industry. i appreciate you pointing that out. anything else in that energy bill that the auto makers are looking at insane this is helpful. >> yes first of all a major bill that has bipartisan support is a

wonderful gesture around the country, it's a great symbol of the accomplish work. >> we want it more than a simple, we watch update policy. >> it's consumer confidence is vital to purchasing because items like cars. more specifically, there are provisions in the bill that are helpful, critical minerals piece matters, i showed a chart that has increasing price of cars, to the extent we can rustle challenges down where stabilizing supply and reducing costs. that allows allows people to buy new cars and that is terrific. the virginia component that was brought to the table is also helpful. we without to focus because at the end of the day they can

address 80% of all non- impaired accidents. the fuel implications of safety implications are substantial. the system there is helpful. >> i appreciate you bringing up the critical minerals bill. you mention that as well in the context of material availability and what that means for the industry. recognizing that we do not want to go in the same direction as our critical minerals, that we were headed when it came to real vulnerability. and also relying on foreign sources for oil, think that something we are all paying attention to. the 1030 vote has started, i am started, i'm going to excuse myself from the committee and senator will ask her questions that i would ask her to go back and forth, i think you'll see members popping

in and out don't take that as a lack of interest. i'll be back task another round of questions. >> thank you madam chair, i'm going to defer to my colleague from michigan so. >> thank you very much. i have to say that i can spend hours talking about this representing michigan in so many the technologies are being developed through our industries in michigan and our great university that better collaborate with the department of energy and so on. vehicle to vehicle technology, all the safety things you're talking about that are so critical as well as addressing energy savings and emissions and what is happening on a range of things around better battery development. i'm sorry the chair left because

i'll be talking to her more about this, 11 piece that did not get in the energy bill that were looking forward on the floor is the provision that senator kathy and i put forward on the advanced technology vehicles program to be able to expand the flexibility of that to larger vehicles which is so important to auto suppliers. we know now that the latest department of energy advanced technology actually went to alcoa and tennessee to be able to help them continue the very exciting opportunity around aluminum. we know the f1 50, i saw my cats for automobiles on talking about this. the f1 50 has been able to take 700 pounds out of their truck by using aluminum instead of steals. but i wonder if you might expand on what is in your written

testimony as well about the importance of taking existing program and giving them a broader portfolio so we can address what needs to be done around larger vehicles and trucks. >> we are supportive of your effort to broaden the eligibility to track and suppliers. we think that makes sense. >> from your perspective as well, how do you see that helping us as we are moving forward to tackle energy savings. >> it is clear that heavier vehicles is an important area to tackle when it comes to fuel efficiency. the super truck program has shown there is a lot of progress that can be had, progress needs to be backed up with investments especially when you consider long-haul trucks account for 4% of registrations but 10% of oil use. clearly having more resources

and opportunity to invest is an important part of a balanced portfolio. >> and listening to all of you and watching and going to the north american auto show and having the chance to sit in these vehicles which is exciting to see. one of the things that i keep coming back to leaving your chart looking at what consumers are choosing and certainly gas prices work against as we look at new technologies and so on will look at this what i hear all the time from people is a concern about lack of infrastructure. at the auto show where seen hybrids and electric vehicles with 120-watt it could be plugged into a regular plug but when i look at things that hydrogen fuel cells that have huge potential, our department of defense is doing in all of these areas, it seems to me that we have got to be focused more aggressively on making sure the gas station is actually a

service station and you have the option there and they are consumer friendly. i wonder, if you could respond to that and anyone else who would like to respond, how do we really get there where we get over the huge barrier of lack of choice at the service station. >> i agree particularly with hydrogen in the title. the lack of infrastructure is a big problem. i think one of the big roles the federal government can play is to make sure their technology for the infrastructure is as ready as the technology for the vehicles are.

the auto companies have done a fantastic job. if you get a chance to drive a new vehicle it will knock your socks off, it's really great. drivers will want reliable fueling stations that are online every time they go there. if they don't, we are going to have a false start. that's why at an ro we have built a research station specifically for the purpose of looking at the reliability of the hydrogen infrastructure to make sure the components are ready to identify mistakes, we are working with h2 usa which is a public and private partnership of people in the industries to try to identify what are the critical items for them to make sure hydrogen infrastructure can get ready. >> and armada time but if you could just briefly respond to that. >> i was greek completely on the hydrogen infrastructure if it's premised on a gas station model of centralized once week fueling for plug-in vehicles it is more of a cell phone model.

work, home and opportunistic charging so they're responding to to the needs of work, home and public are slightly different. i would say that we are working, the industry is working with the department of energy, state, local programs on all of those levels. >> senator gardner. >> thank you very much, thank you for the witnesses for your time today. welcome to the energy committee. i joined the drive in the hydrogen fuel vehicle at the golden headquarters last year, it was a great opportunity to see the work you were doing there. also for the interest of members, senator gary peters and i have treated as smart transportation caucus so it is going to be a vehicle to vehicle communication. if anyone is interested in those efforts i would love to see you on the

caucus and talk to senator peters and i for that. we have a range of issues that we can talk about. kind of fun to hear about what everyone is working on. in colorado if you german to the mountains anytime in the last several years you have probably spent a couple of hours and traffic jams. thoughts aren't we are not going to be drilling a new tunnel through the eisenhower, johnson anytime soon. so the solution we have to look for are being talked about in this panel, vehicle to vehicle methods and modes. so if you questions that go beyond this committee. we have questions of spectrum, how are cars going to communicate with each other to have enough spectrum to make sure cars can communicate with each other. we have issues of moral authority that will have to be determined.

when a car is going to make a decision driving by itself to take the ditch, to hit the wildlife that might be crossing the road because a car might become a. these are questions over time that need to be worked out, under thomas will have to make those decisions, the kind of communications an older vehicle makes its interesting and agriculture that we have been using driverless tractors for over a decade now. you can retrofit a 30 or 40-year-old tractor with a self steering mechanism. it brings increase of productivity to agriculture so what it could mean to sell transportation, clogging daughters of our transportation system. this morning it was just announced, just recently announced that they had entered into an ammo you with the department of transportation in colorado for research on i 70 and i 25 quarter when it comes

to vehicle to vehicle communication. can you talk about that. >> c dodd has announced their road x program which is to look at the potential for using these automated and connective technologies in all aspects. they joined with national renewable energy lab, in particular to bring in the fuel economy and emissions aspect of it. we are in discussions with them and are looking at a number of possible projects where we can help see.by collecting data and providing analysis and the data for them and confirming that these technologies do make the difference that we hope that we make. we are very excited about it. in particular, we have not quite found that i7070 quarter project but i am looking forward to the

day the car drives me up i 70 rather than me sitting there and traffic. it's a very exciting partnership. >> what is research shows about congestion. >> we are working on modeling it. right now what we have seen is if we look at the energy impact, there can be dominated by several effects, if the dominant effect that introducing these new technologies is to make the traffic flow much more smoother, we will reduce the energy per mile driven significantly. the problem is now if we make it so convenient, will people drive more miles? that's that's a big research question where looking at now. what is the bounce back effect of having removed the barriers?

if no one cares if they're sitting in their car will they drive more miles and drive the emissions up even though there are fewer emissions per mile? that's a tough nut to crack, says much about how consumers think and make decisions based on the information they are receiving as it is on the technology. i can't give you an answer right now, could be anywhere from half of the energy consumed to twice as much energy consumed. i think it is going to be a big effect and i think we need to understand that as soon as possible. >> think it would be a perfect solution that it would have over senators team the new york patriots will end of this month. >> dream on. your dream can last a few more days. >> the throwdown, senator warren,. >> thank you.

>> there are two ways to repeal a rule, you can repeal it out right, stricken from stricken from the books or you can paper over the role with enough exceptions and alternatives that the role becomes fairly meaningless. the auto industry complains about ambitious fuel economy standards because it costs money to make cars more efficient and to reduce their pollution. the industry knows it cannot when they had on fight to roll back standard so it looks like the industry is trying to paper over it. here's how it works, recently, house, house republicans introduced a bill to improve auto safety that includes a loophole that lets the automakers a break from fuel economy standards. the bill is nine specific safety technology. car companies have already agreed to install several of him. this is not a big stretch.

but the bill says if any automaker installs three technologies from the list they will be eligible for a credit equal to at least 3 grams of carbon dioxide per mile toward their greenhouse gas emission requirement. another way words it says you do what you already agreed to do and you can slide by with lower epa standards. so it's a pretty slick operation. what i can't figure out is the calculation that three safety features should be were exactly 3 grams of carbon dioxide per mile. not one grammar 10 grams. you represent the auto industry and you have been a vocal supporter of this provision, so can you tell me whether your industry suggests this number to the house of representatives or to the house republicans give you the number? >> i think in a context if i

could. >> i just want to know who came up the number. >> we did not originate the number. >> so the house republicans came up the number? >> this was a draft presented provision that was shown to us for the grams per mile. but let me contextualize. >> so you be okay if they didn't do it. >> the tesla, gets about 600 grams of credit, that's a car that's roughly three -- were providing 6 grams of credit. the safety technologies as we talked today have a value for safety and fuel efficiency. >> let me stop there. the question is not whether or not reducing congestion may or may not reduce pollution ultimately, i, i think it's actually quite a debatable

point. there's been evidence on both sides of this that as i understand the economists puts it when it comes to pollution the evidence suggests that if you reduce congestion, people actually drive further and that more than offsets the point that was just being made. i i just had just one question and that is, who kelly collated the number that it was three grams. if you're telling me the auto industry do not do it, then i just want to know who did it. your lobbying for it and are supported by scientific evidence, where did the number come from? >> this is a draft document, i don't know where the number came from but it is a modest number in context of what is going on in the context of the overall cap a target. >> i appreciate that you think it's a small number. >> but were not talking about

tesla, were talking about our gasoline powered engines. were talking about not meeting establish epa standards. i think that's clear and i asked if you have evidence on this and you said now even though you said it supported and backed up by evidence. neither the idea of northern number number is based on any concrete research. i think it's just trying to rollback part of the epa rules without having to tell the american people about it. in 2014, more than 32,000 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes as you pointed out. that is 32,000 reasons right that is 32000 reasons right there to encourage the adoption of promising safety technologies like automatic emergency braking. car company should make cars safer and they should also meet their fuel economy obligations. if they do not want to do that,

they should paste the american people and explain why they want softer pollution standards and let's see what the american people have to say. >> thank you. >> man i respond? we signed up for the café program and as i noted the café program is a consumption mandate not a production mandate. i showed you a number of models, both electric highbred and high mpg models that we have generated and put on the show room. we are doing our part, if we are production mandate it would be over, but it's it's not it's a mandate on what consumers buy. consumers are not by the products you want so i asked for scientific evidence that how it is. >> if you do what you're already doing you're going to get credit so far. >> let's talk scientific evidence. >> we are out of time and senator warren does have to vote. maybe you can do that in

response. >> senator dane. >> thank you for holding this hearing it is very important and timely topic. my home state of montana is a big state, the fourth largest state, not as big as elastic but we are the fourth-largest. we have a very dispersed population, over 75,000 miles the roads, we have roads, we have second-highest rate of car ownership in the country. it brings unique challenges on a transportation infrastructure. it is the pillar of our economy and allows people to go across the state and it's imperative to keep people and freight moving efficiently and safely as possible. today we've talked about the role of regulations, my concern with mandates, like so many others as they typically do more

harm than they do good. based on cases we have seen in this administration they are often unattainable, they pinch the wallets of hard-working americans, and they waste taxpayer dollars. for example as pointed out, of the 17 and a half million vehicles sold last year, only approximately 400,000 were plug-in hybrids, battery electric and fuel-cell vehicles. not reaching half of obama's goal to have 1,000,000 on the the roads by 2015. in 2008 congress mandated the control on freight rail tracks that carry passengers of certain hazardous materials by the end of 2015 despite the rails best efforts the complexity and scale make full development possible.

additionally, president obama's fiscal year 2017 year 2017 budget will request for billions dollars for the development of a thomas vehicles. meanwhile, automakers are going to in fast $100 million a year globally to produce reliable and safe solutions. 99% of of this investment is from private, nongovernmental sources. we should continue innovating technology to make our vehicles safer and more efficient but we should not let consumers determine, but we should that consumers determine not a bunch of washington bureaucrats. as you know public policies and regulations do not always align with the preference of consumers. can you expand upon your vision of more productive relationship and i emphasize productive between industry and government and how do you see reducing the

federal role may actually benefit the industry and benefit the consumer? >> that's a tough one but easier than senator warren's question so thank you. the goal of fuel efficiency, then those are social goals and to get there requires an investment in us 100,000,000,000 dollars that you have reference. it requires consumers requires consumers of all because it is a consumption mandate not a production mandate. it requires government being supportive of research help but or in the form of infrastructure of electric and hydrogen vehicles. it's a complicated matrix. once we have established that we are shooting for a target, we have to find a way to get there and in the low gas price environment, that's a challenge.

it's exasperated by the success -- were kind of caught. we are producing great products and we want this program to succeed because we have to, both because it's good for the environment but because we have mandates to make that happen. but it's a trick, consumers want to do a consumers want to do, their rational and their behavior and policy makers seek to optimize an outcome. consumers are motivated by different standard which is enough is enough. if they they can save $5000 and applied to a college education or food on the table and not by a hybrid, they they may choose to do that. then we are caught in the middle. >> it may seem counterintuitive to some, how do you see reducing the federal in vehicle technology and innovation benefiting the industry and

consumer? >> where government could be most helpful -- we have a mandate for quarter of the marketplace, it's it's not a federal role but it is a rule and it affects 25 or 30% of the country. we have the nits the mpg requirement and we have the epa greenhouse gas requirement, and they are not harmonize. if we had one national program that it would be much more efficient to comply. we we could reduce the cost of the vehicles, that would speed up adoption, that be a great thing. there is a way to square this but we have to get rid of regulatory burdens, then there is a chance for to succeed. >> thank you madam chair, sorry to be late, i was at an armed services hearing.

first, i should say that i'm excited that i just bought an electric car. i'm looking forward to using it. seems to me and i apologize if i am repeating, because because i did not hear your testimony. >> ..

>> >> such as wind power ha -- and solar power but to integrate electric vehicles into the rugged selenite with more wind blowing you can use cost-effective wind power during the day the demand is up the be batteries can pride electricity to balance the load that is a great example but if you look back over a lifetime and those ever either dramatically slowed or reverse. and with electric vehicles

and instead we need to focus on investing in technology to prove there resiliency of the grid. and to give consumers a lot more choice in the of marketplace. >> and the rise is with that battery segment is scaling of the options and with energy storage. and to be used.

>> as the house battery they came from automobile technology. >> correct. tesla partnership for energy storage. >> but what people don't realize it is like a church built for christmas day it has enough room for the parishioners but on a slow sunday in march there are a lot of the d.c. it's. the wires are built for the heaviest day and that night in the winter because they are more conductive and cold weather there is a tremendous access -- excess capacity you could do that without one dime of additional infrastructure that is one of the attractive features of electric cars just beyond the fact to free yourself

from the dependence of false -- fossil fuels. >> one of the earlier studies of this and with that existing powless 81 dash policies to mcfadyen is important and i missed your testimony but and where are we with battery technology with the two or 300-mile range? >> with those batteries that were removable if you take out the propane take -- tank what happened to that idea?

>> i am holding hear the of lithium ion battery developed at the national labs this is no laces to the auto industry to help you drive off in the 200-mile range continuing to invest in technologies like these and that is for the rooftop solar for example, and also for grid stability there is a national security interests here in decentralizing the grid so it is said to centralize attack to be more self dealing can somebody say

yes? >>. >> but as be go to hundred miles or more you will need 220 volts so with some support to a the consumer everyone people to access more that offers more mileage. >> i object go-ahead.

>> guard any estimates going at 73 percent of the vehicles without changing the grid what is required to go to 20? is of that would a clothes dryer use this? is just a matter to rewire your house in the carport. >> is the injured al let level to is to under 40 that is the dryer that will charge your car and 480 volts is more of a commercial or public installation.

>> how many people could have day electric car with a short range, the people only use them for short trips? >> the vast majority more than 80% travel less than 40 miles a day. and that 80 percent of charging happens out were scanned at home in the last 20% is opportunistic but that is the part that adds to long distance travel but in fact, the existing infrastructure is the cost of the day very to upgrade the panel has come down materially. >> we haven't of program

that is focused to have more and more partners even add of level 1120-volt range war two vintage 50 partners and if i plugged in and out work that could double the range i could use on a battery so that is the incredibly effective option. >>. >> i know there is no one answer for what happened to the of battery i was very intrigued because israel was doing that. and the answer that i got but israel is a very small country but i don't have

very many brands but with a high percentage of israelis so i love the idea of it but it doesn't seem to work for the united states. >> this is the additional challenge not only of the standardize vehicle configuration it contemplates an inventory of very expensive batteries. >> what i love about this that is too bad. >> because of the logistics

challenge and to ship batteries from one to the other? >> maybe you get 50 or 90 miles and then the last part of your travel. >> that is the analysis that opportunity cost to have that so many tied up with the batteries to those that have a much higher value. while giving him an extra three minutes i spent 15 seconds answering his question. yes i am here to serve my colleagues.

that's why i am so popular. i was fascinated with us testimony with the incredible evinces we are making and with that cost of high energy of more than 45% in three years. this is very, very exciting i think. but one thing we had a few years ago with an american energy and innovation council a guy from cisco systems and they basically were saying on energy

research. ended the paper today 2015 the hottest year on record by a significant margin and to have a real problem. but shouldn't we be spending more on basic research of this kind of research as a percentage of gdp? >> assured the answer is yes. joining with 19 other worldbeaters in november to

kick off mission n innovation with the globe to as much as double spending on clean energy research. to put that investment toward technology investable by energy it works well by of the tough problems then be in a position to handoff those industries to provide more options to develop a fellow car bin dai it address the warming pollution. >> including the oil and gas industry. and then today gas and oil out of jail was a partnership but to meet our

-- we're the ones that i know we do it when we need to do more with health care. and to have funding for alzheimer's but this is so important than the benefits or the offshoots give me some day down the benefits of on the money that we spend. >> and to save fuel to reduce as much and lung disease have a 70 / one benefit to cost ratio but overall the last 20 or 30 years lookit that benefit to cost ratio. so to develop technologies

to save lives and save fuel and cut carbon emissions we deliver that to tax payers and breaking the pharmaceuticals extending 50 times what we do and we need to close the gap. >> talk about technology neutral and with that analogy you don't know which course will win the race to have every horse of the track in the beginning is good. and to be behind by some analogies but you never know

what the end that is the technology that wins the race. >> m1 to talk about what alaskans are talking about. trucks. because we drive on a lot of trucks in the senator mentioned montana is big with open space and alaska is an open spaces we haul a lot of the year. whether the votes or the of for reelers or snow machines are the stuff you move around with those worse conditions with snow accumulation. there is a lot of interest where is it going with these technologies?

with my opening statement to run on compressed natural gas and propane but when you talk about the difference remaking with lighter vehicles to gain to the efficiency is is important you cannot haul what you need to call. tell me where we are to read mitt that consumer demand. those setter of the eastern seaboard that is interested how we make the trucks more fuel-efficient and in addition to a that recognizing in places like alaska or minnesota or some

of the things we talk about -- of course, . i am looking at you. but some of the issues that we face with colder temperatures with trucks. >> now the first is that the end of the day this is a consumption mandate we have to respect what consumers want to do. the cafe program begins to do that with that footprint

base is a composite of what cars gets for that flexibility for trucks within the terms of expectations is rising. it is a trick so our mission is to comply with the obligations but also what consumers want. >> where are we on the technologies? >> said traces are also making their way into the segments you will see the

plug given hybrid and cross over vehicles they are meeting the demands of their consumers as well as the dry cycle. for instance with the plan again hybrid when the utility go ocellated night to work on that silently to activate the bucket because of the workers on the ground can hear what they're doing there are few will sell buses on the road today to accommodate those heavier loads.

>> rubio not seen that with the tracks. we are a three truck family and we are still looking at the older trucks that are out there. >> in many ways right now is the story of about innovation that is dramatically boosting you can buy a truck engine it has said better or save safety performance so i would argue there is massive progress and it just isn't as obvious because it is under the hood. but with the standards but no matter the size of your vehicle you can double the

efficiency that is even more valuable than a car or truck so you can save money on fuel with technologies for gm and others nissan is about to introduce of vehicle with their pickup truck boosting fuel in efficiency with great progress on the internal combustion engine. >> what i would like to add is the various molecules' from biomass. into combining different ways that will enable the next generation to continue

to make improvements on the efficiency of the internal combustion engine and to have a potential to have fuel economy with greenhouse gas emissions. and then just to look what is on the fuel side with the bile feedstocks. >> we will let the panel go at 1130. >> first thank you for holding this hearing is an important topic. the you allow us to have this discussion i and interested in the many and finances.

when will electric vehicles be fully competitive and not needed tax credit with regard to gas prices? one state the tax credit when to weigh in the sales plunged. the real question is is when can stand on its own 2 feet. >> but to talk about the future it may take some time is the short answer for a number of reasons. and then to significantly reduce the cost and then to have 200 miles plus range

even if the sales are at 100 bucks so groth is a significant cost. another 50% it is the few years out. with the price of gasoline. and that per barrel and looking for those paybacks. >> but that current plunges in oil prices is attributed

to i have not made the decision to buy the electric car. [laughter] >> the more we improve efficiency the more we keep prices down. but at the same time with the professor friend of mine made the most profound observation that said they will always be the opposite of what you expect if you expect them to be high in the act accordingly with those conservation measures to have an excess supply prices will be low if they get 8 miles a gallon than

they will be high so i thought that was an interesting observation below is the opposite of what you expect. >> that is why the legislation is important. >> think he is due to each of you has been useful what is new then go to the daughter show and see the advancements it is clear there will take time to get comfortable with with the

low-level of the efficiency responding to what the consumers are hoping for is good news. so thank you for your contributions. we are injured. [inaudible conversations]

>> betting credible insatiable demand for many years with the issues to exacerbate all of this. first they're not in town the do all this other stuff to make them reluctant and then the special interest pressures. >> history was littered with dysfunction and washington almost resigned because of the jay treaty.

they here are things that could make a difference. >> women are going to university in greater numbers then men especially the gulf countries the proportions are even greater. in the the women will tell you because it is acceptable way to delay marriage or to be outside the home that the family support.

we are here to get you in

the mood bin as there is nothing like new hampshire to have people from vermont. [laughter] it is really good to be here. one day in june when bernie announced his candidacy i got to introduce him then as well. also ben and jerry were on hand. [laughter] all kinds of good feelings but the truth be told diddley even really truly believe six months later he would be winning this thing? [cheers and applause]

it didn't feel like a lock but the red sox. possible but by no means guaranteed. but i'll six is an incredibly exciting because the because of the response all over the place. i have tried a few times to figure out for the response and why if zero -- people are catching on. but first people somehow understand his authenticity. >> we have had experience but il

state. even smaller than new hampshire. but you understand he is the end of the real deal in and down every purchase road. every politician says he is for the of the i -- of the tall guy. second, he has been offering big solutions to big problems because we have big problems m1 is that crazy

eddie'' the world that we live in to show the richest 62 people have more and assets but these people more ready then they won the powerball probe of that is not a sustainable life hint hidden his bed with that of their problem he talks about is climate change. the 2015 was the hottest ever heard richard 60 degrees on christmas eve.

it was three years ted strickland dash sticky but now all over the world but it is said disease and the latin-american the missive the because the mothers had been bitten by one of theten bye mosquitos during pregnancy. this bill enacted this lake.

is a huge problem but it will take that energy. that is the indicative focus it but he has said over and didn't let to build the movement but the biggest the

is to elect him president that lead him to do it unison off and though -- do it himself. it will take a movement to make things happen with real change history shows it only happens that the beginnings of this fight to we felt we did not have a chance or anybody didn't you there. but the 93% and they would have their permit of 2011

but they show up in a rage what but at the beginning but those that would help us. owen nolan was bernie sanders. [cheers and applause] and he could not have been in a roar from right not that it would do him any favors good to but because he believed would our aunt in now that will shave inge

thinks and those of us the lead wouldn't it was good to stipulate the new hampshire as part of the most important part of the political system and decide the presidency. and i am always impressed when i come here because how seriously they take kidvid this exists if you smoother and those in new hampshire

is the same kind of gift as given to donald trump last six or eight months because they actually represents hope for the future but i will introduce introduce him. [laughter] someone cooking and vowed she even better than i can. i will introduce the next president of the united states. [cheers and applause]

>> thanks for coming and we have lived in claremont new hampshire the last 12 years. the person i would introduce a i know a an analyst denier period i have a hard time reticulating what bernie sanders means but there ted and chief america and the hafts were each will earn but in america today to public colleges and withdrew show proof and they and to

be up part of the past. [cheers and applause] and the size of your knowledge does not dictate if you can win political off months relive to naysay huge regional have the debate of clean air and marine -- and water. i could go on and on what bernie sanders means to the country but i only have two minutes. [laughter] this is not about bernie sanders it is each and every one of us. please give a warm welcome

to bernie sanders the next president of the united states. [cheers and applause] ♪ >> thank you so much. >> i love you. >> i love you to. >> this is a wonderful turnout. what me also think my friends and i trust that all of you know, that not only

an outstanding writer but natalie the subject matter but he writes very well. but not just one of those leaders of the movement to come back with climate change but and that has played the of role to bring people to stand up with the fight to save our full and it -- save our planet. [applause] >> talk about organizing at the grassroots level, i year-and-a-half and a - - ago we were in in your city

of lots of people from all over the world of that congress thank difference all over the planet recognize the seriousness of what we're going through now and move aggressively to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel and energy efficiency and sustainable energy. [cheers and applause] so you hear from an international leader when you hear from him on one of the most important issues facing our country. but let me say two words about our campaign before i get into my remarks. we began this campaign about nine months ago. and when we began, we had no

money, no organization, and frankly my name recognition was not very high. the lot of pundits said i comb my hair outstandingly. [laughter] i just got a haircut. [applause] my wife said enough is enough. [laughter] in this campaign was considered to be a french interesting but not significant and i think a lot has happened in nine months. [cheers and applause] with your help we have a real shot to win in new hampshire doing better and

better in iowa we were ahead just a few hours ago. [applause] and it is fair to say we have a lot of momentum in my view we will win in iowa and new hampshire if there is a large voter turnout working people and young and old decide it isn't important enough to make a statement in zero ways across the country it is heard all over the world. to have enough of those economics to move and in new

and bold direction. [applause] now when you come within two and a half weeks of the election you hear strange things being said. one of those that my opponent says is that bernie sanders is not elected ball event cannot have a -- defeat the republican candidate in a general election so it does give me some pleasure to give you some facts. here is a new hampshire estates that knows hillary clinton very well.

and they know me well. when compared did recent polls suggest the other day and how well we would do against republican candidates this is the results. clinton beats our lives is to marco rubio by 1.. secretary clinton and convert kasich are tied and here is my favorite. of a deal with my good friend donald trump.

epb it's by a 22 points be will be to buy 23 points. [cheers and applause] >> but isn't just new hampshire pathetic and the republicans nationally and to say that trump was defeated by 10 that we defeated by 15. [applause] speeleven more importantly but here is a political fact

put people are demoralized and don't come out of the of the republic but 63 percent of the american people did not vote and 80% of gnp both hit a vote. sturdy enough in this aid that it has the excitement in the energy to bring young people didn't. it will have spoken 450,000 people already all over america that has spoken to over 27,000 people in meetings like this in new hampshire. our campaign is the campaign of excitement and energy and momentum which will result

in a large voter turnout which means victories for democrats from the top down. [applause] the pundits said the only day a candidate this stage can raise the kind of money you need is to set up the

super pac. the truth is my democratic opponents and almost all republican opponents set up supertax. but to my mind as someone that doesn't represent the billionaire class or corporate america i decided i would not establish a super pac and ask for millions and millions of dollars. [applause] and that is a lovely statement until you need money. [laughter] so we reached out to the middle-class and working families and not in a million years i have dreamed

this but in the last nine months we have received 2.5 million individual contributions. [applause] that is more than any candidate in the history of the united states of america up to the history of this campaign. and at a time when candidates are so proudly meeting rooms and coming ellis' $10 million hour average contribution is $27. so that means we have already accomplished something and have shown the

american people that despite the disastrous citizens united decision one can still run a winning campaign on the support for working families and i am very proud of that. we have many thousands of volunteers is to have paid good the voter turnout and i asked for your help to make that happen when one of the

reasons the campaign is doing well that is because we are treating the american people as if they are intelligent human beings i know that is a radical idea when we have the 62nd sound bites or the immediate military the most important issue we go on a different direction and we have tried to say the most important issue is not what appears on television but what you are struggling with today and in your lives in an childrens' lives those are the issues we have to address if the media find some interesting or exciting or not.

[applause] what do i mean? a couple weeks ago i was in nevada. oh woman comes up to meet with a five year-old shot -- child dash earning $10.45 an hour to pay off my student debt. tears running down her cheeks. item number i can do that. in my state we have many seniors trying to get by on $12,000 a year you cannot get by if you do the arithmetic some of those are literally cutting their pills and a half which is

not a good thing to do but they don't have the money that they need. i thought very hard to expand meals on wheels program all over this country seniors are on a waiting list to get at least one decent meal per day. and what a disgrace to go all over the country and talk to people are talk to a kid the other day cruz said senator are will be graduating college shortly i will be $60,000 in debt from having a hard time finding a job i have to pay back $1,200 a month per ago another young man late 20s

and two kids and married working in sustainable energy he says he pays 53 percent on students that talk to moms and dads all over new hampshire and dollars for the country who desperately want quality affordable child care but they can find that. talk to 55 rural workers who are scared to death about going to work that say things for working for us but now we can hire somebody have your age for half of the wages. talk to the kids graduating college and confine jobs commensurate with their education people working to restore jobs to cobble

together and come and talk to husbands and wives that are stressed out because people are working so hard and they don't have enough time to spend with their kids. the truth is our economy today is a lot better shape than it was when george w. bush left office. [applause] when bush left office, we were hemorrhaging $800,000 -- 800,000 jobs per month and by the way the world's financial system was on the verge of collapse. other than that we were in really good shape and these

people have the nerve to attack barack obama. [cheers and applause] so we have made progress and cut the deficit by more than two-thirds it is not on the verge of collapse and we're growing jobs rather than hemorrhaging. but having said that we must be honest to read knowledge under the republican administration and democratic demonstration for the last four years the great middle-class of this country it was the envy of the entire world has disappeared. if you are a male worker

your earning the inflation-adjusted $700 per year less than you made 31 years ago. so that activity expanding technology when you make $700 less. if you are a woman you are making $1,000 less of adjusted income than 2007. that is reality. that is a reality working harder and harder. everyone is worried about the future of their kids which by the way if we get back together believe first

in history to have a lower standard of living. what is going on? technology exploding and ignoble economy the middle-class has been in decline and more people living in poverty. and why that is happening to have a massive transfer of wealth to the top one-tenth of 1% trillions of dollars while the top one-tenth of 1% cs the doubling of the percentage of wealth and to

my mind together if you try to turn this country around one of the areas we must focus on is the grotesque level of income and inequality. [cheers and applause] now let me just for you for a moment with a few facts. it is unusual reported in the media the top one-tenth of 1% not 1% but one-tenth of 1% has almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. but today in america 20

people the front row. not these guys. they own more will than half of america. today one-family the walton family that owns wal-mart they have more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of the american people. by the way when i talk about the walton family let me mention i know you hear a lot about politicians about welfare reform. let me tell you the major welfare recipient family is not a poor family down the road the major welfare recipient is the walton

family the wealthiest family in america. they are a major recipient because u.s. taxpayers pay taxes for medicaid and food stands and affordable housing but wal-mart employees need to because they are not being paid of living wage. so when we talk about a rigged economy and the rich get much richer and everybody else gets borer it seems absurd the middle class has to subsidize the wealthiest family in this country.

so i say to the walton family get off of welfare and start paying your workers a decent wage when we talk about income despite the fact so many of the people are working such long hours to cover about 50 percent of all new income generated are you ready for a radical idea? why not about creating an economy? not just the 1%?

[applause] it is not only at the grotesque level but it is also about jobs. a set of reports issued on unemployment that is the official report which is now at 5% but that does not include those who have given up looking for work for those working part-time if you something that is not discussed at all.

the problem of youth unemployment. vast economists to do with steady for kids to graduate high school this is what they said. 33% african-american 51%. if anybody thinks there is not a connection and the fact we have more people in jail event today in america

and we have 2.2 million people in jail spending $80 billion a year so here is my second radical idea that maybe it makes a lot more sense to invest in education and jobs rather than jail and incarceration. cocoa coke's kopp caputo our goal should be the most educated population and when

we ask ourselves when asking people like the work such long hours there were pictures of workers marching down streets begin with a placard said? we want a 40 hour work week. we still want the 40 hour work week. it turns out we work though long this hour's of any people of the industrialized world and one of the obvious

reasons is wages in this country are too low. [applause] so let me be clear. though wage of $7.25 is a starvation in wage we need to raise it at $15 an hour over the next few years. [applause] and wed we talk about equitable wages i hope every man in this room will stand

with the women and fight for pay equity for women workers. [applause] there is no rational economic recent wheat -- reason why women make $0.79 on the dollar that is old-fashioned sexism and and together we will change that [cheers and applause] now in new hampshire for better or worse a lot of politicians are stopping to your state and did say are republicans you may hear them talking about family values they just love

families. they love families especially if they're very wealthy but can contribute to their campaign. but you all know what they mean. that no woman in this room door in this country should have the right to control her own body and i disagree. [applause] what they mean is to unfunny

and planned parenthood and i think we should expand it. [applause] what they mean by family values is the gay brothers and sisters should not have the right to get married. i disagree. [applause] >> my wife and i have been married 37 years with four great kids and grandchildren and three are here in new hampshire we believe very strongly up but when i talk about family values it is

different than family values talk about the international embarrassment the united states of america the only country on earth that does not provide paid family and medical leave. [applause] now the good and beautiful is women are giving birth and you know, what an extraordinary day that is and for the baby as well. [laughter] if that woman the likelihood

is she will have to give up her baby and kovach to work in a weaker to you to earn enough money to take care of her family that is the opposite of what a family value is. [applause] and nathalie the wealthy nations to understand moms and dads have a right to stay home with the newborn baby with the important weeks and months of its life. kids get sick. happens once in awhile and mom and dad should have the

right to stay home with their child when the child is sick and parents get sick and they should have a right to attend to their mothers or fathers. that is why i strongly support and will make happen as president, three months paid family and medical leave for every family in america. [cheers and applause] >> that's is the radical idea it when we talk about the economy and win the

eight is 10% we need the jobs program to put our people back to work. [applause] we should hire teachers not to fire teachers. when we have a dysfunctional child care and creaky system that is unaffordable and child care workers are earning minimum wage we need to create hundreds of thousands of jobs for well-trained and well paid child-care workers in this country.

and when we have the infrastructure water systems and waste-water plants talk about municipalities? we need to rebuild the rail system to catch up with europe and japan and china. [applause] and we can't create 13 million decent paying jobs rebuilding infrastructure with a $1 trillion investment and i intend to make that investment. [applause]

people say that is a great idea but even in washington that is a lot of money. we will end this outrageous tax loophole of major cooperation for these tax havens. [applause] with $100 billion a year are being a rich with corporations making billions in profit not paying a nickel that is wrong and we will change that and invest in infrastructure. [applause]

>> not only do we need to create jobs but stop the millions of jobs from the disaster is trade policy to shut down plants then moving to low-wage countries. when i talk about in the economy that is rich, the economy or the campaign finance system is corrupt, a criminal justice system that is broken it seems we have seen all of that in a recent story about one week ago. it tells you how corrupt hour economic and political

and criminal justice system is. one week ago in a cave now goldman sachs a major financial institution was going to reach a settlement with the federal government at $5 billion. they were reaching that settlement because they had sold sub-prime mortgage packages that were worth less investors thought they were buying something. but they were worthless. over the next 30 years they have operated a revolving door. people leave wall street go into government do the bidding of falls st. thing go back to the private

sector. over the last 30 years goldman sachs has given this country to secretary of treasurys one under republican and 100 democratic administration. big money gets their people in government with more big money. then it turns out the guy who is the head of goldman sachs the institution paid $5 billion in settlements is a billionaire who it couple of years ago said you have to cut so security and medicare. we cannot affo t is coming from the billionaire whose company now paid a $5 billion fine for ripping off the american people.

when we talk about why the american people are a great and increasingly alienated it has a lot to do with the fact for those who get arrested for possessing marijuana and get a police record. set you know, sometimes it is hard to get a job? and if you are a major executive of a multi-billion dollar financial institution because of that recklessness and illegal behavior to create a situation and though life-saving than their job.

somehow you do not get a police record. that will change. [applause] by the way to make a bad situation worse this particular company spins a huge amounts of money on campaign contributions and speaker fees that go to the unnamed candidates. [laughter] but that is how the system works. that is what power is about and a 1% gets richer while everybody else gets poorer. when i talk about a political revolution in

bringing millions of people for the political process our job is to end that type of corruption and power maundering and work for a government that works for all of us not just a handful. >> it turns out erotically today is the sixth anniversary of one of the worse supreme court decisions in the history of this country and that is citizens united. [booing] what they did is to say to the wealthiest people in the country, you already own much of the economy, and now we give you an opportunity to purchase united states

government and does exactly what they're trying to do. one family, the koch brothers the second wealthiest family in america , very, very nervous and unhappy trying to catch up to the waltons. they're working really hard if they can elect candidates but that is to end a social security and medicare and medicaid. that is a family spending $900 million but to spend more money in the campai