is, trace elements of it, you ought to know the best science out there on how much formaldehyde it takes to hurt you. and that's -- you know, that research is done in the public sector, but it's also done in the private. nobody's got a monopoly on integrity. nobody's got a monopoly on high quality work. but in your business where you're transmitting crucial information to agencies you have a special obligation to understand that science and understand what constitutes good quality information or not, because you will be communicating. increasingly in this process the impact of the rule on selected populations is going to be something very important, because in most cases agencies can't ignore it. they can't ignore it either because they're required to study it under law or regulation or because practically they want to know what's coming in over the transom after they do it.

you know? who is going to be making their life miserable once this thing hits the street? and this is all about winners and losers like all public policy processes. implementation information. how is the public -- how are universities going to react -- who in universities are going to take responsibility for changes in the rugs in their classrooms? how is this going to cur? how do you communicate with georgetown on the one hand or a.u. on the one hand and, you know, st. olive college out in minnesota? how do you get to these people? how do you let them know this is a change in what they've got to do? splins information -- at what level -- at what point will the agency take action against st. olive or a.u.? all right? and then of course the political information which, by the way,

is driven entirely by impact information. if you know who this is going to help and if you know who this is going to hurt you've got the roadmap for whatever political information you're going to need out there. relationships are critical, political appointees are important. the key offices for rule making are the program office where the rule has been assigned. there is an overarching policy office in most agencies that weigh in on all significant rules. the general counsel is at the table always interpreting agency statutory authority. budget office is providing the resources to get the rule written. the regional offices are critical because they're the ones who know the public. they're the ones that are out there interacting with people like a.u. all the time. all right. this is what makes sense. this is what doesn't. and then of course the

communications office because as i find out every day of my life, there is no one way to communicate with this community. no one reliable way to get it done. and as social media have diversified, agents' communication strategies had to diversify along with it. the white house, the office of information or regulatory affairs, every president has a general statement of regulatory policy. is the rule that he has just received from the office of radiation in epa consistent with his stated regulatory policy? does the appropriate cross benefit work there? now, in addition to old ira, the domestic policy staff may be weighing in because the rule has such visibility. certainly on something like climate change you would imagine that to be the case.

and then on the second generation of the work you're doing, trade. trade reps. finally, this is the evidence that if it goes to the white house, the white house pays it. to its credit, what the white house maintains, ss a realtime analysis of -- and you can pull this right off their website, even though i just apparently destroyed it -- is month by month you can read the rules that have been received by the white house, the stage they're at, and the action that the white house has taken on. and what these data tell you is that everything that goes to the agency gets serious scrutiny and almost everything that goes through it gets changed at some

level. there is some change that the white house is taking credit for. now, the data that i'm prying to work on, i'm actually -- despite the fact that nobody seems to buy it i'm going to write a fifth dee diggsedition to the book. too bad i got to it so late because the christmas season as passed. i missed a marketing opportunity there. what i'm trying to do is i'm trying to get the information out of the general services administration which for some reason has been given responsibility to count rules and regulations across government and to see which agencies by proportion of rule are most likely to be reviewed by the white house. but i don't think our intuition is going to be terribly wrong on that. you've got to know anything that comes out of epa these days. almost anything coming out of treasury these days. anything coming out of health and human services. and then finally the courts.

i mentioned earlier this is not -- this is not likely the arena you'll be working in but it is an arena that you will be likely a resource person for. if your organization is chosen to sue an agency over a rule, they will be working with you in large part on the data and communications that you've had with the agency during the course of the rule making. so with that, jim, whatever time i've got left i'll answer some questions. >> open it up to questions and comments. >> yeah. sure. lee? >> thank you. for those of us who have grown up in the era of jack abramoff do you think there's a silver lining to be seen in the future for the continuation of transparent and efficient rule making processes? >> well, look, i think that what you've got to be aware of is that every communication you make you assume is publicly

available, because agencies are going to maintain dockets of every communication they receive. so i'm not sure it was abramoff himself. i think there was always a less-than-robust understanding of how much integrity the agencies used in the maintenancey of these communications. there was for years, for example, a lot of miscommunication about whether an agency could communicate with groups and individuals prior to that notice of proposed rule making. the simple answer is yes as long as they're documented. right? transparency is critical to an even playing field. right? you can't have a level playing field if matt's here providing information that the agency's implicitly relying on you have contrary information or an opposing point of view, you don't even know whether he's been at the table. so i just think that from -- just if you're interested in

high quality public policy that's where transparency's big payoff is. yes. molly? >> do you think that the level of bureaucracy that currently surround the rule making process is necessary and/or efficient? and if not do you see any change in the future? >> you know what, it's -- to be honest with you i really think it's a function of a middle-aged democracy. and i mean that quite sincerely. when i'm asked to talk to groups -- and i don't get a chance to do it very often -- from other parts of the world that are developing democracies and are thinking about what's down the road for them, i always tell them to worry about this because if their democracy functions well enough and long enough, this is where they're going. when you take a look at the requirements that an agency has to meet to write a reg, i don't blame you for feeling the way you do, that this is -- who in

their right mind is going to undertake this? because the paperwork requirements there's small business requirements, there may be environmental requirements data quality requirements. but if you think about it for a moment, those are a reflection of legitimate external interests who have every right to question what an agency is doing and how it's going about it. where i see a real danger is agencies moving to these mutations of rule making where the public has less and less input and where the agency feels it's so on its heels that that's the only way it can function to keep public policy current. i mean, what we found in derivatives, for example, you know, you could have three definitions of derivatives because the industry itself doesn't understand it. right? i mean, what we've found is that, you know, financial products were morphing at such a rate that nobody could keep pace

with it including the companies that were, you know, in some cases being held legally liable for them. i think one of the consequences of an advanced, sophisticated democracy are these many doors open for interest to express their concerns. and i just can't imagine -- you know, if you stop and think about it for a minute, there's nothing wrong with worrying about how much paperwork is being imposed on you or me. right? anybody that does their own taxes knows what it's like. and, you know, maybe i've just become, you know, too inured to the process, but when you scrape away 95% of these requirements are understandable, but the sum total of it, developing as they did in an uncoordinated way, from different eras, different parts of the congress, you know, an agency that wants to move fast let's say on climate

change, it's just not going to happen. now, if you -- if you take it another step of that and elevate it one more level and you think about the founders and they put together a senate and a house and they expected the house to be impulsive and the senate to slow things down well they would have been appalled by rule making as they saw it in 1930. what they see in all of this procedural rule making requirement is ineffective momentum of the senate to cool off the rule making agencies to slow them down and to be deliberate. but in a public policy system where demands are incessant and speed is of the essence, it's not ideal. now, let me add this. there is ample opportunity and authority for agencies to act on emergencies and then to go back and do all the public participation work after the fact. there's something called direct final rule making that allows

for that. the faa, for example, puts out airworthiness directives with a minimum amount of interaction with the public. but there, you know it's as much the development of very robust relationships with airlines unions airport authorities, so they know what the reaction's going to be in advance.&4wz when you start wandering into areas like derivatives or how much of deposit or money can be invested in nonbanking activities or climate change, you're going to bring people to the table who have either never been there before or are nowhere near as uniform in their world view as the airline -- as, you know, the flying industry is. right? now, you'll remember, the one group i didn't mention were the

passengers, you know? but i don't want -- i don't want to take responsibility for how thick a fuselage ought to be. i'd like to know that i don't have to silt on the tarmac for half a day. but fundamentally you've got to think about a process today where speed, at least using conventional rule making, is just simply not a characteristic unless you go to some of these exotic, direct forms. and you've got to do the work after the fact if you do. >> neil we have time for one more question. >> okay. sure. matt? >> yeah. so i think we've seen two rules come out recently that got way more public attention than earlier, neutrality and commercial drum use out of the faa, which they're taking their sweet time doing. >> what was the second one? >> the drone commercial use. >> the drone. yes. >> do you think you're going to see a shift in groups using

public comments in the way that people in john olver's audience or do you think these are flashes in the pan and rule make willing go back to kind of behind the veil? >> no. i think anytime -- you take net neutrality or drones they both have one characteristic in common. net neutrality can bring to the table broadly based largely unorganized interests consumer groups. right? most of what's done at the faa keep the industry to me it seems the major focal point of interaction. but when you start introducing groups, you know, like the american viewing public for god's sakes i mean all bets are off, you know, because you're going to get, among other things, ad hoc organizations coming together just to influence that one rule. and we didn't get a chance to talk about that kind of dynamic, the coalition formation and the like. the other one, drones, i mean everybody in this room ought to

be worried about or concerned about drones either for good or for ill. right? if you're worried about bird strikes at airports, i would take drones pretty seriously, right? but drones bring to the table people that used to be worried mostly about the postal rate commission for god's sakes and what deliveries cost, you know, at u.p.s. and the postal service. i don't think they're flash in the pans at all. i think what social media has demonstrated, everything from arab spring to rule making is that social media provides the capacity for large-scale organization of political action in a very short period of time. so if anything, i think it's more likely. >> thank you. >> okay. thanks. [ applause ] >> so we're going to take a short break, come back a little

bit before 11:30. >> good. okay.

so a break and we will be back here at american university for two afternoon sessions. live at 2:30, the topic is ethics on capitol hill and then at 4:00 p.m. it will be a session on federal lobbying law. again, we'll be live here on c-span3 starting at 2:30

eastern. president obama vice president joe biden and his wife will be traveling to a community college in knoxville tennessee, today. they'll be discussing new initiatives to help americans attend college and efforts to create manufacturing jobs. this is part of a series of speeches across the country to preview initiatives that will be in this year's state of the union address, which the president will deliver before congress on january 20th. live coverage begins at 1:20 p.m. eastern today here on c-span3. the president may also talk about the latest jobs numbers. "the washington post" reporting according to labor department employers added 252,000 jobs last month and jn)g50,000 more in october and november combined than it had previously estimated. the unemployment rate dropped to 5.6% from 5.8% in november, and that is its lowest point since 2008. but wage growth remains weak. house speaker john boehner has released a statement on the jobs numbers released today which read in part "yet while

the economy is showing some seibs of improvement, far too many middle class families are struggling to bridge the gap between rising costs and stubbornly flat paychecks." and this from the hill this morning, record-low gas prices across the u.s. have given rise to fresh talk in washington of raising the federal gas tax for the first time in over 20 years with leading republicans now saying a hike must not be ruled out. gop has long resisted calls from others to boost the 18.4% per gallon tax as a way for upgrades to the nation's crumbling roads and bridges. that is clearly one of the options that senator inhofe of oklahoma, the new chairman of the senate committee on environment and public works. friends, colleagues, countrymen, and especially the people of ohio's eighth congressional district, thank you for sending me here. and let's today welcome all of the new members and all of their

families to what we all know to be a truly historic day. [ applause ] today is an important day for our country. many senators took the oath this afternoon, 13 for the first time and a new republican majority accepted its new responsibility. we recognize the enormity of the task before us. we know a lot of hard work awaits. we know many important opportunities await as well. >> follow the gop-led congress and see the new members. the best access is on c-span television c-span radio and c-span.org. new congress, best access on c-span. here are a few of the comments we've recently received on the 114th congress. >> my comment is nothing is going to change in washington,

d.c. as the previous caller said there's too much corruption. some of these senators been there too long. it's time for them to go. give the younger ones a chance. new ideas. this country's on the wrong path. we not going to get anywhere as long as these senators stay in that same position. john mccain and them they've been down there lindsey graham it's the same old thing. it's time for changes. people are working too hard in this country have to work two and three jobs to take care of their families and still not to getting anywhere. something has to give. >> i'm looking at the overall conversations that you guys have been having for the last three or four mos, and the congress, the government is so huge. what can they do when they go in there today? i'll tell you, they could be like the leaders that they should have been, the leaders

that i was raised around, the men that looked over at the communities that they lived in and said thee are our children these are our young men, and these are our daughters. what can we do in the realistic way to make this a better place to live? anyone that's going to carry power, yield the idea of wisdom, in front of the faces of us who are having to work and pay for it, guys, you know, we're living a pretty good life here. let's take what you got the opportunity to do and do something right and quit playing games with, you know, what you think you're going to value in life that you're going to have to give away one day. >> my question to the 114th congress that is going to do nothing for the american people. i can't understand how is it that congressmen become good people until they get elected.

when they go to a washington the lies the propaganda. it seems disturbing to me that it seems like everything president obama does is wrong and it's sad to me because i'm a pastor and i hear these people come on -- your colleague just came on and said he was a christian. jesus said if you do this to the least of them you have also done it to me. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. or send us a tweet at @c-span, #comments. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook follow us on twitter. this past november more than 300 members of the uk youth parliament, aged 11 to 18 gathered in the british house of commons for their annual policy debate concerning top nicks in the 2015 national elections. these two sections focus on

career and work experience and voting rights for teens. speaker of the house john bercow presides over the sessions. >> hi. thanks, colleagues. welcome back. order. order. the youth parliament will now consider the third motion of the day entitled "better work experience and careers advice" as printed on the order paper. to move the motion, i call from the east of england miss clarisse stevens. >> thank you, mr. speaker. richard branson alan sugar both started work at the age of 16. tesco gurry jack cullen started an apprenticeship at 14. all successful because they

masked themselves in the world of work at an early age, acquiring teamwork and communication skills. do we have these skills? the government claims our education is more diverse and better prepares us for life than ever before. yet 76% of employers say we're not ready for work. schools want us to quote shakespeare, but employers want us to have soft skills. if the aim of education is to prepare us for work, how did thee two things become so detached? work experience was made optional in 2012, burning the bridge between education and work. now 57% of companies say young people lack communication and teamwork skills. why is this? school is structured so you're surrounded by people your own age. life is not like this. in the workplace you must work with people of all ages and all

backgrounds to get the job done. would you learn to drive a car through theory? would you learn to play football from a book? no. you learn these skills by actively doing them. so why do we not learn work skills through active work experience? ukyp needs to accept the battle to release young people from the classroom to taste the world of work and do this by working with schools and businesses to to create a program around acquiring skills goals, and networking. work experience has the capability to inspire young people and give them a goal at an early stage. when shopping, we try before we buy, making us more excited about trying the product. the same principle can be applied to work experience. if we get a taste of the career we dream of having we'll be more motivated and work hard. if we have no goal we have no

reason to strive to achieve our potential. without work experience the vast majority of young people are unable to break into a work environment network. work experience would give all young people the chance to start building their own networks and their own futures. next year is election year. mps are looking to form what they stand for and we need to make sure work experience is part of this. with effective work experience everyone's a winner. young people get good quality experience. employers have experienced workers. and schools have inspired students. these factors make the campaign achievable. we need our education to prepare us for our working life. we may be able to quote shakespeare, but if we can't communicate and work as a team,

thou shall not have a chance. so the question is, work experience to be or not to be? you decide. >> thank you very much. that was a dramatic start for our debate and hugely enjoyed. thank you very much indeed. now, toí representing the british overseas youth services please welcome miss ellen chard. >> thank you, mr. speaker. truthfully how many teenagers have had quality work experience? were your expectations reached when you entered the workplace? no? and the reason -- we set our expectations too high and do to

the shadows we disappointed, not knowing what to do in the future and confused about what we have taken away. in last 12 months youth unemployment rates have drastically fallen. between june and august this year, 468,000 young people have been recognized as being out of work. where have we gone wrong? it isn't the lack of work experience. over 95% of people today have had some sort of work experience, however minuscule. work experience used to be compulsory in schools, but since september 2012 schools do not legally have to offer work experience for their students. this law was only changed three years ago. should we really change it back so soon? the government wants our schools to do well. they want us all to leave equipped for the rest of our lives. but first they want us all to build up our education, an understanding of the world

before we are set free fro start a career for ourselves. we leave work experience having spent the days making teas coffees, filing paperwork, rather than what we expected to do. you may find this useless but you need to open your eyes and realize that we can only experience things to a certain point because honestly what else can we do? there is a really fine line between work experience and a company overstepping the mark, taking advantage of free labor. these organizations are hindering the quality we crave. this is a nationwide issue which leaves us us concealed from the real truth surrounding a working life. we complained about work experience. but what actually defines work experience? what did we want out of it? does everyone really know what they want out of this campaign? we need specifics before we can move on in a direction that will be beneficial and enable us to make a great change. companies stuck with the

prospect of a young person entering their workplace. can the youth campaign really change this so soon? as chloe said, 57% of companies believe young people are lacking communication and teamwork skills. we leave school feeling unprepared and unaware of the world that surrounds us. this does not revolve around work experience. this is a problem with the way schools prepare us for a working life and how we achieve the skills we need, skills gained through education and workshops. work experience is an issue within the uk. we all know that. but is t an issue which is big enough to be our main issue and our campaign? what could we do and how could we go about it? we cannot ignore the issue but before we strive and embark on our journey together we need direction and a clear path to focus on. thank you.

>> ellen thank you very much indeed, for that. the general debate is now open. can we have a speaker from scotland? anyone from scotland who wishes to take part? yes, the gentleman with the red tie. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i want experience, opportunities, but i want to do well in the future. i have peers to help me out when selecting alternatives. we need someone to offer advice before and after. otherwise our experience is useless. thank you. >> thank you. now, can we have a contributor from the southwest? who have we got from the southwest? the woman who's waving her paper in the air. let us hear from you please. >> mr. speaker, i'm sharon from plymouth, and i'd just like to say that i notice a lot of people said -- well before

hand, is it achievable. and i'd like to say, yes, it is achievable. i've done it on my own and if i can do it on my own we can do it all together. you see, i want to be a clinical psi kolts, and when i started my a levels i went to my local hospital and i was refused work experience because i was under 18. because there wasn't work experience, i couldn't get what i needed. you see, i was refused because obviously there's risks like being around drugs or patients but just being in the experience even if it is filing paperwork and getting coffees, you're in the environment you want to be in rather than being offered work experience such as primary schools or elderly homes which do not coincide with my aspiration. so i worked really hard when i became a dmyp last year. i worked and put a lot of determination in and proud to say i gave work experience for under 18s in my local hospital. if i can do that single-handedly, imagine what we can achieve greater all together.

thank you. >> thank you very much indeed. can we have a contributor from the northwest? somebody from northwest. what about the gentleman nearest to me with the gray jacket? yes, you good soul. thank you, sir. >> thank you, mr. speaker. oh. harry kay. i'm from darwin. one of the concerns that i have about the lack of work experience is the lack of experience and the effect of launching young people into the world of work almost unprepared. they will, of course, get some preparation from their parents' quick pat on the back, you'll do well in the interview, smile, smile, and wave, just smile generally, or in my case not smile at all. or do a victorian smile. this can eventually leave young people with a hostile outlook on work. and if you have a hostile outlook from the very begibnning they have a hostile outlook from

the beginning to the end. they will see other ways to get around doing work, and that is not what we want. this needs to be reversed. as the to poerz to the first motion said, young people should go out and look for work ourselves, so what we achieve is our own. that's right isn't it? we build our own house, we expect to live in it ourselves. suddenly someone comes around expecting a free load, a free life. they must work for it themselves. this is fine. but surely we must all be prepared for the way on how to get that experience, because it's that experience that enables us. we should all be given the foundation. what we do from that foundation is up to us. but right now we are not even being give than foundation and that i believe is major cause for concern. thank you. >> thank you very much, indeed. what about a speaker from the

east midlands? who have we got from the east midlands? there was a woman who let some inches, possibly even feet off the ground and she is sitting on the very back bench resplendent in her pink top. and i -- >> i'm from eastern england. >> eastern england. i'm sorry. we may get to you. i'm looking that the stage an east midlander. who have we got? yes. are you from the east midlands? the woman next to you. are you from the east midlands? no. okay. fair enough. sorry. east midlands. let us hear from you, sir. >> the process of work experience and interpretships inure corruption. people are being exploited as a free source of labor. over a quarter of businesses pay interns generally nothing but sometimes just under the minimum

wage. but 82% of senior business decisionmakers admit that interns perform useful, necessary, and vital tasks for their businesses. is it fair that we just are going to watch our peers complete tasks for free that employers would otherwise pay people to do? even in parliament i read just this week a young lady was performing duties here for six months only being paid two pounds. the burden is again power of persuasion, a power as a pressure group the power as future members of parliament to make westminster know that we are not okay with the expleauation of our colleagues our peer and our friends. thank you.oitation of our colleagues, our peer, and our friends. thank you. >> thank you very much indeed. what about the southeast of england? who have we got from the southeast? and what about the young girl there, long blond hair. yes, your good self. let us hear your message.

>> well i'm veronica sims. i'm from the city of oxford. and i think it's going to be hard for me to imagine what fear feels like. i'm speaking, being quite a small person in a big room that is the house of commons. of course i'm afraid. but even an experience like this, which is great, it's something that i'm afraid of. what about people who are going into life? that is literally our purpose to live. and we're going to be afraid of it. don't we deserve a chance to see what it's going to be like? thank you. >> you may call yourself small or i would use the word short but you stood tall speaking in this debate. and for the avoidance of doubt, i've said this many times, i've

always been short. i'm 51 years old, and i remain short and given a known impact the aging prossz on fizz i don't knowmy, i shall be shorter still in the future. it doesn't matter a damn. we short people should stick together. so thank you for that contribution. how about somebody from london? have we got anyone -- well, this is just an explosion. yes. we're going to hear from you. please. i'm sorry. there's so many of you but we 'do what we can. please. >> katie toner from london. i'd just like to say that everybody's work experience is different. sometimes it's absolutely great and you leave feeling inspired and encouraged to go forward and work really hard to succeed in your chosen career. other experience however might not be so good. but have you ever thought that are you always going to enjoy

it? are you always going to get the best opportunity you can? no. everybody acts differently reacting to different situations. good or bad experiences are what mold you into the common and employable. if these experience are what you talk about and these experiences are what you talk about in interviews and you can say that you've learned from them and gained from them, the good ones and the bad ones and that is why this motion should be support. thanks. >> thank you very much indeed. now, do we have -- i know i keep asking this but i don't want anyone to be excluded pip think i've asked a couple times. do we have a contributor from northern ireland? have you spoken? you've not spoken. we've not heard from you. i'd remember that purple tie if you had. good. let's hear from you, please. >> my name is christopher harkin. i'm from northern ireland. i want to speak on behalf of youth action ni, who had some

great ideas on this and unfortunately couldn't be here to share them with us today. they feel that one work experience is great. sorting it out and getting some good experience in work is good. but they think that it should be more than that. they think that one week isn't enough to truly represent what the working life is like. so they thought that either you could have two block weeks where you see the development of projects across the time or you could try having a few hours a week for a period of several months or eve an full school year, which would allow you to see the full development of projects and all the different aspects of working life in all their different ways which would truly allow you to see how the job is done. thanks. >> thank you. thank you very much indeed. i now would like to hear from a representative of the east of

england. the lady in the pink dress who has been famously patient. your moment has arrived. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm from zurich in east of england. i have had two experiences. my first experience being in secondary school. they gave me a piece of paper, said go out find work experience. i ended up in a school academy. i want you to think of me in rugby getting tackled. that's not my aspiration in life. my sex ekd appearance was in college. i was a built hesitant but they gave me advice, connections, they gave me the right people and i'm going to tell you them ten days were the best ten days of my life. i can tell you now it impacted me. i got my foot in the door. they were contacting me and i didn't even know -- hello? you have my name? because people were acknowledging i was a young person who got the right work

experience because people took time in me. people said, you know what you're a young person, you deserve to have inspiration. you deserve to be given a spot. and we all do. we are here representing young people. we need to give them that steppingstone between education and employment, and this is our chance to. and thank you. >> thank you very much. you were certainly worth waiting for, i can assure you, and i think the reaction testifies to that. can we have a speaker from wales? who have we got from wales? yes. what about the chap waving his hand? yes, yes you. thank you. indeed. >> i'm matthew from conway north wales. one of the main issues in wales we're a very rural nation, obviously. geography plays a major factor in work experience. sometimes there aren't plainly

the opportunities there to make the work experience better in the first place. i don't believe that's an issue that you could strive snovl a year, which is why i'm not going to be voting for work experience. thank you. >> do we have a contributor from yorkshire and humber? wow. that is as demonstrative as they come. the young woman in the red dress or -- yes. >> thank you so much, mr. speaker. work experience is vital us to. we need to get accompanied to the advantages, disadvantages and the atmosphere of our career choices. we do not want to be in education for one decade, two decades, or even three decades of our live, only to walk blindly into a job. we shouldn't need to rely on internet research to decide our

career choices. we need to rely on physical real-life experience so we can live to the maximum of our potential. thank you. >> thank you very much. have we got anybody interested from the northeast? the northeast. yes. we'll hear from you. thank you. >> hi. i'm in newcastle lafontaine. i'm just here to say that work experience is not even just for work it's also to get into universities. in the northeast we have newcastle university which is amazing at medicine and other sciences, but you need at least four weeks work experience to get into the university, to actually do the profession that you want to do. so i'm just here to say that work experience is not just important for jobs. it's also to get into universities, to get those jobs at the end. so it's kind of like a domino effect and work experience is the first place you have to start in.

thank you. >> okay. anybody else from london? wow. this is just something else. yeah. okay. going to be difficult to accommodate but this young woman has been trying for some time and i'd like to hear you contribute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. first and foremost i believe work experience is crucial. what i'm going to say is in conjunction with your good grade you need work experience. we are the future workers. how can we go into work out any idea or any part of how to go into it? it just does not make sense. what we need to also criticize is the education system. why is is not equipping us well for work? if we have no work experience, why are you not directing us well for work and giving us all the knowledge and skills that we need? why? and also with a good grades, we also need that too for the work experience to be sufficient and be good enough because some employers say, yes you have

work experience but you do not have the good grades. why is the education system, we spent ten years in school setting us up for failure? why do we go into exams with ten years of knowledge getting an e or a snushgs one thing i have to say is work experience is crucial and so is the education system, and they should be linked together so that we can create an amazing workforce, so that we can be the future workforce. thank you. >> thank you for that. i must say today has been characterized by lots of pith think, punchy contributions. actually, my parliamentary colleagues and i could learn from it. it's really good. you got your point across in a limited point in time. thank you and well done. now, i wanted to hear from somebody from the west midlands. yes. now, the young person right at the back, the one with long blond hair. in the middle.

yeah. i think from some worstershire. yes. >> we all need education and we all will work for 50 years of our lives. at 16 and 18 we make choices that affect us for longer than we've even p been alive. for young people to do this without simple guidance and experience and without understanding or eve an semiautomatic exposure to the work they are entering is simply unfair. to take our chances based on factors that are not equal for everybody as much as a parental support or school support is unfair and work experience should be compulsory. >> thank you very much. now to conclude this debate, we have a couple further debates to come, i hope i've got this correct but if i haven't, please correct me. i call from london mr. iffy grillo!

>> thank you, mr. speaker. amir is a 22-year-old who despite having a first-class degree has been unemployed for 1 months. daniel is a 16-year-old who has qualifications but few great interpersonal skills. alice is a 10-year-old who doesn't believe in the beauty of her dreams and so she'll never be sure who she wants to be. mr. speaker, i don't need to stand before the house and tell them why work experience will help every single one of these young people. this debate is about whether it should become our next campaign. so it could be a phenomenal chance to work with businesses. we can get businesses to help us develop a national framework for quality work experiences and why every young person should be entitled to it. the same goes for careers advice. but could we have this a campaign when different arias have completely different

circumstances? not every area is can say the same. how can we make this into a national campaign? but maybe that's the point. no young person should be held back because of where they're from. that's something we champion as a youth parliament. why couldn't we champion this beautiful method of equality through a campaign? however, even if we did manage to get work experience for all young people doing the tea room for two weeks is no idea for productive. if we push for productive in every school condemning children for being logistic, pessimistic tasks that don't even benefit them. remember, while photocopying filing and using microsoft excel may seem monday day that can be the dull reality of workplace. not everyone will come out of work experience feeling motivated and inspired. the same way not everyone fin

issues a day of work feeling motivated and inspired. that is life. i knew that would get the support of the staff. see, that's life. it's essential we're honest with young people. you know when i was 5, i was called stylish and i wanted to be the next james bond. but there was no work experience opportunities related to that. [ applause ] i decided i would become the next speaker of the house. you know young people are the future and have the power to change their presence. that is something we ee epitomize the youth department. daniel, alice and the rest of our young people. chloe and i have showed you the paths. only you can decide which way

your vote goes. choose wisely. >> we've come to our last debate. i would love to have it over two days. who knows what might be possible in the future. i really mean it because i'll tell you something every day in the house, there are lots of people who are attending. natasha and rob and i know this but it's in the nature of things that most people who come here today will want to speak. and my pain, and i know it's your pain as well, is that only a small proportion actually get to make speeches. i'm genuinely sorry about that. but we do our best.

we will now consider the fifth and last of the day called votes for 15, 16, and 17-year-olds in all public elections as printed on the order paper. now, to move the motion from scotland, we are about to hear from, i hope with your huge enthusiasm, mr. ashraf! >> thank you, mr. speaker. nyps this year is world war i, 100 years. however, did you know, it has only been 96 years since women over 30 gained the vote. 86 years since the voting age -- 86 years since women gained equal voting rights as males to vote at age 21.

and 45 years since the voting age was reduced to 18. women achieved the right to vote and obtain a voice through collective debate battle and for some, death. we have not had to endure the same struggle. we know the word of several major political parties to vote if elected into government. however, we still have to see through these parties actually deliver on their promise. over the past one year, nyps as our national campaign, more has been done in the '16 campaign than has been achieved in 50 years of the youth parliament's history. on september 18th scotland put its faith in its young people giving all 16 and 17-year-olds a democratic vote. a vote in one of the most crucial sdpigss affecting scotland's future. in return, 81% of 16 and 17-year-olds registered to vote on the scottish referendum.

81%. truly this number reflects a level of maturity and seriousness to which many 16 and 17-year-olds are undeservingly not attributed within our society. so, today i call on you, nyps members of the youth parliament representatives of young people drawn from the foreign nations of the united kingdom to put your heart and soul as we enter our 16th year of campaigning to ensure voting of. all 16 and 17-year-olds to vote on the welsh assembly scottish parliament and northern ireland assembly elections to make a tangible change to the british democratic process. today let's continue to move forward with voter 16 striking what precedent has been sut, whilst the momentum is on our side with the proof that 16 and 17-year-olds are willing to engage. nyps i urge you to put your

faith one more time, for one last push, for one more year into votes at 16. let's ensure over the next year we do not lose the momentum not up to this point so that finally we are able to see through the cause that we all hold so dear to our work in the youth parliament. nyps i envision the youth parliament a year from now, standing in the house of commons, being able to stand proud and say our work on 16 is finally complete. hopefully you all believe in my vision, too. and will choose to stand today with me and to keep votes at 16 our national campaign so that finally at last our regime can become a reality. thank you.

>> thank you very much, indeet, for opening the debate in such a spirited and compelling fashion. to oppose the motion, i call and i ask you to welcome warmly, mr. neil riley. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my friends, some of the arguments for votes at 16 we hear time and time again are truly uninspiring. rhyming off a list of web rehearsed rights, this doesn't begin to constitute an argument. this doesn't begin to engage with the question, as to whether or not giving 16-year-olds the vote now will benefit them or society at large. that's the question we should be asking ourselves. many argue votes at 16 would increase the dismal turnout figures we've seen in recent elections. it won't.

just because 16-year-olds could vote, doesn't mean they would. i'm not saying we don't know enough to vote. it is clear from everything we have seen today, that we do, but what young people up and down these aisles don't believe in is our political process can represent these opinions. i have met young people from schettlands to derry, all vote does is change the color of the prime minister's tie from red to blue to back again. it's clear there's disillusionment. that's the problem. that's what we need to address. the fact the vast majority of young people see politicians as 50 shades of beige. not worth their time. this policy doesn't even begin to address political disengagement. all it does is extend a broken and mistrusted franchise. talk about tokenism. let's address the misunderstanding, the disgust at our political system and then

let us consider lowering the voting age to 16. voting for this policy again would be a mistake. we have already campaigned on it. we have fought this fight. what more could we realistically do? come 2015, if you believe the polls, we will have a party in government that would give us the vote almost immediately. why would we waste a year campaigning on something that is very likely to happen anyway? surely our resources our time, our very limited money could be better spent fighting for the living wage, for the most disadvantaged in our society. when people working three minimum wage jobs struggle to pay the bills when young people in all of our constituencies have to choose between a warm meal and a warm home, it's evident there's a problem. it's evident to me that as the uk youth parliament, it's our duty to address that. i, therefore, urge each and every young person in this chamber to vote not for votes at 16 but for something that truly

needs our support. that helps the most vulnerable in our society and serves the people who elected us. thank you. >> thank you very much indeed for that. now, who from scotland would like to contribute? yes. the gentleman here with the pink tie, i think. yes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm john gast. there were points made, but talk about is that what could we really do is something that's likely to happen. it doesn't mean it's going to happen. we could use that time to see it through and put it and make sure it will happen. we don't know it won't happen.

four years count line it's not happened. we can only point ourselves that we didn't use encouragement and what we had to push it and follow it through. thank you. thank you. how about the contributor from yorkshire? yes, the young woman three along, whom i identified earlier. yes, let us hear from you. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm ever so proud to represent the constituency of causedale. 94% of young people use social media sites such as facebook and twitter. which means 94% of young people witness some form of political activity every day. whether it be through pages,

statuses, pictures video. we witness political activity. so this means that 94 of young people are engaged in some form of political activity. scrap that. i'm actually going to go as far to say that 100% of young people are engaged in some form of politics. it's inevitable the whole world revolves around politics. every decision we make involves some form of political process. so why not trust these people? why not trust 16 and 17-year-olds when witnessing all this political action, we form morals, we form principles, we form opinions that can easily be applied to a general election? now, as mr. speaker kindly pointed out not that long ago, i

had the honor of listening to then-mr. speaker speak at halifax, where mr. speaker outlined engaging young people and modernizing the house of xhonz so that more young people are engaged. mr. speaker himself said that young people are not disengaged in politics. that is a myth, which i'm sure we all agree with we've all sat in this room. so, i point to you, let's eradicate the enormous social defied this country is witnessing, this nation is witnessing, between young people and adults. and let's get everyone together. let's show the world that 16 and 17-year-olds are capable, are responsible and deserve the vote. get behind votes at 16. thank you. >> thank you very much, indeed. now, i think there is from the west midlands -- well, there's

something who -- there's somebody who wrote to me took the great trouble to write to me called hazeem ariff. that is you. let's hear you. >> in this country young people can marry at the age of 16 but we cannot elect the representatives. we can join the armed forces at 16. we cannot choose a government who chooses our battles. we are liable to pay taxes at 16 but we have no influence on how they are spent. we are citizens. and as citizens we should be allowed to vote at 16. and not allowing us to do so puts us in the same category as prisoners. if we give 1,545,382 16 and 17-year-olds in this country the

ability to vote, it will improve the voting turnout, which is imperative for our country. let me finally say my fellow nyp said, vote at 16 has never happened and will never happen. let me tell you, there is nothing, nothing in this country that ukyp cannot achieve. so, i urge you to vote for this motion. thank you very much. >> thank you. thank you, hazeem. now, british forces overseas i think there was another person who wished to contribute. shona henry? >> thank you. at the moment 1.5 million people are currently denied the vote because they're underage. that one month they were born after someone just they can't have a choice in how this country is run. you're allowed to join the army at 16. you are allowed to go and fight for our country, you're allowed

to go and fight battles to protect us all, but you don't have a choice in how this government is run up. don't have a choice in how our education is run. of course, voting at 16 won't solve youth disengagement overnight, but it can definitely help solve the problem. many teens probably feel disenfranchised from society which is perhaps why they cause things such as riots. 100,000 people -- over 100,000 people in the scottish referendum voted, which shows the interest in -- the interest in 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds. that's why we should have a choice. >> thank you very much. what about the northwest? the first person i saw from the northwest, smiling at me in an original way, with the benefit of his owl. is it an owl?

wonderful display of what i will describe as ingenuity or personal enterprise. let's hear from you. this is going to be a hoot. >> i'm glad you liked it because i would look like an absolute idiot if you didn't. i'm 6'6". my hand can fit in the backside of an owl. i can grow a fairly solid beard. to me i look like an adult. i think like an adult. why can't i vote like an adult? thank you. >> thank you, very much, indeed. now, what about us hearing from somebody from london.

this young lady here. gosh, there's so many. >> thank you, mr. speaker. at 16 you can leave home, you can have sex, you can even get married, you can even join the army. all this all these apply to otherhood. if are you an adult at 16 then why is the government refuse inging to lower their voting age to 16? we are old enough to have a baby but not old enough to vote. it makes no sense. >> thank you very much, indeed. now, how about somebody from the southeast?

we'll hear from the woman in a dark blue dress, waving a rather -- abandoning my imapartment just a moment i hope you don't worship mr. putin. i would have some worries about you if you did. but you don't. now let's hear from you. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm from buckinghamshire in the southeast southeast. i would like to say that we cannot adopt votes at 16 on a defeatist front. people think we require political education before being enfranchised at 16. but what is then the value in education when there's nothing to put what we learn into practice? how can you then justify the thousands of adults who may have left school in thirteens who can

cast a ballot at a general election? would you deny them their votes? do you think a first-time voter at at ij of 22 would vote because of a citizenship lesson? we cannot delay this campaign by pandering to the prejudices of people who already have the vote and use that vote against us because as jon stewart argued, the vote that is held by people and not by others is a form of power that can be used against others. this campaign is about giving a to voice. about stopping cases like in the iraq war where british soldiers who were under 18 died without ever having a chance to cast their votes in a general election for the country they decide for. thank you. >> thank you very much, indeed. what about the southwest of england? the gentleman jumping up and

down in a mildly eccentric manner with his -- yes, right here with the light gray suit. yes, your good self. david beckham lookalike. >> hi my name is kieran, i'm from devin obviously in the southwest. we are all young people here. young people deserve a vote. i would have loved to have chosen the government i would grow up into but i'm not going to. we need to take the initiative we haven't had now ever heard the phrase that nothing is possible? well, this is possible. we can do it. we've done many things before. how many people would love to turn around to their children and say, if it wasn't for us you wouldn't be able to vote at the age of 16 and 17? that's why i'm 110% for this motion. >> thank you very much. what about someone who wishes to

speak from the northeast of england. are you from the northeast? not from the northeast. yes, yes. let's hear from this young gentleman from the northeast. >> i'm danny brown from the northeast. so we've all heard the arguments, as it's pointed out. i'm many not going to repeat them. we all know. so many great campaigns but how many people have said to you, what you do is pointless. you're not going to make a change. you sitting in this room right now is making a change. so being in here why don't you make a change for the 1.5 million young people who can't vote. on wednesday i turn 15. my question is will i have to wait a year to vote or another three years? so let's do this for all. let's have a revolution.

let's make britain great again. >> thank you very much, indeed. can we hear from somebody from the east midlands? yes, what about this gentleman here. yes, your good self. >> from the east midlands. thank you, mr. speaker. vote at 16 is an issue which has received much attention from ourselves and other organizations in the past years. it's become obvious there's an issue, young and old. however, do we really feel by voting for this national campaign for a second year we contribute significantly to making progress towards achieving our end goal? given the youth select committee only recently finished their report to the issue was restarting the process beneficial?

especially when we could concentrate on another issue. one which would make much more support and make a mark. thank you. >> thank you. >> anybody from northern ireland wishing to speak in this debate? your good self. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm rebecca conley. i hold no doubt in my mind that a time will come when the vote needs lowered. with the recent success in scotland, under phenomenally high percentage of 16 and 17-year-old voter turnout, as well as the time for change in northern ireland, vote at 16 is inevitable. as francesca previously stated, vote at 16 is not in the manifesto of two of the leading parties, so we need to ask ourselves, how much good can we do to something that has progressed beyond the reaches of our democratically elected grasp, so i urge you, do not fall into the same trap we did last year. vote for something we can make a

real difference on. vote against this motion. >> thank you. what about the east of england. who have we got from the east of england. yes, you've been champing at the bit for some time. let's hear from you. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm leah i'm from hartfordshire. at 16 you can have sex, start a family, join the army, and i'm sorry to fall into your stereotypes, mr. reilly. imagine if you had a baby and you couldn't vote for its future. i know i would be distraught because i would want the best for my child and i wouldn't want somebody else deciding its future. i completely agree with those that say that 16-year-olds are too mature to vote, but what about those who are mature enough? what about those who are politically minded? think about those people.

so, vote 16. >> thank you. now, i think we could usefully hear from somebody from wales. from wales. yes, the young woman here with the flowery dress. yes. >> thanks, mr. speaker. i'm jenna william article 12 says young people are entitled to have a voice. not being able to vote takes that right from a young person. at 16 you can commit to a marriage and sexual relationships. surely, if can you do that, they can make a click on a box of their choice. thank you. >> anybody else from london? good heavens. i'll sorry, this is difficult. this gentleman has been trying for quite some time.

let's hear from you. >> thank you. >> now, of course, the main idea is that this issue affects every single person sitting in this room presentlily. i'm going to skim over other points. i would like to state what's unfair. it's unfair can you work and contribute to this country but you can't vote on where the money goes. you can join the army and fight for your nation, but you can't decide how it's run. i don't think it's fair can you have sex with your local np but you can't vote for who they are. what do they say? they say we're not mature enough. on my 18th birthday i'm going to wake up and say i'm mature. now i can vote. when you wake up on your 18th birthday, does that really

happen? i've heard a lot of people say, we can't do it. we can't make a big enough difference. look at where we are and look at what we're doing. we are making a difference already. just because we don't have a voice now doesn't mean we won't have one in the future. it's important we push for this because we represent the young people. even though it is likely to happen in the future, we need to push this through to the end. let's unite together as young people and show the world we're more than just kids. >> i'm going to take one more speaker from northern ireland. your good self. >> thank you, mr. speaker. holly morrison, northern ireland. now, i know my opinion is probably going to be an unpopular opinion but i believe 16-year-olds are not ready for the vote just yet.

16-year-olds are very impressionable at this age. we vote how our parents have voted. we know no other way. we don't -- we're just beginning to become our own independent person. how can we expect to vote for somebody when we don't know what they value from another time apart from election time. if we take those at face value, we could end up aerlting a system that doesn't benefit either of us. but it is true that voting increases with age. we can become complacent. if we can get the votes, we're be like, yeah we can vote. that's it. it doesn't guarantee we are going to actually guarantee we

are going to vote. it's good for us to support vote at 16 because we're interested in politics. but go out into the street and ask someone, who would they vote for? i guarantee a lot would have no clue. we do not have enough education and knowledge about the parties in schools political education is not open until "a" level. can you be misinformed and spoil your votes. when my brother and all were picking their candidates. i had no idea how to vote. i had no idea. i'm 16. that would be the voting range that is open. so maybe we're not just ready for the vote. maybe another generation can do but we just need to set the motion down for a while and campaign on something more worth while. thank you. >> thank you.

now, to conclude this debate, of england. >> thank you mr. speaker. first i want to say, london, chill. okay, thank you. i don't want to die before i do my speech. this is not by far the first time we've heard this debate. i know many here have strong feelings toward the subject, should 16-year-olds have the vote. last year we decided to make this our campaign based on our passion and duty towards the young people we represent. with a youth selective committee to act on. one, putin does not approve. two, current public opinion supports the current voting age of 18. two -- no, three, sorry.

there are a lot of issues surrounding a reduction to the voting age, which would have to be addressed either prior to or alongside with a reduction to 16 to make the transition as smooth and democratically as beneficial as it should be. four, is a direct quote from the report. we are very proud at the democracy in which we live and its history and traditions. we are absolutely convinced that 16 and 17-year-olds have the attitude and the apt tight to take a full part in democracy. not only to include a new cohort of citizens in decisions about their lives and communities, but to assure are better informed, more engaged generation is equipped to take our democracy into the future. however, i must emphasize that the question has been asked here today, isn't whether or not we support lowering the voting age to 16. it's whether we truly believe that spending another actively pushing for it will be in the best interest of those we sit in this very chamber to represent.

would 12 months not mean more to this campaign whose roots go back decades or to back mental well-being. that is now the center of discussions on health. or to giving young people a stable foundation to not only build their futures or the ability to reset the exams of our most kor subjects. or are we going to see this through, show the drive and determination that i know each and every one of us here is capable of. last year we were told to strike whilst the iron is hot. it is we who have made the iron hot. when it was first proposed here in 1999, the motion was defeated. 36 votes for, 434 votes against. now with the backing of two major political parties as well as support in wales scotland

and northern ireland is proof of a monumental change. achieved on the hard work of young people and organizations across these aisles. so i ask you is this mission accomplished? is it time to move on to pastures new? to lead another glorious crusade to stick it to the man? perhaps. no matter what we decide to campaign for we feel secure in the knowledge if this youth -- it will be one of democracy and innovation adhering to a proud tradition of progress that has made britain truly great. thank you. >> thank you very much indeed for that. i fear you know that i'm going to tell you that that sadly must conclude the debates for today. we've had our five debates.

it's never possible to accommodate everybody. i give a heartfelt sorry to people who wanted to contribute and weren't able to do so. i would love to hear from every single one of you, but time simply doesn't allow. they have been superb debates. fun, invigorating informative for you. but also hugely valuable to members of parliament and to civil society as a whole. the more people who hear from you, the more impressed they will be. the youth parliament will now divide to vote on which of the five subjects debated today to select as its national campaign issue. in the lobby members of the youth parliament you will be given two ballot papers. one for the two reserved that is to say, uk wide subjects and one for the three devolved

issues. for today's purposes, i believe england only. you should place a cross in the box next to the subject you'd like to vote for on each ballot paper and hand the completed ballot papers to the doorkeepers in the lobbies. those doorkeepers will be visibly obvious to you. just in case somebody doesn't know who they are, would they care to identify snemsz okaythemselves? okay. hands up. i think you can see who the doorkeepers are. thank you very much, indeed. afterwards, that is to say, when you voted, please return to your place in the chamber. those of you on my right should leave the chamber by the door behind me and turn left into the lobby behind you. those on my left should leave by

the doors on the far end and turn left, far end there and turn left into the no lobby behind you. members of house of commons staff will be on hand to assist you. i shall disappear for a short period while you're voting and then i look forward very much to returning. we have further observations to be made in store for you. and i can now declare that the division lobbies are open. >> while president obama, vice president joe bideen and his wife will be traveling to state community college in knoxville, tennessee, he'll talk about efforts to create new jobs. president will propose a plan to make the first two years of community college free. you can see live coverage set for 1:20 eastern, about an hour

from now on our companion network c-span2. here's a preview of the president's marks from tennessee congressman steve cohen. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today the president will be speaking in knoxville, tennessee, on extending college education to americans. i share with the president the goal of giving more americans the opportunity to go to college, but i would submit to him, he should not be holding up the tennessee promise plan in tennessee as an example. he should be holding up the tennessee hope lottery scholarship program which i worked 20 years to achieve in tennessee and provided over $3 billion to education, $250 million a year. scholarship programs should have standards for students to achieve. they should have strong standards in college to maintain them. they should be in addition to pell grants and in addition to other scholarships to pay for books and tuition. the promise plan takes from middle class and lower income students and gives to higher income students doesn't have standards and high school to get

the scholarship and doesn't have high standards to keep it. it's the last dollar slorship. the president's plan should be more like the tennessee hope lottery scholarship. assuring students have an incentive in high school to get it and keep it with high grade standards. it shouldn't go for-profit schools. i thank the president for his commitment, but i think he chose the wrong program for his motto. >> again live coverage of president obama's remarks coming up just under an hour at 1:20 eastern on our companion network c-span2. here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span2, saturday night at 10 p.m. o book tv's after words, cass sunsteen on the pitfalls of group decision making. sunday afternoon at 1:00 part of book of it's college series. we talked with recently published professors at john hopkins university on the

influence of hip-hop, politics and the u.s. government's efforts to cure malaria during world war ii. on american history tv on c-span3 saturday at 8 p.m. eastern, lectures in history, brian dirk uses lincoln's life, before during and after the civil war. sunday afternoon at 4:30 a discussion on birth control advocate margaret singer, her legacy and the impact race social class and politics had on the birth control movement. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org or send us a tweet @yspan. "like" us on facebook, follow us on twitter. monday night on "the communicators," martin cooper, inventor of the cell phone on spectrum issues and the efforts

by federal agencies to provide for the growing needs of mobile phone service providers. >> the ultimate in the spectrum efficient technology is what's called dynamic spectrum access. that includes a whole bunch of things. it also includes cognitive radio. i know you've heard a lot about that. and it includes some new technology that's just starting to become laboratory available, where we can use satellites to actually create a model of the world so that when somebody transmits, they will know whether they are going to interfere with somebody else. you put all these things together, i hesitate to tell you how much more efficient we're going to be because you would laugh me out of this room. but we're talking not about tens of times improvement or hundreds or thousands, but millions of time improvement. and that's not as crazy as it sounds because from the time of

marconi until now we're a trillion times spctro efficient. >> monday night at 8 p.m. eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> earth policy institute and funder, lester brown, is the author of more than 50 books. his newest book is "the great transition." you'll see a discussion on food policy, sustainability and climate change. the american renewable energy institute summit in aspen colorado, was the host of these sessions in august.

>> thank you, chip. thank you for organizing areday and thanks for the invitation to come back again. my topic, as i recall is the great transition. the great transition is a shift from coal and oil to solar and wind. most of us know about a little solar energy and a little wind farm there but things are happening very fast now. i think we're going to see about a half century of change compressed into the next decade. we're going to see a complete restructuring of the world energy economy. a decade from now the principle sources of energy in the world will be solar and wind, not coal and oil.

so, it's coming and it's coming very fast. just to give some glimpses of the new energy economy we can see at various places in the world, last year denmark 33% of its select from wind. in the month of december, it was 55%. it is the first country to get a major share of its electricity from wind. but it's not finished. the goal is to take it up to 100%. portugal, spain and ireland are moving fast with 22, 18 and 17% of their electricity coming from wind. in spain, interestingly, wind has emerged as the principle source of select in the country and it has overtaken nuclear.

in south australia, wind farms are replacing coal-fired power plants and doing it very fast. in china, wind-generated electricity has not only overtaken nuclear-generated electricity, but if you look at the curves the nuclear curve looks like this. the wind curve looks like this. i mean, it's just a runaway now. it's exciting to see the other largest economy in the world now moving so fast toward wind. there are seven wind mega complexes under construction in china. each of which will have at least 10,000 megawatts of generating capacity. that's ten nuclear power plants. the largest, which is not surprisingly in inner mongolia, a particular wind-rich area, will when completed have 35,000

megawatts of generating capacity. 38,000 megawatts is equal to the electricity consumption of poland. this is not small-time marginal additions to the world's energy supply. this is big time. we've not seen anything like it. and we've not seen any other energy source, including coal and oil and nuclear scale up to the levels we're seeing with wind, for example, with 10,000 megawatt wind farms and one for 38,000 megawatts. it's a whole new ball game. in the united states iowa and south dakota are the leaders in wind electric generation. each getting about 25% of their electricity from wind. iowa wants to take this to 50% within the next four years. it may become the first u.s.

state where wind becomes the primary source of energy. i should say of electricity. how has this revolution happened? how has it managed to move so quickly? incidentally, there was supposed to be a clock here someplace, a timer -- >> right here. >> where is it? >> okay. if you can see it, that's fine. the advances have come from government policies, r & d subsidy, they've come from environmental groups. the sierra club launched in the beginning of 2010 a beyond coal campaign in this country. at that time we had 530 coal-fired power plants. their goal is to close every one of them. so far they've closed 140. so the 530, drop by 140 now

down to 390. their goal is to close every one. not later than 2030. then whoa say, well what about china? well, china's moving very fast. the coal trust in china, faced with shrinking use of coal, are on the verge of bankruptcy. there are six provinces in china which have set their own coal reduction goals. they range from cuts of 5% to 50% between now and 2020. these are individual provinces. simply picking it up and saying coal has to go and we're going to do our part. there are also a number of cities around the world who are pushing for 100% clean energy, like san francisco, wellington

new zealand. so, a number of cities are setting very ambitious goals. goals that are much more ambitious than the goals of the states in which they are located. what about india? india's a major source of car upon emissions. heavily reliant on coal for electricity generation, for example. put it's shifting. they have now designed in india solar driven water pumps that are much cheaper than diesel pumps. indian farmers currently have 26 million diesel powered -- is that ten minutes? oh, good. they have 26 million diesel-powered irrigation pumps. the plan is to replace every one of them with a solar-power

irrigation pump. and save a lot of money in the process. the payback time on these sole lar-driven, solar-powered water pumps is one to four years, depending on the situation and from how far down they're pumping the water. i mentioned earlier the scaling up that we're seeing with wind farms. we're also seeing the same thing with solar cells. solar cells can scale up and they can scale down. they can scale down to this little strip on my watch that provides the electricity to run it. and they can go all the way up to 100 megawatts, 200 megawatts. there's really no limit to the size. they're close to 100 of these large plants being built now in the southwestern united states.

at the end of last year the world had 139,000 meg go dast watts watt -- megawatts. it's growing by an extraordinary rate. between 30% and 70% per year. one of the most exciting things happening now is actually an economic development where rooftop solar panels generating electricity are now producing electricity cheap enough to not only compete with but to undercut the local utility. and what happened in this situation, as more and more people learn that a rooftop installation of solar panels will provide cheaper electricity

than the utility they begin installing them on their homes. and then for the utility, the market begins to shrink so they have to raise their prices. when they raise their prices, even more people put solar collectors on their roof. and it's called a suicide spiral. but there are many utilities in this world particularly in germany where they invested very heavily in solar cells the two largest utilities in germany are really on their knees. their net market value for the two of them has dropped 56% over the last four years, which says something about the market's assessment of utility generated, mostly coal-generated, electricity. so, the markets are beginning to

pick up these changes. in 2013 33% of denmark's electricity came from wind. in iowa and south dakota, it was 25%. texas is pushing hard on wind. last fall, a bloc of nine midwestern states got 20% of their electricity from wind. the state of oklahoma in october -- five? oklahoma in october, got 32% of its electricity there wind. i'm getting these examples and these glimpses just so we can

begin to see what's happening. i mentioned china's seven wind complexes. i mean this is wind generation on a scale we've never seen before, when you talk about 10,000 megawatt plants at a minimum, some going up to 30,000 megawatts. there are four states in north germany that get half of their electricity from solar cells. and then the exciting thing about having a rooftop solar generator is that you cannot only run your household, you can also run your car. with solar energy. you'll need an electric car or electric hybrid, but they're coming. this is also going to be market-driven and move much faster than people think for the simple reason that cost of electricity for fuel is about

one-third that of gasoline. that's going to become clear, i think, the more and more people in the years meeldly ahead. we have seen an interest in several years now using corn for ethanol. i'm not sure that's the best use of land. if you have an acre of land growing corn you can produce 1,000 worth of ethanol. but if you put a wind farm on that acre of land, it will generate $300,000 of electricity. so, we can begin to see where the balance of -- where the advantage lies as we look ahead. i mentioned iowa. one wild thing about iowa it reflects the extraordinary piece of agricultural real estate we

have in the u.s. midwest. iowa produces more grain than canada. and at the same time, more soybeans than china. that's a double wow. but the u.s. midwest is why the u.s. is the -- is the food super power in the world. there's no other country close to us in terms of production and exports. and part of this is the good fortune of having inherited some extraordinarily productive soils. what about nuclear power? i have two minutes to go. what about nuclear power? nuclear cannot compete economically. the technology's there. we know how to do it. but the costs are just not competitive. right now, coal and wind are producing electricity at about half the cost of that from nuclear power plants. so, it's not the technology. it's the economics that has led to the decline in both u.s.

nuclear generation and worldwide nuclear generation. both are on the way down. nuclear's on the way out. i don't see anything reversing that. we've seen a number of things contributing to this transition. one is advancing technologies have lowered the cost of solar and wind energy. another is mounting public concern about climate change. this sort of underlies the thinking and shaping of policies in this area. and weave seen some people with money, a lot of billionaires really begin to plow money into renewable energy. warren buffett, $15 billion a couple years ago and recently another couple billion going into wind and solar development. ted turner, five solar plants in the south now and a wind farm coming in minnesota.

phil anshcutz denver-based guy who made his first millions in oil and gas s building a 300,000 megawatt wind farm in wyoming and a transmission line so he can ship that wyoming wind energy to california, basically, in the form of electricity. so, we're beginning to see all sorts of new developments now. i'm down to my final minute. we're seeing some stranded assets along the way of this transition. coal mines not worth anything anymore. the french firm total invested $11 billion in tar sands in alberta. it just pulled out recently and wrote the whole thing off. oil refineries, fewer and fewer now. the corner service station as oil use as gasoline use in the u.s. declines because of more efficient cars and we're driving

less. my corner service station just went two weeks ago. it's gone now. and this is happening in many parts of the world. so, service stations gasoline service stations will be part of the -- an important part of this stranded assets. oil refineries. a lot of them there's just not enough oil and demand for oil to keep them going. so, a lot of those are also going to be going. final point. chevron, exxonmobil and shell invest $120 billion last year in trying to expand oil production. with that $120 billion investment, they only succeeded in preventing further decline. they were not able to increase it at all. the stock market is not -- is not looking favorably at the oil companies. the s&p 500 index went up 40%

last year. sorry, over the last three years. exxonmobil and chevron went up 11%. royal dutch shell went down 2%. when i see the oil ceos ceos, they don't know where to go. it's a new world. instead of the companies expanded, they are shrinking. this is a new experience. but it's an indication of the kind of thing that we're going to be seeing in the years immediately ahead. i'm not talking about 250 years from now. i'm talking about the rest of this year and next year. the energy transition i call it the great transition, because it's going from fossil fuels to solar and wind energy, will be the defining element of our time. this is a historic development. thank you very much. [ applause ]

>> one of the most important developments in modern human history. now i would like to introduce mike phillips. he is one of the gentlemen who have been keeping his pulse on the biodiversity conversation. mike comes to us from the turner endangered specie ss. i'm looking forward to your presentation. >> good morning. i'm going to dive right in. 15 minutes is not a lot of time. i caught my first gray wolf 34 years ago. not long after that -- that's not supposed to be the first slide. that is. very good. not long after that i had the good fortune to lead the effort

to restore red wolves. this was the first one born in the wild in many decades. after that, i had the good fortune to lead the effort to restore gray wolves to yellowstone national park. after that, i had the good fortune to saddle up with ted turner and his family to launch what has become the largest private effort in the world to readdress the extinction crisis. i wish i could say that -- i've been involved with extinction crisis since 1980. i wish i could say that i didn't have much to say today, because the work was done. but that's not the case, unfortunately. have you ever heard ofthese

animals? all of those are species that have gone extinction in the recent past in the united states. have you ever heard of martha? that's martha. martha was a pigeon who died at the cincinnati zoo at 1:00 p.m. on september 1, 1914 at the ripe old age of 29. martha was not an extraordinary passenger pigeon. she happened to be the last. passenger pigeon were gregarious creatures. evolution committed them to a strategy of exaggerated togetherness. consequently, they were very easy to kill. the decline happened fast. in the early part of the 1880s, big flocks including millions of birds, were known before the end of that decade, groups of

200 were note worthy. the last wild bird was shot by a 14-year-old boy outside ohio on march 24 1900. after that the species was only known in captivity and martha was the last of that crowd. upon her death martha's small body was frozen in a block of ice and shipped to the smithsonian. ironic, isn't it? billions of passenger pigeons had been killed but upon her death, martha was little body was seen as precious in accord with the scarcity theory of value. like other extinction crisises the one we're currently involved in operates across a massive scale. every year thousands of species

fine-tuned by time and place disappear at the hand of man. losses are so severe that the redundancy and certainty of nature is being stripped away, exhausting the lives of millions. without doubt, the current extinction crisis is one of the most pressing problems and on par with the five great waves of extension that have swept across this planet since multi-cellular life first arose a billion years ago. the first extinction crisis occurred in the era about 440 million years ago. that event empties the oceans. the fifth crisis occurred during the area about 66 million years ago. during that crisis dinosaurs disappeared as an asteroid measureing six miles across slammed into the earth traveling

at 45,000 miles per hour. the sixth great extinction crisis began in the latter part of the 18th century at the onset of man. like all of these waves of extinction, ours is characterized, if you want to define an extinction crisis, it's characterized by untold numbers of species disappearing around the world. these aren't isolated events. at a rate that greatly exceeds the normally geological rhythms of life and death. during an extinction crisis all bets are off. the normal rules of survival of the fittest, that rules become irrelevant. the change is brought about by waves destruction that the very notion of fitness is rendered moot. species that survive -- this is

important. species that survive an extinction crisis are not so adapted as simply lucky. think about the power of a destructive force that's so overwhelming that survival of the fitness, that approach for life marching in the direction of persistence is rendered irrelevant. imagine forces so powerful that the whole of living nature, the whole of living nature with the wisdom of the ages has insufficient time, resources and know how to adapt. what then are we to make the sixth great crisis before us? it's important to note that it's not a speeding asteroid but rather it is us marching in this direction in a most powerful way to do one thing. domesticate the planet. that's what's driving this crisis as we speak today.

what does this have to do with renewable energy? i think the extinction crisis above all else is a call for changing our relationship with one another and the planet earth. why is this the call? because it's loud and it's clear as all calls pu be. it certainly allowed for those willing to listen, i could imagine that with each passing there's a bell that rings endlessly marching the passage of another miracle. it's clear. it provides clear evidence unequivocal evidence that something is amiss. be mindful over the long sweep, a billion years of multi-cellular life there have been five events that rifle the extinction crisis that we're in today. if that's not evidence that

something is amiss then i don't know what amiss means. we understand the cause. it's human induced, habitat loss loss, over exploitation and climate change. you wonder what does this have to do with energy and energy policy and renewable energy. if we can mainstream renewables for redressing the climate change problem it will double as a redress for the extinction crisis as well. the transition that we should consider should align us with the great thoughts of the ecothee logan who imagined a transition from human devastation of the earth to a period when humans would relate in a more beneficial manner. we need a transition to a heavy reliance on renewables. a transition to a restorative economy, where all of the costs

of production distribution and consumption are accounted for today. we need you to transition to fairness within and between generations. a transition to peace amongst ourselves and all other creatures great and small. the growing momentum makes clear we are running out of time. soon we won't have anything to transition to. without immediate and substantive and systemic changes, we are not going to have a world that we're proud to give to our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren. a step in the direction of necessary change would be to redouble our support for the federal endangered species act. this would