my counterparts is rgs look, let's be honest. if you were on the outside looking in to government in the area of cybersecurity, we've got to simplify this. we've got to make this easy for the private sector and for us to interact with each other, to ultimately get ourselves to a position where we can share information in realtime and in an automated machine way.

because given the speed and complexity of the challenges we're talking in cyber, that's where we've got to get. we have to work our way through how we do that in the u.s. department of homeland security which plays a central role here. our capabilities support them and other u.s. government support partners in attempts to do that. >> on that topic as a journalist, i've asked the nsa whether my cell phone communications have been monitored in any way because i submitted through proper channels, i got a response we appealed. and we got a stock response which others have gotten. i'm a journalist, i lived overseas a lot of the time. as part of my work, i spoke to people who i would imagine you might want to listen to, some in the terror community, et cetera. as a law-abiding american, why won't the nsa tell me if they've looked at my phone communications? >> first you're asking me directly. i don't know. >> but it's a policy because

they told others the same thing. >> what i would say is look it's a matter of law. it's a due focus collection against a u.s. person and must get a court order. they have to show a valid basis for why we are doing that. is there a connection with a foreign nation, i.e., that u.s. person is acting as an agent of a foreign government? and yes, that does happen out there. is that u.s. person part of a group, in this case, let's say, isil, as an example, who is attempting to do harm? i have to show a court a legal basis for the why, and it can't just be, well, we don't like journalists. what? that's not a valid legal reason. >> if it were to happen, you would have to have a court order? but that's something you wouldn't tell the person that's involved? >> no. >> i have one more question, if that's possible. so from john lapriese based on

last week's research that spersky announced there was firmware attacking. have repeaters been similarly hacked, and if so would this compromise the architecture of the internet? technical question. >> my quick answer would be no. i go to the first part. i'm aware of the allegations that are out there. i'm not going to comment about them. but in terms of based on what i read, does that mean you need to believe that the internet is somewhat compromised? no. >> thank you very much. >> back of the room on the left. >> i'm mike nelson i'm a professor of internet studies in georgetown and i just recently started working for cloud flare which protects bay millabout a million web sites around the world from cyber attacks. i was at a white house summit a week and a half ago, and one of the topics you kept hearing in

the hallways was about how american companies are very uncomfortable sharing information with the u.s. government if they can't share that same information with dozens of other governments. i'd be curious to know how we're supposed to decide which governments are okay to share with and how we deal with the fact that the belgians and the french and the turks and everyone else wants to know what we share with you, and our customers want to know that, too. >> again it's not a reason why i think that legal framework becomes very important here. in the specifics of an area that isn't my personal focus. i certainly understand the concerns, don't get me wrong. but my comment would be that idea is not unique to cyber for example. you name the business segment, and just because we share something internally with the united states doesn't mean we do so automatically everywhere on the globe. so cyber is not unique in that

regard, and there is a challenge to the private sector you need to cyber. >> we have time for a couple more. way in the back here is another area we haven't been to, to be geographically fair. >> listening to the conversation today, one thing that's really clear, and you mentioned it we need to decide what the social norms are around which we built the policy and legal frameworks. but clearly listening to bruce schneider and alex stamos and you, the social norms are not worked out. what's the process to get the dialogue going so we figure out what those norms are which have to proceed to what the legal policy and frameworks are. >> i think interstate action of this is -- interaction is part of it. i encourage all of us as citizens to articulate our

viewpoint to help them understand the complexity of this issue and help them understand just what our viewpoints are as we try to work our way through this. the other thing at least for me, i'm trying to do outreach as well in the academic world. one of the things i'm struck by is, and it goes back to your question talking about the nuclear piece. if you go back and look at some of the foundation work that was done on nuclear deterrence, for example, much of that was done back in the days of kissinger harvard and others, there was a strong academic focus on how are we going to understand this new thing we call the nuclear atom bomb or the nuclear hydrogen bomb? so i'm trying to see is there a place in the academic world for the same kind of discussion. how do we get to this whole idea of the social norms and what are we comfortable with? >> the way back here.

>> thank you. leandra bernstein. >> what it liam? >> leandra. >> i couldn't hear you after your voice trailed off. >> oh, i'm with sputnik international news. you addressed the sparesky report and said you wouldn't comment. there was another report on the nsa, gchq, hacking incryption keys in a sim card provider. can you respond to that? you've said we need to have a discussion, a public discussion, so would you get that started by addressing these allegations?

>> i've listed to these allegations for some period of time. this is something unique my spas challeichaly challenge as an intelligence leader, how do i try to strike the right balance between engaging in that broad dialogue and realizing that compromising the specifics of what we do and how we do it provides insight to those we're trying to generate knowledge of who would do harm to us as a nation. so as a general matter of policy, i've just said hey look i'm not getting into the specifics in terms of the very specific things like you've referenced. i am not going to chase every allegation out there. i don't have the time. we need to focus on doing our mission by making sure we do it within that legal and authority and policy framework. >> but just -- >> that's the promise i make.

>> i'm the executive vice president, center for american progress, and i'm excited to welcome all of you to this important conversation on the economy, the milgd class and state and -- middle class and state and local action. this session focuses on how state and local advocates have been able to grow the middle class and how they've been able to push forward with policies like raising the minimum wage and broadening paid, sick and family leave, criminal justice issues, fighting poverty and so much more. as washington continues to be gridlocked by congressional inaction, capp has been eager to focus on where the action is at the state and local level. that work involves working with state advocates that grow the middle class which we all know is crucial to strengthening the country's economy as a whole. the middle class really is the engine of economic growth.

as a part of that engagement, cap has been reaching out to state legislators to examine how organization can aid the progressive policy movements at the state and local level. in december of last year we convened an excellent and productive conversation to discuss an organized around reducing gun violence protection and state policy opportunities that actually exist at the state level. additionally through our c4 arm, cap action fund we continue to base our work with state-based advocates by holding summits on numerous issues to the progressive movement, including middle class economics, voting rights, women's economic security, climate change, and again, criminal justice issues. with cap's continued and expanding focus on policy opportunities at the state and local level, we are very very excited about working with new organizations and all great people involved in state

advocacy. in fact organizations like the state innovation exchange or siex. majority leader loretta weinberg from new jersey and the leader from texas, who you'll hear from in just a moment. we welcome all our state legislators here today. prior to leading siex nick directed state campaigns for michael bloomberg's every town for gun safety where he oversaw legislative campaigns for issues around gun safety and violence prevention. he also served as the consumer financial protection bureau's assistant director of intergovernmental and international affairs where he helped build the structure of the cfpb. previously nick served as a special assistant to president obama and deputy director for intergovernmental affairs at the

white house. he was primarily responsible for setting up president obama's policy and political work in the state and u.s. territories. i should also note that nick has called cap homeworking here earlier in his career as well. we are very excited to be working with siex on the crucial discussion this morning, and happy now to hear from nick and the other panelists. please welcome them to the stage. [ applause ] >> good morning, everyone. and thank you for braving the cold. for those of you watching at home we had a big snowstorm here in d.c. and it was difficult for a lot of people to get in and we have a pretty

full room considering the circumstances. so welcome to all of you. thank you to winnie. one of my first jobs in politics was here at the center for american progress when it was still just a fledgling organization with about -- i don't even remember at the time. but winnie was my boss here, and it was an honor to work for her. i learned so much from her, so thank you for the introduction and thank you for hosting us here today. so this panel and this conversation is about what's going on in the country. if you take a look currently at what's happening in washington, just last week, they're having snowball fights on the senate floor debating whether climate change actually exists. they're trying to figure out what parts of the government to shut down. it's not a serious conversation. and then when you go and you look at what's happening in the country, there is a real fight for middle class and working class families that's going on.

if you take a look right now in wisconsin, it's sort of ground zero in that where they call the special election to talk about whether people secretaries, you know, regular workers can get together to organize themselves to be able to fight for or negotiate for better wages, better workplace environment, that sort of thing. these types of things are happening all over the country. meanwhile, on our side, we are fighting every day. there is a group of state legislators here that we brought in from around the country that are legislative leaders who are on the front lines of this fight, and they're fighting every single day for working class and middle class families. if you look at what's happening in nevada, there is an equal pay measure there. in minnesota there is a package of bills that are protecting workers and advancing things like paid sick days minimum

wage increases, protecting wages. this is happening in all parts of the country, but it's something that we don't hear. and so the state innovation exchange which was created last year is to help organize and work with state legislators on things like those issues, things that matter to everyday americans, things that matter to parents. as a parent i care about the education that my kid gets. i care that they'll get wages. i care that my daughter is paid equally for the same job as a man when she enters into the work force. those things matter not only to me, but it matters to other americans. if you take a look on the silver linings of the midterm elections was that in places like my home state of nebraska where i grew up, they actively voted for pete ricketts, who is very conservative, for governor but they also actively voted for a minimum wage increase.

the same thing happened in arkansas. they voted against an amendment in south dakota. we are right in the middle of the issues and we want to take that campaign and take it to the states, which is why the states are taking a campaign focused on middle class and working class families called opportunity works for us. it will be a way for us to work with legislators, to provide them technical communications and other supports, to be able to really advance and take this fight into the states and really support all of the work that they're doing. ask that's and that's what we're going to talk about today. we have a great group of panelists here from cap as well as some legislators from the state. we also have as i mentioned some state legislators here from around the country who i also hope will contribute to the conversation. so let me start by introducing david madlin from the center of american progress. david is a director of the

american worker project and the managing director of economic policy team. he's written extensively about the economy and american politics on a range of topics including retirement policy, labor unions and workplace standards such as the middle wage. he focuses on democracy as well as policies to restore the middle class. on his right is melissa botac. me lis saslissa is the vice president of the program of american progress. in this capacity she oversees american progress and analysis as well as the campaign to cut poverty in half in 10 years project. melissa served as the policy lead on the shriver report, a book and multimedia platform by maria shriver and cap about the one in three women living in or on the brink of poverty, and the

public private and personal solutions to help the nation push back. we also have here senate majority leader loretta we weinberg. she serves on the state committee and the government committee. she is a former member on the congress committee and the senate judiciary committee. to her left is representative jessica jessica farrar from texas. ms. farrar is currently serving in district 48. she was first elected in 1944 at the age of 27. she is a long-serving hispanic member in the house of representatives. she currently serves as a member of the state affairs committee. rep farrar currently serves on the state committee and serves as its chair. i'm going to hand it over to dave to talk about what's

happening with the american worker in the state and some ideas that cap has for how to advance this middle class working class agenda in the states. >> great. thanks, nick. do you want to join us? >> yeah i'll be there in a second. >> thanks very much for letting me sort of, i think frame this discussion, because what i want to focus on is why we are talking about the state of the middle class and what we can do about it so we'll provide some big picture ideas. the senator from american progress, we've long been focused on strengthening the middle class and we've been doing that for a couple reasons. first, there are trends where the economy is only working for those at the top it's not working for the middle. let me highlight a few indicators of those problems. first, there's the typical income that a typical family is taking home, and right now that is lower than it was in 1989.

that's two decades of stagnation or decline for most families. at the same time the cost of basic middle class goods have risen significantly, you know. so we looked at for example just over the past decade, we looked at the cost of things like health care child care housing, higher education for a typical family, and we found that those costs had gone up by $10,000, the same time incomes were stagnant. that's putting a big squeeze on the middle class. not surprisingly, debt for the middle class has nearly tripled over the past several decades, so middle class is in quite rough shape. and that matters because -- not just for people suffering, but really because this is how the economy works. the middle class are the basis for strong growth, and they are the consumers that purchase products that cause business to invest. they are the source of sort of a

good democratic base, and right now we have this really fundamental debate about how the economy works. this progressive idea i've been talking about, how the economy grows from the middle out is a stark contrast to what has governed the way the economy has been run for the past three decades, which is this trickle-down idea. they make things as easy as possible for the rich cut their taxes, cut their regulations, and the economy will grow. we've seen that's been a failure, and we have an alternative we've been pushing and developing, and it's proving to be correct. in fact, you have organizations like the international monetary fund coming out and saying the records of inequality we have are harming the u.s. economy. so that leaves us at this place where people are struggling it's harming our future growth. what can we do about it? well, cap has spent a lot of time -- you might think most of our work is on federal issues, we've also done a lot on state

issues and recently put out a report on policies to rebuild the middle class in the states. i'm going to highlight some of the main themes of that report. what i also want -- before i do that, we also -- this decline i've talked about is not inevitable. these policies we're working on matter significantly. and just to highlight that, we recently did this report called the inclusive prosperity commission where we had commissioners from around the world, from england australia canada and the u.s. leading economists and policymakers where this is a growing problem for many countries but not all. all countries face the same challenges of globalization and technology that harm the middle class in some but some countries have done a great job with their policies and have had wage growth in the past decades. they've had a much growing middle class. australia and canada are sort of prime examples. so better policy makes a big

difference. now, what are those kinds of policies and what can states do? the three main areas, i think, we've been focusing on are raising wages. raising wages reducing costs for middle class, and making the tax system more progressive and more efficient. now, to highlight a little about how to raise wages. well, the basic ones most people are familiar with are standards like the minimum wage or paid leave, et cetera. but i don't want the conversation to end there because there are a whole host of other things. you think when the government is spending money on government contracts, for example, you'll have standards on those to raise wages for those workers and the government influences lots of jobs that way. you also think about the way we enforce our existing laws. there is a rampant wage theft going on. we can do a better job of enforcing that. we can promote things like profit sharing. so there is a set of policies. there is also a set of policies

on making core middle class goods more affordable and accessible like housing, health care, and you think of the debate there. there's medicaid that we're quite familiar with, there's making it more affordable and the states are at the center of that debate, but there are still things that are not quite on the radar screen that are emerging. for example, many states are trying to create retirement plans for private sector workers who don't have plans, and that will get them into having a good, low-cost plan. and finally on taxes you know, it's really a shame that -- actually all states have regressive taxes, which is where the poor and middle class paid more of their share than the wealthy. that's wrong. it doesn't work properly, and we can do significant things to change that. and there's a whole host of policies to talk about there. and so i want to leave with the idea this really matters and

there is a lot we can do. >> thank you so much. i'll turn it over to you now for some thoughts on new ideas that cap has been talking about and trying to advance in states as well. >> sure. a key complement to the middle class agenda is an agenda for economic mobility. for the millions of americans who are inspiring to be in the middle class. so in addition to the jobs and wages and all the important policies that david outlined, we're also doing some thinking about how we remove barriers to opportunity for those americans who are struggling on the brink. so there are sort of two areas i want to explore here. one is making sure your zip code doesn't determine your life chances. and the second is thinking about how we remove barriers for the one in three americans who have a criminal record. on the first set of policies i think it's really important to remember that there are millions of americans in high poverty neighborhoods, and both the built environment such as the infrastructure and the schools, but also the social environment can limit life chances for

americans living in those kinds of neighborhoods. at the federal level, there is an initiative called promise zones where local communities can apply for a designation and they'll get more technical assistance, they're going to get a better chance at getting federal grants they're going to get volunteers coming to their communities. so right now there's five federal promise zones and 15 more coming down the pike. there's no reason states can't have a similar initiative considering the amount of both flexible federal funds and state funds that come to their communities. so one of the things we're proposing that states think about, for example, is having local communities apply for some kind of designation in a high poverty area where states can leverage resources, federal and state flexible resources, send america or vista volunteers to those communities provide greater mobility for those americans living in high poverty communities. it's not only in the interest of people in those communities because when you have a high poverty community you're limiting both the life chances

of individuals but also the human capital that can contribute to the state's broader economic growth. that's one area where we're looking to explore new and innovative ideas to partner with states across the country, and we think this is generally a bipartisan idea. the second is that one in three americans in this country has some kind of criminal record. this is a barrier to employment it's a barrier to education and training, it's a barrier to housing, to good credit to all kind of things. and so one of the things that we're looking at is a suite of policies at the state level. there's obviously things that local governments can do, state and federal government employers, but states have a lot of policy tools at their disposal. one of the things that's gotten a lot of attention lately is efforts to ban the box, which basically means delaying the point at which employers are considering a person's criminal record so that it can be at a point where they're already competitive and their resume isn't just thrown in the trash, even though they may be very qualified for the position. other things we're looking at for example, are subsidized jobs. this is a proposal that for

example, during the recovery act, there were over 30 states who partnered with the private sector to create subsidized jobs for people who were having the hardest time finding work in that economy. and over 250,000 people were put to work in public, private and non-profit jobs that gave them a foot in the door to the labor market, temporary income and also increased their long-term employment prospects. so people even with criminal records, a subsidized job is a step states can take by creating jobs for those opportunities. something cap is also pushing is something called a clean slate. for those with low level offenses, after ten years with a clean record after some type of arrest have some type of expungement mechanism so that reported is really not a barrier to having a second chance. so those are two areas we're looking to explore in partnering with state governments. >> thank you so much. i want to turn it over now to

the legislators who are sort of on the front lines of all this really trying to push -- they are on the front lines of all of this, trying to push these ideas in the states and really fighting on behalf of working and middle class families and advancing this type of agenda there. so i'll first turn it over to you, senator weinberg, to talk about what's happening in new jersey. >> well, there's a lot happening in new jersey. i assume most of you are familiar with our governor. so we have what will i think is a rather progressive legislature, both policies assembly and senate, but an office of governor which under our constitution is the most powerful office, as a matter of fact one of the most powerful offices in the nation. so the interplay between the legislature and the governor's office becomes very important with the kind of issues that we

passed. you mentioned ban the box. we've passed that in the new jersey legislature, and it is now sitting on the governor's desk awaiting what we're assuming will happen which will be a veto. we have had great difficulty with the minority party who, for some reason, are terribly reticent afraid whatever words you want to use, to override a gubernatorial veto and in the senate we need three of those votes in order to be able to move things forward. having said that, we do have a very good family leave policy in the state, which was passed, i think, three or four years ago. we are working now, and it is working its way through the legislature on the sick leave issues guaranteeing sick leave

to employees and particularly those in lower level. we raised the minimum wage but we did it through a very arduous process because the governor vetoed it. we had to go through a constitutional amendment in order to get it on the ballot. we are not an initiative referendum state so in order to get the minimum wage on the ballot, we had to go through a constitutional amendment which meant we had to pass it twice in two different legislative sessions, have them veto it each time and get it on the ballot where it was passed overwhelmingly in new jersey. and we did, i think, add a very positive part to it besides the really minimal increase in the minimum wage. we added into it that it is

added into the cost of living. we don't have to go back to the legislature each time. it will be automatic increases, some kind of a formula attached to the cost of living. and right now we're working on a whole package of bills that run the gamut between giving tax credits to caregivers who are taking care of elderly or children because they are really the backbone and they're saving the economy a lot of money by keeping their loved ones at home whatever the issues are. we're working on a pact of bills which would allow people time off to go to a parent-teacher conference, that sort of thing. so a large package that's kind of going through review and

hearing from the advocates. we're almost ready to move the sick leave before both houses. that should happen sometime over the next couple of weeks. so it's been an interesting endeavor, and i'm delighted to participate, and certainly to hear about the growth of siex. so there are places that we can reach out and kind of co comisserate. we haven't even met and we both were nodding at the same time. so i appreciate the opportunity and would be happy for any kind of change that we have. >> great, great. i turn it over to representative farrar to talk about -- you've been the legislator of texas for some time now. i think it would be very interesting to hear how it is fighting for middle and working class families in texas. and i know you've been very much on the front lines of that. >> well nick unfortunately,

it's becoming increasingly more difficult. i come from a land where the voters pick candidates, and particularly the state leadership and the majorities in both houses both the house and the senate on god, guns gays and abortion. in doing so they have overlooked their economic situation. however, myself and my colleagues have done a great job, i think, in terms of stopping the worse things from happening, but that has become more and more difficult recently. our lieutenant governor also removed something called the two-thirds rule which required the senate to have two-thirds of an agreement to actually even bring up a bill, so that has been removed. so a lot of people are shaking their heads and wondering what do we do now? however -- so what we have been able to do in texas is also pass things sort of incrementally and

also be able to communicate with our constituents we use. so our tools are the parliamentary process, the house rules, and we have a lot of expertise on our side on that to our advantages that the other side also is sort of complacent in their power. and so they don't have -- they're not as familiar with that. so we've been able to stop bills on technicalities sometimes and other methods which i can't disclose here or i would probably be tortured to death. and the other is just taking it to the outside and i think you all saw around the country what happened in texas the summer before last the famous wendy davis filibuster. but that was actually the culmination of the use of social media when abortion issues were brought up in a special session at the last minute and so from tuesday to friday we were able

to bill the capitol. and at one point they had to close the doors because so many people came the occupancy limit had been exceeded. so these are our tools. but nonetheless, we are -- we let people know on payday lending. these are economic issues so we attack. for us it means different things. for us it means in-state tuition. we all know the wage someone makes if they don't finish high school, if they do finish high school and if they get a college degree. so we have a significant hispanic community and a significant immigrant community so years back over a decade ago, we were able to pass a bill that allowed immigrant students to pay in-state tuition because they had been here so long they actually qualified. however, they didn't have the legal status to be able to do so. but that's under attack, and people -- the people in the majority in my state ran and won

on the issue of doing away with it. so that's something that frequently comes up for a vote. it has failed -- it has failed by just a few votes. i'm not so sure about our prospects this time. i'm now outnumbered. my side is outnumbered 2 to 1. so we'll see. also, it's difficult to do things bipartisanly in my state because republicans who stick their neck out are aretargeted in primaries and eliminated very quickly. so we have lost a lot of moderates on the other side. it has just become more and more difficult. nonetheless, we don't give up. and another economic issue is payday lending so there are bills proposed to provide more consumer protections, more consumer protections in insurance policies. these are ways that we might be able to win, and also, more importantly, is being able to

stop the bad stuff. because even though it is so skewed against the consumer and my state, there are interests that want to take it even further. so we can sometimes block some of that as well. women's health is an issue that affects families as well. we have the highest rate of uninsured in the nation, and this affects -- when women are sick, it affects the family disproportionately, so we would like to be able to get in and take care of cervical cancers and other kinds of things that if caught early, we have good prospects. if delayed we all know what happens, and we also know the costs to the public in terms of emergency room care. and so unfortunately, our state leaders got into a fight a political fight with planned parenthood and did away with the medicaid waiver, which was a 9 to 1 match we turned that away, and without -- i can understand

that they've got the power they can do that, but they failed to put in another system of health care before taking the rug out from under texans. and so in doing so many clinics were closed, places where women had gone before to get their health care were closed, and so they have slowly tried to restore that and done a state program, which has not even come close to what it used to be. and so, yeah, it's nice to come here and meet people who do things for working people that give them a fair chance, and so we will continue to do that. another way that we have in texas, too is education funding. we have never actually funded education proactively. it's always been in reaction to a lawsuit that says your system is unconstitutional because it fails to fund the system adequately.

and so we are under that again and there is a pending case the legislation is in session, we could do something, but we probably will not and so we'll find ourselves here again. here's the thing, though. texas, our population has just exploded and we have more people, a lot more people, and the cost of educating these people has become more expensive. so when you talk to leaders at colleges and universities, they say, we have to do a lot more remedial ed. that's very expensive to do. so we're failing to do that. i think also we have to recognize that we have a lot of adult learners as well, and i think our policies need to reach out there, and i think -- i hope there's movement. there's certainly bills filed and there's some interest. i hope that in our state we'll be able to convince enough people. our state has been a place where

progressive things have been able to be done as long as you didn't hold a press conference about it and heaven forbid people know we did something good for them and not the other tenants. i was principal of the electorate that i mentioned before. anyway, i hope to bring back news in the future. >> women's health that's really under a national attack. same thing happened in new jersey. our government has a line item veto in the budget. for the last five years he has taken out this same money for family planning centers that would generate a 9 to 1 match, $7.5 million. we are so opposite texas with the most densely populated state, and you're probably one

of the least densely populated state in the nation. we have the highest property taxes. i think if we're not number one we're certainly in the top three. but that money has been zeroed out every single year for the last six years. we lost six family planning centers over that length of time. there are places that women went for their -- really, for their family care medicine for screening for breast cancer or cervical cancer or, heaven forbid, we are still debating birth control in the year 2015. i can't believe it. i just have to share one story. when we were first fighting to get this money back into the budget and we appeared before, it was in the assembly before the budget committee, and somebody from planned parenthood gave the testimony.

we helped avoid 4,000 unwanted pregnancies in which a member of the new jersey assembly in the new millennium said i am offended for those children who should have been born. i always remembered that since because i thought i'm as old as i am and i am still having a conversation about women's access to birth control. if that doesn't wake people up in this country, i don't know what else will because without that there is no security. without the ability of women and their partners to decide when and if they want to have children, you can take the rest of this out. so i feel a little passionate about that. >> our state leaders sent a

letter to president obama about the increase in medicaid caseload. it's great to see people here talking about medical expansion. in texas it's impossible, and we have a million people who fall in that gap. the economic policies we're discussing here, because they're not implemented in my state, that is why our medicaid caseload is growing, and i suspect that to be true across the country. >> and actually that's a point i think i want to pick up on, in that i think if you're listening to this conversation it's interesting that there are really great ideas out there, things we can be doing to move middle class and working class families. but then you hear there's actually -- there's politics happening. there's realities on the ground and these states on how to actually get those things in action and moved forward. so the thing i think i'd be interested in and one of the things i think i would be thinking about in the state innovation exchange is, how do we start going on the offensive? not only on trying to get laws

passed but moving the narratives for it, because if you take a look, i mean, the reality is that conservatives now control more state legislature chambers than they have since the 1900s. there are now only seven states where we have both chambers and a governor to signing things into law. so the realities are really reflective of what these two legislators have been talking about. i'd what i'd like to hear maybe from you, david, are there some ideas that we can be pushing in state that are res anatomyonant across the board? let's have the debate on women's health. let's have the debate, really, are you against equal pay? that type of thing. then i'd like to hear from the legislators as well. either you or some of the legislators in the audience about what are some examples that have worked in your states? what has actually passed in states that are progressive

middle class ideas and you were able to bring sort of coalitions along with you. go ahead david. >> sure. i think there are two big things to your question. there are policies and the politics around those policies. the main point to make is that the economic policies we support for struggling middle class are overwhelmingly supported by the public. the public likes these things and they want us to make a big case and fight for it. you can see, i think the minimum wage is the most obvious example, but rampant success. whenever they go to the voters, they succeed and succeed overwhelmingly. the problem, i think, is that we haven't pushed enough of them on a scale where it's seen as carrying a whole agenda and carrying a whole legislature along with it but this is what the people are behind. and i think there is -- so i think we can't just have these isolated one-off issue fights

where it's the minimum wage today. it's a broad sense of things that are needed. there is a whole package we need to do and so i'll start listing them off but i think the success will come when we are rallying behind a broad sweep that really are seen as affecting people's lives. for example so i mentioned enforcement of basic wage standards. now, this might seem like it's a relatively minor problem, but the best evidence is among low wage workers it's about maybe 50 60% of wages that have fallen in the past week. among the broader middle class estimates are maybe up to one-third because they're, for example, classified as an independent contractor. they should be an employee, they should be be getting paid. there's a whole host of things you can do there. you can increase the penalties, you can target your enforcement you also can have profit

sharing. now, this means that when a company does well, all the workers do well. they get some sort of share of the company's gains. and states actually have done a fair amount in this space. there's basically the policies to encourage companies to adopt more of this from education to even relatively conservative states like indiana provide better access to credit for these kinds of companies. and i can go on and on and list a whole bunch of policies but instead we got a report. i think we need to package a bunch of them together and rally behind them and make it clear whose side we're on, that this set of packages is what progressives stand for. the individual policies on their own are arepopular, but we haven't succeeded in rallying behind them. >> that's great, yeah. that's absolutely right, i think. i'm curious from the legislators -- maybe some of you

in the audience if there are examples or stories of ways that you were able to do that in states, really tie it to a higher narrative, get something passed that benefited working and middle class families. >> that's encouraging. >> go ahead. let's wait for the microphone. if you can stand up, too. >> good morning, state senator jesse barry from colorado, caucus for the senate there. the initiative that actually received broad bipartisan support in the chambers and it was building the narrative of middle class families that were impacted by wage theft. i think the wage theft was families who were very low income folks who may do day labor work. when we start talking about the issues of not receiving overtime pay, being forced to work hours and not being compensated it was a narrative that resonated

for so many middle class families. if you're a grocery store worker, someone who works in a big box retailer or someone who works in an office downtown not earning the wages because of no wage growth, but also how are we seeing our wages cut on the bottom end as well? and so we worked to create a wage enforcement division in our department of labor and employment to actually focus on wage theft. to hire investigators to investigate, mediate and adjudicate wage theft and it passed with broad bipartisan support in the senate and in the house because it was a different narrative than just one class of people. it was actually all groups who were impacted by this big issue. a mobster eating our wages away from us and having no recourse to get them back. that's one example where it was the broader middle class narrative that helped us to win over republicans. >> that's great. >> and speaking of this higher narrative that's part of what the state exchange's new campaign is. it's called opportunity works

for us. but in each state this opportunity works for taxes and really tying in this great work that people are trying to push forward in advance in states to this higher narrative and partnering with great organizations like c.a.p., you know, the hill we're going to be doing a series of town hall meetings across the country with congressional progressive caucus members to hear from working class and middle class families in the country on, you know, what are some solutions what's going on what are some solutions? and today we're going to the white house to the obama administration and white house officials there about this, as well. it really is an effort to organize and move the progressive infrastructure towards this common narrative and frame to support these legislators that are working hard in their state. go ahead. >> i like that idea to be organized in a group of town hall meetings with federal legislators, perhaps adding in

partnership with state legislators. >> absolutely. >> they are a valuable tool. our governor has used that valuable tool to propel himself to thinking that he thinks that he's actually going to become a presidential nominee. but the town halls can be excellent because if people come and really feel comfortable speaking, and the press covers it and social media covers it you're building the grass roots to help move things forward as you said in colorado. you know, i posted on my own facebook that i was coming down here and just titled it something about time to pay attention to the middle class, and i got lots of comments, including is there a middle class left? was a theme that ran through.

and as we talk about the income inequality that's going on in this country and certainly in our state, and i would assume in yours, too that's something that we need to keep talking about. you said something a little earlier about people not even knowing their own -- what really is economically good for them. and we have to keep on getting those issues out there. through social media, through e-mails. through twitters and tweets and whatever all these things i've actually learned. my staff will not teach me how to do my own tweets. they've kept that down. kept that unto themselves to be useful, i guess. >> i think the town hall is also important because it gets that there needs to be a grassroots push in addition to what's happening in the state legislate legislature legislature.

you see fast food workers striking. you see home care workers organizing and that's creating the political and public will, and the state for some of these conversations to rise up to the state and the national level. and the other place -- other thing we could get out of town halls and meetings is real people's stories and voices. and i think too often, you know low and middle class voices are left out of policy conversations. we don't consult those folks when we make policy the same way we consult business when we make policy. so to find places for not just the national economic narrative, which is critical but for the micronarrative, the personal story that puts a face that puts an experience on paid sick days and on the need for pre-k which we had to touch on but that's another huge middle-class and anti-poverty policy. i think that's a really important element of the fight. >> let's open up for questions or comments from other legislators, as well. >> senate minority leader in michigan. i come from a state that's overwhelmingly blue, but the governor and the legislature are

controlled by republicans in pretty big majorities. and we've had some examples and to your point first, too, nick one of the things i think we need to do is we've allowed conservatives to set the narrative and we responded to them as opposed to being proud of the values which have which are much more popular with the public and really lead with those. even if it takes awhile to get them passed just keep talking about them, as opposed to referring to their narrative. but some examples we had in michigan, and referenced before, we passed medicaid expansion and got it signed by the governor. seen great success with that. and we passed a minimum wage increase through two republican legislatures and signed by the governor because what we did was we built grassroots support. we started the ballot initiative and they were scared of potential of it being higher. but for the first time in michigan we actually got it c.o.l.a. attached to it. so it's going to increase and continue to increase. so what we did was working with grass roots, talking about this issue, really making sure people understood why we were pushing

for this, and it forced folks -- supported minimum wage because they didn't want a higher one so it's not exactly what we wanted. but you know, that's how we were successful in michigan, two examples helping michigan which was our medicaid expansion and minimum wage. so, i think we've had some success because those issues are just so popular with the public. >> sort of chiming in on that. i think, you know more focused on strengthening and growing the middle class and making sure the economy works for everyone not just the wealthy few, we really have, you know, as i highlighted in the beginning, both fundamentally economically important to be highlighting these things for people's lives but also for the future of our country. they're also politically successful and political winners. and because just some one piece of evidence of that is several years ago, if you look at the republican rhetoric on inequality and wage stagnation they denied this was happening. they denied the middle class was

going away. it was shocking. but like all the evidence you look at all the government data, all the independent studies all shows the same thing. real problem. and they were denying. but now in the past couple of months all of their rhetoric has changed and inequality is a problem, wage stagnation is a problem. their policies have not changed. but the fact that they are starting to even acknowledge this is, i think proof of the power of people focusing on our issues and we will now get our policies, and win on our-9d policies. >> that's a really strongs, good point. let's open it up for questions from the audience. >> yeah hi i just really enjoying this. i just have a question. it just seems to me, you know, i'm trying to what she said, you know, about people voting on abortion and gays and it seems to me that the other side, it's way ahead in the use of committed science and branding,

moral branding, and i think there are -- there's just efforts have been increasing on that. so i think if you ask a lot of people what is freedom, what -- what do you think is freedom? what would republicans stand, what do democrats5a stand for? i think you're going to see there's a lack of moral branding you know, and so i wonder, you know, to what extent, you know i mean i think that you know hearing the panel there's always this, thinking that we need to do more, we need to appeal intellectually. we need to give them the facts. we need to you know, we need to tell them the deception on the other side. there's all this you know and what we're missing, you know, is that is, is that this coming out of science, 95%lp of human reasoning is unconscious. we are spending all this efforts focusing that 5% of conscious thinking intellectually appealing and all that. the other side is going at that

95%. so my question is, you know, i think we're in a moral ditch, you know and i think because partly because of lack of awareness on our side.a5 you know, the linguist from university of california has been talking about this. there are other authors out there, drew weston, jim wallace you know, other people, you know, when are -- when are we going cto, you know change our way of thinking, you know, an8zvñ way of communicating, you know, so that the american people understand what we stand for, and and what freedom really is. >> i can give a quick response to this. i think there is something about the values stand behind, we need to do a better job articulating them. the idea that hard work should pay, it's hard to have more of a

moral value and moral statement than that. i think what we need to do, you know, we don't need to overcomplicate it with things. we actually need to have fights on these issues. we need to make the fights on ourzv issues. not on just being defensive, and reacting to tl agenda. and i think we see you know, seek too much ground and claim that it's other issues that are distracting people from core economic issues. if we have an agenda it's popular, move on it run on it, that's successful. instead of ignoring, and not having the right kind of fight. this is the central issue. are we going to have a middle class? are we going to have a growing economy? or are we going to have an those at the very top? and we can reverse the fundamental trends of decline in the middle class and we can strengthen our economy, and we have an agenda to do that. that's a winning message. >> also to piggyback on what you're saying a lot of times

these bills would go nowhere in our legislature. you're lucky if you get a hearing right at the end. of course it's not going to go anywhere. but there is a tool that we have used before and i would encourage other legislators that are here when you file the bill, have a press conference about it. and so you may not be able to win htinternally, but externally you can score some informational points out there with the public. and sow >> my name is cynthia gerald i'm the federal policy director for a state-based community organizing group. i believe that structural racism is behind a good bit of the policies, the bad policies that we see in our states. and i'mjf wondering how you are explicitly or implicitly addressing that through the policies and the legislation that you're -- that are being pushed out into the states? >> sure.

one of the ways that we tackle that is to speak to -- well, i mean you need to call it out in some=÷ ways. but implicitly i think we need to make aw3 long-term case to the american people that not only are racial disparities sort of a moral problem but it's also a long-term economic problem. we have changing demographics in this country. and by 2043 we're going to be a country where communities of color make up the majority of our population. and we're already getting there with our workforce. and you know we put our heads in the stand but this is a moral and an economic imperative starting with early education, education and job training, with fair wages. these are all things where the more we close racial disparities the better we all do as a country. we put out a book all in natio about two years ago that laid out the case for this. it came with a big poll that showed what theñi american people are actually largely on that line of reasoning.ll they understand that they -- that this is an important sweet of policies not just for communities of color but for

everybody. and that the more we stand together the better we'll all do. >> thank you. house minority leader in ohio. the michigan guy stood up so i have to stand. i want to explore the conversation that á(+t happened with the gentleman from here and david because i really don't think you're saying different things. you know, the dnc didok polling a few years ago that showed that the public really agrees with us on these issues and policies of many of the policies that david's talking about but a lot of times the communication is off. that's why the suite of policies that david talked about really is something we need to figure out how to get behind. but the way in which we communicate that, i find, has been a problem for precisely the reasons that the gentleman çoi stated. and that there things that are involved in terms of people making decisions about what affects them, making decisions based on morality,

where we have voters that agree with us on 80% of the issues, but because of that thing that they -- like faith they will make a decision on that smaller part of of of the equation, and so and i find when we're on the floor and they and our colleagues on the other side may talk about faith when we don't address that at all, that person who holds that so sacred that they're going to make a decision on that only really has one choice. but there are faith arguments for our policies that we often fail to make. they're economicp8÷ policies in the benefit of business for someglxñ of the economic policies that we make, and sometimes we don't make those those connections. so i think that goes to the cognitive aspect of that. and i'll just give you a policy example. we failed to stand up when you asked that before, nick, because so many of us are in the minority it's really hard to be a progressive but this isn't something that's past it's

something we're dealing with in our budget right now which was the tax shifting. right? it's posed as tax cuts but when you get into the details we've cut income tax for the wealthy and we've raised tax in other places, that's been going on for 25 years and been getting away with it. what we tried to do in my caucus is we tried to get their first. so the point is we don't to use the cognitive stuff you don't have to react to it. you can use it to get there first, and we framed it as tax shifting. we got -- and the majority ended up using our language to discuss that, and so we're sort of in this box now where everybody's talking about it as tax shifting. we're allowed the space to now |k5nnect the dots for people that it's not a tax=)ñ cut for you and i find that if we get better at doing that and getting out in front of that and doing what david said is do that with a suite of policies that are progressive and help grow the that we could ben% a lot more successful in future so i just wanted to throw that in. >> that's a good point. one other point i want to make,

too, talking about you know how we talk about things. i think often there's a lot of polling that goes on,.u there's a lot of focus groups, there's all of that stuff and then we decide alruk5k this is specifically how we're going to talk about it to everybody. so we're talking at people, and we don't talk with people. the thing we need to start doing is going into these)/p legislative districts. let's have conversations. let's talk with people.%2xqx1l>y+xd and understand and then communicate it, versus all right, you know, have some sort of cookie cutter apprj i think once we start doing that, the dine amics willi] change. people won't understand who and what we're fighting for.&ñ and who and what they're fighting for. i think we'll really come along. >> i still have a place where our state leadership wants to increase the sales tax. that's the way, that's the solution to provide property tax cuts. i think it's important that we let the middle class know exactly what that means. that means in texas, if you pay $80 for a refrigerator and you

on it. for a $1,000 refrigerator. $300,000, $80kh is nothing. i just don't know that there is enough knowledge about tax policy. >> but -- and so that's where i think this conversation is going. that when i was arguing aboutr having sort of an agenda andfá getting behind that, i was not just missing the values behind them. i actually said i think these and to articulate the values because the numbers get confusing, but the value of whose side are you on, and making that clear and i think that's what a broad agenda does. it enages all of the language about values and choices, because you know it would really -- but i -- so i just i was -- i agree -- i was not seeding the moral territory. i think we needxd to own the moral territory and a broad agenda of values, strengthening and

growing the middle class enages us to do that. >> you know to what -- said in terms of the faith based communities, for me when we have committee hearings on some of these kinds of issues if we hear from ministers, and other members of the clergy, rabbis as a certain acceptance, even on the part of the more conservative members who are sitting on the committee you sort of, i don't know, make it seem like it's okay, so there is a national group but they're very active in new jersey. the national council of jewish women, which when they come forth, people look on them with some respect. they don't realize that they're being progressive. -- own right. so that you it's important, and you know, if we're ever where so and so gets up or rabbi gets up

to talk about these kinds of issues and the moral values, at committee hearings that adds a level of it's okay. talking to your point >> i used to work in the faith community before coming to c.a.p. and we did a lot of interfaith organizing to that end. because to be able to say a basic premise like if you work hard you shouldn't live in poverty or we shouldn't trap people in poverty for generations. these are value statements that i think can stem from a faith perspective, but are also broadly shared universal values that speak to people. and then there's policy solutions that stem from that and that have all kinds of economic rationale that i think you get at people's guts as to what they understand is fair. >> good morning. i'm representative marty anderson from iowa and we meet all of our governor's pretty regularly.

>> yeah ours has been here quite often. in our caucus we started doing some very simple things. every morning there's a prayer in our chamber. and so we're bringing in different people to pray. i'm bringing in two nuns who live in my district who were on the nuns on the bus tour. and they're going to say a prayer. and the unitarian minister who lives in my district. so that's one way to start doing that, to counter some of the ministers who come in and frankly offend a lot of people by being very specific about their faith. the other thing that we've started doing is we call it moral monday iowa. and i believe it started in one of the carolinas. by -- right. with the naacp. but we just stole the idea.

so every monday at noon before we gavel in at 1:00 we have a gathering that draws a lot of press and a lot of advocates, and we talk about an issue that we're not getting any legs on. so we've had moral monday iowas on date rape. we've had moral monday iowas on disparities in education and prisons. we've had moral monday iowa on education spending and next week we're having it on women's health. we get these huge crowds. we picked a small room, so that's kind of cool because the huge crowds look really big. but i think we want to reclaim the moral and the freedom issues, because we believe that we're the ones who work for those, and i think anybody could

do some of those things. we get a lot of press coverage for it. >> thank you. senator winfield from connecticut. i wanted to go back to the point about how we talk about things. so last year we did the minimum wage increase after the president talked about it. that was the traditional way that we do things. how we had a bus come out, how we brought out all the people who might be affected by minimum wage, the year two years before i had gone to progressive states, we were talking about the trust act. and how we could get it passed in the state. we hadn't really done that and i suggested how we go back to connecticut and work on it and try to get it passed. >> what is the trust act? >> the trust act deals with the security communities issue, we've talked about in the past, and how the state interacts with i.c.e. on i.c.e. detainers and whether or not it responds in a way that i.c.e. would like it to. so when i went back to connecticut, traditionally this

issue was talked about by either the leadership which doesn't look like the community that we're talking about. or it's dealt with by us sending out information that's all correct. or they pick a latino legislator to talk about it. but when i was thinking about it, i disagreed to some degree with tip o'neill about what politics is. i think politics is all about identity, not where you come from. where you come from is part of it. so i thought about the fact that normally when you have that kind of an issue, there's a gap between the african-american, and latino communities, sometimes they see us as giving them things such as college tuition, and all of those things, right? so there's a gap. so being one of the people who came back to deal with the issue, i thought about how do you get them, the african-american community, to be a part of this discussion. what i talked about was when i was a child, an experience i had with police. it wasn't a pleasant experience. and that experience was one where i to this day do not take out my trash without having an

i.d. in my pocket. and then i related that back to what those people who were talking about in the trust act would feel. and what it did was it changed the conversation. so i think when we're thinking about how we communicate -- we also think about who is communicating. and not always have the leadership which generally does not look like the person standing before you right now. because, they can't tell those stories. and i think that will have some impact on whether or not we can move those progressive policies, because, the communities that i represent are a lot of what we're talking about anyway. so i just wanted to put that point out. >> that's a very good point. that is an important point because, progressives we are a big tent. you know, when we talk about morals and values let's also talk about including, you know people of faith from islam, and hindu, and all of those things. we are a big tent, expand and make sure that those values are also interconnected into everything -- they're all similar. even when we're talking about it's easy to talk about

immigration reform. it's easy to talk about black, brown issues and other things. you know, but you need to have the voice of the people who are affected as part of those conversations, as well. so i appreciate that point. >> and i think it also speaks to, again, the power of personal. we've seen in the anti-poverty community conservatives do something like a lottery winner getting food stamps in one state to further an agenda to put access limits so there's millions of people who want to build statements -- because of one isolated incident. and so i think there's a need to to give voice to the millions of people who are actually using whether it's social services or need a minimum wage or need paid sick days but define platforms for the real stories to get out there and to leverage them for activism. so i think that's a very important point more broadly. >> can i also chime in on this? >> and i think this gets back to the values question and to the point i was trying to make.

i think it's a vote and point because having the identity recognized, and is i think critically important but i also think we need to have everyone be able to see themselves in the conversation. and i think that's where the arguments about the economy really come into play. it's not -- you mentioned the minimum wage. and i think the minimum wage for example for years the focus had been, this is fair. this is fair. well, yes, but also it is good for our economy to raise the minimum wage. and the reason is because you have more consumers. you put more money in people's pockets. if you don't do that you've got the stagnant economy where no business -- and that's i think the broader story about why all of the policies matter in addition to the identity and the values, they have a broader effect on the economy, and they reflect how the economy actually works. it does not work from rich job creators making things better for us. it comes from the strong and growing middle class, making it

function for everyone. and i think when we make those values, fairness identity connected with the larger economy story, we have the right mix. >> yes. well it's a good start to wrapping this up. it's been an incredible conversation, i can talk about it. i think we all can talk about this all day. hopefully one of the takeaways that people get from this is that things are happening in the states. this is where the action is. this is where the fight is for the soul of the country for middle class working class issues. and it really is you know, sort of this corporate frame versus the people's frame. and you know, groups like c.a.p., and others, are taking it now. are taking it to the states and really supporting this work. and i hope people watching on television, people here in this room, organize ourselves to be able to fight for these issues that matter to all of us in our own backyards. so thank you for the

conversation. thank you for your stories. thank you for your questions. and we look forward to carrying on this conversation moving forward. thank you. [ applause ]

this week the supreme court haesh the case of king versus burwell, which was argued wednesday. and dealt with the subsidies provided to those enrolled in federally run exchanges under the 2010 health care law. today the alliance for health reform and the henry j. kaiser family foundation host a discussion on the impact of that case. we'll have that at noon eastern live on c-span. also today, president obama attends a town hall meeting on education and the economy in columbia, south carolina. he'll speak at benedict college, a historically black college founded in 1870. you can see the president's

comments live at 2:15 eastern, also on c-span. and tonight at 8:00 we'll show you that supreme court oral argument in the case of king versus burwell. lots of reaction took place outside the supreme court after the case was argued. here's part of that now. >> establish -- the federal government was directed to set up an exchange. i met with governors starting with day one, and we talked about it. i don't think it was ever that if governors chose not to have their own exchange their citizens -- >> you would argue this is a matter of semantics? >> i think it is a matter of semantics. as established by the state seems to be the hinging language in the plaintiff's case. but there's nothing else in the framework that would suggest this was meant to be a two --

country >> from your arguments? >> i thought that again they were very -- i read the briefs. i saw the ruling. i mean i thought the solicitor general did a very good job refuting it every step along the way. why this could not have ever been the intent. and particularly the notice provision it's very strong. i mean over three years, it never a sense if you don't do this state, this will be the consequence. none of your citizens -- >> you had< conversations with governors about it speci> no, no, no i said that we add conversations with governors starting day one the time the law was: passed. it was never a sense. i sat through a lot of 9 congressional testimony. i worked with the five committees. no one ever suggested that only if a state establish an exchange would their citizens be# to -- >> you say the intent is clear. it's just the -- >> do youçó feel morezv confident about this than the other case?

>> i actually felt pretty confident about this too. i just think this congress that passed the bill in 2010 that the president signed intended for a national program. nationally insurance companies have to play by rules. nationally citizens are entitled to subsidy. and nationally there's an individual responsibility. it doesn't say only if you choose to set up your exchange do these things happen. so you would have, really the consequence. the other pieces would stay in place. and the rest would fall down. i really have to go. i'm sorry. i really have to go. >> just some of the reaction after wednesday'sq argument before the supreme court in the case king versus burwell.< looking at the health care law and subsidies provided to people enrolled in federally run exchanges. you can hear the oral argument tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-spanøl here are some of our feature programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span2's book tv saturday

night at 10:00 east] words, former marine and war history of post traumatic stress disorder that affects over 27 million americans.fá including himself. and sunday night at 8:00 former navy s.e.a.l. sniper scott taylor argues that the obama administration is hurting our national security. and on american history tv on c-span3, the commemoration of bloody sunday when 50 years ago voters rights advocates began a march from selma to montgomery alabama, and were met with violence by state and local police op on saturday at noon eastern we're live from selma with your phone calls followed by the commemorative ceremony with president obama and congressman john lewis. and then on sunday our live coverage continues with a service from an historic brown chapel a.m.e. church the starting point for the selma montgomery marches. find our complete schedule at c-span.org and let us know 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 @c-span #comments. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. the c-span cities tour takes book tv and american history tv on the road. traveling to u.s. cities to learn about theirlp history and literary life. and this weekend we've partnered with comcast for a visit to galveston, texas. >> people throng to the beach.i] and the rising tide, the rising winduçáq%91e"%uju$em.q-( they watched in gú÷amazement as both of these factors battered the beach front structures. we also had piers, and we even had a huge pavilion by the sea. as the storm increased in intensity, these structure ss.

the storm struck galveston saturday, september 8th, 1900.g the storm began before noon and increased in dramatic intensity and finally tapered off toward midnight. that evening.zv+++k%

billion. which is about $452 million above the 2015 enacted level. this is three hours.'çg >> i would like to call the hearing to order this morning. today the energy and power and the environment and the economy subcommittee will be examining the environmental protection

agency's fy-2016 budget request. and before you start my time i certainly want to welcome administrator gina mccarthy. thank you very much for being with us today. you've been before our committee many times and we certainly enjoyed working with you. you are an able administrator. we have very significant differences and views on what you're doing up there. or down there. but we all have an opportunity today to ask questions, and thank you once again for taking time to be with us. we appreciate it. and at this time i recognize myself for three minutes of opening questions. i mean, for an opening statement. i would say, first of all, we all are very much aware that president obama has made it very clear that he considers climate

change to be one of the major issues facing mankind today. i was reading an article a few days ago how this administration has spent 14 times more on green energy per year than embassy security around the world. as a matter of fact over the last five years, the administration has spent roughly $39 billion a year financing grants subsidizing tax credits, guaranteeing loans bailing out solar energy boondoggle and otherwise underwriting every renewable energy idea under the sun. now we all recognize that climate change is occurring. that the difference, the fundamental difference is, we don't believe it's the number one issue facing mankind, and the president does.

and because of his going around all of the world, and entering into international agreements, that the congress has not agreed to, that he has not consulted with congress about he's committing the u.s. to meet certain requirements. many of rules coming out of epa which are so controversial are really being implemented to -- implement the president's june 2013 speech in which he outlines his climate action plan. so i was reading a legal opinion recently and it said a president's speech is certainly not a matter of law. but the president making these international agreement ss has through regulation pursued his commitments that he's making. but other countries that are part of these agreements,

they're not doing the same thing so the u.s. is being penalized because of these extreme actions. so what you all are doing you're enforcing -- and i'm reading from a legal opinion that larry tribe, mr. tribe wrote. you're forcing a select set of victim victims including coal reliant consumers, communities regions, businesses and utilities, so bear a substantial part of what is a global problem that even you, and your predecessor indicated that these regulations would not solve. you're asking for $425 million more than last year. a lot of that money is going to go to hire additional lawyers to defend and litigate these extreme regulations. so we look forward to the opportunity today of exploring

this situation with you and with that at this time i'd recognize -- oh, we'll do in three minutes today, mr. rush so i recognize the gentleman for three minutes opening statement. >> i want to thank you mr. chairman. administrator mccarthy. it is always a pleasure to see you come before this subcommittee. and bring great news and share with this subcommittee all of the great work that you all are doing over in the epa. and i just want to thank you so much. you and your agency for all the great work that you do in protecting the air land, and water on behalf of the american people. if it was appropriate i would get up and ask for a standing ovation. but i don't think that would be appropriate at this point in time. but you understand how we feel about you on this side. while this is a budget hearing

we might as well address the elephant in the room and discuss the topic that is on the mind of many of my colleagues and that's the proposed rule 111-d the clean power plan. madam administrator, on behalf of those of us, which includes most of the american people who do not believe that the world's scientists and climatologists have all conspired together to perpetrate our hopes by saying that climate change is real and humans have contributed to it, i'd like to commend the leadership of president obama, yourself, for working to address this serious issue that impacts all of america, all of our citizenry, and need everyone else around the globe. the clean power plan represents

a significant opportunity to shift away from some of the dirtiest carbon emitting energy sources that have contributed greatly to polluting the atmosphere to cleaner more sustainable forms of energy that would help pull us back from the brink of disaster and set us on a more stable footing. madam administrator i applaud epa for striking a flexible, state-based approach that provides states, utilities, and grid operators with time and options for finding ways to reduce their co2 emissions. while also maintaining affordable reliable energy for consumers. i just want to thank you madam chairman. i look forward to engaging with

you during this question portion of today's hearing. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you mr. rush. at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus the chairman of the environment and economy subcommittee. >> thank you chairman whitfield for recognizing me and i do want to welcome administrator mccarthy. i appreciate your willingness to work with us in the past on such things as electronics submission of hazardous waste manifest. that actually can be very helpful. as i spoke to you earlier we looked forward in collaborating with you on the coal ash legislation and toxic substance control act. for me today's hearing is not just an administrative exercise where we do bean counting, while we don't write the checks the agency cashes most of the major legal authority underpins the work delegated to the agency rests within this committee. today's hearing gives us a chance to compare the agency's individual budget request with epa's underlying steps toward authority. as a legislator i have many

questions where i think more information is needed to evaluate how statutory mandates are being carried out. for example i have questions about the statutory nexus with the following budget request and policies that are being implemented. like the clean power plan, the climate ready water utilities program, and regulations under the clean air act implementing the executive order 13650 which i think is chemical safety. legal authority aside we know these regulations can become complicated to implement with unclear guidance adding unnecessary cost to the regulated industries and ultimately to the consumer. this chart being up here is what we think shows how cumbersome your proposal and the clean power plan to be just by itself. maybe have a better chart that makes it a little more couple plistic. if this plan puts reliability at base and the load energy from courses such as coal and nuclear power in danger communities may face higher costs and potentially suffer brown-outs when most in need.

we have to ask ourselves if this plan leads to the energy future americans expect. i believe there is a better way and that we can find solutions to these challenges without placing the burden on the backs of consumers, or by sacrificing power plants that provide good paying jobs to families across the country. i also have questions about funding and pace of activity on chemicals under the toxic substances control act specifically on the agency's transparency concerning prioritizing and setting policy choices. these areas will be particularly important as we look to work across the aisle on both sides of the capitol to update this law. again i thank the administrator for being here. i look forward to today's conversation, and the ones that will follow. and i yield the remainder of my time to chairman emeritus bart i think. >> i'm here. all 27 seconds of me. >> you're welcome. >> madam administrator, we're always glad to see you. you're very accessible. and very personable in public and when we have private conversations.

i'm going to ask you about the china policy the president recently asked and i'm also going to talk to you about the renewable fuel standard and the rand situation which as you well know, under current law is simply not workable. but we do appreciate your accessibility and look forward to the interchange. >> gentleman's time has expired. this time recognize the gentleman from new york mr. tomko the ranking member of the environment and economy subcommittee. >> thank you. good morning. thanks to chair whitfield and chair shimkus for holding this hearing on the environmental protection agency's budget request. and welcome administrator mccarthy. we appreciate your keen intellect and i respect your passion to provide found stewardship for our environment, all while growing jobs. and i thank you for being here today to discuss the president's fiscal year 2016 budget request for the agency. the epa plays a voteal role in the lives of our citizens and in maintaining the resource base that sustains our society, and indeed our economy.

as you state in the opening of your testimony administrator mccarthy public health and a clean environment are inexorably linked. i agree. and the record of environmental achievement and economic growth over the years demonstrates that environmental protection is consistent with a strong and vital economy. in fact, if we are willing to make investments in vital environmental infrastructure such as our drinking water treatment and delivery source water protection sewage treatment, and waste energy systems, we can create thousands of jobs and improve the condition of our rivers our lakes, and our coastlines. we're not saving money by avoiding these investments. at best we are transferring these costs to state and local governments, to businesses and to individual citizens. but even worse, by delaying needed maintenance and repairs, we are raising the cost of the very systems upon which we depend. when polluted land and water are not cleaned up the resources become unavailable for productive use.

a contaminated property is unoccupied, undeveloped, and generates no revenue for our economy and for our community. pollution that is not attended to spreads leading to additional problems. and it does not become less expensive to clean these up at a later time. the cost only rises. our failure to repair vital infrastructure and to address the complex challenges of climate change has already cost us a great deal. infrastructure does not repair itself, and the pace and impact of climate change is indeed the votes are increasing. we need to address these issues now before the costs rise further. i know there are many members who believe that cutting the epa budget is a good thing for the economy because a lower budget will block the agency from issuing regulations and enforcing environmental laws. in fact much of the epa budget supports state and local governments. either through grants and loans or with information and technical assistance that's so welcome. cuts to the epa budget translate

into extra burden on our states, our local and tribal governments. the administration and congress should be working to the to make sure we maintain and improve upon a record of environmental protection. epa's budget is an important part of that effort and i look forward to your testimony administrator mccarthy and to working with you to continue our progress, as a nation, in environmental protection. and thank you again for joining us. >> gentleman's time has expired pap at this time i would recognize the chairman of the full committee mr. upton for three minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. and we do appreciate the administrator of the epa for appearing before us today to discuss the budget request and priorities. yes we have sharp areas of disagreement, but together the two of us we have never been disagreeable. i look forward to the continuing relationship. i'm sad to say that the budget request, to me looks like we can expect more of the same, red tape and costly rules.

that concerns me because i think some of these regs are going to cost american households and families big time. they're going to cost our businesses, particularly manufacturing. manufacturing in michigan, as you know, and across the country, finally does have an edge. for the first time in years, major global manufacturers are eyeing michigan and other states to set up or relocate operations. epa's regulatory agenda does threaten to raise the cost and shift the advantage back to foreign manufacturers. epa seems intent on locking in a long list of new regs that will bind future administrations. one with a clean power plan, epa has proposed new ozone standards that may be prove to be the most expensive rule ever. i'd like to see epa focus on its current responsibilities before taking on new ones. the agency is working on this new ozone rule even though it is well behind schedule

implementing existing standards. and the agency routinely misses its deadlines under the rfs making this problematic program even more difficult. i remember your testimony last year when we thought we'd have an answer last spring. we do have our clear differences. your testimony today also presents an opportunity to explore areas of common ground. for example, we can embrace much of the epa rule on coal ash, but go a step further and place permitting authority in the states. this should work for epa, making sure that the epa's control standards are effectively enforced, it should also work much better for the states who will have explicit benchmarks to meet and the authority to manage the implementation. it will also work for the people responsible for handling the combustion residuals everyday, including plant operators, recyclers and other job creators who will be given the opportunity that they -- in the regulatory certainty that they need. like wise, it was clear last

year that your goals and ours for tsca reform overlap. so let's sit down and work together on good legislation that's bipartisan to improve safety for the public and to ensure a robust interstate market for chemicals and products that contain them. thanks for being with us today. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. at this time i recognize the ranking member mr. pallone of new jersey for three minutes. >> thank you, chairman whitfield and shimkus and ranking members rush and tomko. and thank you administrator mccarthy for being here today. a clean environment is not a luxury, it's essential to public health and a strong economy and the epa is on the front lines of the effort to make our air safer to breathe and our water safer to drink. the president's fiscal year 2016 budget funds the epa at $8.6 billion, an increase of more than $450 million over the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. and that is the minimum amount, in my opinion, that epa needs to begin to address the many

environmental challenges we're facing today, which happen to include the greatest known environmental threat and challenge to our planet, and that's climate change. meanwhile, funds requested for epa represent a small portion of the overall federal budget, less than one quarter of one percent. yet over 40% is shared with states and tribes to help them implement federal environmental laws and achieve national goals and those funds support local economies and communities big and small. for example, the budget includes significant funding for superfund and brownfields çez cleanup. in addition to protecting human health and the environment these cleanup projects are also promoting substantial economic growth and gains in community and property value. according to a recent analysis, on site businesses and organizations on current and former superfund sites in just one of epa's nine regions provides over 6,200 jobs and contributed an estimated $334 million in annual employment income. another study found that properties within three miles of superfund sites experienced an

18.6% to 24.5% increase in value when the sites are cleaned up. the fiscal year 2016 budget would also invest in our nation's aging drinking water infrastructure by providing over a billion for state revolving funds under the safe drinking water act. and these funds will support needed infrastructure projects for public drinking water systems well beyond the fiscal year. also important, i want to commend the president for prioritizing actions to reduce the impacts of climate change in this budget. the budget provides funding for epa's clean power plant, including money to help states develop their own strategies and requests that new clean power state incentive fund for state efforts to go above and beyond their carbon pollution reduction goals in the power sector. some say the clean power plan is problematic for an economy, but the reality is, over the past 40 years, clean air regulations have produced tremendous public health benefits while also supporting america's economic growth. closer to home, i appreciate the

efforts to help smaller communities build climate resiliency. my district has the dubious distinction of being one of that hardest hit by superstorm sandy and epa's plan can help communities integrate climate adaptation planning into their efforts to upgrade their infrastructure. this planning will be essential to protecting the economies of communities facing the devastating cost of climate change. this is a sound budget. i support it and i look forward to learning from administrator mccarthy. thank you. >> thank you very much mr. pallone. at this time that concludes the opening statements so this time ms. mccarthy, you're recognized for your five minutes of testimony. thank you. >> thank you chairman whitfield, and shimkus. thank you ranking members rush and tomko and the members of the committee for giving me the opportunity today to appear before you to discuss the environmental protection agency's proposed fiscal year 2016 budget. i'm joined by the agency's acting chief financial officer david bloom.

the epa's budget request of $8.592 billion in discretionary funding for the 2016 fiscal year provides the resources that are vital to protecting human health and the environment while building a solid path forward for sustainable economic growth. since 1970 when epa was founded we have seen over and over again that a safe environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. this budget supports essential work to address climate change, improve air quality, protect our water, safeguard the public from toxic chemicals, support communities' environmental health, maintain core enforcement strength, support needed research and work towards a sustainable future for all americans. effective environmental protection is a joint effort of epa, states and our tribal partners. we're setting a high bar for continuing our partnership efforts and looking for opportunities for closer collaboration and targeted joint planning and governance

processes through efforts like e-enterprise governance approach. that's why the largest part of our budget, $3.6 billion, 42%, is provided directly to state and tribal partners. the fiscal year 2016 request includes an increase of $108 million for state and tribal categorical grants. this budget requests $1.1 billion to address climate change and improve air quality. these resources will help protect those most vulnerable to climate impacts in the harmful health effects of air pollution through commonsense stards guidelines and partnership programs. climate change is not just an environmental challenge, it's a threat to public health. our domestic and global economy and to national and international security. the request supports the president's climate action plan and, in particular, the clean power plan which establishes carbon pollution standards for power plants. in addition, the president's

budget calls for a $4 billion clean power state incentive fund to support state efforts to accelerate carbon pollution reductions in the power sector. protecting the nation's waters remains a top priority for epa. in fiscal year '16, we will finalize and support implementation of the clean water rule which will clarify the types of waters covered under the clean water act and foster more certain and efficient business decisions to protect the nation's waters. recognizing the need for water infrastructure, the srf and related efforts are funded at over $2.3 billion and we will work with our partners to help communities by focusing on issues such as financial planning for future public infrastructure investments and expanded efforts with states to identify financing opportunities for resilient drinking water, water and storm water infrastructure. last month, the agency launched the water infrastructure and resiliency finance center. it's a key component of our

expanded efforts moving forward. we're proposing a multifaceted effort to help our communities, including low income neighborhoods, rural communities, and communities of color. of color. this includes targeted funding and on the ground community assistance through epa regional coordinators in a network of circuit riders. an investment of $16.2 million will help local communities improve safety and security at chemical facilities to preprevent and prepare for oil spills. these represent a shared commitment among those with a stake in facility security ranging from facility owners to first responders. this will let us continue to make a real and visible difference to communicates every day. it will give us a foundation to improve infrastructure across the country and sustain state, tribal and federal environmental efforts all across our programs.

with this proposed budget, the president is not only sending a clear signal about the resources epa needs to work effectively and efficiently, it's also a part of an overall federal budget proposal. and does not hold back needed resources and nondefense spending in order to increase needed defense spending or vice versa. instead, the budget finds a path forward to avoid sequestration and properly support both domestic and national security interests. i look forward to answering your questions. >> well, thank you very much for your testimony, ms. mccarthy. i will recognize myself five minutes for questions. how confident are you that you can defend the use of 111 d to

implement the existing coal plant rule? >> can you repeat that? >> the use of 111 d to implement the existing coal plant rule. >> i feel very confident. one of the reasons i say that is because of the extensive out outreach the agency has done to each and every state. i feel confident that we are seeing plans develop now that will be very sound and that we can move forward in a way -- >> so you think the outreach would preempt what the explicit language says? >> i think the outreach helped inform the explicit language. >> now in your submission, your budget document, you talk about further efforts are required to put the country on an emission trajectory consistent with the

president's long term climate goals. and i assume that you're talking about the commitments he maid in copenhagen and china in which he said he wanted to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 17%, below 2005 levels by 2020 and then 26 to 28% below those levels by 2025. is that correct? >> i think i am referring to the president's understanding that climate change is a significant issue that the administration has the authority and responsibility to address and i'm trying to make sure that we deliver our portion of that plan effectively. >> how did he decide on 17% below 2005 levels by 2020? >> that was -- that was an international goal that the u.s. government put forth in those discussions. >> so the u.s. government -- the u.s. government presented that

that was what the goal was. >> yes, as part of the -- >> and how was that determined by the u.s. government? how did they reach that conclusion? >> i think you'd have to speak with the department of state to know the ends and outs -- >> have you had any discussions with them about that issue? >> certainly, we have talked about the rules that the agency had -- >> i can make the argument that it's pretty arbitrary. could i make that argument or not? >> i think what we're talking about now is very concrete. authorities at the epa has our responsibilities and will be concrete steps moving forward that are measurable. >> when you testified on the senate in july 2014, you'd mentioned that this is not about pollution control. you sawed in your statement this is not about pollution control. so this must be about honoring

the president's commitment. >> my statement was referring to the fact that when you seek to address carbon pollution, there are many ways in which it is an investment opportunity instead of an end of pipe pollution control technology. >> so in other words, this is about investment opportunities from your perspective? >> what i'm suggesting is that states can look at this as an opportunity -- >> but it's not about pollution control. >> it's not about theçx4@ installation of pollution control technology. >> would -- would the president's clean power plan meet his international commitments without the adoption of this rule -- these rules that you're proposing? >> i think that the president has established some aggressive goals for this nation that are commence rate with our interest in addressing climate domestically and also in meeting our commitment internationally to address this issue. but epa is not focusing our

legal efforts on any particular international or domestic goal. they are just implementing the authorities under the clean air act -- >> the reason many of us in congress are so upset about this is the cap and trade system was rejected by the congress. and yet the president goes out and makes international commitments, does not consult with congress, comes back announces at a speech this is my plan, and then epa follows up and we're going to issue these regulations to meet the president's plan so that he can meet his i want national agreements. >> the clean power plan is a direct application of the authority that congress gave us to look at how to establish a best system of emission reductions for the power section to address -- >> i want to ask more questions but my time's out. this time i recognize mr. rush

for five minutes. >> again i want to thank you administrator mccarthy. i also want to express my gratitude for the meeting that i had with the acting assistant administrator last january i believeñ it was. where we discussed my concerns regarding the nuclear provision in the proposed 111d rule. as i stated, it's important that the finalized rule gives credit9 to all zero emission sources of energy which not only includes renewables all in which i fully support, but also nuclear power generation.çó my home state of illinois is home to the highest number of

nuclear reactors, 11 that provide up to 48% of the state's electricity. these carbon free nuclear generators run up to all above 90% capacity which is extremely efficient in comparison to any other type of energy source. if the goal of the clean power plant is to reduce carbon emissions while also ensuring that states can continue to provide reasonably priced, safe, reliable electricity to its consumers, then nuclear power must play essential role in helping to achieve this objective. while i realize that there are other market based considerations that are resulting in nuclear being somewhat less competitive, i feel as though the epa must work to finalize a rule that incentivizes states to preserve

nuclear power that their energy portfolios by putting it on par with other carbon-free sources. it is critical that the final 111d rule help promote the continuing use of zero emission generation renewables and nuclear energy and actually achieve in carren reductions and that the regulation was intended to produce. my question to you, would you agree that nuclear power must play a vital role in the clean power plan in that it allows states to provide zero emissions based power general ration that is affordable safe, and reliable? >> i think it is a part of every state's strategy moving forward, yes. >> can you assure the subcommittee that epa is taking

into account the concerns of states like illinois who might be negatively impacted of nuclear power is not fully credited in the state's plan to meet its targeted carbon reductions? >> i would certainly agree that nuclear power is zero carbon and it is an important part of the base load for many of the states and it should be considered by those states carefully in the development of their plans. >> want to thank you. also would like to continue to engage your office on this issue to make sure that nuclear power is appropriately valued due to its carbon neutral emissions in any final ruling that is proposed. moving along, another keen priority for me is the issue of environmental justice and making sure that states are provided adequate direction in order to