memo. >> it is that day. >> yes. >> i have a general question. >> i grew up with an iowa woman who is big into irish. you make sure that you wear a green tie, sir. >> well said. i have a general question for you and then a more specific question. in your opening statement this morning you mentioned that one of the fcc's goals -- let me make sure i get this correct. is to protect the open internet as a level playing field for innovators and entrepreneurs. mr. wheeler i am one of those innovators and i am one of those entrepreneurs. my concern as a small businessman, mr. wheeler is i've seen firsthand what happens to private and free marketplace when's the heavy hand of the federal government gets involved. and typically what happens, we see less innovation we see lower quults, welow yer lower qualities, we see higher

price, higher taxes. an example of that recently is the affordable care act, which was supposed to help level the playing field for small businesses. and we've seen there that higher prices, less innovation, higher taxes. my question to you and a question i get asked in iowa often, mr. wheel gentlemen, what steps is the fcc going to take to ensure that the internet remains vibrant innovative, and open when history once again has shown us when the heavy hand of the federal government gets involved in a free and vibrant market bad things happen. >> thank you. first of all, i'd like to identify with you as one entrepreneur to another. i too have been a small businessman. i've started half a dozen companies. some worked. some didn't. >> that happens. >> you understand that experience as well i'm sure. and for the decade before i took this job i was a venture

capitalist who was invest inging in early stage internet protocol-based companies. and so i know both personally from my own entrepreneurial experience as well as from my investing experience that openness is key. if the companies that i had invested in did not have open access to the distribution network it would have been an entirely different story. the thing that's most interesting about the difference between -- and i think this is what you can tell your constituents, is that it is openness that is the core of creativity. because there should be nobody acting as a gateway and saying mm, you're only going to get on my network if you do it on my terms. and the key then as we go to the previous discussion that what

you want to do is make sure you have that gateway not blocking the openness of entrepreneurs. and at the same point in time that gateway not be ging retail price regulated so it can continue to invest. and that's the kind of balance we were trying to do. i would urge you to tell your constituents the opportunity for innovation and the opportunity for the scaling that is required of innovation has never been greater because the networks are open. >> with all due respect, many people back in iowa would say you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist today. and i have a specific question for you. during an interview at the consumer electronics show in january -- >> yes, sir. >> -- you said you had an a-ha moment in the summer of that year when you realized the telecommunications act of '96 applied title 2 classification to wireless phone providers but exempted them from many of its provisions. later in the year house communications subcommittee chair greg walden said that he met with you in november of 2014

to reiterate congressional republicans' concern with title 2 regulation of the internet. in that meeting chairman walden said you assured him you were committed to net neutrality without classification of broadband under title 2. sounds to me like a flip-flop. can you explain that difference? >> i respect mr. walden greatly and i'm going to be testifying before him on thursday. i saw that he made that statement. i went back to the tem pranious notes from that meeting. and we have a completely different set of recollections and in fact the notes because my notes say that i said that we would use light touch title 2 and section 706.

i don't know what's going on. all i'm saying is that those are what my notes are sir. >> thank you. i yield my time. >> now we recognize the gentleman from georgia mr. carter for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. wheeler for being here today. we appreciate it very much. in the short five minutes that i have i want to try to get a better understanding of two things. first of all, it just -- throughout the process today and through my reading and through listening it just appears that the whole process, there was more attention paid to the white house than there was to congress. and i just don't understand why that would be the case in an independent body like yours. did you serve on the transition team for the obama administration? >> yes, sir. >> you did. that is correct. so it's safe to say and true to say that you have a very close relationship with the president. is that right? >> i'm not sure that i have a close relationship with the president. i know the president. >> you served on his transition

team. i don't think he'd have somebody who wasn't close to him on his transition team. agreed? okay. >> i'm not going to -- >> fair enough. >> he didn't ask me to be on his transition team. let's put it that way. okay? well, after the rule the day after the rule was -- after the vote for the rule. did it strike you as being interesting at all that a fellow commissioner of yours called the new rules president obama's plan? >> everybody's entitled to their own opinion. and you know, i think it's appropriate to state something very clearly response to what you're saying. since taking this job, i met once with the president in the oval office. it was the first week a couple of days on the job.

it was congratulations, welcome to the job. >> i understand that. >> in that meeting he said to me, you will need to understand i will never call you, you are an independent agency. >> then why do you think a fellow commissioner made the comment that this is president obama's plan for the internet? why do you think that someone would make that -- >> he has been good to his word sir. i have no idea why someone would want to make that kind of -- >> why do you think the democratic national committee made the statement that it's president obama's plan? >> i've noticed occasionally over time that both committees will engage in hyperbole. >> so you just think it's hyperbole? >> sir. >> do you agree with the dnc's statement? >> i believe that this is a plan that was put together by the fcc. >> so you do not agree with the dnc's statement that this is

president obama's plan? >> let's get specific. one, he didn't have section 706 in what he sent when he sent something in. secondly he didn't cover interconnection, which we cover. thirdly, he talked about forebearing for rate regulation but not the 26 other things that we do. i think we produced a plan that is uniquely our plan and is a plan that is based on the record that was established for us and that when the president joined the 64 democratic members of congress and the millions of people and said he too thought this made sense that he was piling on rather than being definitive. >> all that's fine. but let me ask you through the process of this evolution of the plan, did your thought process change at all? i mean, initially it appeared that you had in mind what was

referred to as a hybrid 706 plan. >> you actually used the right word there my evolution on this plan. i started out with pure 706. and then i realized as i said in my testimony that that wouldn't work because of the commercially reasonable test. so i started exploring title 2 kinds of -- >> did anyone lead you in this exploration? >> yes, sir. all kinds of commenters and a lot of work that was put into that. >> do you think any of those commenters were influenced by the white house? >> i have no idea. >> one final question. do you feel that you paid as close attention to the white house as you paid to congress? >> sir, i believe that i have frankly spent more time discussing this issue with members of congress than with the administration and -- >> then ultimately do you feel like you listened to the input of congress more so than the white house?

>> i paid full attention to the record that was established in this proceeding. and it included members of congress saying no don't do title 2. and it included members of congress saying do do title 2? >> again do you feel like you paid as close attention to congress as you did to the white house? >> i think my responsibility is to be responsive to all of the people who are -- >> i can't tell whether that's a yes or no. >> i think i was very responsive to congress. >> thank you very much. >> thank the gentleman. and i appreciate the gentleman's commitment to st. patrick's day as exemplified by that jacket. but the chair is prepared to rule that he has only been outdone by the gentleman from wisconsin, who clearly is wearing his colors today and will now recognize that gentleman from wisconsin, mr. grthman, for five minutes. >> thanks for hanging around so long. last month the "wall street journal" you maybe saw had an article reporting that the white house had spent months in a

secretive effort to change the fcc course. does this news come as a surprise to you? or when you heard about it what was your reaction? >> so there is a standard process i believe where the white house works on developing their position. i was not a part of it. >> did it surprise you when you heard about it? >> it's not a surprise that something like that goes on. >> okay. last spring and summer you had various meetings with white house officials. did you become aware at that time that the white house was working on an alternative to your original proposal? >> i had heard rumors that the white house was looking at this as i say like they look at all other issues to develop an administration position. >> the white house apparently in formulating this alternative had dozens of meetings with online activists, start-ups

traditional telecommunications companies. participants were told -- or we believe participants were allegedly told not to discuss the process. were you aware of these meetings at the time? >> i knew that there was a process that they were -- this group. i did not know who they were meeting. >> i yield the rest of my time. >> now recognize the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings. >> mr. wheeler as we wind down this hearing, mr. chairman i want to thank you again for your testimony. i think that there -- when decisions are made by these commissions, quite often people are in disagreement with their decisions and i don't think there's anything wrong with

looking behind the curtain to try to figure out what the process was because one of the things we've been pushing very hard on this committee is the whole idea of transparency. so your testimony has been very enlightening. i think we need to keep in mind that these decisions are made by people who come to government, and they don't have to do that. but they come to government trying to bring their own experiences to the table, their concerns and their hopes of bringing us more and more to that more perfect union that we talk about. so i want to thank you for all that you've done and continue to do. and i want to thank the other commissioners and your employees. i think a lot of times in these

circumstances we forget that there are employees who have worked very hard on these issues and trying to do it right. so that's very important. i hope that you'll take that back to your commissioners and the employees. and i'm hopeful that we can move forward here. again, i've listened to you very carefully. there was a moment i mentioned to my staff that kind of touched me a bit is when you were asked whether you were backtracking on your decision. and the passion that you responded in saying that absolutely not, this is the decision that you all made and that you are proud of it and that it's something that's very

important to you you can't fake that. you can't fake it. and as a trial lawyer i'm used to watching people testify. and another thing that you said, and you were very clear is that you adhere to the rules. and i appreciate that. and i believe you. and so we look forward to continuing to work with you. and again, i want to thank you for your testimony. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate you being here today. we were made aware that the inspector general has opened an investigation of this process. are you aware of that investigation? >> no. >> my understanding it's not an audit, it's not an inspection but an actual investigation. will you be willing to cooperate with this investigation? >> of course.

of course. >> i think one of the key things, and it was brought up on both sides is the process of openness and transparency. my personal opinion. there could have been a lot more done to maximize the transparency and the openness. the rules do allow you latitude to give it more transparency than you did. i think one of the things our body should look at is compelling that openness and transparency rather than making it simply discretionary. and that's something we'll have to take back because there are rulings that go one direction or another. some people are happy. some people don't -- aren't. but the idea that the public could, say, have a 30-day opportunity to see the final rule, i think rings true with a lot of people. this notion that right up until the time you voted for it nobody outside that commission is allowed to see the final product

does not -- does not lend itself well to maximizing openness and transparency. that's just my comment. it's not a question. but i do think a 30-day window would do that. i also think that the interactions with those who have an opinion is fine, it's a healthy one. but the lack of disclosure about those, overly redacting e-mails does eade does lead one to believe that there was more a seeshlth type of communication going on there. and i hope you can understand, at least i hope you can appreciate why some people would come to that conclusion. particularly given the dramatic change in the policy that you took. nevertheless, i think this is a good and healthy hearing. we appreciate your participation. that's what this process is about. there are fact-finding things we engage in, and i appreciate your participation here today. we do have a number of

outstanding requests from the fcc that we would appreciate your providing that information to this committee. some take a little bit longer in time. some are fairly easy. but we appreciate your staff who have to do a lot of this work and thank them for these efforts. this committee now stands adjourned. >> if you missed any of this

hearing on the new open internet rules.fcc chairman tom wheeler, see it saturday at 10:00 eastern on our companion network c-span. or you can log on anytime to our video library at c-span.org. today marks the 36th anniversary of the u.s. house of representatives first being televised. and c-span was there when then representative al gore made that first speech. you can see his comments online at c-span.org. c-span. created by the cable tv industry brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. >> with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span 2, here on c-span 3 we complement that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. and then on weekends c-span 3 is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story, including six unique series. the civil war's 150th

anniversary. visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts touring museums and historic sites to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. history bookshelf with the best known american history writers. the presidency, looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history with top college professors delving into america's past. and our new series, "real america," featuring archival government and educational films from the '30s to the '70s. c-span 3 created by the cable effort industry. watchous in hd like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. next secretary of state john kerry talks about climate change and global energy and emissions. his remarks are part of the atlantic council's road to paris climate series. previewing this year's year-end climate change conference in paris. it runs about 40 minutes.

>> well-g morning, everybody. fred, thank you very very much for a very generous introduction. i'm glad to be here with everybody. distinguished ambassadors who are here this morning, thank you for taking time to represent your country as you come here and share your concern about this critical issue. and i'm delighted to be accompanied by our envoy on climate who's been toiling away in the fields for a long time now and shaped president obama's and the state department's policy on this, todd stern. thanks for your many efforts on it. fred, thank you for your leadership here at the atlantic council. i think fred has demonstrated that he seems to always have the ability to have his finger on the most critical issues of the day. not just today, actually, but of tomorrow. and as a result we can always count on the atlantic council to be ahead of the curve and to be challenging all of us to think.

so we appreciate very much what you do and thank you, all of you, who are on the board and/or part of and committed to the efforts of the council. i have to add you also have an impeccable eye for talent. i was not surprised to hear that you had the good sense to hire ambassador richard morningstar. he's one of the most experienced global energy experts. and a good friend of mine son of massachusetts. and now that he is the director of the new global energy center, you couldn't be in better hands. and secondly my former legislative assistant on energy and climate and then went to the white house, heather zeickel, is part of this great family of effort on climate. so i think we're kind of a family here this morning in fact. it's clear that from venezuela to iraq to ukraine there is no shortage of energy challenges in the world today.

and we've had many conversations recently. i was in brussels. we had a u.s.-e.u. energy summit where we laid out an agenda for how we can liberate some of these countries from their one country dependency in the case of russia and others that have huge strategic importance. but i have to tell you, at the top of the list of energy challenges is climate change. and that is why the road to paris series, the very first hosted by the center, is so very important. and i am really delighted to be here and be a part of it. as fred mentioned climate change is an issue that is personal to me. and it has been since the 1980s, when we were organizing the very first climate hearings in the senate. in fact, it really predates that, going back to earth day when i'd come back from vietnam. it was the first political thing i began to organize in

massachusetts. when citizens started to make a solid statement in this country. and i might add this before we even had an environmental protection agency or clean water act or safe drinking water act or marine mammal protection act or coastal zone management act. it all came out of that kind of citizen movement. and that's what we have to be involved in now. and the reason for that is simple. for decades now the science has been screaming at us, warning us, trying to compel us to act. and i just want to underscore that for a moment. it may seem, you know, obvious to you but it isn't to some. science is and has long been crystal clear when it comes to climate change. al gore tim worth, and a group of us organized first hearings in the senate on this. 1988. we heard jim hansen sit in front of us and tell us it's happening now.

1988. so we're not talking about news reports or blog posts or even speeches that some cabinet secretary might give in a think tank. we're talking about a fact-based evidence-supported, peer-reviewed science. and yet if you listen to some people you'd think there's a question of whether climate change really is a problem or whether we need to respond to it. so stop for a minute and just think about the basics. when an apple falls from a tree, it will drop toward the ground. we know that because of the basic laws of physics. science tells us that gravity exists, and no one disputes that. science also tells us when the water temperature drops below 32 degrees fahrenheit it turns to ice. no one disputes that.

so when science tells us that our climate is changing and human beings are largely causing that change, by what right do people stand up and just say, well, i dispute that. or i deny that elementary truth. and yet there are those who do so. literally a couple of days ago i read about some state officials who were actually trying to ban the use of the term climate change in public documents because they're not willing to face the facts. now, folks we literally do not have the time to waste debating whether we can say climate change. we have to talk about how we solve climate change. because no matter how much people want to bury their heads in the sand it will not alter the fact that 97% of peer reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is

largely responsible. i have been involved in public policy debates now for 40-plus years. whatever. since the 1960s. it is rare. rare. rare. i can tell you after 28 years plus in the senate. to get a super majority of studies to agree on anything. but 97% over 20-plus years. that is a dramatic statement of fact that no one of good conscience has a right to ignore. but what's really troubling is that those same scientists are telling us what's going to happen. not just the fact of it being there. but they're telling us what's coming at us. these scientists also agree that if we continue to march like robots down the path that we're on the world as we know it will be transformed dramatically for the worse.

and we can expect sea levels will continue rising to dangerous levels. we will see nations moved as a consequence in the pacific and elsewhere. bangladesh. countries that are low. we will see large swaths of cities and even some countries underwater. we can expect more intense and frequent extreme weather events like hurricanes and typhoons. we can expect disruptions to global agricultural sector that will threaten job security for millions of farmers. and undermine food security for millions of families. we can expect prolonged droughts and resource shortages which have the potential to fan the flames of conflict. in areas that are already troubled. by long-standing political, economic, religious, ideological ideological, sectarian disputes. imagine when they're complicated by absence of water and food. these are the consequences of climate change.

and this is the magnitude of what we are up against. and measured against the array of global threats today and there are many. all challenges that respect no borders, climate change belongs on that very same list. it is indeed one of the biggest threats facing our planet today. and even top military personnel have designated it as a security threat to not just the united states but the world. and no one who has truly considered the science no one who has truly listened objectively to our national security experts could reach a different conclusion. so yes this is personal to me. but you know what? the bottom line is it ought to be personal to everybody. every man, woman child,

businessperson, student grandparent, wherever we live whatever our calling, whatever our personal background might be. this issue affects everyone on the planet. and if any challenge requires global cooperation and urgent action, this is it. make no mistake. this is a critical year. and that is why this road to paris series is so important. the science tells us we still have a window of time to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. but that window is closing quickly. we are already in a mode where we're looking at mitigation. not just prevention. in december the world will come together at the u.n. climate conference in paris, and we will see whether or not we can muster the collective political will to reach an ambitious comprehensive

agreement. now, even those of us who are most involved in negotiations, and todd and i have talked to this and talked about it with the president, we all understand that even the agreement we're trying to reach in paris will not completely and totally be able to eliminate the threat. it's not going to. but it is an absolutely vital first step and it will be a breakthrough demonstration that countries across the globe now recognize the problem and the need for each and every one of us to contribute to a solution. and it will set the market moving. it will change attitudes. it will change governments. and progressively no one can quite measure what the ex-po nential productivity of that effort will produce. we have nine short months to come together around the kind of agreement that will put us on the right path. rest assured, not a threat but a statement of fact.

if we fail future generations will not and should not forgive those who ignore this moment. no matter their reasoning. future generations will judge our effort not just as a policy failure but as a collective moral failure of historic consequence. and they will want to know how world leaders could possibly have been so blind. or so ignorant. or so ideological. or so dysfunctional. and frankly so stubborn that we failed to act on knowledge that was confirmed. by so many stients. scientists in so many studies over such a long period of time. and documented by so much evidence. truth is we will have no excuse. you don't need to be a scientist to see that the world is already changing and feeling the impacts of global climate change and significantly. that many of the things i

mentioned a moment ago are already beginning to unfold before our eyes. just look around you. last year was the warmest of all. and i think if you stop and think about it it seems that every next year becomes one of the hottest on record. and with added heat comes an altered environment. it's not particularly complicated. i don't mean to sound haughty about it but think about it for a minute. life on earth would not exist without a greenhouse effect. that is what has kept the average temperature up until recently at 57 degrees fahrenheit. because there is this greenhouse effect. and it was called the greenhouse effect because it does exactly

what the greenhouse does. when the sun pours in and p it bounces up at a different angle, it can't escape. and that warms things. very simple proposition. now, it's difficult to tell whether one specific storm or one specific drought is solely caused by climate change or specific moment, but the growing number of extreme events scientists tell us is a clear signal to all of us. recently, southeastern brazil has been experiencing a crippling drought. the worst the region has seen in 80 years. the situation is so dire that families in sao paolo have been drilling through their basement floors in search of groundwater. and the historic droughts in some parts of the world are matched only by historic floods in others. mala wi is currently in the midst of a disaster in which more than 150 people have died. tens of thousands of people have

been stranded in the rushing waters. cut off from food, clean water and health care. and thousands more have been forced from their homes. this is happening now. it's not a future event. and you can find countries places, california where they've had 100-year, 500-year droughts and massive fires and so forth as a consequence of the changes. ask any scientist who studies the movement of species and they'll tell you how species are moving steadily north. fish moving. everything is changing. it's happening before our eyes. that's the first reason for the excuse for ignoring this problem. the second reason is unlike some of the challenges we face, i can readily attest to this, this one has a ready-made solution. the solution is not a mystery. it's staring us in the face. it's called energy policy.

energy policy. that's the solution to climate change. and with the right choices at the right speed you can actually prevent the worst effects of climate change from crippling us forever. if we make the switch to a global clean energy economy a priority, if we think more creatively about how we power our cars heat our homes operate our businesses, then we still have time to prevent the worst consequences of climate change. it really is as simple as that. but getting there is proving not to be as simple. so what more specifically do we need to do? i'm not going to come here just to describe the problem. what do we need to do? to begin with, we need leaders with the political courage to make the tough but necessary policy choices that will help us all find the right path. and i am pleased to say and proud to serve with a president

who has accepted that challenge, who has taken this head on. today thanks to president obama's climate action plan the united states is well on its way to meeting our international commitments to seriously cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. and that's because we're going straight to the largest sources of pollution. emissions from transportation and power sources, which account for about 60% of the greenhouse gases we release. and we're also tackling smaller opportunities in every sector of the economy in order to be able to address every greenhouse gas. the president has put in place standards to double the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks on american roads. we've also proposed regulations that will curb carbon pollution from new and existing power plants. but it's not enough just to address the pollution generated by dirty sources of energy. we also have to invest in

cleaner alternatives. since president obama took office, the united states has upped its wind energy production more than threefold and increased our solar energy generation more than tenfold. we're also become smarter about the way we use energy in our homes and businesses. and this is by far the most ambitious set of climate actions that the united states of america has ever undertaken. and it's a large part of why today we're emitting less than we have in two decades. it's also the reason that we were able to recently announce the goal of reducing emissions by 26% to 28% from 2005 levels and accomplish that by the year 2025. and that will put us squarely on the road to a more sustainable and prosperous economy. now, this upper-end target would also enable us to be able to cut our emissions by 83% by mid

century, which is what scientists say we need to do in order to prevent warming from exceeding the threshold level of 2 degrees centigrade, celsius. but i can't emphasize this enough. no single country, not even the united states can solve this problem or foot this bill alone. and that isn't just rhetoric. it's physically impossible. think of it this way. even if every single american biked to work or carpooled to school or used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, every american, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions guess what? that still wouldn't be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world. the same would be true if china went to zero emissions.

but others continued with business as usual. it's not enough for one country or even a few countries to reduce emissions if their neighbors are unwilling to do their share. so when i say we need a global solution, i mean it. anything less won't work. now, of course industrialized countries obviously play a major role in bringing about a clean energy future. from the days of the industrial revolution all the way through the last century. obviously the industrial countries benefited by developing and growing, but they also created the basic template for this problem. but even if all the industrial countries stopped today, it doesn't solve the problem. and it certainly is a signal that other countries shouldn't go off and repeat the mistakes of the past. we have to remember that today almost 2/3 of global emissions come from developing nations.

so it's imperative that developing nations be part of the solution also. i want to make this very, very clear. in economic terms this is not a choice between bad and worse. some people like to demagogue this issue. they want to tell you oh we can't afford to do this. nothing could be further from the truth wp we can't afford not to do it. and in fact the economics will show you that it is better in the long run to do it and cheaper in the long run. so this is not a choice between bad and worse. not at all. ultimately this is a choice between growing or shrinking an economy. pursuing cleaner more efficient energy is actually the only way that nations around the world can build the kind of economies that are going to thrive for decades to come. and here's why. coal and oil are only cheap ways to power a nation in the very

near term. but if you look a little further down the road you begin to see an entirely different story. when you think about the real numbers over time, the costs of those outdated energy sources actually pile up very quickly. start with the economic impacts related to agriculture and food security and how scientists estimate that the changing climate is going to cause yields of crops like rice and maize and wheat to fall by 2% every decade. consider what that means for millions of farmers around the world and the inflationary impact that will have on food prices. now factor in how that would also exacerbate global challenges like hunger and malnutrition that we already face. add to that the other long-term health-related problems caused by dirty air. asthma is an example. which predominantly affects

children and already costs americans an estimated $50 billion annually. the greatest single cause of young american children being hospitalized in the course of a summer in the united states is environmentally induced asthma. and that costs billions. the reality is that carbon-based air pollution contributes to the deaths of at least 4.5 million people every year. no part of that is inexpensive. and any nation that argues that it simply can't afford to invest in the alternative and renewable energy needs to take a second look at what they're paying for. consider the sizable costs that are associated with rebuilding in the wake of devastating weather events. in 2012 alone extreme weather cost the united states nearly $120 billion in damages. when typhoon haiyan hit the

philippines a little over a year ago, the cost of responding exceeded $10 billion. and that's just the bill for the storm damage. think of the added health care costs, the expenses that result from agricultural environmental degradation. it is time, my friends, for people to do real cost accounting. the bottom line is that we can't only factor in the price of immediate energy needs. we have to include the long-term cost of carbon pollution. we have to factor in the cost of survival. and if we do we will find that pursuing clean energy now is far more affordable than paying for the consequences of climate change later. but there's another piece of reality to take into account. and as you can see, these arguments begin to compound and grow, become irrefutable, frankly. clean energy is not only the

solution to climate change. guess what? it's also one of the greatest economic opportunities of all time. want to put people to work? this is the way you put people to work. the global energy market of the future is poised to be the largest market the world has ever known. we're talking about a $6 trillion market today. with 4 to 5 billion users today. that will grow to 9 billion users over the next few decades. by comparison, the great driver of wealth creation in this country in the 1990s, when super billionaires and millionaires were created and every income level of america went up, that was the technology market. and it was a $1 trillion market with only a billion users. just to get a sense of the possibilities here. between now and 2035, investment

in the energy sector is expected to reach nearly $17 trillion. that's more than the entire gdp of china and you just have to imagine the opportunities for clean energy. imagine the businesses that could be launched, the jobs that will be created in every corner of the globe. and by the way the united states of america in the year 2015 doesn't even have a national grid. we have a great big gaping hole in the middle of our country. you can't sell energy from the wind farm in massachusetts or in minnesota to another part of the country because we can't transmit it. think of the jobs in creating that grid. actually, you don't have to imagine it. all you have to do is look at the results that we are already seeing in places like my home state of massachusetts. in 2007 we set a couple of goals. we pledged to build 2,000 megawatts of wind power capacity

by 2020 and more than 250 megawatts of solar power by 2017. it was pretty ambitious. it was unprecedented. but we knew that the potential benefits to the state were enormous. fast-forward to today. and massachusetts has increased renewable energy by 400% in the last four years alone. we used a bulk purchasing program for residential sole or to help keep prices low for residents and businesses across the state. and because of that today there are residential solar installations in 350 of massachusetts's 351 cities and towns. today the commonwealth's clean energy economy is a $10 billion industry that has grown by 10.5% over the past year and 47% since 2010. it employs nearly 100,000 people at 6,000 firms.

and it's the perfect example of how quickly this transformation could happen. and how far its benefits reach. if we put our minds to it, folks, if we make the right decisions and forge the right partnerships, we could bring these kinds of benefits to communities across the united states and around the globe. to get there all nations have to be smarter about how we use energy, invest in energy and encourage businesses to make smart energy choices as well. now, we'll have to invest in new technology. and that will help us bring renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and hydro not only to the communities where those resources are abundant but to every community in every country on every continent. we'll have to stop government money from going towards non-renewable energy sources like coal and oil. it makes no sense to be subsidizing that.

which is why the united states has been helping to drive efforts in the g20 and apec to phase out wasteful fossil fuel subsidies, and we've actually taken steps to prevent now global financial institutions from funding dirty power plants and putting public money into those things that we know are going to go in the wrong direction. we'll have to strengthen legal and regulatory frameworks in countries overseas to help spur investment in places it's insufficient. it's much easier for businesses to deploy capital when they have confidence in the local legal and regulatory policy, and to attract money we need to control risk. the more you can minimize the risk the greater confidence people, investors will have to bring their capital to the table. we also have to continue to push for the world's highest standards in the environmental chapters of the trade agreements we're pursuing. just like we are doing in the

trans-atlantic trade investment partnership and the transpacific partnership. and just like labor standards in other agreements, these environmental agreements have to be really fully enforceable. ways for the private and the public sector to work together to make the most of the innovative technology that entrepreneurs are developing here in the united states and around the world. and this is the idea that is behind the white house announcement that they made last month, the clean energy investment initiative. its starting goal is to attract $2 billion in private sector investment to be put toward clean energy climate change solutions. now, the good news is, much of the technology that we need is already out there, and it's becoming faster and faster, easier to access and cheaper to access.

a report that the department of energy released this morning actually projects that in the united states, wind power is going to be directly competitive with conventional energy technologies within the next 10 years. none of this, therefore, none of what i have said is beyond our capacity. it's not a pipe dream. it's a reality. it's right there. and it's up to us to grab it. the question is whether or not it is beyond our collective resolve. now, we have seen some encouraging progress, frankly, over the past few months. during president obama's trip to new delhi earlier this year, and fred referred to it in his introduction, india -- well, both china and india, the president affirmed its far-reaching solar energy target, and our two nations

agreed on a number of climate and clean energy initiatives. we also committed to working closely together to achieve a successful global agreement in paris. so india has joined in that challenge. that came on the heels of the historic announcement in china that the united states and china, the world's two largest emitters of carbon pollution, two countries, by the way, long regarded as the leaders of opposing camps in the climate negotiations, have now found common ground on this issue. and i joined president obama as he stood next to president chi and todd was there when we unveiled our 2020 commitments. that was an enormous achievement. it was felt in lima and had the impact on the ability to move towards paris with greater momentum. around the same time, the eu announced its target as well, which means we have strong commitments from the three largest emitters in the world. now we need more and more nations to follow suit and announce their ambitious mitigation targets as well. and because this has to be a truly all hands on deck effort, i invite all of our partners,

businesses and industry groups, mayors, governors throughout the country and around the world to announce their own targets, their commitments leading up to paris so we can set an example and create a grassroots movement toward success. this will help us come forward with plans that will help every country be able to reach their goals. now, i am keenly aware that we can do a better job of engaging the private sector and our partners at the subnational level of government in this effort. and i can tell you that i plan to make certain in the next months that that happens. i know many of you have already made impressive announcements, those of you engaged in business or on the boards of enterprise

or ileomosinary or education institutions. you've helped figure out how we combat climate change, and i appreciate that. but now it's time to build on those pledges. let us know how you're doing. let us know through the state department, through state.gov, and how we can help you make progress. this is the kind of shared resolve that will help ensure that we are successful in paris and beyond. in closing, i ask you to consider one basic question. suppose, stretching your imaginations as it will have to be, that somehow those 97% of studies that i just talked about, suppose that somehow they were wrong about climate change in the end.

hard to understand after 20 years of 97%, but imagine it. i just want you to imagine it. what are the consequences we would face for taking the actions that we're talking about? and based on the notion that those might be correct. i'll tell you what the consequences are. you'll create an extraordinary number of jobs. you'll kick our economies into gear all around the world, because we'll be taking advantage of one of the biggest business opportunities the world has ever known. we'll have healthier people. those billions of dollars of costs in the summer and hospitals for emphysema and lung disease and cancer will be reduced because we'll be eliminating a lot of the toxic pollution coming from factories

and stovepipes. you'll be able to see your city. we'll have a more secure world because it will be far easier for independent companies to do what they need to thrive and not be blackmailed from another nation, cut off, their economy turned into turmoil because they can't have the independence they need and the guarantees of energy supply. we will live up, in the course of all of that, to our moral responsibility to leave the planet earth in a better condition than we were handed it, to live up to even scripture which calls on us to protect planet earth. these -- all of these things are the so-called consequences of global action to address climate change. what's the other side of that question? what will happen if we do nothing and the climate skeptics are wrong? and the delayers are wrong. and the people who calculate cost without taking everything into account are wrong.

the answer to that is pretty straightforward: utter catastrophe. life as we know it on earth. so i'm, you know, through my life believe that you can take certain kinds of risks in the course of public affairs and life. my heroes are people who dared to take on great challenges without knowing for certain what the outcome would be. lincoln took risks. gandhi took risks, churchill took risks, dr. king took risks, mandela took risks, but that doesn't mean every risk-taker is a role model it's one thing to risk a life or principle to save a population. it's quite another to wager the well-being of generations and life itself simply to continue the appetites of the present or insist on a course of inaction long after the availability of

that evidence is folly to that path, gambling to the future itself when we know full well what the outcome would be is beyond reckless, its just plain immoral and it is a risk no one should take. we need to face reality, there is no planet b. i'm not suggesting it will be easy in these next few months or next few years. effective it were we would have resolved this decades ago when the science revealed the facts we are facing. it is crunch time now. we've used up our hall passes, our excuses, we've used up too much valuable time. we know what we have to do. i am confident we can find a way to summon the resolve the need to tackle this shared threat and

we can reach and agreement in paris, we can carve out a path toward a clean energy future. we can meet this challenge. that is our charge for our children and grandchildren and it is a charge we must keep. thank you all. [ applause ] >> i want to thank secretary kerry for passionate significant important remarks i think will set up the road to paris. we're really way beyond that. we understand you have to rush out to a very important meeting at the white house. i do want to ask one question to close this off, if you can broaden this to the energy world at large. we're seeing falling prices and have the u.s. energy boom. how are you looking at the impact of both of those things in context of this? what is the geopolitics of these falling prices and the rise of

america as really the leading, if not a leading energy producer in the world? >> well, the impact is very significant, obviously. it's certainly affected russia's income and the current situation in russia, affected the situation in iran, affected the budgets of those producing states. it has potential on some sides strategically be helpful and potential on other sides to be strategical damaging. for instance if petro karab would fall because of events in venezuela we could end up with a serious humanitarian challenge in our near neighborhood. there are a lot of pluses and minuses of it. you have to remember the primary reason for america's good fortune in this turn around

right now is l & g, production of gas and fracking in regards to our independence at least, and we're also producing more oil attitude the same time and we've become one of the world's largest if not the largest energy producer? that's positive as long as we're on a road to deal with the problem i just laid out here today. remember while lng is 50% less carbon than oil it is nevertheless carbon and has an impact. we have to do all the things i just talked about, move to sustainable renewable in terms of energy that don't have that problem. the way the world is going right now because of the dependency -- another negative impact of that is it has greatly reduced the price of coal and in certain countries people are going on a price basis and racing to coal and that means we have a number of power plants coming on line with coal in countries at a rate

that is simply destructive. there is no such thing in the end as absolutely clean coal, so we have a challenge with respect to what we're going to do. there are technologies that significantly clean coal and when put in place is very helpful and if you do carbon storage that isn't happening enough and there is a way to use it and far more expensive in the end and other technologies coming on to produce other things at a far better cost. wind is going to be on the line with energy. what really has to be done is the setting of the goal through the paris agreement so that people can see countries everywhere are moving in this direction and then the

marketplace is moving and when entrepreneurs and investors start to say, this is the future and it takes hold. that accelerates the process itself. when that begins to happen, that's when this $6 trillion market and 9 billion users kicks in and takes over. it's a mixed bag for the moment. but i think we certainly see the road map to move in the right direction. >> in closing, let me just say three or four years ago, the atlantic council gave you an award not knowing how much you would now be further earning it with your miles on the ground and want to thank you for your climate change which is historic and ground breaking and your visionary principled leadership at time we know is historically challenging. thank you. [ applause ]

>> ladies and gentlemen, please remain seated as the secretary exits the room. thank you. coming up tonight on c-span 3, part of today's white house briefing on greenhouse gas emissions. then a look at president obama's meeting with prince charles at the white house. and later the house budget committee works on its 2016 federal budget proposal. president obama signed an executive order that sets a goal to cut the carbon emissions by 40% over the next ten years. white house senior adviser brian dee briefed reporters on the executive action today. later press secretary josh ernest addressed events in the middle east including recent comments from israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu on a palestinian state. this portion of the briefing runs about 25 minutes.

>> thanks. i'll just be brief about the announcement that the president made today and then happy to take questions, if you've got them. we just returned from the department of energy. the president signed an executive order, which sets a new goal for the federal government to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 40% over the next decade. that's in comparison to 2008 levels. the executive order also commits the government to increasing the share of electricity that the federal government consumes from renewable sources by 30%. the commitments today build on goals that this administration set in 2009 around greenhouse gas reduction. those goals are ones that we are well on our way to meeting and the progress that we have made over the last several years gives us confidence that we can up our ambition and set these

new goals today. indeed last jeer the federal government used less energy than we have in the past in any given year over the past four decades. the reason why this is a big deal is the federal government is the single largest consumer of energy in the united states. so our actions have an outside impact. in terms of making this a little more concrete, this is really a triple win for the environment for the economy and for the american taxpayer. just to put it in concrete perspective, the announcement that we made today and commitments made today will reduce gas emissions by 26 million metric tons between now and 2025. that's the equivalent of taking 5.5 million cars off the road. that also happens to be more cars that are registered in the state of massachusetts, which is

my home state. the actions will also save up to $18 billion in taxpayer resources because our agencies will consume less energy or consume it more efficiently. those are resources that can be better deployed for the objectives that the agencies have set out to tackle. and importantly, this is good for the broader economy because the actions that we take encourage the businesses that do business with the federal government as well as their suppliers and others to be more energy efficient and use more clean energy as well. one of the things most interesting about and promising about this announcement was the president after touring the roof at the department of energy and seeing some of the solar panels that are up there joined a roundtable of companies including who's who of the fortune 100 including ge ibm,

all of whom came today to make their own commitments on reducing their own carbon pollution in the coming years. and what they told the president and the conversation that we had was really around the ways in which when the federal government acts as a catalyst for technology or as a catalyst for investment, it enables these companies to push the envelope themselves and to push their supplier networks. we heard a lot about the impact particularly on smaller businesses that are in the supply chains to these companies. and so overall, sitting around the table, we had businesses that represent $45 billion in contracting with the federal government and they explained the leveraging impact of these commitments. this is just another example from our perspective of reenforcing that we don't need to choose between encouraging strong economic growth that's consistent with middle class

economics in which helps create good jobs here in the united states and actions to protect our planet for our kids. it's another example of the president staying on offense, taking actions that he can to try to help encourage this process forward. and this is a signal to the internal community as well that in a year when we are working toward a global agreement on climate change that we're going to continue to do our part and encourage other countries to do so as well. so it was a good announce m, an opportunity here from the private sector for the president to get out and get a little bit of sun on the department of energy roof and with that i'm happy to take any questions you guys have. >> since we have you, i wanted to ask about keystone, which i

know is another area that's now in your portfolio. two questions, the first we heard a more pessimistic tact from the president as he's described the project. is that an indication that he's kind of the date for having to make a decision nears that he's more pessimistic about the project? the second part that i had is a question about the extent to which you see keystone as a possible negotiating chip with congress on a broader climate deal or other countries as you try to broker that. >> so as you know and as you have heard josh say many times, this is an issue that's in the process in the state department and that process is where it is. so i don't have any news on that. i think that the president has spoken to this issue, but has

also been clear as he's doing that that the state department process is moving forward and will conclude. i will say that one of the things that i think the president has reenforced and you've heard in the president's comments on this issue is his view that we all should be setting our sights substantially higher than the debate around this one pipeline and that there is a lot of opportunity to improve the country's infrastructure and help encourage this move toward a clean energy economy if we could engage in that debate. our hope is that we'll be able to do so. >> does that mean that the president would be willing to include keystone as part of a broader infrastructure package. is that kind of -- we hear that phrase from you guys a lot. is that what it's intended to mean? >> what it means is that there's

a process that's gone ongoing and it's going to resolve itself around keystone that we are not getting into or commenting on. and it means that separate from that process, the president thinks it's very important that we have not only a discussion about doing something more aggressive on infrastructure, but congress actually starts moving and showing a commitment to do so. >> can you -- first on your initial announcement. do you know the percentage that the government represents in terms of emissions in the u.s.? and just sort to put that into the context of industry and otherwise? and as a follow-up to keystone, your predecessor chose to recuse himself from advising the president because he has strong view views on the project. do you have strong views on the project and how are you advising the president? >> to the first question the

federal government is a single largest consumer the department of defense is responsible for the nonoperational portion of the department of defense and is responsible for half of the energy consumption. so our capacity to both directly reduce energy use and reduce greenhouse gas emissions is significant, but also as the largest consumer in a market you have market power to help drive innovation and drive change outside of the federal footprint. so i think that the potential for this announcement is best

understood in that context and that's what was striking about having these private sector at the table today was we heard from them loud and clear that if the administration and the federal government sets standards and focuses incentives on certain innovative technologies, it really drives a lot of investment and a lot of change not only in their companies but throughout their supply chains. and with respect to the second part of your question i'm not going to speak to john. from my perspective, this is an issue that's in a separate process and we are focused on that process running its course. >> the length of time that it's been in the state department looking at this has surprised a lot of people. does the president expect to get the recommendations in this

calendar year? >> i have nothing for you on timing. >> so this maybe wouldn't even reach his desk for decision at the end of his term? >> i have nothing f on timing. >> the 40% reduction target is for direct greenhouse gas emissions. does this apply to suppliers and venders and contractors? >> the answer to 40% is it is direct in terms offed consumption of energy by the government. the way in which the government consumes energy is often associated with contract activity because we have contractors who are running a federal facility or in other cases

cases improvements and being paid back through a stream of the energy savings. so the work of the businesses who contract through the federal government is very integral to achieving this goal. there's been a separate issue, which is those companyies that are those contractors making commitments about their own activities and that's what was exciting and new about today's a announcement was that this was ibm and ge coming to the table not only committing as a contractor to help the federal government achieve the 40% goal, but to make commitments within their own corporations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so you have a company like ibm saying they are going to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions by 35% by 2025. part of why they are able to do that is because the innovation

and investment that the federal government is driving helps them achieve that objective as well. >> major? >> specifically as you can, can you tell us what's allowed the federal government to get to where it's gotten and what kind of innovative things or lessons you have learned from those successes will drive you to this 40% goal? >> sure, so i think it's a couple things and we have seen these play out over the last several years. the first is we have seen a substantial reduction in the cost of deploying clean energy and some of these energy efficiency technologies. so the department of defense, for example, is moving out and deploying solar on military installations, and they are meeting and exceeding their targets and objectives in part because of solar has come down more quickly than anticipated.

and that has both a cost opportunity for them but also mission oriented opportunities because of the reliability of not having to rely on the electricity grid. it is solar flare season. the second thing is that the data analytics have improved substantially, which matters a lot for energy efficiency. one of the things that the companies talked about today was that by having much more data about how their businesses operate and being able to aggregate that up, they are able to identify where there are gaps in their efficiency chain, why a certain plan is operating much less efficiently than another. see whether there are valves to tighten. the president referred o to this as a fitbit for business, and i think that aptly characterized it in some of the progress we

have made on the data side has allowed us to do that. and then i think the third is innovations in the way we contract. as i was just mentioning, one of the things we're doing now is we set a goal of $4 billion in energy performance contracting, which is the idea that rather than the federal government having to put taxpayer dollars down to upgrade a building we contract with an outside provider who pays the up front cost and then gets repaid out of a stream of the savings that come from reducing the electricity costs. and because the investments here are well proven, that's become ing a model that's working both to encourage more activity, but also bring the private sector in an innovative way. >> paul, i'll give you the last one. >> i've been reading a lot about the military use of biofuels like algae to power everything

from aircraft to this green fleet that the navy keeps talking about. bring us up to date on that and how close are those things to becoming operational? >> so that's a place where i think the armed services and particular the navy see substantial promise. a lot of the work that is going into that area right now is in the r&d space, and so both in the services and the defense department but also at usda and d.o.e. investing in applied research to better understand the potential and also the mission impacts of relying on these types of fuels. so i think our view on that is that there's real promise and real opportunity. it's going to require us to maintain a consistent program of r&d investment, but i think that we still see it as an area of

real promise going forward. >> when will the navy and air force be able to wean themselves off these conventional fossil fuels that we've been hearing about for quite some time. >> i can't tell you with precision, but. i can tell you that the -- that the opportunities are increasingly becoming cost effective and that as you think about where the military is deployed around the world and the circumstances that they are put in the ability to have alternative sources both of electricity where you're not reliant on the grid but also fuels is increasingly important from a mission standpoint as well as a cost standpoint. so we're quite optimistic that we're going to be able to push the envelope in those spaces then that's part of the furry behind the case that we're making today. >> thank you brian. >> thanks, guys.

>> now back to our regularly scheduled programming. i know there's a full at 2:00 in the oval so if there are some of you that have responsibilities, i won't be offended if you sneak out the back. >> the islamic state claimed responsibility for yesterday's attacks in tunisia. has the u.s. been able to verify those claims? >> let me start by saying we extend our deepest sympathies in toou nearby ya and condemn in the strongest terms this terrorist attack, which tooked lives of innocent tunisiaens and tourists visiting from other countries. the president's adviser today spoke to her counterpart who is the minister of interior. she made that call to express condolences for yesterday's attack, to offer u.s. support and assistance and pledge solidarity with tunisia in the face of terrorist violence.

the united states is justifiably proud of the robust cooperation that we have with tunisia on counterterrorism and continue to stand with our partners against terrorist violence. we have seen reports that isil has claimed responsibility for these attacks. the tactics that we saw at the museum would be entirely consistent with tactics that isil has previously used that show a blatant disregard and even a brutality for innocent civilians. >> tunisia has been held up as a country that perhaps came out of the arab spring as more of a success than some of the other country countries in the region. if this is the islamic state launching this kind of attack, what does that say about tunisia's stability, its ability to fend off islamic extremism. >> i'll say a couple things. the first is we know there is a long border that tunisia has

with libya which is a rather unable place right now. and that is why the security cooperation that i referred to earlier that exists between tunisia and the united states is so important. that was the substance of the call today and i'm confident that we'll continue to be in touch with the tunisiaens in the weeks and months ahead as we talk about efforts that we can make to supplement their efforts to provide for security in their country. they obviously live in a volatile and even dangerous part of the world right now and we certainly are interested in doing what we can to try to support their government and people as they confront this threat. >> prime minister benjamin netanyahu seems to be backing away from his comments during his campaign about not allowing a palestinian state while he's in charge. he says now that he would allow that if the circumstances

change. yesterday officials here and at the state department were saying you took him at his word that there would be policy ramifications for what he said. based on what he said today, do you think those comments were just a campaign pledge that he always intended to backtrack on? do you take him at his word today that he would allow for palestinian statehood? >> i did have an opportunity to read quickly a transcript of the interview he did with nbc today. what is apparent is that in the con context of the campaign and while he was the sitting prime minister of israel, he walked back from commitments that israel had previously made to a two-state solution. now to be clear the united states for more than a decade under both democratic and republican presidents has strongly supported this approach to try to address the conflict between the palestinian people and our allies in israel.

and it's worth pointing out that this is a policy that was supported and in place under both democratic and republican presidents. it is also a policy that was and has on more than one occasion been unanimously supported by democrats and republicans in congress congress. as recently as december of last year, the united states house of representatives on a voice vote passed the strategic partnership act, in which the pursuit of a two-state solution was identified as our goal to resolve this conflict. so it is as we mentioned yesterday, cause for the united states to evaluate what our path is forward given the prime minister's comments. so we'll have to sort of see what sort of policy and

priorities the prime minister chooses, but we certainly are in a position to evaluate our approach to these issues given that the prime minister essentially backed away from commitments that israel has previously made to this effort. >> you standby the need to reevaluate, to look at the options despite what he said today? you don't think based on his flip back that what he said previously was a campaign promise to get votes? >> i mean, the motivation of the prime minister and the comments that he made even just earlier this week is something that you'll have to take up with him. what is clear is the united states has been clear about our policy for some time. it also merits pointing out that we pursue this policy not just because it's convenient. in fact, it's not convenient it's rather difficult as been chronicled by all of you in this room. but we have been in pursuit of this goal because we believe

it's clearly in the best interests of our closest ally in the region. we believe it's in the interest of israel to establish a jewish and democratic state of israel living side by side in peace and security with a sovereign palestinian state. that's a way for us to diffuse tensions in the region. it would reduce tensions in the region. it would serve the national security interests of the united states, but it's the best way for us to provide and protect the israeli people. again, it doesn't remove all threats, but it certainly is a way for us to resolve what is a prominent point of contention in this region of the world. and the comments from prime minister benjamin netanyahu to walk away from that commitment just this week has prompt eded the united states to evaluate our position on these matters going forward. >> jeff? >> can you put some flesh on the

bone on what that means when you say you're evaluating the position? what does that mean exactly? >> well, i would start by saying that this commitment to a two-state solution has been the bedrock of a lot of u.s. policy toward this region of the world. in terms of making decisions at the united nations and in other multilateral forum, the united states has repeatedly intervened in some of those debates at the u.n. and other places by saying, the best way for us to solve this problem is for us to get the two parties to sit down at the negotiating table, resolve their differences so this two-state solution can be realized. so that principle is one that we have applied in a variety of settings to serve as the basis

for decisions that have benefitted israel and that have protected israel from isolation in the international community. but now the prime minister of israel says earlier this weekdays before an election that this is a principle that he no longer subscribes to and that his nation no longer subscribes to. that means the united states needs to rethink our approach. that steps that this principle has been the foundation of a number of policy decisions that have been made here. now that that foundation has been eroded it means that our policy decisions need to be reconsidered. that's what we will do. >> that sounds like a statement that israel should no longer expect u.s. protection in the u.n.? in the u.n. which is what you specifically mentioned. >> that's one example in which this policy decision has served as the basis for a substantial

number of policy decisions. i'm not suggesting that any policy decisions have been made at this point. i don't want to leave you with that impression. in fact, what i have tried to say is that understandably it has promised us to reevaluate the strategy we'll put in place to make those decisions. that will be something that we will do moving forward. also at the white house today, president obama met with prince charles who's in town with camilla for a four-day good will tour. here's a look. >> it's always nice coming back. everybody is always so friend lily. >> i think it's fair to say the american people are quite fond of the royal family. they like them much. better than their own politics. >> i'll tell you what was nice.

i was there 45 years ago. it was fantastic. it's very special. >> it's beautiful. thank you, everybody. thank you, everybody. >> thank you. >> thank you, everybody. on the next washington journal, "the wall street journal" discusses wednesday's news conference at the federal reserve and what could happen if interest rates rise. after that ron kessler talks about his book and current reform proposals for the secret service. plus we'll be taking your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets all on washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

our road to the white house coverage continues friday in iowa with remarks from potential presidential candidate former governor martin o'malley. live coverage at 9:00 eastern on c-span. this weekend the c-span cities tour has partnered with media come to learn about the history life of columbus, georgia. >> right here inside the museum is remains of a confederate ironclad the css jackson. this was built here in columbus during the war. those oval shapes that you see are actually the gun ports of the jackson. and the jackson is armed with six rifles. the particular brook rifle that we're firing today is one of the guns built specifically for the jackson. it was cast at the selma naval

works in selma, alabama and completed in january of 1865. the real claim to fame is directly connected to the fact that there are only four ironclads from the civil war that we can study right now. and the jackson is right here and this is why this facility is here. it's first and foremost to tell the story of this particular ironclad and to show people that there are more than just one or two ironclads, there were many. >> watch all of our events from columbus saturday at noon eastern on c-span 2's book tv and sunday afternoon on "american history tv" on c-span 3. today mark ss the 36th anniversary of the u.s. house of representatives first being televised. c-span was there when then representative al gore made that first speech. you can see his comments online

at c-span.org. c-span, created by the cable tv industry, brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. the house budget committee passed its 2016 budget proposal on a party line vote of 22-13. the approval followed yesterday's day-long markup session where republican members couldn't come to an agreement on a defense spending amendment. the budget proposal by committee chair tom price would cut $5.5 trillion in projected spending over the next decade and balance the budget. the house republican budget is expected to come to the house floor for debate next week. we'll show you now part of yesterday's markup session leading up to the recess. this runs about five hours.

>> this markup will resume. next on the list of amendments we have amendment number four from the gentle lady and the staff will distribute. and the clerk will designate it and the staff will distribute. >> relating to medicare. >> recognized for six minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the population of the united states continues to be on the verge of dramatic demographic

shifts. since 2002 the number of americans age 65 and older has increased by 21% and the ageing of the baby boom generation will only accelerate this growth. only 15 years older americans will account for 20% of the u.s. population up from 13% today. by 2050 the population of older americans is expected to double by over 80 million people. by 2050 the population of americans age 85 and over is estimated to more than triple from 5.5 million in 2010 to 19 million in 2050. about 71% of these adults have a disability or will need assistance with at least one activity of daily living. so they can't feed themselves, dress themselves, or bathe themselves. as a former secretary of the new mexico department of ageing and long-term services, i understand the difficulties that older americans face. they often face a unique set of

risks and challenges, including affordable housing access to social services and transportation. but chronic health issues and health care costs may be the biggest threats to the economic security of older americans. and poverty aggravates everything because the poorer you are, the sicker you are. over the last 50 years, medicare has helped countless americans and their families be independent and financially secure including an estimated 55 million americans who are receive receiving benefits today. in fact, since medicare was signed into law poverty among older americans has dropped from 35% the year i was born in 1959 to 9% today. however, medicare is not perfect. although medicare covers nearly all adults age 65 and older, premiums deductibles, co-pays and significant holes in benefits have left many americans with higher expenses.

between 2010 and 2040 annual out of pocket health costs for 65 and older will more than double in inflation adjusted dollars. but medicare reforms under the affordable care act have helped control costs increase benefits and extend medicare solvency. since the aca was enacted, premiums for medicare have largely unchanged since 2010. seniors have saved more than $15 billion on their u prescription drugs and the life of the medicare trust fund has been extended by 13 years. our path forward should build upon these successes and we should strengthen medicare, improve essential benefits and contain costs. but this republican budget moves us back ward. it turns medicare into a voucher program and puts insurance companies ahead of seniors. it shifts more costs to beneficiaries, it does nothing to contain health care spending and it forces seniors to either

pay more or skimp out on necessary medical care. based on what we know from nonpartisan congressional budget office analysis, there's no evidence that a voucher plan will reduce medicare spending without significantly increasing costs for beneficiaries. my amendment would preserve the medicare guarantee and it protects benefits for over 55 million americans. it may be convenient and frankly easy to shift costs on to seniors on a piece of paper. the hard thing to do is to strengthen medicare to improve its essential benefits and to help older americans live with the economic security and dignity that they deserve. this is what we should be doing. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> i now recognize for seven minutes the gentle lady from tennessee in opposition. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to just set some things

straight here to make sure that we have the actual facts on the table. so first of all let's take a look at what the cvo has told us about the medicare program. they tell us in their reports that it will be bankrupt by 2030 unless there are significant reforms that are made to the program. second, let's also take a look at a failing trust fund and look at what the affordable care act and the president's rating of medicare to $700 billion out of a fund that was already failing that is only worsened the problem of a fund that is not sustainable. in addition to that, as a proponent of this amendment has alluded to, there are 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day that are going to be coming into this program. so we see that a fund that is already failing is going to have a significant number of new

folks coming into it. so let's take a look at what the republicans propose. first of all, i don't understand why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to call this a voucher program. a voucher program is where you give someone money, and they take the money and purchase the product. this is not a voucher program. this is a premium support program much like what we had in the workforce for those employers who provide insurance. so our plan would allow the recipients choice, which is a really good thing to allow them to be able to choose a program that best suits their need. it then the government is a guaranteed program would then take that subsidy, that payment and give it to the plan. it's very much like medicare part d, which is working. so we know that there is a program out there that already is similar to what we're

proposing and it has worked and that tells us that this program would also work. i also want to correct something to say we're going to lose medicare as we know it. our plan actually provides for traditional fee for service and remains an option forever. and i don't know about you, but seniors i talk to don't want us to tell them what's best for them. they want to choose so they will have the choice between a premium support program or stay in fee for service they make that decision. we know that this plan has been scored and it does show the latest report from cbo shows that premium support can actually produce savings to the seniors and also to the federal government. so we're talking about a plan that goes defunct in 2030 and we're looking at real reform we know by the congressional budget office scoring this that this is a program that actually can

work. it does slow the medicare spending and it transitions to a new medicare program for future generations. so those that are currently in and those who come to the future have that choice. we also on our program make sure that those who need the most help get that help. so those that are at the lower income will get more support with their premium assistance and those at a higher income will get less at a significantly higher income may get nothing at all to help them because they can afford that themselves. again, it gives our seniors more freedom, it allows competition to come into the market and any time there's competition, it drives down the cost. that's something that occurs in other programs and it will work in this program as well. the real threat, the real threat to medicare is to guarantee the status quo. we know that by all of the

reports that are done by not doing anything, that is really the largest threat. and doing nothing or worse trying to ration the care represents the greatest threat to our seniors' health security. so i would urge my colleagues to look at the true facts of this and urge them to vote no on this amendment amendment. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. the gentleman from arkansas wish to speak on this amendment? >> thank you mr. chairman. i'd like to compliment the gentle lady from tennessee for such an excellent job she did explaining what is actually in our budget proposal for medicare and how we are very much concerned about the future of medicare. my parents are on medicare we all know people that use medicare. we want to preserve it. as was just stated it was due

to go bankrupt in o 2030. we have to implement changes now or this is going to get worse as we move down the road. i will also reiterate it's not a voucher program. if people choose to stay on the fee for service program, by all means they can stay on the fee for service program. why are we afraid to give them the choice and the option to choose something different. something that's proven to work, something that's projected to save money something that will provide more options for seniors, which means more market competition, which means lower prices and better quality. this is a great opportunity that we have to implement the ideas that are in this budget proposal and i do hope that everyone will give this a lot of consideration, a lot of positive consideration that we will adopt this. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back my time. >> recognized for one minute to

close. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to clarify a couple things. one, as we talk about what cbo scoring is and isn't i think we have a tendency to mix apples and oranges. cbo is also quite clearly scored that in the voucher program which is defined as a premium assistance, that's a voucher, and if you look at that definition, you'll see that clearly defined that they will rise by 100% in 2020. you can stay in the fee for service program but you pay more. what this is now is not a guarantee of a medicare program it's a guarantee for insurance companies who will continue to ration care and what happens to this population if they don't have access to the health care services and their families that they need, not only does it effect their economic security and their poverty rates will go up, but in fact, it will cause health care cost shifts in

emergency rooms and hospitals to go up. so this isn't a cost savings at all in the health care system. the reality is that the $700 billion we referred to in the affordable care act took administrative costs and gave it back to beneficiaries. those are the reforms we should be talking about. >> time has expired. all in favor will say aye. the noes have it. >> recorded vote is requested. the clerk will call the role. >> mr. garrett. mr. cole no. mr. mcclin tok, no. ms. black no. ms. woodall.

mr. rice, no. mr. sanford no. mr. brat, no. mr. blum, no. mr. palmer, no. mr. westerman no. mr. buchanan no. mr. van hollen, aye. mr. pascrell? mr. ryan aye.

ms. moore, aye. ms. caster, aye. ms. lee, >> aye. >> miss grisham? >> aye. >> miss single? >> aye. >> mr. lou? >> aye. >> mr. norcross? >> aye. >> mr. molten? mr. molten? mr. garrett? >> no. >> mr. woodall? >> no. >> mr. susman? mr. susman? mr. mooney? mr. mooney? mr. passquell mr. mcdermott? mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, no.

>> all members voted? any member wish to change their vote? if not, the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman on that vote, the ayes are 11 and nos are 20. >> the nos have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. the next amendment is amendment number 5. the clerk will designate the amendment and the staff will distribute the copies of the amendment. >> amendment number 5 offered by miss engel related to medicaid. >> the gentle lady is recognized for six minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am offering a simple amendment that would reject the $913 billion in custom medicaid contained in the budget resolution we're considering today. my amendment will ensure that seniors, persons with disabilities u and working families do not lose access to critical health care and

long-term care services by reversing the cuts to the base medicaid program contained in this resolution. medicaid is the work horse of our health care system. it's a critical part of the safety net that provides essential health care and long-term care services to 69 million americans. it is not the most glamorous program, but it has been very successful in supporting the most vulnerable among us. medicaid beneficiaries include poor children and their families, someone with cerebral palsy or multiple sclerosis or autism, or a senior who needs help getting dressed in the morning and feeding themselves. further, the medicaid program provides health insurance for one in three children in america. these are exactly the people that would be damaged by these drastic cuts to the medicaid program. turning medicaid into a block grant as this budget proposes is not the answer.

it does nothing to reduce health care costs but would inevitably shift burdens to the states, and would lead to a dramatic cut in health care support for the 69 million americans who depend on medicaid. imposing a serious financial hardship on them and their families. in fact, the cbo analyzed a similar proposal from then chairman ryan's budget and they concluded that states would likely have to make significant cuts to their programs as adopted. and i quote cutbacks might involve reduced eligibility for medicaid and c.h.i.p., coverage of fewer services, lower payments to providers, or increased costs by beneficiary. all of which would reduce access to care. is this really what the american people are asking for? cbo has also estimated of

turning medicaid into a block grant would result in states dropping between 14 million and 20 million people from medicaid by the tenth year. this is right when we've seen the -- is this right when we've seen the uninsured rate drop since the implementation of the affordable care act? we cannot afford to take a step backward right when we're beginning to make so much progress. we cannot forget the impact the medicaid cuts will have on seniors. seniors and persons with disabilities make up almost one-quarter of the medicaid population, and accounts for two-thirds of the spending. medicaid is the largest payer for long-term care services and support in the united states which most americans will need at some point in their lives. medicaid pays for nearly half of all long-term care in this country. when this program was absolutely not designed for that purpose

and that's a different issue we need to talk about, but here let's protect those that it's protecting right now. we need a real long-term care system in this country, and you'll hear more from them later. but in the meantime we should not be cutting medicaid which provides such essential services to so many who need it. >> i'm pleased to have the gentle lady from tennessee be recognized for seven minutes. miss blackburn. >> >>. >> my mistake i recognize the gentleman from indiana in opposition. ten minutes in opposition. >> thank you. i hope i'm not doing the vice chairman's job, too. or maybe i do. ive appreciate the chairman recognizing me. and i appreciate again this

issue of being brought to the forefront. i want to address some of the things that have been said so far far, and make sure everyone understands that what our budget does, what the flexibility in it does for medicaid is strengthen and preserve it for the future. to make sure that those who really and truly need the care can get it. because right now, that's not the case. as the gentle woman alluded to. the current system, the current program is broken. and that's an understatement. i want to be clear that this budget that we're proposing intends to spend $3.33 trillion over the next decade on medicaid and other health programs. medicaid spending increases over the ten-year window that this budget assumes. according to cbo, current

medicaid program the gentle lady is talking about is growing at an annual average rate of 5% to 6% while the economy only grows at 2.3%. this budget proposes simply to slow the growth in spending and gives states the flexibility so that regardless of the slow growth in spending they can still meet the needs of those citizens, those constituents who truly need the care. spending growth at the rate that i just described is simply unsustainable. if it's unsustainable, by definition it's ultimately not going to be available to anyone. but the problem with medicaid just isn't that it spends too much it's not giving patients the access to the health care that they need. it was mentioned repeatedly of access that people need. time and again we hear reports of medicaid patients unable to find a doctor who will see them. patients on medicaid often have worse health outcomes than those

who have no insurance shall at all. and the doctors nurses and hospitals who wanted to treat these patients simply cannot afford medicaid's below-cost reimbursement rates, which can be 70% of what private insurance would pay. for states and taxpayers, the current medicaid system means massive spending and an ever-larger deficit. states are now spending more on this program than they are on education. something has to be done. when something is this broke, the wrong answer is to throw -- is to throw more money at it, expecting a different result. that's analogous to insanity. medicaid has one of the highest estimated improper payment rates than any program. the total spending on medicaid, the state and federal shares is expected to total $578 billion. over the next ten years cbo expects total federal spending on medicaid to $4.6 trillion.

the medicaid program is not expansions, like obamacare in fact proposes. the answer instead is to put states back in charge of their own medicaid programs to fit the unique needs of their population. there are numerous examples already across the nation where states have used existing albeit limited flexibility found in the current medicaid program's waiver program that allowed them to achieve the results without increasing their budgets for their outlays for the program. look at rhode island. hardly a conservative state. our plan gives the flexibility needed for states so that they can do, frankly, what this federal government has failed to do. chiefly among them three things. let the government closest to the people determine who actually needs the help that medicaid provides.

let's let the states determine what that kind of help looks like. and finally, how that help is disbursed and received. i trust the states. i trust our local officials and our local community leaders to come up with a system that they know is best for their community. with that, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. molenar. >> thank you very much. and i also want to speak to the issue of flexibility. because as a former state legislator, one of the things we observed in our state was the opportunity to innovate. when the medicaid expansion went into effect in michigan, there was a tremendous opportunity to improve the lifestyles choices, and incentivize healthy behaviors. now, the state had to go to the federal government for a waiver on that. what we'