Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  June 25, 2015 11:00pm-1:01am EDT

11:00 pm
as well, that one of the difficulties in securing energy efficiency gains from lower income consumers is the quality of the housing stock. that is, the relatively poor quality of the housing stock will not support investments in fairly high cost energy efficiency upgrades. such as windows and hvac systems. certainly, lower cost options, the simple things, such as better attic insulation, weather stripping and the like. those have short payback periods and they're feasible. but the magnitude of the energy efficiency investments that epa is projecting in the clean power plan, which nera estimates to cost some $500 billion for
11:01 pm
american consumers, those investments simply will not be made. by the elderly and by lower income consumers. i hope that's responsive to your question. >> thank you. mr. alford, the energy information administration concluded the plan could reduce the gdp by $1 trillion. based on the analysis that you did and explained, could you just re-emphasize how you think that's going to impact low-income or minority citizens across the country? >> it's going to be very critical and tragic. it's going to hurt as far as 2.1 million black owned businesses we represent. their customer base is going to wither. and i think the quality of life is going to hurt in our communities and i think people are going to start short shrifting moneys that would be used for health care or education. and i think people who would
11:02 pm
resort to crime and violence because they're poor and broke would increase. i think it would hurt our communities severely. >> thank you. and final question, very quickly, mr. trisko, part of the a.r.e.n.a. act says that we shouldn't move forward with these regulations until all the legal aspects are settled. as you know, states are challenging this, and will challenge when the final rule comes out. but if states begin to make changes, in the meantime, what kind of scenario does that present to you in terms of how states are going to be able to react not knowing whether the legal issues have been settled as yet? >> senator, you've hit upon one of the most desirable aspects of the a.r.e.n.a. act. and let me just put it in the context of the current situation that the electric utility industry faces with respect to epa's 2011 mercury and air toxic standard rule or the mat's rule.
11:03 pm
the mats rule is currently before the supreme court. a decision is expected shortly, within a matter of days. it's possible that the supreme court decision could result in vacature of the rule. and yet, utilities in order to comply with that rule already have retired dozens of power plants across the united states and are scheduled to retire even more over the course of the next year. wouldn't it be advisable as a matter of public policy before implementation of the most expensive rule ever imposed on the electric utility sector, $9.5 billion a year, to know upfront whether the rule is legal? >> thank you. ranking member senator carper, fellow west virginian, i want to say welcome and also ask if he
11:04 pm
can do his opening statement and do questions, which most certainly you can. so proceed. >> thanks for holding the hearing and all of our witnesses, it's great to see you, and thank you for joining us again. some of you not for the first time. ms. rice, thinking about your son and just hoping he grows up to be 101 or 102 years old and has a great life. okay. one of the issues we always wrestle here with, is it possible to have cleaner air, cleaner water and a stronger economy? i go back to -- i used to be governor and for much of my life, retired navy captain. for most of my life after the navy i really focus on job creation, job preservation, what do we do to foster a nurturing environment for job preservation? you go back to the -- a week in january 2009. actually the week that barack obama and joe biden were sworn into office and our country we lost that week 628,000 people filed for unemployment insurance. think about that. one week. january 2009. 628,000 people file for unemployment insurance. and the previous six months, the
11:05 pm
last six months, 2008, we lost 206,000 jobs, in 2009, we lost another 2.5 million jobs, 5 million jobs literally in a 12-month period of time. since 2009, actually since 2010, we have adopted regulations new mercury regulations on power plant. that's one. we have adopted new carbon pollution or fuel economy standards on cars and trucks. that's two. and we've also adopted across state air pollution standards. that's three. and since 2010, we have added 762,000 manufacturing jobs. millions more other jobs. but on three quarters of million manufacturing jobs. what leads me to believe maybe it's possible to have cleaner air and cleaner water and at the same time, actually, do better. by virtue of our economy and economic growth. so i just ask this to keep that
11:06 pm
in mind as the chairman said i was born in west virginia. coal mining town. and grew up there in virginia. and now representing state of delaware. that's the lowest lying state in the country and we see every day what the effect of climate change and global warming is. sea level rise creeps up higher and higher on the east coast of my state. so it's something that is very, very real to us. for decades, for the cost of combat, since coming here i've tried to work on climate compromise that would use market forces. harness market forces to reduce carbon pollution and reduce the cost of compliance. and as part of that compromise, i work with senator verd, and a handful of other coal state senators on language that would have provided more than $10 billion in incentives to support deployment of clean coal power plants. this language along with other language intended to buffer
11:07 pm
impacts to the coal industry was included in the kerry/boxer bill which regrettably was not enacted into law. instead, coming to a compromise on climate change, congress came to a stalemate. all the while it's becoming clear that price of inaction is much greater than the price of action. the epa just released a comprehensive report that outlines the alarming truth that failure to act on climate change will result in dramatic costs. critically concern for low-lying states like florida and like delaware and others up and down the east coast. without action on climate change, we're going to need to spend billions of dollars on this century to protect our states from rising sea levels and extreme storms. study also projects inaction on climate change could lead to extreme temperatures and cause thousands of deaths throughout the northeast and mid-atlantic regions of our country. it's clear, at least, it's clear to me that as each year passes without the action, the more
11:08 pm
severe, the more costly and perhaps irreversible the effects of climate change are becoming. and for those of us who come to states being impacted by climate change, i think the message is clear and that's we can no longer afford inaction. many states such as new york, represented here today, thank you, welcome, and delaware, have already taken action to reduce the largest emitter of carbon pollution and that's power plant emissions. we'll hear the economics of these states continue to grow at a faster rate than the states that have yet to put climate regulations into place. however, we need all states to do their fair share to protect the air we breathe and stem the tide of climate change. the epa's clean power plant attempts to do that. and under the clean power plan, states are given their own carbon pollution targets and allowed to find the most cost effective way to find cost reductions. in fact, it sounds similar to the compromise, i tried to foist on my colleagues a number of years ago. i believe instead of
11:09 pm
undercutting the clean power plan, we should be working in good faith with the agency to find ways to improve the regulation. for example, regulation could be improved several ways. one, to ensure early action states are not penalized for being climate and efficiency leaders. number two, to ensure that all clean energy, including nuclear is treated equitably. and three, to ensure we meet our carbon reduction goals. no compromise is ever perfect. the worst thing that we could do is to do nothing while we try to find the perfect solution. must act now while the ability to mitigate the most harmful impact is within our grasp. choice between curbing climate change and growing our economy is as i've suggested many times a false one and instead we must act on curbing climate change in order to protect the future economic prosperity of our country. all right. madame chairman, thank you for letting me give a statement and ask questions. i was delayed here today. we had a caucus lunch today. part of the lunch discussion was about the transportation bill. secured transportation bill
11:10 pm
authored by chairman inhofe, senator boxer, senator ritter, myself, and i think going to be well received and we're excited about that. and so, we had a little discussion of that before i came. so i got here a little bit late, and i apologize for that. i thought i would joke and i like to joke around a little bit. and thought i was going to come here and say i was delayed, taking a call from the pope. but i'm not catholic. and he rarely calls me. but if he did, we would talk about ash -- you know, i must say i'm impressed with this guy. i'm impressed with, one, i think he's read the new testament and has a real commitment to the least of these in my society. when i was naked, did you clothe me, when i was sick in prison, did you come visit me? he gets that and calls on us to do the same. the other thing that he gets and those of white house are familiar with the scripture, most of you probably more than me, but the other thing that he gets is we have a moral
11:11 pm
obligation to make sure we will have a planet with a decent quality of life and he believes and a lot of folks believe that there's a real serious problem here. and we have a moral imperative to do something about it so we can talk about all those these studies and everything but i would have us keep that thought in mind. now, a couple of questions. first, i'd ask consent to have submitted for the record two items, one is a latest report of the lance it and commission on health and climate change of health and climate change policy responses to protect public health for the record. that's number one, madame chair and ask consent to submit the epa's recent peer reviewed report of climate change in the united states benefit of global action to the record. >> without objection. >> thank you, madame chair. okay. dr. rice, mother of three, i -- you mentioned in your testimony that many different -- the many
11:12 pm
different ways that the climate change has already impacting the health of americans. who would you say are the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change and what will have the most to gain from reductions of carbon pollution, please? >> thank you for this question, senator carper. a number of groups are especially vulnerable to the health consequences of climate change. the ones that i would identify would be the elderly because many of them already have chronic health conditions like heart and lung disease that makes them especially vulnerable to high heat and high air pollution levels and low-income people. people who have less income have less access to air conditioning during heat waves. there have been a number of studies looking at cities which suffer the most in some ways from extreme heat because of an island effect of the buildings in the cities and the poorer
11:13 pm
neighborhoods of cities have been found to have the worst urban heat problem. and people who have low income also are the same people who are often exposed more to higher levels of air pollution to begin with. and have less access to health care and resources to help them manage climate change. >> all right. >> and there's a third group i would identify. i know i'm short on time but that's children and as ma is especially prevalent in children and at high prix for all of the issues, high heat, high ozone levels, air pollution from wildfire. higher pollen levels is a major consequence for american children. >> good. thanks. one quick yes or no question if you will. study by the lancet, concluded that the impacts of climate change threatens to undermine this, listen this, last half century of gains in global health. would you agree with this conclusion. just say yes or no.
11:14 pm
>> i certainly agree. it's major health problem facing the planet. >> thank you. my time expired. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. madame fischer? >> mr. cicio, nebraska's public power state and 100% of our power is owned by the people of nebraska. we're going to be hit especially hard by these regulations that are proposed in the clean power plan. and we're going to see rate increases that i believe will be substantial. what do you believe will be the impact on our increase that we're going to have in these electricity rates on business operations like manufacturing? what's going to be the impact there? >> you know, all of these companies compete globally.
11:15 pm
there's almost no exception. anymore. and as i alluded to, specifically, the competition is very fierce. companies win or lose business based on a cents a pound or pennies on the ton of the product that they make. and so all of these costs are additive. and when we get to, like this clean power plan, it's not just the cost of the clean power plan. there's, you know, in the, embedded in those electricity rates that give your state a problem, there's already the cost of pm 2.1, 2.5. there's already the mercury rule cost. for us industrials, there's already the industrial boilerman cost and the clean power cost and then ozone. it is a cumulative cost of doing business that our competitors don't have overseas. and it, there's no way around a
11:16 pm
higher cost and loss of competitiveness and eventually it impacts jobs. >> exactly. >> and most of our jobs are middle class jobs. >> so what's the impact then on american families, when we see these costs continue to increase on businesses. that has a direct cost on american families, correct? and how would you say the arena act will address some of these issues? what specifically is in the proposed legislation? >> well, i'd like to say from a common sense standpoint, everyone in the country that has followed this, knows that this is going to be litigated, 100% sure. there's no doubt about it. and we know, including the epa knows there's costs. and the epa does not want to hurt people by higher energy costs, but this rule will. and so it is just common sense to say, let's wait till we have this settled out by the courts before states act to technically shut down as the eia report of
11:17 pm
last month said that they are not going to shut down 40,000 gig watts, it's now 90,000 gig watts of coal-fired power plants prior to 2020. that will have a dramatic increase on producing electricity costs. >> thank you. mr. alford, i think most of us in this room take our ability to have electricity for granted. but, as you mentioned, there, there's a large number of americans who are balancing whether they can afford an electric bill or whether they can pay rent or whether they are able to put food on the table for their families. that's going to, as you mentioned, lead, i think, to those hard choices that people make and send some of them to the streets when they become homeless. can you talk about more about those tough choices that
11:18 pm
low-income families have to make when they look at their electricity bills and why you think the costs that are going to be driven up through this action by epa will be so harmful? >> yes, i'm a father to six. >> i think you have to turn on your microphone, sir. thank you. >> i'm a father of six. i guess i'm up to 11 grand children. but my wife and i have been the godmothers and godfather of the very extended family. and there are a lot out there who need help, and we do all we can to connect them, connect them with some of our members who can create jobs for them, but it's an ongoing task, and it's rough out there, and i have children in mobile, atlanta, los angeles, and it gets worse and worse and worse. and lord knows what happens to
11:19 pm
someone who does something wrong and gets into the judicial system. they'll never have a job. unless i create a job for them. it is very rough out there. and i think we need a government that is sensitive to what's going on in these communities and to come up with some policy that builds a greater america and a more secure america. not put people on thin ice. >> well said. well said. we all, we all want clean air. we all want clean water, but we need to be aware of what these regulations will do to american families. thank you, sir. >> i've been having discussions with the omaha black chamber of commerce too. >> good to hear. thank you.
11:20 pm
>> thank you, senator markey? >> thank you very much, madam chair. i wanted to follow up, dr. rice. the statistics that i've seen say that 78% of african-americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired plant. and that an african-american child is more likely to go do the hospital for asthma than a white child. is there a connection between the coal-fired plants and the higher death rate for african-american children? >> the health effects from coal-fired plants are very well documented. and it's now well-established in the scientific community that air pollution causes increases in hospitalization for asthma, asthma attacks, more medication for, to treat the asthma symptoms. and there are also inequities in where people live and where the services are located. that's environmental injustice and communities of color and low-income communities are disproportionately exposed to
11:21 pm
air pollution from coal-fired power plants and others. if we reduce the emissions, those communities stand the most to benefit, right there where the pollution is emitted. >> so to summarize, you're saying yes there is a connection between the coal-fired power plant pollution and the illnesses and deaths that are disproportionately occurring? i think you said -- >> i don't like to answer yes or no questions. >> okay. well, it certainly sounds like you were drawing an explanation of why that is indeed the case. the, and you ended on the note that disproportionate benefits from changing the quality of the air go to those most affected. and that would be those closest to the pollution. so public health benefits are estimated to be 55 to $93
11:22 pm
billion per year, 15 years from now. that's compared to the estimates of $7.3 billion to $8 billion for the rule. so on the order of 8-1 or 10-1 health benefits versus cost, that seems a pretty good tradeoff for an investment when you can get an eight-fold return, and it's a huge quality of life issue. would you share that opinion? >> the public health benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions are tremendous. and they've been looked at in a number of different ways, including the report that you just cited that showed that the public health benefits from mortality and other health issues far outweighed the implementation costs. that's just one study, but there are many other studies. there was one done by jason westman, a group at unc chapel hill looking at the benefits of the better air quality from
11:23 pm
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. not even looking at all the health effects i was talking about from climate change, just the air pollution benefits that would be gained right away. and estimate thad those mortality benefits would exceed abatement costs by 2030. >> in your testimony, you noted the impact on forest fires. this particularly is a concern to us out west where we have large coniferous trees. we have seen a huge correlation of more acres of timber burning. you were pointing out in your testimony, i believe, the health impacts of that smoke and that smoke plumes can basically travel across the nation. >> yes, senator, could i give an
11:24 pm
example. and the wildfire from wildfire smoke can travel very far distances. so there's health effects for communities right there where the fires take place, but there's also respiratory and heart health effects in very distant places. so the wildfires that affected russia some years ago, those plumes traveled the distance from chicago to san francisco. that equivalent difference. that means that thousands and thousands of people in the regions of wildfires are experiencing health effects due to the reduced air quality. >> and since the prevailing winds go from west to east when our fires are burning out in oregon and california and washington state, the rest of the nation is experiencing those, those impacts it's also an impact on a rural economy. because when we lose both to fire and to pine beetles. and i understand that's not your expertise.
11:25 pm
the warm are winter, the pine beetles are doing well and the pine not so well. i'm over my time, so thank you very much for your feedback. >> thank you. i'd like to turn it over to our chairman of our full committee, chairman inhofe. >> thank you, madam chairman. i remember in this room when we had the first appointed director of the epa, lisa jackson, was in the room, and i remember it was right, i tell you when it was. it's when my friend senator markey, it was right before, during the hearing or the c.o.p. thing in copenhagen. and i asked her the question at that time, i said, you know, if we, if we were to pass the legislation that has been proposed here, let's keep in mind it started way back in 1997 when they said we passed a
11:26 pm
thing, the byrd hagel rule by 95-0, that if you come back from rio de janeiro or one of these places with a treaty that either hurts our economy or does not require the same thing from china and other countries as it does here, then we will not ratify it. and consequently, they never ratified it. and clinton never put it forward for ratification. now what she was saying at that time, i asked her the question. i asked her if we to pass either by regulation or legislation these reductions, isn't this going to, is this going to have the, the effect of lowering co2 emissions worldwide, her answer was no. because it only affects here in the u.s. but that's not where the problem is. it's in china, india, mexico and
11:27 pm
other places, wouldn't you say that it would actually have the effect of increasing co2 worldwide emissions if we were to unilaterally reduce our emissions, where are they going to go? they're going to go where they have the least restrictions. am i missing something there? >> no, you are not missing anything. as a matter of fact, under the, i testified before the house energy and power sub committee, and one of the key points i made is if we want to be serious about reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, the single most important thing we need to do is increase the manufacturing of products in the united states versus china, for example. >> exactly. >> we manufacture goods on average that has over, less than, well, turn it round the other way. when china produces goods they emit 300% more co2 than we do
11:28 pm
here. so if energy cost goes up here then it's going to result in more imports of these energy-intensive products. and as a reminder, 70% of our imports is from one country -- china. >> good to see you again. i had not seen what you, and i asked her to give me the printed copy of your study that you did, key findings, it's just fascinating. i've never seen, it concentrates on the regressive nature of this type of legislation or rules. is that, is that -- >> that's absolutely correct, sir. >> i hadn't seen it done before where it's specific like this. so this is something that we will use. was this done for you by an outside group? >> roger, dr. roger bezdek whom we have been using oh, we do about a study every two to three years with that group, and they're very, very on the money.
11:29 pm
>> thank you. appreciate that. mr. trishco, i think you made a vague reference to a study of decisions of middle to low income people. so i ask for a written copy. could you elaborate a little on that? i don't think you had a chance to do that in your opening statement? >> yes, chair inhofe. this study that i attached to the statement is one in a long-running series if you will, going back really to the time of the kyoto protocol. we wanted to know what american families spent on energy, defined as residential utilities and gasoline. and i've been updating that study more or less on an annual basis ever since. and what we found is that as a general matter, the percentage of after-tax income that american households spend on energy has more than doubled over the course of the last 10 to 15 years.
11:30 pm
now you mentioned the regressive aspects. the study i've attached today, let's look in particular at the percentage of after-tax income for energy that is spent by households with gross incomes of $30,000 or less. that's about 30% of our population. those households are spending 23% of their after-tax income on energy. >> their expendable income. >> 23% of their after-tax income goes to residential utilities and gasoline. now that compares with an average 7% for households earning more than $50,000 a year. so it's three times greater for the low-income category of $30,000 or less.
11:31 pm
it's three times greater for those households than those households making $50,000 or more a year. >> that's almost exactly what you're saying, mr. alford, that it is regressive in that respect. >> yes, it is. and they brought up asthma. you know, and if you, if you look at the mayo clinic, there's no prevention for asthma. and there's no correlation of asthma and air. asthma has been increasing, even though through the clean air act we have been good stewards in decreasing and decreasing ozone and all the emissions, but asthma continues to rise, and no one knows why, but there's this big, false projection that it's global warming causing asthma. we don't know what's causing asthma. and most of the people who have it get out of it by the time they're adults, because their
11:32 pm
lungs and their bodies are strong enough to fight it off. but i'm getting sick, very sick of people saying asthma and dirty air or global warming. it's a myth. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> thank you, senator markey. >> thank you very much. dr. rice, you're here from harvard medical school. people are getting sick, are they not? and they're not getting sick the way harry alford is getting sick. they're really getting sick, aren't they? and so maybe you could bring to us a little bit of your information about the increased hospitalizations, the respiratory-related diseases, all of the things that are implicated in having this additional pollution in our atmosphere. can you talk a little bit about how it is impacts, especially children in our country. >> thank you. this is certainly an area where
11:33 pm
i feel that i have a lot to add to the discussion, because i'm a lung doctor. i take care of patients with lung disease, and i also study air pollution. that when i'm not taking care of patients. and in addition to my personal observations as a doctor, when i see patients come see me more often because the pollen levels are worse or the ozone levels can get high in boston on very hot days. we also have the observations of the physicians of the american thoracic society. the survey i mentioned. and the doctors completing the survey, the vast majority of them commented that they personally observed that their patients' lung function is worse, their symptoms are worse during high-pollution days. >> there are real implications for the 12 million americans who already have respiratory illnesses, huh? >> certainly, and we can look back at the incredible success story of the clean air act.
11:34 pm
the reductions in air pollution as a result of the clear air act have been astounding, and we've really come a long way, and when we look back, researchers look back at the health benefits of the clean air act, they've been astounding, not just for respiratory illness asthma symptom control but also mortality and heart disease. >> and you mentioned your own son earlier in your testimony, who has a respiratory illness, huh? so what could, just additional pollution that we send up there, uncontrolled mean, long-term, for him and for those others of millions of victims across the country? >> so there's a variety of sources of air pollution. and one of them is the power points, power plants through the burning of greenhouse gases. there's also traffic and other things.
11:35 pm
so the reality is that if we do not do anything about greenhouse gas emissions, the epa report looked at just that piece of the pie and found that ozone levels will increase, predict that we actually have increases in ozone, whereas ozone levels have declined and we've experienced health benefits as a result of those gains. >> thank you for putting that out there, so there's real sickness, not metaphorical sickness that is occurring because of global warming. and you're here representing new york but you're representing one of the regional greenhouse gas initiative states, all of new england, those six states, new york, maryland and delaware. nine states, they band together and over the last several years, massachusetts has seen a 40% reduction in the green house gases we're sending up, while
11:36 pm
we're seeing a 20% growth in our economy. can you talk a little bit about that virtuous cycle that seems to elude the observation of those who are critical of the ability to increase the health of individuals and the economy simultaneously? >> yes, senator, thank you. as i said in my testimony, the experience has been an extraordinarily successful one. we had an independent study done by the analysis group that quantified the benefits over a three-year period from 2009 to 2011. $1.3 billion in reductions in bills over the region. $1.6 billion in extra or incremental economic activity. it's been an extraordinarily positive experience all the while, as you said, the region has experienced economic growth. we've reduced bills.
11:37 pm
we've reduced bills for low and moderate-income families, especially in the beauty of the approach is that -- >> say that again? you've reduced the electricity bills for low and moderate-income people? >> yes, the cumulative benefit to just new york low and moderate income bill payers has been $60 million to date. through the first quarter of this year. and those, those are going to keep those benefits will continue on into the future because new york has specified in two of its programs income eligible patients, excuse me, patients, income eligible ratepayers. the beauty of the program is that states have the ability to target the revenue from the sale of those allowances to a variety of programs. so industrial customers can benefit. low and moderate-income rate
11:38 pm
payers can benefit. businesses, your average homeowners. so it has been a tremendous success story. >> and it is my understanding that under the proposed rule making that for example new jersey and pennsylvania could join our regional greenhouse gas initiative. and already plug into an existing system that is working, that is lowering costs for low and moderate income, lowering the amount of greenhouse gases while seeing tremendous growth in our gdp. so i think there's a reason to be very optimistic about our ability, listening to the pope's admonitions to us that we should be the global leader on this, and we can use market forces to accomplish the goal while still enjoying tremendous economic growth and taking care of the poor and the moderate income people in our country. >> i agree with you entirely, senator, i think there's places around the country that could benefit from that model. it may not be identical to the model but certainly states
11:39 pm
cooperating makes great sense, because the efficiencies of dealing with multiple states and energy systems that cross state boundaries is obviously of great advantage to the rege states. >> i am afraid that too many people are pessimistic in general. they're not optimistic of our ability ago americans to be the global leaders, to use new technologies to protect young people and the economy at the same time and they harbor a great doubt about our country's ability to do that. but i thank the two of you for your testimony, because you point out the problems and the solutions and you have devolved on it in a way that should give people some hope. >> i think that concludes our hearing. i want to thank the witnesses for bringing forth some very
11:40 pm
great information and facts and lots for us to think about. and appreciate all of you all taking time today to be with us. and i want to thank my ranking member, and with that, we'll conclude the hearing, thank you.
11:41 pm
i'm not one of those who believes in the psychiatric examination of people. i believe that most of these people, these psycho historians should be on the couches themselves rather than to psycho analyze people they've never met. on the other hand, when i meet people, i don't judge them in terms of whether they have a firm handshake or whether they have eye contact, but what i troo to do when i meet people is to listen to what they say. you don't learn much when you are talking but you learn a great deal when they're talking. >> he was self-conscious but not self-aware. nixon did have a psychiatrist he was an internist. he wasn't technically a psychiatrist psychiatrist, and the doctor said he was careful not to have nixon think he was analyzing
11:42 pm
him. but nixon went to him because he had psychosomatic illnesses. his head hurt neck hurt and couldn't sleep. he gave him mild therapy. even though he went to one, he hated psychiatrists and was always denouncing them. and he was afraid in a way of look at himself in a realistic way. one of the reasons he used to say, i don't carry grudges. i don't carry grudges. hello? richard nixon was one of the great grudge carriers of all time. he could be very un-self-reflective. and this hurt him. because lashing out at enemies is what brought him down. >> he talks about the illness and defeats and inner turmoil of nixon. on sunday 8:00 pacific on c-span's q and a.
11:43 pm
in the middle of july, we're live at the harlem book fair, with author interviews and panel discussions. and at the beginning of september, we're live from the nation's capitol for the national book festival. and that's a few of the events this summer on c-span 2's book tv. at a white house event wednesday celebrating lgbt pride month, a heckler interresulted president obama's speechl. the heckler was later identified who was protesting the treatment of transgender people. here's that part of the event. >> no, no, no, no, no no, no. no, no, no, no, no, no. hey! [ inaudible ] >> listen. you're in my house.
11:44 pm
[cheers and applause] >> no, no, no no no come on. it's not, you know what? it's not it's not respectful when you get invited to somebody -- [ inaudible ] >> you're not, you're not, you're not you're not going to get a good response from me by interrupting me like this. i'm sorry. it. >> boo! >> boo! >> no. no. no, no. shame on you. you shouldn't be doing this. >> obama obama! obama! obama! obama! >> could we escort this person out? you can either stay and be quiet, or we'll have to take you out. >> shame on you! >> all right, can we have this
11:45 pm
person removed please? come on. come on. no. come on. come on, guys. it it [ laughter ] >> i'm just going to wait. it it it. >> no more deportation! no more deportation! no more deportation! [cheers and applause] >> agos a general rule, i am just fine with a few hecklers, but not when i'm up in the house. you know what i mean?
11:46 pm
you know, my attitude is if if you're eating the hors d'oeuvres. you know what i'm saying? okay. it and drinking the booze. i know that's right. anyway. where was i? >> we love you! >> i love you back! friday, the president travels to charleston, south carolina to dlifrts eulogy of the funeral of reverend clementa pinckney who was one of the nine shot at the ame church. we'll have that live beginning at 11:00 eastern on c-span. on monday, the president and ceo of the gay and lesbian alliance against defamation known as glad, talked about an
11:47 pm
upcoming supreme court ruling on same-sex marriage. from the national press club, this is just under an hour. good afternoon. welcome to the national press club. i'm keith hill and there is a writer with bloomberg, a former press club president. i'll be today's moderator for the newsmaker with glad president ceo sarah kate ellis. after the speaker's presentation, we will take questions from the audience for the remaining time. the press club gives preference to questions from members of the media, and many of those around you are working journalists, so please respect they're here to do a job. once the members of the press have asked their questions, we'll invite non-press club members to ask their questions. please keep your questions brief and to the point. no speeches please so we can
11:48 pm
get in as many questions as time allows. everyone asking a question please state their name and identify themselves and state the organization they represent. before i begin i'd like to mention an upcoming event at the club that may be of interest to some people. on july 8, coach barry trotz will speak at the national press club luncheon. again, please turn off or set to vibrate all cell phones and electronic devices. the u.s. supreme court will still decide a case which will require ohio to recognize the same sex marriage lawfully entered into in another state. what will happen to the gay rights movement after the decision is handed down? today's guest will discuss the ramifications of a decision for or against the plaintiff. sarah kate ellis has been president and ceo of glaad, the nation's lesbian, gay bisexual
11:49 pm
and transgender media advocacy organization since january 2014. before taking the position she was an award-winning media executive and communication strategist who led programming to spotlight the diversity of the ellgbt community. >> thank i very much. hi. thanks for having me today. so there are three ways that the ruling can come down. one is affirmative, which is a yes. and if that happens then it will be a great celebration. but we'll be back to work on monday or the following day. because there's still much work to be done, and i'll talk about that in a little while. number two the way that the ruling can come down is that the states that do not have marriage equality will have to recognize marriage equality from other states. so that's a half win, you could
11:50 pm
look at it that way. and then the third way is that we get a no all together, which means that we'll really be having to have to do a lot of work in the future. any way in which they come in there's still a lot of work that we have left to do. at glaad, we just commissioned a poll, a harris poll of over 2,000 americans that asked them how they really feel about the lgbt community. so really it's an understanding of what the culture is out there for the lgbt community. we asked them on a five-point scale from very comfortable to very uncomfortable. and then we asked about every day situations, such as bringing your kids over to a same-sex household for a playdate attending a same-sex wedding. bringing your kids to a same-sex wedding. finding out that a child on your child's sports team is
11:51 pm
transgender. and what we found is that one out of three americans is still uncomfortable with the lgbt community of the when you look at those numbers and look at the south, it turns out that those levels of discomfort go even higher. 10% to 20%. and if you look at the transgender communities those numbers increase by up to 40%. so 90% of americans at times are very uncomfortable with the transgender community. from there, what we've been doing is a bus tour in the south. and why we're doing that is because we want to accelerate acceptance of the elgee about the community, no matter the way that skoe tus rules, we still have to create a culture in which lgbt americans can live. so we traveled from six states ten cities in seven days, and we metz met with community leaders premiered two mini documentaries
11:52 pm
and metz with church and faith leaders and had very vibrant communications on how to generate acceptance in the south. we've been working with transgender visibility. and those are only two keystone, two points that i'm making out of this entire study, but also when you look globely, we have some real challenges globally, as acceptance is moving forward in america, it's being discrimination is being exported globally, and so we're working very closely with our advocates on the ground across the world to accelerate acceptance. and i think that's about it. it keith did a wonderful job of introducing me. i'm sarah kate ellis. i've been at glaad for a year and a half, and i come from the for-profit side of the world in media. and at glaad we do media advocacy, so it's about raising the stories of every day americans but also people who are well-known and are
11:53 pm
supportive of the lgbt community because we know and understand, to build acceptance in this country that you need to know somebody who's lgbt because it opens your heart and mind. and it changes public opinion. so we work very hard to change public opinion in this country. with that, i can take questions. >> moderator's prerogative and ask a few questions. first i'd like to focus on a couple of controversies that glaad experienced over the last several years in 2011 glaad supported at&t in its eventually canceled merger with t-mobile when it was reported that glaad had received $50,000 from at&t. second, in 2014 -- 2013, glaad
11:54 pm
gave former president bill clinton -- he was noted as an advocate for change by glaad. my question is have either of those controversies affected how you broadcast your message in any way? >> well, fortunately, none of them happened under my watch. but, that being said i think that, you know, when you're dealing with corporate america -- oh, sorry. i think, do you want me to start over? i would, i started by saying fortunately none happened under my watch. however, i am the leader there now. and i feel that you know, at that speech that bill clinton gave he talked about coming on to his journey of acceptance for the lgbt community. and i think that that was a powerful platform for him to have to talk about that.
11:55 pm
i think moving forward though, you know, we glaad is an advocator, and we've been known in the past as a watchdog, and so there's always been a lot of controversy around glaad because we not always but we do we do call people on some things when they're not going well, but i have to say that the media and us have a, have a really good relationship now. glaad was formed out of protest in front of the new york post almost 30 years ago this october, when the post was reporting on aids and calling it the gay man's disease. and so we've always had, you know an advocacy arm to us. >> well, for information of bill clinton and his journey of self-discovery, whatever you want to call it, what about situations where you have
11:56 pm
recognized individuals who may have talked against gay marriage at one point but are now coming around? they've done a 180. how do you address that so-called dichotomy? or that kind of flip-flopping, i guess some people would call it. >> mm-hm. i think it is a journey acceptance is a journey. and we talked about it a lot, actually recently in the south with a lot of faith leaders who are trying to bring their congregations along with them to this place of acceptance. and i think, you know we have to give room for people to discover, to understand, to educate, to meet people who are lgbt and to go on this road of discovery and acceptance. so it takes time. and we've seen that as the lgbt community and we we talk about that very openly, that it is a journey to acceptance.
11:57 pm
>> and i'd like to, it's reported a week or so ago that both american airlines and wells fargo took some hits for their elgee about the rainbow, i think american airlines has the rainbow flag on the tail of their planes. how do you approach, how do you help the corporate community in advocating for lgbt acceptance? i mean before the ruling comes out or, or up until the ruling has come out, how has glaad gone about trying to change the corporate mind-set. >> mm-hm. >> and tried to get them to accept the lgbt community. >> you know, the thing that we know is that being diverse and inclusive is very good for business. and so once a business case
11:58 pm
scenarios were made, most of corporate america a majority of corporate america got on board in supporting the lgbt community. because they understood not only did it affect their bottom line, it helped them retain great talent and recruit great talent. so i think with corporate america, they got the memo when the business case came out that it would actually help their business. and so they've been very pro-lgbt for the majority of companies, and they realize that taking some of the hit, the bigger social impact is really important and the business impact is really important. >> at this point, i'll open the floor for questions. yes. >> you mentioned depending on what happens ruling wise, you've got work to do. if you get a ruling that is a half vote or a ruling, not to
11:59 pm
use the word strike down but that make it is more difficult for the lgbt community, what is the specific work that you have to do? how do you go about doing that work? >> sure. well, the first i mentioned is that one out of three people are still uncomfortable or have a high level of discomfort with the lgbt community. so that's really focussed on raising the stories. telling, meeting lgbt people through the media, because we find that a lot of the people who don't accept or are not pro-lgbt actually don't know anybody who's lgbt. but the other thing is that from a media standpoint we'd raise the stories of these lovell couples who are being hurt by not having a positive ruling. we would talk about the tax that it would put on families and what the human side what the human cost of it would be. so that's our job at glaad, is to raise awareness of what exactly the human toll would be
12:00 am
for not having a positive ruling. >> -- do you have something that you will immediately roll out, depending on what the court does? >> yes we have all three scenarios covered in terms of how we will proceed, but we're not a policy organization, right? so we're, our plan is a media plan in how we would raise those stories up and make sure there was enough awareness about if it is a negative ruling how that's hurting american families today.
12:01 am
12:02 am
12:03 am
12:04 am
12:05 am
12:06 am
12:07 am
12:08 am
12:09 am
12:10 am
12:11 am
12:12 am
12:13 am
12:14 am
12:15 am
12:16 am
12:17 am
12:18 am
12:19 am
12:20 am
12:21 am
12:22 am
12:23 am
12:24 am
12:25 am
12:26 am
12:27 am
12:28 am
12:29 am
12:30 am
12:31 am
12:32 am
12:33 am
12:34 am
12:35 am
12:36 am
12:37 am
12:38 am
12:39 am
12:40 am
12:41 am
12:42 am
12:43 am
12:44 am
12:45 am
12:46 am
12:47 am
12:48 am
12:49 am
12:50 am
12:51 am
12:52 am
12:53 am
12:54 am
12:55 am
12:56 am
12:57 am
12:58 am
12:59 am
1:00 am

54 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on