the reality is when you have a forest, instead of ten or 20 trees, whatever it can support, if you've got 150 trees taking up the nourishment, that makes it more susceptible to disease and things like that. can you comment on that, and -- >> just quickly, i would say that management can have a role to play and certainly can make a difference, but you have to realize that public lands are managed for a much broader range of use. so if i have a private forest that's managed for short rotation, so i'm just cycling those trees off and harvesting that timber on a regular basis, then mountain pine beetle is going to be less of a concern for you. where in our public lands and wildlife refugees and national forest where we're managing lands for longer term, then pine bark beetle and other infestations can be more of an issue. but i agree with you that management is part of the solution. we have to understand what that proper management is.

>> thank you, madam chair. -on want to get gavelled on. >> well, you have 28 more seconds if you wish to continue. >> no. i will get some credit out of you. >> oh, need your credit, that's true. now we're going to complete this first panel, which started a very long time ago, seems like yesterday. and we're going to do it this way. i'm going to give senator whitehouse -- take my two minutes. senator vitter -- okay? senate inhoff, senator sessions and then i'll close. everybody has two more minutes, okay? so let's start with senator whitehouse. >> i'll just take a little bit of my time to respond to senator sessions' suggestions that one scientist says that climate change isn't really happening

and that there really isn't an association with storms. and i just want to put that into context. there actually is a peer reviewed scientific consensus out there about this. it is massive. it is not unanimous. sometimes is rarely unanimous. there are eccentrics. there are outliers. there are people who have nonmainstream opinions. and to be blunt, there are people who are in concert with the polluting industries and delivering phony science, the way they did on tobacco. >> can we have some quiet? our colleagues are talking here. >> so when people pick out what one particular scientist said, it's important to look at that in a context of where the bulk of the science is. and if you don't believe science, then perhaps my friends from the other side will believe in big corporations. and one really big corporation that cares a lot about the

climate's effect on storms, the entire insurance industry and the property casualty industry are virtually up in arms about what climate change is doing to their risk profile, and here is a graph that munich reed puts together showing the increase in natural catastrophes worldwide that are associated with climate change, a, in the sense that they're happening while climate change is happening. but b, and that we know some underlying science. we know, for instance, it is not disputed, that if you warm the oh, it creates more energy going up into storms, and that makes stronger storms when they hit the shore. so much of the science is way past debate, and if you simply take the sciences way past debate and apply it, you draw the same conclusion. are there eccentrics outliers

that can be quoted? sure, there are. but for this committee to rely on anything other than the massive consensus of peer reviewed science, but let's look at the people that are asking us to take action. coke and pepsi. ford and gm. nike, walmart, apple. the joint chiefs of staff. the u.s. conference of catholic bishops. the garden clubs of america. at some point, people have to come to the realization that the scam that is being perpetrated has got to come to an end. and i hope that that time comes soon. >> thank you, senator. senator vitter? >> thank you, madam chair. i just want to make a brief kme comment about science, too. i think it's a useful transition to the next panel. i want to underscore senator wicker's comments. i think we do a real disservice to science and facts the way we

often do a cartoonish gloss over these issues, which are often very complicated and subtle. doesn't mean we don't need to figure it out, but we need to understand the real facts, and i would urge all of us to try to do that. let me just use a couple of examples. senator boxer said 97% of scientists -- clearly, it's a clear consensus, 97%. well, 97% is very catching. but what's the underlying question? human activity is causing increased co 2 emissions. well, i don't know why that's not 100%. i think everybody on this panel agrees with that. so let's mark it as 100%. that's not the issue we're debating. give you another example. dan ashe said in his testimony average surface temperatures are increasing. interestingly, that is not in your written testimony. is that true since 1998?

>> i think that average surface temperatures are increasing, as senator whitehouse said -- >> is that true since 1998? >> i don't know. i'm not looking at the records since 1998. >> what are you looking at? >> i'm looking at the temperature record, the historical temperature record average surface temperatures are increasing. >> over what period of time? because since 1998 -- >> over a period of time that's relevant for a natural resource management, which is looking at since the beginning of the industrial revolution -- >> again, my point is we need to be precise. we don't need to gain words. you also said sea ice and glaciers are melting. did you mean that and did you include continent, or is that not sea ice? >> it is indisputable, senator vitter -- >> are you saying that? >> i'm saying sea ice and glaciers are melting.

>> well, they're always melting. >> it's indisputable. >> are you claiming that that's net and are you counting antarcti antarctica, which is a continent. >> we really need to move on. >> if you could provide that for the record, because that's the level of detail and disciplined discussion that i think we need. >> senator inhoff. >> let me try to get this out real fast. when considering the environmental impact of a co-export facility license to the west coast. they said it would be outside the corps's control and responsibility for the permit applications. now, conversely, as you know, i believe at columbia university's center for climate change law released a report in august saying that increased sales in coal and asia are in effect the corps's decision, meaning that

they should be the scope. do you agree with columbia or do you agree with the corps? >> thank you, senator, for the question. the -- we agree that agencies need to look at greenhouse gas emissions when they're looking at analysis. >> i'm really sorry, but we're two minutes and i need to have that answered for the record. i'd like to ask you this to see if you would be in a position to let us know. is there a date certain for finalizing the guidance for including life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions and the analysis? >> senator, we continue to work based on the draft that we put out in 2010, we're working on revising that, but i don't have a date certain yet. >> all right. if you decide you're going to have one, will you try let us know for the record. >> yes, we will. >> preeshlt thaappreciate that,

feel we should have one. i know people get hysterical on all this stuff. but when senator whitehouse talked about the just one scientist, i have sev700 scients i listed on a speech on the senate floor probably eight years ago, and these are scientists -- you have richard linzen from m.i.t. these are top scientists around totally refuting the assertion that is being made on which we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars. just the bills that they try to do through legislation on cap and trade, that range. no one disagrees with this. it will be between 300 and $400 billion a year. now through regulations it will be etven more than that. in accordance with your predecessor lisa jackson, i asked the question when we pass these things is it going to lower worldwide greenhouse gases, the answer was no. because this only affects the united states.

this is not where the problem is. it's in china, in india, in mexico. so in other places. so i just want to say that we're talking about the largest tax increase in the history of this country, if we were to go through with what they're trying to do through regulation they could not do through legislation and not get anything for it. that's my question. >> well, there's no question time. we have two minutes, you've gone over by a minute. senator sessions. two minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman. one of the things that we've heard today is carbon pollution. that's sort of a new phrase we're seeing a lot. you might wonder why that's happening. i think there's a great deal of unease in the pro-global warming community about what the supreme court is going to do. the clean air act of 1970 -- i said earlier '74. 1970. did not ban co2 and did not even consider the possibility of

global warming. so now, the supreme court said you should make an endangerment finding and you have. without any explicit express authorization by the elected representatives of the american people, under this decision you've made, the environmental protection agency can go into any american's backyard, prohibit their barbecue grill, eliminate that. you have that power. it is one of the greatest expansions of federal power without explicit congressional authorization in the history of the republic. you're able to go in any place, where any carbon is produced and regulate that because you say it's a pollutant. and supreme court ruled 5-4 that you should make a formal finding on that. they have not ratified your decision. and with the altering of the

predictions and the global warming projections that are not coming true, i would hope that they would not allow you to have that power finally, when they finally rule on it. so i want to say congress has never authorized such an action. they would never authorize it today. and you should be really careful about the assertion of power that you have. i thank the chair. >> thank you. just for the record, the d.c. court recently upheld the ruling of the supreme court, so let's just stop relitigating something -- >> going back to the supreme court. >> i don't want to be interrupted. please. i didn't interrupt you. >> well, you used the power of the chair to dispute what i had said. >> i will use freedom of speech to correct folks who i believe are wrong, and i will defend your freedom of speech to do the

same. now, let's be clear. d.c. court upheld this. period. and it's moving forward. and if you don't act, you're going to be sued. and the american people want this done. i just looked at the polling. only 3% of younger voters don't believe climate change is happening. you look at republicans. the latest poll i saw said that vast -- well over 50% said that if your climate denier, you're out of touch. i wish this committee would find the common ground with the american people. because when you deny, you're doing just what people said when they said cigarette smoking doesn't cause any harm. a couple of other things. 1980 to 1990, hottest decade on record until 1990 to 2000, which became the hottest decade on record, until 2000 to 2010, which is now the hottest decade

on record. that's not me. that's not epa. that's noaa. in 2008, the bush administration used a social cost of carbon on fuel economy rules. they used it on air conditioner rules, efficiency rules, and frankly, i never heard a peep out of anybody at that time. now, i don't know why my clock isn't moving, but it should be down to a minute. let me just close with this. we know what happens when the environmental is thrown under the bus. it's called china. i'm going to put in the record today air -- how do you say this? air apocalypse hits beijing. on thursday, rez dsidents of beijing woke up with splitting

head aches. 1.2 million chinese died because of air pollution. i will do everything in my power to make sure that this clean air act, which passed in this very sacred room, so many years ago, in a bipartisan way, that that clean air act is upheld. and that everything we do is consistent with the law. and this one went all the way to the supreme court. and the fact of the matter is we have to make sure we uphold it. now, that's the end of this panel. what i want to make sure -- because senator vitter is very anxious to have another hearing about mr. biel, and i am not. >> to have a hearing. >> we had a briefing. he wants a hearing in addition to the briefing in which he asked 50 questions. it is his right to ask that. what i'm going to ask you, administrator mccarthy, since no one asked you about that, although it was in the scope of the hearing, would you please answer the question and take a

week to do it, what is in place now. we know that this con man is going to jail. but what's in place now at the epa to make sure this never happens again. if you would get that to us, the chairman and the ranking and members of the committee in about two weeks -- can you do that? >> yes, sure. thank you. >> and then we'll look at whether or not we need a hearing. i want to thank the panel. it's been a tough morning for you. you handled all the questions i think with great integrity. and please now go back to your normal work and we will call up the second panel. if the second panel can come up very quickly because the caucuses have meetings shortly.

okay, if everyone could leave, we're going to get going right now. thank you to the first panel. we're getting started. and we're going to start with the honorable bill ritter. you had a wonderful introduction from your senator, so please, sir, proceed. you're the director of the center for the new energy economy in colorado state university. >> thank you, madam chairman. i appreciate the opportunity. ranking member visitor, other members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to be here today and testify before the committee, but particularly with the work that i do at colorado state university, it really involves what states are doing around the country

regarding energy and particularly regarding clean energy. i left office in 2011 and founded the center at colorado state university, so for the past three years i've worked with states on energy policy. we've developed actually a website that tracks every piece of advanced energy legislation at the state level. there are 3,600 separate pieces of legislation introduced in state houses across america last year. 600 of those were signed into law by governors across the country. it's important in this discussion to understand that clean energy is on the mienz of governors across the country.nd governors across the country. there are 220 million americans who live in a state that has a renewable energy standard or renewable energy goal. about 200 million americans in a resource standard. a similar to that number with a climate action plan. what's really important as well about that is those states

include both states where there's democratic leadership and republican leadership. and if you just look at sort of the recent past, what republican governors have done with respect to renewable energy standards or just generally with the topic, you get a sense that this is a bipartisan sort of coalescing at the state level. governor snider in michigan just recently announced a plan to increase the renewable energy standard in michigan as well as mixed with natural gas to try and lessen the amount of coal that there will be in michigan. they import 100% of their coal. about 67% of their fleet. governor case itch has been very good about looking at natural gas regulation as a part of his work there. but as well as look to the manufacturing association for ohio and another group called the advanced energy economy of ohio with regard to sort of their input on the renewable energy standard and the resource

standard. there was a real concerted effort in the united states, across the states last year, to undo the renewable energy standards in different states and the resource standards, including in ohio. every one of those efforts actually wound up failing and every one of the states, including those that are under republican leadership, were able to beat back those efforts. so governor sandoval, actually, a republican governor in nevada, expanded the renewable energy standard. governor brewer in arizona champions solar as an important part of that state's growing economy. governor brown back in kansas is another state where they were not able to attack or defeat the renewable energy standard, and it was beaten back, and really with the support of governor brown backed because of the wind industry there. our experience in colorado is interesting to think about. as senator udall said, we expanded our renewable energy

standard to 30%. by 2020, we did it with a rate cap in place to protect consumers. but that has created jobs in a significant way, as well it's interesting to think about excel energy, the major investor owned utility in colorado, because of the efforts that combine both the transition of coal to natural gas. a standard excel will reduce their emissions. this is major investment utility. reduce their emissions by 35%. it's important to understand that this is all done in conjunction with the federal government. and why the president's federal action climate plan is so important. because it's not just each state acting alone. it's actually a great deal to do with a variety of things, including epa rule making where s.i.p.s were required. the department of energy worked in concert either with technical assistance or with research assistance for states developing their state energy plans, and certainly as utilities, look at

the future and understand that a different business model is probably going to be required over the next ten or 20 or 30 years to have the federal government's assistance, both in the department of energy perspective as well as other agencies in trying to help this very important industry understand how to shift its great design and its revenue models. those are all part of what the federal government can do in interacting with the states. states are a vital part of this nation's climate action plan. states have shown great success in actually being able to rates at a fairly steady rate. in colorado, for instance, below the consumer price index increases, below inflation, even with an aggressive renewable standard like 30%. and at the same time, show job creation as a result of it. so i come here appreciative of the time that i have to speak about this and willing to answer any questions. thank you. >> i'm going to hand the gavel over to my wing man here,

senator whitehouse, due to other obligations and he will complete the hearing and we're going to now hear from our next panelist, dr. andrew dessler, professor of atmospheric sciences at texas a&m. >> thank you. in my testimony, i will review what i think are the most important conclusions the scientific community has reached in over two centuries of work. first, the climate is warming. by this i mean that we are presently in the midst of an overall increase in the temperature of lower atmosphere in oceans spanning many decades. second, most of the recent warming is extremely likely due to the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by human activities. this is based on several lines of evidence, including observations and increasing gas house gases in our atmosphere and understanding the greenhouse effect and a demonstration that can explain the observed warming. for simplicity, in the remainder

of my testimony, i'm going to refer to this mainstream theory as the standard model. the standard model can explain just about everything we observe in the climate system, both present day and during the geologic record. it has also made many successful predictions, which are the gold standard of science. if you can successfully predict phenomena that are later observed, one can be supremely confident a theory captures something essential about the real world, so as an example, climate scientists predicted in the '60s that the stratosphere would cool. this was observed 20 years later. in the '70s, climate models predicted the arctic would warm faster than the antarctic. the water vapor feedback is another fundamental prediction of the standard model that has just recently been observed. this explains why the bulk of the scientific community is so confident in the standard model. it explains just about everything and makes many successful predictions.

now, you don't hear about this very often because scientists don't like to talk about things we know. i am uninterested in things we know. i like things we don't know. that's research. that's things where we can get stuff done. obviously, this doesn't mean our knowledge is perfect. and this is reflected in uncertainty estimates that are provided in the consensus reports. now, a caveat. i said above the standard model explains virtually everything, which means there are a small number of observations that aren't necessarily well-explained by the standard model. just as there are a few heavy smokers who don't get lung cancer. an excellent example of this is the so called hiatus, which has been mentioned several times. slow warming of the temperature record over the last decade or so. this is frequently presented as an existential threat to the standard model. as i describe below, it greatly exaggerates the implications. before i explain why, i think it's worth recognizing that skeptics have a track record of overstating the importance of

these challenges to the standard model. a few years ago, for example, strong claims were made about the surface temperature record. it was argued that a thermometer too close to the building meant the record was hopelessly biased. subsequent research has resolved this issue and it is now clear it was never a threat to the standard model at all. so why do i think that the hiatus, the slow warming in the last decade is not much of a threat to the standard model? to begin, a lack of a decadele trend in surface temperatures does not mean the warming has stopped. the heat helicopters to accumulate in the bulk of the ocean indicating a continued warming. in my written testimony and in a plot that senator whitehouse showed, the surface temperature record shows frequent periods of short cooling, even while it's undergoing long-term warming trend. in addition, one of the senators said the climate models do not predict periods of no warming. that is not correct. climate models do predict

periods where there is no warming. now, that does not mean that we understand the hiatus perfectly. i view the hiatus as an opportunity, not as an existential threat. i think it is an area we are understanding could improve and the hiatus will help us to do that. papers are already coming out on a monthly basis, it seems. i suspect that in the next few years our understanding of this phenomena will be greatly improved. at that point, i predict that the hiatus will disappear. given the success of the standard model, what does it tell us about the impacts of future climate change? before i begin talking about this, i think it's worth discussing the value of talking about what we know rather than what we don't know. focus on what is unknown can lead to an inflated sense of uncertainty. for example, we don't know why smoking cigarettes causes cancer nor do we know how many cigarettes you have to smoke to get cancer, nor can we explain why some heavy smokers don't get

cancer while some non-smokers do. let me just conclude by telling you a few of the certain impacts of climate change. we know the planet is going to warm. that's virtually certain. we know extreme heat events will become more frequent. we know the distribution of rainfall will change. we know the seas will rise. we know the oceans will become more acidic. we can argue about things we don't know. but those are things that are virtually certain. thank you. >> thank you very much, dr. dessler. dr. lashhoff, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the senate climate task force. i appreciate that. it does sadden me, actually, that there are no republicans on that task force. i appeared before this committee

several times over the years before both republican and democratic chairmen, and it's never been as partisan as it is today. co2 molecules in the atmosphere trap heat. they don't have party affiliations. it's physics and chemistry, not partisanship that should be informing the policy that we adopt. let me turn to the president's climate plan, because i think it's really a critical step forward. it will put us on the right track to cut dangerous pollution that threatens our health and well-being. it will help communities across the country prepare for more frequent weather. and it will position the united states to provide the leadership that the world needs on this issue. the central pillar of this plan are a set of standards under existing law, authorized by previous congresses in the clean

air act and other legislation, that if implemented ambitiously can achieve a total reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 17%, below 2005 levels by 2005. and by 2020, which is the goal the president has set for the united states. and it can do that through four major areas of action. first power plants are the largest source of carbon pollution in the united states. they are responsible for 40% of our co2 emissions. and as administer mccarthy discussed, epa has proposed it for future power planlts. that proposal is based on a careful review of industrial experience with large scale carbon capture technologies. some have argued that it prevents epa from setting standards based on ccs because there have been some government funded ccs projects. that's incorrect. the energy policy act said that

epa cannot base its standard solely on projects that were funded by the government, and epa hasn't done that. it's based its proposal on a wide variety of data. just think about the proposition here. if the interpretation says because the government has supported some projects, means epa can't base standards on ccs. it would be an absurd situation, where the government is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in advance technology, and then we're not allowed to use that technology to improve the environment. that would not make any sense. so we should not do that. but equally important, neither government nor private forecast actually anticipate the construction of any new coal plants in the united states, whether or not carbon pollution standards are established. so in fact, the biggest opportunity to reduce u.s. carbon emissions over the next

decade is to set standards for our existing fleet of some 1,500 coal fire power plans around the country. epa is scheduled to do that in june. nrdc's studies of a particular proposal that we offered about how to do that shows we can actually get big carbon reductions at very low cost. the flexible system-wide approach that we propose could reduce emissions by 23% to 33% below 2012 levels in 2020, while producing 30 to $55 billion in net economic benefits or more. so that is a very cost effective measure that we should move forward with. second, the administration needs to do more to reduce emissions of methane, particularly from the oil and gas industry. third, another key initiative is phasing down the use of fhcs, both domestically and internationally.

fhcs are hundreds to thousands times more powerful, and the u.s. has joined with other countries including mexico and canada to propose a global phase-down. the president reached an agreement with the president of china committing both countries to such a phasedown. so that's an example of how u.s. leadership can, in fact, achieve global action on a very important pollutant. fourth and finally, we need further action to address the transportation sector, which is the second largest source after power plants. building on the successful fuel efficiency standards, which have been mentioned today, the priority for epa now is to set stronger standards for freight trucks, and by doing so, the emissions of freight trucks could be reduced by roughly 40% by 2025 for new trucks compared with the we continued to use 2010 technology. so in conclusion, carbon dioxide

emissions have actually declined over the last five years as we use energy more efficiently and shift towards cleaner fuels, putting the 17% reduction target within reach. and we can achieve that goal through cost effective standards to reduce co2, methane, fhcs from power plants and other large sources. doing that will create new markets for technological ingenuity and will put the u.s. on track to the much deeper emissions needed to forestall out of control climate disruption and protect our health and the future our children inherit. thank you. >> thank you very much, dr. lashof. our next witness is dr. curry. >> i'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to present testimony this morning. i'm chair of the school of earth and atmospheric sciences at the georgia institute of technology. i've devoted 30 years to conducts research on topics including climate of the arctic, the role of clouds and aerosols on the climate system, and the climate dynamics of extreme weather events. the premise of the president's climate action plan is that

there's an overwhelming judgment of science that global warming is already producing devastating impacts. greenhouse warming is a theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. multiple lines of evidence presented in the recent ippc fifth assessment report suggest that the case for anthropogenic warming is weaker than in 2007. for the past 16 years, there has been no significant increase in surface temperature. there's a growing discrepancy between observations and climate model projections. observations since 2011 have fallen below the envelope of climate model projections. the ipcc does not have a convincing or confident explanation for this hiatus in warming. there is growing evidence of

decreased climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. and based on expert judgment in light of this evidence, the ipcc fifth assessment report lowered its surface temperature projection relative to the model projections for the period 2016 to 2036. the growing evidence that climate models are too sensitive to co2 has implications for the attribution of late 20th century warming and projections of 21st century climate change. sensitivity at the climate to carbon dioxide and the level of uncertainty in its value is a key input into the economic models that drive cost benefit analyses, including estimates of the social cost of carbon. if a recent hiatus in warming is caused by natural variability, then this raises the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also

be explained by natural climate variability. in a recent journal publication, i provided a rationale for projecting the hiatus in warming could extend to the 2030s. by contrast, according to climate model projections, the probability of the hiatus extending beyond 20 years is vanishingly small. if the hiatus does extend beyond 20 years in a very substantial reconsideration will be needed of the 20th century attribution and the 21st century projections of climate change. attempts to modify the climate through reducing co2 emissions may turn out to be futile. the stagnation in greenhouse warming observed over the past 16 years demonstrates that co 2 is not a control that can fine tune climate variability on time scales.2 is not a control that can fine tune climate variability on time scales. even if co2 strategies are

implemented, an impageant on the climate would not be expected for a number of decades. further, solar variability, volcanic eruptions and natural internal climate variability will continue to be sources of unpredictable climate surprises. as a result of the hiatus in warming, there is growing appreciation for the importance of natural climate variability on multi-decade time spans. there is limit evidence that supports an increase in most extreme weather events that can be attributed to humans. the perception that humans are causing an increase in extreme weather events is a primary motivation for the president's climate change plan. however, in the u.s., most types of weather extremes were worse in the 1930s and etven in the 1950s in the current climate, while the weather was overall more benign in the 1970s. the extremes of the 1930s and

1950s are not attributable to greenhouse warming, rather they are associated with natural climate variability, and in the case of the dust bowl drought and heat waves. the sense that extreme weather events is symptom matic of weather amnesia. the intensity of extreme weather events is heavily influenced by natural climate variability. whether or not anthropogenic climate change is exacerbating extreme weather events, vulnerability will continue to increase owing to increasing population and concentration of wealth in vulnerable regions. regions that find solutions to current problems of climate variability and extreme weather events are likely to be well prepared to cope with any additional stresses from climate change. nevertheless, the premise of dangerous anthropogenic climate change is a foundation for a far-reaching plan to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions and reduce vulnerability to extreme weather events. elements of this plan may be argued as important for associated energy policy reasons, economics, and/or public health and safety. however, claiming an overwhelming scientific justification for the plan based upon anthropogenic global warming does a disservice both to climate science and to the policy process. good judgment requires recognizing that climate change is characterized by conditions of deep uncertainty. robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy -- >> ms. curry? >> yes. >> in fairtons tnesfairness, yo over a minute over. >> i was a sentence away. apologies. robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy reason reasons, whether anthropogenic is dangerous,

avoids a hue brows of knowing what will happen in a 21st century climate. >> thank you. our next ms. is kathleen white. >> thank you. i'm particularly grateful to share my perspective as a former state environmental regulator of the texas commission on environmental quality, which according to epa is the second largest environmental agency in the world. and i'd like to note several positive trends. this is one of two graphs in my written testimony. according to the eia, energy related emissions of carbon dioxide decreased 3.7% in 2012, the lowest emission level since 1994. as the graph depicts, as a measure of the amount of co2 generated per dollar of economic

output, carbon intensity, a metric that eia uses, the u.s. economy has been steadily less carbon intense since 1949. and in one year, 2012, that declined 6.5%. while a part of that is a weaker economy than in previous decades, and increased use of natural gas, i think it's really a remarkable trend. i would credit it to the efficiency in private markets that's always driving the business. the president's climate action plan, i counted a mixture of at least 50 federal programs or initiatives that most exist already. so in many of them are reinforcing what already exists. several components of which i think are quite alarming, particularly without congressional approval of such bold, bold projects, and my overall assessment would be that in general, a plan of that scope

and inevitable cost that really deals with a policy of major national consequence must be, must be something that our voice in the u.s. congress approves and is not merely a result of executive action. i'll turn the rest of my comments to the carbon pollution standards, the so called new source performance standards. the epa -- one of which is already proposed for the second time. for new coal fire power plants, the second of which is well under way as a plan. and from the standpoint again of spending six years implementing federal law in air quality permits in texas, it's from that basis and quite a bit of familiarity with how performance standards operate. these standards are unquestionably the most aggressive action taken under the endangerment finding that co2 engages human health and

welfare. and they are the first direct regulation of carbon dioxide. i can give you examples of previous indirect means, but not time. the epa uses, as has been mentioned by several today, carbon capture control technology as the basis for which to craft with the numeric limit. in my judgment, that standard is unquestionably infeasible for coal fire power plants to obtain because carbon capture control technology is not at all commercially demonstrated. this is really an unprecedented expansion of epa's authority. because the net effect is to force fuel switching from coal to natural gas or from any fossil fuel generation, such as renewables. and i find nothing in the clean era that can authorize epa to engage in what becomes a really

centralized energy planning. to me, the clean air act, which is a wonderful law enshrines economic freedom, which is at the basis of this democracy. it allows private actors, not the and, to choose energy source, process, and product. the epa, as has been repeatedly mentioned today, the epa's authority is limited to require best pollution control technology that has been commercially demonstrated for the industrial process in question. there's not one single successfully operating power plant in the united states for any length of time that has used ccs. there have been a number of pilot projects. they either failed or are incomplete. epa lays wait on the southern companies project in mississippi, which is under construction and just was forced to acknowledge this cost overruns went from something like 2.3 billion to over $4 billion. coal remains the largest source and a central mainstay of base

load electricity in this country. the infrastructure surrounding it has evolved over a century, and the coal industry has spent probably in the last ten years an estimated $100 billion to install all kinds of elaborate pollution control technology to reduce by many, many times emissions of traditional pollutants. and i would call -- the pain, i think, is already occurring in this country and others, and i see my testimony is butt about n out, but i hope the u.s. congress and epa will look very carefully at what is going on in the european union and countries that have made a rush to renewables. over 600 to 700,000 families in germany are now cut off from electricity. another headline in the uk was something to the effect as

referenced in my testimony 24,000 elderly individuals in the uk may die this winter because they no longer have access to heat. thank you. >> thank you very much, ms. white. i have the gavel, and so by definition, i am going to be the last senator in the room, so i will let my colleagues precede my in order to allow them to move on to their schedules and i will begin with the ranking member senator vitter, and then will follow him with senator boozman and myself. senator vitter? >> thank you very much. i want to get back to this push for us to talk in a fairly precise disciplined way about the science and not be cartoonish about it. and certainly folks in the congress are a lot more guilty of that than anyone at the table, so i don't mean to level

that criticism at you-all. dr. curry, you say, "claiming an overwhelming scientific justification for the plan, meaning this particular climate action plan, does a disservice both to climate science and to the policy process." why don't you expand on that a little bit more and explain what you mean. >> well, there's a great deal of research that needs to be done to better understand climate variability and change. everything from sun, climate connections, natural internal variation, the role of oceans and so on. there's a lot of things that we don't have adequate understanding to. and to think that all we need to do is leap to the impact assessment part of the problem i think does a disservice to the science, and we could end up with misleading conclusions if

we don't really keep trying to understand these aspects of the climate system better. >> okay. one of my biggest pet peeves in this regard is the growth in the last ten years of the mantra of the rallying cry of extreme weather. because there are a few trends, and there aren't a lot of trends. certainly for obvious reasons, i'm from louisiana, i care a whole lot about hurricanes and i've lived through way too many. but we had a hearing before this committee that dealt with, among other things, extreme weather. and it was the consensus of every witness -- i don't think there was any disagreement that in terms of historical record and observation, there's no observation, there's no historical record of increasing

hurricane or tornado activity both in terms of frequency and in terms of strength. and i point to those two things, because those are the things that are most often talked about in terms of this extreme weather narrative. do any of you disagree with that in terms of the historical record, the metrics about hurricanes and tornados? >> i've testified twice previously on house committees related to hurricanes and climate change. there are in some regions observations of increasing intensity of hurricanes in the atlantic and on the indian ocean since 1980. but there is absolutely no way to separate that out from anthropogenic clauses versus natural climatic variability. for example, the hurricanes in

the atlantic are as intense in the recent decades as they were in the 1950s, so there's no way to separate it out from natural versus anthropogenic. although in a few ocean basins, there is evidence of increased intensity. >> does anybody else want to comment about that specific subject? >> yeah, we do have received of precipitation, more intense events. again, i don't know what the attribution science is on that, but we do see more rain falling in more intense events. we're seeing more extreme heat waves. in some cases, those have been attributed at least partially to anthropogenic effects. so the certain things we can -- there's a lot of uncertainty. but as i said in my testimony, i would encourage everyone to think about the things that we're certain about instead of arguing about what we're uncertain about. we're certain the temperature is going up. or virtually certain. we're virtually certain that it's getting warmer, extreme

heat events, the oceans are going to rise. these are certain, or virtually certain. >> i accept your testimony. i was specifically asking, though, because this is what's bandied about, at least around here, the media, all the time. hurricanes and tornados. do you disagree with the discussion we've had about hurricane and tornados and that historical record? >> no. i agree with what dr. curry said. i agree that there's a lot of foolish things that are said by a lot of people in the climate change debate on both sides of the debate. i think you're exactly right, we should really stick to the science and see what the scientists say. >> okay. and dr. curry, going back to you, you make the statement with regard to this in general that "the sense that extreme weather events are now more frequent and intense is symptomatic of weather amnesia." can you explain what you mean exactly? >> well, it's just that people

remember back a decade or two. but if you look at the actual records, the data records, there was much more severe weather in the 1930s and the 1950s in the u.s. and that's a matter -- you can look at epa. plots. i think i cited one in my testimony about heat waves. the heat wave index was much worse in the 1930s than anything we've seen in recent decades. so almost all extreme events were probably -- in the u.s., were worse in the 1930s and the 1950s. the one exception, which dr. dessler mentioned, was the one-day extreme precipitation amounts. we see higher values of that since the 1990s. >> okay. thank you all very much. >> senator boozman. >> thank you very much. dr. dessler, i agree with you in

regard to smoking. would you agree that there was a time that the science was such that most scientists felt like that smoking was okay? >> i'm sorry, was there a time when they said smoking was okay? >> yes. when the medical authorities felt like smoking wasn't a big deal. >> yeah, early 20th century. >> so the point that i'm making is that the idea -- and i think you agree to it a few moments ago, in the sense that the idea when people question things, and all of a sudden their motives and their crazy questioning the scientific aspect of the day. because most of the time, whoever made it such, made the discovery, did the research and then started questioning, many times those people were held in poor state. so i don't think that's healthy. and i think you would agree with that. is that correct? >> yeah, i think that free inquiry -- >> so i think the question is, in the smoking example, you

solve that problem by not smoking anymore. in this problem, we can't solve that problem by not having manmade co2. we're going to create manmade co2. so i think the question is, is the climate model science settled? is the science settled as to how much people are producing. and is the science settled as to how much we can throttle back where we actually would have an impact -- a measurable impact to reverse the process? so do you feel like those areas are settled? >> so your question about how much co2 we produce. i think that is settled. we have a good account of how much carbon dioxide comes from fossil fuel combustions. there's some uncertainty -- >> when you add in all of the rest of the atmosphere, the solar aspect, the volcanos, all

of that, that's pretty well settled. >> we have good measurements of the sun the last few decades. you have to measure from satellite and volcanos. you can see them from space, so we have pretty good measurements. there's not big uncertainties in that. there are uncertainties in aerosols, but as carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere, very soon it's going to be really the only game in town. now, as far as your question about can we do something about it, you know, it's interesting. i think dr. curry and i agree completely. we just said it in a different way. i agree with her that we have no fine control over the climate and i agree that no matter what we do, we probably won't see impacts for a decade or two or three. i mean, the climate the next few decades is already determined by other factors. but the one thing we do have control over is we have control over the climate, the second half of the century. and in the century after that. and for the next thousand years. if we dial down, we will avoid

the very large warmings. >> so the science is setted et to how much you dial down that will produce this or that happening? >> i would say that there's wide -- >> by humans. >> i would say there's wide agreement on a range of climate sensitivities. >> it's not settled, is it? >> well, it's settled -- i would say it's settled on a range. what i would encourage you to do is don't take my word for it. i would invite you to go to a meeting of climate scientists. the ams meeting is in two weeks in atlanta. i talked to marshall shepard, he says you guys are more than welcome. show up, talk to people and you can find that most people say there's a range of sensitivities. >> let me ask -- i'm sorry, we'll go back if you'll allow. do you agree with that? >> now, the significant thing -- and this is in my written testimony, that the range of

sensitivity that was -- the likely range was 2.45 degrees -- the range has dropped to 1.5. so it was lowered as a result of growing collection of impeerically based studies that indicate lower values of climate sensitivity at two degrees or lower. and for the first time -- the fifth assessment report declined to give a central number, whereas the fourth assessment report said three degrees was sort of the central value. the fifth assessment report gave no central value because you had this dichotomy of the low values from observations and the higher values. so i would say that sensitivity to doubling of carbon dioxide is now less certain than we thought

it was at the time of the assessment report. >> can i add one thing to that? that is the first, second, and third ipcc reports did not give an estimate. their estimate was 1.5 to 4.5. only the fourth gave a central estimate. there is a range of evidence. you can argue about the range. i would say that there's broad consensus, if you go to a scientific meeting and talk to the scientists, you'll hear -- most will say yeah, this is the range. maybe a few people are outliers, but that's what it is. given that sensitivity, you can project. okay, if we cut this much, this is the temperature. >> i guess the thing that i would like to know, we had comments about what's going on in europe and things that. they're really backing up. india and china have both said they're not going to participate. they want their 200 years of industrial revolution. so as i said earlier, you know, all pain with no gain, at some point we need to be honest with

the american public as to what we're doing, what the cost is going to be, and what the result is as far as actually making a difference if the modeling is correcten an all that. those things we're currently using which i think there is some question as to that. so that's the only point i would make. yes, sir. >> the point i was going to make is that the policy question is, do we know enough about the risk to take certain steps to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. and i think the answer to that is clearly yes. that doesn't mean we should do, you know, crazy things but it means we should take sensible steps forward. china also believes that and is looking at capping their own emissions in the near future and they recognize that the pollution both of convention counsel pultants and carbon dioxide is a huge threat to their economy and well-being in the future. in china now it's just a question of timing. if you look at the u.s. -- >> so the china are not building coal fired plants.

>> they are but they're also building wind and solar and you know, the issue is you look at the individual policies in the president's climate plan, do they make sense, i think the answer is clearly yes. >> for what it's worth, i just came back from china. i went there with senator mccain and we met with the second highest ranking individual in the most important ministry in the chinese government, and that is their climate minister. and in everything that we heard from him and everything that we heard from our embassy briefers, as well, the chinese are absolutely deadly serious about getting something done. they have to keep building coal plants for a while because their economy is growing so fast that they need the power and they know that they can bring that online. they also know that that is their biggest risk of social upheaval and disruption because

people are so fed up with the environmental consequences that they're experiencing across that country, it's the number one thing our embassy told us, that frightens the chinese government about a green revolution type of thing that could upend their rule. and as a result, they're investing very heavily for two reasons. in new technologies. for instance, new nuclear technologies that are stalled here in the united states, developed here in the united states, they've decided to invest in them and they're planning to go forward would allow them to burn spent nuclear fuel to create power. they also want in the nuclear industry, in the wind, solar, battery, storage, all of the array of new industries that are going to emerge to make for the clean energy economy competitive advantage against us. and so they have a an mercantile reason for doing it and a

self-preservation reason for doing it, but i cannot tell you how strong the sentiment was both from the embassy and from the chinese officials we visited including their highly placed climate minister that they're deadly serious about fixing this and that it's vitally important to them for a whole number of reasons. let me also just follow up with governor ritter. you opened your testimony with the phrase, you said bipartisan coalescing an the state level. could you describe a little bit more of what you see as bipartisan coalescing at the state level and why you think bipartisan coalescing is happening at the state level while here in congress, this has become part of the culture wars and the deniers are forcing inaction? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> you may want to put your microphone on. >> i won't hypothat size about this. what i can tell you at the state level, take a state like ohio where there have been efforts to

undo the renewable standard, energy resource standard that seems to fail because the business community is able to approach republicans and democrats alike in the state house as well as approach governors and make the business case for clean energy economy. if you look at the supply chain for clean energy manufacturing in ohio, it's a great example of a place where there's been an economic vitality to that state in part because of clean energy. the same is really true i think the governor of michigan understands first of all, they're importing owl of their coal. they have abundant wind and natural gas and the ability to and actually solar. really the ability to mix that overtime, increase their renewable energy standard, increase their reliance upon natural gas, lower their emissions and help their economy. there have been other states that have already been able to do that. some of these states are looking at the examples of other states

but at the state level where governors have to compete every day with other states for economic vitality, they don't just talk about it, you actually have to do it. and in those states, i think that have looked around, they understand it doesn't matter if i'm a democrat or a republican if i'm not creating jobs in this state and if i'm not doing it in a way that also responds to environmental concerns or even climate concerns, that i may be out of a job. governor brewer in arizona, this big champion of solar and she's a big champion of solar not because she's a republican or a democrat. she happens to be a republican but because that economy is really going to rely heavily going forward on the solar industries, the variety of solar industries. in colorado where we made this big push around this aggressive renewable energy standard, even during the downturn, the one place in the private sector where our economy grew was in the clean energy clean tech sector. while renewable energy is still

a smarter part of the portfolio, certainly natural gas or coal i think we've seen the clean energy economies in-state make an impact on various state job creation ability, the various economies. >> and very often that occurs with the strong support of major american corporations since senator boozman is here, i'll read from the walmart 2009 sustainability report. here's what walmart published. climate change may not cause hurricanes but warmer ocean water can make them more powerful. climate change may not cause rainfall, but it can increase the frequency and severity of heavy flooding. chimt change may not cause droughts but it can make droughts longer. every company has a responsibility to reduce greenhouse gases as quickly as it can. they went continued by saying that's why we are working on a number of areas to reduce our company's carbon footprint and also working with our suppliers and customers to help them do

the same. currently we're investing in renewable energy it, working with suppliers to take carbon out of products and supporting legislation in the u.s. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. walmart may be our biggest company. if we have a bigger one, it's exxon which is no longer an american company. it's an international creature. >> we've done a variety of things, as well, senator, with utilities. utility ceos and cfos around the country understand, as well their own sort of vulnerability, their own risks. they do their own sort of corporate threat analysis, have their own shareholders. so it's not just -- >> a number of big american corporations have actually imposed an internal price on carbon in order to -- >> they've done an internal price on carbon, they also like walmart going up the supply chain to look at where consumer goods that come their way are produced and ask the question, as it relates to greenhouse gas emissions.

i actually spent time in bentonville with a sustainability team at walmart for a national academy of sciences panel that i'm participating in and had just what i would consider a brilliant day and listening to walmart's leadership discuss about their sustainability efforts around the country and then they're thinking about how to do that, as well of the supply chain. it's a great example. >> thank you very much. miss curry, you're described very often when we i look up your name as a contrarian climate scientist. what does that mean? >> i have no idea. there's a lot of words that get bandied about in the political debate. >> this is not just in the political debate. this is like google news stories, all sorts of stuff. >> okay. skepticism is one of the norms of science. the way that we test theorys and ideas is to challenge them. okay? and a good theory will be able to defend itself against changs. when people trying to defend

their theory by calling people who challenge their theory by names, deniers, whatever, that's not a good sign that it's a strong theory. okay? so i don't know -- >> do you think the scientific theory is influenced by what a scientist is called? >> no, it doesn't. i'm just saying, this is part of the public debate, not the scientific debate. >> okay. >> i don't know if andrew would call me a contrarian. >> you called into question the scientific theory what you were called. >> i don't think the climate scientists would call me a contrarian. >> okay. is it true that in 2007, you wrote in the "washington post" about climate change that if the risk is great, then it may be worth acting against even if the probability is small and that you have yet to see any ochings th option that is worse than doing nothing? is that your editorall from

2007. >> yes, i wrote those words in 2007. a couple of things. my thinking has evolved somewhat since 2007 as i've seen increasing evidence. i still think that there it is a real risk there. and that we need to figure out how to deal with it. >> you do think that there is a real risk there and that we need to figure out how to deal with it? >> yeah, i mean, we may decide to do nothing and just to do local adaptation and to see what happens. it's something -- >> that would probably be the worst option though? correct? >> i'm not judging specific policy options. >> okay. as of 2007, you would have thought that was the worst option? >> yeah, as of 2007. i had more confidence in the consensus, the ipcc consensus. i had more confidence in that process. >> let me turn to miss white for a moment. >> sure. >> you opened your testimony by

saying that you had good news. and the good news was that carbon emissions and carbon intensity were both declining. >> yes it could be on a variety of levels. it's a measure of efficiency, energy efficiency in our economy. and it's also a lot of the emission control technologies or methodologies for the traditional pollutants listed in the clean air act as well as toxins. great efforts over the last 20 years that are in place now, those also just coincidentally reduce co2. i think you see in those, you see the general reduction of any kind of -- >> any other reason that reducing carbon emissions is good news? >> for i think the reasons i just stated were very good.

it's a measure of reducing all those others. i, you know, i defer not to something that someone calls consensus science. i've tried to follow the science. involved with my work in environmental regulation for 30 years, but i do not reach a conclusion. >> the only two reasons that you think it's good news that carbon emissions and carbon intensity are going is because it shows that some emission controls, technologies are working and the energy economy is becoming more efficient? >> but i think that's profound that the continual efficiency of our economy even as population grows and the economy grows. and that's something. >> the carbon emissions having any effect on say the atmosphere or say our oceans, do you think it's good news with respect to the atmosphere in oceans, as well? >> like i said i don't reach conclusions on that. because there are -- >> why would you not reach conclusions on that but reach

conclusions on energy efficiency? >> because i'm not as persuaded by the science as i understand it as a layman than some others. >> so you're just a lehman with respect to carbon's effect on the feature. >> yes. >> i'll end that there. >> but if i could say one more thing and this is -- >> and then i'll turn backing to senator boozman who would like another moment. >> in response to dr. curry's testimony, i am struck that there is a very significant need for more research on natural variability and the climate sensitivity to manmade co2 in the context of it natural, as you mentioned in terms of aerosols and the sun and all of that. >> senator boozman. >> the only thing i would say is that i think every company, every individual, all of us need to do a much better job of doing what we can and we can conservation i think is the key

to this whole thing. we don't talk near enough about it. back when most of you all were growing up like me, you know, you simply did not leave a room without turning out the lights or your parents yelled at you and said turn the lights out. we don't do that anymore. the other thing is, you know, it the question is, be with the potential problem, i think the question is, you know, are we better off with the coming up with a complex scheme like the cap and trade program that was passed in the house which was overwhelmingly rejected by the american public, and i think you could argue that it was one of the major drivers with the democrats losing the house that year. you know, are we in the position to micromanage this thing up here with very complex schemes as we've done with other things? so i think that the states are

doing a good job. you've alluded to that. senator whitehouse alluded to the fact that industry was getting aggressive. and i do think that you know, i think miss curry you know is very representative of a group of scientists in good faith that simply don't feel like that the science is settled. i think there's evidence in that regard, certainly the modeling, you know, the fact that we can just say you know this modeling is perfect and this and that, we we can predict all these things. i think that you know, it's okay. we need people to question these things. you know, it's very, very important. and then the other thing is is that if we're in a situation and i think it's really up for grabs whether or not the chinese or the indians the discussions i've had with them, they might be doing a better job, but the discussions i've had with them again they're attitude is we'll be responsible in 200 years after we have our industrial revolution.

we've got problems we have to deal with. and they might ratchet it down where they could actually start seeing their hand in front of their face again supposed to now. but what i want to note you know from all of you at some point in time and i don't think it's fair that the american people doesn't understand is, what is going to be the cost. you know, what we have to do as a country, you know, with nobody else really participating at a great length. if we do all these things, what is going to be the end result? what is that going to do to our environment, what is it going to do to whatever. there's certainly a lot of things we can do and need to be doing, canadien sense things. we all want to protect the environment. we can do a much better job of that, but when you really make it such that you're talking about significantly increasing electricity prices,ings what i want to know at some point is what's that going to do to jobs, what it's going to do to people that are retired on fixed

incomes, what it's going to do to single moms, all of those kind of folks in the sense when you're talking about significantly increasing their energy prices. and their gasoline, electricity and things like that. and i don't -- if somebody would comment that you can do that without significantly increasing energy prices, i'd like to hear that. >> we did analyze a -- >> your microphone. >> i think i'm on. yeah. we did analyze a proposal for achieving significant further progress, building on the progress which i think is quite significant over the last five years to continue to reduce co2 emissions particularly from the power sector which is our biggest source. we find we can make another 23 to 30% reduction without a significant impact on electricity prices. why? well, partly because of energy efficiency. we're learning to use electricity much more efficient and we have a lot more potential there. it doesn't just happen by accident. the states have adopted policies

that are driving an $8 billion industry. the other reason is the cost of renewables have come down remarkably in the last five years. wind is now much cheaper than building a new coal plant. and is competitive with just operating some plants in some circumstances. so lar has come down by 80% in the last five years. people haven't really fully understood it the revolution that's happened in the renewable energy industry over that period of time. so we actually have a huge opportunity to get big reductions without driving up electricity prices in a significant way. >> let me thank the witnesses very much. let me thank senator boozman for staying. i'd respond on that that you know, there clearly are costs if you apply what i've proposed which is a carbon fee, but if you make it revenue neutral, then every single dollar of it goes back to the american public. so netanyahu there's no cost.

what you get is savings in terms of not having to fortify our coasts, for instance, against rising sea levels. not having to figure out how you deal with firnermen whose catches have moved either offshore or out into deeper waters or into other states that they can't reach any longer, what you do with foresters whose forests have burned because the pine beetle climbed up higher because there was no code snap to wipe them out. so there's the red forests that senator merkley described. and then there's the competitiveness question which is if we invest only in the fossil fuels which are on the wrong end of the cost curve that dr. lashof described solar and these technology based sources are going to continue to reduce and fossil an extractive based are going to continue to be expensive and if we're on the losing end of international competition for those newer -- i don't want to be buying that stuff from china or the eu. i want our american industries

to be the leaders in that. and if our fossil fuel industry is trying to sabotage our clean energy industry for immediate market share advantage, it's doing a long-term disservice to the economy and to the well-being of our country. so i think that the cost questions are real ones but i think they're answered in the context of how we do something intelligenting about solving what is a very, very real problem. and i thank the witnesses for sharing their various views. we will keep the record of the hearing open for two weeks for anyone who wishes to add anything further to the record. and for those who have been asked to provide something to provide it for the record. and i look forward to working with my colleagues and i hope sooner rather than later, even with republican colleagues to address climate change and carbon pollution. because you can get into discussions about what climate modeling tells you, but you

can't debate the add kridfication of the seas. you can't debate the ten inches of sea level rise that my tide gauge in newport, rhode island has already seen. su can't debate that narragansett bay is already 3 or 4 degrees warmer in the winter. you want to set aside the argument where there's modeling fights. let's look at the areas where we're really hurting ourselves and it it is as dr. dessler said, virtually certain within any what was the word, epis toe ma logical certainty i think you said. good words to close by. thank you very much.

minutes. >> thank you david. i am happy to be here. i don't know how i refer to this distinguished group up here. are these colleagues? are these predecessor colleagues? over the years i've referred to them a lot of different ways. but i'm not sure what but it's great to be here and be this w this distinguished group of predecessors whose rather large footsteps i'm proud to follow in. i want -- david that was really nice what you said about our

first vote. let's give credit where credit is due. when i showed up, you may have noticed there was a little wait before i showed up. nd when i showed up, there was the foreign ownership item sitting there ready to move because chairwoman cly born had made that happen. [applause] s -- . >> i agree, what a job she did. all i did was get the glory of carrying the ball over the line. she did the hard work to get it down to the goal line and in so many things that we've been able to do here early on is picking up on the legacy that she left us. d.c. policy st

appearance. [applause] i was in a town meeting in oakland last week and i said to them that there was method in my madness that i had not appeared before any groups in washington, d.c., that my first speech had been out in ohio at the ohio state university. my second was in silicon valley and followed immediately by oakland because the action is out there. but if i'm to break the mold and make a washington appearance, i couldn't think of a better place than here. so thank you very much for inviolating me today. -- inviting me today. >> the struggle for minority participation in the media has been long, it's been heroic and

it's been right. what i'd like to do today is to visit with you about how we can a those kinds of ideas to ew level, how we can join in a new great campaign that celebrates the activities of the past but identifies the opportunities of the future. i think we need to begin by being honest with each other. supreme court has made it very difficult for the government to take direct steps to create advantages on a specific group basis. ut it has not removed the twin goals of diversity of voices and

diversity in ownership. the challenge is how do we go after those goals and i think the new environment we exist in offers that opportunity. i believe that the new opportunity campaign should focus on yes, the opportunities created by our new network real tiss rather than refighting the struggles of the past. yes, i think it is outrageous that there is no minority ownership of television stations in america. but the interesting thing is that that reality now exists in an environment where facilities ownership is less critical to .iverse voices than ever before

just ask reed hastings, the c.e.o. of netflix if he needed to own distribution before he could produce "house of cards" or orange is the new black or any of the other presentations video services that he's developed. deals ulu who brokered with 11 different spanish language content partners. or ask michelle fawn who in 2012 launched her own multichannel u tube network focusing on fashion nd beauty and has over 5 1/2 million subscribesers today. or ask bob johnson whether he needed to own facilities to launch b.e.t. i was there when that happened.

you could even ask some of the next generation of entrepreneurs . o are in this audience the fact of the matter is that the opportunities that are before us all are a result of what i've been calling the fourth great network revolution. it's the greatest revolution in how we communicate amongst ourselves in the last 150 years. what we've learned from previous network revolutions is that ange is hard, that new etworks are disruptive forces,

that encome bents will oppose the change in a bid for self-preservation but that by embracing change you can produce successful results and those who embrace change become transformational forces. that's the new network opportunity that we have before us today. never in the life of anyone in this room has there been fwreater opportunity to exploit the new networks for ownership diversity and content diversity. and that is what makes the open internet so dam -- damn important. there has been a little flurry in the past few days on this topic so i thought maybe it

would make sense to reflect on that. the reason why broadcast ownership was important in the past was baw it gave access to a ighly controlled medium. we will not let that kind of ntrol take over the internet period. [applause] on tuesday the d.c. court of appeals issued a much anticipated decision in the open internet case. since it's been so talked about and is of such importance to the kind of goals we're talking about here for the diversity of ownership and the diversity of voices, please allow me to make a couple of observations. one, the court invited the

commission to act and i intend to accept that invitation. using our authority we will readdress the concepts in the open internet order as the court invited to encourage growth in invasion and enforce against abuse. we've noted with great interest the expressions from many internet service providers to the effect that they will continue to honor the open internet orders concepts even though they may have been remanded to the commission. that's the right and responsible thing to do and we take them up on their commitment. at the same time, we accept the court's invitation to revisit

the structure of the rules that it vacated. the great revolution in the internet is how it empowers individuals to both consume and create. it's the kind of opportunity that we're discussing here this morning. and to do so requires an accessible and open internet and we will fight to preserve that capability. [applause] we also recognize that investment and invasion in broad band networks are essential for the growth and expansion of the internet. but make no mistake about it, our job is to ensure growth and invasion through an open internet. it is a topic that should join

the f.c.c. in common cause. now let me quickly touch on a couple of other topics. the lifeline program is an important component of everyone's right to access our communications networks. the program has been abused. the outrage of that abuse is being addressed. but it doesn't change the underlying purpose. we are conducting broad band lifeline trials right now and we'll base policy decisions on those findings. but broadband is the future and access to broadband is important to everyone. different topic. the internet protocol

transition. as we move from analog to all internet protocol networks, the capabilities of networks to erybody is -- serve people expands. it is the opportunity that is created. but in this internet protocol transition, we need to make sure that those opportunities continue -- are preserved and tonight expand. for 100 years there has developed a values relationship, a set of values that determine the relationship between those who use networks and those who build and operate networks. those values do not disappear ecause the technology changes. we are going to hold a series of

trials of what it means, what happens when you go all i.p. in services to consumers. and the key to those trials is making sure that these values, what we've started to call the network compact, that these values continue. moving to a new technology does ot erase old values. telehealth i know is an important issue and is something that i've personally been involved n. before -- i was telling david earlier that before the president asked me to do this job, i was chairman of the u.n. foundation's m. health aligns. and this is we were using mobile technology around the world to link those in need of medical

care with those who could offer medical care. i'm a huge supporter of telehealth and the policies that are necessary to move telehealth along. that's why i'm really excited that commissioner is leading an effort inside the agency on behalf of the agency to keep pushing these bouppedries forward. and we will follow the lead in that regard. and finally, i know you had a .ession yesterday on stem at we do to make sure that 21st century students get 21st century education using the tools of the 21st century which are the tools of connectivity is crucial importance to our

country and countless individuals. a lot has changed with the internet since 1996 when center rockefeller fathered the e rate. that was when chairman hunt led the charge to implement what the congress had done and if the truth be known, worked with the congress to make sure that there was this kind of new vision. but that was 1996. we need an update. let me tell you a story that an experience i had last week that visualized it all for me. i was in a middle school in oakland, california. going from classroom to classroom and watching how they use new connectivity for educational purposes. and in every classroom along the wall was a four inch conduit that had electric plugs in it

and either net ports in it about every four feet. yet in that classroom, in those classrooms students were sitting t their desks with their tablets doing various exercises. is e said to me there rate 1 dot o which is when the computer was over there. you we want to it. it was a special kind of a thing. now what we're dealing with is the computer that is on your desk, the computer that is an integral part of the learning experience. and one of the interesting things about this was we spent

some time with the students. and i said to them, i said ok last year you didn't have computers. this year you do have computers. tell me about the difference from the computer being over there on the wall to the computer being here. and one of the kids says to me, well, we need bigger desks. >> and i thought my goodness, what a great explanation for the transformation that is going on because the desk that used to be big enough for a tablet now needs to have a paper tablet and a computer tablet. and the kids are saying do something about the size of the desk. that's a transformational activity enabled by networks. we are dedicated to meeting the president's goal of 99% of the schools and libraries in america having at least 100 megaand

going to a gig within the next five years or sooner. it will be done. [applause] that's the kind of thing that excites me about this new job that. we are on the cusp of a new network driven future. and every one of us has an opportunity play a role in that transformation. it's a different set of issues than those we've dealt with in the past. but it's the same fight. it's a fight for equal opportunity. it's a fight for diversity of voices. it's a fight for kids' futures. and the beauty of where we are early that we are at the

formative stages of the new network and we can have an impact on what that network is like going forward rather than having to play catchup ball later. that is our goal and that's what i look forward to working with all of you to move forward over the next multiple years. so again, thank you very much for inviting me. it's a privilege to be here. david and julia, thank you very much. [applause] .

...

>> we are here to review the patient and affordable care act. we have a the director from the insurance oversight. i would like to read ... schedule and on tract

with the i.t. bill we are doing and then you added i think it is just as important to take a look at the steps and make sure we are on track but i am confidence in our program. here is another quote where you said consumers will be able to go online and get a determination of what tax subsidies they are eligible for. they will look at the plans available where they live. they will be able to see the premium net of subsidy and chose a plan and get enrolled in coverage beginning october 1st. those unqualified statements that the exchanges would be ready are contrasted against what we have learned since the

health care website failed upon launch. three weeks before you told the committee you had no question about the exchanges being ready, the mckinsey program briefed you on a number of risks facing the website and federal market place and those included late policy, delayed design and unlimited time to test the website. i mind like to know why you feel confidence telling the subcommittee everything was on track. and similar, cms's own e-mails from the summer of 2013 shows officials were worried the wb site would crash on takeoff. and you told us everyone would be able to go online, learn their subsidy and enroll starting october 1st. i thank you for being here and i know the number of times you have made yourself available to testify and i appreciate.

but it seems hike you are faced with knowing about the problems or you did and didn't inform congress. promises made and promises broken are disheartening. we have spent over $6 million on the website and no warning was giving that a disaster was coming. after years of saying if you like your plan, you can keep it and the president apologized. and what about the decrease the president promised in the premiums? news reports are providing narrow networks as a consequence. will americans be able to keep their doctors? and now we ask if they will be able to afford their deductib

deductibles. i would like us to start fresh in 2014 and our ability to do so depends on you explaining fully and honestly about what you knew. this is about more than a website. people are to trust and rely on this system. and trust something so critically important to a family their own health care, this administration needs an open dialogue with the public about the status of the implementation. there are many issues to examine about how they are operating. why didn't you tell congress

about the problems with the website? how many people have paid their premium and exchanges? how many were uninsured and how many had plans canceled? how much will the taxpayers spend on the website and where were you getting the money? news is stating not enough young people are enrolling -- when will we know about the corridors and if they are sustainable. i will yield to the ranking member. >> i think there chairman, we can stipulate the website had issues. but as long as the problems beat

the dead horse about who knew when. and the worse it is going to be for their people because after all isn't the desire to encourage people to sign up for health insurance? if they are eligible for medicaid to sign up. if they are eligible for subsidies to get them to help pay for their insurance. i hear colleagues on the other side of the aisle and i can taught help but wonder if they want their people to have insurance. last week's vote on the floor was a good example. where we voted on this bill that said that we were going to have security in health care's website. everybody thinks we need to have security on the website. but the clear impression given during the floor debate and the committee before that was that somehow health care's website

isn't secured when in fact there hasn't been one breach and in the briefing the federal it people said they have not have anymore attempts to breach the health care website. and private website's are not exempt from that either like target. so i can't help but think the other side of the aisle doesn't want to implement this. they want to shell people from signing up. that is a darn shame. the good news is, and believe me, i was a critic on the implementation. it was rocky. but people are beginning enroll in a robust way. last week connect for colorado, which is our state site, announced the figures for my

state. we are about halfway through the opening enrollment and 50,000 people have signed up for private insurance and about 90,000 have enrolled in medicare. so this is as a 140,000 people who didn't have health insurance before. now this represents real progress. this represents a family that doesn't have to worry about how it will pay for treatment if a child is sick or has an accident. it represents moms who can get preventive care from breast cancer screening to vaccines. it represents small businesses who don't have to worry about loosing their livelihood if they have an accident. i am proud of the leaders of connect for colorado for allowing it to get going.

we will continue to have glitches. but sitting around and trying to figure out what happened last fall when around admits it was a disaster doesn't help us in the future. the whitehouse issued enrollment numbers and over 2 million on the exchanges and 4 million in medicare and that is 6 million people who had no insurance before. minority staff released a memo showing affordable care act is ahead of where the medicare part d enrollment was at the time that program went into affect in 2006. right now, the affordable care act enrollment is at 31% of projected enrollment with half of the opening enrollment period to go. and it hit only 23% of the

projections on part d. and i ask you to put that memo in the record. i didn't vote for medicare part d. but we worked together to make it a success. and i think that is what we should do here. one of the things i continue to be concerned about with implementation is enrollment of the young people. i know a lot of people say they will enroll at the end. but i would be interested to know from the administration to know what we are doing to hit those targets. they will not work if we don't have that going. let work to get people enrolled and let's not sit around griping about what happened. >> we will recognize mr. upton now for five minutes. >> today we are going to continue the oversight of the president's implementation of the health care law and the

affect on americans in michigan and across the country. we welcome you back and you have testified a number of times and we appreciate you coming back. we went back to review the testimony from last year and when asked what to expect at the start of the enrollment you assured us once in april and once in september that everything was on track. during the more than four hours of testimony there was no mention of the facts you were breached by mckinsey twice and warned about the risks in the website or there was any talk on the fact that cms employees were aware the website was riddled

with problems. today's purpose isn't to rehash the launch, but we have to know what you knew before moving forward. you looked us in the eye and said everything is on track. it is time to be transparent with congress and the american people. the administration needs to be open and transparent about the facts kw and what americans should expect going forward. the american people deserve the piece of mind there is no more surprising and the information available is the entire, true story. and i think you will help us with this. i yield to dr. burgess.

>> thank you for yielding. i appreciate the time you devote to our oversight efforts. here is the central question: how in the world can we expect people across the country in fact it was not. it is clear now that the administration knew far more about the concerns prior to the launch of healthcare.gov before october 1. uk before us on september 19 and each time you came to this committee in the past year, he promised that healthcare.gov would be functional october 1. there were no contingency plans because none were necessary. you insisted to the subcommittee members that everything was on track. i will stipulate that some parts of healthcare.gov might be