from fallujah, where are they? they have been hosted for months. the same thing. nature happens in the south. there was no sort of counteract where sunnis were slaughtered. none of that happened. your question refers to what they were doing in the fight. to groups thatng have been acting out of their own leadership and structure. a step back.e a lot of the footage shown was very disturbing to say the least. no less than the torture that happened elsewhere. let's face it. those groups, whether you like them or not, they were the only -- anyo did anything

successful fighting in iraq since isis came. the iraqi military with ghosts and all of that, they have not done anything to speak of. they achieved an army. the external volunteer fighters as they are called, they are the ones who achieved on the outskirts of baghdad, they held other places. all of that. are they the favorable way to go? no, for sure. you would rather see the state and military do its job. the military has not functioned, and iraq was left to those groups to defend it. it is hard to speak of them. yes, they have american blood on their hands from the old days. but so did the others being trained by the united states right now.

who are the recruits from the sunni militia being formed by the united states, equipped, and funded? they are the ones that shot at the americans into lodz and elsewhere -- into lodz a -- in fallujah and elsewhere. the american approach, rather than doing something for the iraqi military, they are approaching it in a madisonian way. if you have a problem with factions, the solution is to make more of them. having a problem with shia militias, now we are making more of them. we are making sunni militias and having others. let's hope that madisonian solution for iraq will work like it did for the united states. i doubt it. but yes, i am not going to sugarcoat anything for you. there is a hell of a difference

between cold-blooded butchers areing shia and those who in the battlefield doing things. both are wrong. but equating them, isis and the misleading in that sense. but i am on the record. my favorite way is to have the iraqi government. i was hoping american troops would go and do the job. since this is off the table as a the present administration, there is no other option but to use whoever is willing to carry it out. let's remember the tricky issues that these people are backed by others. it is hard to go against them in iraq now in the current situation. life, sunni, shia,

or kurd, the past few months from june until now particularly, even though all the time was bad. the last few months have been heartbreaking for anyone with any sense of decency to watch those people killed. christians, kurds, shia, sunni, everybody else whose fate put them in the crossfire in a battle that was not his or her battle. it is shameful. said,add to what he dispensing the militias will have to do with the policy toward iraq. militias marched to the iranian tune. decides in the

future that their presence serves or undermines its objective for iraq will go a long way in what happens to them down the line. pick peoplehow you for the reconciliation initiative, i think you work with what you have. sunnirepresent the communities. there are ways to go about that. 2006-2 thousand nine, we went and chose members of parliament andhe time, tribal leaders some society representatives. at the same time, we had a tribe which convened only one time involving members of sunni insurgent groups, some of whom are now part of the mosul. but that was a one-time meeting to understand the lay of the land in terms of their own

calculations and their plans going forward. in terms of the government now, i think you have to work with what you have. you work with parliament and civil society. also, you work with tribal leaders. these groups remain the components you have to work with. thank you. >> are we out of time? thank you very much. [applause] panel following featuring the ambassador. thank you very much. >> on the next "washington journal," he talks about the series which examines what has gone wrong with the middle class and what the country must do to get the economy working for everyone. david miller talks about his

book, why america cannot have and does not want another great president. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. here is a look at some of the programs you will find christmas day. holiday festivities start at 10:00 a.m. with the lighting of the national christmas tree violent by the white house christmas decorations with first lady michelle obama -- followed by the white house christmas decorations with first lady michelle obama. celebrity activists talk about the causes. court justicereme and jeb bush on the bill of rights and the founding fathers. at 10:00 a.m., the art of good writing. at 12:30, see the feminist side of the superhero. authors talk about

their reading habits. the fall of the berlin wall with c-span footage of president bush and bob dole with speeches from president john kennedy and ronald reagan. at noon, fashion experts on fashion choices in how they represented the styles of the time in which they lived. tom brokaw on his more than 50 years of reporting on world events. that is this christmas day on the c-span networks. for the complete schedule, go to c-span.org. next, a senate hearing on new air quality standards proposed last month by the e.p.a. actingncy's administrator for air and radiation is among the witnesses. this hearing runs one hour.

>> good afternoon. i will call this meeting to order. my blackberry says it is 2:30. welcome to what is assuredly the last congressional hearing of this congress. i think most of the building is empty but for us. we are relatively empty here as well. i am pleased we are here. k think the witnesses -- than the witnesses for coming today. the clean air act requires e.p.a. to review national .mbient air quality standards if you initialize that, it gets

pronounced as "nakcks." it requires e.p.a. to review standards for ozone and five other pollutants every five years to ensure they protect public health. the current 75 parts per billion high standard has been too since the date was finalized by the bush administration in 2008. that decision by the bush administration was so out of scientifiche advisory committee pushed back after the fact and wrote an unusual letter to administrator johnson telling him he had made a mistake and the number could not be justified. given the priorities of that administration, the scientific

advice was not reckoned with. that is where the standard was set. had false, we have comfort the air we breathe every day is safe. the revised standard is a significant improvement. is based on extensive scientific research including over 1000 the 2000ublished since eight standard. this is a particularly big deal in my home state of rhode island. the congressional research theice has looked at history of these air quality standards. it has in its report a map from the e.p.a. green book which shows the nonattainment areas. the state of rhode island and a good deal of the northeast coast is in the middle of the area. there is a significant reason for that but i will get to any minute. providence and kent counties get inrades for high ozone days

the american lung association's 2014 state-of-the-art report -- state of the air report. there's not a lot we can do about it in rhode island because the causes tend to be out-of-state. specifically, they include out-of-state power plants that for years dodged providing adequate pollution controls - ad at the same time, they used tall smokestacks to launch the ozone forming pollutants they produced into the prevailing winds that midwesttheast from the and come landing on us. path to ozonerate formation that pollutes the air and the lungs of people in downwind states like mine.

the industry claims and ozone standard that protects public health will devastate businesses and the economy. history, overat and over again those claims have been shown to be exaggerated and usually the contrary is true. i believe the benefits of this rule in health and other areas are three times the cost. e.p.a.'s analysis shows health of the standard translate into economic benefits that, excluding california which already complies with this, would be $4 billion to $23 billion higher than the cost in 2025. these e.p.a. regulations have already lowered the number and severity of bad air days in the united states. these are days where ozone levels are so high it is unhealthy for sensitive individuals to the elderly or

infants or people with breathing difficulties to be outdoors. we get those in rhode island. we get those in the summer. it is a nice day, you are driving in to work. you are listening to the radio and the voice says today is a bad air day in rhode island and and peoplehe elderly with breathing issues to stay indoors. basically, the day of those people has been taken from them by out-of-state looters -- polluters who have been reckless about complying with the law. as climate change warms things up, it makes the conditions for ozone formation more common and therefore more bad air days more likely. the science advisory committee is again recommending the e.p.a. set a standard within the 60 to 70 parts per billion range, noting 60 would offer more public health protection than a standard between 65 and 70.

i hope e.p.a. will set a standard of 60 parts per billion that prioritizes public health protection. for being. mccabe here and invite her to proceed. thank you for the opportunity to testify today on e.p.a.'s recently proposed updates to the ozone national ambient air quality standards. because the air we breathe is so important to our overall health and well-being, the clean air act requires e.p.a. to review the national ambient air quality standards (naaqs) every five years to make sure that they continue "to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety." for at-risk groups, including the estimated 25.9 million people who have asthma in the united states, almost 7.1 million of whom are children, this is critical. establishing and implementing a naaqs is a two-step process for improving air quality. setting the standards is step one. it is about defining what is clean air to protect public health. implementing the standards is step two, and involves the federal government, states, and tribes if they wish to, putting measures and programs in place

to reduce harmful pollution. we e.p.a.this review, examined thousands of studies. based on the science and recommendations of the independent scientific advisors and the assessment of e.p.a. scientists and experts, the administrator has proposed to strengthen the standards to within a range of 65 to 70 parts per billion to better protect americans' health and welfare. this is a proposal, and taking public comment on a range is exactly how the process is supposed to work. the agency welcomes comments on all aspects of the proposal, including on setting the level as low as 60 parts per billion, and will accept comment on retaining the existing standard. we are also proposing to update the air quality index for ozone . the a.q.i. is the tool that gives americans real time information to help them make the best choices to protect themselves and their families.

and we're proposing to make updates to monitoring and permitting requirements, to smooth the transition and assure that the public has full information about air quality. all of these updates are designed to make sure americans are alerted when ozone approaches levels that may be unhealthy, especially for sensitive people. to protect the environment from damaging levels of ground-level ozone as required by the clean air act, the e.p.a. has also proposed to revise the secondary standard to within the same range to protect against harm to trees, plants, and ecosystems. science clearly tells us ozone poses a real threat to our health, especially to growing children, older americans, those of us with heart or lung conditions, and those who are active or work outside. the proposal is designed to better protect children and families from the health effects of ozone pollution. for example, we estimate that meeting a level of 70 parts per

billion would prevent hundreds of thousands of missed school days, as my tax. this would yield health benefits of up to $13 billion. these include the value of avoiding asthma attacks, heart attacks, missed school days, and premature deaths. states will determine what measures beyond the federal ones are appropriate for their clean air plan. at.a. has estimated costs $3.9 billion for a standard of 70 parts per billion. the estimated benefits outweigh the costs by a ratio of three to one. a standard of 65 parts per billion is expected to provide additional benefits. and limitation has always been -- implementing a naaqs has always been and will continue to be a federal, state, and tribal partnership. we have shown we can reduce

ground-level ozone while our economy continues to thrive. since 1980, average ozone levels have fallen by a third. and 90% of the areas originally identified as not meeting the ozone standards set in 1997 now meet those standards. we have reduced air pollution and our economy has grown. we fully expect that this progress will continue. existing and proposed federal measures like vehicle standards and power plant rules are leading to substantial reductions in ozone nationwide, which will help improve air quality and help many areas meet any revised standard. exposures to ground-level ozone, a key component of smog, can have very serious consequences for our families' health and for the environment. we are looking forward to hearing what the public thinks about the proposal. there will be a 90-day comment period, which i believe start today, and we'll be holding three public hearings as well, as we work toward completing the final standards by october 1, 2015. i look forward to your

questions. thank you very much. >> let me welcome senator gillibrand. i look forward to discussing the it is no surprise to me she has taken the trouble to come to this hearing. our states are on the receiving emit. their states describe what you think the methodology is likely to be poor compliance with this standard in other states. is it cleaning up at the smokestacks? is a policy changes at the state level? what are you expecting by way of compliance? >> it will depend on a couple of things. states are ultimately responsible for designing plans to meet the standard. they can't take into account any federal measures put in place. e.p.a. recently finalized the tier three engine and fuel standards which will provide substantial benefits into the future in the timeframe needed for these areas.

i expect many states would rely on programs like that and other federal programs going forward. regimes thatiance will help states achieved the standard are already in place. measuring their effect will be part of the compliance? >> correct. >> do you expect there are new requirements power plants will have to apply? >> when it comes to power plants, we have the mercury rule. we have the cross state air pollution rule. we have the clean power plan which is moving forward as a proposal at this time. there are other tools we or states would look at. the cross state air pollution comes from our good neighbor provision in the clean air act. states are obliged to address lucian -- pollution they are contribute into downwind areas.

we will be working with states to assess whether there are those contributions in light of the other programs in place. as appropriate, we and the states would work together to put in place requirements that might affect large sources like power plants. >> a power plant owner looking at this proposed rule could expect the improvements in that they would be obliged to make as a result of the good neighbor policy would count towards the new ozone standard and would likely help reduce their emissions of ozone precursors as well. correct? >> that is correct. it depends on what the monitors show. any program helping the monitors show compliant air quality is helping. >> e.p.a.'s analysis that the

benefits are between $6 billion and $13 billion and the cost analysis billion, that is not a first effort by e.p.a. questionlooked at the of cost benefit analysis of clean air regulations for many years. >> we do. >> what is the track record of your estimates? >> we generally are conservative in estimating the costs of the measures put in place. i think there is a fairly steady track record of technologies coming in at lower cost than we expected. so you are pretty confident in the track record of your previous estimates and that gives you confidence that these estimates have merit? >> yes. i should note also these costs are illustrative.

it will be up to the states ultimately to determine what makes the most sense for them. they will look for the most cost-effective approaches. we do our best to do an illustrative case. >> would costs that would be required to meet the standard also be costs that would be pertinent to meeting the good neighbor rule? >> we don't double count things. if costs have already been assumed in other rules, we don't count them again here. thery to make very clear costs for each rule are associated with that rule. >> senator gillibrand>>. so much for sharing this hearing today. i am eager we have a chance to address epa's proposed national ambient air quality standards for ozone. i also want to thank administrator janet mccabe for joining us. at a time when smog filled

capitals around the world are making headlines, the united states should be taking the lead. we have to take the challenge seriously. we are long overdue for updated air-quality standards from e.p.a. this past april, the american lung association released its report. they found nearly half of all americans live where pollution levels make the air unhealthy to breathe. although some indicators improved, levels of ozone and smog were worse than last year. 22 of 25t also found of the most smog polluted cities had more high smog days on average than last year. in the richest and most innovative country on earth, it is stunning our air quality is moving back in 2014. we have to reverse the trend. as global temperatures continue to rise, the risk for smog will continue to grow.

i have heard from many new yorkers whose children have asthma about the challenges they face in addressing air quality in their own communities. this is something we all have to be concerned about. not just for kids but for seniors and anyone with any type of lung or heart disease. i find it especially disturbing that more than 35 .6 million children under 18 in the united states live in counties that have poor air quality. i am very concerned about the levels of from titus and long -- bronchitis and lung infections in our communities. we are failing them if we cannot enact more stringent controls. the california children's health study looked at children who grow up in more polluted areas and came to the stunning conclusion that lung function for those kids drop by 20% -- dropped by 20%. that just came from playing outside. i have a couple questions to ask

you i can submit for the record if we don't have time. , ozone values,ty staten island, and long island, have been dropping since 1990 but values are still at or above the current standard, especially during summer months. what are measures that can be put in place to help new york and other states meet the proposed standards? >> i mentioned the tier three engine and fuel standards the agency finalized at the beginning of this year. those will go into effect starting in 2017 and will significantly reduce emissions from motor vehicles. the populated place like east coast, that will have a tremendous and very quick impact. reductions by power plants will also have an impact. that has been mentioned already. ozone is a regional pollutant.

emissions reductions that happened many miles away can help reduce impact in local areas. there are also a number of local measures areas can take to reduce local emissions. many areas have put a lot of those in place already. new york city and rhode island have done that. continue toe are -- be reductions that can be achieved locally and regionally. history of thehe clean air act, we have continually heard claims by polluters and other opponents of clean air standards that they cannot afford to clean up emissions. it costs too much. the implication is we cannot have both a clean environment and a healthy economy. this is something i strongly disagree with. we have not seen the doomsday scenarios they have predicted. we are hearing the same industry course again saying it is too costly to implement the new

proposed ozone standards. can you address some of these claims? how do you see the ability of industry to adapt and innovate to meet strong standards? can you describe the benefits we will see as a society and the cost-saving for families that will come from taking more pollutants out of the air? >> the first thing to emphasize in response to your question is the decision the administrator proposed recently out for public notice today is all about the right level that means safe air-quality. it is not about implementation or costs associated with implementation. there are policies in the clean air act to a dress that. this is about making sure americans can know what is a safe level in their air. that is what we are all about. over the on to say last 40 years or 40 plus years the clean air act has been in effect, air pollution has to kind -- declined by 70%.

the economy has tripled. the record does not bear out a clean economy and clean air don't go together. i share your view on that. we found time and time again american industry, american engineers, have innovated and developed technologies we did not know existed at the time the standards were established, or existed but were not in widespread use. those costs came down. those technologies have become the norm now. things like selective catalytic reduction, catalytic converters for cars. all of these things are technologies that have developed and have helped to bring clean air and grow industry and business in this country. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> one last question with respect to the emissions from the power plants.

how are those reduced? technology, there are two main technologies used. >> equipment is manufactured in order to clean up the emissions. >> correct. >> thank you. thank you. thank you for your testimony. good luck with the rule. i know you have a lot of input ahead of you before you finalize it. thank you for your efforts. i will now call the next panel.

>> i would like to introduce the witnesses who are here and invite them to speak sequentially. our first witness is greg wellenius, an associate professor of epidemiology and the associate director of the the school for public health. his work has focused on air pollution, the risk of cardiovascular events, and its effect on cardiovascular physiology. he received his degrees in physiology and his doctorate in epidemiology and environmental health from harvard.

he has been doing groundbreaking work in rhode island studying heat related deaths and hospitalizations. i am particularly proud dr. will ellenius is with us today. he will be followed by vickie patton who manages regional clean air programs. , she workedning edf at the office of general counsel in washington where she provided legal counsel in a variety of national air-quality initiatives. she serves as a member of the advisory committee. she received her degree in hydrology from the university of arizona. dr. thomas ferkol is a at theor of pediatrics washington university school of medicine.

at thetion to his work washington university school of medicine, he is the president of the american thoracic society, an international organization with over 15,000 members. he also serves as a member of the american board of pediatrics pulmonology. he is a graduate of case western reserve and the ohio state university college of medicine. the remaining witnesses on our no-shows. they were invited. they accepted the invitations and confirmed their attendance. we informed them the hearing would proceed as allowed under senate rules. it is unfortunate they have chosen not to attend this official senate hearing. but we will go ahead with the witnesses who did choose to attend. if you could proceed, thank you very much for coming down from rhode island for this hearing. thank you, mr. chairman.

it is a pleasure to be here. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i am dr. gregory wellenius, associate professor of epidemiology at the brown university school of public health and associate director of the brown university center for environmental health and technology. i earned my doctorate in environmental health and epidemiology from the harvard school of public health and previously served on the faculty at harvard medical school. i have been conducting research on the health effects of air pollution for more than 15 years. it is my pleasure to provide testimony in this area today. there is broad scientific and medical consensus the current standard of 75 parts per billion is outdated and a protective standard should fall within the range of 60 to 70 parts. pollution will save lives and improve air quality for everyone especially , vulnerable populations like children and those with asthma. i encourage the e.p.a. to give full consideration to setting a

60 ppb standard and to finalize a standard that will protect public health. there is broad consensus in the scientific and medical communities that ambient ozone is harmful to human health. in 2011, or team-leading medical and public health organizations including the american academy of pediatrics, the american heart association, the wreck and lung association, and the american thoracic society cosigned a letter to the obama , "thestration saying ozone health standard must protect those who are most vulnerable from the dangerous health impacts of ozone, ." have alsot scientists concluded there is a causal relationship between short-term ozone exposure and respiratory health effects. this conclusion is based on the findings from more than a thousand studies carried out over decades and demonstrating

ozone exposure leads to increased hospitalizations and deaths, reduced lung function, and increased airway reactivity. as one example of many, a 2010 study by scientists at emory and the georgia institute of technology found that in the atlanta metropolitan area, it was linked to higher pediatric emergency department visits for asthma well below the current standard. studies also indicate measurable adverse health effects at levels below the current standard. meaningful and statistically significant reductions in lung function have been observed in young, healthy adults exposed to levels as low as 60 parts per billion. other studies have found increased respiratory symptoms during controlled exposures to ozone at 70 parts per billion.

these controlled exposure studies have been conducted in healthy adults. it is expected people with , including children, would be even more sensitive to these effects. clearlyntific evidence shows the current standard for ozone is inadequate to protect the public health. the advisory committee concluded there is, "clear scientific support for the need to revise the standard." and "there is adequate scientific evidence to recommend a range of levels for revised primary ozone standards from 70 to 60 parts per billion." primary ozone standard would have significant public health benefits including fewer deaths, fewer hospital admissions and emergency room visits, fewer respiratory symptoms, and approved lung function. the state youd, represent and where i work at brown university, asthma rates in adults and children are above the national average.

entering ozone pollution is at safe lives -- safe levels will save lives and improve the lives of people across the country. rising temperatures from climate change could further exacerbate the health effects of ozone. permission of ground-level ozone is affected by weather and climate. is a strong link between higher apertures and ozone levels. it is a major greenhouse gas and important contributor to global climate change. reducing ozone pollution today would provide immediate and long-lasting public health benefits. it would also help slow the pace of future climate change. addressing climate change could help reduce ozone pollution. in conclusion, epa's proposal to revise the ozone standard is based on scientific and medical consensus and supported by extensive scientific evidence. i encourage the e.p.a. to give full consideration to set it at a protective level of 60 parts per billion. thank you for your attention.

i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. very much appreciate you coming down to give your scientific and rhode island perspective. thank you for your leadership air forf of clean, safe our communities and families. we appreciate it. the united states commitment to clean air is a broadly shared american value whether you live in a red state, a blue state, or a purple state, or in the case of my own home state, in the heart of the rockies in colorado, which is all of the above. americans want clean, healthy air for our communities and families. the establishment of the air-quality standards for ozone is the bedrock foundation of our clean air laws. it is why congress has instructed the administrator of

the environmental protection agency to establish those standards on the basis of human health. the question for the administrator is whether the air in our communities is safe to breathe. this determination on the basis of human health was affirmed in a landmark supreme court that probably affirmed it is epa's solemn responsibility to establish health-based standards for ozone based on whether the air is safe to breathe. know, as others have already commented, it is not safe to breathe based on the current standard. the advisory committee to givehed by congress e.p.a. rigorous, independent advice on the scientific foundation of the national air quality standards has concluded the current standard is not adequate to protect our

children's health, our nations health, and we do need to strengthen that standard in a range between 60 and 70 parts per billion trade they further recommended a standard in the lower end of the ranges would be appropriate and questioned whether a standard in the higher levels of the ranges towards 70 parts per billion would carry responsedministrator's ability to protect human health with an adequate margin of safety. we know the effects of ozone are profound. there is difficulty breathing on high ozone days. there are asthma attacks, emergency room visits, hospital admissions, and premature deaths. one of the most significant since the bush administration revised the ozone strongds in 2008 is the science linking ozone concentrations to premature deaths.

the populations at risk include our children and individuals with asthma, elderly, those outside working, exercising, and living. the clean air scientific advisory committee looked at a host of information in concluding these effects are significant and the populations includinge imperiled, epidemiological studies, animal studies, exposure, and risk assessment. we have heard the numbers of health impacts at stake. but if you are a mother or father of a child with asthma and that child suffers an asthma attack on a high ozone day, the impacts are profound on your family. fabricges your family's in so many fundamental ways. is why congress has long

instructed the environmental protection agency to establish the health-based standards on the basis of science and public health. we have talked about how we are well on our way to achieving the standards. senator gillibrand talked about the fact our nation can achieve vital protections and grow our economy. in her state of new york, there are manufacturers that are going to be making the clean air technologies that will help vehicles others have talked about and will reduce ozone forming pollution by 80% beginning with model year 2017 vehicles. there has been lots of skepticism throughout the history of the nation's clean air laws that we cannot meet these challenges, that we cannot deliver cleaner air and grow our economy. when the nation confronted this challenge in 1997, there was one

whotor, senator whitehouse commented at the time that if we move forward with strong ozone health standards, that our hair salons would be imperiled. in fact, we have achieved cleaner air and those businesses are up and running and strong. >> hair salons are not extinct. >> [laughter] senator, you indicated at the outset not all senators are here today. i want you to know who is here today. mom's clean air force is here in the audience listening to this hearing. momspresents over 400,000 across our nation, moms who are faith-based, who live in purple states, red states, and moms who are united by their abiding commitment to clean air for our children. those moms know when we talk our children into bed at night, we

are overwhelmed by our love for them and our commitment to ensure a clean, safe, healthy environment for our children. your leadership in ensuring we have strong health-based ozone standards is one of the single most important gifts you can give to our communities, families, and to all children who are threatened by unhealthy air. so thank you. >> thank you, ms. patton. s clean airmom force. the firsti would be to admit when again child is in an emergency room with an asthma attack, it is likely to be the mom that had to take off work. when a child has had to miss a day of school, it is likely to be a mom that is called home and has to organize coverage of a child not in school. even if it is not affecting the lungs of moms, it is sure affecting their lives.

dr. ferkol? >> i am division director of pediatric allergy and pulmonary medicine at washington university in st. louis. i care for children with lung disease. some with severe, even life-threatening disease. you have my written testimony before you. nius has provided scientific background on why reducing ozone is important for public health. i have a few points to make to add to the discussion. the lungs andth, airways are exposed to the outside environment. breathing is not an option. airborne pollutants if present are unavoidable. children are far more vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. the lung is not completely formed at birth. it is still developing. the developing lung is

particularly susceptible to pollution. it is associated with impaired growth that may be permanent. what is happening during childhood does not end in childhood but continues well into adulthood. ozone exposure increases the risk of developing asthma in childhood, including children that seemingly were previously healthy. ozone pollution is particularly harmful to children who do have lung disease. that is not surprising, but it is worth repeating. for children with asthma, the most common chronic disease of childhood that affects nearly 7 million children and adolescents in the united states alone, ozone levels below the current e.p.a. standards are associated with increasing respiratory symptoms and the need for rescue medications. in some cases, it requires greater medications, higher doses, to control symptoms.

which may sound ok except that these increased doses lead to unintended side effects. this is common knowledge. every pediatrician who cares for a child, especially a child with asthma, understands this relationship. sometimes it means children with asthma die, which is tragic, and i like to think of what a book. ozone exposure as a child can lead to deficits that exist into adulthood. i felt the need to repeat it. the data is emerging. there are several lines of evidence clearly showing early exposure to air pollution have long-term effects. it is not surprising the cumulative exposures during childhood would impact lung health later in life. very few people begin their

lives as adults. when we in the medical community talk about the ozone impact on public health, it sounds like public health is a high-level concept. it really is not. public health is just the accumulation of all the personal stories that make up america. public health includes the mother of the child with asthma in the emergency room worried whether their son will recover from a severe asthma attack. she is also thinking she cannot afford to miss another day of work to stay home with her son. is aollution not only direct cost for medical care of the old child, but also increased in direct costs from lost productivity due to missed work and school. lastly, as stated by the previous speakers, the science is strong and compelling. since 2006 when the bush administration reviewed the ozone standard, the americans

arrested society recommended a more protective level of 60 parts per billion -- thoracic society recommended a more protective level of 60 parts per billion. the research evidence is strong. the medical community has no doubts about the adverse effects on pediatric health. the e.p.a. is not basing their proposaed standard on one or 10 studies. the proposed rule is based on hundreds of studies that demonstrate the current standard is not protective. these studies include multiple scientific methods and models, but the data are clear. the current ozone standard is not protective of public health, and the e.p.a. must issue a more protective standard. thank you. >> thank you very much. let me ask a few questions.

some impressive work in rhode island studying heat related deaths and hospitalizations. is ozone formulation -- ozone formation exacerbated by climate change in your view? betweenthe linkage added heat and added ozone? >> thank you, senator, for that question. >> a local question in rhode island. >> in rhode island, we have looked at the relationship between warm temperatures and the number ofnd emergency department visits and deaths in the state of her diamond. we found a strong association. more people are hospitalized and die for heat related illnesses on hot days. what we are trying to explore now in rhode island is whether

it is made worse on high ozone days. we think from other studies in other parts of the world that days that are hot and high ozone are generally worse for people. we are looking at that currently in rhode island. i don't have the results to share today. but i would be happy to provide those in the near future. shaw did not choose to attend the hearing, but he did prefiled testimony with us in which he told us asthmatics are not at greater risk of adverse health effects from ozone. do you have any reaction to that statement? >> i think it is just not true, to be frank. there is substantial evidence as thatcs are at least great of risk -- a risk. with any body of science and

evidence, not every study shows that. but the overwhelming consensus in the field is people with asthma are at greater risk. patton,patent -- ms. the existing standard, 70 parts per billion, was criticized at by thee it was adopted clean air scientific advisory committee. they actually took the step of writing to administrator johnson to say they do not endorse the new primary ozone standards being sufficiently protective of public health and that decision "failed to satisfy the explicit stipulations of the clean air act that you ensure an adequate margin of safety for all individuals, including sensitive populations." you were at e.p.a. for a while. you are familiar with the

scientific advisory panel. was that an unusual step for them to take? step.was an unusual why thehighlights committee in its recommendations to the administrator in june was so clear about its findings. it wanted to leave very little room for ambiguity about the foundational science that supports two central conclusions. one is the current standard is not adequate to protect public health. that is what that body found in june in its recommendations to the administrator, and also that there is clear evidence wanting -- warranting a stronger standard. the 2008 standard was criticized

sharply at the time. not only by the clean air scientific committee that establish aa. to stronger standard, but a number of other leaders in the medical and health community. >> somebody obviously did not find the clean air scientific advisory committee to be very credible in ignoring the recommendations back in 2008. what can you tell the committee for the record at this hearing about the credibility and credentials of the clean air scientific advisory committee? should we pay attention to what they say? >> the clean air scientific advisory committee is established under the law to provide the administrator with independent scientific and medical advice on these really important public health questions.

this particular advisory that most recently communicated to the administrator in june is comprised of leading scientific at institutions across our country, from leading academic institutions in north carolina to the research arm of the u.s. power industry, the electric power research institute. a wide variety of experts and perspectives. wide and deep expertise in epidemiology, toxicology, the leading scientific foundations. they have communicated clearly to the administrator it is her solemn responsibility to strengthen the health-based standard for ozone. so, a private citizen listening to this hearing can take comfort in clean air

scientific advisory committee is a reputable and reliable body? body is a reputable, highly regarded body of leading scientific experts. its recommendations are also confirmed by the leading medical and health associations. the american lung association, the american public health association, the american thoracic society. >> you said the american thoracic society. leadingsive body of health and medical associations and experts that further confirm the findings and recommendations of the clean air scientific advisory committee. >> you have made a perfect segue to dr. ferkol. tell us about the americans are classic society. --thoracic society.

resume i have challenged -- presume i have come at you that this is an irresponsible, liberal or resignation -- organization and explain what the american thoracic society is. >> we are anything but that. we are somewhat egalitarian when it comes to our political leanings. the american thoracic society is a professional organization with over 15,000 members. it includes scientists, physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, patients, families. all of whom are interested in improving the pulmonary health as well as focusing to some extent on sleep disorders. organization.roud there is a lot of different people with a lot of different views, with a lot of different political leanings. i would say we are neither left nor right in that respect.

societymerican thoracic in your view is also reputable and reliable when it makes a recommendation like this on a matter within its expertise. >> i would hope so. otherwise, i don't think i would want to be the president. >> thank you them thank you. let's say you are a mother or father in rhode island. it is a summer day and you wake up in the morning, preparing breakfast. you are listening to the radio and your kids are home. the radio announces that today is a bad player day in the rhode island and infants should be kept indoors. you are not sure what that means. you take your child out to get some sunshine, to run around a little bit. is there harmed that could be happening to that child that would not be apparent to the dad

or the mom? >> the scenario you give is a common one and it is a dilemma that families have. you hear about bad air days. we have them in st. louis as well. harm and it is invisible. you don't see or smell ozone, but you are exposed to ozone. the effects are cumulative. it's not suddenly you have an asthma attack, it certainly can precipitate asthma. that is very clear as one of the causative factors. but it can also lead to keebler .o damage to the lungs lower the threshold for the next time you have asthma exacerbation. >> the risk is not that the child over -- child or .ulnerable person

it is that lasting permanent insidious damage is not apparent that today. >> i think the key militant right, you used the exact word, insidious. it sneaks up on the family. influences thet progression of lung disease, how much of this contributes to lung disease in adults is something that is a very interesting question. more than a few concerns that this is happening. >> a vulnerable person who goes out on a bad air day and experiences no apparent immediate illness -- ill afects, doesn't cough or have

sense they have been affected, nevertheless they could be suffering harm as a result. >> it doesn't mean there isn't some incremental injury to the airways that then disposes the to laterthe adult problems with their lungs. >> does the harm tend to be cumulative? >> that is a very good question. when the type of harm we have been discussing does not manifest in a particular discomfort or coughing or anything else during the day, but nevertheless is happening and could potentially manifest months or years later, is that correct? >> the struggles evidence is the short-term effects.

you could be outside 100 high ozone days and not suffer an obvious effect. have an01st you can asthma attack or have really bad respiratory symptoms. there are also these cumulative effects we have been talking about. those are increasing evidence that this could be cardiovascular effects. concerned not just about the short-term effects of ozone but the life long effects. >> you did say they were cumulative. some of the cardiovascular effects can be seen even in young adults, having at -- having advance cardiovascular damage.

to standing to ask you by for one moment. i think i will conclude the hearing. all unanimous consent of present i want to put into the a combination press letter issued by the ranking member committee, inviting the public -- inviting the witnesses to attend.

it was invited and not to appear by the ranking member. i would also stayed for the record that the proceeding of this hearing was one that we have taken up with a senator legal counsel. we have gone forward with that advice. the record of the hearing remains open for an additional week. after the conclusion of the .earing let me also add to the record a

, chairman white house thank you for holding this hearing. statement will also be admitted to the record alongside a press release denying this is a hearing. it is getting interesting around here already. will remain open. let me think all of our witnesses for coming down. this is a long overdue change in a rule that had no validity from the very beginning. much for your support of the epa action and your support of the epa pushing toward the lower 60 per billion standard, which i believe the recommend that's what i believe is the recommendation of the assembled panel. we willfurther a do

adjourn the hearing. thank you all very much for your participation. >> here are some of the programs you will find this weekend on the c-span networks. sunday evening at eight on c-span's q and day, author and town hall editor kv -- katie pat on c-span2 tonight at 10 william the resin with -- ewicz thinkssi

students should learn how to be creative, think critically, and have a go beyond the material. in book tv visits west lafayette, indiana. -- to tour its literary sites. today, patrick clay role -- patrick cleburne's in the civil war. four, theow night at history of police brutality in neighboring oakland. c-span.orghedule on and let us know what you think of the programs you are watching. , e-mail us, or send us a tweet.

join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> this month is the 10th anniversary of our sunday primetime program, and we are featuring an encore presentation from one q and day each year, highlighting historians, film makers, and leading public policy makers. kenneth feinberg's issue -- from 2005 onisode september 11. from 2007, robert novak on his 50 years of reporting in washington. from 2008, the value of higher education in america. and from 2009, conservative commentator -- a decade of compelling conversations. december 22 through the 26 at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span. bob kerry and john danforth

spoke at an event hosted by the bipartisan policy center. served on a bipartisan commission that examined entitlements and tax policy. that effort and why the budget should be a top priority in the 2016 presidential race. this is just over an hour. >> good afternoon, everyone. glad to see so many of you coming out in this weather to get here. i appreciate it very much. i am bill hoagland here with the bipartisan policy center. it is my pleasure and honor to kick off this discussion this afternoon. the bipartisan policy center was established by four former senate majority leaders in 2007. senator bob dole, george mitchell, tom daschle and the late pat baker. during their times in congress, they worked tirelessly to find solutions to the challenges that confronted the country.

they did this through what we call or what i think of as reasoned negotiations and respectable dialogue. if you like the raison d'etre for this organization that they established. yes, to look back on the 20th anniversary of the bipartisan commission on entitlement and tax reform, but more importantly, to look forward and how these issues can face the upcoming 2016 presidential elections and the new congress coming in. we are joined this afternoon by two very distinguished public service, senator kerry and senator jack danforth. both worked with those senate majority leaders who founded this place.

president clinton established the bipartisan commission on entitlement and tax reform by an executive order in november 1993. chairman gurion vice-chairman danforth took on the herculean task of carrying out the executive order and they were joined by 10 other united states senators, two who are still serving. the current majority leader, harry reid, and thad cochran. the last one who is just retiring from the house, john dingell, and 12 members of the public. senator domenici, who may join us later, was on that commission. but in the end, the commission could not reach consensus. instead, its final report was a compilation of competing

proposals. but the two cochairman advance their brave proposal as it related to social security, raising the retirement age to 70, a cut in the social security payroll tax with the money redirected into mandatory private accounts and adopting price indexing among other changes. although the group was not able to agree to any policy recommendations, the commission found budgeteers to be a milestone in forming policy for the future of the nations policy. i can also make the argument it is even more difficult today than it was 20 years ago. i will now turn this over to my friend and fellow colleague bob bixby who i have labored with in these vineyards for many years. he served here at the bipartisan policy center on the debt reduction task force that i can say did reach consensus in 2010 but none of them were elected officials at that time. and bob is currently the executive director of the

concorde coalition where he has been since its founding in 1992. and again i would like to point out by bipartisan duo of the late former senator paul sangha of massachusetts and late former senator warren rudman. so bob, i turn it over to you. >> thank you, bill. it is always a pleasure to be here at the bipartisan policy center. thank you to the bpc for hosting us today. as bill noted, 20 years ago, two respected united states senators

were appointed by president bill clinton to chair a bipartisan commission on entitlements and tax. during the course of their deliberations, they produced a report that declared current budget policy were unsustainable, current trends were unsustainable. they also found key trends about the nature of the problem many issues that policymakers need to address in order to find solutions. it really was a remarkable report in two respects. 1, 30 of the 32 members of the commission agreed on the seven findings. defining the problem.

those findings had defined the nature of the problem in the intervening years since the second remarkable thing is that all of those findings unfortunately are still valid. when i was looking through them earlier this year, i felt, boy, you could release these today and they would still be valid. that was the idea that i could ask bob kerrey and jack danforth if they would like to do that because, after five presidential elections, 10 congressional elections, and at least four other bipartisan commissions, though same fiscal policies are still unsustainable for the same reasons that the kerry-danforth commission had established. so as we head into another election, we thought it would be a good idea to look at the seven findings again to help explain why current policy is still unsustainable, why it matters for the nation's future and why it is an important issue for the 2016 presidential candidates to

take up. the seven findings -- i won't go into them in great detail. you have the report and i will skip over the slides so we have more time with the senators. basically, they address the need to close the gap between government savings, between government spending and revenues. that is kind of elementary. but they also talk about the need to improve savings and help grow the economy. they talk about the need to help rising health care costs. they talk about the need to address the demographic trends in this country. and they recommended that we adopted the social security and medicare call to action to make the revenues and the spendings in those two key programs come more into line so that they are

sustainable for the long-term. i just want to note that, with the deficit coming down right now, and it is coming down, it is easy for people to forget that a lowering deficit still leaves you with a whopping debt. it is easy for the public, the media, candidates to lose track of the fact that we still have a problem that needs to be addressed and i hope we can talk a little bit about that in the q&a. right now, i am going to yield the floor, as they say in the senate, two are distinct guest speakers, bob kerrey and jack danforth who together served more than 30 years in the united states senate and served as governor for bob kerrey and attorney for jack danforth in their home states. >> great. it is great to be with jack again. to be relatively brief, i was

senator for 13 years. the first and most important question for the mecca people to ask and have answered is do we have a problem? if you don't think there is a problem, particularly the candidates, and especially the press needs to ask the candidates is there a problem? if there isn't a problem, why propose anything? i think we do have a big problem and it's a demographic problem. a few can't blame it on anybody. it's demographics. it would have been easier to solve it in the mid-1990's when the demographic problem began to become a reality. about 10,000 a day, baby boomers are moving into the ranks of eligibility. and they are entitled to these benefits that are specified. in the longer you wait, the more difficult it is to solve the problem.

again, it is not a problem that was created by lessor right here and it is a problem that we sickly promised more than the current law is able to keep. if you don't do it in the day at some point, it's going to get worse. at some point, you have to cut benefits or raise taxes higher than relatively modest adjustments. even relatively minor adjustments can be difficult. anybody that proposes a solution to the problem is going to be criticized for that solution. alan simpson and i introduced legislation in 1995. so the press goes on to talk to people who are 75 years old. you have to wait until your 70 to retire, what do you think of that?

it's not retirement age and younger. it is eligibility for normal benefits. the point that i am making is that it's much easier to be a cosponsor of the do-nothing plan. you can have a liberal solution or a conservative solution. but it's not like finding a cure for cancer. there are only 30 or 40 things you can do. there are not many selections you can make. but the public in the press began to say to senator windbag, why are you sponsoring the do-nothing plan?

why are you sponsoring something that will produce a tremendous cut in benefits for people that are under the age of 30? and i can tell you why. because i am 71 now. my cohorts votes 70% of his row. 20% of them though. why should i do something that is going to help them? i'll just make a speech and say that i care about my kids and grandkids. i think the biggest problem that we have going in to the 2016 cycle is the one that we had in 19941995. far too many members of congress, for too many candidates get left off the hook because it's easy to sponsor the

do-nothing plan as a consequence of getting very few questions of why are you proposing something that is going to make it even worse for the people you say you care about the most. i'm done. [laughter] >> it's been 20 years since our report. we just had sandwiches downstairs and a bunch of us, we had a spirited discussion on the following point. is it fair to say that nothing has been done on the budget in 20 years? there were those who said, well, it's not literally true because there are some little things. my position is nothing has been done. >> nothing has been done.

[laughter] bipartisan politics that i want to highlight. we negotiated that. [laughter] >> this is also the anniversary of simpson bowles, this month. and nothing has been done. i did not realize, as bob said, that there have been six or seven other commission reports since ours. and nothing has been done. i think that the lesson of this is that commission reports, no matter how good they are, aren't very efficacious. they don't really do very much. and you can have the most persuasive case. i can remember after our report came out, we had these beautiful charts, just unbelievable graphs demonstrating where we are heading on social security, medicare, total spending, so on. i remember presenting -- i thought i did a good job of

presenting the case -- to a group of people, older people mainly, and they just viewed it with total disbelief. they did not want to believe it. i think that is fair to say that neither politicians nor voters want to accept that something has to be done that's serious with regard to the entitlements and in some way we've got to increase revenue. in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election, there was the famous debate in iowa. eight presidential aspirants were asked the question would you accept a deal with 10 times real spending cuts, $10 of real spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase?

and if you would not accept that, would you raise your hand? all eight raised their right hands. they would not except such a deal. that is another way of saying raise your right hand and take a pledge that, if you elect me president, i am not going to do anything to deal with the problem of the debt because you can't put together a program to deal with the debt. if that arrangement is off the table, there was a piece recently in the politico. it was about how politically the simpson bowles recommendations have been used against people who supported them. what they do is they take some pieces of the recommendations.

instead of dealing with the whole problem of what to do about the debt as a totality, clever politicians will take some little piece. my opponent is in favor of increasingly the retirement age or reducing mortgage interest reduction. you could say that in about 10 seconds in a commercial. it is politically devastating to do that. what the public wants to believe is that you don't have to deal with the hard problems. you don't have deal with medicare or security. we could cut waste in the budget.

check writing programs are not particularly inefficient. there's no inefficiency in writing a check. what they point to and what they hope is the case, the average citizen like the people i spoke to, the hope is there is a bunch of wasteful things. cut back. eliminate them. they heard stories. they tell these stories. they hear about something that is ridiculous. some program about why frogs have warts. cut that.

they believe that is going to take care of the problem. but the fact is 10 years from now entitlements plus interest on the debt will consume 91% of the federal revenue. 15 years from now 100% of federal revenue. what does that mean? that means if the government were totally efficient, if there isn't one penny of waste, there is not enough in those discretionary programs. to pay for the rest of government. it cannot be done. the wasteful spending argument doesn't hold water. what does happen is if you don't want to touch the entitlement programs, there is a squeeze put on anything that pertains to investment.

research. infrastructure. education. anything that would produce future growth gets squeezed in order to pay money to elderly people. i think what we need is a relentless pursuit of the question of what to do about the national debt a connection with the next presidential election. i mean putting candidates on the spot and keeping them on the spot. asking them questions. follow-up questions. more follow-up questions. on what they intend to do.

what is their answer? to educate ourselves. and talking to the media. basic facts of this. what is a reasonable answer? what isn't? keep the candidates on that point. organize forums. on that specific issue. what to do about the debt? entitlements? keep them on it. it is sad. challengers only say this in election time. challengers love debates. love political debate. what do political debate mean? the normal debate is you ask the media what is your position on

say social security? you have two and a half minutes. a minute and a half rebuttal. that is the typical debate. you could ask. they will talk for two and a half minutes. or they will get over the issue of waste. don't do anything. it is a frogs and warts deal we have to address. any politician could talk around any subject for two and a half minutes. anybody. when they talk about debates, you know what lincoln douglas

was? lincoln douglas was a series of seven debates. each lasted three hours. on a single subject. but to do about the extension of slavery. that was the subject. 21 hours these two candidates debated this one issue. i don't think that will happen on the issue of entitlements. something like it has to. otherwise the next election will be what every election has been. frivolous. >> i want to get a question.

with didn't introduce you at the beginning. she has the campaign to fix the debt. we will be hearing from maya. you mentioned that debate in iowa. they would reject a 10-1 deal. the have some advice for the regarding candidate? >> i think it will rest with the press. democrats are at least as good as republicans on skating on this. forecasting the moment this would get ugly is now. 2014.

looks different in the next 10-15 years. if you win, you will cement a budget in 2017. over 90% without taking changes in mandatory programs. how do you fund all the things you want to find? keep our nation strong. fund it at a fair level. both infrastructure and education. the press says, you can't do it. we're talking if this person becomes president in 2017. they have got to have a budget. both parties whoever wins are saying, we have midterms. we don't want something controversial. those of us over 60 50. we don't have to be told. we know how important it is. we vote accordingly. we will respond to fear mongering. we will be forging in the alley for food. we are insufficiently patriotic to do the right thing. i don't think democrats are less capable of dodging the press. i emphasize this will be a critical time. it could get ugly. you don't want the american

people surprised. they were able to dodge it through the presidential campaign. >> how was it you are able to get a bipartisan commission as diverse?

was it difficult? >> we had people who voted. the commission was created by the president. i asked if you would be willing to cochair with me. the staff was hired by both of us. it made it a lot easier to get an agreement. start off with no party involvement. they suggested to come out with an interim report. it would be difficult to get a

consensus. identify the problem. we did. there was some pretty significant changes. it is so true. i could imagine a debate. what do do about social security? hell no. i won't go. i will not go. i talked about the greatest generation. give me a standing ovation. i hope that doesn't happen. the american people will get shocked when they find out what

has to occur. it was unsustainable. >> the interim report was the factual background. the charts. here is where we are. here is the rate of spending. that wasn't really controversial. what was controversial is where do we go from here? there were 32 members of the commission. we agreed on recommendations. we go for five people to go along. nobody else. it is hard to get people to focus on what we are to do about this. >> they do focus on it. given this set of circumstances, the recession had a negative impact on 401(k)s.

additional income beyond social security. both parties acknowledge that. you get something comparable. we have to fix something. we do it separately. they will basically demagogue it. >> we get targeted. fearmonger. bad things will happen. sometimes we forget good things would happen. could you address that? what would be the benefit? >> i feel like i should be quoting immanuel kant. [laughter]

i do think it would be easy to face either primaries. put together a proposal to grow the economy. increase retirement security. what jack said is true. the republicans allowed a list of things they say their base won't allow. figure out a way to stimulate the economy. increase security. >> i know. >> before you go, could i ask a question? >> sure. do you think there will be more

bipartisanship in the next congress? will it get worse? >> i haven't the foggiest idea. i didn't know it would rain today. [laughter] i don't know. hope springs eternal. i hope there is more. it is the only way. take the health care debate. health care is controversial and personal. it is easy to say bill hogan wants to get rid of your medicare and demagogue the issue. on a subject like this, it has to begin with both together. it is impossible. hope they will do it. best regards. merry christmas.

happy new year. you are great. [laughter] >> thank you both. >> two questions. how do you present this? other than the sky is falling? should the country get stronger? or weaker? it is getting weaker. the debt is weakness. having to spend more dollars in the future of servicing the debt is nothing.

you get nothing from that. that is weakness. what is making the country stronger is investing in those things that lead to growth. what are those things? research. infrastructure. education. that is what leads to growth. are we going to do more? or are we going to get weaker? that is the way to present it. on politics, whether there is hope, there was in the paper on how there's no overlap in the two political parties anymore. there used to be. the most liberal republican is more conservative than the most conservative democrat both the house and the senate. that is what the analysis shows.

that is a difficult situation. the polarization. the republican party has been pulled to the right and the democrat party's been pulled to the left. why is that? the reason is politicians want to get reelected for elected. the way to get elected is to listen carefully to the constituents. those likely to vote in primary. tell them what they want to hear. nothing unusual about that. the customer are the activists. they show up at town hall meetings. they show up to meetings. they vote in elections. that is the base. that is what politicians are hearing.

is there an alternative voice? where is the rest? where are the voices of people who say we should have a future? i think that is the big question. we need a bunch of spirited people who want to get something going. >> maya, thank you for being patient and waiting. we wanted to get as much time as we could. what do you think? [laughter] >> ok. first, read the report. for c-span viewers -- it was

something that changed my life. i read it at the time i was starting to wake up to the budget deficit and didn't know if it was that big of a problem. it caused me to change my career. the more you realize this is a serious and profound problem. i remember those charts. they were excellent. it is hard to go through the basic data and not come away realizing we have a problem. what i think is stunning is 20 years later we still have the exact same problems except with the demographic nature of them. read the report. read the report. real work has been done. the last thing to read is a congressional budget report.

the layout the trajectory is unsustainable. no question. the deficit has come down so much. all the focus is on the short term improvement. that has been the result of not smart policies focusing on cap's. what hasn't improved is the fact that our debt levels are twice the historical average. this is twice as we were when went through the crisis. it is projected to go up starting again in an unsustainable way forever. the situation is bleak. political situation is bleak. look at what we have done. that only do put in place a comprehensive plan, but make it worse.

we snuck in as much as $30 billion. we're talking about extending the expired tax breaks. 42 billion dollars. we have been laying on more debt. barely any notice of it. i remain discouraged. these issues are tough. if people talk honestly, you need courage.

leadership. bipartisanship. do this together. i don't think we are going to see real efforts. if we are not going to fix the debt, could we not make it worse? a real commitment to not adding more. i think this is what we have been talking around. the next president is going to have to make this their issue. the national campaign -- focus on the agenda. tackle fiscal issues responsibly. i couldn't agree more. that means the media not letting

up. focus on the issue. acknowledge the problem. put out a plan. only works if everyone agrees. if you have one politician that lays out and runs up against someone who says we will grow our way out, it is tempting to believe that easy storyline. only people who educate the country. educate them media. ask our candidates a deeper discussion. real choices will have to be made. one of the most important things people do is the budget. i think it is important we prepare. offer a budget that achieves real improvements. i wish you talking about how to balance the budget. i feel that is out of reach. one thing -- we shouldn't let our debt grow faster than our economy. it is impossible to be thriving if your debt is growing faster. or interest payments.

ask with upside is. cbo has run calculations and models. it is a comprehensive debt deal in place, that is one of the surest cases to growth. that is how you would grow the economy. all of that is incredibly important. it does require borrowing. the drumbeat has kept up. a presidential campaign were people demand answers. >> we've all go to bill and an audience. so much has been said. nothing has happened.

i think things did happen. think we did put into place a balanced budget that was successful. the difficulty is we did a lot of things that didn't help the long-term. we have restricted growth exactly in the areas that is important for our country. investment in health care. education. transportation. those of the areas we really have control of spending. but we have it done is the last time we did other mental capturing form was before this report. 1986. we haven't focused on reform. it should happen in the next congress. i'm pessimistic. one other point i would like to make is something also happened.

what happened was the debt to gdp which was about 35-36 percent is not close to well above 70%. the big issue is that back in 1994, the amount of investment from foreign investors was close to about 30%. 65% of our debt is not owned by americans, but people overseas. many have heard this before. a treaty with taiwan we would have to go to war with china protect taiwan. it is an overstatement. makes the point that we don't have the same degree of sovereign tea. it is risking the future of this country. there have been things that have been accomplished. other things happen on health care. the per capita is coming down. the capita those 85 and up will

be expensive and coming. i think we have huge challenges. i want to focus on the need to focus on positive aspects of deficit reduction. positive aspect. i don't think we could grow ourselves out of this. tax ourselves out of this.

what worries me more than anything a pew came out yesterday. when this report was put together, the favorability rating on the congress was something like 70%. 70%. the favorable reading of congress is below 20%. >> that is what you get for all that pandering to the public. [laughter]

>> if that is true, then it adds to the dilemma of if they can do anything. they are going to be accused of not knowing what they were doing to begin with. it is going to be extremely difficult, but it does not mean we can run away from this challenge. i think it requires presidential leadership as much as it requires congressional leadership. that presidential leadership is why i think the focus here has been to make sure that, if we go into the next election, that we put usher on the candidates that are going to be the next president of the united states. >> is it possible to get one of the slides up? like, the second one. next one. the next slide. yeah, that one. one of the interesting things when we were putting this together is that, if you look at -- what this is showing is a

comparison of two 40-year projections. the darker line, the black line is the original kerrey-danforth projection from 1994 looking over the next 40 years. after 2035 is basically what they were doing. the red line is the cbo alternative baseline which looked at 40 years from today. they are almost identical. which, to me, says a couple of things. it raises an interesting question. for one thing, it reaffirms the idea that nothing has been done or nothing substantial has been done. but the original forty-year projection turned out not to be as bad as projected.

in other words, what this says to me is that, like a lot of things in the federal budget, the problem has been pushed out. it has been kicked down the road through incremental things. some of it good luck. some of it as a result of legislation. but those incremental steps have not changed the curve. they have not solved the problem. they have pushed it off. it is in a large way emblematic of what is going on with federal budget right now. you look at the next session. and what they are going to have to deal with. a lot of the things they have just pushed off. sustainable growth rates, medicare. debt limits. they have not nd