ee up funds to go after that enforcement rather than diverting it from the universal service. my concern is this is essentially the camel's nose under the tent. i would prefer that we keep the two activities separate for the sake of the consumers. senator more yan: thank you very much. thank you very much. senator boozman: senator coons. senator coons: thank you for your service and testimony today and the businesslike way you approach both the solutions to the challenges in front of you and working together. thank you. senator boozman: thank you senator coons. and thank you-all for being here. we had a good hearing. i think we really do have -- we've got some profound disagreements, yet we really do have some areas we all agree on. one thing as i go out and about throughout the state, i know it's true of my colleagues, in the old days when you talked about infrastructure, you talked about roads and bridges and water. now electricity. now, infrastructure, what you're doing with broadband connectivity, is so very, very important. i think that we are all agreeing that this needs to get done. and certainly we are looking for

ways to help you get it done. so again, that's so important. not only for rural america which we are concerned about but also we are also very, very concerned about urban america, the whole thing. we appreciate you being here. if there are no further questions -- other thing before i go on, i want to thank you but i also want to thank your staffs. i know you worked really hard in getting you all prepared. chairman wheeler: you want to thank your staffs, sir. senator boozman: exactly. our staffs have also. we do appreciate them. if there are no further questions, the hearing record will remain opened until next tuesday, may 19, at noon for subcommittee members to submit any statements or questions to the witnesses for the record. subcommittee hearing is hereby adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

[indiscernible] >> next a discussion on u.s. oil

and gas drilling in the arctic. then a summit on u.s. health care and benefits. then lighted;, washington journal. >> on "newsmakers" senator mike lee. he talks about the patriot act and the usa freedom act, and other topics including the freedom bill. >> this weekend, the c-span cities to her -- tour in fort lauderdale, florida. >> when they set up their villages along the way, the buses would stop. this was a tourist attraction.

so when they came to the tourist attraction they were getting food, a weekly allotment of food and sometimes the rental of sewing machines. they also sometimes would get fabric. it behooved the tourist attraction people to supply them with fabric so they were sitting and making things for crafts market. this was a little boy's shirt from the 1920's. this was an experimental time for patchwork. on the bottom you can see this is not a design that made it down today. this is an experimental design. sometimes they weren't used any longer than that particular decade. >> the thing about the devils triangle and bermuda triangle, there are all kinds of things that have happened.

flight 19 was a regular training mission. they would take off from the base and flight 19s would go east out of the bahamas. they would drop bombs and continue on another 70 miles or so and then they would make a turn north and go 100 something miles and make a turn back toward fort lauderdale. they never came back. later in the night after they were sure they were out of fuel they sent out big rescue planes and then one of them disappeared. then they started a five-day search with hundreds of planes and ships and never found anything. >> watch all of our events on c-span3. >> now a discussion on u.s. companies drilling for gas and oil in the arctic. this is just over 30 minutes.

clark's "washington journal" continues -- >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining me now is amy harder of "the wall street journal," talking about the decision to drill. what a special when it comes to this oil? guest: there is no current oil except on one man-made island. there is really been no drilling here for decades, almost. it is a remote cold, frigid part of the arctic ocean obviously. there is a small window that companies can even drill here. it is a remote area and it has people concerned about the safety. guest: as far as the area, what is the potential for oil and gas? guest: the interior department

says there are about 22 billion gallons of oil in their and about 92 trillion cubic feet of gas. by comparison, we produce about 9 billion gallons of oil a day. there is a decent amount, but that said, the arctic has taken a backseat in the last 6, 7 years come because of the onshore gas boom in texas and north dakota, which has gotten peoples administration -- attention including administration. host: in light of that, the imagination of the decision. what did they decide? guest: they decided they gave shell approval to drill here. this was a lease approved during the bush administration. this is -- a lot of people say this is a huge green light from the obama administration, but really it is an extension of a policy the bush administration put in. it is conditional approval for

them to drill exploratory wells not actually produce the oil and the gas. if they want to do that, they have to get another permit and there is a lengthy review process that the government says could be at least 15 years before we see any oil from this area. host: shell gets the authority to do this, the obama administration allows them to carry on what was going on in the bush administration, and what is the next up forward? guest: the company still need about seven permits from the government before it can go ahead. they are mostly technical somewhat minor compared to additional approval by the administration. they expect to get those in the next few weeks. they want to start drilling sometime between july and october. it is a very short window. they are very confident they will find oil and if they do they will do a couple more seasons of exploring the area and eventually apply for a permit to produce. the response from the

environmental community has been incredibly critical because some of them think there should be no drilling because the obama administration has been so committed to climate change their they do not think it matches up with their commitment to reducing president obama addressed those concerns this week, he said, in one breath, that they approved because they met with federal standards and requirements, but said that we need to move off of fossil fuels eventually, but there will be a transition time. host: amy harder talking about new drilling in the arctic sea off of alaska, you may have questions about that and how it might impact environment of policy. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independence, 202-748-8002.

we have president obama getting environment lists concerns, listen to what he had to say. president obama: i know a little something about the risks of offshore drilling, given what happened in the gulf early in my presidency. nobody is more mindful of the risks involved and the dangers. that is why, despite the fact that shall have put in an application for exploration in this region several years ago we delayed it for a lengthy time until they could provide us with the kinds of assurances we have not seen before, taking into account the short very -- the extraordinary challenges if there was a leak that far north. and that kind of environment. which would be much more difficult to deal with than in the gulf. based on those high standards

shall had to go back to the drawing board revamp its approach and the experts have concluded that they have met those standards. host: could you expand on those comments? guest: shell had been pursuing arctic drilling since 2007 and the last time it drilled was in 2012 and has significant missteps. after -- they successfully drilled, but only a small portion -- they did not have the approval to go all the way down to where the oil is, i once they got done drilling, andy ship was moving back to seattle, they lost control of it and it was floating in the ocean and run aground. that had environmental people concerned. that is one reason that led to delays.

also in february demonstration set regulations that will not apply to show, but are based upon the agreement that the government and shall made following those missteps. host: interested that he defended himself as to what he did as far as the gulf crisis. guest: the oil spill in 2010 is still the largest u.s. oil spill ever and that was something he had to deal with shortly after he became president. a month before the fourth he was built, -- before the oil spill he made an announcement of how he would open the atlantic coast to drawing and he had to receipt on that. demonstration has have -- the administration has had active board on drilling policy and it has made environment lists frustrated. host: the ap had pictures of environmentalists trying to stop

this. host: they are called kayak to that's kayaktavists. the mayor of seattle has gone in on it, protesting the fact that they should not be able to have the rig there. seattle and washington state is a liberal state, and a renewable green energy minded state, the governor is one of the -- it is an interesting comparison to see how they're reacting, despite that protest, i do not think that can stop shell. host: how does he get into alaska? guest: they have tugboats and a fleet -- equipment and rigs that move up to the arctic. that is something the company did not focus on as much in 2012, something that they have learned that is as important as

the drilling is to get to and from. host: what is the congressional reaction to this decision? senator murkowski, on the energy committee from alaska? host: muted, the main people that reacted was senator murkowski, who is not quite sure , does not want to pop out the champagne, not sure demonstration will let this happen -- the ministries and will let this happen. senator markey out of massachusetts has been vocal against drilling including alaska and along the eastern seaboard. he was critical. with arctic drilling, it is a political issue and something that incites passion and if it is not in lawmakers backyard, they do not care as much. you see images of alaska pristine, home repairs, the

arctic national wildlife refuge. i think it should be noted that despite this conditional approval obama has taken several steps in the last few months to restrict oil and gas drilling in and around alaska. he cut off 13 million acres of national wildlife refuge, and parts of the beaufort sea. add late last year, he stop developing. he has taken what's that forward and one step back in alaska which has infuriated people like senator murkowski. there has been a mixed bag for alaska. host: you spoke with senator markey and this is what he said. because of the increasing

domestic production, it does not make sense to expand oil drilling into risky areas like the arctic ocean or off the east coast. i rang concerned that the shell has still not learned the lessons of their previous mistakes drilling offshore in the arctic. guest: one change they made was containment dome system, so they could be prepared in case of a spill. in mexico, you have rigs all over and you have a ring on hand when a spill happens to drill a relief well and stem the spent -- the spell. where there are no other ranks the company needs to have two side-by-side in case of a spill. that is a significant cost. something you do not need to do in the gulf. that is one thing they will have to do that was not required before. host: amy harder who covers energy from the desk for the "wall street journal."

from kansas, randy on a republican line, good morning. caller: ok, i am glad you are on the show. my question is, barrel prices showed between $45 and $60 a barrel, last time i saw that prices in the 1990's and gasoline was one dollar to five cents or less. -- $1.25 or less and now it is high. with the barrel price that low and with increased productions coming up, why are gasoline prices high? guest: it is relative, they are higher than they were in the 1990's as our almost every single commodity you can see. they have dropped by about one dollar since last summer -- last

year, so that is an important point that they are high historically speaking, but relatively, they are much lower something that has got people wondering why we need to be drilling for more oil when gas prices are relatively lower than they have been. the answer to that that shell says is that they know the demand will be increasing around the world for oil and they see a long-term reason for that. any impact on domestic gasoline prices we could see from this shell drilling in the arctic -- there are so many other factors that go into domestic gasoline prices driven by a global market opec, drilling in north dakota and texas have been important to the global market and therefore domestic prices. there -- there is a couple to read connection between -- a couple degree connection between drilling and gasoline prices. host: independent line, portland, oregon. caller: i am concerned about the

destabilization of the methane hydrates, there is estimated to be 1000 gigatons of methane in the arctic oceans and the deeper parts. methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, estimated to be 1000 times more effective before it degrades than carbon dioxide. very small amount of methane is much more powerful for the global warming than carbon dioxide. reassure boba -- a scientist has been observing it and it is bubbling up. in the arctic come up underneath the frozen floor, there are gas bubbles, the hydrates are honeycombed with methane and there are pools -- of methane underneath the ice, and if that is broken, we could be looking

at a rapid warming of the earth that would lead to our extension. what safeguards are in place to make sure that none of this activity in the arctic will disturb this? guest: climate change is a big concern, especially in the arctic with the alaska region generally has been ground zero for the impact of climate change. i think -- shell, the drilling here is a very shallow water compared to the bp oil spill, it was miles of the under the arson -- deep under the ocean. they are not an imminent concern in this situation. methane hydrates are a big concern for the climate. host: shreveport louisiana, go

ahead. caller: i talked about this before, climate change is a hoax. i think we should drill everywhere we can drill because we need oil production. all these climate change nuts are just running around talking about methane gas, that does not do anything to the atmosphere at all. we have about 100,000 wells and is still would not do anything. i know the oil and gas business because i used to work offshore. we need more oil and gas production and obama is doing nothing but blocking production and it is all by design. it is all a hoax and i do not believe in climate change that can tell me to do things and there is not climate change. and there never will be. it is destroying this country, bringing -- we need energy that

does not replace oil and gas. guest: i think climate change is one of the big decisions why environmental people are opposed to drilling in the arctic, in addition to the specific concerns about an oil spill. one aspect -- factor going into the approval of drilling in the arctic is that the arctic ocean is not just the u.s. ocean russia has portions of the arctic. it is a strategic decision to let u.s. companies get approval from the u.s. government to drill in the arctic. that is one unique factor that is evident here, when it is not in the gulf of mexico or in the light the coast, that is something -- the olympic coast. in addition to any concerns about meeting the goal to get off the field and switch to renewables host:. are some of these decisions

influenced by the fact that we are producing so much oil and natural gas? guest: this demonstration nobody saw the boom six or seven years ago. the u.s. is the largest producer of oil and natural gas in the world. that is something that has changed over the last 7, 8 years, and got them more familiar with the industry than they thought they would have to be. that is enabled administration to understand how the industry works and not allow quite as much drilling offshore than they would have, otherwise. we are becoming less dependent on foreign oil because of the onshore resources. it is happening largely on private lands. host: burlington, massachusetts go ahead. caller: the anti--- the treaties signed by dignitaries never to

touch anything in the antarctic the polls -- what about the oil belt is spill -- valdez spill. host: what is your question? caller: it is a statement about the antarctic treaty, i believe it was 1987. host: thanks. guest: the exxon valdez spill is about the difficulties responding to a spill, some areas of the arctic and was one of the reasons why the environmentalist do not think it is a smart thing to do. the safeguards have gotten stricter since then peered that is something on the minds of the administration and the oil spill is an example of the dangers. having that additional rick on hand is one way they can ensure

a spill can be addressed quickly. -- rig. another concern is that it is a very remote area, the closest coast guard is 1000 miles away. that is something you cannot solve. that is a concern. in addition to the broader kind of change concern. host: justin, california, go ahead. caller: if i understand this shell oil is applying to the federal government for a lease to drill oil on public, federal land, is this correct? guest: correct -- they are ready have the lease. -- already have the least. caller: can obama take an aggressive stance toward shell oil that this oil, being taken from our public land benefit the public somehow?

10 a tax this oil and put the money that she'll profits from to benefit the poor people or the country from the oil they are taking from our land? host: let me add this tweet to the mix. how much is the usa receiving for oil leases? guest: i do not have that number, but it is a common concern about drilling on public lands and public waters that there needs to be returns for the u.s. taxpayer. it is something administration has been looking at lately to create a high return for these leases. shell spent about $2.1 billion to buy this lease, money to the federal government several years ago. that has ari been paid. they covet -- that has already been paid.

as far as a direct return to the taxpayer, is difficult to draw a straight line from one oil well to you at the gas pump, but i think oil as a global commodity it is hard to do that. the company likes to say that the investment for alaska and the oil to the u.s. through the pipeline is one way they can help the u.s. become less dependent on foreign oil. host: amy harder with us. illinois, you are next. caller: i have a question concerning the price of gasoline as it relates to the oil expiration. -- exploration. it sounds to me like the federal government is slowly trying to increase oil leases off the coasts of alaska, possibly the gulf of mexico, possibly east coast of the united states. at the same time, and i

understand these are leases for the future. oil exploration will happen for years, right now we have a glut in the oil market and the price of gasoline continues to go up. is this all related? to the glut? and the fact that we are trying to expand our oil exploration off the coasts and how does that affect gas prices? guest: that is the main question people care about. i think gasoline prices hit rock bottom earlier this year at around two dollars in a lot of the country. that is higher than it might have been in the 1980's and 1990's, that is in part due to this global glut of oil. also, there has been less growth

in the asian economies then economies -- economists thought. there is such a global market that it is difficult to say exactly how drilling in the gulf of mexico and the arctic and elected coast will have at your price of the post -- at the pump. they are committed to spending tens of millions of dollars in the arctic despite the high gas prices because they know the demand will be there. that is another aspect of why gasoline prices have gone up in the last several weeks, in addition to economic growth in places like china and india. host: if i am an opec nation how am i looking at the united states and what is going on in our oil and gas markets? guest: 7 8, years ago, they could cut production and ray prices on a whim, and that balance has shifted, the u.s.

has become more of a producer. we have companies making their own decisions. north dakota and texas account for some 80% of all oil reduce in the u.s., and that is having an impact. an opec power has diminished. host: do you see them cutting back on production in order to compensate for what is going on? guest: i do not think that is happening, i think they already would have, they did that once in the 1980's and lost their market share. it did not help them and hurt them and did not change the global market. that is something they are trying to rethink, how are they going to have this new relationship with the u.s. when we do import from the opec, and we still do isn't obey, but now we have a competitive relationship. host: marlin, texas, go ahead. caller: i was listening to your earlier comments about global

climate change. in the 1970's, we came out with this terrible nuclear freeze. this was started by the socialist government's of the world including the soviet union. and then we had the global warming, with al gore as the big mouth behind that. the problem with that is, for the last 16 years we have been gradually cooling and a cannot prove global freezing or global warming, so now they say climate change. what is climate change? pick your, though mysteriously for all of these is higher taxes. -- the cure. if we gave more taxes it with you are all these domestic -- it wouldn't you are all these foreign and domestic problems.

guest: that is an argument a lot of conservatives have about the u.s. government's response to climate change, some people think it is a way to bring in more taxes and a global agreement to the united nations and that is a concern, in terms of the science, i am no scientist, i read what they say most scientist say the climate is getting warmer because of the burning of fossil fuels, there is a legitimate conversation about what kind of response that the u.s. government should have. the u.s. politics has gotten boiled down to, do you believe in climate change or not? it is a religion, not a science and the conversation has to stop being so lyrical. -- so political. host: the map of the areas in question, how many rigs that's

how many companies? guest: tennant company's own leases -- 10 companies own leases. the lease -- they all have come before the obama administration, and they have not held any leases in the arctic. that is more representative of their position on arctic drilling, as opposed to green lighting a lease already in place because of the bush demonstration. host: ellen, indiana, you are on. caller: this is ridiculous, the pentagon military vehicles to natural gas, this is ridiculous. the pentagon is going against all the republicans. this is outrageous. the little girl dodging her head

up and down, we know what she is coming from. the first four months of this year, has been the warmest in history. this little blonde that works for "wall street journal" bobbing her head up and down is a liar. 97% of scientist in this country and around the world agree with me. guest: as i said, i do agree with the scientists that say climate change is caused by fossil fuel burning, that is what i think. i think there should be a conversation about how the u.s. government should go about climate change and i have seen a shift among certain republicans that instead of denying climate change and humans are a factor, and are starting to talk about what kind of response there should be. we have a host of different responses, some regulations

there working on to address it. republicans do not support those, naturally. is a conversation to happen about how the government should go about addressing climate change. host: do any of them serves as heads of committees? guest: an off, a room -- the u.s. congress is far away from being able to do anything about climate change. demonstration cannot go alone. i do not know that congress can do anything to stop this. any change in congress, any major shifts on the thinking as far as addressing climate change probably will not happen until after the presidential election. host: gary from california, republican line.

caller: art they drilling -- art they drilling right now? with all the regulations. guest: there is drilling in print obey, that is onshore. that is separate from the arctic. host: most of the drilling that goes on short is private land or public land? guest: it is index. with the onshore fracking boom, that is happening largely on private lands for a mix of reason, republicans say it is because the demonstration has been clamping down on regular reasons on federal land. it happens to be where the oil and natural gas is. in pennsylvania, mostly private land, you have one of the largest gas deals in the entire world. north dakota is largely private. alaska is a very -- has a lot of

federal lands. host: is there a connection between fracking technology and what we are seeing as far as oil production in the united states and natural gas production? guest: hydraulic fracking has unlocked the oil and gas boom over the last seven years. it is accommodation of fracking -- b coleman nation of fracking, by would to inject large a mac -- amounts of chemicals deep underground to unlock the oil and gas. in addition, it is going horizontally, so you can access more of the oil and gas. horizontal drilling and fracking unlock all the oil and gas. host: is a generally accepted -- not so much by the oil community, but resistance by the environmental committee? guest: the debate about fracking has appeared in my the debate about climate change.

also, communities in pennsylvania, texas, colorado, wyoming, elsewhere that are concerned about the potential drinking water impact of fracking. host:k ken is on our independent line, go ahead. caller: i would like to ask if the wall street journal has an editorial policy regarding climate change and if they do, if they believe it to be real as i do and most people do, do they offer a solution to the problem? guest: as a member of the new section, i do not have any say whatsoever over that editorial opinions of our newspaper. i do not see them until they come out in the paper. i will have to do for you to our editorial editor. -- defer.

host: is this where it stands for the obama administration or do you see further offshore drilling or new drilling being permitted? host: -- guest: in january there released their five-year leasing plan which they have to do by law. it included one lisa off the atlantic coast that will not happen until 2022 at the earliest. that -- this is the draft plan the final plan is happening in a couple of years and they have the power to take that lease sale off the table, they cannot at anymore, but can take them off. it will be interesting to see if the final police plan is less expensive than the draft, a sign of president obama's commitment to his legacy, which i know he wants climate change to be a big item. host:

>> on the next washington journal, sarah westwood and michael mcauliffe discussed the role of the house committee on benghazi and its investigation into the 2012 consulate attack. former ambassador to morocco marc ginsberg reviews this summit of persian gulf leaders and the ongoing nuclear talks with iran. after that, derek what bank of bloomberg looks at the trade legislation. >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress with color photos of every senate and house member and twitter handles also

district maps, a foldout map of capitol hill and a look at congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today through the c-span online store. >> the senate veterans affairs committee held a hearing on tuesday to discuss veterans health care and benefits. the hearing analyzed the future of the veteran's choice program. speakers included executives from tri-health alliance and representatives of veterans services organizations. this is two hours 20 minutes.

he is supposedly on the way, i will let you know what he thinks and if he is not here, if he is here we will hear from the ranking member, is that ok? make a note that his staff said that was ok. [laughter] i want to take a little extra time on this because this is a very important hearing for the v.a. and for us. last year, collating with the passage of the veteran's choice bill, every morning i got up it was add news. veterans dying in phoenix problems and raleigh, denver and orlando and answers that were incomplete at best for understandable reasons because a

lot of the personnel were new. i'm the first person to recognize that robert mcdonnell had just got there. and the secretary was gone as well so there was a transition, that in my way of thinking there is no excuse for the plethora of problems the v-8 was having and the transition should have been a lot better than it was. the vehicle -- v.a. have demonstrated that they finally were listening. all i was getting from every question was stone walls until sloan walked into that hearing and pulled out a new rule to make a number of miles driven to be the governing factor which everyone on this committee appreciated and agreed with and was happy they found a way to do it. i agree we're working toward the care you need definition being defined statutorily. it won't happen today but will

happen in the very near future and i want to commend sloan mcdonnell and the others. i know some of them don't like the veteran's choice bill because they fear it will be in replacement for the veterans administration. you are not going to replace the veterans administration. it will always be there. but you can empower them by seeing to it may have access to the world-class care in close proximity to where they live whether it is from the private sector or the government. if anything, this will sound harsh, but it should, the v.a. has demonstrated the cannot build a hospital without running over. a 10 we can have private sector help without giving to veterans, saving the v.a. money united states money, is giving far better veterans services. what we need is a