sometimes the product is not going to be as effective. it's going to cost more to consumers. it's going to reduce consumer choice. and one comment i would also make on h.r. 8, which is our energy bill, one of the most controversial aspects of it related to the process the d.o.e. goes through in adopting these new standards, for example, they really are not transparent on it. the data analysis is not really available until they get ready to notice it. all we were saying in this one provision, which was likes we were turning the world upside down was we want d.o.e. to sit down with the manufacturers, the people who make these goods, and have a more open and transparent discussion with them. i mean, you would agree with that, right? mr. mcguire: we would agree

with that, mr. chairman. actually that process that you're describing used to be used by the department of where manufacturers wouldan opportunity to test a product under a new standard or to even employ a new test procedure before you could determine whether a standard was appropriate. but what we've seen in the last several years is because so many rulemakings are going on at the same time, that d.o.e. has not been able to go through this very thorough process of let's do a test procedure and make sure that works, a test can be repeatable and reproducible before we set a standard. so that companies can see if you can test a product. it's very -- manufactures spend an enormous amount of resources on compliance to these standards. the testing is very complicated. these products are more sophisticated than they used to be, so you want to get that right. you don't want to mess that up. and what's happened is the process has become con flate

and it's very difficult -- conflated and it's very difficult to understand what's happening sometimes. mr. whitfield: do you agree with that, basically? >> i would agree with that. maybe think as mr. mcguire was answering your question, the product cycle of some of the products entering the market now in our area, l.e.d. lamps, as an example, is in many cases ess than a year. mr. cosgriff: if you miss one of these, you miss a product cycle. that's a big deal. that could be fatal. mr. whitfield: i have a lot of other questions. but my time's already expired. mr. rush, you're recognized for five minutes. r. rush: i want to thank again you for your interesting testimony so far.

. ere's a question that i have there is an argument that while the efficiency standards have been very valuable in reducing energy costs and consumption, many have already reached their maximum efficacy and we cannot squeeze any more juice from them in a certain manner of speaking. do you agree with the statement that many of these appliances are as efficient as they can reasonably come? there little is to no room to move forward with these new standards? or do you believe there's some more cost-effective standards and measures and pathways that

could implement in order to greater have more efficiency than cost savings? -- and cost savings? ms. noll: thank you. i do believe there are more cost effective pathways to achieve greater energy savings that have yet to come. i begin by just, as i stated in my opening remarks, the rule that was finalized just last year for commercial rooftop units, you know, represented the largest energy saving standards, single standard in agency history. and that was the third time that that standard had been revised. and while this is going to deliver huge consumer and environmental value, it was not -- nowhere near the most energy efficient technology that's commercially available. it just suggests that there is still room to improve and i would also note that, as i mentioned in the -- in my opening remarks, that the

forthcoming report from -- report looks at the rules that will be up for revision in the next eight years and has shown that the energy savings opportunity from those rules will exceed that of which of those that were finalized in the last eight years. again, just further suggesting that -- and some of those standards will be ones that will be products that have already had standards and gone through revisions in the past. i would finally just say that standards increase innovation and that innovation, that technological innovation has -- creates new product features, new design opportunities, our refrigerators today have more features than ever before. and that also could unlock opportunities for increased energy savings and that could form the baseline for future revisions to standards in the future. mr. rush: i want to shift my

ocus -- my office has had many conversations regarding energy efficiency standards for appliances and their impacts on low nng -- low-income families. one of the arguments we hear quite often is that the cost of complying with new energy efficiency standards would have a disproportionate impact on low-income consumers. how do you respond to this charge and, secondly, are there any benefits to low-income households if industry is forced to comply with the most current energy efficiency appliance standards? ms. noll: i guess i'd begin by saying that i know that the impacts on low-income customers

is a priority of yours. as it is for nrdc. and minimum efficiency standards set a dependable level of energy efficiency that every american can count on. our analysis suggests that appliance standards will save the average american household $500 a year compared to before standards were set. so that is significant. and i agree that, you know, low-income households pay a disproportionately higher portion of their income that goes to energy costs. nd a recent report by nrdc and -- shows that energy efficiency is a key strategy for addressing and reducing that energy burden that those low-income households face. that is why groups like the national consumers law center and texas rose and other consumer advocacy groups engage and are highly active in the standard-setting process.

because of the important benefits that it serves for the low-income populations that they support. mr. rush: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. mr. whitfield: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. at this time i recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, for five minutes. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. this is actually a very good panel. you know, there really is more that unites us than divides us on this whole debate. i think that's true across the board. and, first of all, for mr. mcguire, mr. cosgriff, and mr. yurek, your saying that there is need for reform but you're not claiming that there is a desire to jettison energy efficiency standards, are you? mr. mcguire: not at all. we're supporters of the program. smim mr. shimkus: i'm going to go quickly. mr. cosgriff: absolutely not. mr. yurek: no. mr. shimkus: this is an mp example where we are -- this is an example of where we can work together to get some sensible changes to effect folks like the narrative that i provided

earlier today. there is a trap that people do fall into from big federal agencies and the rolling out of regs and as the fluorescent light bulb case, you get caught in a trap. you don't want to miss a cycle of putting a product on the shelves. because for a small company hat could be deadly. so -- and, ms. normal, did you mention in the discussion -- nom, you did mention in the discussion -- noll, you did mention in the discussion with my colleague, mr. rush, the confusing thing is we're not talking from a baseline of families. what is a family, what is a cost? this is ms. miller mentioned it. the cost to a two-family household is different than a family -- i'm one of seven kids, nine in the family, grew up, a lot different costs, a lot different projected savings. wouldn't -- don't you think that if we're going to have this debate, that department of

energy ought to help us to find -- define what is a family, what a savings and to have part of that transparency? ms. noll: i would say that the department of energy does take into account many perspectives. mr. shimkus: don't you think they should head define this so we can have a better, accurate discussion of what these savings are and who they're -- disputed s is being by economists based upon real data and real numbers. ms. noll: as many of the colleagues that i work with, we striving to find -- get better data on -- mr. shimkus: the question is, shouldn't the department of energy help us define their savings? the answer is they don't. mr. yurek, following up on this question, don't you think they should do a better job, department of energy should help us define savings and costs? mr. yurek: yes. i think the process, the deal we use in a bind in some ways

by the statutory language of this 40-year-old act, and how they're required to do the analysis, they're in a bind by the time frame in which they need to do all these rules. they don't have the time anymore because of all the rules that they're involved in to do the deep analysis that they used to be able to do and confer with everybody. they also have a court order saying they need to meet these deadlines. mr. shimkus: let's go quickly to job losses. you highlighted in part of your written testimony. talk about the job losses. shouldn't the d.o.e. talk about that there is a loss of jobs, especially as you get to this point of, as again my colleague says, how much juice are you squeezing from the grape? can you identify that in your testimony? yurk yes. i think that's one of the -- mr. yurek: yes. i think that's one of the economic analysis that needs to be done. i think they forget the purpose of this act is not to go to the maximum tech and maximum efficiency. it's to slowly raise the bottom so that everybody can purchase that equipment and have those

savings. there's other programs such as mr. mcguire mentioned related to energy star that are the pull to get those other higher efficiency and get theme to buy that equipment. what we're seeing now is that this program is being used to go to the max tech versus going to the minimal level where people get savings and benefits but don't have the cost. mr. shimkus: aren't you asking for a return to a collaborative approach with the department of energy? mr. mcguire: yes, we are. mr. cosgriff: more collaborative, yes. mr. shimkus: i do have to applaud the d.o.e. we have actually been pressuring them for years. and also the e.p.a. to say, tell us how this affects jobs, so in this most recent proposed rule, march 12, 2015, this was what it says. some large manufacturers have already begun moving production to lower-cost countries. short-term u.s. job loss. this is the department of energy. saying that. an amended standard that

necessitates large increases in labor content or that requires large expenditures to retool facilities should cause other manufacturers to re-evaluate production options. what that means is that if we squeeze too much -- my colleague, if we go too much, we lose jobs to overseas manufacturers and that would be unfortunate. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. whitfield: -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee from new jersey for five minutes. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. ms. noll, from listening to some of the people sitting next to you on the panel and some of my colleagues on the other side, you'd think that the standards process has suddenly become far more contentious that it -- than it used to be. i talk about the fact that the standard setting process has always yielded some controversy from one industry to another. and that's not to say that complaints or controversies

weren't always important or even valid. but i just see some contention as an inevitable part in a meaningful standard setting process, no matter how well it functions. while not every standard can be negotiated, my sense is that there has been more consensus than ever before and that every industry trade represented here today has been involved in and likely benefited from that consensus. my question is, do you agree with me that there actually seems to have been more con sent us in the standard setting process over the past eight years, and of the rules finalized in the last eight years, what percentage of those rules has been established through consensus negotiations? if you could. ms. noll: good morning. yeah. it's interesting, because i think about the number of rules and the number of negotiations that have taken place over the years and there's so many to choose from. the last two revisions to home air conditioning standards went through a consensus process and landed in a negotiated

consensus outcome. and that's fantastic for consumers and the value that's going to deliver to them and for the environment as well. so, i think, you know, from my per speblingt be -- sper spectacular -- perspective, i would say that the controversy is the exception and not the rule. that we can demonstrate i think -- as i said in my opening remarks, of the 42 standards that have been finalized since 2009, almost a quarter of those stemmed from joint con sess us is -- consensus negotiations. and that's not to say that every rule needs to or can come from a consensus or negotiation and those that didn't went through the normal rulemaking process. and with the exception of maybe a few standards, have been without controversy and supported by stakeholders through the process and input. i would just not -- i would just encourage us not to characterize action as controversy at this point. mr. pallone: all right. i'm a strong supporter of

energy efficiency programs and i'm confused by some of the claims being made by members of today's panel. i find it difficult to believe that there are no more significant energy efficiency gains to consumer products unless you assume that we can improve upon current technology or develop entirely new technologies that are more energy-efficient. for example, tv went from tubes to liquid crystal displays to plasma to l.e.d. in a little over a decade. so are we truly done with refrigerators, dishwashers, air conditioners, furnaces, whatever? ms. noll: our experience has been no. in the latest refrigerator standard revision, this is the sixth time, including the state standards, that a standard had been revised. it represents about 20% to 30% improvement over the previous standard. that's on par with other revisions. fully supported by manufacturers and stakeholders.

and i think we've seen, you know, that trajectory has held true. refrigerators are now 75% more efficient, they have more product features or 20% --, features, are 20% larger, and they cost half as much. i think the lighting revolution that we've seen take place is another example of -- i don't think in 2000 we could have predicted the number of choices and the efficiency that we would get from l.e.d.'s today. a few examples of where this could be headed. mr. pallone: all right. several witnesses have referred to mandatory serial rulemakings. ai -- my understanding of the law is that there's a review every six years. but it doesn't require that the standard be updated every six years. so just to clarify, would you just answer yes no to the following questions, ok? does the law require a standard be reviewed every six years? ms. noll: once it's gone

through its statutory requirements, then, yes, it's required to be reviewed every six years. mr. pallone: does the law mandate that a standard be updated every six years, regardless of any other fact pattern? ms. noll: no. mr. pallone: does the d.o.e. have to determine whether a rulemaking is likely to result in significant savings before requiring a standard be updated? ms. noll: yes. mr. pallone: and does d.o.e. have to determine whether a rule make something likely to be technologically feasible and cost effective before updating a standard? ms. noll: yes. mr. pallone: ok. thanks a lot. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair uses the privilege of the vice chairman to recognize himself for five minutes. a harty texas welcome to mr. miller and the rest of the panel. mr. olson: i have one question about air conditioning. southeast texas, my home, exists in a climate we call 95 -95.

from early april to late september, it's 95 degrees with 95% humidity. until 1902, people of that region were picking cotton and guarding prisoners in big state prisons. that provided very, very slow, low growth. and then, well, this carrier invented the air conditioner in 1902. that single invention, combined and il being discovered, the houston ship channel being built has put houston on track to be the nation's third largest city sometime this decade. federal action affecting air conditioning gets the attention of all texans. especially if two federal agents are -- agencies are in conflict. we're seeing that situation right now with air conditioners. d.o.e. is demanding higher efficientsy standards for --

efficiency standards for air conditioners, while the e.p.a. is banning foam blowing agents from being used in air conditioners. my question is for you, mr. mcguire, and you, mr. yurek. mr. yurek, first. can companies comply with these conflicting standards? can they comply with these? what are their challenges? mr. yurek: first off, yes, they can comply with. it but how they comply with it is it costs a considerable lot of money in the conflict between the two statutes going into effect, and the needs to spend money on research and development, and then once that -- the research and development is completed, they need to then retool their plants. so, yes, they can do it. the going to cost the big manufacturers that have the funds will have the ability to do it. there will be several of the small manufacturers that don't have the funds available, that will go out of business, either being acquired by the bigger ones or just leaving the area.

mr. olson: the small guys go away. your thoughts, can they survive and compete, work with these conflicting regulations from different departments? mr. mcguire: the industry can comply but the problem is, it takes a certain amount of time to do that. the e.p.a. decisions, proposals on refrigerators are is not being coordinated with d.o.e. on the efficiency standards. with a vast majority of greenhouse gas emission avoidance benefits come from the appliance standards, not reducing the -- changing the refrigerants. we have to deal with the fact that the safety standards in the u.s. do not allow the type of refrigerants we have to go to yet in the amounts necessary. that requires a safety risk assessment test the companies are doing. it takes amount of time, sequence and investment for this to happen. and it would be prudent for the two agencies to talk about this and reach a decision that makes sense for the environment and

for the people that are making these products. mr. olson: do you believe the obama administration is meeting their own goals set with executive orders to minimize the cumulative impact -- burden of these regulations? they said, let's make that lower, does this achieve that or is this in violation of that? mr. mcguire: we do not believe the d.o.e. has a proper analysis to the cumulative regulatory burden on manufacturers when they're doing their appliance efficiency standards. because they're not taking into account the cost and investments that have been made for previous versions, that haven't been recouped, as well as the investments that have to be made in alternative refrigerants. mr. yurek: i agree with mr. mcguire. in that that proper analysis has not been done. and the burden on manufacturers is not being considered and actually has been ignored when raised in some of the rulemakings relating to commercial refrigerator equipment.

the d.o.e. said, they haven't changed it yet so we're using the current refrinl rant. they issued -- refrigerant. they issued the rule. six months later e.p.a. bapped those implements -- banned those implements. there's two different dates for the standards. you have to redesign twice in two different periods of time. mr. olson: thank you. my time's expired. one word of warning -- don't mess with texas air conditioners. [laughter] >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes. mr. mcnerney: i thank the assistant chair. mr.s could grove, i believe that you stated that many of the imported products are not held to the same standards as american-made products. is that right? mr. cosgriff: i didn't say many. i said we should be on guard to make sure that nonqualified products enter the stream of commerce inside the united states. mr. mcnerney: that must be happening then? is that happening?

are products enter the american -- mr. cosgriff: we receive information from our manufacturers routinely that they find products in the tream that don't buy objective standards -- by objective standards meet the standards of the united states of america. mr. mcnerney: so curems, u.s. consumers are buying products made overseas that are potentially less efficient and cost american jobs at the same time? mr. cosgriff: they might be, yes, sir. mr. mcnerney: how can we remedy the situation? mr. cosgriff: niemann in the past has worked with commerce to take our expertise from our member companies and make it available -- or cuss tums, excuse me -- customs, customs and border security, to make it available to their agents so they can know what they're looking for, to be able to identify what constitutes a valid third party certification mark, what might be a counterfeit and other tells you might see in products.

mr. mcnerney: this is an enforcement issue, not a trade rules issue? mr. cosgriff: mostly enforcement, yes, sir. mr. mcnerney: very good. mr. eckman, please elaborate a little bit, if you would, on how the rulemaking process could be improved, the transparency of the rulemaking process could be improved. mr. eckman: i'll go through a little bit of history so that the context is there. in the mid 2000's d.o.e. staff directed their consulting staff to sit down with advocates and manufacturers to help negotiate white good standard with folks, so that the technical staff that was supporting d.o.e.'s rulemaking was appraised and involved in those negotiations that were informal at the time. they weren't authorized by d.o.e.. and that led to another process on electrical transformers where we both -- both d.o.e. staff and their consultants got involved. finally d.o.e. established under the federal administrative procedures act a

negotiated rulemaking group called the appliance standard rulemaking advisory committee which now overseas a series of requests that might come in from parties that want don'ter into negotiations. through a regulatory process, regulated negotiation, as opposed to rulemaking through a standard comment process. and that has opened, i think, the doors to more consensus agreement. major ement on refrigerator products, h-vac equipment, pumps, and electrical transformers all came from those kinds of negotiations, where there's a great deal more transparency and interaction with the manufacturers, with advocates and d.o.e. staff and its consultants. because they can get down and talk face to face, roll the sleesks up in a meeting, not -- sleeves up in a meeting, not in a formal hearing type process. that has improved both the outcomes and the feelings that come out of those outcomes about, we agree that we can't

get everything we need, but the compromise works for all of us. that process to me is really central to an advance -- to advancing the rulemaking process. mr. mcnerney: you mentioned -- or i'm going ask this question, do you believe that the current standards have room to drive more innovation? mr. cosgriff: do i believe the current standards have -- mr. mcnerney: can drive more innovation? mr. cosgriff: can drive more innovation? i think the manufacturers are driving innovation. i think competition is driving innovation. i think standards have a part in that. but i wouldn't overstate what their part is. if a product is at the low end of efficiency, then the standards are a welcome boost. if a product, like a transformer, is approaching 99% efficiency, i'm not sure what they're accomplishing. mr. mcnerney: thank you. ms. noll, could you give some

examples of efficiency improvements that are still possible? ms. noll:, i'd be happy to. i think that as we look at some of the products that will be improvitesed in the last eight years, there's standards for equipment in hospital appliances that have seen standards before. water heaters is a potential opportunity for increased savings. as the gentleman just mentioned, distribution transformers, they may be reaching a high level of efficiency, but all of the electricity that is produced in america goes through transformers. so even half of a percent improvement there is going to be a significant national benefit. so i do think that there's opportunities that still exist to improve the standards process. mr. mcnerney: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. olson: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. latta, for five minutes. mr. latta: thanks, mr. chairman. i also would like to echo i think this is a great panel today. really appreciate you all being

here. i'm kind of an expert. my wife and i in the last six weeks just bought a washer and drier and refrigerator is next. in northwest ohio we do make hvac. we make dish washers, we make driers, we make washing machines. we also make waffle irons, we make large mixers and we also have a large freezer plant right in ohio, so we get a lot of things going on. it's very important to our economy, but, if i could start with you. you've been particularly critical of the proposed new standard for dishwashers. can you explain what is wrong with this standard both in terms of the substance of the proposed rule as well as the process by which it has come about? >> the proposed dishwasher standard from last year, first of all, it required a 20-year payback to the consumer for a product whose useful life is 13 years. mr. mcguire: it reduced the

amount of water that a dishwasher uses in a cycle, rom five gallons to three. the proposed rule did not go through any type of performance or consumer testing before it was issued. we did not get a chance to do that. we normally do. in these rulemakings. mr. latta: why didn't you get to be a part of that? mr. mcguire: d.o.e. just didn't do that part of the process. they just went right to the rule without that type of testing. once it was proposed, we did the testing, and we demonstrated to d.o.e. and others that dishes were not cleaned and multiple product -- manufacturers' products, it did not clean the dishes. so the utility of the product was affected, the consumer payback was not there, and the energy savings was minimal. less than a quad. 7% of one quad. the durnt dishwasher standard that's in place today, that has a payback to the consumer of 12 years, so that was already at the limit in terms of economic

sense. there was no need for this fifth dishwasher standard. it didn't -- it messed up the product, it did not make sense for the consumer to buy such a product. so our view is that there's something wrong when the process spits something out like that. that has to be a product or a category where you don't do another rulemaking unless some quantity final measure can show that there's going a real significant savings in energy that won't harm the consumer. but under the current process, it's very difficult to get d.o.e.'s assumptions and other things that go into their nail cease done by the contractors of national labs. that's part of the process change we would like to see. mr. latta: when you were doing this testing, five gallons to three gallons, how much did that cost the industry and what did that cost the consumer in the end run then? mr. mcguire: the -- how much did it cost the consumer -- mr. latta: when you're doing

the testing, when it was showing it going from the five gallons down to the three gallons, you said, i was curious, is there a cost to the industry that you had to do? i assume it would go back to the consumer. mr. mcguire: these tests we did on this proposed rule -- this standard didn't go into effect. so those costs were absorbed by the company. there's thousands of dollars to do these tests. but once the standard is in effect, in order to prove your compliance with the standard, you have to test your product before it's submitted to the marketplace, and then a regular routine testing market surveillance that our industry actually does some of that testing to police ourselves and provide some information to the government. those tests are very expensive and the cost of compliance -- the tolerances are very, very tight. so manufacturers invest a lot to make sure their products meet meet the standards and the tests are sophisticated. so it's a costly part of being

an appliance manufacturer. those costs go into the product like any other cost and are passed on to the consumer. mr. latta: thank you. mr. yurek, i'm concerned about the economic affects that the administration's aggressive regulatory agenda has. it's my understanding that d.o.e. is implementing rules that set new standards for individual components and residential consumer products, such as the new standard for efficiency of furnace fans, how does regulating a specific component in a large heating or cooling system add to the cost of a furnace or air conditioning system? mr. yurek: the -- we have a lot of concern -- i think looking at this 40-year-old law, that it's dealing with products. and in some instances it's going into the components in those products and pieces of equipment. and -- which is the wrong direction. really what we should be looking at is how these

products are put into the house or into the building and looking at an overall systems approach to efficiency, to really look at the gains. because if you start dictating and regulating the components, be it the compresser, now they're looking at regulating the fans that go into the air conditioning and furnaces and others, you're dictating how these products are designed. once they're put into that product, they might have -- we've shown in the case and a propose all out with the california energy community, when they were doing this with air handlers, what they were proposing and the efficiency level for fans actually used more energy when applied in the air handler than being able to design the overall product and the energy use of that air handler. we just want to make sure that this is done rationally and the current law doesn't give d.o.e. that type of authority to look at the broader picture. and i think we just need to step back and say, it's 40 years old. let's look at it and make some changes and make it better so we can actually get some energy

savings out in the field and have consumers be able to afford the equipment. mr. latta: thank you very much, mr. chairman. my time is expired. i yield back. mr. olson: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, for five minutes. mr. welch: thank you very much. this is a great panel. appreciate it. couple of things. we don't have a bill yet, right? so this is kind of an abstract discussion. i thought mr. shimkus kind of laid out the to text for -- the potential for cooperation here. i do like the notion of collaboration in the process. because you've got folks that -- at d.o.e. who are doing their best to implement efficiency standards. you've got real world folks that are the manufacturers that have to contend with the very practical issues of implementation. i mean, ms. noll, you're ok with that, right? yeah. ms. noll: yes. mr. welch: i think standards are incredibly important. i don't think they're everything.

you mentioned that the standard in some cases, especially at the low end, does spur the innovation. but if you've got something that's highly efficient, then it's not going to accomplish all that much. a lot of what you're saying sounds very reasonable to me. the jobs issue, i think it really is all -- it's not so much the jobs issue, i mean, air conditioning by the way, one of the most outrageous loss leaving s with carrier indiana to go down to $3 an hour wages in mexico. which i think is pretty appalling. but it has nothing to do with standards. particularly since whatever it is is manufactured at $3 has to meet the standards before it can come back into this country. right? so we've got a level playing field. as long as the standards apply to everywhere. but i do, as a strong, strong supporter of efficiency standards with mr. mckinley, who's got a lot of experience in this, i feel that those of

us who believe standards can work have to be extremely diligent in trying to address practical concerns as they come up. that makes sense to me. so i've heard the industry folks saying that you're not for unraveling them, you want them to be more practical. i'm not asking a lot of questions because i don't think there's thatch disagreement and we don't have a bill. one of the things that would be helpful as part of this process would be to get the d.o.e. folks in here and ask them, what are some of perhaps the congressionally imposed burdens we're imposing on them, where you're saying that they've got so many rules they've got to deal, they don't have the time and the space. but bottom line here, collaboration i think is really good. i think standards are absolutely essential. the energy efficiency savings that we've had have been tremendous. if they're done right, it can save consumers money. it's not without impact.

i mean, we all understand that. there was a cost associated with requiring the automobile manufacturers install seatbelts. that cost more money. when you bought a car. most of us think it's about time. mileage standards have been tremendous. that is a cost, but it's really had an impact on the average mileage in our fleet. so really, what i'm asking for, is to take up mr. shimkus on his observation that this is an area where there's some opportunity for us to cooperate. but that means not letting it get adversarial. if there's acknowledgment even from the people who are affected by this in ways that they think are a little too aggressive, to have some interaction with d.o.e. and us to try to figure out what are the process improvements we can make in order to get the benefits of regulation, i mean, i'll just ask the industry people, mr. mcguire and mr. eckman, or mr. yurek, is that a

problem for you? the approach i'm talking about? mr. mcguire: it's not a problem. we've used con enen-- consensus many times in the past. but we believe it ought to be to change the law so that the process requires these improvements and they're not discretionary. mr. welch: that's got to be a discussion. there's no specifics here. so you're making -- we don't have a bill in front of us. mr. mcguire: there are some process improvements in the energy bill in conference. but the ones we're talking about, the major reforms, there's not -- mr. welch: what would be helpful for me is if each of you did like a one-page bullet point assessment of concrete things that you think in the process would improve it. then we can assess it, have a discussion. we can talk to d.o.e., how does that work? would it improve it or not? what's the down side? we're just having this real abstract discussion here. regulations i think are really important and it can be really beneficial, but they also, if they're not done right, can have a lot of down side to them

with no upside. ms. noll, how about you? ms. noll: i would be happy to do that. i would also encourage us to look at some of these, where the process is working. i think dish washers is an example of that. where d.o.e. heard from industry and congress granted them the authority to look at consumer utility and performance as one of the criteria for economic justification. mr. welch: that would be helpful. noll noll an example of how it's work -- ms. noll: an example of how it's working and it's serving to protect consumers and also ensuring a balanced, you know, both -- the impacts on manufacturers as well as the impacts on coups -- consumers and the environment and reducing our energy consumption. mr. olson: the gentleman's time has expired. i'm sorry, sir. we have to move on. i recognize the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mckinley: thank you, mr. chairman. let me just build a little bit on some of the remarks that were made earlier about some of the credentials of several -- peter welch and i have had a

wonderful working relationship. we both -- we chair the efficiency caucus. we put language into the current energy bill that we're waiting to see what's going to happen in the senate. we've been to the white house for signature on energy efficiency bills. this is something i think he and i really grasp fairly well with this. back when i was in private practice in engineering we designed some of the first leed-certified schools and office buildings in west virginia, working with tonko over in energy efficiency, with the turbans, create electricity to make that more -- turbines, create electricity to make that more efficient. energy efficiency is one of the primary -- areas i like to play with and get involved in. i get to a point -- there's a vast difference dish want to play it back a little bit on what my colleague and good friend, bobby rush from illinois, was talking about. the disparity of income. when people are facing this. if you look at this, it poses a challenge for all of us.

it really does for us. if you look at mississippi, my colleague here from harper from mississippi, there are medium family incomes, $36,000 a year. in mississippi. $36,000 a year. but in maryland, it's over $70,000 per family income. in those affluent states or neighborhoods, they make choices. they have choices. you'll probably, if we went through the motor vehicle licensing, we'd find they probably have more b.m.w.'s and lexus cars there than we have in some other areas of the country. or in neighborhoods. cars are going to be different because people have choices. we have housing, different pricing for housing. because people have choices for that. we have health care. when you go to the exchanges under obamacare, there are different exchanges you get, so people have choices. but when it comes to their

major consumer appliance, they don't. for your air conditioning, your refrigerator, your range, your dishwasher, your furnace, all of these are now mandated that this is the only one that they have available to them. i'm troubled with that. because of the diversity of income, their capability of doing it. don't tell me it's going to save me $500 a year. because we understand the whole payback is so much longer on all this. so i'm wondering, is there a suggestion you all could make that might make it more palatable for people to be able to have a choice so that they're not confronted with this hard decision? i know a family -- of families that are trying to fix anything -- their equipment -- make it last as long as possible. because they know that they can't afford the cost of the new one. and so they're spending a lot of money in repairs because

they don't have a choice. they know what the cost is. that air conditioning cost the same in connecticut as it does in mississippi. or that dishwasher. so what would you suggest that we in congress could do to maybe ameliorate some of these differences a little bit, so the poor communities or states that have trouble, how can they afford to have this cost? can some of you -- ok. mr. yurek: i think this is a really important issue. i think it's pringing back the balance that was originally -- bringing back the balance that was originally put out in the 40-year-old law where it says, technically feasible and economically justified. right now the focus is too much on the technical feasibility and saying, hey, my manufacturers manufacture products everywhere from the federal minimum to very high efficiency. yes, we can go to the hyatt efficiency but we need to look at the cost. i think it's bringing that balance back to that economic justification and saying, this

law is intended to raise that floor slowly. people that have incomes in maryland and other places are going to purchase the things with all the different bells and whistles on their refrigerators, their dish washers, their air conditioner and everything else. but there's a lot of people in this country, when luke at the cost now of the minimum air conditioner, you're looking at $6,000 to $10,000 at a minimum that is done in an unplanned time. because most of the time these units go out when the hottest day of the year. or the furnace when it's the coldest day of the year. the federal reserve just had a study last week that said, over 47% of the american people have less than $400 in emergency cash available to them. what are they going to do? they need that comfort. in the wintertime they need the heat. a lot of times for medical reasons they need that -- the cooling in the summer. it's bringing back that balance. probably putting more of an

emphasis on economic justification. >> would you mike pud -- mr. mckinley: would you mind putting paper to me to suggest what would help out families in depressed areas? thank you very much. i yield back. mr. olson: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, for five minutes. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to our witnesses. certainly we're citing a 40-year history here. again, to repeat what my colleague from vermont indicated, we have to look at some of the trade situations too. where offshoring of jobs might have helped some families retain those jobs and be able to afford these items and this job loss thing i think is much more complex than just suggesting standards caused it. our energy efficiency standards have improved products that benefit all of our constituents. many of these are not luxury goods but necessities found in nearly every home. we've heard support for national efficiency standards

for manufacturers and consumers, and we've heard from industries, from states, from environmental groups, that there is consensus that this program has been a success. i'm certainly open to improving the program, but improvements cannot undermine the purpose of this program. and while we look for those improvements, we should not lose sight of the fact that this program is incredibly successful. while there have been a few contentious rules, it is my understanding that of the final rules issued since 2009, almost 1/4 were the result of negotiated consensus agreements. and only five have been subject to litigation. so, to our witnesses, do you agree that many of these rules ave been consensus driven? mr. yurek: yes. most of them -- as ms. noll said, 25% of the rules in this administration have been through the consensus process. that means 75% of those 40 others have not.

and i think we all support and would encourage that negotiation consensus process because there's more of that give and take that mr. eckman talked about. versus the notice and comment where you only have -- the adversarial is much more adversarial versus a negotiation. i think that's something we should look at. mr. tonko: ok. i think it's worth noting that d.o.e. has a history of working to improve the program, especially around increasing stakeholder engagement dating back to the 1990's. a few years ago d.o.e. established, as i understand, the appliance standards regulatory advisory committee, which formalized the process for negotiated consensus rulemakings for the first time. a number of our witnesses participated on this committee, which includes, again, our manufacturers, our trade associations, states and consumer groups. can anyone comment on this committee's work and what, you know, what it is as -- what it might be as a positive step to

formalize this process? mr. eckman: i think it has improved the process a lot. particularly where there's a likelihood that both the manufacturers and the efficiency advocates and the d.o.e. agency personnel and more ants can come to a flexible conclusion than would otherwise be provided. i think that's -- it's allowed for lots of horse trading that wouldn't occur, as mr. yurek said, under the standard process, the rulemakings hearing process, and file a report. it's been a huge advantage. i've been a member since the committee was established. we've had multiple work groups, seven different work groups so far, negotiating standards. they work the best when both parties who want to participate in that come before the committee and say, we think we can work this out. give us a chance. if that's not possible, or there's not really an issue,

everybody thinks we can do this through rule and comment, that's a much more expedient process, it takes a lot of time and energy to do the negotiations as you're aware. but they turn out to be better rules as a consequence for everybody sloved -- involved. i think supporting that on a continuing basis, through committee and process, that has a real -- has improved the process a lot. noll noll on the 75% -- ms. noll: on the 75% does not mean they weren't going through the normal rulemaking process. to deliver a superior outcome. only five of those rules have been litigated and i think that is still a very small number on the grand scheme of things. mr. tonko: ok. thank you. mr. cosgriff: to mr. yurek's point, following up a little bit, when you're sitting around a table talking about technical things, you better have the technical chaps to have that conversation. in this highly quantityified algorithm that consultants are using, i'd like to see inside that. we have mathematicians, we can

figure it out. i don't understand why we can't see what the key assumptions are and how those assumption play inside the model that they've built and then they run through the computer. one of the things we've learned over the last 40 years i think is that this incoming tide has raised all the boats. this is a good news story. let's perfect it and do it in as scientific a way as possible and let's do it as transparently as possible. mr. mcguire: i would say -- mr. olson: i'm sorry, the gentleman's time has expired. make it quick. i recognize the gentleman from missouri, mr. long, for five minutes. mr. long: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mcguire, could you recommend to me what type of hair drier would be the best purchase for my dishwasher so i can dry my dishes whenever the cycle is through? mr. mcguire: i'll provide that for the record. mr. long: my dishes are not feeling the burn as they once

did. [laughter] in some of the testimony given today, the issue the department of energy coordinating better with other agencies was mentioned as an area for improvement. particularly in the area of making sure that imported products containing regulated components are held to the same standards as domestically manufactured products are on their own. what are your thoughts on how we can ensure a level playing field for u.s.-made components? mr. cosgriff: there would be a number of things. i think clearly it may not be d.o.e.'s responsibility, but it would be their responsibility to make sure that their fellow travelers, principally customs and similar policing functions, are aware of what the standards are, what to be looking for. i think industry -- mr. long: can you put your mike a little closer? mr. cosgriff: i think industry has a role in that too. we should step up and offer our technical expertise.

there's other distributors that would have a role in that. systems manufacturers will have a role in that. so the not going to be one easy solution. but we don't want those products in the stream or in the system. mr. long: the energy conservation standards program requires the department of energy to start a new rulemaking procedure on a product as part of a six-year review cycle. could you tell me generally how long it takes to fully comply with energy conservation standards for a product, factoring in all of the cumulative rules, including test procedures? mr. cosgriff: three years sticks in my mind. i think it would be different for different products. i mentioned lighting happens a little faster. if we're doing a motor, meeting a motor efficiency standard, that's a little bit more complex. machine. so i think it's different. but assuming it's going -- we have three years to get into compliance and then that gives you three years of run time before the next rulemaking

kicks off and d.o.e. tends to, as you'd expect, and as they should, start that rulemaking early, so they're able to comply with the law when they get the six years, i'd also point out in the covered products for nema, we know of only two times where the department has chosen for the cost-benefit analysis to forego the rule. mr. long: what are some of the challenges in complying with both the energy conservation standards and additional test rocedures? >> that's one of the interesting things that changed when we made the serial rule part of the -- i think it was 2005 amendments to epca. mr. yurek: you have to review the standards every six years. the requirement is review the test procedures every seven. what we're starting to see in a lot of our products, the test procedures aren't complete for the products that they're

setting standards for. so as a matter of fairness, we don't even know what the test procedures can be and how our products are going to be measured. the information isn't there. and they're setting efficiency standards in minimum levels. the interrelationship is very important. we need to know what the rules are to be able to evaluate what those rules are through testing our products and providing that information to d.o.e. before they start setting the next standard. the same thing, the previous question, mr. cosgriff, our products, the a five-year implementation time from the standard being set and when it becomes effective. it takes that entire time to do it. what we're seeing is that even before in some cases these standards are put into effect, we're seeing the next round. and we saw that with residential air conditioners. the standard went into effect in january of 2015. the fall of 2014 they already started discussing the next round of efficiency.

so you're looking at increasing the efficiency standards on this equipment even before the prior standard went into effect. mr. long: welcome to washington, d.c. do you care to comment on that as far as what the challenges are? mr. cosgriff: they're pretty much as mr. yurek said. the going to take us some additional time depending on the product. mr. long: ok, thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. olson: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. hudson, for five minutes. mr. hudson: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the panel for being here today. very informtific discussion. mr. mcguire, which of your appliances have been regulated multiple times? do you believe we're reaching a point of diminishing marginal returns with the serial rulemaking? mr. yurek: -- mr. mcguire: virtually all of our products have been regulated multiple times. the current refrage rater standard that's been in effect -- refrigerator standard that's been in effect for the last year is the fourth version of that standard. same for dishwashers. a rule i mentioned that was

proposed last year was the fifth revision. so we believe we hit the point of diminishing returns in the last trauverage of standards that were negotiated through the consensus process. we think standards going forward for most of our products are not justified on the economics or the energy savings. >> appreciate that. mr. hudson: mr. long asked about the d.o.e. proposing new standards for some products while the underlying test procedures are also changing. would you like to elaborate on how this is a problem for you? mr. mcguire: it's a major issue. because a manufacturer cannot tell whether -- what they have to do to comply with a new standard until they know how to test to it. so that's why the laws to the test procedures come first. but that process is a little out of whack right now. so we, in the case of portable air conditioners, we've had to comment on a proposed standard before we knew what the final test procedure was. that's really impossible to do. but that's what we're forced to

do under the current process that's being employed. mr. hudson: that seems like it's not serving the best interest of the people either. if we aren't getting a true assessment of the results of these tests. obviously see why that's a mistake. many of your manufacturers make several regulated products and face multiple rules. what's the challenge sort of maybe you can elaborate a little more for your companies in terms of complying with these different requirements simultaneously, just in addition to sort of the testing thing we talked about, but just -- mr. mcguire: the initial investment to gear up for a new standard is quite an investment . to understand the test procedure and get your products qualified. but ongoing, once a standard is in effect, a manufacturer has to test and certify those products with the department of energy. if you want your product to be energy star qualified, that

requires a further up front test, as well as ongoing testing of a certain percentage of your products. so that's a pretty significant testing burden for the manufacturers and when the test procedures are under revision, it has to be very precise in order for you to design a product. what we've experienced also is that energy star sometimes will want a different test procedure than d.o.e. requires for the standard. one of the benefits we found of negotiating the consensus process is we would peg the energy star requirement to the standard requirement with the same test procedures so manufacturers could plan that out. but that hasn't always been the case. these are processes that used to be employed but haven't been across the board in recent years. mr. hudson: thank you. industry groups have repeatedly asked d.o.e. to establish separate product categories for condensing and noncondensing

covered products, only to have the d.o.e. provide a response that condensing and noncondensing equipment provide the same utility to consumers, there's no justification for establishing separate product categories, is this another area that warrants an objective third party review? >> you are talking about the third furn ace rule and this equipment is at a point where you have condensing and noncondensing and the cost differences is considerable between the two technologies. we are at the highest level of noncondensing efficiency and the rulemaking is looking to moving to a condensing requirement. i think the groups -- this would have been a rule that would have been great for negotiation because what we have seen over the years, every rule that has

come out ended up in litigation and see the groups reach a solution would have been a better solution. we are in the midst of notice and comments and d.o.e. issued their proposed rule to o.m.b. for review. so we'll see what happens there. but two product classes does not look like something that will be put forward. mr. hudson: my time has expired. mr. olson: the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson. mr. johnson: thank you all. i know you have been here a while already. -- how cguire and mr. important is it in the rulemaking process? what are the challengeses when d.o.e. proposes rulemaking

without having consulted with you beforehand? >> i think it's very important from an effectiveness point of view, if the manufacturer has president had the opportunity to be in dialogue with the government about the proposal and how they expect the efficiency requirements to be acommeefed and do some testing, you are dealing in a vacuum. this is what happened with the proposed dishwasher rule. these are technical matters. important that not only manufacturers are involved but all stakeholders. this process does do that. but the process is useful once a decision has been made that there will be a new standard. what what we are talking about is determining whether there should be a new standard. if there is going to be new one, consensus will be best.

putting data on the table and not wondering where the data came from. >> i want you guys to get the dishwasher rule and i'm it in my house. it's going to be double work for me. >> i agree with what my colleagues said and what i have heard in listening to this conversation at least by the manufacturers, this isn't an assault on the standard. we want the energy efficient economy to thrive. it's good for business. that said, it can be more transparent. the department of energy has some true experts in their field, but so do we. but it should be as is stated, let's put the numbers on the table and let's bring in the table and efficiency goes like that but efficiency curve is

almost flat. at some point we have to call it out. >> it's very important because industry has the information that this rule can be based on it and has information what technology is available and has information on the costs and information on the products that re being sold today, both in the different efficiency levels. if that doesn't occur, where does the regulator look to make be energy can there savings. it is necessary for that dialogue and d.o.e. would like to have that dialogue but they are tied what congress has put in the act where you are mandating these rules every six years and they don't have a time

. and get the rules out and meet the court order from the second circuit. >> let's continue with you. the d.o.e. has proposed new standards for some of your products while the underlying test procedure is also changing. why is this a problem for you? >> huge problem as i said earlier. we need to know what the rulesr how our products can be measured and giving the d.o.e. and if the test procedures aren't set. >> is it safe to say it is hard to innovate how you don't know how you are going to be measured? >> you don't know what the target is. >> you are going down the road to get you there. mr. chairman, i yield back 45

seconds. mr. olson: thank the gentleman from ohio. the chair recognizes mr. mullen for five minutes. mr. mulvaney: there are a few meetings that i have to study hard on. i understand this situation extremely well and i'm going to talk to you for the remainder of -- i have a se a few questions. the standards has put out huge savings, based on what? >> based on analysis. >> what analysis? done lysis what they have and the department of energy has done. >> are you really looking at bills and prices? because you said a huge savings and you said up to $500 a year

on energy costs. in oklahoma, the average household today, their total energy bill a year is $1,296. because of your savings that ill would have been $1,796 dollars. yet, if i go back and look at 08, the mid line whirlpool dish washer was $29 a year, which it cost to run and the average was $378. today, the same unit is $399 and -- per year a month to run. >> these programs have been in effect since 1987. >> i'm talking about -- you said

huge savings, i'm trying to figure out where the huge savings are from rgs because right now, we are just talking about dishwashers. dishwashers, we can see it went up. they cost more, so that's not a savings. and they cost more to run per year. so give me an opportunity again, where is huge? huge would be massive, i'm thinking like big time. huge, that's your words. $500, i guess you could say that's huge. i don't see it. i'll give you the mmp ic unless you try to explain that for me. >> $2 trillion in savings to the consumer is a lot of -- >> i'm trying to to figure out where the $2 trillion. how much they are saving the

mid-level households and all this stuff and how much energy is down when energy costs is actually up and you are in here making claims that the household is making money. i'm not seeing it. i don't want to make a claim that's not true and i'm seeing a claim that's not true. >> i think it's a valid question to say what is this analysis based on and to reiterate some of the remarks, it's difficult to see where the claims come from in d.o.e.'s analysis and if you look at dishwashers and the andards timized in 2012, the payback period would be 12 years which is only as long as your dishwasher is going to last and they save $3. >> on top of costing more to

run, quote, this is out of the manual, says run hot water at sink nearest your dishwasher, turn off water. water should be 120 degrees before it enters the dishwasher. these are the new standards. not only does it cost more to run, now we are wasting water, which is a big issue where we talk about water savings, let's go to california and talk about california for a second and they are supposed to let the water run and this is the manual that comes for dishwashers and refrigerators in 2008 averaged, whirlpool cost $999. that same unit comparable today is $1,299. energy costs, also up. these are two major appliances.

refrigerator and a dishwasher, where is the huge savings. d.o.e. and the is talking about huge savings and the american people think it's huge and i --e you two examples that it mr. olson: the gentleman's time has expired. seeing no further witnesses seeking time, the chair asks unanimous consent to enter for the record multiple statements on this subject matter from a number of agencies and concerned citizens. without objection, so ordered. in closing, the chair wants to thank all the witnesses for their time and expertise as to dishes.blowers to dry you have five legislative days to submit statements for the record.

without objection, this hearing is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> center for public integrity talks about what it has done to from wareness

philadelphia, small dollar loans and examines the newly announced pay day loan rule from the consumer protection bureau to end debt traps for consumers and what it means. and from gainesville, florida. and impact of one million people including muhammad ali who died this week after a 32-year battle with the disease. be sure to watch "washington journal" saturday morning. join the discussion. book tv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here are some.

book tv is live from the 32nd .nnual in chicago drawing more than 150,000 book lovers to the two-day festival. homas frank. lindy west, sea mile-an-hour hire shall with the killing of osama bin laden and jeremy mcarthur. on sunday, sebastian younger talks about "tribe." the war on poverty to the war on crime. author sidney blumenthal discusses his book.

mr. earnest: you will have an opportunity to hear more from the president on tuesday at the conclusion of the counterisil meeting that he will convene. we aren't going to take a lot of questions. you want to start. reporter: the president's decision to allow efforts against the taliban in afghanistan, we are focusing on the taliban there and al qaeda and other extremist groups, the president will be more likely to approve more than 5,500 troops to invade?

mr. earnest: it does not and for a variety of reasons i will explain. i would encourage you to not try to interpret anything about a future potential decision on troop numbers with the new authorities that have been given to our forces who are in afghanistan. let me explain to you why. the mission that our men and women in afghanistan have been iven and then conducting since 2015 is not any different today than it was yesterday. this mission is focused on two things. one is carrying out counterterrorism operations to protect the american people and our missions around the world. the other is to offer training, advice and assistance to afghan security forces who are working

hard to provide security in their own country. it is the responsibility fully of the afghan government to provide for the security of the nation of afghanistan and the united states and our nato partners can be and has been supporting them by offering training, advice and assistance. in many situations, u.s. military personnel and some situations, contributions from nato forces have been ccompanying special operations afghan forces on some operations. those u.s. forces would not have a combat role per se, but rather would be offering advice and assistance even as these operations are being carried

out. what these authorities will allow is it will allow u.s. forces to engage in similar efforts to accompany conventional afghan security forces when they under take operations. what this would allow is u.s. forces to be more proactive in supporting conventional afghan forces as they take the fight to the taliban. and this means in some cases close air support or means in some cases accompanying afghan forces on the ground or in the air. again, to this point, u.s. forces and our nato forces have been accompanying afghan special operators. this authority would allow u.s. forces to accompany conventional afghan forces, but when they are

accompanying them, they continue to be focused on the advise and assist mission. eporter: inaudible] would the president like an apology for that comment? . earnest: i did make note of the comments. whether he considers whether or not an apology is appropriate, there is a variety of scripture he might control. reporter: righters has reported that the crown prince has come in to washington next week. can you confirm whether -- is he

meeting with president obama? mr. earnest: i have seen some of these reports. i don't have any details about about his potential travel or whether or not the details of his trip have been locked down at this point, but once we have some more updated details about his trip and what sort of interactions he will have with the u.s. government, then we'll provide those, but i don't anticipate we will have those today. reporter: the president told jimmy fallon that trump is the republican nominee. does he believe that secretary clinton can beat the presumptive republican nominee? mr. earnest: it's important for mocrats to run scared and to

fully and not take the results for granted and the president made quite clear that he inteppeds to be a forceful advocate for secretary clinton and the policies that this administration has been pursuing because he does view this as a choice facing the american people about whether or not the next president will be committed to policies that advance the interest of the middle class that seek to advance the country's interest around the world by strengthening our alliances or happened the keys to the white house to someone who is promising to tear down that progress. so this is obviously appear election that the president believes is a priority and he will be engaged accordingly and will be making the case to

democrats, republicans and independents across the country that the american people should consider this election a top priority. defeat not taking to trump. yesterday's meeting with senator sanders, was there any discussion of senator sanders addressing the democratic convention as many who addressed the prime time in the past? mr. earnest: i don't have a lot more details to share. this is not something they spent a lot of time discussing because the democratic nominee is the individual who will be responsible for determining the program at the convention. so presumably when if and when senator sanders and secretary clinton will meet, that will be

on their ageppeda but not something president obama will weigh in on. reporter: vice president biden's letter to the stand forward victim. does the president share that view? and why doesn't this anger translate into the demraring issues here or one of the mraring issues about the sentence? mr. earnest: you have heard the president on a number of occasions talk about how serious he believes the matter of sexual assault and violence against women is. and that's why the president has made clear in a variety of these settings just how wrong sexual assault is. the president has stated that

there is no room for sexual assault or harassment against women in the united states military, no room for any of orally college campuses and no room for that in our society. and the president has been unequivocal and the president has been engaged in a number of efforts toll combat sexual assault. the president and the vice president has teamed up together. there is a grassroots effort to take age men and women to on the pledge and that is to intervene in situations in which the risk of sexual assault might be elevated. if you observe it, to intervene and try to prevent a sexual assault from occurring and we have a responsibility to protect our community and the people around us and to intervene us in

which something like this seems likely to occur. the president has quite strong feelings about this. the vice president has his own personal track record as a united states senator. vice president biden wrote the violence against women act and historic piece of legislation that devoted resources. so this is something that both the president and the vice president have made a priority, not just because they believe it is a policy matter but because of their own deep personal conviction about how wrong exual sexual assault is. reporter: [inaudible] mr. earnest: it is fair to say that the president feels

strongly that every act of sexual assault and sexual violence and rape is wrong and e that deserves a forceful rebuke to make clear to everyone that we have certain principles and values in our country. i'm not going to talk about any specific situation. reporter: when you say things like that, strong feelings, biden's furious anger deserves a -- the review mr. earnest: this is a criminal court proceeding and i can't weigh in on it. i'm making a reference to the fact we just made clear to everybody that there is zero tolerance for sexual assault.

directingo excuse for violence towards women or engaging in sexual activity without consent. that's wrong. there is no justification. no explaining your way out of it and that's true in every setting. reporter: this sentence doesn't mean zero tolerance? mr. earnest: i can't weigh in on a decision by a judge. i can talk about how there can d should be no tolerance for sexual activity without consent. no tolerance of violence against women, no tolerance for rape and the president's comments and feelings have been unambiguous. reporter: would you say there is

not zero tolerance right now that someone can get six months in america. we are not at a point where there is not zero tolerance? mr. earnest: anywhere in our ciety, where we see sexual violence taking place, we have work to do. even one instance of rape or sexual assault is one too many and not something that the president is going to accept. there is no resignation on the part of the president and vice president that this is something we are going to have to deal with. something we must confront and eradicate. there is no tolerance, no explaining it away and the goal of the campaign is to make sure we have the responsibility for doing that. and this is something that the president feels strongly about.

reporter: you have strong feelings right now. wouldn't this be a good time to speak out against a court case? wouldn't there be the harm in that snr mr. earnest: it is important that people who are responsible for conducting criminal investigations need to feel confident they can do so without political interference and need to be guided by the facts and evidence and what the law says and it's important that we avoid even the perception of a figure with significant political influence, weighinging in and that would erode confidence in our system of justice and i guess what i would consider consider this if you had a president of the united states who didn't have such strong

feelings about eradicating sexual assault and imagine a scenario if that individual failed to abide by a long tradition of respecting an independent judiciary. you could imagine a situation where that person could influence or could try to influence a judge through an -- what that person considered to be too harsh a sentence. we wouldn't have any tolerance. that would erode our confidence. we need a justice system that operates independently because that's the only way to continue to have confidence in the american people that everyone is subject to the rule of law and the rule of law is applied fairly regardless of who you are nd where you went to school.

reporter: [inyou had i believe] mr. earnest: i wasn't able to lk about the number of dirty kleenexes. reporter: the taliban in afghanistan has made significant gains, u.s. military commanders testified that the situation in afghanistan is deteriorating. is the president's decision is to expand military air strikes and vetting now with afghan forces and acknowledges that it was a mistake to put limits. mr. earnest: afghanistan is a dangerous country and still is today. i don't think anybody from the president on down was under the illusion that after a couple of years for being responsible for the security of their own

country that the afghan security forces would eliminating the threats from the taliban. what we have seen from after garn security forces is a willingness to fight for their country. the forces are resilient where they vr setbacks. there has been a willingness on the part of the afghan forces to re-organ take the fight back to their add veer sears and some of that is successful from the united states to train afghan forces and also the built-in national pride of afghan forces to fight for their country. after all, when the taliban carries out a bombing in kabul, most of the victims are afghans. it makes sense that the afghan

forces would have a desire to eradicate the extremists from their country. and that commitment has shown on the battlefield. the question has been what else can the united states do to support them in those efforts? the president feels strongly that the afghans must remain in control. the u.s. combat role ended at the end of 2014 and the president is not considering restarting it. but the question is is it possible for us to be more proactive in supporting conventional afghan security forces and we anticipate by offering them more advice and assistance and keags neal visiting them on assistance, that they are likely more effect if i have on the battlefield. and that's the goal here and

that's the goal the united states has pledged, to support the afghan security forces as they provide for the security operation. reporter: how would you explain those authorities however, not role?ng the direct combat mr. earnest: they would be offering assistance. reporter: air strikes are air strikes and combat operations. mr. earnest: there have been counterterrorism operations that have been undertaken by the united states forces and by -- reporter: the expansion of the authorities goes beyond what the rules were previously to go beyond the terrorism aspect and to attack large gathering of taliban who are not presenting a terrorist threat. mr. earnest: what the authorities allow our forces to do is to provide the kind of

advice and support than previously provided to special afghan forces and now they will be supporting those to conventional afghan forces and the president has been clear about what their responsibilities are and this means providing close air support and in some cases this means accompanying afghan forces on their mission. but when we are talking about the operations under way on the ground, u.s. forces on the ground do not have a combat mission. those u.s. forces are there to offer advice and assistance. and we had this conversation and applies to afghanistan, too. they are going to be armed for combat and the reason is, they are in a dangerous situation and putting themselves in great risk

to advance ourer policies in afghanistan. they are aiding our national security. we owe them a greet of gratitude and have been given orders by he commander in chief. for our forces that are brighting on the ground they have not been given a combat mission but to offer training, assistance. there is no denying that. and the president when he spoke at arlington cemetery on memorial day, noted the loss of american lives both in iraq, syria and afghanistan. and it's a dangerous place and we don't take for granted the remarkable courage that is displayed by our military members and we owe them a great

debt of gratitude and this has a direct consequence on the national security of the united states. reporter: report is there any time limit? you were avoiding the question about whether the president would be able to reduce the number of forces down to 5,000 by the end of this year. but that will seems to indicate that you spict this extended authority to be over by the end of this year. how could you possibly do it and still reduce the forces? mr. earnest: jim, you have been covering this longer than i have. my understanding is that even -- that if the plan to draw down forces down to 5,500 moves forward, that would be at a sufficient level to carry out these expanded authorities where

necessary. so the point i'm trying to make it is, just because these expanded authorities have been authorized by the commander in chief, that does not limit in any way our ability to follow through with the plan to draw down our troops at a level of 5,500 troops by the end of this year. reporter: in terms of the troop numbers without this military authority being there on the ground and seeing the extent to which it is implemented, how can we say at this point whether or not that 5,500 number of troops would be adequate to carry out the operations? mr. earnest: based on the briefing that i received from the department of defense, you can consult with my colleagues over there, but my understanding is that there is nothing about support the

drawdown. reporter: moose fer because the extent is left to the commanders there on the ground, is thri concern if it is heavily used that it could end up leading to resulting into an expanded footprint there on the ground? mr. earnest: what our military commanders have said is that that their intent is to use these new authorities isiciously and the idea here to put u.s. forces in a position where they can be more proactively supportive of operations led by afghan security forces on the ground. but not in every situation, but in situations where our commanders on the ground, based

on the knowledge of the forces and the training and operation, consider determine whether or not that kind of stepped i have-under assistance is necessary. so we talked br expanding authorities. we are talking that the president of the united states has granted to our commanders on the ground in afghanistan, to have somewhat more at lewd in asking our forces and commanding ur forces to carry out these advise and assist missions in support of afghan efforts. reporter: you touched on it earlier, but elaborate on how this is not a reversal in terms of strategy and policy there in afghanistan, military -- for the u.s. military. mr. earnest: it doesn't forestall or prevent us moving

forward on the strategy that the president laid out last year for drawing down our troop levels to 5,500. this does not reflect a change in the basic mission that our men and women are performing. this is not a restarting of combat operations. this ended in 2014. but what this is is it does allow u.s. forces to provide the kind of advice and assistance to conventional afghan security forces that up to this point has been provided to afghan special forces. so that is sparneded authority. this could enhance the effectiveness of afghan security forces on the ground. but these are decisions that will be made by u.s. commanders on the ground but does not change the basic mission or the trajectory that the president

laid out for troop levels. but we do believe it could enhance the security forces that are fighting the taliban in afghanistan. reporter: seems like you are giving the u.s. forces more to do with the idea of having less u.s. forces on the ground to do it. mr. earnest: we are actually giving our commanders on the ground the ability to decide to do more where it's appropriate and that's why it is not a change in our mission but gives them the opportunity to conduct advice and assistance in slightly more areas if our commanders have concluded that it's beneficial. reporter: concludes on a widespread base a is. mr. earnest: they have concluded that it is not their intent. reporter: you used the word if in talking about future decisions that might be used and

is there negotiating room there or are you suggesting that this is something that will be looked atlanta? mr. earnest: there is not a negotiation, it's between our chief who will make a decision. i'm not clarifying you -- i'm not correcting you but trying to clarify. he is the commander in chief and have said he gets regular updates on situation from members of his national security team based here in washington and based in central command in tampa and commanders on the ground and will take that input and consider the broader strategic decisions about the appropriate troop levels. the current plan is for 9,800 service members to remain in afghanistan for most of this ,500 by draw down to 5

the end of the year. general nicholson who took command of efforts in the afghanistan. and the president at this point has not received a specific recommendation. but the president will certainly -- the point i want to make, the president is interested in the advice from his commanders on the ground about the strategy. reporter: considering the recommendation of the general? i want to ask you, there was a letter published on this topic a week or so by a number of former military commanders, general petraeus, a number who served this administration, crockr cunningham and they were saying this this president needs to name a successor, room to make

his or her own decision but freeze at 9800. is this something that the president is taking it on board. the president was handled a lot of difficult circumstances and he appreciates giving his successor the decisions on making the drawdown. mr. earnest: president obama's successor, that person will be inheriting a situation in afghanistan that is far improved what president obama inherited both on the ground and in terms f the u.s. forces that are operating in that country. when president obama took office, there were 180,000 troops on the ground. now in the last few months of the obama presidency, the combined number of forces in iraq and afghanistan is about 15,000. so less than 10% of the troop

levels that president obama inherited and the truth is the security situation in afghanistan is improved. still dangerous place. the risk that our men and women in uniform take every single day to undertake this mission, but because of the strategic decisions that president obama has made over the last seven years, we have december drk december natured afghan. an effectiveere is partner with the united states in pursuing that goal. the next president will inherit a much better situation than the one president obama accepted. but look when the president talked about troop numbers in

afghanistan, i believe this was last fall, the president made quite clear his thought process about designing a strategy for afghanistan that would enhance the ability of the next commander in chief to succeed in implementing his strategy that makes the american people safer. and we have made tremendous progress in making the american people safer. and the president is making sure that the next president is committed to building on that progress. this is an argument that you have heard me make and relevant. but it applies to the situation in afghanistan. we made remarkable progress in improving the situation in afghanistan and drawing down troop levels and the president is making sure that the next president is someone who is committed on building that progress and that means the

president wants the next president to inherit in which we maintain our momentum forward. reporter: is there political consideration if mr. trump is the candidate snl mr. earnest: i don't think the president will consult. he will be making this decision in consultation with the national security team in washington and military commanders in tampa and afghanistan. i think it's hard to predict at this point what kind of conversations would be taking place. the president is interested, where there is a president-elect, the president would want to know what the strategy is and based on the guidance of the military commanders, but over the next several months, as this this strategy is designed, the president will be relying on the

ational security team. a rter: there is [inaudible] > there is not a response yet. [inaudible] reporter: does this decision reflect the reality of those talks. mr. earnest: it does not. we are continuing to urge actors in the region to be supportive of a afghan-led reconciliation effort of the taliban. a couple of weeks ago, it takes and a significant

impedement to the continuation of those talks. tool early to assess at this point what impact that will have on the direction of the talks. ut we are going to continue to encourage all parties to participate in that afghan-led process. ile give you the last one. inaudible] mr. earnest: republican national headquarters. reporter: the clinton campaign has said -- [inaudible] mr. earnest: i think what i have said on a number of occasions

that i have not been briefed by the department of justice about the investigation or the nature of the investigation. it should be directed to the department of justice. i answered that on many occasions. the point that i was making is that the ongoing investigation at the department of justice is one that is being conducted independent of any political interference and any sort of -- the president has complete confidence that the individuals who are responsible for conducting this investigation, these are career employees at the department of justice, these are individuals who understand swayed should not be by anything the president has to say. the president of the united states wants them and is confident that they will, in fact, pursue the facts, follow the evidence and lead to a

conclusion that is supported by he facts and the evidence. i would have no insight into that because i'm not getting any sort of briefings from the department of justice. thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify. the week ahead. on monday, the president will attend meetings at the white house. on tuesday, he will convene his national security council. that afternoon, the president will deliver remarks at the men's summit to mark the progress and to discuss solutions to the challenges they continue to face. thatening, the president will host a picnic for members of congress at the white house. on wednesday, the president will

travel to wisconsin. additional details will be made available. on thursday, the president will attend meetings at the white house. and on friday, the president and first family will go to new mexico and yosemite national park in california. dditional details will be made available next week. the president and the first family will return to washington on sunday evening. opportunity for the first family to mark the centennial of our national park system. but it's an opportunity to acknowledge the important role that the u.s. government has in protecting some of the most beautiful vistas and territory in the country. the president and the first lady are very much looking forward to

the trip. thanks everybody. ave a great weekend. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by tional captioning institute] >> here's a look at our prime time schedules. starting at 8:00 eastern, remarks from hillary clinton at a planned parenthood event. on c-span 2, former president bill clinton attend a memorial service for muhammad ali. and on c-span 3, a house hearing looks at the future energy consumption regulations for electric appliances. >> c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up saturday morning --

>> earlier today defense

secretary ashton carter discussed efforts to modernize the military. designed toplan is build a bridge between u.s. and innovators. he also addressed a recent decision to expand the military authority to conduct airstrikes against the television in afghanistan -- the taliban and in afghanistan. this is half an hour. welcome the secretary of defense, ash carter. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for being here, and digging around -- and .ticking around

it is a thrill and honor to have secretary carter here. those of you at home or watching at home as well. a few points from his bio. he became secretary last year. before that we knew him in the pentagon for a while. he was the deputy secretary of defense. the guide that is supposed to know where things go and probably where things are buried. before that he was the under secretary of defense for html -- , which was the pentagon weapons buyer. the clinton in administration he was the assistant secretary of defense for international security. the guy that has to go around the world. he has been through it all.