Our table, the former Energy Secretary under the obama administration, ernest moniz. Great to be here. Where do you work now . I have a mixed set of responsibilities. Im at mit, where i used to be part of the time. Im ceo here in d. C. Of two nonprofits. One in the clean energy and climate space and one trying to reduce the risks of weapons of mass destruction. Thats called the Nuclear Threat initiative. The first is called the Energy Futures initiative. What is the Energy Future initiative . Its an organization i started with two other principals that ive worked with for quite some time, including department of energy. What we do is analysis of basically energy issues, social equity issues, all consistent with a local carbon future. So for example, we issued a report two weeks ago on how californias pathways to its lowcarbon future could evolve, and by the way, the conclusion was on the one hand a very positive, it can be done, but also very challenging and costs have to come down. So californias road map is a realistic one. Yes. I mean, again, our overarching conclusion is you can meet the 2030 and the mid century goals, but its tough. For example, for 2030, we followed 31 Different Technology pathways, and you pretty much got to do very, very well on all of them to get there. Explain that a little bit more. What are these technological pathways . What is california doing . So california for 2030 has various goals. Ill just mention one, which is very pertinent here, a 40 reduction from 1990 in Greenhouse Gas emissions by 2030. Then by midcentury, at least almost or completely net neutral carbon economy. So for 2030, lets take transportation. Transportation is actually californias biggest emitting sector. Its 39 just in transportation. Cars on the road. And a big part of that is cars, lightduty vehicles. It isnt everything, but lightduty vehicles. So what we found was that, number one, in terms of reducing emissions, you got to stick to the Energy Efficiency standards for vehicles. Number two, you also got to hit the target of 5 million battery vehicles on the road by 2030. And number three, the legislative requirement for lower carbon fuels has to be met. So you really got to hit the whole portfolio basically to get close to the target. And they can do it . Well, yeah, all three of those are possible, but again, you got to hit them all. The cafe standards, as you know, theres a tug of war going on with the federal government. The 5 million vehicles, thats a big rampup of electric vehicles on the road, but its not in any sense beyond the realm of possibility. Indeed, some want to increase that from 5 to 7 million. But you got to hit it, again, to have enough reductions of carbon to reach the 40 economy wide goal. By the way, thats only transportation. Then youve got to do industry. Thats got some tough problems. You have a real challenge with agriculture. You certainly have to hit your mark on decarbonizing the Electricity Sector and see electricity used much more broadly in other sectors, like battery vehicles for transportation, in industry, certainly in homes. So again, our point is you need a big portfolio of technologies. You should not be excludeing, arbitrarily, some of those directions. For example, for 2030 already, we say california im using california again as our example. California really needs to get on it for Carbon Dioxide capture and underground storage. And also, we would argue for midcentury in particular, they need to think about advanced Nuclear Technologies as part of the portfolio. How is california right now primarily, or whats the breakdown of how theyre powering their homes and industry across the state . First of all, california is a little unusual compared to the rest of the country, partly because theyve had so much success with Energy Efficiency and the like. So therefore, electricity in california is 16 of the emissions, whereas nationally its about 28 . So its a bit of a different mix. So the big ones, really, are transportation. We already mentioned cars. But dont forget, theres also heavy duty vehicles. Theres airlines, air travel you have to worry about. In industry, california is a big refinery state, so what are you going to do there . Well, part of it is, again, capturing the Carbon Dioxide and storing it. But right now, to be perfectly honest, they are nowhere on this, nor is pretty much the rest of the country. So we got to pick up the pace and very importantly, and we emphasize this, and this is interesting in the context of whats happening in congress. Innovation, Energy Technology innovation. Absolutely central. As you know right now, theres a major bill moving, or at least the intent for a major bill moving with bipartisan support in the congress to dramatically increase r d, research and development, perhaps deployment on the innovation side. There is some glimmer of home here on bipartisan approaches, recognizing that we have to really pick up the pace on innovation. What is a green real deal, and how does that differ from calls for a Green New Deal . So early in march, a colleague and i published something called green real deal. What we mean by that is, first of all, the underlying pillars, the foundation of Green New Deal, and we are strictly in the Energy Climate space. In that space, we say the Green New Deal is about simultaneously addressing low carbon and social equity. That is implementing the lowcarbon agenda in ways that do not disadvantage those who are already disadvantaged, in effect. We say, okay, those are the two principles of a Green New Deal. We endorse those. Now the question is how do you develop a real program to implement it. Thats what we call the green real deal. Basically our fundamental tenant is that we certainly have to get beyond what makes no sense, frankly, the climate deniers. We also have to get beyond what we think are often completely unrealistic proposals for the pace at which we can decarbonize. So what we say is, look, we had to develop the Building Blocks of a pragmatic lowcarbon trajectory. That direction has to be one upon which we can build a broad coalition. You were just talking about National Security needs, for example. So its about the environment, but its about National Security. Its about economic growth. It is about social equity in doing it. We have to recognize that, frankly, while the lowcarbon transition can be managed with very, very little, lets call it macroeconomic impact, within that there are clearly what are often called distributional issues. Some parts of the country will be affected in very, very different ways. Some parts of the country will have very different tools for addressing it. So what we say is lets put together that while we observe these distributional impacts, otherwise the political head winds will remain brisk. Lets go to calls. Jay is in oak hill, florida, a republican. Hi, jay. Caller hi, good morning. How are you . Good, go ahead. Caller okay. I have a couple questions for your guest. The first one would be, recently weve had a drop off of the arctic ice up in alaska where theyve sectioned off probably close to 150 to 200 feet of glacier that keeps dropping every three to five days, which shows that the actual ice is growing and not shrinking. The other question i got is, i live in florida on the water. Been checking the tides for ten years. Have not seen one single increase on any water floe or any size difference in the water height. So thats going to be irrelevant. But the biggest question i have for your guest is california, the entire west coast, is a fraud. Every single one of these states, california, oregon, and washington, have all started growing marijuana. All that marijuana is being grown by grow lights and thats requiring lek tris. Youre polluting more than any other state in this country by allowing this drug to be grown in these states. And this is a liberal, a liberal agenda, and this man here is a fraud. Ask him how much he makes off of these nonprofits every year. Thank you. Do you care to answer, secretary . First of all, let me comment the issue of the arctic. The arctic is like the canary in the coal mine because warming, as expected and by measurement, is roughly double that at lower latitudes. Secondly, the issues of sea level, storm surges, floods is very, very specifically location dependent. But on average, we know that real estate close to the water in many places is skyrocketing. Thats just one of the examples of the impact. This is not speculation. These are companies who are exposed to those damages. With regard to the west coast and im not getting into marijuana policy. I have no position on that. Clearly there is going to be increasing, for many reasons, there will be both pressure to increase electricity in some areas but also through Energy Efficiency and contra vailing issues to reduce electricity use. So i think theres many forces in terms of sustaining an economy, sustaining the energy requirements, including electricity requirements for that economy but doing so in a way that does not increase and in fact lowers green how gas emissions. Are the two groups you mentioned nonprofits . The question about your salary, i mean, how do you make an income these days . Well, in any nonprofit, of course people have to get paid their salaries. These are not large entities. Were talking about 50 people in one and a dozen people in the other. But the key is we are able to attract, i think, very, very good talent. In a nonprofit, the whole point is all of the incoming proceeds for studies from foundations and the like goes into pursuing the mission of the nonprofit. The mission of efi is to provide technically grounded analysis for lowcarbon pathways and of nti is to minimize the risks, lower the risks, which are unfortunately too high for the possible use of weapons of mass destruction. Well go to steve. Booneville, indiana, independent. Caller hello, am i on . You are. Go ahead, steve. Caller great, i have two quick questions. Nuclear energy would be steer r zero emissions. We power our subs that way. I think we power our aircraft carriers that way. Why dont we pursue more Nuclear Energy . Second question, will our efforts matter very much when china, india, and other countries are bringing coalfired power plants online on a weekly basis . At least, so i read. Thanks a lot. First of all, you are absolutely correct that not only are Nuclear Submarines but our aircraft carriers a Nuclear Powered. This is often not recognized, that the department of energy works together with the navy to design all of those Nuclear Power plants for both subs and aircraft carriers. Well have a new generation of Nuclear Power plants there. Thats what allows the navy, frankly, to project its power globally in many ways. Now, in terms of the civilian sector, i am certainly a strong supporter of the idea that Nuclear Power has to be part of the lowcarbon future. Some places will decide not to employ it. A good example is germany, which i believe will complete its phase out of Nuclear Power. On the other hand, many other places are moving forward. I happen to think for the United States, the future will be in new technologies called small modular reactors. So these are typically 50 to 200 megawatts versus the 1200 megawatt kinds of reactors that we have seen being built, 1,000 to 1200. So i think thats a new direction. But frankly, we need to demonstrate those reactors by deploying some of them in this next decade, and i believe that will require the federal government working with the private sector. One of the interesting points is that i would argue that in the entire history of Nuclear Power, we have not seen as Much Technology innovation as we are seeing today. There are over 40 companies in the United States that you might call various stages of Startup Companies that are advancing many, many different technologies in both Nuclear Fission and nuclear fusion. The key is going to be how do we get the most promising of those technologies over a socalled valley of death where they can raise the kinds of capital to actually deploy the first of those reactors so that we can all learn, certainly the private sector can learn, the investors can learn what the performance is, especially in terms of economics of these new types of reactor. I think its very, very important to move that forward. Well go to ray next. Lake dallas, texas, on our line for democrats. Caller hello, ernest. Good morning. And good morning, greta. I have three real quick points. My wife of course, obviously, we live in texas, which is an Oil Producing state. My wife and i were very interested in ev. So to our surprise, we drove down to the kia. We were going to look at a kia ev. To our surprise, we discovered that kia does not sell them in the state of texas because there are not enough places you can drive around and charge them up so to speak in the country. We were amazed to hear that. Were a gridtied system, and we export, et cetera. We really, really like a lot, okay. So i guess one thing and that leads me into my third issue. Batteries. It seems to me that batteries is the next big thing because batteries could be used in power generation. You know how the grid works. It works on demand. Its not like theres something there that you can build up a bunch of power. Its on demand. So the Power Companies have to do that. Having a Battery Powered system would enable the Power Companies to fill the pot, so to speak. Then we draw off the power. I think that would make it much easi easier for companies to deliver power, certainly a lot easier way to do that, then use the batteries to drain off and use that to charge the grid, so to speak. Then i believe that batteries are a huge industry. I believe that, you know, look at tesla, what theyve been able to do with their battery technology. They just bought out, i believe it was maxima, if im not mistaken. Ive really tried to follow this and also follow policy. Youre absolutely right. I think the policy thats z hw do i say that . Theres no great way to say it. I think some of its just asinine. I believe to say we need to have a Manhattan Project type. I think you get where im going. Okay, ray, im going to stop there and have the former secretary jump in. Okay. First of all, i think on just about all your points, youre right on. For example, on the first point about the electric vehicles, it is very, very critical for any new fueling type, and i would call the electric vehicle one of those, but it also could be certain kinds of biofuels, ultimately it could be hydrogen. Whats often forgotten is the infrastructure for that fueling has to coevolve with the growth of those vehicle types. So i think there its a question in certain parts of the country. Again, california is a good example. Many states in the east as well have really focused on developing some of these infrastructures to allow then consumers to buy those vehicles. So i would say in texas, a major issue is to provide those charging stations spaced out in a reasonable way for allowing that growth, probably starting out in the major urban areas. So thats certainly very, very important. Now, you mentioned Manhattan Project. And some of the problems with calling it that. It turns out that senator alexander in the senate, hes the chair of the appropriations subcommittee of relevance here. He is calling his major Innovation Initiative a Manhattan Project for doubling investment in energy r d. He then names nine priority areas. One of those is exactly as you say, batteries, or more broadly speaking, let me call it energy storage. Electricity storage, energy storage. Battery costs have come down very, very dramatically in the last decade. When there are incentives provided by policy today, but you have a number of utilities that have given what are called longterm power purchase agreements. That is a guaranteed they get a guaranteed price to buy a certain amount of electricity over, say, a tenyear period, for example. Some of those are coming in at, lets call it approximately two cents per kilowatt hour for solar plus batteries. So you can store for two to four hours, the electricity thats being produced. This is a Major Technology transformation thats happening and is absolutely essential. But let me also say that even as the costs of those batteries come down, lets say lithium ion batteries that are currently the workhorse for providing four hours of storage. We have to remember for a system that is designed to incorporate very, very large amounts of variable renewable power, wind, solar, or both, that four hours of storage is very important for being able to manage the grid. But its also very important to have days of storage, weeks of storage, and frankly, if you have imagine you have a system with a very, very large amount of solar energy. Well, in our latitude, its not surprising that we have a lot more solar production in the summer than in the winter. So if thats a very, very large peak, were going to have to have storage that also spans months to be able to use that excess energy, if you like, in the summer. So there are a variety of ideas. There are things called flow batteries. Theres pumped hydropower. Theres the possibility of storing large amounts of heat. One could be using the excess renewables potentially to make hydrogen, which you then can use as a fuel for industry or for vehicles or the like. Right now these are all to expensive. Thats what innovation is about, finding new ways, new technologies, new materials that are going to lower those costs. Im a physicist by training. Im probably by nature bullish. If we push hard now, whether you call it Manhattan Project or not, the issue is we need to go all out in terms of deploying what we have and developing the breakthroughs that in 10, 20, and 30 years are going to redefine our Energy System in ways that are reliant, resilient, kpik, aeconomic, and carbon. Well go to louisiana. A republican, mary. Caller hi, greta. Morning. Caller good morning. Mary, go ahead with your question or comment for mr. Moniz. Caller okay. I have some comments. First of all, this Green New Deal stuff, Renewable Energy. Black people is not going to be able to afford that. Not only that, how would you like to be in a vehicle, electric vehicle traveling and then it dies and theres nowhere to recharge it. Okay. Second of all, god is not going to allow man to destroy this planet. Hes going to do it. Thats another way they trying to get enough people hooked on this Green New Deal or Renewable Energy so they can invest in all this stuff and make more money. Okay, mary. Lets take those points. First of all, the disenfranchisement of minority communities. You move in this direction of Renewable Fuels and these communities cant afford to go there as well. So theyre left behind. Well, first of all, we have to recognize that the rapid growth of renewables involves, in a very strong way, market forces. This includes in the southeast. Im on the board of the southern company, a major utility in the southeast. Operating in states to the east of our caller. None of those states have requirements on renewables, and yet the utility has moved to shift from coal to natural gas and renewables because thats what the markets are calling for. It also accomplishes low carbon. So we need to get past this idea that renewables are tremendously expensive. The cost reductions have been incredibly dramatic over these last ten years for wind and onshore solar. Having said that, as i said earlier, the green real deal that we are promoting adheres to the Green New Deal principles of not only low carbon but of social equity. Again, we need to make sure that we are serving those who are in the lower part of the Income Distribution, the communities that could be disadvantaged. So let me just give one example. Our caller selfidentified as a republican. So i will talk about a republican proposal for low carbon and social equity. Former secretaries of state George Schulze and jim baker, hank paulson and others all republicans who served in the george w. Bush or george h. W. Bush or Ronald Reagan administrations. They have proposed putting a carbon price on emissions. So that is the mechanism for dealing with low carbon. But they also make a proposal as to how that can be socially progressive. That is, make sure that the lower income people are being covered, namely they say is, okay, you put a price on, that means some funds are collected, but they say return those to the people in whole. Dont keep anything for other purposes that Congress Might like. Return them to the people, equal dividend to everybody. When you look at what that would imply for the population, the computer modeling, if you like, indicates that the lower 70 of the Income Distribution would come out ahead in that way. So thats the way that thats an example of how one could accomplish both aims. Thats from a republican group, a very, very senior statesman, to address low carbon and social equity at the same time. And the other issue, again, i think we covered before in terms of infrastructure, the concern you raised about not having charging structure. As i said, its renewable costs coming down, battery costs coming down, but you need the third pillar, which is build the infrastructure so that everyone is confident in their driving habits. Sam. Thousand oaks, california. Independent. Sam, good morning. Caller thank you for taking my call. My original question was around Nuclear Energy, but i think someone else preempted that, and you already addressed it. So well, ill keep it local. I live in california. I pay more for gas to fill up my tank than i would anywhere else in the country. Why is that . Im sorry. Could you clarify the question . He said why is that . He pays more for gas than anywhere else in the country. Oh, pays more for gasoline. I dont know in detail, but presume my there are issues of whatever are the state taxes on fuels. But its also the case and im admitting i dont know all the dynamics of exactly how the prices are set, but it is also true that california and oil is something of an island, in fact. It is not tightly tied in either petroleum or natural gas to the rest of the country. So again, i dont know in detail, but certainly the combination of the infrastructure with regard to the rest of the country and the state tax structure, which i dont know are factors. Secretary moniz, at the Technology Foundation this morning, theyre going to be discussing mileagebased road use tax. What are your thoughts on that . Were going to have coverage of it here on cspan at 10 00 a. M. Eastern time. So there are a variety of ideas about how to have people pay according to how much they use the roads. A variety of ways of doing that. Sometimes through insurance costs, in fact. Kind of pay at the pump insurance and the like. So i think there are various mechanisms. The caution i would raise here is that once again, i believe we need to look at these policies through the lens of social equity as well as reducing Carbon Emissions. Clearly the intent here is one that is very, very important. Lowering vehicle miles used. But lets face it. A lot of our population, particularly those at the lower end of the Income Distribution, where we find things like urban real estate prices to be extremely high, they inherently have to live some distance from their work often. To be honest, president obama recognized this very much. There was a very interesting discussion he had on the south lawn of the white house in october 2016 with leonardo dicaprio. He said explicitly, lets think of the head of the family who has to drive 50 miles each way to work every day just to barely balance the budget. The price of gasoline is very important to that person and to that family. So we need to address that if we are going to be able to explain broadly in the public the need for and the opportunity to address Climate Change. So thats the balance that frankly in our green real deal we are trying to emphasize. There can be unintended consequences that can be socially regressive, and we need to protect those individuals and those communities. The reaction from the actor . Leonardo dicaprio . Well, i dont think he said too much in direct response, but the discussion went on. I might add, just to add one more controversial issue, at the same time, when president obama addressed that issue of, you know, driving, et cetera, he also just brought up what he said explicitly would be something not well received by the audience he had on the south lawn. He said, lets talk about natural gas and fracking, the fracking revolution. He said, look, lets get real. The revolution in natural gas has, without a doubt, reduced Carbon Emissions very, very dramatically. Its more than half of our Carbon Emissions reductions have come from the shift from coal to natural gas. Mainly market driven. We addressed that earlier. Secondly, at the same time, theres no doubt it provided a major edge to our energy using industry. So it created jobs in that way as well. And he said, look, clearly there are issues to be addressed. There are environmental footprint issues in terms of production. In the longterm, gas itself, natural gas combustion itself will have too many Carbon Emissions. So we have to address the problems. But thats the attitude. Look at where you are, saving Carbon Emissions. Look at where you are increasing the economy. But also look at the problems we have to solve through innovation Going Forward to address low carbon and social equity. Lets hear from walter, whos a democrat in naples, florida. Caller hi, good morning. Morning, walter. Caller ive never heard anyone address jet fuel and rocket fuel. When you think of the amount of that snapshot of that september 11th when they had to ground every flight in the u. S. You can all remember that snapshot of our country, all those planes at one time. That was just 9 00 a. M. On a monday morning. What about noon . What about 5 00 . What about all of europe . It looks like that, too, i bet. But they all talk about all us groundlings. Is that the problem, that people wont talk about this because it would affect all those private jets and the entire economy . Lets talk about it. Walter, well talk about it. Well, i dont think the issues are being driven by the use of private airplanes and the like. The reality is that for air travel, its one of the hardest problems in terms of how you could alternatively fuel travel. Today air travel, i believe, is responsible for about 2 of our e m emissions, but that will be growing with time. So its an important issue. But thats a case where look, there are a number of individuals in Small Companies that are working on electrification of air travel. I would say show me. Thats not a very easy innovation pathway. I think what were going to need, in my view, more likely are alternative liquid fuels that are made with a very, very low carbon. For example, it could be a very advanced biofuel that is compatible with todays jet engines. There are many cases where this is being made in the laboratory but is not being made at a cost that is viable today. Again, innovation may take care of that in the future. The reason here is that one should acknowledge what is a fact. And that is that in terms of the amount of Energy Available per volume, lets say per liter or per gallon, frankly you cannot beat today a Petroleum Based fuel. Much, much Higher Energy density than a battery, for example. And so for air travel, where you really need high energy density, its hard to beat right now a Petroleum Based fuel, but we will need to do that with these fuels, 10, 20 years down the road if we are to be effectively addressing Climate Change. Hole low, i would like to recommend a video for cspan to present the opposing view for change. This video was on bbc and you can watch it on youtube. Its called the great Global Warming swindle. And this whole lie started in 1970 and it gets revised about every 10 years. Now we got 11 years and 11 months before youre going to start a countdown all over ag n again. And another thing, i wish your guest would shorten his answers, so people wouldnt have to wait for ever to listen to his trivial response to be finalized. What are your thoughts that this is overblown this is alarmist. How do you respond to that. Let me say, i can only apologize for the length of my responses, and if it taxes the Attention Span of certain viewers, but i dont wish to be offensive, but im afraid that the statement about the swindle is simply, completely unsupported by science. And i dont mean complicated science. Very simple. Global warming is a measured fact. And the idea that it is caused by human behavior, burning of fossil fuels mainly is essentially a fact as well. There are many who argue correctly that way, way back in the earths history we had even higher co 2 concentrations and that is true. But were talking not about geological time frames, were talking about decades in which the Carbon Emissions and the carbon concentration of the atmosphere are simply measured and happening much, much faster, completely tracking human use in the post industrial in the industrial era of fossil fuels. So this is again where we need to get past what i would call magical thinking that somehow we are not driving Global Warming, which in turn is driving many of the Climate Change issues we see, affecting everyone in the United States from droughts, from wildfires in california, from storm surges along the ocean, i noticed many of our callers are from california and florida. And its no coincidence that those are two places that have seen the impacts of Global Warming. Janet, south field michigan, democrat. Janet, youre on. Excuse me. Excuse me. No problem. Question or comment . Yes, i do. I was just wondering what kind of research is being done . I saw a vice Program Last Year regarding co 2 extraction. And i was wondering if theres any Research Going on with extracting co 2 and turning that into fuel for cars. Apparently theres a Canadian Company that is actually doing this. Research says its like a technology thats ready to go. So i was wondering if mr. Mun ease and his Research Company is you know, if you guys are doing anything with regard to that. Thank you. Yeah, actually, the company youre referring to in vancouver is called Carbon Engineering. The person who drove is a professor named david keith at harvard who i know quite well. Ill return to the technology specifically, let me say in answer to your last point. In our little nonprofit, we expect to come out with rart in june that will be called Carbon Direct removal. And among the Many Technology pathways will be the one youre referring to, specifically, Carbon Engineering and a number of other Startup Companies in the United States and canada and switzerland, germany. Are looking at something called direct air capture. Youre able to reproduce what a tree does in terms of taking Carbon Dioxide out of the atmosphere its very expensive today. Lets call it 1,000 a ton with a goal of getting it down to 100 or 200 per ton. Some are even more optimistic. That stretches my imagination. Now, you said it very well. Great. Lets capture billions of tons of Carbon Dioxide, what do we do with it . You have two choices, either you put it underground to store it, or you convert it into some useful product Carbon Engineering, for example, says lets combine Carbon Dioxide with hydrogen, that essentially reproduces a hydrocarbon fuel. This is similar to the question we addressed earlier, it would be a possible replacement to jet fuel. This is an important pathway of innovation. To say its ready today, i would question in the sense that and i think david keith would agree, that today the cost would be extremely high to do that at scale. But again we hope with innovation it will come down. There are many other pathways for removing carbon as well. And our report in june will talk about those many pathways and the need to pick up the pace and innovation. An example by the way, would be environmental sequestration. Expanding things like forest cover would soak up carbon die oochl id, we may be able to use modern biology. Synthetic biology to be able to generate some plants, some gr s grasses that could fix a lot more Carbon Dioxide out of the atmosphere into the biosphere. Theres many pathways going on, and this is exactly the kind of innovation agenda that we will be advocating. I want to get your reaction to the news that joe biden is running for president again. The Vice President is a great friend and one with whom i completely enjoy working he was present for our rolling out a integrated view of energy infrastructure, all the way to the department of energy may surprise people, but with a long history in terms of Genomic Research stepping forward to help him with his cancer moon shot. I think the Vice President has a lot to offer. I have to say, im right now im i know very very well many of the candidates, and i think the theres a lot of candidates coming forward, a lot of strong candidates coming forward i think the Vice President is among those. No endorsement from you . Im happy to help all those candidates who are putting forward constructive plans around the energy and climate issues. I think almost uniformly, we see the candidates advocating sensible positions. Thank you for the conversation this morning. Thank you. Wednesday at 10 00 a. M. Eastern, attorney general william barr will testify before the Senate Judiciary committee on the mueller report. And thursday at 9 00 a. M. Eastern, hell testify before the house Judiciary Committee live on cspan3, cspan. Org and listen free on the cspan radio app. The cspanning bus recently travelled to texas and georgia, asking folks, what does it mean to be american . What it means to be american to me is the opportunity to challenge the status quo, to constantly be striving for what we think is fair and equitable and sometimes its not always the best decisions, but its a choice. And i think being an american sometimes is hard to represent our nation well, i think overall we tend to survive. For me, what it means to be an american is freedom. Freedom from persecution and freedom to accept people for who they are and understanding that we werent the first people hardly anyone in the United States of america were here. They all migrated. Overall, to me, being an american is has many elements, but all those elements are embedded and woven in the american flag, we should all salute to it and respect our country as our country has done so much for ourselves, for the u. S. Citizens and for people abroad in other countries. To be an american is to be a true patriot through the good and the bad times. For me, being an american means being free. Im free to live how i choose, im free to believe how i choose, to raise my family the way i want to. And its also a responsibility. I think its important to you have to educate yourself to protect being an american, making good educated decisions when youre at the ballot box. Voices from the road on cspan. Tonight on the communicators a conversation on privacy and internet developments. With mary stone ross and daniel weitzner. The stakes are higher now, because were talking about deploying automated Decision Making capabilities, that is the ability for machines to either assist with decisions about people or in some cases, unilaterally make those decisions about people. Im a lawyer, ive read so many different privacy policies, theyre clearly not meant to inform a consumer about what information is collected and how that information is going to be used. So we need to have meaningful consent so a consumer can make a decision about using a product or not. Watch the communicators tonight at 8 00 eastern on cspan 2. Were live in washington at the center for new american security, their discussion coming up on u. S. Policy toward syria, part of our live coverage here with cspan 3. It should get underway shortly. This event here getting underway shortly. House and senate returning to capitol hill today with the house gaveling in at 2 00 eastern on cspan. At 3 00 on cspan2. Joe biden will be at a rally in pittsburgh around 3 30 eastern. Well stream it live at cspan. Org, you can listen live on the free cspan radio app. House and senate returning today, the Veterans Committee in the house will be looking at suicide prevention. And thats tonight, 7 00 eastern. Thats also here