the prisons in afghanistan and the peace pipeline. and if the sanctions on iran oil and gas is removed, there's a chance they could invite india to join the project again. it's not in conflict that was promoted that was supported to get into afghanistan who india and pakistan and afghanistan. but the security of both pipelines we have to compare one tribal area that is a relatively unsafe area on the peace pipeline that goes through the relatively safe area in pakistan and iran. asked to baluchistan, by the way, sharif was also involved in

the peace pipeline. it's nothing that he's forced to take but baluchistan as you know the insurgency historically you don't have rules in that area and the most surprised area and also the report shows the pakistan government that broke down on the insurgency and it's very similar. but most control of and of course iran over the region so so they are not doing enough to secure the border.

it's going on for quite some time but in the media you would see that they are kind of blaming the pakistan government for being upset with the borders and not anything in pakistan of course they believed that sharif is close but there is a difference when one of the officials put it out the other day that it's close to saudi arabia but is not the agent of saudi arabia and pakistan. it may be different but the other day the transfer of nuclear technologies that deal might change, but back to insurgency by the presidency unfortunately iran's response to

these kind of insurgencies have been very harsh and keeping people prisoner. some of them to kind of lesser terms. they have instituted in revenge to the insurgency. so, during, their approach is they would exchange prisoners for the group in baluchistan. the change for the government unfortunately had increased the violence and the resentment from the population against the central government. but the leader is a very

different person and has really presented to go crazy to calm people down. and we've talked about the importance to bring people together basically. >> on the water issues, we stole shamelessly from a white paper that's not yet been published that was written, and you have a very good recommendation on a water expert group that you would like to set up. where do things stand in terms of who is advising afghanistan on water and what's happening next year under us troops start to withdraw and funding is go down? will it be possible to work with other countries in the area on

the river basin in particular? >> i believe that a lot of what we have seen him play right now is a huge role by the usaid in capacity building because right now it is incumbent on afghanistan to have people trained to work with the water issues and i believe right now the government of afghanistan sees that as a shortfall that they do know they need some capacity building. and usaid is fundamentally involved in that. i believe th that universities n the area are also playing a role which is important to see. the university in kabul and kandahar are trying to bring forth some experts. the problem is in many of these areas they are considered on the permissive environments. a love o lot of the people in kl don't want to go down because they preceded to be kind of the wild west and it is just out of control down there. so, the perception of this all needs to change and i believe that there's also issues of

considering water information to be a matter of national security. and a lot of times people don't feel compelled to share that. and they know that in the region when speaking in central asia and pakistan and india that the water information is gathered and is yours. so, the degree to which we can help with analysis that we are not dependent on countries actually sharing a dialogue where we can get a sense of seeing it that has a role in this as well. but post- 2014 i believe that one of the issues that is good to come up as protecting the little bit of monitoring areas we've already got an established because you've got to engage in population and have them see a vested interest in understanding education is a huge component of making it all work on a watershed scale.

hispanic i encountered this issue as a political level working as a political consultant to the un assisting the afghan government and addressing the afghan national development strategy and the afghanistan compact in 2,005, 2,006. and what i found is that there is a very high level of mistrust at the highest levels of the afghan government in the water issues and in particular, there was a proposal to put in the contact something about afghanistan signing agreements with its neighbors which is actually required under the international law to get the project and levels of suspicion was so high that i was removed from the document. so i just want to emphasize the fact security, confidence building are likely to be

necessary before we can move on to implement these ideas where there are good technical solutions that may be waiting that where the suspicions are extremely high and the stakes are very hi. >> if i can add one thing in afghanistan i'm sure you saw this. the different ministries play their cards close and hold them close to their chest, the ministry of water and culture, irrigation, livestock, moral rehabilitation and development all have different interests and water and there needs to be different communication among them even in the united states we find those interagency dialogs. quickly i'm going to go to the audience. adjust your sense of what's going to happen next year. whether afghanistan is going to make it after these elections and whether the u.s. and nato

will be able to withdraw and peace. >> i've never claimed to be an expert because i've never been there. and i -- after what we've been through the past couple of months, i would hesitate to make predictions about the future in the united states. however, i am confident they will produce a result that will be recognized as a government. and that at least as long as the absolutely necessary financial support to the salaries of the security forces out of the government go along. there will be plenty of political crises and other emergencies but there's not going to be a collapse of the state as you saw after the soviet withdrawal. the regional situation is radically different. there is a regional consensus even including pakistan and strongly including china, which

pakistan would like to alienate. there should be the taliban government in afghanistan. there are differences on what will become of hi them should py in the future set up of the country. i would also add one other factor which is that i have extensive personal relations with the members of the political elite in afghanistan and of course there are many things they do that they don't tell me about. but i have observed a huge change in the past 13 years in their relations with each other, something which isn't often commented on 13 years ago they didn't know each other. their relations were yelling at each other over the radio. now including the people who are political, they all know each other and have worked together. prior to the election all of the candidates were running with each other and met each other

extensively to talk about the rules for the game and how to resolve it and i'm confident that however disputed the outcome may be, those people with their relations with each other and the right international support will be able to find some kind of a settlement even if many of them were not that happy with it. we have a lot of experts in this audience, which is great. >> thank you, barbara and to the panel. i have a two-part question the first one directed to fatemeh talking about the pakistan iran pipeline. there have been concerns if and when the pipeline is ever completed even in the first leg of the iran and pakistan if there will be enough gas available to put into the

pipeline. if you could comment on that. the second question is addressed to both you and barney. this deals with the role of the groups in the region and whether there is still official support for these activities and what role pakistan plays in allowing these groups to address its territory as very clear-cut or is this something happening in despite of what the government of pakistan would want to happ happen. >> to the pipeline first. of course that is a fact that from any, you know, any resources you would see that the scope is limited.

the problem with iran is that they have failed to invest for 34 years. if 100 of what they have in the program and the ways and means to store the nuclear site they would be in better shape. one major problem is gas is evaporated from the south park because they don't have the means to restore it. so one way for them to -- the right way actually to find the closest route and that was pakistan obviously that could have the major and very good

project also involved. at this point, for every day that is delayed in delivering about, they are all losing something. not just money but the gas because they cannot just store it. i'm not an expert in the technical terms in regards to gas and oil, but they have other alternatives. they concentrated heavily. the targeted pakistan and afghanistan, india and obviously that is why i called it the lion's tail and mane. so, they have done a lot providing pakistan with $500 million to start the project and they are getting

impatient. but i doubted the doubt they wo. i personally think it would just go on and on and they would reach negotiations and to sanction would have a major impact on what happens with the peace pipeline. can i just mention -- the leader was hanged in 2010, and the manpower during the insurgent group is not clear. no one knows how many people they had. there is a fine line between being involved in drug trafficking networks and freedom. they haven't claimed freedom. after the leader was hanged in 2010, almost 17 groups came out.

the insurgent groups came out. they suspect -- they openly announced they have expanded and the iranians claim the group is by the saudis with stability in the region and to drive that instability to other parts of iran. i hope i answered your question. >> did you want to say something quite. >> just briefly which opposes in the context where afghanistan,

pakistan and iran meet. it's a largely nomadic people like many transported people they are involved in what we call smuggling and they call trade. and the relations with the government are ambiguous. afghanistan hasn't had an internal problem primarily because afghanistan has supported the rebels in both iran and pakistan. pakistan is now going through it as the insurgency in baluchistan which is a second nationalist insurgency which is in conflict with the taliban both ethnic and ideological lines. the intensification of the ideological part of the regime

under a minute led to more discontent among the populations of iran including. the united states may be supporting the pakistan, the baluchistan insurgency from afghanistan iran has charged that pakistan and perhaps the united states and saudi arabia may be supporting the iranian baluchistan inside iran. the truth of these very charges is rather murky. however as a part of our policy in this administration, one of the measures that we tried to take early on in order to send a message to iran that the us presence in afghanistan was directed at the stabilization of afghanistan and not iran was to

make it clear that the united states did not support, and though it took quite a long time to get the interagency process, he was declared a foreign service organization in 2010. now bear in mind the wall does not require the united states government to declare any organization that meets the criteria a foreign terrorist organization. there's political latitude as to whether it is a good idea or not and there were people in the government argued that regardless of the empirical merits of the case that wasn't the time to do something that iran might consider a concessi concession. he did do it but it was less than all the noise of the other us iran relationship ended in a function as a confidence building measure. in the current nuclear negotiations, however, given the reactions that they are likely to cause in the saudi arabia and israel could very well be. perhaps you've already seen a

factor in further aggravating the situation in particular because of the potential for the saudi involvement or the perception of the involvement. >> with the microphone and say your name, please. >> i have the american foundation right now former diplomat. i will start with water if you don't mind quickly. now, what's the situation looks like and i think that you have slid right to it there is mistrust and a lack of political will because afghanistan and the government feel vulnerable and they don't have the type of -- they don't feel secure enough to be able to address it. so i think that part of it has to do with the fact that we don't have the capacities domestically to deal with this issue and especially at the top level of the government.

and there is probably a lack of knowledge which translates to in action. nobody wants to touch this because they think it is a hot potato. and i have a question for barn barney. going back to iran. if you think that iran for example over the next few months joins russia, china, india by not opposing and tolerating it, what impact would that have on the conciliation of the taliban on the april elections as well as the compensation forming the grouping of the governments concerned.

as bad as far as the political will and the complications of the situation, when he was the head set up some watershed organizations to help maintain a continuity across the watershed across the implementation of the plan it's very provocative and very hard with an even afghanistan. they have helmand province which is facilitated by the international forces and in opportunity to bring afghans together to discuss the situation. in that meeting it was the first time that they had sat together

to have this discussion. historically and culturally they were connected with kandahar. it was an interesting at the end of that meeting the people at home and who were upstream. we understand your concerns and we will form a committee and i think that was the last. >> i wouldn't predict a quick change in the position verbally because of the ideological role in opposition to the united displays and legitimacy of the iranian regime. but the hard-liners have tried to rig a position to the united states almost into a sixth

pillar of islam although it isn't mentioned in the holy koran. therefore, it would be hard to walk back from the verbal opposition. however, if the nuclear negotiations to continue to progress, then the perception that an american presence in afghanistan is a direct threat to iran will definitely be reduced. and therefore, i would expect that regardless of the evolution of iran's policy it will not undertake active measures to dissuade afghanistan from signing the agreement or make life more difficult for the american forces. and i'm sure as the actions will be read clearly in afghanistan throughout the region. within afghanistan's political elites in the current system as

far as i can see there is a consensus in favor and even those who iran regards do not echo the position on that or i should say more precisely. from time to time one of them has said something to keep the money flowing from iran but they do not say it with any conviction. they seem to be mobilizing the followers that or anything like that. so, i think that to the extent that it is a settled issue and it is not part of the debate it will not be a factor. it's important for the taliban because the legitimation of the struggle is on the basis of fighting the foreign occupation.

if i can just summarize some interactions with people, what does and what to say the peace camp in the telegram and the current negotiation they say similar to iran that the presence of the us troops what they political agreement about afghans impossible because they can't believe that there is a reasonably level playing field as long as the us and international security is supporting those who are in power now but therefore the troops should leave and then this would be very easy for afghans to reach an agreement. of course if the united states believe that that of course we don't believe that. i'm not sure the telegram believe it either. so the argument back to them even is well we don't believe you. we don't believe that will happen.

therefore as long as there is a political settlement. if there is a political settlement, then of course those troops are only there by the agreement of the afghan government. if at some point the afghan government doesn't want to of course i think the united states would be very happy to take them away. i want to emphasize the united states is not seeking that agreement ttheagreement to haven capabilities and south and central asia. they have those military bases in afghanistan as the most expensive ways to have that. if anyone has ever tried to setup and manage a military base in afghanistan with no. >> i'm going to take three questions. the gentl gentleman in the fron. >> from the afghanistan council

i have two comments. one is that iran does have territorial problems in the west with iraq. they went to war and in south asia the problem created in 2,001 the treaty was a sensible, pragmatic one from the afghan side. but surprisingly there was a true a few months later because the communists opposed to. when there was a re- approach but with the president then there was another coup which leads me to the point that it's crucial for 2014 for afghanistan to have a sensible government. and as a matter of fact i know of at least one or two candidates for the future, for this water negotiation. so it's there. it's not that it doesn't exist it just needs international

backing. >> the former intern that wrote a paper that we cite. >> we also have two questions. first for doctor rubin. the way they are going to policy tends if the iranians then do get on the table how do you think the pakistanis and the politicians who had iranian money etc. but if you have the iranians and a small foot on the door -- in the door. and my question to the doctor mac is what are the international organizations because when you are talking about iran or any organizations doing work on the ground or information exchanges between the two countries etc.?

... >> to the rest of the world, and no one is helping them out

either. so the u.s. could potentially play a bigger role perhaps helping afghanistan. >> short. one of the issues -- i'm glad you brought it up, is poppy crop. afghans have been involved in wars for decades now, then you don't know if you're going to be meeting the next five years. you just have other agriculture products which is something that profits and is basically short term and you would not use anything if you have to leave. so how did iranians trying to help, trying to help afghans, taking them agriculture communism switching to other products. i don't know how close are following that, but it would

contribute basically to helping afghans, and helping afghans with water management would definitely help afghans switch to other, you know, move away from poppy crop. that's actually one of the things iranians are asking a national commission to involve iranians because they claim they know how to do it. >> thank you for that question. as for the international groups working with the world bank, food and agriculture organization's to install so monitoring stations. problems of the monitoring stations get put in. there is not specific maintenance. you can collect all the data in the world but if you don't have any analysis plan, what's the purpose? that i've been watching. a lot of times asian development

bank seven funding, as well as in just put in wells across the country. however, there are some ms. glenn metrics because many times those groups are interested in the amount of money they can obligate and the number of jobs they can create, but the true sustainability of the project from representative, everyone instruments the project they want to do and there's no -- how you want to back that you may not have it. and truly, finally other in national organizations that are working with the environment, as barbara alluded to very early in this, there is an internationally recognized wetlands area at the border with iran and afghanistan but however since 1999 timeframe is been severely degraded to a lot of this is because of climate issues. there's not water going into the system. a lot of that is tied to management of water or mismanagement of water. >> barney, final thoughts? >> first just about drugs.

just repeat what's been said before. the adoption of poppy cultivation and its concurrent trafficking is an adaptation to insecurity in afghanistan. that's what all the study show. it will not be eliminated as long as people are insecure. there are provinces with strong governors in afghanistan that have a limited optical commission. no one has a limited drug trafficking. it cannot be as long as there so much insecurity in the country. nice to meet you off the internet. if understood your question, correctly, it was about whether pakistan would react negatively and perhaps disruptively to greater iranian involvement. pakistan's involvement in afghanistan is not motivated by its concerns over iran.

pakistan's involvement in afghanistan is motivated, first, by its internal concerns by its own unity. second, i threat from india. pakistan's actions in response to those perceived threats -- in response to perceived threats have it generate an arena response the pakistan iran conflict is not the main issue. i think, i should also add iran's ambitions in afghanistan are limited. in contrast to pakistan i would say iran's means to influence events in afghanistan are probably greater than its ambitions, whereas pakistan's means to influence events in afghanistan has been considerably less than its ambitions and pakistan is, therefore, going through a very difficult process of trying to adjust its ambitions to israel capabilities.

and a time when it's also internally and tremendous turmoil as well. >> thank you so much. thank you to our speakers. i think -- i've many more questions but i'm sure you all do. this is a great beginning. thank you so much for coming. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> as we wrap this up, more like program to tell your doctor president obama traveling to new orleans today. he will talk about the economy at 1 p.m. and will have those remarks for you live on our companion network c-span. later it's a panel discussion on keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the wrong hands. henry stimson center hosts. that kids under way live at 3 p.m. also on c-span. the labor department reporting even though over 200,000 jobs were added, the unemployment rate still is that 7.3%. jason from, the chairman of the council of economic advisers said today in washington quote

the revisions the job growth in august and september combined with solid third quarter gdp growth reported yesterday such as the economy was gaining traction in the months leading up to the government shutdown. there should be no debate that the shutdown and debt limit brinksmanship inflicted unnecessary damage on the economy in october. the employment record just different accounts with a more reliable payroll survey reporting strong job growth and a much are household survey showing an increase in the unemployment rate and the large drop in implement. the mission for congress remains clear to take steps that increase certainty to boost job creation. again, that statement from jason furman, the chairman of the council of economic advisers. >> i think regardless of where you on on the political spectrum we all feel very fortunate and grateful that we live in the united states of america. it's a very unique place. and if america was considered to

be a product come and we do try to sell our products overseas, what's our brand? and i think our brand is the constitution, the rule of law and our value system. and under that brand and under that value system there is that notion of equal under the eyes of the law. under that brand a value system is the aba and trying to elevate the rights of americans with disabilities. >> this is a treaty. a treaty is a law. it is the emotional and political arguments that are in favor of the treaty. no one can disagree with these arguments. but the question is will the treaty to have the legal effect that is being pro-offered by the proponents of the treaty? we don't hear citations of the tree. we don't hear consideration of the report, the concluding observation. we don't hear the kind of legal analysis that would be appropriate for analyzing the legal impact of this treaty.

>> this weekend, more than 130 countries have ratified the u.s. inspired united nations disabilities treaty which failed to win senate approval in 2012. this week the senate foreign relations committee took up the treaty again. watched saturday morning at 10 eastern on c-span2's booktv malcolm gladwell explains how underdogs can use that status to their events. also the upside to being a big fish in a small pond here saturday night at 11. on c-span's recent american history tv on a crowded sector ministry defeat from then-president ford, lynette squeaky from both the trigger. more sunday at 5:30 p.m. >> you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. we decision live coverage of the u.s. and. weeknights watch key public policy events and had weakened the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our website

and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> iraqi trimester nouri al-maliki talks about his country progress in security and political transition recently at the u.s. institute of peace in washington. he has come under fire by group of bipartisan senators who say the prime minister is not doing enough to stop the sectarian violence in the country. prime minister maliki address those concerns during his speech and stressed the need for security assistance where counterterrorism weapons and intelligence tools to help track down al qaeda terrorists in the country. we were sure as much of this event as we can't until the u.s. senate gavels in for a pro forma session at 11:45 a.m. eastern. >> ladies and gentlemen, the prime minister of iraq. please be seated. i'm jim marshall, president of

u.s. institute of peace. we apologize for the slight delay. it is secretary hagel's fault, and he does have a little -- [inaudible] for those of you don't know, the institute putting it very recently stops flights around the world, doing so in partnership with governmental and nongovernmental organizations both domestic and foreign. we work very closely with the state department, usaid, the defense department, with the government of iraq and with many, many others in order to prevent, mitigate and resolve violent conflict. i'd lik like to go ahead and red that some folks who are here today. of course, prime minister maliki, thank you for returning to the institute. we have his excellency, the minister of foreign affairs. the minister of defense, his

excellence, the national security advisor, and both members of the council of representatives, the ambassador to the united states. the chief of staff to the prime minister. the head of the counterterrorism bureau. the deputy chief of mission for the embassy of iraq, and major general, the military attaché for the embassy of iraq. also joining us today, one of my favorite people in all of the world, former secretary of state and the first woman secretary of state for the united states, madeleine albright. i'm list being -- i'm listing her as part of the usip teen.

ambassador george moose was there with us, also a member of our board. professor jeremy rabkin and judy ansley who are also members of our board. doctor christian lord is with us. gsr executive vice president. in addition i would like to reference come to recognize a couple of special state department guests. ambassador beth jones was the assistant secretary state for near east affairs. u.s. ambassador to iraq, attorney brett, his deputy assistant secretary of state for iraq and iran. and now, manal, if you'd come forward, i would like to recognize bill taylor, ambassador bill taylor who is our vice president for middle east and africa, and leads our efforts for iraq, in support of iraq's success. and then manal omar, who is a

great asset to the institute, to the united states and the world. she's done a terrific amount of work where iraq is concerned to just published a book, your foot and iraq. some of you may read that book. she is a very important part of the institute and has been leading for years our efforts where iraq is concerned, and she's going to describe a little bit about the work at the institute in iraq. >> thank you for such a warm introduction. i would also like to welcome his excellency, prime minister maliki, if the company delegation and our distinguished guests. usip is been working in iraq since 2003, and maintains a permanent office in baghdad since 2004. we have shared high moments as was it difficult once. we work hard with her partners in government and civil society to overcome violence in 2006 2006-2007.

usip takes great pride in the fact that we've always been in iraq and maintain an office in baghdad, even during the most difficult days. usip's core mission in iraq is to strengthen local capacities to prevent, manage, and resolve conflicts peacefully. we work with iraqi partners to develop the tools and institutions necessary to resolve disputes through nonviolent means. we have been doing so by working with iraqi facilitators and supporting justice and security dialogue, working with youth, women and minorities as well as working with the media to prevent incitement to violence. and working with religious and tribal leaders. our partnership in relation to the government of iraq and civil society has grown stronger over the years. we engage with the executive branch, the council of representatives, the judiciary,

the legal and local government as well as the exact number of civil society organizations. we have many joint success stories to point you. such as the local capacity we supported. some of them distinguished national -- and other organizations critical to advancing iraq's transition for peace and stability. we have mitigated disputes and conflicts across iraq including the moe mohanty it, -- the moment the in why would also put the foundations of civic education, human rights and religious moderation for the institutions of education. usip and his partners are proud of the progress we've made, we also recognize a lot remains to be done in iraq. and we see from the unfortunate tragic violence that still costs many lives. the road ahead will not be easy. your excellency, we assure you

and the iraqi people tha as iraq prepares for the 2014 election and faces countless challenges to secure a better future for the iraqi people, iraqi can count on the support of the u.s. institute of peace as a partner on all levels. starting with the communities, to local councils, to international dialogue. thank you. [applause] >> i'd like to ask ambassador beth jones to come forward. the format today will be an introduction , heavy, please. the format will be an introduction of the prime minister i ambassador beth jones, and then the prime minister will speak, and then we'll sit into question. so the audience i think already knows this. if you have questions, perhaps you've already written them out. obviously, what not have time

for a great number of questions that hopefully the prime minister will find the questions interesting. hopefully not too prerogative, and with that let me turn it over to beth jones. >> thank you very much. thank you welcome. welcome to the delegation some of my longtime associate the especially it's wonderful to be with secretary albright. it's wonderful to be a usip especially for this extraordinary event. i want to thank usip and commend jim marshall on his leadership in all the great work that has ideas been involved with since he took over as president last year, and, of course, the work that usip is done for so long in iraq. today i'm delighted and honored to introduce his excellency, nouri al-maliki. also striving to find solutions that will provide greater opportunity stability for the iraqi people. the prime minister will meet with president obama and vice

president biden tomorrow to further strengthen ties between our two nations. they will discuss how we can help iraq confront these challenges and discuss ways to enhance cooperation between our two countries under the strategic framework agreement. this is an important time. nearly two years have passed since u.s. troops left iraq. we must never forget the thousands of americans and many more iraqis who lost their lives in the struggle for a new, free iraq. iraq has moved on many issues and its future looks bright. iraq as been blessed with tremendous natural resources and a growing economy. it is set to hold national elections next year. it has dramatically improved ime relations with its neighbors, particularly kuwait come and its deepening ties with jordan and turkey. as iraq has worked to liberate itself in the region we have seen 17 arab countries open embassies in baghdad. we hope others will do the same. we also seen increased opportunity to american

business. major corporations including citibank, ford, boeing, general electric, and many others are now invested in iraq. in may of this year the united states and iraq signed a trade and investment treaty. we're also taking the ground for future generations of iraqi leaders. in recent years, thousands of iraqi students have come to the united states to research and study in a variety of field, and every year this number increases significantly. iraq still faces formidable challenges, whether. we share iraq's deep concern over the increasing number of terrorist attacks that have claimed over 6000 innocent victims this year, including the horrible, heartbreaking attack on schools, religious sites, marketplaces, weddings and funerals. most of these attacks have been conducted by an al qaeda affiliate. former known as al qaeda in iraq, this affiliate now of the islamic state of iraq has a base

of operations in syria. its leader is subject to u.n. security council sanctions, and is a special designated global terrorist under u.s. law. we continue to discuss security with the iraqi government, but this is only one aspect of our cooperation. political and economic tools must also be used to drain the recruiting pool of all extremist groups. we, therefore, welcome the prime minister's commitment to holding national parliamentary elections by april 30, 2014. we call on all of the political blogs to finalize the law to govern those elections as soon as possible. strategic framework agreement gives the united states a unique role in fostering iraq's democratic development. we will continue to work with the united nations and iraqi political leaders to ensure that all technical requirements to ensure free and fair elections are in place. i want to assure you, mr. prime

minister, that as iraq continues its progress and confront these challenges it will have a committed partner in the united states. our relationship is rooted in mutual respect and mutual interests, as enshrined institute of in the famous agreement are permanent and enduring roadmap. i thank usip for this opportunity and i would ask that you please help me welcome prime minister maliki. [applause] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: in the name of

god, the most merciful, will merciful god be upon you. in the beginning i want to express my gratitude and esteem to former congressman mr. jim marshall of his welcoming speech. i also want to express my thanks and gratitude to ambassador beth jones for her warm words. and also i want to extend to the usip my greetings and my gratitude for the role the usip has played and displaying an iraq and other parts of the world in order to save -- face that there's challenges. and these balances that we are facing at this point because of the development, the mechanisms and the new techniques used by terrorists to undermine interests and institutions in

all countries worldwide. so once again we are here in this industry get -- -- i want to thank you, i want to express the bilateral relations between united states and iraq. these relations are enhanced because we cooperated with our partners. this allowed us to win over terrorists in iraq. we give blood together, american soldiers, iraqi soldiers died, and all the people of iraq also was victim of the heinous terrorist attacks led by al qaeda and the remnants of the former regime of iraq. we were able to start a new round of reconstruction after defeating al qaeda, who at some

point stop development and exploiting our rich resources, and stopped the assistance to iraq. nonetheless, at some point like them back to iraq. our oil exports, revenues are better, increased and the economy started recovering. and reconstruction develop in cities and approved greatly in iraq. at the security and as -- at the economic level and also at the political level, despite this balance that we would this immediate following the fall of saddam hussain regime. we were able to defeat al qaeda, and this life and union -- [inaudible] why do we see what we are seeing today? why these daily massacres at amnesty international has

considered, identified. let me also mention that some believe that one component is fighting another component. one of the components of the iraqi -- this is another tool. all of the iraqi people are cognizant, the sunnis, shiites are all alike. it relating to al qaeda and the terrorists who want to reach their goal by shedding the blood of the iraqis and spreading terror. and undermine the political process. so why is al qaeda back in iraq? through mobilizing the people and to the security forces, cooperation between their forces and the united states of

american, why is terror back to iraq? i do believe you understand why. let me state it again. what is terrorist back to iraq and to the region? and what are the main reasons why terrorism is improving in iraq? there's a vision of the reality that is being impacted by the whole region. after the so called arab spring revolution that we support because they got rid of dictatorships that were oppressing the people for 30 or 40 years and a role. so no single regime or leader to remain acceptable while governing in such a wrong way for so many years. the revolution, when necessary to rebuild these countries and the people and society on sound

basis. because they were ms. governed for many, many years. regretfully the arab revolution were able to shake the decade a ship, were not able to fill the void in the right way. so al qaeda and other terrorist organizations were able to exploit it and to gain ground. they benefited from the fall of the structure. so now we are seeing a new reality and the reason that allows terrorism to be back. because it's benefited from the vacuum in different countries. so you know perfectly well what is happening in libya come in tunisia, in egypt, and syria, and iraq, in lebanon and other

countries that may have to face the same problems that all the countries are facing as long as al qaeda is not clearly thought by all countries. we want an international war, global war against terror. if we had to world war, we want a third world war against those who are killing people killing population, who are calling for ignorance and do not want logic to govern our daily life. this is why we are stating in the usip that we are calling all countries to hold an international conference on counterterrorism in iraq.

and by counterterrorism i don't mean fighting terror on an iraq. the conference we have an iraq by counterterrorism is worldwide. and terrorism is not anymore an iraqi production putting international production, and it is undermining international security and peace. this is why we want to carry the task because iraq is the first country that ever thought terrorism directly and was able to defeat it. but now it regretfully is coming back because of the political situation. so we have two parallel sides. the political track and the regime that are in some country in the region and the track of terrorism but if we do not have political regimes based on freedom, on democracy, regimes to listen to the will of the people and to go back, ready to go back to the constitution. you know that iraq at some point did not have a constitution, but

a single leader who spoke for the constitution. but now we have a constitution and we have a constitutional democratic institution. we have separate powers an independent executive power and independent judiciary power, and other independent powers that have the high commission for elections, for human rights and others as well. so we do not -- but you do know that democratic life and democratic exercise needs maturity, need to learn, needs training. so we have two en route the legacy -- we have to en route the legacy that choose to rule the region. so we need development and training but thank god we were able to have five rounds of

elections. the last one a few days ago in order to listen to the will of the people. and this is how local government and the federal government were form. and also the government in the various provinces. and the next parliament also would be the results of the elections that we had in april 2014. and we will not agree on only postponing the election. they will be held according to the constitution. of course, we are facing many problems. but because we are facing care, and this is costing us money, efforts and lives, still parallel to this we will be facing democratic institutions, infrastructure, developing services. had we not had to face terror, we would have moved forward way

more than we did so far. nonetheless why fighting terrorism we have moved forward and iraq is one of the main countries in developing in rebuilding, in exports and so on. without terrorism we would have had leapt forward in providing services to our people. but the situation in the whole middle east gave a new chance for terrorists. terrorists came back to iraq when the conflict started in say the terrorist organizations represent by al qaeda found that there's another chance to develop to be harmed and to benefit from the political conflict. and the situation started deteriorating in there. in iraq, sorry.

so the terrorists found the second sense your we support the syrian people and what it wants, what it aims were, a democratic it, pluralistic regime based on the will of the people. we do not want for the syrian people to lose any of its freedom, of its democracy in any sort of regime. we are warning and we are faring and we are worrying at the potential success of a terrorist organization in syria. if, god forbid, they win, we and the whole world should do everything to prevent this, to prevent al qaeda and other organizations to win in any country to not only in surrey, and iraq, and libya, or other countries. all of our efforts should aim at

preventing the success of al qaeda and other terrorist organizations because they will have a platform, safe haven, an environment and more capabilities and it will be even harder for us to fix the problems that they would be causing us. so facing terror, ladies and gentlemen, is not only about -- [inaudible] of course, military force is important security forces are at the forefront of this battle. the quality of the weapons, the plans, strategies, and developing of the strategies, destroying the cells, all of this is necessary but not enough. we need a sound, social structure. this allows for the kind of

development. so we are working on containing al qaeda in iraq by enhancing social peace, and finding constitutional solution to problems. of course, we have problems in iraq your it's a new democratic regime. it cannot be without problems, and many other democracies have problems but we have problems, but quite candidly these problems are under control through the constitution. it may take lots of time. we may get angry but eventually we reach a solution that is constitutional and that is adopted to our free power. this is what you always see an iraq. you hear the voices, anger, differences but eventually we reach an agreement.

and this is reassuring for us and the world. because internally in iraq, as we are preparing to fight terror at the military level by preparing also plans, getting weapons by intelligence information, but we also are working on having harmony amongst iraqis. you may ask who is killing? yes, some of the terrorists in iraq came from other countries, but they are also iraqis locally who are assisting them. i cannot say that amongst the iraqis, sunnis, shiites, arabs, none are ignorant and can be supportive of al qaeda and supportive of its ideal, religious reasons. these exist but we have terrorists coming from abroad and home-grown terrorists, this is why the situation is

deteriorating. by the relation as a whole be doing iraqi people is good. there is no problem between sunnis and shiites. the sunnis are killed today but the shiites are killed as well. who is killing them in their own region? is al qaeda who is killing all of the iraqis. and the logic there using to get to their goal, sectarian, division amongst the iraqis. we will remain united because we defeated al qaeda previously. through our union with the support of the -- today, once again the sons of iraq are with us. the tribes and clans are supporting the security forces in anbar, and all the provinces of iraq. people again are seeing that the

situation to charity because al qaeda and its organizations are back, though supporting it back. so this is leading to more unity amongst the iraqis, and we will defeat the terrorists by our local efforts and our partnership with the united states. and you came to us to consolidate the partnership and cooperation in which we move forward for a long time. at the regional level, we support the idea of the access of moderation to quit meeting with other countries and also seeking moderation in the region to face extremism, sectarian is him and violent. we will have others, and each meeting more countries are joining because they want to moderate i and facing care. we want to mobilize our forces to face as many difficult challenges.

and, frankly, we need to say that al qaeda benefited from the international and regional contradiction. and from their expenses and expertise that they gain so they develop their methods, their ideas, their mechanisms the way they hide, the way they haven't. this is why we also find new ways and new means to counter the means that al qaeda is now using an iraq. help for us in iraq, and women talk about iraq, it is because iraq is -- you know the relations within the to country, it is a store. so when we talk about the

american morecambe isn't only about the american role in iraq. it starts in iraq that it ends anywhere in the region where we can find stronghold of terrorists. so we are creating, building a strategy, anyone based on the development of the latest development. we have a new strategy based on mobilizing the security forces, and the people, the support of the people and the clan, the tribes, the sons of iraq. and also enhancing intelligence and expertise. so we are talking with the americans and we are telling them that we need to benefit from that experience from the intelligence information, from training for those who are assisting al qaeda and development. the iraqi people is ready to give blood in following the

terrorists that iraq needs its friends to benefit from express and training. and also weapons that are necessary specifically for counterterrorism. counterterrorism have specific needs, weapons wife. it's not about -- or long-range missiles auxiliaries or f-16s but it has its specific weaponry. so aside from mobilizing the people as a political force, national union, we need also intelligence information that will help us to target the strongholds into groups of terrorists. we are not saying that the word should support. of course, it should support us because we're part of it. it is our right to seek international support and the situation in iraq is not well treated. they will be disastrous for the whole world, and this applies to syria as well.

but what we are saying is that the international community's response was well. terrorism does not know a single religion or a single confession, or a single order. they carry their ideas everywhere. they carry out ideas instead of flowers. al qaeda is a dirty window that wants to set worldwide, and we want to carry flowers to expand them at the international level to enhance cooperation and peace. so we have -- >> we are going to leave the last couple minutes of this program to cover the u.s. senate. a quick reminder you can watch this or any c-span program online at any time at c-span.org. the senate gaveling in for a pro forma session. no legislative work schedule. now we take you live to the senate floor here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., november 8, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable christopher s. murphy, a senator from the state of connecticut, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m.

>> and there you go. that wraps up today' today's pra session innocent. lawmakers back next tuesday at 2:00 eastern with work on judicial nominations later that day. the senate always live right here on c-span2. live programming to do you do. president obama traveling today to new orleans. he will talk about jobs and the economy at 1:10 p.m. eastern and will have those remarks we live on our companion network c-span. laid on a detailed discussion on keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the wrong hands. henry stimson center hosts that and we get it underway live for you at 3:00 eastern also on c-span. >> i think regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, we all feel very fortunate and grateful that we live in the united states of america. it's a very unique place. and if america was considered to be a product can do we do try to

sell a product overseas, what's our brand? and i think our brand is the constitution, the rule of law and our value system. and under that brand and under that value system there is that notion of equal under the eyes of the law. under that brand a value system is the 88 in trying elevate the rights of americans with disabilities. >> this is a treaty, a tree is a law. it's the emotional and political argument. no one can disagree with these arguments. but the question is will the treaty actually have the legal effect that being offered by the proponents of the treaty. we don't hear citations to articles of the tree. we don't hear consideration of the report. the concluding observation. we don't get the kind of legal analysis and would be appropriate for analyzing the legal impact of these treaty.

>> this weekend on c-span more than 130 countries have ratified the u.s. inspired united nations disabilities treaty which failed to win senate approval in 2012. this week the senate foreign relations committee took up the treaty again. watch saturday morning at 10 eastern on c-span2's booktv, malcolm gladwell explains how underdogs can use that status to their advantage. also the upside of being a big fish in a small pond. saturday night at 11. and on c-span3's american history tv on a crowded sacramento street defeat from president ford, lynette "squeaky" fromme pulled the trigger. more sunday at 5:30 p.m. >> senate minority leader mitch mcconnell criticized the obama administration for being at war with the coal industry. thursday, at immediate public meeting on the cutting carbon emissions. you chastise the agency for not holding meetings in kentucky's coal country calling the proposed regulation extreme. this is one of 11 public meeting

the epa is going to get the publics input before releasing its final rules on radiating carpet emissions from existing power plants. the epa's authority to regulate carbon emission comes from the clean air act. this is just over 90 minutes. >> which is part of what is now an ongoing national conversation intended to help the environmental protection agency and the states determine promising approaches for reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants. power plants are the nation's single largest source of carbon pollution, a source we must address as we work to combat climate change. and one of the most significant public health risks of our time.

science tells us that climate change is real, that human activities are feeling that change, and that we must take action now to avoid most devastating consequences. in june, president obama called on agencies across the federal government, including epa, to take action to cut carbon pollution, to protect our country from the impacts of climate change and to lead the world in this effort. the president's call included a directive for epa quote to work expeditiously to complete carbon pollution standards for both new and existing power plants, closed quote. currently there are no federal standards in place to reduce carbon pollution from the country's largest source of that pollution. epa has responded, continuing

our work that began under the president's leadership a few years ago when we established historic this fuel standards for passenger vehicles. that will save consumers thousands of dollars at the pump and will cut carbon pollution from our cars in half by 2025. in september, we announced our proposal to set standards for carbon pollution emitted by power plants built in the future. these proposed standards are practical, flexible and achievable, and ensure that our companies investing in new fossil fueled power plants will use modern technology that limit emissions of harmful carbon pollution. these standards ensure a clear path forward for a continued diverse energy mix.

now eps beginning our work to develop proposed carbon solution guidelines for existing power plants. guidelines that will be used live the states as required by the clean air act to develop and implement programs for reducing carbon pollution from power plants operating in each state. epa's job is to deliver clean air, clean water and safe and a healthy lead to american families. we've done this job for more than four decades, and we've done it by relying on the best available science, by being transparent in our decision-making, and by working with everyone to develop commonsense approaches to protecting and improving the environment across the country. the 40 year history has proved we can reduce pollution while creating jobs and strengthening the economy at the same time.

it is this history that brings us here today, to hear from you as we consider the best, most flexible approaches to reducing carbon pollution from the existing power fleet. at today's meeting, and at 10 others like this around the country this fall, epa is reaching out to the public at large to get your input. we want to hear from everyone, including communities, industry leaders, environmental and public health groups, faith leaders, and labor organizations. we want to hear about how epa should develop and implement carbon solution guidelines for existing power plants under the clean air act. in addition to listening sessions like this one, epa regional and headquarters staff and leadership, including administrator mccarthy, have been meeting with industry

leaders and ceos from the coal, oil and natural gas sectors. we've been working with everyone including governors, mayors, members of congress, state and local government officials, environmental advocacy groups, health organizations, faith groups, and many othgroups, health organizations, faith groups, and many other stakeholders. we are doing this because we want to be open to any and all information about what is important to each state and each stakeholder. that's what this process is all about. we are also reaching out to leaders in all the states and tribes to hear their ideas as we develop our proposed guideline. the clean air act calls on the states to play a key role -- a key role in reducing carbon pollution from existing plants. we know that we can learn a lot from ongoing efforts in the states, and in cities and communities as well. all of which have been incubators for innovation.

many already are leading the way to cleaner, more affordable, more sustainable energy. for example, 10 states have already implemented or are implementing their own market-based program to reduce carbon pollution. more than 35 states have renewables energy targets. more than 25 states have energy efficiency targets to cut energy waste. and more than 1000 mayors across the country have signed agreements to cut carbon pollution. we want to learn more from their experience and ideas, and yours, as we begin this important effort. today's listening session will focus on the best approaches to reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants, and how those may help us develop guidelines under the clean air

act. if you would like to comment on our proposed standards for new, that is, future power plants, and i hope you will, there's information at the back of the room to get you started to submit those comments. the clean air act gives us separate frameworks for addressing new sources and addressing existing sources. before i turn things over to my colleague, john millett, to give you more details about the existing source framework, let me remind you why it is so important that you were here today. climate change is a real threat to america, not just the threat for the future. it is happening now. just think about 2012. the extreme weather events we saw firsthand are the very types of events that climate change can make more likely to occur. no wind can forget superstorm

sandy, combined with the rise in sea level, extreme storms like that one will cause more devastating storm surges in the future. 2012 is the same year that was the hottest on record in the lower 48 states. with climate change, we can expect to see longer, more frequent heat waves in the future, along with increased heat related deaths. wildfires in 2012 scorched more than 9 million acres across eight states. wildfires can put entire communities at risk, damaging property, costing lives, and producing dangerous levels of air pollution. and wildfires are projected to burn even larger areas in the future. at the same time, flooding caused by more frequent extreme weather events in the u.s. can

threaten fish and wildlife habitats, along with threatening our clean, reliable sources of drinking water. ultimately and most importantly, climate change is about health. in addition to the extremes i just mentioned, carbon pollution and hotter weather can lead to longer our gc since, contribute to the spread of insect borne diseases like west nile virus, and worsen smog, ma which puts children, the elderly, and people with heart and lung diseases at risk. the good news is that we can do something about this. we know that climate change can't be solved overnight. it's going to take a broad concerted effort from all levels of government, and the international community. but make no mistake about it. we cannot afford to delay. we can successfully face the

challenge of climate change if we worked together. and if we act now. the action we will discuss today is an important step in that process. again, i'd like to thank you very much for being here today, and my colleagues and i look forward to hearing your comments. i'm going to wrap up by doing something i should've done at the beginning, and i apologize for delaying. i know you are thinking you were listening to a nameless bureaucrat, but, in fact, my name is joseph goffman and i'm senior counsel to the assistant administrator for air and radiation. and i'm going to turn the mic over to my colleague, john millett. ..

president obama has directed the epa to issue a proposal by june of 2014 and take final action by june of 2015. greenhouse gases including carbon pollution, our air pollutants that are subject to regulation under the clean air act. epa has the authority to address that under section 111 of the law. section one e. levin said south separate approaches for investing new and existing sources of pollution. for new sources which are covered under section one e. levin the epa had standards of performance all so-called new source performance standards.

this is the proposal that was signed on september 20 standards available on the epa website for review. this type of standards must reflect the degree of the mission limitations achievable through the application of what is known as the best system of reduction. new source performance standards can address the six common pollutants known as criteria pollutants but they cannot address the air toxins. for existing sources covered under section one e. -- 111 they do not have explicit mission standards. instead we develop the mission guidelines that state they are used to develop guidelines to fit their particular mix of sources while getting the necessary pollution reductions. section 111 b. is reserved for

what you might call other pollutants that are not covered under regulations for criteria pollutants or air toxins. greenhouse gases including carbon pollution are covered under 111 of the act. most regulations have been issued under 111 b. for the modified or reconstructed sources. few regulations have been issued under section 111 d. regulations under 111 d guidelines do go through the noticing comment like all of the epa rules. the guidelines established by and regulations understates to address in this case carbon pollution from the power plant operating. last month the epa posted on our website a document setting out the number of key questions to guide the public discussion that we will be having as we get ready to craft a proposal. there are two questions that will be fundamental to that proposal and keep in mind today. they are cursed what should epa

consider in setting standards and goals to reduce carbon pollution associated with fossil fuel power plant? and second because the guidelines well include a framework within which they can design plans to show how they will meet the goal, what should i framework be? we know that many states already have programs that reduce carbon pollution from the power sector created their leadership shows opportunities for reduction may range from actions taken at the power plant themselves like switching fuel and increasing efficiency to other programs like energy efficiency in our homes and the asses and removable energy requirements. these other programs can have power plants that can affect emissions. we want to learn more about how these programs might be able to fit into the epa guidelines. we know there are a lot of ideas about how to get reductions from power plants, so today and in the coming weeks let us know

what's important to you. what do you think epa should include an carbon pollution including carbon pollution guidelines for access and power plants and why? do you have suggestions or ideas about what might work best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants? you think those approaches can fit into the epa guidelines? we also want to hear from you about what programs reduce carbon publish an epa should explore as part of its strategy to address power plants. we are interested in what can become directly at the plans and we are interested in what can be done in other places throughout the power system that could potentially reduce pollution from these plants. how could we incorporate these different approaches and what would make sense? if you have experience with energy efficiency and renewable energy programs that might help reduce greenhouse gas from power plants, please share with us what you've learned and tell us what we should be doing. we look forward to hearing from you today. you can share your thoughts in writing as well without information how to do that at

the registration tables out front. before we get started, let me fill you in on some ground rules and housekeeping. i will be the one to call for speakers to the microphone in pairs this morning. when it's your turn to speak, please state your name and affiliation before you begin your remarks. so that we have time to hear from everyone, please limit her remarks to three minutes each and remain at the microphone until all speakers are finished you after you've finished your remarks, the epa staff may ask to clarify any questions. if you would like to set it in writing please be sure to get a copy of your document to the epa staff at the registration table out front as you came in. you may also e-mail your adsl reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants to carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov. we have a time keeping system. we will let you know when you

are approaching or time limit. the yellow light will come on at the two-minute mark and when you see the red light i will ask you to quickly complete your remarks. today's session is scheduled from 9 a.m. and will continue until 8 p.m. we will take a break from noon until one and as needed throughout the day. if you would like to make remarks that have not yet been registered, please do so at a registration table. we ask for your patience as we go through the list of speakers and may make adjustments as the session progresses but we will do our best to fit you in. finally, if you need any help getting around this building please see the helpful folks outside of the registration table three jan, mary, andrea, allen, joe. any of them will be there to assist you and direct you.

so, once again thanks on behalf of myself and everyone here. and why don't we get started? i will call the next two names. first we would like to hear from gail bush. and michael herd, please come up to the table. >> thank you so much for your time. my name is gail bush and i'm here as a volunteer in a representative of the american lung association and who has worked in the healthcare industry over 20 years. i would like to thank you for the -- i would like to thank you for the new guidelines. you're trying to implement for the department standards for the

new power plant. but i'm here to hopefully encourage you to implement the same standards for the existing power plant. working in the healthcare industry, i personally see that our inpatient volume increases whenever the air pollution is high and whenever the air quality standards are low. i see the impact that the poor air quality has on our patients. with the new guidelines for reimbursement for healthcare industries, we are impacted by having to implement changes within the hospital because of our inpatient admission. we can now be penalized for patients that have chronic lung diseases, chronic cardiac diseases because of their readmission into our facilities. and that is impacted by these poor air quality standards. so we can only do so much in the hospital for helping them learn about how to take care of their disease and how to manage their disease, but we cannot as hospital employees do anything to manage what they are exposed

to outside of the environment. so, i would encourage you to continue the work that you are doing and to try to implement the same standards in the existing power plants to help reduce the impact of carbon pollution. >> thank you very much. >> good morning. my name is michael herd from baltimore and district of columbia. i represent currently 700 active and retired in the district of columbia and maryland as well as our organization internationally has over 60,000 members that all work is involved in fossil fuel plants. first off, i'd like to thank you guys for holding this hearing today so that we can get a lot off our chest. especially me as business manager. i've been a business manager six years now. when i first became business manager, we have a lot of work. internationally we worked with the epa to try to get the standards of so that we could put quality pollution controls on the fossil plants, the cold

burning plants, oriole, whatever it may be. there's a lot of technology out there that can reduce drastically the amount of missions into the atmosphere. whether it is gas or whatever it may be. and we were going in that direction. the utilities were implementing that work into their existing power plants. my concern is in the past two years since 2011 that the work has dropped off dramatically from our members. you know, you're talking about -- everybody's talking about creating american jobs. we are losing american jobs right here at home by not putting these retrofit pollution controls on these existing plans so that americans can continue to work in this country doing american work. as far as that's concerned, you are looking at the rate of

50,000 megawatts of the coal-fired generation in this country. that's a lot of power plants being closed already. with the new rules being set for june, it's going to have even more pleasure which will cost americans jobs. high cost with benefits. my concern is it seems a little drastic the standards they put on keeping up the coal-fired plant the same as mercury and the gas fired plants what they admit into the atmosphere. but if you put the right controls on these plant that you can get pretty close to that. also, with the restrictions being put on our country with the closures of the plants, i think something needs to be looked at globally as far as with china and india and all the other countries via they are polluting into the atmosphere with no hope o of the cultural

pollutant control equipment on their powerplants whatsoever. and it seems redundant to penalize the workers of the united states, while the other countries just shoot pollutants up into the atmosphere. i think something needs to be done. also there was a study that said that all of the coal-fired generation plants only contributes to 4% of the toxins going into the atmosphere. and if you shut all those down, you know, what are you going to replace it with? there is a lot of coal in this country. there's a lot of jobs that when you close down a power plant, he a lot of people think they closed down the power plant, 50 guys lost their job. that's not true. you look at the existing plants around this that are affected. the mom and pop shops, the diners that cater to these people when they get lunch. there's a lot of jobs and a trickle-down effect on the power plant other than just those existing jobs at a power plant. i believe that something needs to be done.

and as far as the standards, the limits that they are putting on coal, geek with the technology today and all the stuff that we can put on there and you can also look at the carbon cash which was about six, seven years on the carbon capture which is a great technology to keep the emissions from going up into the atmosphere when you put them in the ground. with that i believe i am rambling, but it is as i say i'm looking at losing members. a lot of members each year and something needs to be done to bring the fossil fuels back in and keep them working in our place. >> thank you very much. >> are next to speakers first we will hear from david scott.

and then greg burtleson. we are going to work with our timers this time around. >> okay. has my time started? my name is david scott. i'm president of the national sierra club. good morning. i appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about why the sierra club strongly supports the epa efforts to tackle carbon pollution from power plants. make no mistake, these standards are an important and historic first step towards addressing one of the most important and daunting challenges of our time, global climate disruption. climate disruption poses an urgent and growing threat to human communities for the existence they depend on. we are already experiencing it

through extreme weather events including heat waves, floods, wildfires and droughts. sea levels are rising, oceans are becoming more acidic, glaciers and arctic sea ice are melting before our eyes. climate change, which science tells us is happening because of ever-increasing amounts of carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases, is affecting americans here and now imposes literally catastrophic risks to human health and agriculture, water supply, necessities for everyday normal life. carbon pollution from power plants is the largest stationary source of u.s. carbon dioxide emissions and immediate action to/and ultimately end that carbon pollution is the only way to ensure that future generations fan and habitable planet. additionally, scientists and doctors will learn that as the earth warms, unhealthy levels of ozone pollution was mauled will make them more widespread. higher smog levels he was real

illness such as childhood asthma and lung disease. according to the american lung association, 154 million americans come half the nation's population, already suffers from unsafe levels of air pollution. holding operators of dirty power plants accountable for the emissions they emit will mean reduced healthcare costs and a better quality of life for tens of millions of americans. the fastest possible transition to a more energy efficient economy after the clean energy force such as wind and solar power, will not only cut the risk of catastrophic climate disruption, but also create incentives for innovation that will create good jobs and clean energy economy. we flatly rejected the notion of protecting human health and the environment are incompatible with a healthy economy. poll after poll demonstrates the public supports implementation

of clean air act protections and wants the epa to do its job to protect public health and confront the growing threat of climate disruption. the young voters in particular but it is the threat of the recent poll that shows 80% of young voters support a president taking actions to address the climate change we strongly support the effort to clean up dangerous carbon pollution and applaud this important first step in the transition to a clean energy economy. thank you. >> good morning. my name is greg burtleson, and on behalf of the national association of manufacturers, i am pleased to offer the following remarks to the incremental protection agency greenhouse gas recognition for existing electricity generating units. manufacturers are committed to protecting the environment for greater sustainability by increased energy efficiency and conservation and the reduction

of greenhouse gas emissions. make no mistake, the regulation that we are discussing today is about energy. how we generate it, whether we can rely on steady and secure supply of it, and how much it will cost households and businesses to consume it. energy is the lifeblood of manufacturing. manufacturers consume one third of the nation's energy. the cost, availability and the reliability of energy or a clean-cut manufacturers ability to compete in a global economy. city because of technological advancements have the ingenuity of manufacturers and energy producers have a diverse mix of energy resources energy is a bright spot for manufacturing in the united states. manufacturers are making big investments to the united states and energy is a major reason why. if done the wrong way, this regulation will prevent energy reliability, increased cost for manufacturers, and in turn, or turn a competitive advantage into a disadvantage. as the epa develops this

regulation, manufacturers are encouraged to consider two important limits. first, there's a limit to what the law permits as the controlling statute to the clean air act. an attempt to expand beyond what the law allows will never lead to delays and cost of litigation to perpetuate the air and regulatory uncertainty that will stifle growth. manufacturers have been and will continue to be the drivers of new and clean technologies. but we need to know the rules of the game. we urge the epa to carefully consider what is legally permissible under the clean air act to avoid years of regulatory uncertainty associated with this policy. we continue to believe the clean air act is the wrong tool for addressing greenhouse gas emissions. we believe it is supported by the statute. second, there are limits to what is achievable. power plants technologies are the mark of a period of today's plants can generate more electricity for fewer resources than ever before and do so in an environment of a friendly way. but like all technologies, there are limits. drafting of regulation that

requires more than once technology allows to use existing plants with only one choice, shutting down. let's not take any energy options off the table that would cut manufacturing jobs in the process. with the right policies and access to affordable and reliable energy, manufacturers and the united will continue developing sustainable solutions that will fuel job creation and drive economic growth. as for the opportunity to speak today. >> thank you. >> our next two speakers are annika whisker and james herbert nilsson.

>> good morning and thank you for the opportunity. my name is annika whisker and i am here today speaking on behalf of the over 180,000 members of bombs and air force. a community dedicated to clean air and johanns health. as a member of the mom's clean air force team, working to merrily monitoring social media channels and e-mail accounts, as a privilege of interacting with many of our members on a daily basis. hearing the stories and providing them with resources, encouragement and feedback. i sit here today on behalf of all of our members. the stories i hear of those of asthma especially children the most. whether it is north carolina, tina sisters asthmatic, or the young six-year-old mia from massachusetts whose pediatrician

prescribed a five day source of steroids whenever mia experience is a major flareup. she calls this the cry in the medicine because they cause her to have nightmares from angry outburst and episodes of uncontrollable tears. they are merely the tip of the iceberg. over 7 million children suffer from as in the united states. and this number is growing. june, 2010 study for the center of disease control showed an increase in asthma for all ages from 2001 to 2009. how do we reverse these numbers? how d to ease the suffering of e future generations when it comes to this chronic disease? reducing carbon pollution is a critical first step. power plants are the nation's largest source of carbon pollution at 40 40% of the natis carbon dioxide emitted from the power plants. carbon pollution is causing global warming and hotter weather means more ozone.

more ozone in turn causes lung damage. for children's lungs in particular. more locally, here in dc, the air received in aspirating for the ozone according to the american lung association 2013 report putting the health of thousands of children at risk. we know what we can and should do. the obvious way to start is to start with the largest individual source of carbon pollution, the power plants. but meaningful life-saving standard for all power plants that exist in the country today. significantly reducing the deadly carbon pollution that is emitted on checked and breathed in by tiny vulnerable lungs. ththis part is evidence over the past few months more than 13,000 members have commented in support of the proposed new source carbon pollution standard. the sign that our members are in favor of strong regulation and would likely show additional enthusiasm for the standards

that yield more immediate result. on behalf of the over 180,000 bombs air force members including reason, destiny and mia i urge you to set strong meaningful carbon pollution standards for existing power plants. let's make the united states and easier place for the future generations to breathe. generations we are counting on throughout this country someday. these future generations and their lungs will thank you. thank you. >> thank you. >> im james herbert nelson, director of the presbyterian church office of public witness here in washington dc. i am pleased to be here today representing a denomination but also representing the work that we are doing with creation justice ministries, formerly

known as the church of equal justice program. environmentalists on activists and others who are in the same place of looking at reducing carbon pollution. to reduce more greenhouse gas than any other country in the world. yesterday the world meteorological organization announced that the unlawful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere reached a new record in 2012. according to the environmental protection agency, your agency, 40% of the united states environmental pollution has the direct emissions reported under the greenhouse gas program. a report approved by 218 general assemblies of the presbyterian church usa entitled the power to change u.s. energy policies and global warming. we both have a spiritual and a moral responsibility to address

the issues related to global warming. in order to do this, we believe that sentence is required without biblical understanding and cause people and nations to stop the actions that are contrary to the desires for the sustainability of human life. while turning to a new way of living that promotes life more abundantly. it can give us the power to change, we do believe that. the core of the understanding is the belief that moses was right in the bible when he wrote in a solemn 21 the earth is the lord and the fullness thereof coming into those that live within it. therefore we call upon this administration as well as the united states congress to look at the possibility of encouraging the centralized and distributed power generation. the centralized residential and renewable energy systems and distributed to generations for the community wind farms can relieve pressure on the power

grid, creates new jobs and income or the local communities. we ask that a monogram on all new coal-fired and nuclear power plants to the entire metal concerns are addressed in third we ask that the limits of exploration and exploitation of new fossil fuels require the nation where this can be done for the environment. today we believe that this environmental protection agency causes succession to the great first step. we believe all nations should share in restoring the blessings that the creator has given us in this world we live in. thanks. >> [inaudible]

my name is bill bumper i'm here on behalf of the coalition for the innovative climate solution. it's a group of forward thinking electric generation companies and electric service providers. widely varying energy resources and state frameworks and indeed, there are eight companies representing all aspects of the electric industry from the integrated electric utilities public power, electric cooperative and the power company doing business in the 15 states. as the epa developed the regulations to establish greenhouse gas standards for the power sector, our goal is to provide the epa and the state on how best to set the standards so as to achieve meaningful

reductions through a process that is legally defensible, economically rational and workable across the geographic and the regulatory market landscapes. our members have experienced in implementing these local and regional measures. the guiding principles in developing the regulations for existing sources under section 111 d. is the epa must recognize the state setting standards and implementing the programs. second, you must encourage the states to be flexible and promote innovation. you have to allow the states to utilize a wide range of measures to achieve the greenhouse gas emissions and reductions. many of our members have achieved dramatic reductions in the past 15 years through measures and policies and in cooperation with their states. you have to recognize the broad regional diversity in the divergent opportunities that are available in the state electric generating companies among our coalition we have operations

from oregon to kentucky, louisiana to north dakota and minnesota and new jersey. one size cannot fit all. .. epa can recognize that such