and potential integrity problems. so there is a reason for the v.a. inspector general to not only consult with the department of justice but also involve the department of justice in an active leadership role here and for the acting secretary the v.a. to request that involvement, which i hope he will do. i commend what he's done so far, but now is the time for the department of justice to be involved in leading. the audit of the facilities around the country ought to be made public, not just the overall results have been delivered to the president in a report last friday, but all the results, site-specific results for locations. for example, the two hospitals in connecticut, in west haven and newington as well as the six medical centers in connecticut. all those site-specific audits

should be made public. i've written to the acting secretary, sloan gibson, urging that he make public those face-to-face audits of v.a. medical facilities not only for connecticut, but for the whole country. restoring trust and credibility will be achieved only if there's more transparency. nondisclosure would be a bad way to begin a new era of leadership at the v.a. and full transparency is absolutely vital to help restore trust and confidence which has been so gravely threatened and indeed undermined. finally, let me say about secretary shinseki, the immediate challenge is not about replacing one person. it is about fixing a system that is desperately wrong. i respect and deeply so secretary shinseki's decision to resign last week after

concluding that his continued service would be a distraction from the urgent and necessary overhaul of the veterans administration. i respect even more his dedicated service to our nation. he is a decorated combat veteran who has led into battle many of the men and women who now use the veterans administration. his mentors and models, as he so eloquently told our committee, now use the veterans administration. i believe in his heart, he's passionately committed to the cause of serving our veterans, and he deserves gratitude and respect from the american people for his service in the united states military and his telling truth to power as the president so powerfully observed. the nation must recognize that it owes to our veterans

world-class, first-class medical care, second to none, putting them to risk in medical facilities after they have put their lives at risk in the battlefield is a disservice to them and to our nation. it is abhorrent and atrocious that there have been these potentially criminal acts, destruction of documents and falsification of record, at many v.a. facilities around the country. there is no excuse for it, whether it's arbitrary deadlines or time lines. there is simply no excuse for that kind of lying. and it is lying not only to general shinseki, but to the american people that has happened within the v.a. and the ones who committed that kind of wrongdoing should be held accountable administratively and

criminally. the wars in iraq and afghanistan and the ongoing global military operations since 9/11 have cast a long shadow in this nation's history. they have involved less than 1% of the population, including the families of the brave warriors who have been sent to battle. but we will live, all of us, with the consequences, and all of us have an obligation to them to keep faith with them, to leave no veteran behind, to give them prompt and world-class, first-class medical care when they need it right away. the greatest generation set a model for them, and they are indeed the next greatest generation. we have to do right by them as they have done right by us. for all veterans, no matter what the era, what the conflict, what

the war, let us keep faith with all of them and leave no veteran behind. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, madam president. the senate has now approved three nominations to the commodities futures trading commission. its mission is to provide oversight of the futures, swaps and actions markets, protecting market participants from fraud and manipulation. the agency ensures safety and soundness of the market and makes sure that hedgers like farmers and ranchers or manufacturing companies can manage risk appropriately. and there needs to be confidence in those markets and in the

oversight of those markets. the commissioners confirmed today will not only help protect those markets, but finish the implementation of reforms contained in the wall street reform act. i spoke earlier today about sharon bowen's qualifications, and i was very pleased to see the senate approve her nomination. now i'd like to talk about the other two cftc commissioners appointed -- nominated by the president, who were confirmed by the senate just a few minutes ago. for the role of cftc chairman, president obama has selected timothy massad. mr. massad has a sterling record of public service. three years ago he was confirmed unanimously by the senate to serve as the department of treasury's assistant secretary for financial stability. in that position, mr. massad

oversaw the wind-down of the troubled asset relief program. he devoted himself to helping homeowners who were struggling to stay in their homes while helping communities where vacant houses were a blight to neighborhoods. it's a tribute to mr. massad's leadership that the banks that benefited from tarp have repaid nearly every dollar. at the treasury department, mr. massad not only made good on his responsibility to ensure a positive return to american taxpayers; he did so with complete transparency. during mr. massad's testimony before the agriculture committee, he emphasized that he was for strong enforcement to ensure public confidence in our markets, which is so very important. he demonstrated an understanding of how markets must provide hedging and price discovery for end users. mr. massad demonstrated that he will be an advocate for strong

international regulatory standards in a global derivatives market. throughout the course of his career in the private sector and in the public sector, mr. massad has earned a reputation as a consensus builder, a tireless worker and a protector of the public interests. i have no doubt that mr. massad will continue his excellence in his role as cftc chair. the second nominee chosen by president obama is christopher giancarlo. since 2000, mr. giancarlo has worked in companies that focused on swaps markets regulated by the cftc. for most of that time, mr. giancarlo has been a senior executive at the interdealer broker g.f.i. group. at his confirmation hearing in the agriculture committee, mr. giancarlo talked about how the futures and swaps markets must serve the needs of farmers

and other end users. he recognizes the central role that commodities play in our nation's economy. like mr. massad, mr. giancarlo understands the important lessons of the financial crisis. for example, in his remarks, mr. giancarlo emphasized the value of transparency in the swaps markets. he agrees with the provisions in the wall street reform act that allow robust oversight of u.s. swaps intermediaries. while at the same time mr. giancarlo talked about the importance of balanced regulatory oversight in open and competitive markets. in short, mr. giancarlo is a pragmatist. this is a quality that will serve him well as a cftc commissioner. i congratulate not only mr. giancarlo, but mr. massad and ms. bowen on their confirmations today. i have every expectation that they will work well with all of

the stakeholders involved in the vitally important work of the cftc. this will ensure that cftc is fulfilling its mission of protecting the public, which is the bottom line. in congress, we must also do our part to protect these markets and make sure that the cftc has the resources it needs to do its job. that means having both the staff and the technology in place so that the cftc can perform its work. and we have given it so much more work, madam president, with the new legislation. we need to make sure they have the resources to do what we have asked them to do. the agency must be able to keep up with the markets they're overseeing. they can't do that if they don't have the funding that they need. and this will be a priority for me as we seek to update the cftc

and its abilities to protect consumers and market participants. we have 21st century markets. we need a 21st century cftc to oversee them. the senate agriculture committee is beginning its work on a cftc reauthorization bill. the approval of today's nominees and our upcoming work on this legislation will help make sure that the commodities future trading commission is fully empowered to do everything that we and the public are relying on it to do. again, i congratulate all of those confirmed today. i thank my colleagues for their support. and i thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president, i would ask suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session and the agriculture committee be discharged from further consideration of p.n. 1642, that the senate proceed to consideration of the nomination, the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to the nomination, that any related statements be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without

objection. ms. stabenow: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on banking be discharged from further consideration of s. 2270 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 2270, a bill to clarify the application of certain leverage and space requirements under the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. stabenow: i ask unanimous consent that the collins substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: i ask unanimous consent that the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 453. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 453, condemning the death sentence against miriam mishaug, a

sudanese christian woman. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. stabenow: i ask unanimous consent that the rubio amendment to the resolution be agreed to, the resolution as amended be agreed to, the rubio amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble as amended be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 464, which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 464, designating june, 2014, as national aphasia awareness month and supporting efforts to increase awareness. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. stabenow: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection.

ms. stabenow: i would ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 465, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 465, commemorating the centennial of webster university. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. stabenow: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: i understand that s. 2422 introduced earlier today by senator sanders is at the desk, and ski for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title for the first time. the clerk: s. 2422, a bill to improve the access of veterans to medical services from the department of veterans' affairs, and for other purposes. ms. stabenow: i would now ask for its second reading and object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

the bill will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. ms. stabenow: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourns until 9:30 a.m. on wednesday, june 4, 2014. that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m., with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the next 30 minutes, and that at 11:00 a.m., the senate proceed to executive session under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: there will be four record roll call votes at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow on confirmation of three district

judges and cloture on the burwell nomination. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m.

wyden, hirono and leahy. madam president, it is safe to say that there is broad bipartisan agreement among all of us that every veteran in this of us that every veteran in this >> is safe to say there is broad bipartisan agreement among all of us, every veteran in this country enters the health care system deserves high-quality care, and deserves that care in a timely manner. overall, talking to veterans and vermont and, in fact, throughout this country, talking to the

veterans service organizations who represent their interests and reading independent studies have all confirmed that by and large ones veterans get into the health care system, the system is, in fact, quite good. however, it has become clear -- and i think all of us are aware of what has happened in the last month. it has become clear that while quality is generally good, there are too many veterans throughout this country waiting too long for access. in recent years -- has seen as a huge increase in its patient load. in fact, in the last four years 2 million new veterans have come and to the system, many of them with very complicated health care cases, including gdi, posttraumatic stress disorder,

and many of the needs of older veterans and older people generally have. despite this fact, it is still absolutely unacceptable that some veterans are forced on to long waiting lists for care, and it is totally intolerable. it is reprehensible that any va employee could be manipulating data in phoenix or anyplace else to hide how long veterans have been on waiting lists to see doctors. this is an issue that must be dealt with and must be dealt with rapidly and strongly. madam president, these problems are real, and they have to be addressed. but they should not be an excuse to walk away from a system that serves six and a half million veterans every single year and

230,000 veterans every single day. this is a system that we must fix, not a system that we should pitch. we must focus on the underlying problems and work to transform the va. and i think in general what our legislation does is it -- works in three basic areas. number one, we give greater authority to the secretary to fire incompetent senior officials. number two, we take very significant steps to shorten the wait times that many veterans are now experiencing and, three, we address the long-term health care needs of the va in terms of the shortage of staff, doctors, nurses that currently exist in various locations around the

country. now, let me just go through some of those issues right now. several weeks ago my republican colleague from florida requested a vote on legislation that would allow va secretaries to immediately remove senior executives due to poor performance. so let us be clear. i strongly support the effort to make sure that we get rid of or worse senior executives at the va. there is no debate about that. here is what the debate is about that do not think it is a good idea to give the secretary of an institution, of an agency that has some 300,000 employees the ability to simply fire without any due process. what are worry about, madam president, is that you can move

toward a situation where the va health care system is politicized in a way that it should not be. let me give you an example. the new president comes in with a new secretary. the new secretary says, whether democratic or republican, i want to get rid of him. 300 senior level appointees. bring me 300 new people. four years later another president, a different party. we will get rid of those and bring in 300 more. i do not think that that provides the kind of stability the largest integrated health care system in america needs tea or deserves. i worry about the political causation. second of all, i worry about an instance where whistleblowers stands out who is critical of this or that aspect of the va. that person could be fired without due process. i worry that there may be a situation where somebody is

fired not because of bad performance or maybe there are a woman, someone does not like a woman in their position. maybe they're gay, black, whatever. and that person does not have any ability to appeal that decision. i think that is wrong and bad policy. on the other hand, what i do believe is that a person should be taken out of his or her job immediately and that person must have the right to have an expedited appeal. and what our legislation does is give the person a week to bring forth the appeal and gives the appropriate appeal body three weeks to make a decision. now, you are dealing with people who are amd's, ph.d., high-level people whose professionalism is on the line, and i just don't think you can fire people willy-nilly without giving them a chance in an expedited manner to express their point of view. so that is one difference that i

have with my colleague from florida on his proposal. now, let me talk a little bit about the major concern that i have. that is, how do we shorten wait times. how do we make certain that in those areas of the country where there are long waiting times or where veterans may be geographically along distance away from of facility, how do we make sure that they get timely care? the legislation that i have authored takes immediate action to provide timely access for care for our veterans. first, this legislation was standardize the va process for providing non va care when the department is unable to provide care to the veterans within its stated goal. has dav, the disabled american

veterans pointed out in a release today, va must continue to be responsible for coordinating their care amongst the various va and non va providers. this legislation accomplishes that goal by providing a framework for consistent decision making regarding non va care. under this legislation va will coordinate non va care by taking into account wait times for care, the health of the veteran, the distance the veteran would be required to travel as well as the veterans choice. this bill also addresses va system-wide health care provider shortages. in terms of the with list, what we say in english is, if there is an unacceptable way time or if a veteran is a long distance away from a provider, we are going to allow and we must allow that veteran to get health care through a private provider

through the federally qualified community health center, through its department of defense military base of available, and indian health service, if that is available. that exists now in alaska and might be expanded. some bottom line is, if there are waiting lists beyond what a reasonable, the veterans of this country should be able to get into non va health care in a timely manner, and this bill does that. but importantly, madam president , this bill also addresses a very significant issue that i think we cannot ignore. that is, it appears to me that in many parts of this country we simply don't have the doctors and nurses that we need when an influx of veterans are coming into the system. talking to some very knowledgeable people today who were telling me about burnout, primary care physicians,

psychiatrists, just seeing more and more patience. and turnover rates are much too high. the last in a we want to do is to see rapid turnover is people are burned out and just don't have the time to do quality work they want to do. let me quote, if i can, madam president, an article that appeared in the new york times on may 29 which addresses this issue. a primary-care physician took a jab at the veterans affairs medical center in jackson, mississippi in 2008 expected fulfilling work in a letter patient load and she had had in private practice. what she found was quite different. 13-hour workdays fueled by large patient lows that kept growing as colleagues quit and were not replaced. appalled by what she saw, dr. helen beck filed a whistle-blower complaint and changed jobs. a subsequent investigation by the department of veterans affairs concluded last fall

that, indeed, the jackson hospital did not have enough primary-care doctors resulting in a practitioner's handling far too many complex cases and in numerous complaints from veterans about the late care. it was unethical to put us in that position. dr. holland accept of the overstressed primary care unit, your heart's broken. so here we have a physician that wanted to do the right thing, wanted to spend the appropriate amounts of time that she needed with the patient and was unable to do that. we are hearing is in that many parts of this country are very care physicians are just saying, we can do it. to many people coming in. this is an issue that has to be addressed. our legislation does that. our legislation gives the va the ability to rapidly higher new doctors, nurses, and other of carper fighters in areas with identify shortages.

kelso enables va to provide qualified health care providers. madam president, as i know you well know because you're on the committee that deals with this issue, we have a crisis in this country in terms of the lack of primary-care practitioners. this is a very serious problem. there are experts to tell us, and fact, that we need 50,000 new primary care physicians in the next ten to 15 years. this is a national problem, problem within the va. and what this legislation proposes is that the va work with the national health service corps in order to provide debt forgiveness cause scholarships, medical school students of that when they graduate they can get into the va and practice the quality medicine that we need thereby. this bill also, in addition to

that to my address is another issue that has not been discussed a lot. i think there is widespread bipartisan support, support on the house as well, the authorization of some 27 major medical facility leases. in many instances these leases would improve access to care closer to home and would increase the availability of specialty care services in those locations. in addition, these were allowed va to decompress over utilized -- facilities. this is an important issue. i believe there is bipartisan support. that is in this legislation. furthermore, madam president, this bill would require the president to create a commission to look at va health care access issues and recommend actions to bolster capacity. in the last couple of days i have heard a lot of good ideas out there about how we can deal with the issue, but we need a

high-level commission of some of the most knowledgeable people in this country appointed by the president to report within 90 days some ideas about how the va can proceed. so, madam president, i want to thank the 16 or so co-sponsors that we have. i look forward to working with my republican colleagues. we have a problem. we have to address that problem. i hope that we can do it in a bipartisan way. with that, madam president, would yield the floor. >> of the floor today, senator john mccain reacted to the obama administration's decision this past weekend to engage in a prisoner exchange with the taliban to secure the release of u.s. sergeant who had been held captive for over five years. the senator called the decision a mistake and unfounded. here's a look. >> disagreement is, in my view,

it puts future men and women who are serving in the military at risk. these individuals were judged, as in guantanamo, frequently that if they were released it would cause a greater risk to the men and women who are serving on the battlefield. these individuals, as senator gramm calls them the fab five, i believe, or -- these individuals -- these individuals will be able to move around. and after one year according to the spokesman they will be able to go back to afghanistan. 30 percent of those who have left guantanamo have already re-entered the fight. this is the hardest and toughest of all. these are wanted war criminals, one of whom is supposedly guilty of murdering thousands of

shi'ite moslems while he was in charge outside of, i believe, can the heart. so this decision that brings the sergeant home, and we applaud that he is home, is ill founded, a mistake, and it is putting the lives of american servicemen and women at risk, and that, to me, is unacceptable to the american people. [inaudible question] >> no, there were al qaeda, members of al qaeda, too. yes. [inaudible question] >> they were associated with and part of the al qaeda. i'm sure you are aware that in 2001 the tell a band and al qaeda were working together, which is the reason why we went there. these individuals were working with al qaeda.

[inaudible question] >> these people have dedicated their lives to destroying us. these people have dedicated their very existence. what you think that when that judgment was made if they released him it would pose greater risk to the embedded states of america? >> the tell a ban. >> they are caliban and al qaeda don't you understand that? like you said, you are an old man. you might remember that in 2001 al qaeda found a haven with the taliban. that is why we initially invaded afghanistan, to somehow separate these people from al qaeda is just them foolishness. >> i understand your problem with giving up the five taliban very clearly. i still can't get my head around applauding him being home and opposing the swaps.

he would still be in captivity. >> the deal should not have been made, as i have said many times. i would make every effort and continue to make every effort to bring him home. >> tomorrow marks the 205th anniversary of the tenements where protests in china. tonight on c-span we will show some of the reaction from the u.s. government in the days following the chinese government's crackdown on demonstrators. you will see presidents george h. w. bush's news conference and house and senate debate on a resolution condemning the chinese government's action. that is tonight at ten eastern on our companion network. tomorrow morning queen elizabeth travels from buckingham palace to parliament for the state opening of the british parliament. she will deliver a speech written by the government that outlines the priorities for the coming year. members from the house of commons will join our colleagues in the house of lords to your the queens address, and you can see her comments live wednesday at 5:30 a.m. eastern time here on c-span.

earlier today we took a look at the epa proposed rules announced yesterday that would seek to cut carbon emissions by 30 percent by the year 2030. it's from today's washington journal. "washington journal" continues." host: we want to continue our discussion on the new epa rules. >> serving as the climate and clean air program director. paul bailey, federal affairs senior vp for the american coalition for clean coal electricity.thank you both veryr being with us. i want to begin with two takes on this story from two different newspapers. page of the chicago tribune. the carbon cuts offer a healthier chicago. this from the arizona republic. the latest epa rules signal a bleaker future for coal. let me begin with you, paul bailey. guest: my take on the two headlines -- the reality is a lot closer to the arizona republic headline. the future for coal already had

put it percent of the coal fleet announce it's going to retire. fleet of the coal announces going to retire. guest: this is a big move for public health and protecting our climate. at extremely low cost. if you do it in a smart way, consumer electric bills will go down. not up. we can protect our children and our future. this is an important way to start. host: the debate is now focused on jobs and the economy versus health and the environment. let's take the economic side first. the washington times points to a u.s. chamber of commerce estimate that the cost of shutting down these power plants to meet the new regulations will cost the economy $51 billion in as many as 224,000 jobs between

now and when he 30. -- between now and when he 30. and 2013. now some pollutants have been entirely eliminated. the economy is still growing and is triple the size it was in 1970. we can protect our health and protect the climate without hurting the economy while the economy grows. the chamber just made that stuff up. the new york from times this morning. nearing a climate legacy saying the ministration has already rate -- this could further enhance that. protect the environment and protect the air we breathe. guest: let me respond to david's comment. we were not associated with the chamber study. we have done analyses of our own

. the cost of regulations -- there is a cost to regulations. we estimated $13 billion-$70 billion per year. the carpet rules are going to -- carbon rules are going to know i have no effect. andt: it is not expensive it has huge benefits. the public health benefits of the epa's proposal, looking at i like $50 billion in public health and climate $50ection -- are like billion in public health and climate protection. the cost is no more than $8 billion. this is a tremendous -- conservatives want benefits compared to cost. benefits compared to cost here

swamped the cost. it's a huge deal for our country. host: is the climate changing? guest: the climate is changing. there is still debate about what extent to which man is causing those changes. what we suggested was a responsible program for reducing carbon emissions. the epa has gone a different route. now we have a program that costs consumers somewhere between $5 billion-$8 billion a year. guest: if you do this in a smart way when we focus on energy efficiency in our homes and ings, you can have all the benefits of electricity and lower bills. you can do this all at the same time. pleadingust a for fuel which is being beaten

in the marketplace and has drastic come about effects on our health and on the future of our planet. marketwe are all for the making their own choices. when natural gas is better for consumers, that is what the marketplace should do. right now, we have epa putting its thumb on the scale with these regulations that make electricity too expensive. host: from senator obama back in 8 -- he had this to say on cap and trade. the cap and trade system, electricity rates would skyrocket. aboutless of what i say -- because i'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power you nameatural gas,

it. whatever the industry was, they retrofit their operations. that will cost money. they will pass that money on to consumers. host: i know you've seen this video. got a lot of attention yesterday. was the president wrong then and right today? guest: this is not a cap and trade plan. president --become the benefit of the environmental protection agency energy department and the whole government working on this, they have figured out how to do this and then an expensive way with huge benefits for consumers -- inexpensive way with huge benefits for consumers. >> they are wrong. [applause]

thank you. any small sharp turn change in electricity prices would be within the normal fluctuations of the power sector that they have already dealt with for years. any small price increase we see is the price of a gallon of milk or month. it is glossed by the huge benefits. this is an investment in better health and in a better future for our kids. host: yesterday's announcement by the epa administrator. what it means for consumers. paul bailey, your reaction. guest: president obama was right. prices are going up. that theepa admitted nationwide average electricity rate increase would be 7%. the utility industry shutting right now --nts

president obama had it right. host: we discussed the issue of climate change. thank you both very much for being with us. that is our line for republicans. we also have a line for democrats and independents. and you can send us an e-mail. edward is joining us from seaport, new jersey, republican line. good morning. as far as missions is concerned, adaptation to climate change is what we should be concerned about. people are going to keep living the way we are living. let's try to adapt to where that

will be in the future. that is my comment. >> what should that be? said, adapting to our consumption of consuming less or in different ways, may be less or more. concern that we are making? in missions are the byproduct of what we are going after. host: thank you for your call. something the president said in the past, energy is in all of the above policy. is that still the same question may -- same? he said this is a moral issue for him, to take care of his children and our children.

we cannot let the energy system just caps off these omissions that cost pollution and health problems and endanger the future of the planet. his position is that we need to control that kind of pollution and if these sources can be cleaned up, they will be continuing to be used. the coal industry and national -- natural gas, they use the atmosphere of a free waste dump. there should be an obligation that you do not create harm or alth probls anyou do n to the entire planet as a byproduct of doing business. the column before talked about adaptation. people in the new york region know about adaptation because of hurricane sandy. they have seen clouds and hurricanes.

we will have to live with these things. we must not keep letting them get worse. we have to stop the pollution, which is driving the problem. we have to do that and still have the benefits of electricity if we do it in a smart way very generate from cleaner sources and use the energy us efficiently as we can, so we do not need in -- as much to run the refrigerator. electricany coal-fired land were shut down tomorrow, what impact would it have on our environment in the next couple of decades? >> virtually none. the coal fleet in the u.s., the entire electric set your -- sector, if we shut down the entire electric utility system in the country, we would be reducing greenhouse gas

emissions by four percent. it will have no effect on climate. host: let's take that point and follow up with you. guest: everyone would agree we need cooperation from all around the rld to from all around the world is a problem but the united states is one of the biggest contributors. historically we put more carbon pollution into the atmosphere than any other country with the second largest polluter now. the chinese are starting to take action at home. the europeans, the japanese and the indians are starting to take action but everyone wants to know what the united states is doing. >> host: are the chinese acting? >> guest: yeah they are. last year they had produced more new electricity from sources other than coal for the first time in five years so they are shifting away from coal as they

develop and they have terrible pollution in china. the country knows and the leadership knows it needs to ask what everyone's looking to see that every other big player is in the game. this is the way to show the united states is in the game. >> host: d. want to follow up? >> guest: right now the chinese emit more carbon in one month than in the entire year. president bombings -- obama's a was subjected by president obama because it was too expensive. >> guest: president obama's legacy will be to start curbing the push and the causes this problem that drives global warming. consumers actually save money. >> guest: other countries enjoy job growth area in. >> host: what is your

background on this issue? >> guest: i'm an attorney by training. i have studied the policy and science for 35 years. i help to know -- to write the treaty that protected the ozone layer and a help to work on the clean air act. it's my background. >> host: paul bailey american coalition for coal clean coal electricity your background and expertise? >> guest: i started out as an engineer working for a large utility system nuclear plants in those days. i started working on fossil fuel fired and coal-fired power plants spend a lot of time on the clean air act like mr. doniger has here and here i am on c-span this morning. >> host: somebody who you both probably know the former chief of staff to senator edwin muskie has written this from politico with the headline.

with the obscure 1970 compromise that made obama's climate rules possible. a lot of questions in terms of what the epa administrator announced yesterday. here's what he writes today of political.com. critics say the president is making an end run around congress stretching the law to achieve by executive action will cannot be accomplished through the legislative branch. this is flat wrong he writes. regulating pollution from power plants in the form of the clean air act. i know because i worked on the legislation including the key part of the act section 111 that the present is using to justify his move. my boss senator at muskie of maine was the bill's main author of the primary purpose was economic equity to ensure that all nationally prevalent sources of air pollution achieve minimum emissions standards and the subsection of that part has become the legal basis for the epa to act. >> guest: the clean air act was not designed to regulate

carbon. people will disagree about that. we do not believe it was designed to regulate carbon. we have now is 650 page proposal which is going to show how difficult and complicated is to try to reduce carbon emissions from utilities in this country. >> guest: so mr. billings is exactly right. this is why the clean air act is written weight is to deal with these problems and the supreme court has already ruled twice that carbon dioxide and carbon pollution is the subject of the clean air act if it's determined to be dangerous and the epa is partly determined it to be dangerous. the company sued again over the danger finding and the courts ruled against them. the supreme court turned that case down. the law is crystal clear on this that this is what the clean air act is for, to its deal with pollution problems that we recognize as the science. in fact senator muskie and the congressman at the time knew

about climate change treaty in 1970 we knew that carbon dioxide was building up in the atmosphere and starting to overheat the planet. it is now past time to start curbing that pollution. >> host: loris joining us from tumor 10 rhode island on the democrats lied. good morning. >> caller: good morning gentlemen and thank you for c-span. i have two questions. the first one is in the interest of transparency. i would like to know the corporate funding sources if the majority of your their funding comes from public sources for each of your guests respected organizations. >> host: lore we will get a response and come back with a follow-up. >> guest: ours does not come from sources it comes from individual sources. >> guest: ours is corporate funding. >> host: laura your follow-up? >> caller: my follow up visits my understanding that we

taxpayers have already funded a significant amount of money in clean coal and i'm interested in the amount of progress that has been made and why over the next 30 years we don't think that we will be able to advance the technology to a place where clean coal is a possibility. >> host: laura thanks for the call. >> guest: let me try that one. it's a very good question. the answer is the electric utility industry power plants will have spent close to $150 billion by the end of 2016 on a mission controls. most of those are clean coal technologies. there are at list -- at least 15 clean coal technologies in use today in power plants. the one that i think the caller is referring to is carbon capture and storage.

the government has spent some $8 billion to develop that technology. we are optimistic about the future of that but we have another epa rule that we have not talked about today that prevents new coal plants from being built and we are faced with an ironic situation because we cannot told new coal plants we will not be able to develop carbon capture storage. >> host: a question from richard rogers, y. no place for alternative fuel jobs in the country like west virginia? >> guest: welder should be a place for a clean energy jobs. in ohio the clean energy of connie is booming and in west virginia and places like that there is a transition already underway because if you take the last point kohl's fundamental problem is it's not competitive especially if it has to account for its pollution but even without new standards it's not

competitive. no one wants to build a new coal plant. no power company because natural gas plant investments in energy efficiency are cheaper. the power companies looking out for their interest in looking out for the consumer's interest and don't want to commit to build coal plants if they are more expensive than the alternative. so that is why we have no new programs and the opportunity for coal states is just as large as it is for other midwestern manufacturing states so you turn to the clean energy economy and there are hundreds of thousands of good blue-collar skill jobs to be created in the states who choose to do it. >> host: someone from the "washington post" the epa's proposal prompting a backlash. taking an issue that the minister talked about yesterday flexibility among the states.

here is gina gina mccarthy. >> this plan is all about flexibility. that is what makes it ambitious but also achievable. that's how we keep our energy affordable and reliable. the glue that holds this plan together and the key to making it work is that each state's goal is tailored to its own circumstances and states have the flexibility to rekindle and what other way works best for them. we looked at we have states are today and we followed and looked at where they are heading. each state is different so each goal and each path can be different. >> host: paulette they ask you about that. the administrations is that this is a very flexible plan. >> guest: flexibility is not the cure for the problems for this proposal. it's a bad proposal that is mads it would have been because it's flexible. that does not cure the problem

to this program right now. >> host: you are laughing. why? >> guest: the industry spent the last year or so saying give us flexibility. give us flexibility and i think it's quite smart that the epa has done this. there's a different standard for every state depending on where it starts and where its resources are so this is fair from state to state and there's a lot of flexibility given to states to figure out which makes you want to retrofit coal plants with carbon capture and storage? we think that's how the -- technology is ready for prime-time. it may not be economic to do it that it's ready to it. do you want to focus on conserving energy in peoples homes? all these tools are available and this part of the clean air act involves the states in making those implementations. >> guest: let me give you an example of flexibility. and i'd example of flexibility on average the first caller called in was talking about use of electricity. this is epa enforcing the states to force electric consumers to

use 10% less electricity. >> host: here is the cover. >> guest: that is so misleading. there's going to be an opportunity for our power companies and others to help people with better heating and cooling systems, better insulation and better windows, better lightbulbs and if you can get all that light and heat and cooling for 10% less electricity that's a heck of a good deal. that means my bill goes down. why aren't people doing that? >> guest: because it's not so easy to figure out how to do it. you need help. >> guest: you need epa. >> guest: you need power companies and state officials to help create the marketplace for the programs where the contractors are there to help you do this and the loans are there to help you do this. the payment plans are there to help you afford this and in

states which have created these energy efficiency programs the bills go down and consumers are better off. the air is a heck of a lot cleaner. >> host: but does this create a patchwork system? "the new york times" reporting this morning that the model is basically going to be the same model that they saw the health care law but does that create -- >> guest: is a model of the clean air act. the basic model of the clean air act as federal standards that say here's what your targets are and here's what you need to do to protect the climate and the environment and most of the actions in the clean air act the states use for implementation in the epa doesn't implementation unless the state refuses. >> host: bottom line for consumers of all of these proposals are put in place, will utility prices go up for consumers? >> guest: if the programs are done right that the proper emphasis on energy efficiency bills will go down. >> host: you say go down. >> guest: electricity rates will go up.

the bills may go down because people will be consuming less electricity because electricity costs more. this is using less electricity as a policy. that's what this is all about. >> guest: we need better refrigerators better conditioners and heating system so you don't need as much electricity. >> guest: all of which cost money. >> host: if you're just joining us are listening on c-span radio we are focusing on the epa recommendations announced yesterday by administrator gina mccarthy. paul bailey is joining us and i have to put the bio in front of me. i apologize. american coalition for clean coal and electricity. we will go to john in san antonio. good morning and thanks for waiting. john are you with ask? trying one more time for john in san antonio. we will go next to jim and franklin georgia. good morning. >> caller: good morning. love c-span. just a couple of comments.

for mr. doniger. wasn't the 1970s they were talking about the glacier ice age and doesn't most of the hot air come out of washington d.c. that pollutes the atmosphere? >> host: jim thanks for the call. >> guest: the science on this is extraordinarily clear and strong. you have a diagnosis from 97 doctors who would not shop around until you found someone who told you are not sick. you would seek treatment. you would take this seriously and that is what we have got from the scientists on climate change. it's just so clear. >> host: i assume both of you watched the speech in its entirety by gina mccarthy? >> guest: i was there. >> guest: i saw pieces of it. >> host: your reaction to her tone in her approach? >> guest: well i think she is a believer in this program.

i think saying things like energy prices will not go up is misleading people because the epa home rule says electricity is land increase. what we have said here is that people will be using less electricity because they spend more for more efficient appliances so i hope the epa will be open in the comment. map. they have done a pretty good job of outreach. we hope that will continue. so we can seek changes in. >> host: the commentary has been extended to 120 days correct? >> guest: the president set out a schedule which was met yesterday to get this proposal out a year from now to have the final rollout and the year after that the states would be submitting their plans on how they would undertake this. the states are already engaging or engaged with utilities and the epa is engaging and we are engaging with stakeholders all over the country to try to find

the smartest and cheapest best way to carry this out and frankly to strengthen it. the energy efficiency opportunity is so large that epa did not tap it out. there is much more energy savings for people and much more pollution savings. >> host: you were in the room. her tone, her demeanor and your reaction? >> guest: i like gina mccarthy. she's a down-to-earth person and she speaks in a thick boston accent so the r's are missing from words like carbon but she really understands this stuff and she connects with people. >> host: joseph is joining us from springfield kentucky on the republican line. good morning. >> caller: yes, david doniger is like the rest of the world that thinks that they can tell everybody else what they ought

to do and protections are only as good as the grants that they get from the -- people who are not going to get back the money unless they get favorable recommendations from the one that came back. >> host: joey will get a response but you were calling from kentucky. what part of the state and is it in coal country? >> guest: i'm from central kentucky and if you are on a fixed income the way this government has -- in the last five years between obama years between obamacare is and all the regulations that they are sticking on everything else, the federal government and the federal workers are the only ones that are able to keep their hands on water and the more regulations they stick on, these people think they know all the

ideas that's going on in the world but they don't have -- they don't know what the average temperature should be or the temperature should be from a thousand years ago. they can't predict the weather much less what is going to be in the next 40 years. >> host: okay thanks very much for the call. >> guest: the fossil fuel industry is spending tens of millions of dollars in trying to influence how people think about this cold interest to protect other fossil fuels. the money is on the other side. >> guest: cannot comment on back that? the caller brought up a dimension in this issue that we don't talk enough about. the average family in this country right now makes about $50,000 before taxes. over the last 10 years that average family has seen energy prices go up 27% and their real

income go down 22%. those families particularly cannot afford higher electric prices. they are going to see from the epa rules. also lower incomes and fixed income families suffer even more disproportionately. >> guest: this is a classic line with statistics. i believe paul's number -- the price of gasoline which had nothing to do with electricity. electricity has been stable and cheap and cheaper in most parts of the country over this period of time. natural gas and the low price of natural gas is driving prices down and that's the reason colas having so much trouble. he can't compete. in renewable energy is cheaper than it ever was before. energy efficiency investments leave you better off. if a homeowner, if you can get all you want out of electricity

with a lower monthly bill the savings rack up month after month. >> host: this is a study by the way from harvard university printed in the "washington post" to give you an indication of the areas of the country that would be impacted the most through the pollution output by 2020. you can see the eastern seaboard and the seaboard of the central part of the country would have the biggest impact. understand both of you are partisan on this issue but i have two fundamental questions. first of all why target existing power plants? why is that being done? >> guest: i will let david go first. >> guest: the existing power plants are the source of a push and obviously these are the power plants that exist and produce the pollution. they turnover extraordinarily slowly power plants at last for decades so if you wait for the new ones to replace the old ones you cannot ever make -- solve this problem. the map you're talking about is showing the levels of not the carbon pollution but the sulfur

and smog pollution that would be cut by the standard as well. that translates according to the epa to 100,000 fewer asthma attacks each year going up to 150,000 and four to 6000 lives saved every year. this is in addition to reducing the carbon pollution that's driving climate change. so this is hugely beneficial for health and for children, kids with asthma and older people who frankly thousands of dying because of this amount of pollution each year great week and cut this down. we can save people's lives. >> host: paul bailey. >> guest: emissions have been cut by 90% per kilowatt hour of electricity. that's almost a $150 billion that's been spent to achieve this reduction. >> guest: that's because the epa and their standards each

time they are proposed the industry fights. they do comply with them once the fight is over the standard is in place. our health is a heck heck of a lot better. hundreds of thousands people are being saved and there are thousands of lives to be saved. >> host: based on the announcement yesterday by the p8 and straighter how are these regulations going to be implemented? >> guest: well we have a program, very expensive program that has been laid out called a flexible program. people will be, people will be using less electricity. as i said people will be paying more for electricity and using less electricity. one of the issues you mentioned earlier is how long the states will have to develop these plans the states that we have talked to gathering in states like north dakota last week, the states were indicating they

thought they needed as long as three years to develop these programs. the more flexibility that's incorporated into the program which the epa seems pleased with and the longer it takes to develop the program so we think this timeline is rushed and arbitrary. >> host: paul bailey with the american coalition for clean coal electricity and david doniger with the natural resources defense council james from port worth worth texas sent us this e-mail saying every time we acted the outcome was a cleaner environment davis is an absolutely necessary move by the president and more is needed. big energy money has far too much influence in congress. meanwhile another viewer says if the science is clear and strong than explain it to us us. consensus using science. i am waiting. john from winter haven florida's next on the independent line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i just wondered if the two guests know what's going on in spain right now.

i will explain. as everyone knows their economy in 06 and the crisis happened and for every green jobs they created a loss to regular jobs. so they got 20 something% unemployment it recently the government has run out of money to give get the subsidies for all these green energy projects so the companies are passing that on to the consumers and everybody's electric bill has doubled in the country if not tripled. you guys want to comment on that please? >> host: john thanks for the call. >> guest: i don't know about spain. this is an urban myth story they keep circling around. i don't think it's right. i know about california. i know about new york and the northeast and i know about illinois. i know about the states where these programs are in place and people are saving money and the energy bills are going down.

pollution is going down because we do this in a smart way. the proposal yesterday is to take all these tools and do this in a smart way to fulfill our moral applications. the future from this buildup of dangerous climate change. >> host: run with this question we talked about this earlier but if we stop adding all the co2 due to power generation today would climate change continue? yes or no? >> guest: yes it will continue but the question is how that is going to be? if you are driving a car at 60 miles an hour towards a wall and you can't miss the wall and you would rather hit it at 30 or 20 miles per hour band then hit it at 60. you certainly want -- would to speed up and we have to reduce the blue shin to slow down the growth of these pollutants and get other

countries to come along with us and then we slow down the climate change to appoint where the previous caller said we might be able to adapt to something but the world in the future will be unrecognizable to work descendents if we do not tackle this problem. >> host: david frum atlantic beach florida. good morning. >> caller: good morning. first-time caller, first time i tried. >> host: welcome. we are glad to hear from you. >> caller: i have a comment for mr. doniger and i have a question for mr. bailey. mr. doniger i think you really minimize the problem when you just call it pollution. i work for an industrial cleaning company back in 2000 i used to work at one of these, several of these coal power plants doing clean outs. what we did was we cleaned out the filters that were before the

stacks before it gets blown out in what is left is the residual dust that is left behind. i would clean the inside of these things and what you should do is get an msds which is a materials safety data sheet and show the cancer-causing agents that are being blown out from these plans. just to say that it's pollution is an understatement by far. and what i have to say that mr. bailey, we follow your train of thought and we stay with fossil fuels, how long before costs go down? >> host: we will get a response first from david doniger. >> guest: you're absolutely right. it's dangerous pollution. it's dangerous in many ways. it causes asthma attacks. it causes heart disease and lung problems.

.. a dioxide. that is what this loophole is. i am not quite sure i understood the last question. right now, states that rely on coal, electricity, about 20% less than electricity prices. the states that did not rely on coal. david raised a point about natural gas prices. there is nothing wrong with that because consumers benefit from that. these rules will have no meaning for love act on climate change. they will reduce temperature increase i left than a fraction of a degree. there are two concentrations, one percent. they will reduce sealevel rise. the climate events are all pain

and no gain. impact of thehe commonwealth of virginia, the timing is somewhat uncertain on environmental proposals. my question to both of you is why the president announced this now in june of 2014 as opposed to waiting for six months? a factor both sides are taking into account as well. less than resident made it there he clear in the first term, he dealt with car pollution, heavily from vehicles and fuel economy and he tried to get legislation. he made it clear in the second term his legacy issue as a father and as the one looking out for the future. forould ask congress operation. if he did not have cooperation

for congress, he would use the law already passed for the clean air -- clean air act. last june, the timetable i decide, opens a on power plants to get these standards in place in the remainder of his term. they will be complied with from 2020-2030 you're that is the way things work. you have to start and put something in place in order to have it grow and bear fruit. this is a radical plan. we assumed the president would not adopt such a radical when. the legacy will be a regulatory it is notade program a cap and trade. it is silly. this room them is is on controlling emission rate.

if there is no mandate to put a choosewhere, it states to convert this into a cap and trade of them, and there are some aides who already one those programs, new states will make their own choice. this cap and trade stuff -- host: what is co2? carbon dioxide, a molecule. property that it ands the heat in the sun, that is why, as the blanket of co2 gets the care, temperature goes up. from the rising temperature of the heat, that is what drives changes in the weather. we get more dream weather. two different perspectives on the issue here at the table.

on twitter -- host: joining us from pennsylvania, independent line. good morning. ok.er: i have a question or david doniger. i was wondering, you are concentrating on just different generation concerns very systemwide, this is an infrastructure problem. ,s it in the purview of the epa where he can actually have less generation to start with and more of it means of transmitting the energy on the weight of generation to the merc?

tax, to havee a more efficient, you know, electrical trance mission on the states or whatever? click the epa does not have any of artie to tax anybody area it is already set standards limiting the amount of pollution . if it does have the authority to work the states, -- there are many ways to achieve that. can put changes in the plan itself your those are all fair game. wheren do things to shift the power is generated and how much power is needed because of where it is in the transmission grid.

can reduce the number of megawatt hour we need to keep warm. they have the option to use rudder approaches to meet the standards the epa sets. they are not mandating any of that. host: is it correct that disapproving the keystone would foreclose co2 emissions comparable to yesterday causes proposal? guest: i do not know and i'm ari. i go back the same numbers i quoted yesterday. china admits more than this program reduces here in the u.s. host: we cannot force china and other to go along with this we do not make changes ourselves. guest: we can put in place a

reasonable, relatively this -- affordable -- program that is not what the epa proposed yesterday. we can reduce carbon emissions for far less money than this program is. host: you also weigh in on a phased full. you can join at -- it's. are you concerned about climate change? ., florida, good morning. -- eric, florida, good morning. caller: the gentleman, mr. david doniger, made some point. what you plan to do with the windows and iterators and stuff you plan to replace? will you make them into mcrib

sam which is? -- sandwiches? the green energy movement -- endangered -- killing endangered species. they're trying to hoist on everyone else. obama seems to have a huge carbon foot rent, seems to have all the planes flying with him. you will give me the necessity clause that he needs to fly to africa. the king of africa, here is a quote. if you think about all of the -- in africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point everyone has got a car and everyone has a seat, the planet will blow over. this is the kind of hurts and we are dealing with. guest: it is tough to respond very when you take for drips out of homes am a they are recycled here that is the late should be.

to focus on making my home more energy is asian. driving power that gets good gas mileage. we are living the life here. hypocrisy about hypocrisy. host: let me go back to the editorial. it frames the debate over jobs and the health of the economy and the health of americans. over time, these jobs are likely to be replaced by new jobs created by the retrofitting of much of the current energy system and by the extension -- expansion of current energy sources. --

host: paul bailey. thet: they are recycling same arguments they make on every quality rule. three -- signed a merc mercury rule. asthman rule based on and prevention of heart attack, was have nothing to do with carbon. we had a merc or he rule, for example, that will cost consumers 10 elion dollars a year. -- $10 billion a year. we can reduce mercury with $2 billion a year. we can reduce carbon for far less than the administration causes row graham. -- program. new: the president posses energy rule is a huge tax on the poor and the middle class and then make this point. in eight short years, the administration will have accomplished the largest transformation of power since

the 9030's. -- 1930's. guest: the last part is right. the markets, the lower price of natural gas, green energy, over energy am a and the money-saving character of energy is saved. these eggs are picking up coal is losing out. up.hese things are picking coal is losing out. if it is created in a smart way, everybody, from the most wealthy to the middle class will have the opportunity to have the programs to use less electricity and still keep you warm in the summer. the hypocrisy of heaven the wall street journal, the voice of the aboutrcent, lecture us who is interested in regular

people and poor people. it is just amazing. compare the new york times and the wall street journal. two different takes are both available online as we listen to jim from -- last call. thatr: i agree with david efficiency comes to money savings. couplenately, we save a thousand dollars on gas and oil and electricity and so forth. there is very little you can buy in society that will not cause someone to consume a lot of energy, to make that product. if the premise that energy savings is going to sell health problems. guest: look, i drive the same

number of miles one way or the other, but i jive them in a car that gets better fuel economy and makes less carbon pollution. it is your gain for the environment, with the economy the money you save, education for your kids, emily vacations. who can argue with that? host: we will conclude with paul bailey. guest: to gabon with one of the last callers said -- to pick a bone with what one of the last callers said, fixed income families pay disproportionately higher amounts for energy. those families that get harmed when energy prices a lot, that epahat will happen on this

program, regardless of the soothing words we hear about the stability -- flexibility. this does not help climate change and it cost consumers a lot of money. host: paul bailey and david doniger. gentlemen, thank you both for being with us. when some of the reaction from the u.s. government in the days following the chinese government's crackdown on demonstrators. president george is still the bush's news conference and house and senate debate for 1989 on a resolution condemning that

chinese government's action. that is tonight at 10:00 eastern on our companion network c-span. >> c-span2 providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and keep public policy events and every weekend book tv now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2, created by the cable-tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch as in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> tomorrow morning queen elizabeth travels from buckingham palace to parliament for the state opening of the british parliament. she will deliver a speech written by the government that outlines the priorities with the coming year. members from the house of commons join their colleagues in the house of lords to your the queens address. watch it all live wednesday morning at 5:30 a.m. eastern here on c-span2.

according to the consumer financial protection bureau, student loan debt is leery $1 trillion. tomorrow the senate budget committee holds a hearing to examine the impact student loans are having on borrowers, career choice, and the economy. once that live wednesday at 10:00 eastern on c-span. earlier today assistant majority leader dick durbin spoke about the issue of student loan debt on the senate floor. this is 15 minutes. >> during this last break a went back to illinois and visited a lot of college campuses. i went to one in the quad cities and in illinois state university in illinois and then down to the university of illinois. and each one of those had a press conference about student at. a student that today has reached a point where we have got to pay close attention to it, and we should. the vast majority of americans ask a very basic questions. senator, is there anything you are doing today that really is

going to help my family? it turns out for 44 million americans currently paying on student loans in america legislation that will be introduced tomorrow could make a big difference. i am cosponsoring a bill with elizabeth warren, a senator from the state of massachusetts, a very bright lady who was on the faculty at the harvard law school who understands these issues better than almost anyone i have never met with comanche is leading the way on a college student loan refinancing bill. here is what we're trying to do. trying to get those students who are trapped in big debts with high interest rates a chance to refinance the loans. how significant can it be? well, when i met the students at different schools, they told me their stories. as a former college bar or myself, as a father raising three kids who went through

college, it was sad, it was really sad to hear their stories because the amount of debt students are running into now is dramatically higher than anything those of us who were in the early stages of college loans ever experienced. i won't even tell you how much i bar because it makes me sound ancient, but it scared me to death when i borrow that money to get through college and law school for fear would never pay it back. turns out that i did, as i was supposed to be read by students today many times find themselves so deeply in debt that they just cannot get out from under it. by and going to set up a category of speeches on institutions known as for-profit colleges and universities. they are in a special place in my thinking. for-profit colleges and universities, who are they? the biggest one is a university of phoenix. apollo group owns a series of universities. you have seen their advertising,

will bad. taken at one point, had over 450,000 students in this university of phoenix network of schools across the country. second-biggest is to fry, and other for-profit university out of my state of illinois. kaplan is the third largest i'm going to set them over year because there in a special category. they are in the category of colleges and universities that we ought to be doing something about. the three numbers tell the story about the for-profit colleges and universities. 10% of high-school graduates go the for-profit colleges and universities. 10 percent of americans high-school graduates go the schools. these schools receive 20% of all the federal aid education. 10 percent of the students, 20 percent of the federal aid. they receive over $32 billion a year in federal aid, these

for-profit colleges and universities. why is it so much? a family of 10%, because they charge so high when it comes to tuition. but here's the number. forty-six. 46 percent of all student loan defaults are students out of for-profit colleges and universities. why? worth as diplomas, too much debt , and students cannot find work to pay off their debts. what if you have a college loan? there is something you want to know about. you probably heard it that it bears repeating. only a handful of deaths in america that you can incur as an american citizen that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, taxes. you have to pay those. child-support, alimony, and college student loans. no matter what happens to you

financially there is virtually no way out. your loan, you take out to go to college, it is with you for a lifetime. even in bankruptcy you cannot discharge it. at the end of bankruptcy it is still sitting there. and unfortunately the interest is growing. that is why we have to take a look at it. that is why we aren't looking at the big picture. far too many americans the promise of fair shot and affordable college education has become a long shot. average tuition and fees at four year public colleges is more than tripled in the last 30 years. i can guarantee you that income for american families has now trebled. tuition has outpaced inflation for 32 straight years. the cost of education at all

colleges and universities has been going up dramatically. no other major consumer expenditure, including health care, can make that climb. it is not just low-income students who feel the impact. it is middle-income students and their families. since 2003 the amount of student loan debt in america has quadrupled. nationally there are now almost 40 million borrowers with more than $1 trillion in debt. there is more student loan debt in america today than the combined sum and total of all credit card debt. there is more than there is an auto loans. on the mortgages would be a higher category of debt in terms of total cost. the average student loan debt increased by 49 percent between 2005 and 2012 to $27,850. on average illinois graduates in

the class of 2012 left with a little over $28,000 in debts. the individual debt, you might guess, is much higher. almost one and three-quarters million illinoians have outstanding debt. what effect is 1 trillion have on the american economy? thorough reserve warns us that it is threatening current and future economic growth. the student loan debt crisis has been compared to the mortgage crisis we went through eight and nine years ago. it is ingrained in american culture that each successive generation wants to do better than the previous one, but student loan debt is crippling younger generations. currently the median household wealth for people my age and the 55-65 bracket is 44 times the net worth of the median house -- houseful of people younger than 35. people under the age of 35 or

struggling. this is historically unprecedented and has a lot to do with student loan debt. i have heard from so many people in my state about these issues. they say student loan debt is preventing them from buying a car, borrowing more money to finish their education, having their own place to live, getting married, and once married having children. i have met couples that have said we made a family decision, no kids until we pay off the student loans, and i am not sure we will be able to win time to make the decision. think about that for a second. they can't even start a family because of the student debts and the fear that they will default. i heard it first hand back in illinois last week. one student i'm mad is struggling with student loan debt even though she has done everything right. she emigrated to the united states when she was 11 years old from africa. family was poor, but they to

older, you have to have an education. she graduated from high school, went to a local community college, a good place to start, completed driver graduate degree in sociology at the university of illinois, told me she wanted to help others pick themselves up out of poverty, like she did. so she went to graduate school for a master's degree in social work. she recently graduated the program at the university of illinois, and she was able to get through her under reg will years without much that she spread out her graduate studies over three years as she was raising a family of three kids. she had one graduate assistantship that she had to pay for the rest of loans. to compound this problem, her husband another university of illinois graduate student in education also has to in loans. together she and her husband, now that they have completed their degrees, have a debt of $150,000. one wants to be a social worker and the other ones to be a

teacher. now she worries about our family will be able to cope with that three times what any annual salary will be that she might receive as a social worker. the irony is that even if the college degree becomes hard to afford for the middle class, it is more important than ever that people get educated and trained and skilled for better jobs. on the college-educated workers have had wage gains in the last 30 years. if you don't go to college route your chances of success are diminished dramatically. that is why we want to address these serious issues. this bill and i am talking about, the one that will be introduced tomorrow, will give students with college student loan debt who are current on their loans and opportunity to refinance. i talked to my bentley and other students. it meant for her that her interest rate would come down from six to three. if you have never gone out to get a mortgage or knows someone who did, they will explain to you that 3 percent on your interest rate is a big deal.

if you can get your interest-rate reduced by 3% your chances of pain of the principal are going to be a lot better. this bill that i have co-sponsored with elizabeth warren, jack reed, and others is called the group's students emergency financing. one of millions of current borrowers refinance the federal or private student loans and to lower federal interest rates, and those of federal loans, the same rates available the students who took out new loans this year. under the warren bill those with private loans, many of which have sky-high interest rates and are facing collection agencies can refinance into federal loans with lower rates, stronger consumer protection. refinancing incidently is fully paid for. now, this is a point of want to make because this is where we lose the other side of the aisle this is where we cannot find bipartisan co-sponsors ship for refinancing close loans. here is how we pay for it.

most of us are familiar with the name -- by s2 additional minutes >> without objection. >> most of us have heard the name warren buffett, one of the wealthiest man in america. he raised a question. why he said in america is my income tax rate as a multimillionaire low or then my secretary's income-tax rate. well, there is an explanation in the tax code, but it is not a very good one. warren buffett said, should be paying more than she is. and so we have come up with something called the buffet will. you are in a multimillionaire category will pay a higher income-tax rate and your secretary. when a radical idea that is. i'm just kidding. i think it is reasonable. that is how we pay for refinancing college loans. the problem is, if we go to the other side of the aisle and say, we want to refinance college loans, we will put in the buffett rules on millionaires pay more in their income taxes.

we will not increase taxes on anybody. well, by taking that position they are sticking 44 million americans with college loan debts at higher interest rates and all the problems that they generate. .. better? that millionaires pay a little more so that working families across america have a fair shot at paying off their college loans? or just saying, we're not going to cut the tax code for any reason whatsoever and isn't it a darn shame for these students and their families? well, it is pretty obvious to me what we should be doing. i met cheyenne pishard last week at illinois state university. she graduated with a teaching degree and about $30,000 in student debt. she has got a job, will be teaching at the public schools in eureka, illinois usm a first-year teachingal is were i an upcoming wedding, her student debt will be a burden. if she is allowed to refinance their loan, which she took out as 6.8%, she could cut her

interest rate obama in half. tomorrow when this legislation the troduced, i hope anyone who interest rate, i hope anyone who in half. that will make a big difference. so tomorrow the electrical legislation will help people who borrowed money or have a son or daughter in debt contact your senator and ask them are you going to be part of the college student loan refinancing effort. i hope they will say yes. we need bipartisan students to help them out of the debt they face today. >> mike vickers talks about global intelligence threats tonight. than an interview with mike rogers and then a senate he atag on the effects of climate change. first the senate reaction of president obama releasing five