>> thank you. i appreciate that. i am humored by he argument that this is not a mandate. a federal agency saying 11 ala but have to make it to lincoln had a certain time and can only take 45 minutes to get there, that is a mandate. if you let it up to my imagination of our would get there, it is still a mandate. and so it is interesting that we can play word games. it will have costs. we are a state that is 72% reliant on coal. a state where you take 6-7 hours and 75 miles-per-hour to get across. so some of this does not make a lot of sense, but i have reached out to our major public power entities, we are an all-public

power state. they are all working together. that is the good news. the bad news is, they are completely panicked in how to actually do the plan and how to actually meet the 26 percent mandated a reduction because we are 72% reliant upon cool. so in reaching out to them, they are frustrated with the lack of direction, what they see as conflicting information from the epa on how to move forward, but one of the areas that they would like to have nailed down is the percentages for reductions based

on, is it 2012 numbers or 2005 numbers? >> where we look to start was the data, most recent, 2012. >> that is the baseline, 2012? why would they be confused? >> there is not really a baseline. >> how is there no baseline? >> carbon intensity. the reason people are confused because it is a year that people have been using a lot to talk about our progress toward reducing greenhouse gas. so in describing the impact of the rule epa has compared reductions achieved in to 2032 the 2005 number. the starting point for this is 2012. >> bottom-line, 2012 is the date

that the state of nebraska has to use to calculate the 26 percent reduction, correct? >> that is the date we used to calculate their goal that they need to meet in toward the 30. >> again, if they are using 2012 as their baseline to reduce 26%, they are okay with the epa? >> as long as their plans shows that there will get to the goal that is set forth in the role. >> for 26%. >> 2030. >> by 2030. if that is 26 -- i don't know. >> that is the stated reduction that was told to the state of nebraska. so now, is there any flexibility in the states of using a different year as the baseline? >> well, no. >> we need to start the states at -- where they are. >> no is a solid answer. that is clear.

clear is sometimes good, even if you disagree with that. if states include a regal will portfolio standard in state implementation, does that make a federally enforceable 90? >> the plans will be federally approved. we laid out an extensive discussion on this issue in the preamble that we are interested in getting people's feedback on because we heard this question of what and are looking for feedback on how to design that . the plan itself would be enforceable. to make sure the reductions get done. >> right. i have four pages of questions from our power districts. we will submit those in writing. >> please do. we have had a number of

conversations with officials from your state and will be happy to set up other opportunities. >> i will state that i have talked to some of the board directors, and they said the only conclusion they have come to so far is it will cost them a hell of a lot of money. and we will have more hearings. you will have the opportunity to ask more questions. at this time i recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, the manager of the to arkwright baseball team for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome. as you know, pennsylvania generates a significant amount of electricity from coal, and over the last few years we have seen several of coal plants retire to be in compliance. i have heard this type of early action will be acknowledged. officials said on a recent conference call their intent

credit plan retirements forced by the rule. i am curious how states and generators will get credit for plants they retire or will retire between 2012 and the final roll. >> anything a state does that reduces the amount of carbon intensity generation in the state will be eligible to be part of their plan. so if a state is closing eight coal plant for whatever reason, and there are many why, if that power is replaced with either low or carbon, natural gas, or zero carbon we nobles or not as much generation as needed because of energy efficiency, that will work to the state advantage in building glidepath. >> but they will get credit -- i mean, basically we want to make sure we're getting credit for doing the right thing in the

advance of the final ruling. you were saying there will be the case. >> yes. >> okay. can you talk specifically about some of the opportunities my state might have to reduce carbon pollution? do you anticipate that coal will be a big part of our next going forward? >> i expect and we show across the country that it will continue to be about a 30% share of production, although i do not have the pennsylvania figures in front of me right now. a coal-intensive state like pennsylvania we presume would continue to have a significant amount of power generated from coal. the target that we calculated, in fact, very logitech that existing energy mix into account we think that pennsylvania has things that they can do. it was designed to capture things that can be reasonably done.

>> i want to talk about flexibility options. stay specific emission goals were divined from one calendar year of operations which people are calling the baseline. in the past roles and average of several years were used in order to smooth out anomalies. it seems a 1-your snapshot might yield an inaccurate starting point, especially if the state had several plants on extended outages or some anomalies exist in 2012 that did not exist in other years. with the epa be willing to consider more flexibility of sorts like averaging a few years to establish a more accurate starting point for baseline? >> i know we will get comment on that issue and is something we would consider and start to states about. >> finally, let me ask you about nuclear. several the nuclear generating stations have closed recently,

and it is common knowledge that others are on the bubble. the main culprit is market conditions, but market rules in a competitive market disadvantage base load power including nuclear. can we meet a greenhouse gas rules if more than clear plants close, and since most operate in competitive deregulated markets, did you consider this in your analysis? >> this is an interesting and complicated question. we did recognize what you just reflected is going on in the market. we actually have tried to send some signals in the proposal to encourage the retention of that nuclear generation that is kind of on the bubble. we definitely would like to work with states to see how the plan can help encourage the continued operation of those 0-emitting carbon sources. >> finally, let me ask you about

reliability. one of the most important duties the state regulators have is to maintain a reliable electric system which is vital to our economy. how does the proposal ensures states can and chief carbon pollution reductions while maintaining reliability? >> a good question, and one that was paramount as we worked through the proposal and often as we consulted with the department of energy and other agencies. there are a couple of things that make it clear that reliability will not be threatened. the length of time for implementation. there's a long time. utility sectors, this is what they do. if you give them enough time they can plan accordingly. the flexibility in the plan, the fact that no particular plan is required to meet any particular emission rate over any particular time frame is another way in which reliability will be

protected because states have flexibility to plan resources accordingly. the factory we have annual averaging and lager averaging provide a lot of flexibility. if someone needs to bring a plant up to deal with the short-term issue, and out of -- annual average allows them to do that without compromising their compliance with their own plant. >> thank you. >> at this time are recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> i think the chair. i hope you have the same concerns i have. they're is a common theme back home. wind does the epa that works for me want to come by june? why didn't want to hurt my family?

those questions will be answered in november. i have a few questions you can answer today. the first follows the example of the chairman requiring a yes or no answer. question number one, epa added a great safety valve that 2012 mercury will pass away to stoke implementation. now america's impartial great operators, including the ones that keep lights on at your headquarters have extra staff here. my question is, will you commit to including the reliability valve in the final curtain will? yes or no? >> i cannot commit to anything. it is something we will consider >> it is important, ma'am. a follow-up letter. second question, epa has

justified these new rules with up to 90 billion in climate benefits. health benefits is an important phrase. according to the epa impact analysis the vast majority of these benefits come from cutting pollution, not carbon. mostly microscopic dust. you are just now starting to and to make a brand new air quality standards. my question is, does the epa national air quality standards protect human health with an adequate margin of safety? >> yes, they do. >> that is what i thought. that complies with law. second question, in the entire country, yes or no?

>> i'm sorry? >> the entire country, all of america will have to comply? >> that is the air quality standards. yes. [inaudible] >> yes. >> that begs the question, your scientists have just approved a rule designed to push us to perfectly safe levels of p.m. existing rules will protect health and then some. yet this new rule says that there will be billions in new protection benefits. that begs the question, if the epa gives this carbon greuel credit what is it doing? >> there are two answers to that. the rule that was just finalized

is the standard, not the path to get there. states need to implement measures in order to reduce to meet that standard, and this proposed plan would be one way for them to do that. it could be a critical element. the second answer to your question is that scientists show that there are health benefits from reductions of p.m. even below the standard. we set the standards to protect from a public health perspective at the national level, but there continue to be health benefits that are experienced by people when those particle pollution levels go down. so it is appropriate in our view to reflect the benefits that will accrue from further reductions. >> i have another here that you put out in december 2012.

a fact she. i want you to square comments. it says, mission reductions from epa are already on the box and will help 99% need the revised standards without additional emission reduction. you are already there. why do the standard? you said it. you are there. >> these standards are not driven by p.m. reductions but in order to reduce carbon which is a climate change pollutants causing significant health and welfare and economic impact in this country. the benefits that we reflected are additional health benefits that will be achieved as a result of implementing this carbon pollution rule but will

be a real health benefits that americans will experience. >> the gentleman's time has expired. at this time recognize the gentle lady from california for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for having this hearing today. i want to applaud the administration and epa for the release of this critically important proposed rule to cut carbon emissions. we already set limits for other air pollutants paillette power plants in it as much pollution as they want. yet the effects of climate change are already being felt. jobs are becoming more severe putting an incredible strain on water supply in california and specifically my district, sacramento, where we have experienced a historic drop. in addition, extreme weather is hitting communities across the country. we have to do something. in california we have made strides with a cap and trade

program. energy efficiency programs and renewable portfolio standards. naturally we already made progress by moving to cleaners sources of energy and improving energy efficiency. now epa is setting carbon standards for power plants to protect public health. now, my state has a lot of companies who have invested in other states. how well epa determine who gets credit toward compliance in one state or company that has invested in renewable and clean energy production in another state? i know that epa has asked for comment, but we are hoping that the epa encourages a fair way of assigning credit. >> we look forward to public comment and discussions. basically we start from the perspective of states being responsible for the carbon emissions in their states.

recognize that there are programs where systems are set up so that states or companies will invest in renewable resources that are outside state boundaries. the proposal doesn't contemplate letting those states take account of those investments as part of their plan. >> service california get credit for energy efficiency programs that deal with imported efficiency? >> it is a little bit different from renewable energy. we will focus there on energy efficiency that takes place in state and reflects reductions in use in that state. again, i am sure we will it comment because it is a complicated issue. you want to make sure your not double counting and that energy efficiency is being counted. >> absolutely.

will the epa have ongoing the oversight of state plans? >> like we do throughout the clean air act, we will provide oversight for the state implementation of plans has normally. >> california would have to convert epa rate-based standard to mainmast standard. with this conversion, will it affect the reduction target? >> it should work out to be the same. we have the technical support document and walks states and others through how you would do that conversion. >> what california give credit for its new pacific coast collaborative? the leaders of all four jurisdictions have agreed and that where appropriate and feasible will make programs to create consistency and predictability across the region

>> if states choose to join with other states may would be able to pool resources and targets in be able to put in a joint plan that we can review and approve providing more flexibility. those can be attractive arrangements. >> great. >> did epa find any part of the country that does not have the potential to boost their use of cleaner energy? >> no. >> can it affect the neighboring state reduction target? >> no. it not believe so. as i said, if they go in on a joint plan with others we would look at that as a joint plan. >> there is an interim reduction goal that must be met. what happens if they stayed as not meet this?

>> well, it needs to be met on average over the decade between 2020 and 2029. they can plan that now. there are some states that know that they will have plant closures. each state's plan will lay out what it expects to do over that time frame and show how it is getting an average. we will work with the states to help along the way. >> thank you. i yield back. >> at this time i recognize the gentleman from kansas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to follow up on a question. he asked you about going beyond the source under 111d. he cited the clean air mercury rule. are there other precedents? >> we actually do not think this

is because of -- going beyond existing sources. >> but you gave that example. do you have other examples? >> now. >> under the clean air mercury ruled there was nothing outside of regulated sources. is that correct? >> that's right. >> my recollection is the clean air mercury rule was returned. >> not on that basis. >> lawless much like what you're proposing here. >> have you met with john podesta? >> i have. >> how many times? >> i don't recall. it is in frequent? >> it is.

>> and as mr. mccarthy met with mr. pesto? >> i expect the she has. >> can you give me the information about the frequency, location, and subject matter. >> i will take that back. >> that was not the question. >> i will take the question back >> politics. it is also not about science. i want to make sure nothing is changed in your view. thirty indicators on your website about how you measure the impact of what you call climate change. i want to ask you a series of yes or no questions about this set of regulations so will this

set of rules when police implemented reduce sea surface temperatures? >> i can't answer that. i don't know. >> will it reduce ocean city? >> it will contribute. >> do you have the data to support? , chen wen? >> you cannot predict. >> i will take that as you have no idea. it is that a fair statement? >> no. >> you have no data, no science? >> we have science to show that increased carbon in the atmosphere least a things like a russian a 70. >> decreases in like a race. how much less will there be? >> same answer i gave you before >> you don't know and cannot show me how much less. i would just like to see the data.

it would seem reasonable for the citizens of america to demand you say we think this is the impact. this is what you will get. this is where you would get. >> that is not the waste climate science works. >> right. yeah. science used loosely have you talked to them about the impact? >> yes. >> tell me about those discussions. >> i and my staff have consulted with staff as part of the interagency review process. so they have given us and put on electric reliability. >> do -- when you say in part, do you have a document? did you just pass in the hallway and talk? there has to be a written

document. >> i don't believe there are. >> just discussions about something that is as critical as electrical reliability but we have a radical and you did not ask them to put anything in writing or say tell us what you think in a formal scientific manner but lester said at a table and talk about it? >> we have sensitive discussions >> i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from new york for five minutes. >> thank you. welcome. thank you for your work on facebook.com/booktv power plants the president and epa are doing exactly the right thing by placing limits on the amount of carbon pollution that can be amended. climate change is a serious threat. in the two weeks since the release of the epa proposed rule we have seen a lot of attacks. i want to give you a chance to

clear up some of these misunderstandings. one claim is that no one goes to the hospital for breeding in carbon pollutions of their can't be health benefits. can you please explain how this will help protect the public health from the effects of conventional air pollution and carbon pollution? >> yes. thank you. people do go to the hospital for breeding issues. this rule will, by reducing both carbon and also other ancillary pollutants that are emitted by a coal-fired plants will reduce the amount of air pollution, fewer asthma attacks, fewer visits to the emergency rooms, fewer premature deaths and heart attacks resulting from exposure to pollutants. >> and there's talk about the income on modest income households. i can tell you, representing

households that saw their life savings or stairway is in effect never totally recovered. and so the in action here can be expensive. we have repeatedly that the clean power plant is a heavy-handed attempt to regulate the power system and tell states exactly how much efficiency and renewable energy and thus achieve. this must be particularly frustrating for you. as understand it, the proposal is designed to authorize flexibility. can you respond to this misrepresentation? >> yes. it is absent and left to states, and they will pick and choose the things that make the most sense for them. if energy efficiency is were there want to make their investment than they can do that . if that is where they want to

put their investment, the plan allows them to do that. .. 18% while our economy grew by

18.2%. by comparison the mission comparison the omission mission and the remaining 41 states of our nation saw in missions reduced by 4% where their economies grew by 8.8% so the track record is not intimidating. it's actually quite rewarding. it appears to me what states are doing under reggie is consistent with epa's proposal so the state and our coalition are already underway to meeting the proposed target. is that the case or are we going to have to rework our initiatives collects. >> that is the case in the approach of the states have taken a sydney one approach approach that the states can choose to take and as you say has been very beneficial to the states and very workable. >> i okay. i appreciate that because i was involved in the early discussions about the formation and implementation of reggie. i heard many of the states claim, the same claims about threats to reliability and affordability on electricity job losses and everything short of

returning to the days of reading by candlelight. it didn't happen. i won't say these aren't challenges. they are challenges but they are manageable in the effort is yielding segment -- significant benefits for health and the economy. ms. mccabe opponents addressing climate change is a part of a war on call. his acclaimed power plants going to eliminate the use of coal? >> absolutely not piggybacked coal will remain roughly one third of our power supply in this country under this proposed plan. >> my time has been exhausted so i will yield back and i thank you for again appearing before sedan offering clarification. see the gentleman from. >> representing a call district were lots of jobs have been lost and more expected because of these rules we feel like we are under attack from washington d.c..

that being said it's my understanding and if i could get answers is my understanding your lawyer by training is that correct? >> i am. >> is my understanding the attorney general of west virginia patrick morrissey wrote a letter to gina mccarthy on june 6, 2014 regarding these new rules. in their understanding epa agrees in its technical documents filed with this proposal that under the plain reading of the statutory language in section 111t found in the u.s. code epa has no one legal authority to regulate co2 emissions from power plants under section section 111t. in particular the u.s. code provides the epa is regulating a source under section 112 of the clean air act the epa cannot also establish standards under section 111t. is that true that in 2012 epa started regulating power plants under section 100 1200's mercury

and air toxic rule black csr no black. >> we did issue a regulation under section 112. >> any the plain reading of the less code in the legislation reported from this committee and the provisions of law enacted by the house and senate this decision to regulate under 112 for close the agency's ability to regulate greenhouse gases under section 111. is that correct? >> that is not correct. >> you base that on your understanding that the epa takes the position that they don't read the codes literally because they're so conforming amendment including in the 1990 air act amendments the u.s. cert and the epa assert create ambiguity in what the law is? >> this is not a new interpretation. this is the interpretation agency took in 2005 also in the mercury rule that reading of the

statute. >> and do any of the following still work pretty epa carol homes windy l. blake lex. >> yes some of them. >> the court made an error when he said the position was the opposite of what you just said and i read the opinion referenced virginia versus epa were all lawyers listening in. 517f i've hundred and 74 quote this requires regulations for new and existing use. the epa promulgating bicameral 111d but under epa's own interpretation of the section you it cannot be used to regulate sources listed under section 112. epa bus concedes that remaining listed under section 112 of aconda regulations for existing sources must fall. epa promulgated the new sources

under section 111d on that basis there would be no regulation of emissions a new source performance standards would be upcoming by national emissions cap involuntary cap-and-trade program end quote from the opinion that you just said were you people argue the opposite. the court seemed to argue what i think it matters you don't have an authority to regulate greenhouse gases under 112. not greenhouse gases that but regulate the existing coal-fired prior -- coal-fired plants how you recognize those two? now finding that your lawyers previously argued the opposite and least the court is not a stick in another case was appealed on other grounds. >> this decision was based on completely different basis. the decision to vacate the rule. >> i understand at the giga stated here today that this was not a new position for the epa

to cause of this case. this case says the opposite. how do you reconcile that collects. >> i am not intimately familiar with the court decision you are reading. see i appreciate that. let's talk about good basic lawyering them. you know what is scribner's error is. you've been around the process for a long time and you have gone to law school in the understand when the bill passes and this committee does it all the time and we say at the end our chairman will say that you know closes by saying the technical conforming of minutes. what the epa's hanging their hat on is a scribner's error that it wasn't conforming amendment and you're saying the scribner's error should trump the law of the united states? with your background in education i would expect a better argument. >> the gentleman yields back. at this time i recognize that a lady from florida ms. castor for five minutes minutes. >> thank you very much chairman and welcome.

it's very heartening that america is moving forward to tackle the challenges of a changing climate and carbon pollution. we are already made an great progress when it comes to the cars we drive and fuel efficiency. we have reduced emissions substantially and put money back into the pockets of american families. that has been very positive. then look at what has happened with the appliances in our homes. they are more efficient than ever and we can do even better. the building codes are better. the new technology is out there seeking control with your smartphone what's going on in your own home and save money that way. again the new technology is improved by leaps and bounds and this is part of american ingenuity. we are going to bring that same ingenuity to tackling carbon pollution from the largest emitters. back home all i have to do is look around the tampa bay area on top of the huge ikea store.

we have got large solar sprays saving on their electric bill, the largest beer distributor in the area has a major warehouse. they said this makes sense for us now to the solar panels on the roof. a local governments have done it at courthouses and there is a corresponding benefit that we have created jobs in clean energy. we have created new businesses and we are boosting small businesses all across my community and all across america. so now comes this other important piece in the climate action plan to focus on the largest sources of carbon pollution. and when you review the proposed rule by epa i think the hallmark of it is the flexibility granted to the states. it says by the year 2030, it's almost hard to imagine where we will be in 2030 but by 2030

states will have have to meet this overall pollution reduction goals. some people have expressed to me that the rule grants too much flexibility. a state like mine the state of florida at the state level we don't have much state leadership right now surprisingly. the state i would argue could be the most impacted by the changing climate. the leaders at the state level have perceived from energy efficiency standards. we don't have renewable goals at all so some folks say gosh couldn't the epa had done better by setting targets on energy efficiency? but i mean mr. barrow georgia is producing more solar power than -- and that's pretty ridiculous. there is progress at the local level. my home county of hillsborough

county away cinergy plant plant that has been expanded and they getting greenhouse gas credits. the city of st. petersburg is a leader nationally in what they are doing in lighting and solar power and the limiting wasted energy. here's a question. what will states be allowed to do to harness the improvements at the local level and it's not just local government. it's a nonprofit tennis businesses. how will that count towards our goal of reducing overall carbon pollution? >> this is a great point. i think there are something like 1000 mayors at a pledge to address carbon emissions in their cities and it's so encouraging and so positive. the way these programs fit into a states plan is that any measures that help the state reduce the amount of energy it needs to produce from its high carbon sources will be able to be counted in the states

progress towards their goals. so all these local programs, weatherization programs, building efficiency programs they all will be able to count. >> but you have to have a state organization that will be able to bring all of that data together. is that right? >> well the state government is responsible for the plan under the clean air act as they always are. they know how to do these things so we are working with the state agencies. they are definitely thinking about how they will do this and asking lots of questions and i think they have the opportunity to work with their mayors and their utilities and their local businesses and utilities to make sure they know what's going on. it's the it's really a call to action to everyone. we all have a responsibility to do this and i think there is a great potential for cost savings for consumers. it's interesting that you have identified the potential for reduced electric bills because

of energy efficiencies. if you can serve you save money but one of the problems is the state incentives do not encourage energy efficiency and conservation. hopefully we can do better. >> we think states will find energy efficiency is a very positive program for them to invest in. as some states further along that path of sound. see the chair recognizes mr. burgess for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman i appreciate you having this hearing and i appreciate the witness for being here for so long today. i wanted to get back to mr mr. shimkus in which you responded it would be an 8% reduction in electricity prices in texas. did i hear that correctly? >> we predict electricity bill will go down. >> can you provide us with the formula and the data that you put into the formula to come up

with that answer? >> sure, that's all laid out in arabia tory assessment in the attachment is in the record so we will be happy to point you to where that is. >> you also say and he said in her opening statement that we will avoid 100,000 asthma attacks under these rules. can you tell us since the passage of the clean air act and that was before the earth cooled the first time. it's been so long ago but how many asthma attacks have been prevented under the clean air act? >> i don't know that figure but we will be glad to get you my permission on that. see does this figure of 100,000 include those asthma attacks that would have been avoided simply because of the passage of the clean air act? see the health benefits that we predict from this rule are

associated with the pollution reductions that are required by this proposal. >> you said pollution reductions that this was all predicated on the endangerment funding for carbon dioxide but now carbon dioxide has become a regulated pollutant. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> his regulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere going to result in 100,000 fewer asthma attacks? >> the asthma attacks that we associated with this analysis are due to reductions in other pollutants that will happen as the carbon is rude. >> can you provide us with the journals that back up the 100,000 as well as the reduction to our surging? >> we will be happy to point to the record where we lay out our expectations. >> i'm really not interested in

that. what i really would like to see are their publications and refereed journals that will attest to this fact plaxo once have that i have been able to find really are rather nebulous about the finding that reduction of carbon dioxide means a lower number of asthma attacks. >> we will be glad to follow-up with you. >> i brought my hair since principles internal medicine with me this morning just in case he wanted to look at it. i got a don't see carbon dioxide listed as a trigger for inciting reactive airway disease. >> let me clarify because i didn't quite see where you are going. there are certain air pollutants that are clearly associated with exacerbation of asthma attacks. the impacts that we are seeing from climate change also can create conditions in which asthma can be exacerbated. >> manning i have to stop you

there for a minute because you seem to conflate climate change with carbon dioxide. my understanding of the purpose of this rule was because of an endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and asthma reductions that you are serving in your testimony this morning are as a result of reductions in carbon dioxide. >> that is not correct to let me be really clear. the endangerment finding combat missions -- emissions and greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide created adverse impacts to public health and welfare. and that is the red righty of impacts that the change in climate have. increasing heat. >> i have to stop you because of timing considerations but those are relatively nebulous. when i review the literature, i mean this is a fairly assertive statement that you have made for the record here in her opening

statement and i don't see the data to back that up. i would just ask that you be careful about the language because the language, i think i see why that language is being used but i don't think it's fair to use that. i think we are oftentimes accused of using fear to motivate people to be against some of these principles but here i believe you are using fear. who wants more asthma attacks? no one but your assertion that asthma will be reduced by 100,000 because of reductions in carbon dioxide in the rule that you promulgated as a result of a court opinion, i'm sorry it just doesn't follow. >> if i could be really clear the health benefits that we describe as a result of this rule the asthma attacks in particular, the result of the reductions in other pollutants that will happen accompanying the reductions in carbon.

seau simply asked why haven't you reduce those other pollutants? why did you take this activity to motivate the epa to reduce those other pollutants that it was in their power to do so all along under the clean air act? >> epa and the states have been working for many years to reduce air pollution that results in asthma attacks and other health effects and has made a lot of success along the way. this is an additional program that will result in additional pollution reductions in their real health benefits associated with those. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i have some additional questions so i will submit this for the record. >> we do have some more questions when you have more hearings. the chairman recognizes mr. -- c. sometimes i think the lonely place is the only honest place to be in this town but you be the judge. i accept the scientific evidence for climate change.

i accept the scientific evidence on the common sense that tells me be take all the carbon that god put in the ground that belch into the air we will have climate change. i reject previous legislative attempts to address this problem and i don't think they will work and they will definitely hurt especially when you considered in isolation or the backdrop taking place in the rest of the world. i think taking another approach basically putting mandates out there in the hopes that the technology will arrive in time to rescue. i'm firmly in the technology first camp and i don't think we are doing that with these regulations. but you talk about a number of things that we are doing that some folks are trying to use those tools to get where we need to be. you talk about things like making coal plants more efficient shifting from coal to natural gas. you talk about renewables and

consumer efficiency and if righty of different ways. nowhere in there to talk about shifting from coal to nuclear. the existing technologies show nuclear's family when i can provide significant basal capacity with zero emissions. my question to you is the shifting from coal to nuclear count and should it clouds -- count? the issue than it does. >> in georgia and south carolina where the only ratepayers shifting too cold to nuclear. in my district allowing generators to come on line in this country. focal free will come on line in 2017 and global foreign 2018. how will they be counted toward the goals we will be held to in 2020 down to 891 pounds per kilowatt hour taxi when those megawatts are produced by nuclear plant with zero carbon and they were placed by the watch that were produced by a plant that emitted carbon than those will be counted for the state and it will help you get

towards its final. so you are telling me 2017 to 2018 reductions taking place and will be counted toward the goal that you set for us at 891 as the adjusted average? >> they will land with those plants as part of george's base and how they produce their power it will help address achieve th. >> what's with this in context. in 2005 georgia utilities were belching 2000 pounds per kilowatt hour into the atmosphere. we have already achieved a 25% reduction getting down to 1500 as of 2012 cylinder seven years between 2005 in 2012 we have achieved a 25% reduction. against the president's goal of achieving a 30% reduction by 20,000 -- 20,522,030 why haven't we still got there?

>> each state is in a different place and they make different progress that we did in our role as we looked at these reasonable and existing technologies that people can use and how much more is reasonably able to be done. >> my point is we are are ready achieving a 25% reduction shifting from coal to natural gas. one of the tools in the toolbox and we have plans to shift even more from coal to nuclear. we have already achieved .5% of the starting goal of reducing in 200522030 by 30%. we are most of the way there. white do we have to cut in half even further? >> this rule was not setup to achieve a specific goal of reduction. that's not the way works. it was set up to look at what the available technologies earned for each state that resulted in a different judge a different check. >> but we are utilizing to

technologies. we are already most of the way there. look at get another way. it makes no sense to me that an itty-bitty state like wyoming is going to be held to producing belching 1700 pounds per kilowatt hour into the atmosphere while a state like georgia will be required to belch out no more than 835 pounds of co2 per kilowatt hour. it makes less sense to let a state like north dakota do 783 pounds for is a big old state like texas will do no more than 700. that is the problem i've got to this whole approach. >> we would be glad to spend more time at the congressman and the plane how the targets affected. >> it's going to take a lot of explaining. thank you maam. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia

mr. mckinley for five minutes. >> i would like to try to keep this issue in perspective. maybe get back to the 30,000-foot level to look at this because according to the epa's own web site it says that 82% of all man-made co2 comes from areas outside the united states. to me it's kind of ludicrous as we have this discussion to think that we are going to improve and add health benefits to america and start reversing climate change with 82% of those kanji reading to co2 are exempt around the world. i can't think of any other way that we are going to make this policy work than by engaging the rest of the world into this discussion. this experiment of 30% doesn't seem to be working. if you go back to the kyoto protocol it called for 5.2

reduction in co2 emissions. but by the end of that protocol the globe globe had increased by 10%. it just ignored what was being documented. so while we want to experiment and this administration wants to experiment by reducing 30% the international energy agency is already predicting that by 2030 arrests of the world is going to be producing 40% more co2 around the world while we are experimenting with reductions the rest of the world has not followed and they be going to 40%. china and india alone with this chart you can see this is what they are going to be doing over this time. math. china will be using 550,000 more gigawatts of coal power. by 2030 china is going to increase their co2 output by 60%

while we are decreasing 30%. india is going to increase by 50% of their co2 output while we are decreasing hours 30%. this administration just seems to be ignoring that china, china burns more coal than the rest of the world combined and no one is following this lead. he seemed to be operating in a vacuum. just recently they epa administrator lisa jackson said u.s. action alone will not impact world co2 levels. do you agree with that yes or no? via we'll take your word that she she said it. >> she is said in yesterday epa administrator william riley said absent action by china brazil and india what we do will not

suffice. >> i don't think anyone disagrees. >> with these regulations we are ignoring the global reality that the rest of the world is not following us. we are going to affect our american economy and put it risk with all the numbers predicting anywhere from nine to $40 billion annually to pay for this experiment we are going to be increasing our utility bills and putting americans out of work. we will disrupt our manufacturing base. we ignoring the advice and their predecessors at a pe -- epa. a year from now china india and japan have not reduced their co2 emissions will you withdraw this regulation? yes or no. >> no. >> okay how about two years from now ask if no one is following will you withdraw? >> congressman i can't speak

to. >> i'm saying in the final world since you mentioned earlier you said the final language has to be worked out so well you agree to insert metrics into this? we want to see how you measure success so will you put into the final bill a metric that says that if america's economy is tanking because of this or the world is an following and will continue to increase theirs see it to emissions that this will void this rule? a yes or no. >> i don't believe that there would be inappropriate under the clean out their rule. >> again trying to paint the final picture years ago with this. this experiment in working separate from the rest of the nation and you yourself take efficiency. i agree with you about efficiency but i think what

comes to mind is someone insulating their home and then opening all the windows. what do have we accomplished with this? we are not working in concert with the rest of the world. they are not following us so for us to expect to have health benefits while 82% of the rest of the world are exempt from this is ludicrous. my time has expired. i'm sorry. i hope we can have more of a dialogue. >> we are absolutely not ignoring other countries and we have many other activities focused on it. >> thank you mr. chairman and i welcome and thank you ms. mccabe for joining us here or your testimony. i want to give you a chance to perhaps answer some of the questions mr. mckinley asked

because there are a couple of arguments we hear over and over again from those who oppose u.s. action on climate change. first they say this is a global problem so why should the u.s. at first and second even if america attacks is not going to solve the problem anyway if other countries ignore so why bother? as far as i'm concerned there's no question that climate change is a global problem and it demands a global solution. it doesn't mean they would wait for other countries to act first so to the contrary i would say global problems almost always requires united states leadership in a bikini one would claim that they leadership and action that i want to give you a chance to answer some of the specifics because it's hard when you have to answer yes or no to say what you really feel. >> i appreciate that congressman and i agree with the way you characterize this. there's no question it's a global issue. there's no question countries

beyond the united states are going to have to take action. this has been the case with other environmental problems in the past. i agree and the president agrees that the united states has a responsibility to act both because we are a significant attribute are the second largest contributor and because we are a world leader. we work in the international community and with others or countries with china india and other countries and are working with them to get them to look at similar sorts of approaches so that we can together address this global environmental problem. >> on the specific issue of climate change, you tell us why american leadership is particularly critical on this particular issue? >> well the global impacts of climate change affect us here in united states. they affect their citizens and their families and so we have a responsibility to do everything

that we can to encourage and work with other countries to have them take the kinds of steps that we ourselves are showing we have the leadership to take here at home. >> also issue meant than mention the united states is one of the world's top emitters of carbon pollution. in order to be an incredible negotiator i think we need to take action ourselves. walk the walk not just talk the talk. how will epa sections to cut carbon from power plants in particular from the united states ability to influence the direction of its negotiations on climate change? >> nrd is having an impact. when we meet with other countries in these discussions we see a major world leading economy is putting its money where its mouth is so to speak and taking affirmative steps to address carbon. that shows that it can be done. it shows that the country has

moved forward in that regard and that puts pressure on other countries to do similar or explain why they can't. >> now power plants are the largest single source of our missions in the source of the missions worldwide so obviously it would be credible to adjust power plants and by doing so we can help other countries understand that it can be done. >> i do agree and by moving forward with our power company we can be on the forefront of technologies and the types of methodologies that we can then help other countries with which will benefit our manufactures and are innovators here at home. it's the select me ask you. you have talked about it but i want to give you a chance. then those that oppose actions say this rule won't solve the problem so why should we bother, why should we bother to ask me it's an extremely important step

to help solve the global problem for the united states to move forward with a real meaningful reduction in carbon. >> i would just like to say i assume you agree and tell me if you do, no single action to reduce carbon pollution will ever stop climate change but we will never address this without individual actions of these actions do make a meaningful difference. >> that's absolutely correct. >> thank you and thank you mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. >> thank you mr. chairman. madam administrator many coal-fired plants have spent millions of dollars to comply with the epa's final mercury and air toxics rules. despite the retrofits many of these plants would operate significantly less or potentially retire under epa's

proposed rule which contemplates greater utilization of natural gas. my question is how does the proposed rule prevent the problem of stranded assets? in other words the coal plants that have made millions of dollars in investments to be compliant with mats they not be able to meet the requirements of this rule. there are plants in my state that has spent hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to comply with the mercury and air toxics rule. their generators and their customers and their ambassadors have to eat these costs. >> that's a good question congressman hopefully i can give you a couple of answers to it. so one way in which we anticipated avoiding this kind of situation is providing a very lengthy trajectory for compliance. going all the way out into 2030 that gives utilities time to do

two things. one is to plan carefully so that the plants in which they have made significant investments they can get all the value out of those investments and also to plan to make sure that their fleet is being managed over time. the other thing is the coal-fired fleets in this country is aging as i'm sure you know. right now half the plants are in their 40s i think in 10% are 60 years old or older. there's a transition going on in the industry already. quite apart from that and quite apart from this rule and the flexibility that this rule provides allows states to focus on and utilities to focus on investing in the plants that have a long life ahead of them and make the most sense in order to continue to be key parts of the portfolio and not to invest in the oldest plants where it doesn't make as much sense

economically to put investments into them. that is how this rule helps avoid those kinds of situations which we agree is a very important thing to do. >> in your calculations in developing the rule did you take into account the loss of jobs as a result? did you quantify the impact by state? steve as i said before since since the states will ultimately decide exactly what their plans are all we can do is to do some illustrative examples in our regulatory impact assessment. we did look at the potential job losses and job gains associated with the rule. that's all late late out their. >> under the proposed rule for existing power plants epa is requiring that each state develop an implementation plan and to submit to epa for approval.

what is such a state chooses not to participate? with the epa. >> it is they doesn't submit a plan epa would do one. i will tell you right now that we are not focused on that right now. we are focused on making sure that states understand the opportunities and we are confident that states will want to be an elite on this program. >> we saw so that many states and want to establish obamacare and trying to implement out at the state level. if epa were to impose a federal implementation plan what is epa envision the plants would look like? >> we really haven't thought that through and any proposed plan would go through public process. >> would the takeover energy planning for the states, decision-making about their electricity mix? which you takeover electric rates for consumers? >> no congressman our job is to

look at the embedding facilities the coal-powered -- coal-fired power plants and any proposed plan would be squarely within our authority. see you all right combined heat and power facilities are inherently efficient. what is epa done to prevent those facilities from being swept into the 111 the macworld? we take measures to assure those facilities are not adversely impacted by this proposal? >> combining powers and efficient way of generating electricity so those facilities will be very helpful to states.

see this current rule that retaining power generation is a cost-effective wolf means of producing carbon and i appreciate that. eight years of carbon emission reductions brought by renewable energy were wiped out with the closure of a single small nuclear reactor. i believe it's important talk about this given the fact that nuclear is the only base load power supply there went around the producing carbon. understand the current outlook on the industry have concerns with the direction arena tour agency is taking in reverse allowing them to operate and i would like to ask a few questions on the outlook for nuclear power going forward. past models of climate change compile the agency with major questions surrounding the degree to which nuclear power has been raised is epa considers to be a major area of uncertainty? see at him now that i can speak to that congressman.

we do recognize nuclear power is an important aspect of clean generation and as i said before we have tried to signal and encouragement towards attaining a plan and we know it will be advantageous to have planned. we recognize there are existing challenges beyond our control for industry. standard standard proposed rule on the study that shows 6% of the nuclear fleet is at rest but they are still expected to continue their operations going forward. in addition to this economic modeling of climate legislation by epa and others has shown a dramatic growth in nuclear energy is necessary to reduce carbon emissions. constrain development nuclear energy dramatically increases the cost of compliance. what will happen if the epa's assumption that these plants currently at risk will continue to operate and if that assumption is incorrect what will happen? >> it depends on what is they would choose to do to replace

the nuclear generation so we hope and expect that there would be opportunities for states to go with lower or others he wrote in knitting generation were -- there is a lot of wind power being built in the country a significant growth area. see a lot of wind replaces nuclear power. this epa has the authority to compel those plants to regulate their plants? does any great agency have that authority? >> i could not speak to that. >> recent modeling done by epa determining 44 new reactors would be necessary to satisfy performance standards aced on the lieberman-warner bill from 2088 and others showing additional money six gigawatts of power capacity would be needed by 2030 to meet standards set out in another proposed piece of legislation from 2009.

this epa believe we can make base load power generation must still ensuring reliable and affordable power without substantial growth in nuclear power generation? >> i do and i will note that our proposal here is not legislation like you described. it takes a very different approach which is what is reasonable to expect existing fossil plan to do and for states to do to reduce the carbon intensity and it takes every state where it is. if you see nuclear coming on the ground we consider it. we are not counting and we are not assuming other nuclear construction that is not already contemplated. >> do you know how many and of the proposed rule, and in nuclear reactors will be needed to meet the standards? >> i think we are aware of maybe five that are under construction now so we took account of those and we didn't take account of

others. >> and currently there are eight licenses under review by the nrcc right now. i want to reread 100% of power generation is carbon free. many more will need to be brought on to ensure affordable and reliable energy throughout the country and the key is talking about affordable and reliability. we will need a lot of nuclear power plants to come on line. thank you for your time and patience today and i yield back. >> all right, in closing the commanding committee has outstanding.request that hearing to the rulemaking for new plants. it's been four months since we initiated these request that the epa has been decidedly slow and is documenting. can you tell me who at the epa is accountable to the committee for responding to these

requests? >> the agency will respond that we are working on them and we have responded to various requests. responses are underway. >> all right info you commit on behalf of the ministry -- administration to fully comply with their requests? that won't make a commitment on behalf of on behalf of the mystery but we will certainly do we need to do to be responsive. >> we have commit to have your staff work with our staff to ensure the committee has what it determines is necessary to fulfill its oversight obligations? >> our staffs work very well together and again we will do what we need to do in order to be responsive. >> thank you. we will have questions for the record forthcoming. i would ask that you provide response in a timely fashion. when you commit providing responses to these questions within 60 days? c. right now on can't commit to a timeframe because i don't know how many questions they will be

or what will be involved but we will do our best to be as expeditious as possible. >> with that i want to thank you for being here today and for the testimony that you have given us and the members for their devotion to this hearing. that will conclude our hearing. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> at f on transparency and freedom of information might thank my colleagues would get a similar grade whether liberal or conservative. the freedom of information process has become a joke. it was well on its way of prayer to the above assertion that this administration has perfected the stall and delay direct action and the excuses and really it shocking because i feel very strongly the information that they withhold and protect many

times belongs to the public. the own it but there's no sense of that. when you ask where they covet it is that they are private corporation defending their trade secrets rather than understanding what they hold this information gathered on our behalf. a house hearing with the administration's decision to release five taliban prisoners in exchange for army sergeant bowe bergdahl at the last servicemember held captive in afghanistan. members heard from a soldier who served alongside sergeant bergdahl and the father of a soldier killed while looking for him. this two-hour and 35 minute hearing begins with texas commerce man -- texas congressman ted poe. see the subcommittee will come to order.

without objection all members will have five days to submit statements questions and extraneous materials for the record subject to the limitation in the rules. the purpose of this hearing is to hear more about sergeant bowe bergdahl and is exchanged for five terrorist prisoners from on time of day. let's hope that the bergdahl negotiators are not the same ones currently negotiating with iran over nuclear weapons. be that as it may releasing five senior taliban commanders may put the lives of our senior servicemembers and americans around the world at risk. one of the five detainees is the deputy chief of the taliban's intelligence service. one detainee thought alongside al qaeda hasn't taliban military general. another was a senior commander wanted by the united nations for war crimes and works closely with al qaeda and their affiliates. in fact he led an attack the day

before 9/11. al qaeda call this attack an important part of the 9/11 total strategy. still another was a close confidant of taliban leader mullah omar. in terms of their release are quite disturbing. they may help out the taliban while they are in qatar and it's likely all of them all and fighting alongside the taliban in afghanistan later in the year. that will be about the time the united states forces will be leaving in the afghans will be on their own. it appears that recent law signed by the president was violated in the secret deal. this law among other things requires two things. the administration must notify congress 30 days before releasing on before releasing on time of day detainees and second the administration has to specifically tell congress how releasing each terrorist is in the national security interest of the united states. the administration didn't either. plus it has been the policy that

states to not negotiate with terrorists and this seems to have also been violated. the haqqani network so the ones who helped sergeant. a designated terrorist organization according to the state department has killed countless americans and afghan a soldier's grave maintains close ties with al qaeda most dangerous terrorist groups fighting in afghanistan. it doesn't matter if qatar has acted as a go-between to united states what it did involve negotiating with terrorists in the haqqani network. this raises another concern close to home in texas. one of my constituents victor lovelady was taken hostage during a terrorist attack on a jury and gas facility in january 2013 an event that many americans have forgotten. he was captured after he hit some of his co-workers in a space in the refinery. the terrorists never found the co-workers and they eventually escaped alive. it's been reported that the

hostage takers wanted to trade those three american hostages at the facility including victor for two convicted peers in united states custody. victor's brother michael and the startled air and -- daughter aaron wrote to me to say they were told their government during the attack that the united states does not negotiate with terrorists. victor was later killed. i ask and ask consent that the letters be made part of the record. so ordered. the bergdahl release troubled them and rightfully so. victor's daughter wrote to me this letter the question that continues to come to mind is what makes one american life more important than another and if we are going to negotiate for one why would we not negotiate for everybody? i cannot answer that question and i really do not know what the united states current policy is on negotiating with terrorists. maybe we will be find out. negotiating with the designated terrorist organization like we did with the haqqani network is unprecedented. the department of defense says it will hold sergeant bergdahl

accountable for his actions however national security adviser susan rice has said sergeant bergdahl has served with honor and distinction. once again this hearing will shed more light on that issue. one of our witnesses today serve the sergeant bergdahl and he will discuss bergdahl's is apparent. secretary of defense chuck hagel is on record stating he was not aware of any united states soldier who lost their life in a search for sergeant bergdahl. the family of one of those brave americans who gave his life lieutenant darren andrews is here today is to set the record straight. he earned a silver star for his actions which include protecting his brothers in arms and taken about the taliban rocket-propelled grenade which ultimately took his life. darren left behind a pregnant wife and a young son at the time of his death. today we have witnesses who can tell us what else happened in eastern afghanistan in 2009 pia toscano suffered as a result and what the so-called deal may mean

for afghanistan in the united states going forward. i yield back my time and i will now recognize the ranking member from california mr. sherman for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. andrews we know that you are the father of darren enters second lieutenant who gave his life for this country. we cannot thank you enough for your family sacrifice. we salute the aaron's courage. i would also like to thank you specialist for your service to our country. mr. walls is a senior national security fellow at the new america foundation who commanded special forces in eastern afghanistan. thank you for your service and dr. jacobson thank you for your 20 years of service in the military including your deployment to afghanistan.

the first as to a preliminary issue on iraq let me point out that we do not have forces in iraq. we do not have the status of forces agreement with iraq. it was president bush who installed maliki as prime minister of iraq in 2006 and the misgovernance of prime minister maliki is directly responsible for the violence taking place in that country today. it should not be surprising that maliki refused to enter a status of forces agreement under president obama. he refused to enter into long-term status of forces agreement with george w. bush the man who in effect allowed them to take power. as to releases from guantánamo while we are focusing today on five guantánamo prisoners being released -- release president bush released over 500 prisoners from guantánamo.

most of them were dangerous. over 100 of them we know are fighting us on the battlefield and we know where. most of the others are fighting against us as well. we just can't pinpoint where they are located. and what did we get for the 500 that president bush released? absolutely nothing except thank you notes from their native countries. as to section 1035d of the national defense authorization act the president has filed a report. members of this committee did read it. it is in depth. it is arguably late as many reports to congress go on. keep in mind that we have to construe section 1035d so as to avoid constitutional questions and therefore it has been and should be interpreted not to apply in this circumstance

particularly in a circumstance involving a prisoner exchange. keep in mind that the last republican attorney general of the united states stated that this code section is unconstitutional to the extent asked to prevent a prisoner exchange. now i would have preferred if personal, had indeed conferred with members of congress but i'm glad to see if he is conferring with congressional leaders about what to do in iraq. america's strongest winner president views members of congress as a source of personal input not persons to be notified only when the notification is compelled by constitutionally valid statement. i will point out that members of congress and leaders of congress can't keep a secret. some 16 congressional leaders knew we could ascertain the hiding place of osama bin laden and that information did not

leak. as to negotiating with terrorists is a nice phrase that we don't do it. the fact is we do it all the time. the bush administration negotiated with every single terrorist regime in the world. we identified five state sponsors of terrorism and the bush administration negotiated with cuba iran and sudan syria and north korea. the push of administrations paid an al qaeda affiliate a ransom for the release of bergkamp. secretary of state colin powell designated the afghan taliban as the organization authorized for legal authorization. so now it is said that because we paid a price for the release of bergdahl that this foot terrace around the world on notice. that is that america cares about those who are detained.

a walk through the halls of this building shows the p.o.w. flags from the vietnam war. no one in the world doesn't know that we care about our detainees. there are the resolutions introduced by republican members available to anyone on the internet that shows we required the release of sergeant bergdahl as an important national objective. bringing our prisoners home is important to america. we know it is well and i yield that preceded preceded him in yields back. for the information of the committees we are in a series of votes. the chair plans to hear the opening statements of all the witnesses and then come back for the testimony after the float. the chair now recognizes the ranking member of the middle east sub -- subdivision --

subcommittee. chairman. you are not the ranking member. mr. sherman thinks he should be. >> thank you. .. lose a child in the service of our nation. as a stepmother of a marine who served in iraq, and a mother-in-law to another marine aviator who served in iraq and afghanistan, i know the sleepless nights and the constant worry that air and space when their child or loved one is in harms way. our country owes the brave men and women who have served and earned her gratitude a debt that can never be repaid. it must start with being completely forthcoming with them. in 2011 while i was chair of the house foreign affairs committee, the ministration gathered the

chairman of the national security committees as well as the congressional leadership to brief us on a potential prisoner swap of taliban and terrorists for sergeant bowe bergdahl. although the meeting was classified, news reports from earlier this month indicate that the administration had a team of present the administration plan to us. at the time of the briefing, using all permission given to me, i was adamantly opposed to the proposed swap. as were many of our colleagues. my opinion has not changed. i oppose the swap not only because -- not because i did not want to bring bowe home. it is important have him home. i oppose the spot because the proposal would have resulted in a huge coup for the television. it would have benefited them, jeopardize the safety and

security of our brave men and women in uniform and compromised our national security interest. with so many of our colleagues expressing disapproval of the swap, the administration seem to have gotten the message and drop its exchange plan, or so we thought. theier this month, i, like rest of my colleagues in the american public read the news that the administration had swapped five taliban commanders for the sergeant. despite its promises to notified congress, not to mention its legal authorities to do so, the administration kept the deal secret and acted unilaterally. the deal is precisely the reason for the legal mandate that congress be given 30 days notice he cut the administration has a proven track record of overstepping and abusing its authority. itstaliban use this to benefits. using video of the exchange as propaganda, and a recruitment video and it is only embolden them further. despite the agreement with the , there areof cutter

no assurances they will not be back in the fight in short order and orchestrating attacks from the lavish new headquarters. the fact we are placing our hopes in them, a country that has been full throated in support for the muslim brotherhood am especially in egypt, where support for the rutherford act -- brotherhood acted against our interests there, will further a strain on already damaged ties for partners in the gulf. this may have serious implications for national security objectives, especially as it relates to our efforts in iran. this brought more than a bowe bergdahl and the taliban. it is about national security, the safety of men and women in uniform, and the administration disregard for the law and the contempt it holds for its obligations to congress. hasadministration deals

far-reaching applications, for to a deal with taliban terrorists is unnecessarily endangering all the servicemen and women who are operating in war zones now that these five senior taliban operatives are likely to rejoin the fight. it also inspires the taliban and other terrorist groups to conduct adduction's of armed forces personnel as we have one commander amid the taliban is encouraged by the results of the trade. discussion of the legality of the unilateral decision and the frustration level and much of trust that congress has with the administration as result of this swap. there are many unanswered questions. the administration needs to answer. today it is important we have the opportunity to hear from some of the people, and how the decision has impacted them personally. those who have served in

afghanistan fighting side-by-side with a fellow soldier, those servicemen and women who of waste further in -- who may have been placed further in harm's way, who lost a loved one in afghanistan, they deserve to be heard and have the truth. thank you for the time. >> the chair recognizes the ranking member of the middle east subcommittee for five minutes. >> thank you. to our witnesses, thank you for appearing today. -- i joinedcog legs my colleagues expressing gratitude for your son and family for making the ultimate sacrifice for this country. i appreciate you being here in will be for a full grateful for his courageous service to our nation. here and for being your years of service. we all know that there are substantial questions surrounding the disappearance of

sergeant bergdahl and the decision to exchange the taliban prisoners. it may take months before we know for sure what transpired me days and weeks leading up to the disappearance of army sergeant bowe bergdahl. was he suffering from psychological trauma? was he awol? was he a deserter? beguny investigation has and the army will take whatever action it deems appropriate. i am perplexed when some members of congress have already decided the facts of the case. we have a solemn obligation to leave no american soldier behind . when the opportunity to get an american soldier back from the enemy presents itself, we take it. the country has a long history hitting american serviceman back in prisoner exchanges because we promise men and women when they sign up to serve their country, we would do everything that we can to protect them and ensure they return home.

some of my colleagues have apparently concluded now how sergeant bergdahl's status should be treated. how the facts should be resolved. that perhaps one concludes he be left with the taliban. i would ask what kind of , the kindourt is it of military court of justice that we have, where members of congress play the role of judge and jury, find someone guilty, and leave it to the taliban to carry out the punishment. to questiony right why congress was a consultant or notified of the deal. i believe that was a mistake. i would caution against prejudging the facts of the case. what message are we sending our troops if we don't do everything that we can do is retrieve an militarysoldier the has declared missing and captured.

it is an appropriate debate to have. we should be reminded of the 532 guantánamo bay detainees who were transferred before this president came into office. where was the outrage then? aree have those -- there those that suggest the administration has politicized this deal. many members of the congress amy oppose the deal supported the very idea of a prisoner exchange am urging the administration to do more to secure the release of sergeant bergdahl. turning back to our witnesses, mr. andrews, there is nothing we can say to take away the pain of losing a child. i would like to offer my sincerest gratitude for darren's service to his country. for your service, and all the witnesses for your commitment to protecting this nation. i appreciate the opportunity to hear from all of you today. >> i appreciate the chairman yielded back his time.

[inaudible] >> thank you. like many of my colleagues, i am troubled with the insistence the deal made two free five taliban leaders in a change for sergeant bergdahl was the best deal we could get. the washington post reports that among the taliban and five are or more intelligent -- interior minister with ties to osama bin laden, the former taliban army chief of staff, who was thought to have been present when cia andcer was killed in 2001, operatives to work closely with , won his case file is the most endemic and former taliban leaders detained at guantanamo. i don't know how many of my colleagues have been able of thosento the eyes

involved in killing so many. been, i have there three times. as much as i would like to think that they have learned the error of their ways and would like nothing more than to spend a quiet life with their families would like to be put in the very skeptical column. >> the chair will hear the testimony of one more member. we will hear the rest of them after the vote. >> i want to thank the ranking members for holding today's meeting. words can never adequately provide comfort to you and to can wordsy, nor

convey the gratitude of our nation for the service of your son. it is important for us to live gently and thoroughly and passionately examine the details around the facility at guantanamo bay. we should never lose sight of the long-held american tradition that we will do everything possible to secure the release of an american service member. i hope this will highlight ways in which the administration and congress can work together to protect our armed forces and secure our country. we have worked together in assembling greater clarity in relation to the exchange for sergeant bergdahl. stay focused on ending american involvement in afghanistan and ensure the safe return of all americans. but the gentleman from rhode island yields back.

we will continue with opening statements and testimony of our witnesses. >> the subcommittee will come to order. listen to theo strategy session across the aisle. let's blame bush. it seems to have worked the last six years. i want to thank the witnesses for being here. survivalnt through training, i was told that your country would never leave you behind. air was a mutual understanding that your country will never leave you behind if you never leave your country behind. there can be a cost that is too great to pay. your country promised to always search for you and move heaven and earth to go get you.

i was never promised that our country would release some of the five biggest enemies of the united states in exchange. i am interested in hearing what everybody's thoughts are on why this happened. >> the gentleman yield back. recognizes the gentlelady from florida for one minute. >> catch my breath. thank you for being here. to the gentleman, i thank you for your service. i want to give my own personal perspective. in iraq anderved afghanistan as a united states marine. i am proud that he is home. i, likewent off to war, most parents, i not only feared

that he would not come home alive or very maimed, my biggest that he would be taken as a prisoner of war, tortured, put in a cage. it was unimaginable. that is why i believe so strongly in the u.s. military principle that we should leave no man or woman behind. it maintains confidence, it maintains order. one we send our young men and women off to war, they should know we have their backs. and we should do everything possible to bring them home. thank you again for your service. >> the chair thanks the gentlewoman. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas for one minute. in awas a captain

province. i will take the prerogative to speak on behalf of the shoulders who served in afghanistan. i find it insulting that this administration would cite the principle of leaving no man behind to justify this action. recite that would we would never leave a fallen comrade. soldiers that went after him in the weeks and months after his disappearance knowing that he had deserted. when we made these promises to each other, we did not promise that we would exchange five stone cold taliban killers. would we exchange collegiate mohammed? the national security advisor said that we would not. finally, i want to say something to the anonymous sources and the president's administration. show yourself.

speak in your own name. have the courage of your convictions. , standdon't, shut up back and think these men for their service. >> the chairman recognizes the gentleman from florida for one minute. other sidering the saying, do not politicize this am a that them blame bush. the president politicized this when he had a white house rose garden ceremony for mr. bergdahl 's parent. ask if any ofo the people who served honorably and were killed in action were given the courtesy of a rose garden ceremony at the white house. the answer to that is probably no. either what the president did benefited the security of the united states or it did not. i believe it did not.

this is something that the american people disagree with. many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are looking to run interference for the administration i blaming previous presidents. that does not cut it on this issue. thehe chair recognizes gentleman from virginia. >> idb sympathy to you and your family and to your wife behind you. there are not any words to express the terrible sense of loss you must experience. i have had friends who have had similar losses. my heart goes out to you. thank you for being here today. we are here to examine the decision to exchange sergeant a soldier held in captivity for five years, 45 prisoners in guantánamo.

it is easy to yield to the quotation to decide that mr. bergdahl did not serve his country. i would caution my colleagues, this is not a partisan affair. this is about somebody's service. we should withhold judgment on the quality and nature of the service until the facts are known. the benefit of the doubt belongs facts bergdahl until the come out. it is not up to congress in advanceto justify in leaving somebody in -- leaving somebody behind. resist theet us temptation of partisanship. >> the chairman recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. returned from guantánamo. i got to look in the eyes of

many of the detainees that are there. make no mistake, the ones that we released our in no comparison to the 500 that have been released prior. these were a danger to the men who guarded them. so dangerous, that we cannot identify those that do guard them. they are not choirboys. i will assure you that they are singing a song. thosea death march for that will come their way in the future. the cost was too high to release the taliban five. >> the gentleman yield back his time. they recognize mr. weber for one minute. >> my colleague is correct. this is not a partisan affair. it is a committee of foreign affairs. the president is charged with negotiating on our behalf.

i hope that we implore this president, mr. president, stop negotiating on our behalf, these. some would say in conventional and military terms, what the president did, we got one conventional weapon, perhaps a dud, and they got five nuclear weapons. a.b. we have to come to the conclusion to send a letter to the president, stop negotiating for us. abraham lincoln said in a letter to mrs. bixby, there are no words that we can express to you but to generally relate our sincere appreciation for your sacrifice. thank you very much. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for one minute. >> president obama has put ameri military personnel, u.s. diplomatic personnel am a and

even businessmen and tourists at risk by releasing five terrorist leaders in exchange for a captured american. he have given terrorists the incentive to capture and hold hostages more and more. what we have to realize is that our president has made a decision that will result in our country and our people being less safe than had he not made that decision. resident bush released 500 taliban that was held in gitmo. he did not make a deal. he did a survey to make sure they were the least threatening of those being held. had he done a deal, we would be condemning him as well. this was a specific exchange. a quid pro quo that will do nothing but encourage terrorists

around the world for other terrorists to make similar deals. our president has done a great disservice to those who protect us here and he has put us at great risk. >> the chairman recognizes the gentleman from south carolina or one minute. >> thank you so much for your family's service. it is very personal to me. oldest sons are in iraq. my other son served in egypt. fromer son returned afghanistan. i have a great appreciation for service members and family members. the president has disrespected all of them i releasing five alabamas -- talibans. dozens of people were murdered. pogroms were

murdered just last week. the response was clear. he found out that one of the talibanleaders -- leaders said he appreciated the release of one of the fighters who is the equivalent of 10,000 fighters. this is serious. chair willone, the go into the statements of the witnesses without objection. all the witness'prepared statements will be made on the record. i would ask you to make it no more than five minutes. when the red light comes on, that means stop. you are welcome to summarize your statements if you need to. as usual, testimony provided to the subcommittee is provided to acts. any deliberate misrepresentation

or concealment of information is punishable by law. i will introduce each of the witnesses and allow them to testify and the order they are seated. andy andrews is a father of the darrensecond lieutenant andrews who was killed on a mission looking for sergeant bergdahl. he is joined by his wife sandra, who is seated directly behind him. she is wearing the dog tags of her son. , i know you're time is limited because you have to catch a plane to go back to houston for chemotherapy. we appreciate you and your wife making the trip to washington. we wish you a quick recovery. he was a specialist in sergeant bergdahl's unit. they were previously roommates together. mike waltz was a senior fellow

at the american security foundation. he commanded a unit at the time was sergeant bergdahl captured. he was the senior defense coordinator in afghanistan and was dick cheney's advisor. he was an adjunct professor at george washington university. he advised stemming the -- stanley mcchrystal and david petraeus. he has served on the armed services committee. you have five minutes. you will need to turn on the microphone. >> mr. chairman, ranking members of the subcommittee's. andrews, atuld, mr. the microphone right in front of you. >> i am the father of sergeant killed in the process of looking for sergeant bergdahl

. he developed a medical condition that required surgery. he was sent to germany and then back to the states. he applied to a program and was accepted. at texased in 2006 state university to complete his master's degree while enrolled in rotc. he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the united states army. the forto f -- alaska being sent to afghanistan in april of 2009. we were able to talk to darren by telephone whenever he would call. his birthday is on the third. he told us that they had been out looking for the last 24 hours for the soldier who had walked away. i asked if the soldier had been captured while on guard duty. he said that he did not think so. all that his year -- all of his

gear was found neatly stacked. the soldier's name was not mentioned. darren could not tell us where he was or what they were doing. when we talk to him in the next few months, we would occasionally ask if they found the soldier. he said that they were still looking. no specifics were ever mentioned. darryn was killed on september 4, 2009, our 41st wedding anniversary. he distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism as a platoon leader in blackfoot platoon in the 501st airborne in support of operation enduring freedom. the family was in texas to onebrate darryn's son september 7. my wife and i had been on the coast to celebrate our anniversary. we started to unload the truck.

jared came over and said that neighbor saids that the army called and they were looking for her. we told her to call her and be back at the house at 18:30 hours. the army notification team arrived at approximately 19 a pop -- 19:00. he said that he would probably be alive if he had remained in the truck instead of getting out of the truck to get it out of the hole that the ied had made. we were told that he saved soldiers live when he shoved others out of the way. darryn took a direct hit from the rpg. we attended a memorial service for darryn and other soldiers

killed in afghanistan. the tenant maker's wife hosted a luncheon for us. darryn wass how killed. they were on a mission to find a high interest taliban. room to maneuver was limited. and wascle hit an ied disabled. assess thet to damage. the enemy combatant stepped from behind the wall and fire an rpg. darryn took a direct hit from the rpg. the other soldier received some damage to his ears. the private survived and was airlifted to