the freedoms that we have until they lived around the world back in the early to mid-1970s and seeing how people were treated and somewhat downtrodden in certain places and making the relationship between the type of government that they had in those countries and how the people were impacted. and it's really, it really had an impact on me and is one of the reasons i got into public service business to make a difference. i had no idea was going to end

up certainly not the length of time that i have done it but with that said let me share with you what i have been doing for the last 18 to 24 months because i think that's the most timely period and going forward. i don't think there is a more important job for chief executive weather is a governor, a head of boeing, whether it's the president of the united states than helping create a climate where people know that they can risk their capital and have a return on their investment and be able to create jobs and in turn to create the wealth of your entity. so that it's been my major focus as the governor. i from time to time will get distracted off of that but i always try to return back to

that is the single most important reason that i do in my position to help create that environment and generally by tax policy and regulatory policies which in turn make for a skilled workforce and translate into that skilled workforce. those are the four pillars if you will of what has happened in texas and i think it works or it would work in any other place. even california or new york as i say that that's the most important thing that we do. here's the reason i say that. you cannot have better health care delivery. you can have better transportation infrastructure, you can have better or more

effective schools if you don't first have the resources. i don't think you can have thoughtful impact for foreign policy unless you have the economics back the economics back home to be able to drive that. so from my perspective that goes across-the-board. whatever is the chief executive where we may find yourself if you don't help create that bond of economic viability and strengthened then you are not going to be as influential. i don't think your people are going to be as happy in that kind of goes to my whole fifth amendment position and this blue state, red state conversation that i was engaged in over the course of the last 18 months in particular to go hopefully do it again in a thoughtful and civil event and they went some way.

i know governor brown and governor cuomo sometimes say i am being critical of them but i hope we are doing it in a civil way with a smile on her face. governor brown -- tit-for-tat and we have fun competing against each other as i do my republican governor friends. i am happy to host governor scott last sunday in san antonio as he -- is a world champion. we have fun with each other and then i'm a real results-oriented person. i am rare in the sense that i've been along a round lineup in the role of government to see the results of the policies we have put in place. for instance in 2005 we passed the most sweeping tort reform in the nation and a lot of critics said for this reason you are

doing this. we had 19 counties on rio grande if you are pregnant female you would get prenatal care and today that's not the case. we have 34,000 more physicians practicing medicine licensed to practice medicine in the state than we had in 2003. that's a real result of that tort reform. >> this is where usually play my obnoxious poster also another minute. >> 37% of all the private sector new jobs created in america during the period of time i've been governor was in the state of texas. think about that. one out of 12 people in this country. three out of eight have new jobs created in this country. 95% of those jobs are above minimum wage. the federal reserve chairman

place for a different team politically than i do. he's a democrat that basically says if you took out the medium wage jobs that have been created in texas since 2000 america would be underwater on middle wage jobs. the experiment going on for 12 years relative to these and i will suggest to you people are well served by those in by the jobs we created. we are an incredibly diverse country. i understand that and i find that on a regular basis how diverse we need to be very tolerant of that diversity as we go forward and as we look at all of the policies. i know all people don't want to be texans and people need to be

free to go live where they are most comfortable socially and otherwise. again a one-size-fits-all out of washington d.c. i admit is very good policy and it's one that i hope we can have a thoughtful, civil when some conversation about over the next month in years as we go forward. thank you all for letting me comment and i will be happy to answer your questions. >> thank you for coming. there are lots of folks who want in. loren fox kevin beas david lowder tom defrank rebecca rebekah elliott miles benson murrieta a ratio carl luke stewart and mark shields. my only question is how is today's rick perry more prepared to be a successful presidential candidate and if elected a

better president than you were in 2012? >> i learned some very -- i'm glad i ran in 2012, as frustrating and it's painful and as humbling as that experience was. it was painful. it was very humbling and being prepared physically and mentally is very important. i am of the classic example of a guy that thought -- mika broke my arm when i was 17 and surely i thought six weeks at the ready to go back in the game. it's not necessarily the case. having run for the governorship of texas and it does not prepare you for one for the president of the united states.

preparation is the single most important lesson that i learned out of that process. over the last 18 months i have focused on being substantially better prepared. please don't think that is an indication that i have made a decision on whether i will run for the presidency or not but if i do next year make that decision i will be prepared both from the standpoint of understanding the global impact of our foreign policy economic policy domestically and internationally. choose me as your next leader. >> specifically there has been a state legislature is going to be

considerably more conservative than 2015 so i'm curious whether there is any -- ted cruz's victory in 2012. and not back. >> it's not you, it's us. >> you know texas is pretty big. we are a microcosm. the legislature is a microcosm of the state so i'm not sure if one person has the ability to change all that. we get our 15 seconds of fame and whether was dan richards or whether it was george w. bush or whether was rick perry or ted cruz.

somebody's substantial staying powers to make a long-term difference. i love andrew richards. anchor richards is one of the funniest and most profound individuals that i have had the opportunity to serve with and and go didn't really change texas. so the idea that a personality in the political arena could change texas may be a little bit outside the realm of reality. so ask me in eight years if senator cruz has made an impact on the state. at this particular point in time it's a little bit early to say and a senator would have substandard play changed. i don't know few use that word or not, i will. substantively changed the state. >> kevin.

>> governor yesterday you announced a search operation. first of all are you planning on going to the fence for this cost and second of all state officials state police on the border -- [inaudible] are the feds just going to release them? >> i obviously believe that the federal government's responsibility both in actions belongs to them to the security of our border. i have been bringing to the attention of flagging issues on that border for multiple years. you will recall i stopped on the tarmac to welcome the president and gave him a letter about border security.

he'd do it to his attention and try to focus he is his administration particularly common security on this, mainly children who were coming in on the backs of these trains in 2012. i am deeply frustrated and disappointed in the administration's response both directly back to the state of texas and in their actions. with that said yes i would like the federal government to pay for what is a clear constitutional responsibility in federal government which is to secure the border. we know how to do that and that is to reason. let me back up. over the last six years we have extended upwards of half a billion dollars, 450 plus million dollars on border security. the state of texas has outplayed

to local law enforcement our national guard, our law enforcement to surge into sectors and doing research into sectors it has worked and it has worked well. we have seen the amount of illegal activity plummet into those areas. that's a 1200-mile border. it is a very fast and inhospitable area that is substantially if not almost all private property so the idea that we have had this ability to secure the entire border and i hope you can get your arms around that is very hard to do. the limited resources we have. yesterday i received a signature from the lieutenant governor and the speaker to appropriate

$1.3 million to surge as broadly as we can across the border. hopefully the american people through their congressional and senatorial representatives will press upon the federal government to do their job in securing the border because it is the single most important thing that they must do. you can't have a conversation about immigration policy. frankly i think immigration reform is down the list on the things you have to do. the american people do not trust the federal government until there is a secure border. secure the border with boots on the ground was to treat take fencing in areas where technology we know will work whether it's land-based aviation-based technologies. you can secure the border and the second thing i would do is if you are serious about getting

the american people comfortable with immigration reform needs to occur and can occur then you have to substantially reform the imf. if you don't fix the ins and reform the ins you can't have immigration reform in my view. this is like saying we are going to put substandard way more money into the veterans administration and leave that broken system in place. you have an agency in the ins that is broken. but it takes nine to 11 years for someone to receive their citizenship that's just not right. there's something broken so anyway back to your question of how the federal government. my concern is this government is not committed to securing the border and there are some very powerful messages that we have seen from them.

three to four years ago there was the catch and release as we referred to, people who are apprehended on the u.s. side of the border and they were literally driven inland in some cases 150 to 200 miles, released with a summons to go to work. now, after that was publicly brought to the attention of the american public that was stopped but we are still seeing people broadband, moved to various other places and in too many cases not returned, not returned to their country of origin. service on the company alien children issue though has the potential to be an absolute

catastrophe, a humanitarian catastrophe. and as we deal with the complexities of this off how are we going to actually house and take care of these young people and then what is the administration's role going to be and how are they going to -- are they going to send these young people back to their homes of record and i suggest they are going to have to end that they should. but a question that is out on the table but i think needs to be asked is diplomatically where the government of honduras, called salvador, quadra mullah in mexico allowing this to happen. think about this for a minute. you are transporting young

people in a lot of cases openly on trains from the southern border of mexico to the southern border of the united states across the rio grande from texas. that government does not know about it. mexico is very strict about illegal immigration. think more reading and tijuana. they are pretty strict about allowing people to come into their country so how were we seeing literally thousands of young people being transported across the country? i don't know the answer to that but i consider to be a failure of diplomacy by the united states and working with those countries asking those questions because we have known this has been going on since 2012. this was brought to my attention by our homeland security folks who work in or fusion center at

our department of public safety. i have known about this for two years. the president has known about this. the homeland security agency is known about this. i can answer the question about why are we seeing this spike. i don't maul that but it begs a huge number of questions the least of which is not is this is a coordinated effort by some entity somewhere that has funneled these young children onto these trains with the instructions if you get here this is what you say. i don't know the answers to those questions but they are questions diplomatically we need to be asking at the same time we deal with this. let me wrap up with this one thing. my concern as a governor of the state that from time to time gets impacted by major natural disasters, katrina. and on the heels of katrina rita

that pushed people westward and northward. hundreds of thousands of people. we are just going into hurricane season. were we to have a major event i literally do not have places to house our citizens because of this influx in mexico. i am greatly concerned about the huge catastrophe that could occur with those two events happening simultaneously. see governor you call that a painful experience and can you tell us what appeals to you again? >> i am a patriot. i do care about where this country is headed. i'm a competitor. i believe in states competing

against each other. it makes the fabric of our country stronger so regardless of whether i decide to run for the presidency and i hope to stay engaged in that arena of talking about the 10th amendment and challenging the federal government to allow states to be more engaged in making those decisions, being a person of influence in some form or fashion. maine and not take the role of a candidate. not only is my eyesight beginning to fail but i'm getting to be a bit of an older statesman so maybe that's the role, don't know. i do care about this country. i care about these issues that confound us and challenge us and hopefully this 30 years of public service that i have been

engaged and i can be of assistance or service in some form or fashion. >> ci for "the new york times" that the love california. you vacation there every year in san diego and might move to california when you are done in texas so it's appropriate that the next question comes from the "l.a. times" david lowder. see i wanted to follow up on this. at the risk of -- i want to go back to the border issue. the vice president is supposed to be going down to central america to meet with the leaders of those countries that you mentioned. what do you think you have to tell them and what should we be looking for from those governors? governments. >> maybe not tell them. maybe ask them what is it that we have missed over the course of the last six years in his case that has caused there not

to be a trusting relationship between those governments and hours. i would suggest to you and i've not saying this is just a recent administrations problem. but i don't think the focus out of the current administration has been on this hemisphere and i think you know we are paying a price for that. we are paying a price for that in of trust so i am glad he is going but i hope he is not going to go tell them what to do. i hope he is going to say hey lesson we need to work on these challenges together. what is it that we can do blacks the north american region has the potential to be one of the most powerful economic engines in the world with canada the united states and mexico in

particular. if those countries have economic prosperity and an energy policy and begin this administration is going to have a hard time going to our north american partners and saying we want to help you. because the xl pipeline is still sitting there languishing and the canadians who are our number one trading partners are looking to washington d.c. and not being trustful at all. i think mexico and the mexican issue goes back a little longer than this administration, let's say all the way back to the 1840s. i don't think mexico has felt particularly trusted in the united states and i would suggest to you that central american countries as well. we should have been and again and i'm looking backwards and i know it is what it is that we

should've been working to develop closer relationships and when you know there are proble problems, and this unaccompanied alien children issue is not a new issue. they have known about this and until it becomes unmanageable and i don't want to just jump across the entire foreign policy fronts but it seems that this is how this administration they function. they don't address something until it becomes an absolute catastrophe and then they address it and bounce to the next one. so we have lost our way from my perspective when it comes to our role as being a country that has created good faith and trust

around the globe with people who historically have been our allies and when you look at canada and mexico under central american countries by and large they should be our allies. >> todd. see you mentioned hurricane katrina and possible weather events and energy policy and job creation in texas which has a lot to do with texas being blessed with oil and gas. i'm wondering what your views are on climate change in what the role is of human activity in that and particularly given your love of the 10th amendment a problem like that doesn't lend itself to a state-by-state solution. does not require a national policy to try and address and

mandate climate change? >> let me try to clarify one thing that you said that you intimated that i just want to make sure you and i may not necessarily agree completely upon trade i don't know what you are intimating about. you intimated that texas is economically strong because of our energy industry. the energy industry in texas is very vibrant but in 1984 hour energy industry made up approximately 11% of the state product. today it makes up about 11%. the point is this is a state that over that 30-year period of time and i will suggest to you starting in the mid-90s,

starting with substandard diversification's that when you think about the price of oil is three times what it was in 1984 in their huge amounts of natural gas that can be found that we could even realize we had yet it's still the same% of the gross state product that it was in 1994. it's a pretty strong indicator that this is a highly diversified economy and the substantial amount of those jobs 37% of those jobs that were created over the course of the last 13 plus years came in other areas of the economy not oil and gas and mining. i like to remind people that we are blessed to have the oil and gas industry. as a matter of fact california and new york have substantial natural resources. they have chosen not to develop them. that is their choice.

under the latter issue at hand i do think that states have the ability to make very positive and impactful environmental issues outside of washington d.c. that actually can be even more influential in that, allowing them to come up with innovative ways to incentivize their companies to address the issues of the environment in the me give you some statistics that are factual. over the course of the last 13 years the air in texas is cleaner, substantially cleaner, not just chemicals, pollutants, and in missions like nitrogen oxide -- excuse me not just oxide down 62% since 2000. o. zone down by 23% during that

period of time. we put programs into place that took dirty engines out of the fleets. we gave incentives. all of that has helped create a substantially cleaner environment in the state of texas versus this last week the announcement by the president of the united states that we are going to move away from colon that was a huge economic impact on this country. to say that we are going to take that out of the mix based on what i would consider to be science is not settled yet on the issue of co2.

calling co2 a pollutant is doing a disservice to the country. i think it's doing a disservice to the world and if the president is surely committed to run all of the above energy policy like he said he was really be opening up the xl pipeline. we would be opening up federal lands to exploration whether it's raw or rare earth minerals or oil and gas and i happen to think that there is a role for the federal government to play but it is not in setting policies that are going to kill jobs in this country and clearly that is his intention. i am substantially short-term i am substantially more concerned about iran changing the temperature then i am some 50 year down the road that could be

played by the environmental choices that are being made in the united states. >> that's a sobering thought. tom. see if you decide to run for president -- [inaudible] they say we want younger people and we want fresh faces and we don't want anybody who had anything to do with the last election. >> 66 is a fresh face. >> a minister response. from a practical stand how would you deal with that in and the republican party? >> i would suggest to you that is not an issue. i think the republican party in particular having watched this

young inexperienced president bumble from scandal to foreign policy debacle after debacle is substantially more concerning to them than an individual's age. >> doesn't pass muster with the tea party? >> at the americans are less interested in titles and badges and ideas. the republican party must become the party of big ideas again. they have got to stop being distracted from all of the side issues that may be relevant to some particular sector or section of the electorate or the country but stay focused on what i started my remarks out with is the most important thing for

america. if we are going to have cogent influential foreign-policy we must first have to master policy economically that makes this country strong economically. >> rebecca. >> governor -- are their preferences for who comes out on top? >> i don't. >> that was fast. miles. >> they were saying some unkind things about you some time ag ago -- to do anything catastrophe wise that. you are not worried about climate change and global warming 50 years down the road you say because it's not a settled issue and i wanted to ask you what it would take to settle it.

>> i am not a scientist but i think the idea that we are willing to jeopardize the future of this country economically and let me share with you why i believe that strongly. we are very close to being on the verge of making some decisions in this country that would put a lot of americans to work and give a lot of americans hope. bring people out of places that they don't want to be from the standpoint of economics to the really bright future in the energy industry is the quickest way from my perspective to do that. opening up the xl pipeline challenging the states to allow, and it's their call but there's a point in time when people look around and they see across the border of pennsylvania people getting to live very vibrant and hopeful lifestyle. the story of the two tioga's.

tioga new york and tired of the pennsylvania and at some point in time people go do you know what? we are no longer going to allow you to hold us hostage economically by some small sliver of activists in albany. you must allow us to search for and explore and develop these resources that we have. so economically this country can turn around very quickly. the jobs that would be created by the xl pipeline, just a massive impact economically that the energy industry, which does two things. number one that puts people to work but it also drives down the cost of power and then manufacturing comes back to america. we are already starting to see a really adjusting companies coming back. we have been in conversations for the last 12 months with some entities that want to create bid

manufacturing zones, working with wholesalers that will give long-term contracts to these manufactures that come from on shore back into america to develop whatever the widget is that they have built. if you put into place these epa regulations at the president laid out last weekend it that in its tracks. i don't believe that we have the settled science by any sense of the imagination to stop that type of economic opportunity in this country because here is one of the other byproducts. remember i am a results guy. i put these policies in place. here is one of the results of america being economically vibrant area of innovation an and -- we have been the place renovation occurs. when you look across the technology spectrum and recent history in particular the great

innovation that has occurred in the world has happened in america. if you strangle the economic issue -- engine that keeps that from happening how were we going to, both with the new ways, the new technologies that allow for these issues of global warming to be impacted? we historically, but that technology and then we sold it to the world. so we strangle our economy with these policies. there are 28, 28 coal powered plants on the books in germany alone. why would we put ourselves in the position on unsettled science regardless of what the president says. i will suggest to you that is not settled science. why would we do that and that's my question and i think it's a

good one. >> i think you continue to allow the debate to go on in this president says we are not going to have this conversation and its conversation and it's settled then if you believe otherwise you are in denial. number one i am offended by that and i think most intellectually engaged folks ought to be. not that you aren't but i am saying you are. see you are finishing a 14 year run as the ceo of texas and when he went to the state convention in fort fort worth you were very well received however when it came to the presidential -- he were pretty much eclipsed by senator cruise -- senator cruz and every poll i've seen in your own republicans cruz comes out far ahead of you. why is he so much more popular than you are being relatively new on the scene and how do you convince people outside of the

state that you can make a presidential run even though you don't have the backing of people in your own state. >> i will just remind you that in 2009 i was 30 points behind senator hutchison when we started our race for governor. polls are polls and they are a snapshot in time and i do not pay a lot of attention to polls during periods of oil in between. , i will put it that way. >> governor that may go back to the question which you mentioned as one of the key aspects in your background that would help you. as governor of texas you have had to deal with is outwardly republican legislature and by and large shares your views.

if you went to washington as president you may have noticed that the situation is somewhat different from that. the structure is different and the political makeup is different. how does your experience dealing with a one-party legislature in a fact prepare you to deal in this very complex situation we have in washington? >> well a number of things come to mind. one is that texas is not the monolithic place that you describe it as. we work with our democratic colleagues on a fairly regular basis and you know i have taken half a loaf a number of times when the alternative was no loaf. that's one of the experiences that i bring to the table and

had i functioned for 14 years and is my way or the highway i wouldn't have been very successful i would suggest to you, not even with my own party or the opposition party. so i think it's hard work. i think you have got to spend a lot of time on capitol hill with members of not just the opposite party but your own party and you all are the experts here. you have spent more time up here than i have but i would suggest to you going around the table you would tell me that this president really hasn't spent that much time on capitol hill working and trying to find any solutions to these issues and that is not how i function. i have for 14 years reached out to the democrats and some places where we could agree and work together. let me give you a great example and i don't care whose idea it is. if it's a good idea it's a good idea whether it's a democratic

idea or a republican idea. i think in about 2002 that democratic judge came to me and said governor take a look at this idea about how we deal with nonviolent first-time drug offenders. it was a drug court and i looked at it and it made sense. we had this lock them up throw away the key mentality in texas. don't be confused, we are still pretty tough on crime in texas that we took that idea and we implemented it and today not only do we have drug courts in texas, we have the chance courts, where prostitution courts. we have posted these course which we have given judges basically flexibility and saying to the individual and these are nonviolent first-time offenders. here are some options. treatment, probation, number of

things than it has worked. our crime rate in texas is at the lowest level since 1968 and we shut down three persons in the last three years -- three persons. other states are building prisons. we are shutting them down. now i fall will give credit to judge cruz in dallas for that idea. it was his idea and that is what is missing in washington these days is that we have moved to this time when i would rather get no loaf then let the other side take credit for getting a slice. from my perspective it needs to change it i think you can change but it takes a lot of work. i mean like a lot of work. you have to be willing to share the credit. so i am still hopeful that there

are folks on the other side of the aisle that you can reach out to. i look back to the day when reagan and tip o'neill they go have a toddy together after work and i'm thinking that may be missing right now. >> we have got about six minutes left. see you mentioned side issues that are distracting. can you just named three specific side issues that the party might not focus in on? >> ought not be focusing on. i think when you get distracted i'm thinking san francisco. i got asked about an issue and instead of saying you know what we need to be a really respectful and tolerant country to everybody. we get back to talking about whether you are or straight you

need to be having a job. those are the focus is that i want to be involved with instead of getting, which i did and i readily admit i stepped right in. but that is a great example. if you really are going to be the party that's going to talk to everybody and say listen you may not agree with all my positions that getting you and your family and your loved ones the opportunity to live a better life because we create a climate of this country where you are going to have a job and a good job and a good paying job. if we will do that than i think we will be successful. if we spend all of our time deflecting to the social issue or that social issue than -- i mean listen we are an incredibly diverse mosaic of a country.

it goes back again to my 10th amendment believe that a lot of these issues need to be decided at the state level. social issues are a couple of them and i think our country will be happier -- if we are economically happy and we allow people to live in the environments in which they are most comfortable we are going to be a happier country and that ought to be one of our goals as the government to help not just make our people economically sound but find ways that they can live in peace and happiness. >> we have nine or 10 people that want to ask questions. we have to end so you will have to come back sometime soon. mark. see the denam for us to the one initiative, policy initiatives over the past five and half

years i president obama that you most admire or respect? see one of his major spokespeople and one of his cabinet members when eric holder talked about the programs that have been put in place in texas dealing with criminal justice reform, allowing and i party talked about this from the standpoint of criminal justice and the drug courts. his administration standing up and saying you know what, you are doing something right there. >> that's get us to a minute and a half. mr. muddy you have about a

minute and a half. >> you said we need to be physically as well as mentally prepared. you have some health issues. at this behind you? have you cleared yourself of those health issues and is there anything possibly in 2016.. >> no, i am healthy. two things that were substandard changes for me. i quit running and i've replaced that with a whole lot of core exercises and i won't bore you with my personal fitness program but i do a lot of situps, pull-ups, crunches and planks and ride a bicycle for 45 minutes a day. an indoor bicycle. it's safer. then i stopped wearing cowboy boots. this verse is this. this is better.

see those issues are behind you and the doctors told you are clear for now? >> i've had a number of scans on my back and it was a very successful surgery, very successful surgery so all the distraction that is ongoing with the sciatica is gone and that's not to say from time to time i won't give pain in the backside. >> that's what you came here. see a couple of ibuprofen will take that away. >> thank you for coming sir. d that tended to

lessen the effects of climate change. this is just under three hours. [inaudible conversations] c. i would like to call the hearing to order this morning and today we will be discussing the proposed regulations on carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants which was proposed on june 2.

before i recognize myself for an opening statement i want to welcome ms. mccabe. we appreciate your being with us this morning. it's also my understanding that we have a number of interns here today. some from here in the congress and i know we have quite a few also from epa so we welcome the epa as well as the interns from capitol hill. and with that i will recognize myself for a five-minute opening statement. ms. mccabe we are delighted you are here today. all of us view this as a significant and it many ways unprecedented regulation. and pursuant to the constitution i can assure you that congress is going to do its role and look very closely at this over 600

page regulation that would dramatically change the way electricity is produced in america. and it's certainly a lot more than about coal. this is one of those regulations that will affect every person in america whether it be a manufacturing plant, an electric generator or consumer of electricity or whatever it might be. and this will be the first of many hearings on this regulation. now this proposal looks similar to the cap-and-trade legislation that the obama administration advocated for a long long time. they attempted to pass it in 2009. passed the house that was not successful in passing the senate. now the president as he has said is going to act unilaterally antiestrogen epa to set rules and regulations that are essentially and many of us

believe, the majority of us believe on this committee at least that they are unworkable and will not even have an impact on our future emissions of greenhouse gases or affect global temperatures. former epa administrator lisa jackson confirmed this when she testified before the subcommittee. we will not ultimately be able to change the amount of co2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere alone. the epa administrator gina mccarthy summed up the views of this administration when she testified before the subcommittee saying that epa does not measure whether it's regulations in the tens of billions of dollars spent by the administration will actually affect future climate change. it is simply part of an overall strategy to demonstrate the president's global leadership.

so, these actions appear to be about removing coal as an energy source in america and promoting president obama's leadership perception in the international community. nothing on the president's unwillingness to listen to the american people this proposal raises serious policy and legal questions. epa has never been this extreme under 111 the map before. instead of the states establishing a performance standard for units within the source category epa is not dictating to the states the level of protections that each state must make so statewide rather than individual units. in essence they are requiring the states to alter the way in which electricity utility systems make power. in and our experience with oversight of this agency

proposed rule rarely changes significantly. we are talking about a proposed rule that has just been introduced a couple of weeks ago that our experiences that even after the comment period that rule becomes final. the original clean air act respected the appropriate role for state and local governments. in fact the statute becomes -- begins with a finding that pollution is the primary responsibility of state and local governments. this policy is also reflected in the language in section 111t which has previously been used by the epa in a very limited and very deferential manner. ..

>> >> committed america to certain emissions without discussing with congress or with job creation. we welcome this opportunity to talk to you in depth about this proposal and take you for being with us.

i would like to recognize the gentleman from california. >> don june 2nd and the illustrator mccarthy release the centerpiece of the president's climate action plan proposed carbon pollution limits on power plants. is time historians may identify this as the a moment american but serious about climate change. we know carbon pollution is accumulating in the atmosphere worming the climate we are experiencing the results of this in every part of the country in real subtle power plants are the largest source of carbon pollution but yet today there are no limits at all of the amount o# carbon pollution they can emit.

there are many cost-effective ways to reduce pollution in the proposed rules that they can operate more efficiently. production can shift from the oldest coal-fired plants to the modern gas plants. retirements of nuclear power plants can be postponed. investments can be made in clean renewable energy we cannot contribute to become more energy efficient. the path outlined in the proposal is the path to cleaner air, better health than to say for a climate and a stronger economy. if we make these investments with cleaner energy the united states can be the world's leader in the industry of the future. that is not just a perception, that could be a reality. but he would never know that

from the house republicans they get the same scare tactics that opponents of clean air have always used the false a few industry have a credibility problem when it comes to claims about the economic impacts of the clean air act progress has been in congress almost 40 years in industry has made to stake claims that clean air regulations would shut down businesses and drive prices skyward to cripple economic growth than they have been wrong every time. this morning and released a fact sheet with the inaccurate claims and i ask this be made part of the record. >> without objection. >> in 1990 when congress last amended the clean air act utilities underestimated

the cost of acid rain controls under captain trade that we adopted which has been tremendously successful. they projected allowance prices of 1,000 to $1,500 the actual price was less than $150. ford motor company testified that "we do not have the technology to comply'' not even with technology on the horizon. in fact, the industry began making vehicles that mitt the new standards in just three years. dupont testified their provisions to protect the ozone there would cause severe economic and social disruption in or that the requirements for the reformulated gasoline would

cause a major supply disruption. these predictions never happened. today house republicans claim the power plant will cause a surge of electricity bills to end coal use in america. this is just the same old scare tactic. we heard it is not enough to deal with the climate change problem. not in and of itself but you don't refuse to take a step in that direction because you have not taken all the steps yet. we have air pollution reduction at the state and local level. that is the way it has always worked. under the epa rules. the clean power plant was reasonable and achievable and gives the states the flexibility how to achieve the reduction. the goal of state specific

and cost-effective to show public support by a large majority it is time for this committee to stop the partisan obstruction my republican colleagues of they have the better idea to protect our clinic for children and grandchildren they should speak up. to just say no to change ingenuity to condemn the next generation through droughts and wildfires and extreme storms is not an option. if you have another idea let's hear it. there is no problem we should not do anything at all. >> your time is expired but i may respectfully say we did present of a bill that passed the house of representatives with of

large margin. >> mr. chairman if you will yield but that said the epa may not act. >> no. said they could set the standard of existing plans in congress said the effective date also set a standard for new plants but we did submit a proposal it is waiting for action now in the senate. views said we are not submitting a proposal that was one of them. we feel quite confident. the energy emissions are the lowest today than in 20 years and the mansion with a field bill would make it even better. at this time the gentleman from michigan is not here so i will recognize mr. barton if he does not utilize all of his time.

>> does the chairman now with their other members? >> i will recognize the gentleman and from texas. >> thank you. mr. chairman and members of committee and to our witness one could argue the audacity of this proposal is so breathtaking in and of itself it is a health hazard because it literally takes my breath away. with what they have proposed in the case of my state, if taxes were to implement this in its entirety between 2012 and 2013 we have to reduce co2 emissions by 41%. 41%. we also in terms of the national total have to reduce co2 emissions that

would be 25 percent of the national total. i interest and texas is unique because we are creating jobs we still have an economy that is growing and in fact, over all of the net new jobs created in the last 10 years were created in texas. most people think that is a good thing but the administration says that is a bad thing so it is punitive in its nature and as the chairman has pointed out there are no false claims nobody is claiming this improves the of public health which is the number one goal of the clean air act and nonet environmental benefit even if it was a global warming believer which i am not, this does not allege any net benefits to a changing global warming. what it is is an exercise of

political arrogance that the epa has the power and even that is debatable under the clean air act of the power plants currently in operation regulated under section 112 of the clean air act. says claims we could regulate the same power plants better already regulated under section 111d is skeptical but i believe it will be overturned on that alone. my good friend from california with his opening statement referred to a carbon pollution but actually what we are regulating is carbon dioxide which i am creating as i speak to and which every person in this room is creating an issue brief. i don't know, adds a few

breeds but i don't think everybody is a mobile source polluter. may be the stance of the obama administration but not mine so calling co2 to be pollution does not make it so. i could call mr. waxman a conservative but that does not make him a conservative or he could call may a liberal. 22 seriously you review this proposal as the subcommittee does or the full committee does we will come to the conclusion this is more of a political proposal that an environmental proposal. i point out texas has reduced co2 emissions from the 2012 baseline 41 percent of louisiana's 50 florida 28

pennsylvania 25 arizona 45. oklahoma 40 illinois 20. new york 49%. alabama a 24%. arkansas 46%. what is glaring about this list is the top 10 states to stayed with a the greatest population base is the los angeles basin in california is not even on the top-10 list and there the number one state with population. i could go on and on file they have 29 seconds. we have great respect for the epa i voted for those amendments in the '90s. this proposal does not

comport with maya understanding of the clean air act when we pass them in this committee over 20 years ago. with that i yield back. >> we recognize the gentleman from chicago for his five minute opening statement. >> thank you for this important hearing on the epa as part of president obama is climate action plan to cut mitigate the assessment of climate change this will allow the epa to use the existing authority to control carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel power plants. and imus say this could not be more untimely as these power plants account for the

largest source of greenhouse gases in this country. and they are responsible for the total gas emissions. that no current amendments of carbon pollution. this new proposal seeks to cut emissions by 30 percent compared with the levels by 2030 and gives states great flexibility when implementing the rules based on the existing infrastructure and policies. wallaby hair from industry groups -- while we hear from industry groups the newly

released report from the omb contradicts that claim. we know that the 34 major epa rules issued between 2003 and 2013 at the benefits have greatly exceeded the cost in fact, the rules issued under the bush administration the clean air interstate rule issued 2005 and the particle pollution rule issued 2007 with the highest estimated benefits and more importantly the science is settled. climate change is real and negatively impacting their

lives and livelihood of the american people. greasy extreme weather events from flooding on the coast to drought and crop losses and the planes and in the midwest. that is why mr. chairman for former republicans administrators with president nixon and reagan with the climate change rule just yesterday as george to view bush source as the administrator christine todd whitman called the

subcommittee "the issue has been settled. the epa does have the authority, the law says so the supreme court said so twice. for that matter i now believe should be put to rest. the american people expect their leaders to address the serious threats not only to our environment the national security even the reagin epa minister said the science on this matter told the same panel that other greenhouse

gases are warming the atmosphere. we know it is contributing to more than 1.5 degrees fahrenheit rise in temperature. if congress refuses to listen to what the american people to man that the very least to do its job then they will go a long to address this dire issue per garment forward to hearing from our witnesses today. i yield back. >> the time is expired. this time i will recognize is ms. mccabe to get her views on this issue and as i said in the beginning we look forward to your testimony and the opportunity to ask you questions.

you are recognized for five minutes. >> the key chairman winfield and members of the subcommittee at 84 they opportunity to testify on the recently issued a clean power plant proposal. climate change is the greatest challenge of our time and already threatens human health and welfare and the economic well-being and if unchecked will have a devastating impact on the united states and planet. the science is clear the risk is clear and the high cost of inaction are not clear -- artillery must act so that is why obama laid out the climate action plan and administrators signed the clean power plan to lead the world in our global climate fight. power plants of the largest source of carbon dioxide

emission accounting for one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions while the united states has limits in place for arsenic arsenic, mercury, and particle pollution there are no national limits on carbon pollution levels that will cut hundreds of millions of tons the other harmful pollutants from existing power plants in together they will provide important health benefits to more vulnerable citizens including our children. the clean power plant as a critical step forward built on advice and information for states and cities and businesses and utilities and thousands of people about the actions taken to reduce carbon emissions the plan claims to have energy waste by first using a national framework for achievable

state specific goals to cut the the megawatt power and empowers the state to have their own customized past to meet their goals reno called a natural gas played a significant role in this plan does not change that but builds on action already under way to increase efficiency and pave the pass for more conventional fuels. the epa stakeholder outreach was unprecedented. starting last summer we held sessions around the country with a broad range of stakeholders to talk with every single space now the second phase we already had dozens of calls the stake holders and the more formal process by for this

stakeholders for pop -- general and put this is a proposal and we need input from the public. that is why we having caged state utilities to get feedback. looking at where states are today and followed her they're going. each state is different cities path can be different stemming from where states are taking a vantage of right now under the proposal is considering jobs and communities in the transitioning energy world allows enough time with the rule is vital to compliance to make the right investments to share reliability. our plan does not just get states more option but

entrepreneurs more options to unleash the market forces that drive investment a greater power and bow carbon technology. when states meet their goals there'd be 30% less carbon pollution across the u.s. when compared to the 2005 levels. metric tons of carbon dioxide taken out of here. we will cut pollution that causes smog by 25 percent the first year these go into effect we will not avoid 100,000 asthma attacks and heart attacks in the numbers go up from there. in 2030 the clean power plan will have benefits up to $90 million and that means for every dollar we invest families will see $7 of health benefits because energy efficiency is said to a cost effective strategy we predicted in 2013 the average electricity bill

will be 8% cheaper. obama action plan gives a road map to meet the pressing challenge of the climate to promote clean energy solutions to capitalize on innovation to drive economic growth including coal and natural gas. the targets that can be achieved using measures that they choose themselves to suit their own needs the epa looks forward to the discussion and i look forward to your questions. >> thank-you ms. mccabe and neglected to mention she is acting assistant administrator at epa's we do appreciate you being here. of recognize myself for five minutes of questions and statements. i notice ms. mccabe we have that question period we also make statements so i

probably did of little bit of both. i wanted to read a statement from the coordinating lead article his name is dr. schneider of course, that is the international panel on climate change recognized as though world leader. but he made this statement on one hand we're ethically bound to the scientific method promising to tell the truth to include all the doubts and hang caveat. but we're human beings and want a better world but we must have media support. we must offer a scenario to make dramatic statements and

do not mention any scientific doubt then concluded by saying we decide what must me done to be most effective to get the message out. i say that because you were positive in your statement and it is our responsibility to raise doubts the dr. schneider is not the only lead coordinator. others have said we need to make dramatic political pressure on political peters. others said we have the worst case model serial but we have to focus to see what is really going on. my first question i would like to ask is the cpi is -- to pay corporate taxes and regulation under section

111d my understanding that you issued regulations under five occasions. now 111d traditionally has focused always on standards for specifics and it has never then attempted to do it in a state wide way. sets a standard to be achieved only statewide what president is there for this type of standard setting that has never been done before? >> there were six regulations issued under 111d with the clean air retro role in 2005 and to that took an approach for

utilities to trade among themselves to reduce emissions. thank completely within the four corners of 111d to identify what has been adequately demonstrated for the particular sector it is a fully integrated system that encompasses the kinds of technologists -- technologies and we know that because that is what we've heard. to reduce this from fossil q0 industrial plants. >> but basically you are setting up renewable mandates in setting the efficiency of the coal plant , determining the natural gas capacity what

capacity must be run and setting consumer demand going further than you ever have before in my opinion. >> we're not setting any mandates. >> but it is then the regulations limit their not mandates but the states have flexibility. >> they have to meet the four standards. >> they do not. >> but they have to meet your target. >> overall target but they can get there however they choose. >> i only have 15 seconds. one of the real concerns that we have we cannot build the new power plant because the technology is not there to make it feasible. the plant in mississippi is a $5 billion cost overrun in europe they have shut down

natural gas plants because prices cannot compete against russia but they're building new coal-fired plants and imported 53% of our exports of they have the flexibility to build new plants but we don't. is that fair to the american people? >> i disagree. rethink new coal plants can be built and they're going forward. >> rabil recognize the gentleman from illinois. >> i want to commend you ms. mccabe the epa and your colleagues the way you have approached this proposal.

you have been fairly open in this process and from what i hear today there would be more and more opportunities for states and stakeholders to hear their voices and a look at this proposal to have positive commentary on this proposal. ion from the midwest. way hagel of of higher pollution is starting out at the gates but we have more

opportunities explain to me and others in more detail how you develop the state's rules for the midwest and different situations in different states are reflected in the individual states roles. >> that is of very could question that we have been getting a lot. :back to the fundamental approach to take every state former it started when of allow this things is please don't do the of one size fits all the everyone has to do meet the demand and recognized states are in different places with the energy max so that is the approach that we took so

reluctant the power sector what people were already doing and what could be done but we found for that were the most prominent and promising to satisfy emission reduction. let's have the coal and gas plants to be efficient and we found that is being made across the country. what else are they doing? they're using gas plants more than coal plants but that results in less carbon. that was number two. number three was states all across the country are

looking at increasing the energy from renewable sources and that is say positive trend being pursued by a lot of people in of that was the third element. fourth, that a great interest across the country in almost every state to employ on the demand side surveyed now there is many, many ways to waste less energy and it is important to bring carr been down as well as other pollutants. we have a national framework that said a reasonable and moderate expectations for each of those for recognizing those were not the only things that states could do. we took the most recent information of the power sector in 2012 to apply those for building blocks to each state.

that generated the car bin intensity rate and this is what we think are reasonable to achieve. >> thank you so very much. my constituents when they heard about this proposed rule was going on was the price of electricity. with friends are engaged in fear mongering with the cost by low income constituents. so how does that affect the electricity bills for my constituents? to read the first and most important is each state is in charge of designing its own plants. number one, they both of the

opportunity to take those credit considerations to build those into their plan but also e.p.a. cannot predict what every state will do. and we do include those numbers. with the increase of energy efficiency implemented as a result of the rules that we predict will go down because people will be using less energy than the price of electricity will go up but the bills will come down. i also know that the low income families are the most at risk for the adverse effects for carbon pollution

and climate change jinmen gravely and it achieves those benefits. >> your time is expired. >> with the no energy policy a authority now placing itself under the of public commissions on director generation in issues not to mention other agencies. last month the d.c. circuit ruled without peer in a specific grant of jurisdiction the federal government cannot regulate areas of electricity from the federal power act to the state's lead generation interstate transmission and. but what it calls flexibility to mandating

efficiency are part of the interstate generation and transmission and distribution matters reserve by the federal power act for the state's. for third to use these specifically the jurisdiction over intrastate matters? where is the site you can refer to? >> this is not an energy plan but the rule done within the four corners of 111d that looks to reductions of the missions no state is required to enter into any particular agreement. >> you don't have a specific site? >> neither toe or ferc can

say had to operate their system. >> that is not what the rule does it is a pollution control rule. >> assuming you did have that legal authority can identify all federal and state agencies with the systems under the proposal? >> we have been talking to manet agencies but state government as they always are that are responsible for putting the plans together. >> looking at the budget

been taking a reduction with the agreed upon amounted a bipartisan way, the cr passed last january, you identified at the federal bubble to conduct this review of oversight? >> and that epa will active in the traditional role. >> but you have the hammer to go after them so will there be new folks engaged? >> we think the states will take a leadership role. >> what if they don't? i heard the west virginia and governor say that every utility in his state would be closed.

every coal-fired facility in his state will be closed. >> again i think states will want to be in the lead. >> i think i know where they want to be. >> i would suggest the plan does not require that all coal plants be closed in that stage or in any state. >> i yield back. >> at this time i will recognize the gentleman from california. >> doesn't the epa under the clean air act set standards the states have touche made that affect their energy resources within that state? to make to the extent that addresses pollution. >> so this is not unprecedented. it is not.

>> did they ask for a greater flexibility are that they should tell them what to do? >> favor arguing for a of greater flexibility for those tools. >> that there are a number of ways to reject that carbon pollution coming from the power plants if it is up to the states have to do it. this is not a mandate from washington how to accomplish but a mandate from washington to achieve the goal. >> that is correct. >> with respect with the

clean air act that is right to. >> it does not achieve the goals it seems every one of those is incorrect it comes up with the argument it has say bad impact on the economy to people make the claim that will help the economy? >> looking at a respective in packs will also heard from those that were moving forward them realigned in the proposal with the

additional investment with the creation of jobs it pursuing energy efficiency. >> put into the record of all the quotations of the last 40 years of the industries that said they could not achieve what the epa was asking them to under the law passed by congress on a bipartisan basis. they cannot achieve without closing down or suffering dire economic consequences. rehearings exaggerated claims of job loss or exaggerated electric cost. these are domesday claims that we have heard before. and in the paper we put out the showed how these claims were made and how interactive they were.

so to give us guidance if we have to choose between clean air or strong economies. >> and to the history of the clean air act shows we do not. that the united states says a global leader of control technology and energy efficiency and we expect that continue with this program as well. >> we heard a claim on the other side that this epa proposed rule would have no impact on public health. can you give us your view? >> we disagree. as i noted the rule of a 25% reduction of suit -- of soot and smog pollution as well as carbon pollutants they

affect public health to reduce those taking them of the air will it improve global health stibnite this just isn't a warming plan it to have been an impact on the health of people of the power plants? train wreck that's right. those are important. benefits. >> it makes sense thank is flexibility in the chiefs' the goal to encourage a entrepreneur ship with that technology to make arrests of peter to accomplish these goals. i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. >> it is great to be here. >> i am sorry.

mr. burton was on the best first. >> i am glad mr. waxman was year because a's are a the will live job losses i invite you to come by to lose their jobs under flexible system controlled by the state in the state made the decision to close the mine with told hundred workers so talk about the debate we're trying to save our jobs in this country and the president promised to make electricity generation and by call so extensive he would drive that out of our market. promises to the "san francisco chronicle" well-documented use following upon his promise of those of us in the coal regions of this country are

under attack can we have to deal with this with a constituency and the debate. that is why there is a lot of the motion as you can imagine also the nuclear portfolio there is some curious things about this rule that creates a problem based on the states and had clean burning nuclear power or generators that have shut down but still have the standard by which they cannot meet to incentivize the nuclear power if if we are in to clean air or climate change we should be incentivize. for nuclear reactors premature to close one was the plant in wisconsin. when you offset the reduction target it did so

based on the riches of the production in 2012 the year it was still operating. he were calculating your reductions a year with a nuclear plant operating with no car bin emissions. that facility closed now that state and others that have nuclear power i have one of the largest in the country is disproportionately art -- harm to by these rules. extremely. sold wisconsin has to compensate for the loss to reduce even further than the target. is that analysis correct? >> let me explain. >> quickly. >> this addresses the fossil fuel sector. that is our responsibility under 111d. our job is to identify the

best system of reduction in for fossil fuel plants not including nuclear. in 2012 looking at the emissions of beach state from fossil generation then what that reduction was from a national basis to results in 2013 we recognize states rely on nuclear power that is very good. >> but we disenfranchise those that have the nuclear option. >> in fact, we give them credit for some portion of nuclear in their compliance. >> but to meet the standard they have to have more cuts when the plant is closed because you base that off the in the shins of 2012 but they generate portfolio was based on a nuclear plant that was operating. >> it is not an energy plan for the state. >> that is the problem for

the rate payers. because if they have zero emissions drops off whenever the base loaded as they have to make that up or the cost will go up. we're not taking into consideration with the car bin debate zero remittance. we should be incentivizing fat. >> we are. any state that uses zero emissions generation to replace coal-fired or to meet their deeds absolutely they will be able to count the with the compliance plan to move them to the goal. >> i appreciate that answers derek what happens if the epa does not approve the state plan? directive save provision of language we are not in a position to approve but the epa will move forward.

>> then you will have a better one. >> we are not focused on that right now. >> but that is the rule. >> what will that looks like. >> we have not come anywhere near. >> and would suggest you start looking into that. i yield back my time. >> i recognize the gentleman from kentucky for five minutes. >> last fall administrator mccarthy met with our governor to discuss the proposed rule and afterwards kentucky has a framework with recommendations to develop a rule to reduce carbon pollution cost effectively while hoping that flexibility minder standing is epa follows almost all of the of recommendations. >> i believe so.

>> that allowed states to have measures such as energy efficiency rather than forcing states to reduce emissions of any specific plant and recognizing differences and to allow compliance options as you said. but here is another example of how the flexibility can help. the american recovery investment act established a rebate program to spur development of appliances. general electric does the major manufacturing facility and because of that program were able to bring in an refrigerators from mexico to create hundreds of jobs in the process. does the proposed rule allows states to take credit

through initiatives like this one? mimics certainly any program that encourages his sore incentivizes war provides for ways to save energy which means last -- less carbon going up the stack is credible. >> we're glad you agree that is a good example how to create flexibility and help consumers save money. i am glad the chairman at mentioned waxman murky in his opening remarks because i would was one of the group of 10 or 12 representatives from states our heavily dependent on car bin energy who went to the leadership and basically said we could not support the bill was originally drafted and it would be devastating for

consumers and they made changes. before i voted for the bill i talked to all major consumers of energy in my district with general electric being one, a ford ford, the university of louisville, of the school system, ups and not one of those users objected to that proposed law. talking to our utility company to ask the impact on residential customers and they said rethink after ted years the average user rates will go up 50 -- 15% in don't do anything else. if they pay $200 per month

they'll pay 230 in 10 years so i felt comfortable i could photon that knowing it is minimal decorative impact on my constituents. i am glad he compared now to back them. another bill the republicans killed but to get to to the manufacturing businesses objective to move out of the states because i have not heard i have a lot of them so my question is to you for it has almost day couple billion dollars. i can i just picked up and

they've of the rates in the short term it is about 3% it seems hard to logically predict of 3% rise of the manufacturing companies rates would be enough of the financial disincentive to pick up a major investment is that part of the calculation? >> energy efficiency is good for everybody and good for business. we although that. the increases of electricity prices are modest in the short term and then go down over the long term. i think business as well take that into account. >> the gentleman from texas. >> am i not correct

administrator ms. mccabe that this proposal that we are discussing today is not required by the clean air act? >> no. it is required when we issue 111d standard for a sector to go forward with that 111d standard. >> a think that is wrong. it is allowed dido's see any authority that demands these proposals i do except there is a supreme court case and the presidential finding of and determined to allow the clean air act to be used but i don't see where this has to happen. day you agree with that? >> respectfully no. >> and i was the general counsel of the epa to back that up and send that to the committee.

my a understanding what you are attempting to propose is directed by presidential speech dated june 25, 2013 called the climate action plan that has been followed up by a presidential memo where some of these requirements were directed to the epa to implement. i would assume you are aware of this memo? >> i am. >> can you tell me what the legal force of the presidential memo is? >> the memo and climate action implant laid down a series of steps within the epa and other agencies to move forward. the president gave us a schedule with the rulemaking in suggested we undertake those within our