of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions of the united states has limits in place for levels of arsenic, mercury, sulfur taxes to one nitrogen oxide a particle pollution that power plants can inmate. ..

>> play a significant role to with those hatches already under way to modernize aging plans to increase efficiency and lower pollution as it has more conventional fuels in a clean energy economy. the epa's day coulter of reach of preparation of the rulemaking was unprecedented. we hauled 11 sessions around the country and participated in hundreds of meetings with a broad range of stakeholders across the country and we talked with every state.

now the second phase has begun. who already had dozens of calls with the stakeholders in the more formal public process. both the public comment period running through october 16, 2014 and public hearings next week in atlanta and denver and washington d.c. provides further opportunity to stakeholders and the general public each state is different cities pass can be different with those opportunities there already taking advantage of right now and under the proposal they have a flexible compliance to allow them to have considered jobs in a transitioning it energy world also allowing them 15 years in an toe compliance

with the final target to make the right investments and ensure energy reliability all told in 2013 when the states meet the goals it will have a 30% carbon pollution across the wes in comparison with 22,000 levels in addition of more than 25 percent the first year the standards go into effect it would be 100,000 asthma attacks and 2100 heart attacks than the numbers go up from there. in 2030 the clean power plant will develop benefits up to $90 billion for every dollar we invest families will see $7 of health benefits and because energy efficiency is such a smart strategy we predicted and 2030 the average electricity

bills will be 8% cheaper this proposal sets targets at a schedule that they choose themselves to suit their own needs the epa looks forward to the discussion and i vote for word to your questions. >> i will start. responding to a couple of my colleagues have it is important but senator barrasso was elegant to attack but if you don't know this is their goal and see what you think of it, "to safeguard their natural assistance on which all life depends.

>> again further whetted had essentially released at a press club event in 2012 it is true the epa borrowed from that but good for them to put out it is because that flexibility was very smart. i know they have held stakeholders' sessions before it was proposed i am sure there low-paid questions but then my friend also very eloquently says the president uses unilateral action. no. and i will quote from a republican and head of the epa she said this right

here. have to begin by expressing my frustration with the discussion the epa has the legal authority to have carbon emissions. the issue has been settled. epa does have the authority the supreme court says so twice. i would add since then supreme court acted icahn and it upheld the authorities of the epa so why do we have to fight about things that have been settled three times by the supreme court? it is a pleasure to debate but we should move on about that. my question is the clean air act states air pollution prevention and control at a source with the state and

local government how does the proposed rule to control carbon pollution for existing power plants upfold the relationship between the federal government and state and local governments? and to be specific california has been a leader to reduce the carbon pollution in that climate change program driving investments from clean energy spurring job growth and i want to make sure under the proposal to continue the climate change program to use the existing program says the state compliance plan. so few could elaborate. >> i would be happy. let me indicate there is tremendous flexibility because the epa listened to

every stakeholder. when we met unprecedented in the of reach efforts that were historic to stakeholders and also environmental constituents as well. we heard from everyone it is important to have flexibility and i read the clean air act that looking at where they are today looking at a reasonable practical efforts to undertake to reduce pollution. the flexibility is not just the fact with individual states standards but the energy system for each of those states. also provided 15 years to move forward that does not even begin until fall 2015 to achieve the standards to their chief dan 2030 so it

is a tremendously long time line but every state has its own compliance strategy what they want for their own fuel diversity and to invest in and the great thing about the proposal is it really is the investment opportunity. is about increase efficiency the matter where you are. the investments every nobles and clean energy and in people's ability to lower their electricity bills to get good clean inefficient appliances, holmes, rental units, it is the investment strategy that is not just reducing carbon pollution but will position the united states to continue to grow in every state based on their own design but the loss so position us tremendously

internationally. >> and also get credit. >> i should mention bill been entirely to individual state plans if they want to the california once do continue with the cap-n-trade program it can do so but looking for reductions with the fossil -- also feel facilities used your imagination how to get here. but you set the standard based on science we will get there in the cheapest and most cost-effective way that we can. we actually tell states to go do that. >> thank you very much. >> madam administrator it appears now in their proposals with the regulatory impact analysis that climate benefits are calculated using your working groups social cost of carbon estimate. previously i ask why those estimates to not include a

domestic cost benefit calculation and as required. so i will ask in this context why did the epa not include that domestic cost-benefit calculation with co2? is it because as under the brookings institution analysis the benefits are largely drawn by other countries while all the cost is borne by the united states? >> let me make a couple of comments. the costs and benefits associated are not just benefits of reduced car bin but the health benefits and east of them far exceed the cost associated with the rule. >> ellen to cut you off to have limited time did you do

a domestic cost-benefit analysis as required? >> exactly those requirements. >> did he do domestic cost benefits? >> it was considered not to look at it. >> you don't think that is required by the law? >> we followed of procedures we needed to reduce. >> i disagree about that. i also think it is useful to know domestically if we represent the u.s. cost benefit analysis. in to review the calculations regarding the of the reason and a performance schools that it appears epa included data capacity factor 70 percent maybe two or more units that are not operational or fully

operational with significant mistakes that makes our bird is significantly larger. is that correct it? are those mistakes elsewhere ? >> the comment period is to take a look at all the data as well as the framing we put out there. the week have not acquired denny's state to operate that is 70 percent capacity we have over estimated the fossil fuel that would be of benefit. >> the factor due to the louisiana plant i am also concerned to have some

majors significant projects coming on line in the next five or 10 years in particular. to dramatically increase the demand factoring into the targets with the necessary growth did donate factor into the targets? >> if there reason why we took the comprehensive approach to recognize the economy needs to grow that they have the flexibility for exactly this reason they will continue to grow stem" end quote. demand growth did you build in? we don't have grow as we are

experiencing now as a nation we have major industrial projects coming on line. was that specifically factor didn't? >> it was considered part of a was considered the looking at energy prices and the challenges associated while the economy grows. >> was there specific projects factored in? >> i don't think i can answer the question the way you pose it's because clearly the economy will continue to grow. we looked at what efforts can we accommodate to take credit for to keep the energy demands down? if it is practical or reasonable? >> you factored in overall economic growth? i am talking about louisiana's specific industrial projects that

project but that was not factored into the=/ek louisiana plant and that is a big problem. >> we will look at and i am sure you are aware is the national impact that was designed and developed we will continue to analyze that but the most important thing is to look at said data to make sure we have it and that the epa works very hard to make sure we get this right. >> and again administrator mccarthy thank-you for your leadership on this issue and for following a long. to give adequate time for comments which i think is important we want to get this right and it is extremely important to. to talk about a state like maryland is has taken steps over the years to try to reduce the carbon footprint

the utilities have been cooperative to make investments/ n9i event it is vey positive to the environment but as i mentionedz

>> or to develop programs as they see fit but we do see a tremendous value and pay want that to continue to use the basically available to everybody or expanded. >> but to reduce the car ben footprint allocated to the individual targets is that however works? >>. >> mathematically we have indicated one of the most difficult is this states are using renewable as a way to shift the to do with in their own home state or in another facility and take credit.

with the accounting system that allows regional approaches to be robust and specifically designed even if you thought you do regional for grenoble's or the rest in your state is fine also. the reason it is so flexible with the individual and regional to explain how the system would work and how the different approaches would benefit the states in a way that they think is most important. >> of flexibility issues of states have said how they will achieve their balances you've mentioned renewable san the power plants. what are the parameters the states can operate? >> the only obligation they have is to achieve the state targets in a timely way.

we base those on card been intense in a basically the amount of carbon pollution in new yvette for every megawatt power of the electricity generating up fossil fuel facilities and you have a wealth of opportunity you to use a traditional approach and said a requirement. that is easy to do or use a different approach that you calculate the nobles and led energy efficiency programs but to keep demand down then calculate what you reid met in those facilities. >> this is what federal this of this is about and then as to the states would the cat to get the most cost-effective way to get to missions. thank you for your dealership them the flexibility recognizing they

can come up with creative ways. >> we have to move forward. >> madam chair i hold it my hand from the global warming petition project period research consisting of two pages and frequently asked questions of the project i ask that they be inserted into the record and i would read of a portion of the petition signed by 31,000 scientists over 9,000 have ph.d. the proposal limits on greenhouse gases would carney the environment. through the indian says science and technology to

help the welfare of mankind there is no convincing scientific evidence that even release of carbon dioxide or methane and other greenhouse gases is causing or will cause for the foreseeable future catastrophic douglas fear and disruption of the climate and more over there is evidence that it increases through beneficial effects from the natural plant and animal environment. i say this in response to the continued to drum beat that science is over with and has been decided and everyone who's disagrees with some sort of a quack the scientists have signed this petition. it is not settled and i appreciate them being contrary voice to get the peer review facts before us

and i would also point out that of the administrator the attorney general of west virginia wrote last month than requested the withdrawal because he says the epa lacks the legal authority to adopt it. there may have been witnesses before this committee saying the epa has the authority to propose such a rule of attorney general of west virginia disagrees 2.0 that the clean air act prohibits the epa from regulating in the air polluting in existing source category that is regulated under the regime of section 112th of the clean air act. section 111d it is regulated

under one 12th you cannot regulate any other way but epa has imposed extensive regulation and coal-fired power plants under section 112 is that correct? >> i think the framing of the legal argument is incorrect. >> let me ask you this. says the epa imposed regulations under section 112? >> we certainly do. >> so based on that madam chair the attorney-general of west virginia says having been regulated under section one 12th their lack of legal authority to further regulate the set missions under section one of levin day. time is fleeting. did you tell the senator that the cost-benefit

analysis was done entirely on a global basis? please correct my understanding. >> a the senator was asking if the social cost of car bin benefits are looked at as benefit solely deemed domestically or based on global benefits. >> good. perhaps i did misunderstand. so looking at that cost-benefit analysis as required by law, was is conducted on this day by states -- state-by-state basis? >> it was a national analysis we gave the state so much flexibility in can only be illustrated because it will be up to the individual states how to design their strategies to reduce the amounts.

>> it was not done regionally? >> my understanding is there we can follow-up with specifics it looks at national impacts although over time will get more specific estates get more specific. >> my time is expired i may submit a question with regard to the cost of the two projects that mississippi has undertaken in to comply with recent federal regulations they will have to be completely shut down under your proposed rules. >> five be happy to look at that. >>. >> thank you administrator mccarthy for being here and your excellent work. carry on. with respect to my colleague's point the science is settled i am

afraid to say i think he is wrong and it is not just me who thinks the science is settled but no one thinks it is settled and nasa thinks it is settled and they have rovers' driving around on mars they know something about science the u.s. navy thinks the science is settled saying climate change is the biggest threat we face in the pacific every major scientific society thinks the science is settled the property casualty insurance and reinsurance company that's on this to think the science is settled. this is my a eccentric friend continues to deny and they can have their views. but as responsible members

of congress should not base public policy on eccentric french views they do not even hold traction with young republican voters those under the age of 35 think climate denial is ignorant, out of touch, or crazy. if that is what young republican voters think then i've really don't think it is very productive. but the asking no ms. mccarthy the proposal is built on the unprecedented out of reach by a the epa involving utilities and elected officials and of whole ride of wray of stakeholders how prominent in your conversations outside of the united states capitol is this outright denial climate change is

real? >> it is not a prominent issue. we have gone too many states with a fast concern over the changes of the climate they already see. we are no longer talking about projections but adapting to the change that is already happening and that devastation it is causing. there is very little doubt the question is right on all of the table what do we do about it? we have the responsibility to take action or do we not? we took to heart when the state's utilities were not arguing that science but instead that actions we saw it was prudent to look at what the science told us

under the clean air act to allow each state to get the target from the individual states as is the most disrespectful rule i have never been involved in either as a recipient as a designer to recognize the of leadership of states to allow them to continue to lead. >> i was down in florida to tour the coast it is something you rise -- to measure with a yardstick not too serious debate and the republican and mayor with the task force vitally concerned about sea level rise so in your experience outside of the building with the influence of washington

as part of the outreach process this republican mayor would not be that allied air with your experience? >> not at all and republicans and democrats that i come across are worried about climate change and the impacts they have kids that have asthma and properties they are worried about from flooding, a drought, fire, and they want us to take action. >> what about a high wind sandstorms associated with climate change? and how do those to do with electricity grid? >> it is very challenging dealing with climate change is the reason why you would want to invest in electricity and in a deterrent -- of a structure to support it.

>> even with electric created reliability even if you're only interested in electric grid the reliability should have a concern. >> absolutely. the funny thing is when people ask about the polar for attack some pose it like it is a reason not to take action but that is the reason why we have to take action. >> thank you. we will go to senator fischer. >> thank you for being here. to bring the focus back to those issues i havew2ñcñvs9á a question then is the billabong and in the weeds but bear with me. i will read it to you so i can get it correct. and building block number to the epa assumes gas plants

will go far more to run the coal-fired plants this will reduce the heat rate efficiency on the intermittent basis to offer the analogy i think this is the equivalent of operating a car in city driving with stop and go that reduces the efficiency with miles per gallon compared to highway driving this means it is directly at odds with the goal that calls for a coal-fired plants so building blocks member one and two are in direct opposition with each other and then do a turnaround this should be improved so

if you are switching to natural gas does that require the coal power plants to operate buses to drive up the rates substantially to obliterate any rate improvement we would see? >> let me give a little bit of an explanation but the building blocks were practical affordable opportunities to reduce carbon emissions then of them were requirements they are not requirements to actually achieve in comply in any way they design. stays are heavily invested they need the and it's done from that $0.70 capacity rate they can simply just

not do that. but our analysis of the practical and affordable steps to get the system of more efficient. so states can use whatever creative approach they want to use as long as they get to those reductions that are required. >> you talk a lot about flexibility but that's flexible solution will shut down the coal plants because if you avoid that conflict conflict, it will call for improvements for the coal plants and but to the coal

plants. >> i know the state of west virginia the state standard is not enormously aggressive and in fact, many question. >> i know. we actually of the get the fact heavily dependent on coal to be infested to make it more efficient if you look at our analysis is shows kohl today it generated 37% of the electricity it is 31% so pc it's heavily dependent to invest to not take a advantage of the shifting.

>> have just a few seconds. >> butted effectively shuts down the plants but to touch on another issue to have the opportunity earlier this week to have a dinner with my colleagues on both sides of the ideal meeting with officials from the department of defense with national security and global security and the need with regards to the belligerent moves of russia and that nato allies with a face with natural gas. how do we address not just national security but global security when such limits are placed on natural gas? >> please make your answer briefly have a vote. my goal was to try to get

everybody in prior to it we could do if we stick to the time spent and if this is a very consistent strategy to support the all of the above the energy policy it does not put specific limits on any fuel but it expects all fuels to be operated as significant levels but provide dave maurer supply system and with the harmful carbon pollution. >> they gave very much. >> will get that generated by nuclear is it 20%? >> i think it is any idea that zero emission is generated today? >> zero.

>> what percentage of zero emission? it is not a zero. and has to be closer to 50%? there is solar and wind but close to 50%? >> my staff and i are concerned it does not treat all zero emitting sources the same in your proposal and specifically we hear that it could be disadvantaged because of specific benefits and other energy sources. and forced to close down because the way the role was structured. and to talk about nuclear it has to be a part of the mix to meet the climate goes just to make sure we're on the same page to believe

nuclear energy should be on equal footing to help states meet the car ben cole said in this proposal? and have you heard similar concerns can you tell us what you believe is the crux of the problem to commit to day to resolve this issue? >> as you indicated nuclear energy is with the is he wrote emitting energy technology so for that reason we have gone to great lengths in this proposal to make sure states are aware of this and there were some nuclear facilities that were on the fence and if they are competitive to allow them to go through the real licensing process to make

that worth it if you will. we have been hiding that issue to encourage the states to pay attention as a replacement of the base load capacity unit as a meeting from a significant challenge the are relying on those nuclear facilities but we have not gone far enough so we're listening to those comments. >> it is important that you do. >> now that it has been released have you already heard feedback from those that are valid to be a just? >> i think the comments that we are hearing are valid and some of them are whether or not we have certain

circumstances if the framing was as good as it should be we heard from leadership states and from those that were given to much credit. in to pay attention and to each and every one week at a gray head start because of what we did to give a tremendous opportunity for all intents and purposes is very well received by no states and utilities are rolling up her sleeves to see if they can make this work or make it work tuesday advantage of the states and utilities and we will work every step of the way. >> 37% of the generation or

31% but there is said huge economic opportunity here like a diesel emission reductions just like the opportunity to reduce luxury emissions with similar opportunity here to economically safely smarten the reduce the plant's fate you very much. carry forward. >>'' here is what is happening if we get there at 11:20 a.m. we will be okay. so if it is okay with everybody be will break down those who can come back, senator marty brill come back and ask the senator wants to have another brown did i would

love another round. come back but we will end this on a high note with my friend the senator from oklahoma. >> if you want to go dry will tell you on the floor what i said. [laughter] >> we don't want to miss it. >> there is the clock. [laughter] >> there has been discussion as to what your authority is what it is to perceive so at the oklahoma does not submit a state plan and you develop a plan how can you develop that rule using all the existing authorities? can you currently require a state to have gas dispatch at 70% of capacity? >> you are way ahead of me those are considerations

that are not even on the table right now right now with the cap proposing a rule and i have great hopes we are working effectively. >> i am talking existing authorities today could you do that? >> not unless the rule was passed them and so the answer is no. >> does it currently require as state by a 1.5% under current authority? >> no, sir. >> could you currently mandate the use of renewable is? >> we do not. >> if the state does submit a plan and it does apply could you enforce its? >> we would not be requiring any of those things what we've require is says certain level of carbon

dioxide emissions from allegis city generated by fossil fuels. but how the state's get there. >> so under current law of the e.p.a. cannot enforce that's standard under the rule that we are talking about? is that accurate? ben mcfadyen is one of the issues raised because epa often has plan to some of which we and for san some we don't. >> under current law you could maybe? >> the one certainty we have is to enforce the amount of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel facilities if the rule goes as proposed. >> it would be a broad expansion of the authorities

the epa has over the states with the broad political impact. isn't that exactly what they ruled against as the supreme court the expanse of authority? >> i don't think the supreme court indicated we were expanding or authority in that case but the questions have been raised with the plans and how it is implemented in real working through those with the state's bottle the epa is doing is regulating >> but you are proposing a rule you don't have the authority to do to enforce today. >> no. i believe we do have clear authority. >> i am talking to under the current system. >> i not think we are

expanding our authorities. >> it appears that you are in this short period of time i will try to get this out of the way. from what i understand they've relied on the steady about 6% of the nuclear fleet is at risk of shutting down then the epa made an adjustment to help out the nuclear plants accordingly. but now having authority under the power crisis with the of reliability did that epa talk to anyone at ferc if that rule would help nuclear plants? to help the 6%? bin mcfadyen now what direct conversation and he may have had with ferc. >> you talked about these issues?

>> i know the staff was working very closely with them and dot with the administrative actions in particular. >> there is no way you could tell me today but you personally did talk to someone about these issues? >> we were meeting with the commissioner. >> yes. i have had meetings with the commissioners. >> thank you very much. >> we will be says briefly and comeback when we come back the senator will open it up and we will go back and forth. thank you.

[inaudible conversations] >> we will come to order. so we will now turn to the newest member i am so pleased who is on the committee senator markey. >> you have six minutes. >> administrator mccarthy you have the authority under the clean air act choose said a carbon pollution standard? is that correct? >> it is correct. >> when you were developing those states targets you looked at four different types but the state does not

have to follow these exactly. the state can figure out the best way with their assessment to reach the car bin reduction targets? >> correct. 50 states and 50 different approaches. >> that's right. >> we may or we may not but we're not in a position to tell them what to do so they make that decision. so let me ask another question if you hear from people that it really hurts the economy of the united states when there is the clean air lot that goes on the books it is too dangerous to run the risk to make them air cleaner to reduce the number of people whose diets from dirty air and they say their air is clean enough.

we will see a huge increase of people who don't die or i get sick so i have a; chart to from 1929 through today that reflects the growth of the gdp of the united states of america including the 1970 clean-air act with the exception of around 2,008 it was a complete failure of regulation with the financial industry can you talk about that and the connection with that journey with the growth of gdp? >> i think the chairman eloquently stated weld they could reduce air pollution

basically 70 percent reduction under the clean air act while the gdp has tripled so every time we put out a new rule that is what we always hear frankly from some small groups but it has never come through and to we don't expect this will have an impact other than the economy to grow the u.s. to become stable or take advantage of new technologies or investments. >> we have been in this plan for the last seven years and something quite remarkable has happened. so we're not the perfect these sunny state that the

storm state that we will move for word but now 80,000 clean energy jobs with another 7,000 this year bringing it up that 90,000? now up 13%? and by 6% it is not too dissimilar for the whole country and with 23% expansion with the cap-n-trade system in place i think it is important to understand the model is already there it could be made to work. it is flexible but it does have a lot of evidence that shows it can be done. i understand that some states have already passed

the energy production levels built into those titles are you considering building more for those that are already going through those levels in the proposed rules >> we're looking of commons we have grown comment period we're looking at for public comment hearing so we will make appropriate changes one way or the of there. >> following up isn't it possible the proposed rules you are considering lower electricity costs for people all across the country? i think that is contradictory for what they think but we have seen that have been but talk about nationally. >>'' we are projecting is

consumers will see a lowering of their energy bills because we're getting waste at of the system with the cheapest way is to become more efficient. >> in massachusetts we say it is working smarter not harder so explain that a goal what you give them the flexibility. >> as fast as you can read your accent. [laughter] >> there are two ways to get the of reductions with the pollution it emits you can run them lessor make them more efficient. with both of those you can do that to increase efficiency at the facility but also by providing consumers in many low income consumers new building codes , a more efficient appliances and when those

things happened there dollars go down how much they need to spend every month. >> it is smart and effective and ultimately cost effective. >>. >> why did you let high-powered washington and lobbyist with the national resources defense council region to the epa to right your climate change rules for to? >> i did not. the ntrc had up log:july 8th introduced into the record through 10 by a one of those crafting the rules "the new york times" ran a very nice article yesterday about the end rtc part to develop the innovative proposal for the fossil fuel electric power plants we are proud to have

played a role so they are proud for what they wrote. will you attend the un climate change conference as your predecessor did with the climate change conference in 2009? >> i have not made a decision. vicki part of the strategy is to have us believe that he and his environmental all-star team can arrive in paris that the climate change conference to convince the world to follow his lead. his plan hinges on president obama is foreign policy prowess by his record is a series of empty threats and miscalculations and lead from behind failures like syria russia and ukraine libya and iraq. after all of those missteps he wants us to believe he and his team can demand

china can stop using fossil fuels. . . it still would not be enough. the rest of the world, he said, is appealing to much carbon pollution. that means that the present climate action plan which includes the epa knew proposed rules on their own do not reduce global temperatures or prevent any of the serious impact that are predicted by the u.n.

it cannot make a dent permits of the question is to mccain you guarantee success in paris? is not card keys climate change policies of paying for america and the citizens of these countries in the ladin globally? >> what i know about this rule is it would relieve the united states in 2013 with a more efficient and cleaner energy supply system in more jobs and clean energy which are the jobs of the future. no matter what happens internationally this is the significant benefit to the united states in terms of those in the audience who want to breathe healthy air. >> the redmen then it has no impact at all on global climate. >> is significant impact on the tone and tenor of the discussion >> no impact on global climate, though, you'll admit that feed beneath you ever said anything about of this will impact global climate. average person's campbell. >> freeze for a minute. i don't think we should be putting words in a what is of.

she never said what he says she said. can you define what he said? of the woodstock she did us a. it is is not right. >> they keep coming up and share take from your response and the secretary of state's comments that these proposals you are putting forth will have no impact on global climate as a result of the failure of brothers to corporate as the secretary of state has stated. this can't be some rich person is campbell perugia's has an impact on people. here, we are asking coal mine years, seniors on fixed incomes pro-family sense of the to suffer higher electric bills and the employer to make this expensive debt, and have a lot of problems with doing it to people around the to achieve because servers lobbyists and powerful lawyers in washington now reaching into the epa to regulations.

countries are on the world already are abandoning fossil fuel because of the need for affordable energy. pier seeing it in australia. the parliament just repealed their current tax. the associated press last week "see a show in prime minister who says a useless, constructive tax with standards jobs and hurt families cost of living in did not actually. why are we following his lead? her. >> climate in action is with friends seniors and kids. that is what is threatening our communities today and the viability of the plan is in the the future. and what i am responding to is a ba. that is my job. >> you want to sit for another round of questions, your local. now, would like to ask karens consent to place into the record to documents. one is up old just recently

taken the edge as a 70% of the people's support your plan. not withstanding the fact of other senators say that they are defending the people to you are defending the people in my opinion. secondly, i want to put in the statement made nine men who appeared before this committee as a suggestion in. we like to speak of american exceptional as an. everyone to be truly exceptional the we should begin the difficult task of leading the world aware of the unacceptable impact of our increasing appetite for fossil fuels before it is too late. unlike the stick of back-to-back if there is no objection. hair going to turn to senator gillibrand was not here. she gets six minutes. we will work back-and-forth. yellow clothes, so i will withhold praised.

>> so grateful for your lead. i want to thank the chairman for rolling this hearing. color changes will of the biggest crises we face. have they watch the destruction after super storm sandy, it is only a sternly coslet the proposal is in their lives because we're not acting fast or boldly enough. we have to do more. the cost of an election is enormous. we continually try to continue to pay for disaster after disaster or we can make a really smart steps to reduce carbon pollution and foster innovation for clean air energy sources and more advanced and nosy. i think there is a picture of success that we have to grab ahold of and achieve. the york state is a member of the regional greenhouse gas initiative criminal you're familiar with the plea to the

regional greenough's destinations of 40% lower than 2005. projected to produce one half billion dollars in net economic benefit which i wish my colleague are still here to here. this is an economic engine. 16,000 additional jobs. year as seven of every 55 million retained plead appear other states use the example to implement a successful program to cut grain s gas emissions? and other states and regions expect the same type of that at -- net economic benefit? >> i am incredibly proud of the work of the regional greenhouse gas initiative in those states because i think it was specifically designed to take the waste out of the system and to continue to grow the economy. those numbers are great. the individual states can

develop their own plans orders of the legion and other regional approaches with the original green house guests initiative palin provided information as to when that is inexpensive, a good thing to do, and then the opportunity to of additional. the most important things is that they have shown us that they are cost-effective and practical place in which you can make this work to address climate change and grow the economy, not just not hurt the basis of our determination on best system, emission reduction medically demonstrating, really just been the holocaust the united states. the sober bill them. rebought every state to come to the table and looked at the same things. the same idea of success that

seles's brother region. undermines the results. kayseven ally where success will then help we spend this across allspice? >> i think we learn from some of those lessons strictly. i think that we also learned from a lot of the work that congress did in trying to design a captain strip program for the u.s. those are things you learn from and in a repeat. a think we very well understood helicon ratio the reductions are trying to achieve or verifiable aqaba accountable, and how we can do it in a way that provides the flexibility to put investments in things that were actually going to be beneficial economically.

>> avenue, a your position, other governors, and other systems really try to adopt this and be successful? how do we expand this? >> frank to make sure their is a table set for every state to look at these issues of work together. i don't think the epa is trying at this point, nor should we tell states how they should meet these goals. or trying to provide them and of captivity to get as much technical a bearish as they can taluca the absence thereof will to live. we've been having meetings kimberly energy and there are rental regulators together so that they can understand how to design a strategy that works for them if.

we talked about the cost savings . health benefits that we can expect from the pace of reform. can you talk a little bit about some of the health benefits we can expect from the implementation of the new power plant proposed rule. >> i certainly can. the health benefits in this role are actually quite large. you actually have an opportunity to keep temperatures are rising, mozos from being formed which result in more as well attacks. this rule also is going to be directly reducing particulate matter emissions, so two emissions, mercury emissions as a look at the regional -- the are i a that was developed. just to name a few things, we are avoiding 2700 premature deaths, up to 6600. return a already producing more

than 100,000 asthma attacks. in the u.s. one out of ten kids face asthma. low-income, minorities to those on the front line. those numbers matter. >> senator, thank you. >> well, the supreme court statement that wind and agency, epa, claims to discover in a long statute and unheralded power to regulate a significant portion of the american academy we typically treat its announcement with a measure of skepticism. what the american people need to know is to have marked been given explicit statutory power to do what you are doing. you received it by a 5-4 ruling some years ago by the supreme

court, and it ought to be viewed with skepticism. the american people run this country. you don't. the epa does not. you are accountable to the people for the best interest of the entire nation. i take that the congress never approved this which is one of the problems you face. the epa proposed emission targets for alabama would require 27% reduction in their rate of co2 emissions relative to 2012 levels reaching a target buyer assuming that it is technically feasible for our benefit to retire 10 million-megawatt hours of coal-fired generation capacity, which is significant to increase natural-gas generation by an equivalent amount, generate over 14 million-megawatt hours for renewals as well as preserved existing the nuclear capacity.

so first you have been talking about consulting. did the epa consult with the state of alabama above those assumptions and sigell assessments per. fifty-five. >> working with the energy and environmental regulators. when in no event individual meetings. i can get back to you. >> said of think you have been doing that accurately. and completely with them on these assumptions. your talking about a huge 14 million-megawatt hours for renewals. are you aware -- >> and not sure about those numbers. , happy to go with you. >> our response to an enquiry from my question. >> of course i will. >> think you. section 111 d of the proposed

rule references extreme weather $0.6 at least come close above projections to increase severity of hurricanes and tornadoes. do you have any doubt that you can show this committee to reestablish that we can expect an increased number and severity of hurricanes and tornadoes. >> well aware that the air national assessment in the case that we should be expecting more intense storms, more heavy precipitation. there is -- i still believe there is any assumption native of the frequency of her hands at this point. it's expected to increase. >> a category three hurricane.

>> we have now had a category three hurricane. aaron burr when frederick did my town of mobile. ten years ago for that we had to mills said the. it is pretty clear. i just want to tell you, your sks to alter policies economically at great cost. one of the bases of that charges increased arms. and then we are not seen them. it may happen. i don't know. adelle believe you have a scientific basis to legacy any thoughts you have to justify that position can legally use suggests that the up 2030 predict in your written statement yet average electric bill for american families of

the 8% cheaper. and every single year during there. how the average sedate six perahia understand, is half a percent. are you confident? how can you have confidence we would have a racial reduction in cost of electricity for america. >> we feel pretty confident that data indicates energy efficiency is one of the least expensive most effective ways of reducing carbon pollution the states will take a advantage of. >> i agree that energy efficiency as a bipartisan issue . if you maintenance window of and did the other thing, we would have a much slower cost of electricity.

>> senator white house. >> inky very much, madam share. my friend, senator sessions was speaking. i pulled up the story from the birmingham news. it's two years old, august or its off. again named bert slauson in birmingham one of only 27 residents of customers of alabama power selling solar in the alleges the back to the grid with his full of some. across the country and across the glow solar energy is spreading spurred by falling prices for equipment engineers incentives from governments and utilities. drove across the border and solar arrays star springfield. a national leader. in georgia the first large-scale solar development came on line this summer with plans for

future projects expected to boost future generation. alabama finishes at or near the bottom and sores surveys. it would seem that there might be some potential. >> it would be great, the answers to ellis most of the state's. >> well, we will certainly see about that. the cost is coming down. like concern is that when the alternative to the solar is to burn coal there are costs of that the rest of us have to bear that are not in that decision anywhere. if you are in the count and europe during the books for a family or for business pick you have to look after the two sides

to the ledger. you look at what the cards are, the incumbent when the and you get the bottom line. during the course of this area believe little village of one side of the ledger. as if our highest and most important goal in this exercise was to make sure that coal plant kept running. i think that the epa has tried to look at both sides of the ledger, looked across and look to a benefit. and on a net basis when you actually do accounting for the cost of this looking at both sides of the ledger and not just a 1-sided view, what do you get as your net assessment of whether this will be good or bad for our economy and people. >> it's a net benefit of somewhere between 48 per unit and $84 billion.

>> 48,000,000,084,000,000,000. >> that's correct. >> per year. >> per year. >> sold presumably it will have added up to considerably more than an overturned and burned. >> that would be the minimum. it gets a lot bigger. >> very much so. >> and i just want to say, a concern of my colleagues chairman. i know that the senator barrasso is representing the state of wyoming. in the the state of wyoming has a significant coal economy. i believe that a billion dollars of the revenues of the state of wyoming come into its coffers from that industry.

if there will be an interruption of that then senator breaux so is every reason to be concerned page every reason to expect rest of us to listen to his concerns have drive to work with him to see what we can do to help. what i cannot have is to have a dialogue in which wyoming gets its concerns belated but has no interest whatsoever in what is happening in rhode island. we have very serious asthma problems, 10 inches of sea level rise, winter flounder fisheries is virtually gone, prospects for having a ski industry are of operating it's not much talk about it is there and we would like to keep up with the evidence appears to be from the estimates we have seen that connecticut, new york, massachusetts will lose their spirit if they lose theirs it is

unlikely to the island will be as a luxury of snow. i have real costs on our side he will bear in mind that the cost like enchanted, actually our race the other side of the ledger and pure economic value by a loss. >> those were 800 crosses. >> and the benefits of those are tremendous. but i don't -- purchase of billions of dollars apart by for and we can sure the benefits that we will achieve end stepping up climate. >> devonshire cover if there is that turned a benefit it would seem to me reasonable that you could find a way to deliver some of that but it back to wilmington.

to pretend that this problem, they can't do it we can't do that if we continue his pretense that coal is not our rain people as well as. >> senator, thank you for your cards solution. i see senator sanders. i wrote to my round and then turned big gavel over i want to serine, a center sessions told you the you don't run america. >> i'm not taking the brunt. no. >> let the record show, you don't think you run america. are you in implementing the clean air act? >> yes. >> was there and in danger of finding this said that too much carbon pollution is a danger? >> yes. >> can you summarize for as the

major dangers of carbon pollution? kirsten major dangers of identified in the in danger of finding where the dangers related to increased temperature , increased floods to increased droughts, disease that is related to he strokes. there are a number of impacts associated with the changing climate. >> is it your responsibility to protect the clean air act and to protect clean air, clean water, safe drinking water, isn't that what used or that you would do? >> yes, i did, and i meant it. >> i know you meant it. i just want to say to your colleagues, you know, for all the bluster on the other side about how, you know, mr. mccarthy is doing is dangerous, poolside with the epa please let me just read other groups that support epa carbon

pollution standards. what are want to say to everyone in the audience where they come out on this, what you to think when i mention these names who these people really fight for. of the alliance of nurses for help the environment, the american academy of pediatrics from the american lung association, the american medical association and to read the record public health association, the american thoracic society, the asthma and allergy foundation of america, chicago physicians for social responsibility, the cleveland clinic as a center, health care without harm, national association of county and city health officials to a national hispanic medical association, national medical association, national verses united trust for america's health. ask unanimous consent to put this list and the record. i think if everyone listens of this you would say they represent the american people,

the children, families. so and is very, very key. i also would like to know -- are sorry that some intercessions had to leave it, but hurricane katrina and 05 cost taxpayers one never 25 billion piperidine sandy, has center sanders said, cost $60 million. no, i think this whole country live through those disasters. we want to mitigate those disasters in prison and his what your rule is about where precisely, i want to make a point. my colleagues, want to make a point. my colleagues, want to make a point. this is my porridge, and i think it gets overlooked my colleagues are certain informed on this. i just think this is one other huge piece of deprivation that is rather new to the debate. under this proposal and 2030 air

pollution benefits, the other pollution benefits will total $62 billion per year. what does that mean? reduction of particular matter, 50,000-ton reduction direction of sulfur dioxide, 425,000-ton reduction. nitrogen dioxide, 410,000 reduction. this is huge, and this speaks to the issue is senator white house put to, that we can move to clean energy or clean up the energy we have, which i believe is possible. and save our kids, some of the families, save our health, premature death, asthma, missed work, missed school. i want to say the ministers are mccarthy, i can't tell you how

much appreciate your taking your job. you and of little hand in it. >> i want to say, new did you would step up to the plate to the you had the experience of working across party lines, that you really have in your heart exactly why he wanted to do this work a little help of family and, frankly, our economy and our leaders. i just can't think of anyone else he could do better. wanted to say that. i want to say even though my colleagues are not here from the republican side, they were respectful of you. appreciate that. but i also agree with senator white house and senator sanders. having the argument about what is clear as can be. i am pleased with this hearing.

70 percent of the american people agreed with that of law and the gavel over to senator sanders and suggest that we sit over here and finishes hearing. i need to go to a meeting. i think everybody. i especially think the people year-to-date : little ones that actually were pretty geared so that no, i appreciate everybody being here. rinse a lot. senator sanders, the gavel and timer yours. >> thank you so much for what you're doing on this issue whenever they chanted mccarthy does not run the world war america i just want to make a few points in and then give them over to senator winehouse.

and it's just two points, and i'm sorry my republican colleagues arrive here. a what to understand there was some argument by the senator from women about how will the liberals have course you and to moving forward in this correction. i find it is really remarkable that my republican colleagues would dare to raise the issue of campaign finance and the amount of money focused on putting into the political process. let me recite a few facts for the record. according to the center for responsive politics in 2013 the world gas and coal industries invested at least $170 million in lobbying the federal government. according to the center for responsive politics to where and the tories' 12 election cycle

the same industry spent more than 93 million in recorded campaign contributions and enormous number which is itself brought by the amount of money invested in dark money, super pak spending. then we go to another level that is hard to understand. we have the brothers to work today as a family worth $80 billion beta spent hundreds of balloons of dollars on political campaigns and setting up think tanks. and they are doing that in this election as well. according to the "washington post" and the center for responsive politics, where did they get their money? unblock they have invested for under $7 billion according to the "washington post" supporting conservative fossil friendly candidates in the 2012 election.

is there money coming into the political process? the answer is yes, but that money is clearly torre by the amount of money coming in him crow and the fossil fuels industry. my would also add that i do find it remarkable that some of my republican colleagues in this debate have expressed there deep concern about the needs of low-income people and the elderly. and i would remind the people of this country that these are the same folks whose compassion and love of low-income people prevents the beckham working to raise the minimum wage so people can have a living wage, allows them to make massive cuts in the prior written which provides fuel assistance a low-income people. many of them are on record as making massive cuts in medicaid,

medicare, trying to end social security to approach us social security. the concerns today about the needs of low-income people might be held up to some question. senator white house, did you want have anything to that? >> one last question for the administration. the -- well take the position that the costs of this regulation are dwarfed by the benefits commander think that is the epa judgment is from. i also take the position that it is not fair for people to always look at one side of the ledger in evaluating this legislation. the kansas look at the interest of a couple. then need to look at america more broadly, and there are a lot of those on the other side

of that equation of foreign coal releases a harm pretend we can work in rational ways to try to balance that but please don't pretend that my son does not exist. the third is that there is legitimate concerns and then there is concern that is before rhetorical purposes. then there is probably a little bit of a blend between the two, but if we look at the his dream that epa has seen of industry reaction to proposed in vermin regulation all four republican former epa administrators who testified in those very fees indicated that over and over the

industry concerns were exaggerated. they did not prove true in that the actual facts of. that was because they were exaggerated for rhetorical purposes at the beginning of that was because innovation was brought to bear to reduce cost. both can be true, but let me ask you. you have been in this business or long term at the state as well as federal level. you have worked for republican governors before. what is your view on what the track record is ben of industry projections and warnings about the cost and consequences of environmental regulation. >> they always exaggerates the cost. they'll listen the project environmental benefits of being

contrary to economic growth and goals been hidden it just has not come true. and so i think one of the points that we have not talked about a little bit that you hit on is one of the great benefits of looking at setting up a course for climate change that is long-term and flexible. what we are actually sending is a tremendous investment single. with the united states values and cares about it will unleash innovation and investment money. this is not about race cover at the end of a pipe or a smokestack. this is really about investing in things people care about, investing in things that people will make money on. one of the great things, frankly, about regulating is seeing how the regulated community, will star in the process. but in the end it appears set out to make money the great old

american way. you see that this proposal is designed to be moderate based upon practical and affordable, but the vision minded, the direction it is going to take to my think we will be significantly more benefit than we are requiring because we're asking for the things that the american public actually wants to spend money on. lest waste chemical energy, jobs, economic growth this with this is all about. as you can sell, i am pretty proud of it as a proposal. i no listen to folks, but in the and this is going to be something i am hoping we will all be proud of. >> if i could pick up on the senators questioned, administrator, what i hear you saying is you believe the united states could be a leader in the world in new technologies which help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions and in the process see

significant economic development . i will tell you just in one area in vermont we have put some money, federal money into whether position. and reduced fuel bills for people who kept their fuel bills by 32 percent of the cut greenhouse gas emissions. we have created jobs in the area, and i suspect appointed is that once industry is moving in terms of sustainable energies we can be a leader in providing the technology some and in the process could the world wide companies moving as well. is that kind of what your saying. >> sets were meant to say which he said it better than i did. while last question before i give it back, again, the issue of money and politics as the price of this hearing with the

suggestion that environmental folks are pouring huge sums of money in. do you have any thoughts on the amounts of money we are seeing in lobbying, can treat -- campaign contributions is not your issue of lobbying that comes from the big energy companies. >> let me hit the issue. this has to do with the new york times article which has been given surprising credibility. i know how hard there a great staff at epa worked to design this rule basically from whole cloth listening to states and utilities and energy regulators and environmental regulators and stakeholders from all walks of life the playwright extraordinarily proud of the work they put it. they did not sleep for virtually

any night well for a month. we worked weekends protect themselves you, i had two hours of meetings on this will alone every week for the past i don't know how many months. i think it is a discredit to them to suggest that somehow this was designed miraculously into one group many months ago and he just had it in our pocket ready to unveil. this was the result of hard work , lots of listening to and 40 years of history. and that's what this is all about. >> and the results of a process in which the electric utility industry, the coal industry, the fossil fuel industry, the chamber of commerce and others also have their input. >> are well also guarantee you that i have met many more times with utilities than i have the

nrdc. >> thank you. by way of brief closing statement, i just want to thank senator sanders are raising this issue. i. du claman's ps every year and -- every year, every week on the seventh floor. and this will come going to be talking about precisely the point to urey's. he looked back at our history, and chair has been a very constant, strong harpooned of papyrus of activity. many of our colleagues who are so here have had promised histories of engagement with significant, but partisan climate was a mission after 22 noon he sees that a repeat of

bipartisan activity is the outline. if you looked at what happened in the early 2010 that might explain why it suddenly ended. you find a supreme court decision called citizens united that allowed of unlimited corporate money or limited billionaire money to bombard our politics. the way people often think about that is they came in and be tempted democrats on behalf of republicans. this is a partisan thing. i have heard over and over republican colleagues, what are you complaining about? they're spending more money against us than you put him in there has been a time when actually the unaccountable anonymous start my the citizens united of least was being snatched more for a republican

primaries against republicans and it was against democrats. in fact, i think it, it has suppress debate and have a corrosive effect of our politics and suspended was over many years it proud, bipartisan tradition so i think that mr. mccarthy for being here, all of her and courage. >> thank-you very much. with that we adjourn the hearing . [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] about. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] emblem. [inaudible conversations] above. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> tonight on c-span2 house budget committee chairman paul ryan outlines a plan for overhauling federal anti-poverty poor rams, a congressional tax force would set the growing number of federal criminal statutes and the senate foreign relations committee holds a hearing of the rise of the militant group isis. >> on the next washington journal mark jacobson of the german national security project and herman purchaser discuss the obama administration's approach to the management of foreign policy including u.s.-russia relations and events in the middle east. then roll call staff writer

kayseven is a proposal requiring anti-missile defense systems on u.s. commercial airplanes. take your calls and join the conversation on facebook and twitter by a hit washington's alive at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> forty years ago the watergate scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. american history tv revisits 1974 and the final weeks of the nixon administration. the house judiciary committee considers impeachment of the present. >> would you have discussions about, what the framers had in mind, whether the activities that had been found out by the committee, and by the senate watergate committee were, indeed, impeachable. thirdly, can we prove that richard nixon knew about them and even authorized them?

>> watergate 40 years later sunday night at it:00 eastern on american history tv. >> house budget committee chairman paul ryan of lines and new anti-poverty plan yesterday. it would consolidate federal poverty programs and give states flexibility enough funds are spent. this is an hour. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] observe. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, ladies and gentleman. i'm going jesse to take your seats. there is standing-room-only. delighted to see that. and arthur burks and -- brooks, honor to welcome you today and a look and the chairman of the house budget committee, congressman paul ryan.

he is spoken here many times, friend, and we are delighted to see his continuing willingness to tackle important and difficult issues and many others are now willing to confront. today he is here to talk about an issue that is near and dear to my heart and those of my colleagues may expanding opportunity in america. he is particularly focused on low income and vulnerable population. one of the things that those of the who follow congressman ryan's career and pronouncements remember and notice consistently that he knows that great leaders, patriots fight for every one no matter how. when we forget this we don't represent all americans. we can truly unite our country. we're excited about that. we have a moral vision. looking forward to hearing about his new plan.

we will be hearing from a distinguished panel. after that panel on which congressman ryan will participate he will be taking your questions from the audience for the balance of the hour. please join me in welcoming congressman paul ryan. [applause] >> good morning, everybody. the first off, i want to start by thanking arthur for his hospitality, all of the his own command for just the patients of his team and opening up this great facility. afford to seeing the new place you have another four to hearing from everybody. let's start with a principle we can all agree on. hard-working taxpayers deserve a break in this country. to win the valleys are working

harder and harder yet falling further and further behind. that is just what is happening in america today. the cost of food, energy, and gas keep going up paychecks have not budged. so whether you are republican or democrat, let's all agree that america deserves better. what do we want? to help the economy, and a big part of that is having a safety net that is strong, both for those it cannot help themselves and for those in need just a helping hand to get up and going in life. that is our goal. a problem this that's not what we're getting. not for lack of trying, we have been $800 billion each year on 92 perris of the federal level justified poverty. yet we have the highest poverty rate in a generation. the property is near record

highs. we take a step back and look at all of this, you've got to think that we can do better than this. i don't have all the answers. far from it. nobody does, we have an obligation to expand opportunity in america, deliver real change our real solutions to our real results. to do that when you to stop listening to the largest forces in the room and start testing to the smartest forces in the room. i have spent the last your traveling all over this country dweller in from people fighting poverty on the front lines. have been too high school in milwaukee that eliminated 14 gangs in the school grounds, a church in indianapolis that helped hundreds of men get off trucks will lama shelter in denver car rehab center in san antonio. a point is there is lot of good going on in this country.

it is amazing. and since washington can't fight poverty alone, it is time to bring in reinforcements. today i would like to start a conversation to talk about how we can repair of a safety net and help families get ahead. the theme of want to talk about in addition to that is a few ideas some of my colleagues from the house and senate have proposed cutting four issues like income support of education, criminal support paths to recheck the it touches on a different topic but all reenforce the same principle. more flexibility in exchange for more accountability. my thinking is listen to the boots on the ground, but local leaders who are changing the status quo. let them try unique and innovative ideas dividend test results. that is my guiding principle. the first place to apply it is

the safety net. today federal aid is fragmented and formulaic. washington looks at each person's need an isolation like food, housing, energy. it does not see how the needs interact. what is worse, washington looks at each person and does not see how people need to interact. the secret to our country's success discoloration. people working together, learning together, building together of our own free will. what government should do is encourage collaboration will bring people together, get them into the next, empower them, don't over see them, don't force them. what we need to do is to coordinate assistance to families in need a delegate the public and private sector working together the fact is,

each person's need fits into a coherent whole, a career but each person fits into a community police so we can operate more personalized, customized a that recognizes both the person's need and strengths, but the problem and the potential. so i would start a pilot program called an opportunity grant that would consolidate up to 11 federal programs and a one stream of funding to participating states. the idea would be, but states tried different ways of providing a contest the results. in short, more flexibility in exchange for more accountability get rid of their credit formulas and put the emphasis on results. participation would be voluntary he would not expand the program until all evidence was in. the point is, you don't just

pass a law and hope for the best. if you have an idea, let's try it, tested, see what works. some make promise after promise. let's success below success. here's how to work. state that wanted to participate would submit a plan to the federal government. that would lay out in detail the proposal. everything passes the mustard the poor government would give the green light and the state would give more flexibility, to combine into one funding stream of to 11 different programs. this new, simplified stream of funding would become the opportunity grant and the budget neutral. the state would get the same amount of money under current law. in effect this state would say give us some space and we can figure this out. the federal court met with say, go to it on four conditions. first, you have to spend this money on people in need.

you can't take this money and put it in roads or bridges please second, every person who can work should work. third, he of got to give people basic choices. the state welfare agency can't be the only game in town. people must have at least one other option. fourth, you have to test the results. the federal government and state must agree on a neutral third-party. if approved, is it could use that might to expand state programs and partner with local service providers. in other words, families in need would have a choice. there would not just be a federal or state agency begins today to choose from a list of certified providers. nonprofits can offer profits, or even community works. these groups would work with people one-on-one and provide a

personalized case by case management. think of it this way to right now you have got to go to a bunch of different officers to enroll in a bunch of different brands, each with different rules. under the upper genital grant you can go to one office and work with one person for all your needs. that person would give you financial assistance and act as a personal resource. maybe you're struggling with an addiction. maybe you come from a broken family and a network of support. the point this you would work together to get you from where your to were you want to be. let's take one example. and let's go her andrea. she is 24, two kids, two and four years old. her husband of the family six months ago. she is not know how to contact them. and her only work experience was a 2-year stint of retail.

she and her kids now live with their parents in a two-bedroom mobile home. her parents can support her along hall. no car and coming can't afford child care and, and her dream is also an early one day to become a teacher. here's how with network. she would go to a local service provider, said down with a case manager and develop an opportunity plan. that plan would pinpoint strengths, opportunities for growth, short, medium, and long-term goals. the two of them would sign a contract. india would need specific benchmarks were success, establish a time line for meeting them, consequences for missing and and reports were exceeding them. the short-term goal is to find a job, but the long-term goal is to find the right job, become a teacher. she might find a job in retail to pay the bills.

meanwhile, our case manager with help pay for transportation and child care. over time she could go to school to make it her certification, and find a teaching job. the point is, with someone involved to help coordinate aid she would not just find a job and start a career. in all this time a neutral third party would keep tabs on each provider and their success rate, look at the key managers agree to buy the state and federal government to lemony people finding jobs, the giving of assistance to moving out of poverty. any part of the letter who came up short would not be able to participate further comment at the end of the program would pool their results and go from there. in short, we are reconsidering the federal government's role. no longer with the federal government tried to supplant local series but dry to support the. in my view the federal

government is the rear guard protecting the supply line. as the people on the ground who are the vanguard. the fight poverty on the front lines and a half to lead in this effort. washington should follow their lead. in that spirit, one to throw my support behind a number of ideas that i think a lot of good colleagues have been supporting the house and senate. they all expand opportunity but taking decisionmaking away from washington and bringing more accountability in government at all levels. susan

stop the programs that don't work and support the programs that do. second, we need to expand access to education, give students more options. in other words, we need accredit addition reform. -- accreditation reform. sounds dry but it's a huge difference. my friend, senator mike lee of utah proposed. we need to bring competition to the college cartels. let other schools in on the action and keep reforming job