weigh in on this discussion, please in. >> i agree absolutely with dr. baker that the most striking facet of the current state of the criminal justice system and the biggest, the most dramatic change from when i first began 35 years ago to defend criminal cases is the overbalance of power. federal criminal defense now is all about negotiating a resolution. >> sentence. it's that you will it does. >> that's all it is. it's no longer about guilt or innocence. guilt is presumed at least by the prosecution and they have the tools available to compel the guilty plea so that that's not even a question. it's all about snitching out, cooperating, doing whatever you have to get the leniency, the fair treatment that you seek. >> so what then do we bring to

our full yushry committee and the house of representatives in terms of these ten hearings that we've had this year and last year? i mean, what can we take? and i want to commend the chairman and ranking member sensenbrenner and scott for having put this together as they have. but where do we go from here? >> i think the immediate thing is reform of the mens rea problem. the immediate band-aid that is necessary is a' defall rule of mens rea where with none appear in criminal statutes and are a rule of construction that applies a mens rea at least to all material elements. >> a single mens rea standard or. >> no, a uniform mens rea

standards. >> okay. >> clearly defined across the board. >> uh-huh. >> and what would you add, dr. baker? >> well, i would agree with that. i've been involved a little bit in trying to draft that statute. i can tell you it's not an easy statute to draft because of the way, first of all, the federal krips are drafted and how differently they are. i would add to those two things which i endorse clear definitions of what's a crime, what's a felony. what's a misdemeanor. and a way to deal with the district liability is simply to say noncriminal offense. so that -- and this is in the model penal code but not many states adopted it. i mentioned it in earlier testimony. you have a provision for noncriminal offenses and that strict liability is limited to those. so if you think the they need to be prosecuted fine, but the stigma of crime is not on there.

>> time of the gentleman has expired. gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. >> yes, as i listen to the testimony and did a little reading, i was impressed with the fact that dr. baker in your paper, you cite statistics showing that in 1983, are it was estimated that there were 3,000 or so criminal offenses. >> right. >> in the code. and in 1998, it you cited doj figures of 3300 as of 1998. >> no, those where is two different studies and it's noted in there. one was by doj, the first one. the other one involved the same person, but there were different methodologies used, and that's why the different numbers. >> i see.

but that does not indicate that there was no growth in the number of offenses. >> oh, there was growth. >> may or may not have been 300. >> no, it was more. it was more than that. >> well, okay. all right. well, so that's a modest assessment. 3300 as of '98. that was 300 more than in 1983 and then between 1998 and 2008, that ten-year period saw a rise to 4450 according to your -- >> the 1998 figure which i explain in there is not a reliable figure because it did not follow the methodology. >> so you think it was higher? >> it was much higher. >> okay. >> the doj methodology which i used and which has been by e-mail told to me by the person who conducted it that i used the same methodology that doj did, we explained that methodology to

crs and they basically followed that but what happened in 199 , they did not break particular statutes down into the various crimes within one statute. they simply counted the statutes ewing. >>. >> i see. okay. >> and between 2008 and 2013, you cite an additional 403. >> well, that's a crs report. >> okay. >> and the skewed year is 2008 with 195 crimes. >> well, it puts tus according to the reports, to close to 5,000 offenses and it looks like from 1983 through 2008 was an explosion also in the number of human beings we have imprisoned. >> right. >> -- in this country.

and then at the same time, we've had the growth of what i'll say the conservative movement in the country which has called f ed l government, less taxes, which when you put on top of that the fact that you're needing more prisons, more jail space and more prisons, you've seen a growth in the private prison industry. >> right. >> and in fact, 1983, 3,000, 2013 close to 5,000, 1984, it should be noted is when the corrections corporation of america, which is the largest private prison for profit corporation, that's the year that that was founded. 1984. ran since that time, they have

experienced exponential growth and to the point where they along with there's another big one, i forget the name. georgia -- not georgia. gpc or something like that, but those corporations are publicly held corporations selling stock on wall street. what -- what connection do you see between the growth of the private prison industry and the number of -- and the amount of contributions that those companies can make to legislators including on the federal level and the growth in the prison industry? the growth in the prison industry, the growth in lobbying, and the growth in statutes putting people in prison? what connection do you see?

>> well, i can draw a connection between the growth and certain things. i can't between all of them. i actually represented at one point a sheriff in louisiana who built the largest public prison system, and the whole thing was funded by federal dollars. he went in the business of taking in federal prisoners because the federal rate was much higher than the state rate. there is a definite connection in terms of the growth of prisons but on the conservative side, especially in texas and in louisiana, can they are understanding that this is bank rupting the states. and so now you have some conservatives flipping and calling for a reduction even in state criminal penalties and state prison sentences because they realize that the growth of it, the expense is unsustainable. >> time of the gentleman. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman. >> of the gentleman has expired. >> mr. chairman, could i make just one last statement? i would imagine that we now see a rise any lobbying costs that

are enoccurred by the private prison industry thank you, mr. chairman. >> okay. the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank -- let me thank the witnesses for your presence here today and your continued contributions to the efforts of this panel. attorney benjamin, you mentioned something that was very troubling and dr. baker you agreed with it, the notion that federal criminal defense has simply become negotiation efforts toward resolution. >> right. >> and fundamentally inconsistent with the notions that have always served to undergird our criminal justice system, the presumption of innocence. if there's going to be a presumption of innocence,ing it seems to me it cannot be the case that once someone is being investigated and or is indicted

by our government, that the only real option available to someone who in theory should be presumed innocent is to negotiate the most favorable resolution which ultimately will likely result in some form of sanction and or jail time. >> right. >> so the question becomes, how do we unpack this dynamic in a way that allows this task force, the house, this congress to make a meaningful impact? and i would suggest and i would like to get the observations of both of you that it seems to me that there's got to be some way to rein in the inappropriate exercise of prosecutorial decision making. you referenced a term arrogance that exists. perhaps amongst some prosecutors and i believe the majority are operating in good faith though

the i may not agree with the decisions that they make. but who as it currently exists right now has the capacity to oversee prosecutorial behavior and or decision making and what consequences are there when inappropriate public policy decisions are being made? start with attorney benjamin and we'll go to dr. baker. >> the power of oversight and the power to rein in federal prosecutors reized in either doj, in the attorney general or the u.s. attorney for a given district. the reality, however, is that rarely will these individuals want to interfere with the career prosecutors who have been doing this all their lives and are on the line. and so the answer is, to take a look at the tools that are being used to produce this result. and i think that the biggest problem is the existence and the expansion of the use of mandatory minimum sentences.

that is what gives the unfathomable power to federal prosecutors because they can in their charging decisions threaten 10, 20, 30 lifetime mandatory sentences. that takes the judge completely out of it. if somebody's convicted, what we will say to our clients is yes, sure, i understand you're innocent and maybe you have a triable case but if you lose, you will get a life sentence. >> i appreciate that observation. dr. baker, i want you to respond but also i want to add this observation. currently federal prosecutors have absolute immunity as i understand it. >> tlangs they're. >> well -- >> prosecution as long as they're not getting out of prosecution. sometimes they get involved in investigation. >> okay. in the context of the prosecution, they've got absolute immunity. law enforcement's got qualified immunity as i understand it. is that something that we should

explore? >> i guess as a former prosecutor, i liked absolute immunity when i had it. i haven't given it enough thought. i think that there is a reason for immunity. whether it should be qualified and more like law enforcement, the assumption is that a prosecutor is under the control to some extent of a judge in the way that law enforcement is not. >> right, that's the assumption but i think the testimony that we've received is that that's no longer the case, that even article three federal judges to some degree have lost control. >> the real responsibility is with the president and then the attorney general. >> right. >> the political reality is that i don't care what party you're talking about, that it depends on the particular u.s. attorney and how he or she got appointed and whether they've got a senator protecting them. that's really what it comes down

to. >> one last observation. the problem that we confront is both to rectify the damage that's been done, but also figure out how moving forward, we can prevent a return to just a cycle of end leads criminal statutes being added to the books. and it's often the case that that elected officials react to the passions of the public. in fact, that's the kind of constitutional charge of the house of representatives. but in the criminal context when you respond to the passions of the public, particularly as it relates to a particularly heinous crime, that results in perhaps doing things that in retrospect aren't aren't in our best interests. i would just encourage all of us, certainly those of us who are contributing to this effort to think about that dynamic as we move forward. >> thank you very much. the time of the gentleman has expired. let me recognize myself for five minutes to wrap up and this will be more of comments looking at

e last year and what we've been able to discover. first of all, i want to thank the witnesses for appearing. the two authorizations of this task force i think have only scratched the surface of what needs to be done. because literally, the congress and a lot of the agencies have been you the putting more and more layers on the onion and we're beginning to start off to peel off the ones on the outside. and that just asks more questions. you know, looking at how we got to this and i think in order to stop this from getting worse, we do have to very vigorously pursue a change in house rules. and some of the lapses that have allowed other committees that really don't note very much about the criminal law to make criminal law is the fact that

the judiciary committee has not been very vigorous in asserting its jurisdiction. and that's got to the stop. the parliamentarians have always said that once we lose jurisdiction, because we didn't claim it, then it's much harder to get it back and they'll just forget about us when they refer bills. so exchanges of letters,ings further legislation i think is necessary. we are going to need help in developing a default mens rea statute. default means when there's not a specific criminal intent in a statute, there will be one. if there is a specific criminal intent, the default statute would not apply. and at least you have to have a criminal intent as one of the elements in terms of obtaining an indictment or a conviction. now, in order to get at the

proliferation of criminal penalties, some of them are statutory. some of them are done administratively. i would like to see the judiciary committee draft and get passed and enacted into law a sunset provision of all administrative criminal penalties. it should be a fairly long sunset and the committee i think can then ask each agency to come in and justify which of those criminal penalties they wish to have continued on the statute books and why. and if they can't justify that in order to get a re-enactment through the congress, then those administrative penalties would simply varnish and we wouldn't have to worry about them anymore. now, i think a way to start on the anti-duplication provisions

of the code is to start scrubbing account bill that i have introduced in this congress and the two preceding congresses which was designed to reorganize the code and to at least put some sense in it so that people could look and see what activities were criminal in nature without having to go to a lawyer who can never give them a definitive answer because no matter how hard the lawyer tries, they'll never be able to find what statutes are involved in that. and i know that in the few days that we have left in this congress, none of this is going to be accomplished. however, i would hope that as we prepare to start the next congress, we will be able to in a bipartisan manner which is certainly permeated this particular task force, to pick up each of these areas to figure out what to do and to figure out

what we can get get enacted into law and i think the merp public, while they will not see the an immediate change in how we will approach criminal issues,ings that there will be something that will be long-term that will deal with many of the results of our overcriminalization. so again, i want to thank the witnesses. i want to thank the members of this task force for putting in a lot of time and doing a lot of good work. remember, we've got probably the first two layers off the onion, but there are many more layers that we've got to go. so without objection -- this subcommittee hearing is adjourned.

white u.s. is taking up and voting on several bills this morning, including a resolution to require most u.s. troops to return from iraq and require the president to come to congress before any more military action in iraq. the house is considering a measure to consolidate and

revise child tax credits. votes on those bills as well as bills dealing with child sex tracking scheduled for 40 minutes from now. you'll be able to watch the house live right now on c-span. the senate is not in section today. senators return monday. more live coverage coming up at 1:00 eastern as white house press secretary josh earnest will hold a briefing with reporters. we expect to hear more about the situation in ukraine, the palestinian and israeli conflict. that will be live at 1:00 eastern on our companion network c-span2. >> michele flournoy is our guest on this week's g & a. >> if you're in government, you're dealing with the daily tyranny of the inbox. you are focused on the crisis of the day. part of my responsibilities as undersecretary of defense was representing the secretary of defense on the so-called deputies committee which is sort of the senior level group that's working through the issues,

developing options for the principals and the president. a lot of crisis management focus. when you're in a think tank, your real utility is not trying to second-guess the policymaker on the issues of the day but help to do some work to raise their gaze, help them look over the horizon to see what are those issues that i'm going to confront a year from now, five years from now, ten years from now and how do i think more strategically about america's role in the world. >> former undersecretary of defense and co-founder of the center for national american security, michele flournoy on the creation of cnas, its mission and current defense policy issues. sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q & a. >> 40 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, this weekend the house judiciary

committee as it considers impeachment of the president and the charge of abuse of power. >> what you have here are questions about what the framers had in mind, questions about whether the activities that had been found out by the committee and by the senate watergate committee were indeed impeachable and thirdly, can we prove that richard nixon knew about them and even authorized them. >> watergate, 40 years later. sunday night at 8:00 eastern on "american history tv" on c-span3. >> the senate environment and public works committee held an oversight meeting this week to hear from gina mccarthy on the agency's esproposed carbon dioxide regulations. back in june they proposed the kleen power plant which requires fossil fuel burning plants to identify the best and cheapest way 0 reduce pollution.

carbon dioxide accounted for about 82% of all 2012 u.s. greenhouse gas emissions. >> good morning, everybody. this oversight hearing will examine the critically important steps that the obama administration is taking to address climate change by reducing carbon pollution. today we'll focus on the president's new proposal to reduce dangerous carbon pollution from the biggest source, power plants. just this last week when i welcomed the miners, it is my pleasure to welcome the moms

clean air force. we're glad to see you here with the kids in to windchill. power plants account for nearly 40% of all pollution released in the air. currently there are no limits. the president's plan in my view is a win-win for the american people because by addressing climate change through carbon pollution reduction, we can cut many types of air pult antses that also threaten human health. climate change and rising temperatures will lead to increased ground level ozone and smog which could worsen respiratory illnesses like asthma, increased air plultents from wild fires and more relate and flood related deaths. when the president announced had his power plant proposal at the children's national medical center in washington, he visited with young asthma patients to highlight the health impacts of air pollution and to underscore how important addressing dangerous carbon pollution is to

our children's health. this proposal will play a vital role in protecting public health and will save thousands of lives. it will avoid up to 3700 cases of bronchitises in children, 150,000 asthma attacks, 3300 heart attacks, 6600 premature deaths and 490,000 missed days at school and work. i often say if people can't breathe, they can't go the to work or school. more than 9% of american children are already living with asthma and it is the third leading cause of hospitalizations for children. so we all benefit from having clean air to breathe. it literally saves lives. we need to take action now to protect families and communities from the mounting impacts of climate change and dangerous carbon pollution. a recent congressionally required nags climate assessment report tells us we could see a 10 degree fahrenheit rise in temperatures if we don't act to

limit dangerous pollution now. the president's new proposal will not only protect public health and save lives, it will enable america to lead the way to avert the most calamitous impacts of climate change such as sea level rise, dangerous heat waves and economic disruption. we must safeguard our children, our grabbed children and future generations as the president stated "we have a moral obligation to leave our children a planet that's not irrevocably polluted 0 are damaged." the obama administration gets it and so do the american people. a recent washington post/abc poll a bipartisan majority of the american people want federal limits on carbon pollution. approximately 70% say the federal government should require limits to carbon pollution from existing power plants. 70% and and 70% support requiring states to limit the amount of carbon pollution within their borders just last month, the committee

heard from four former epa administrator who's served under republican presidents from richard nixon to george w. bush and they all agreed that climate change requires action now and it should not be a partisan issue. the president's plan relies on the authorities under the clean air act which was created with a bipartisan consensus in 1970, the clean air act passed by a vote of 73-0 in the senate and in the house, 375-1. i don't know who that one was. and it was signed into law by president nixon. in 1990, the revisions to the clean air act passed the senate by 89-11 and the house by 401-21 and was signed into law by president george herbert walker bush. the clean air act has a proven track record of success. since 1970, emissions of pollutants have dropped 72% while the u.s. gdp has grown by

219% and total private sector jobs have increased by 101%. so while pollutants have dropped by 2% since 1970, private sector jobs have increased by 101% and the gdp increased by 219%. so all this fear mongering we hear on my friends on the other side about job losses disproven every time. if you take their quotes, they match-up with the quotes that we heard both in 1970 when nixon signed it and then again in when george herbert walker bush signed it. the president's proposal i believe will create thousands of jobs while ensuring big polluters reduce their dangerous contributions to climate change. i want to thank epa administrator jean mccarthy for being with us today and i look forward to her testimony. so i'm going to turn it over to senator vitter. i wanted to mention we have a

vote at 11:00. we have two options. we can work as hard as we can and then when it hits 11:15 end or we can take a pause and come back. either way is good with me. so we'll see administrator where we are at that time. senator vitter. >> thank you, chairman boxer, for convening today's hearing. and i look forward to hearing from administrator mccarthy on epa's proposed existing source rule. it's really a truly unprecedented outside the fence set of regulations that will have major negative impacts on our nation's electricity system. and i hope we talk about this very directly. epa's proposal does a number of things but fundamentally it hijacks that electricity system all in the name of flexibility. in reality, are epa usurps the role of state governments and public utility commissions. as well as ferc.

doe and other federal agencies that do have the authority over an expertises in electricity generation issues. unfortunately, for epa, electricity is not directly under its jurisdiction. changing dispatch rules to require the most expensive power be delivered first. mandating efficiency and the use of renewables are examples of intrastate generation transmission and distribution matters reserved to the states by the federal power act. more over, epa attempts to dump the politically unpopular decision making of having to pick winners and losers on the state regulators and legislators. epa's proposed ruehl seeks to turn states into either hostages or unwilling accomplices in its effort to impoverish families and businesses and communities. in its existing source proposal, epa goes beyond the plain reading of the clean air act

section 111, directing states to achieve questionable emission reduction targets from a limited menu of economic little damaging and legally questionable options. as i mentioned before,ing electricity prices in the regional greenhouse gas initiative states and california are 45% higher than in my home state of louisiana and yet, 56% of louisiana families already at their lower louisiana rate spend an average of 21% of their after tax income on energy. they simply capital afford the higher electricity bills that will inevitably result from this rule. epa is also setting up states to fail. our local economies to fail, to deliver on the president's promise that is electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket. all for virtually immeasurable climate benefits. this rule is all pain and no gain therefore, and we need to

look to our friends in australia, for instance, who just last week repealed their carbon tax in recognition of this sort of lesson. it's also noteworthy that epa's blueprint is fundamentally spectacular to nrdc's and it drives states to implement renewable portfolio standards to replace fossil fuel energy, whether they like it or not. and in states like louisiana where wind and solar are not feasible or not at all practical, we're supposed to divert economically valuable timber into fuel for electricity generation. that's a vet expensive feed stock compared to say coal or natural gas. in defense of a tax by the "new york times" and others, the administrator also readily admits that her agency must revisit nuclear energy since right now it encourages the

closure of nuclear plants. so beak, epa is insisting that states as the ration electricity and limit consumer choice especially if that choice involves using more electricity. as 40 of my republican senate colleagues and i have stated in our june 3u8rd letter, epa's proposed rule will increase costs to families, schools, hospitals and businesses and in doing so as always, it it will hit the poor, the elderly, those on fixed incomes the hardest. in reality, are it's a federal takeover of our american electricity system. and i for one am not at all comfortable for this epa takeover, this is dramatic expansion of epa's role and authority. neither are the people of louisiana. so i look forward to this discussion. it's vet very important. and there are a lot of important stakes on the line. thank you, madame chair.

>> senator vitter. according to an rival, we'll go next to the senator whitehouse, followed by senator which canner. >> thank you, chairman boxer and ranking member vitter for hosting this important hearing and administrate irper mccarthy, thank you for being here for your continued leadership on this vital issue. obviously, my state has a very different point of view than that expressed by the ranking member. we are on the losing end of carbon pollution in a lot of respects and we urge you on. epa's mission to protect human health and the environment is one of the most fundamental and popular responsibilities of the federal government. and there's no greater environmental threat today than climate change. epa has a duty to respond. it also has a mandate to respond. epa took a critical step forward in this fight when it exercised its existing clean air act authority as established by congress and affirmed by the

supreme court to propose carbon pollution standards for existing power plants. that proposal is based on unprecedented public engagement. more than 300 public meetings with stakeholders of all kinds and across the political spectrum. epa's plan puts states in the driver's seat to come up with their own best plans to meet state specific targets. states and power companies have a wide variety of options to cut carbon pollution like boosting renewable energy, establishing energy savings targets, investing in efficiency, or joining one of the existing cap and trade programs like our reggie program in new england. states can develop plans to create jobs. plans that cut electricity costs by boosting efficiency, plans that is achieve major pollution reductions. as proposed, the rule will reduce carbon pollution while providing as much as $93 billion in public benefit. $93 billion in public benefit per year by 2030.

a recent "washington post"/abc news poll found that 70% of the public supports federal standards to limit carbon pollution. last month "the wall street journal" and nbc news released a poll showing that two-thirds of americans support president obama's new carbon pollution standard. more than half say the u.s. should address climate change even if it means higher electricity bills for them but it won't because efficiency can reduce your bill even if the per unit cost can go up. epa's proposal is supported by major utilities like national grid. faith organizations like the u.s. conference of catholic bishops, public health groups like the american lung association. there's also support from name plate american corporations like mars, nike, and starbucks. i'd like to ask consent to enter into the record a letter from more than 125 companies expressing support for the standard. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i just want to mention, if there are babies who are

talking, it's important that you consider that we have an overflow room, g 50. so because it's kind of hard to hear over that wonderful sound. that we're hearing from the back. your call but we do have a room g 50. okay . go ahead. >> thank you, madame chair. we had four former republican epa administrators to testify before our subcommittee on clean air and nuclear safety last month. they agreed all four that epa's rule is a reasonable way to reduce carbon pollution and that industry has a history of overstating the compliance costs of environmental regulations. the benefits of the clean air act according to a 2011 epa assessment will outweigh its cost by a ratio of 30-1, $30 of value in the lives of regular americans for every $1 the

polluters had to pay in clean-up costs. that's a good deal for america. administrator mccarthy, epa's carbon pollution standards will lead to tremendous economic, environmental and health benefits forever americans. do not be deterred by the polluters and their republican allies in congress who is attack the proposal. they're fighting to protect the present present status quo which is polluters polluting at will and profiting at public expense. and do not worry, you are way more popular than they are and the american people have far more confidence in you. states are already achieving greater energy efficiency in renewables use than assumed in the proposed standards. factor those into the standards. raise the bar. develop carbon pollution standards for other major sources like cement kilns and refineries. administrator, the american people are behind you and counting on epa to stand strong. stand up for the american people

and go even further as you develop the final power plant standards in the days ahead. history will judge your efforts fafbly. thank you very much. >> return to senator vicker. >> this morning we have an opportunity to discuss the serious implications of the administration's unilateral move to execute its oppressive climate agenda. some of my friends on the other side continue to speak of carbon pollution which suggests to some people that they are talking about particulate emissions. we know what is being talked about with this proposed rule is carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. and these regulations regarding co2 could neg tebly impact every single american. president seems determined to wage an all-out war on coal. launching costly regulations that would have little effect on changing the climate over the past ten years, global coal

consumption has soared by 65% during the aim period, u.s. coal exports have skyrocketed by more than 200%. coal is burned to provide 40% of the world's electricity needs in a reliable and economical way. so although the coal consumption has soared, recent global average temperatures have stagnated over the past 17 years. this is a fact worth repeating. there has been no rise in global average temperatures over the past 17 years. regardless, the administration continues to defend its heavy handed climate regulations with assertions that global average temperatures are on the rise. the regulation that we're here to discuss today is epa's most blatant overreach thus far. under the guise of the clean air act, the agency proposed toept mandate entities that are far outside its regulatory authority. the rule does not simply attempt to reduce emissions from existing plants. for the first time, epa has a

regulation that reaches up to and including the power meter. epa is relying on the talking points that its proposed rule is flexible. i know this will be mentioned today but this is fiction when it comes to many states. rule is a regulatory noose for electricity providers and users in my state of mississippi. in fact, in states like mississippi, we are being punished by epa for having a diversified portfolio of electrical generation,ing 100% of mississippi's current coal production will be forced to close down. under this rule. in place of coal, epa suggested increase in the news of renublt energy resources an increase by more than 250% of renewable energy sources. yet their own technical support documents show zero potential for this time of renewable

energy resource in mississippi. what good is flexibility if there's no chance of flexibility? low cost and reliable electricity is at the core of economic growth. many parts of the country have been experiencing a manufacturing renaissance in part due to the great success of american energy and innovation and the shale revolution. unfortunately ep 'rules do not account for future economic development and come actually thwart new growth. their so-called flexible regulation would mandate that states put co2 emissions bob all else. if the proposed rules move forward and i hope they do not, our economy would be put at an economic disadvantage. utilities in states will be handcuffed by the mandate because they have to rely on uneconomical resources to power america's homes and businesses increasing the costs for everyone. the consequences of the administration's proposed rule

would be disastrous for our economy and again, would have minuscule impact on the environment. in summary, my friends the proposed rule is a breathtaking regulatory overreach. it is a job killer. it is based on questionable science,ing it is of dubious legality under the clean air act. it amounts to an end run against congress. it is inflexible. it will have no effect on the climate and is therefore pointless and is punitive to name a few. thank you, madame chair. >> well, outside of that, you'll love it. i know. i'm just kidding. that was very effective and i was just trying to lighten up the atmosphere. senator sanders. >> so you're leaning, yes, is that right, roger? >> all right. administrator mccarthy, thank you very much for being here and thank you very much for the work you are doing.

we are in a remarkable moment in american history. and in fact, in world history. and that is for the first time to the best of my knowledge, we have a major political party which by and large is rejecting what the scientific community is saying. now we can disagree about funding for education or health care and all that stuff. but if we cannot accept what the overwhelming majority of scientists are taking and there is no more debate. the overwhelming majority of scientists are saying a, climate change is real, climate change is caused by human activity, climate change is already causing devastating problems in the united states and around the world, and if we do not get our act together, by significantly reducing carbon and methane

emissions, that situation will only get worse. that is not really a debate anymore and that we have a major political party that is rejecting that is extremely frightening. now, the evidence is overwhelming. according to the u.s. national climate assessment released in may, the average global temperature has increased by more than 1.5 degrees fahrenheit between 1 0 and 2012 and temperatures in my state of vermont and in new england have increased at least 2.5 degrees fahrenheit just in the last 30 years. by 2100, new england could be as much as 10 degrees hotter. that is extraordinary. the debate that we should be having and it would be an important debate because nobody has all the answers, is how do you deal with this crisis. how do we working with countries around the world to reduce

carbon to transform our energy system. how do you do this? that's tough stuff. nobody has any magical answer but that should be the debate. the idea that we're still debating whether or not this is a real issue when the scientific community tells us this is the planetary crisis of our time is extremely distressing. planetary warming is causing sea levels to rise. national ocean noaa reported that global average sea level has increased 8 inches since 1880. several locations along the east coast and the gulf of mexico have experienced more than inches of local sea level rise in only the past 50 years. what we are talking about if we do not get our act together is major cities in the united states and countries around the world, parts of countries around the world being underwater. being underwater.

as a result of rising sea levels and increasingly intense storms, catastrophic storm surges have been rising, as well. people talk about financial issues. i will remind my colleagues that hurricane sandy cost this government alone over $60 billion. and all over the world, all over the world, there are projections that we will be spending trillions of dollars, trillions of dollars in order to deal with rising sea levels, extreme weather disturbances and other manifestations of climate change. i would remind my colleagues that in a certain sense, this debate that's taking place today is very similar to a debate that took place 50 or 60 years ago right here in congress. and that is we had tobacco industry lobbyists coming in here and heads of the tobacco industry saying tobacco causing cancer? oh, no, that can't be the case.

and they brought doctors in here, guys who were smooking kools and putting ads on television and they were spending huge amounts of money trying to convince account american people that tobacco had nothing to do with cancer, emphysema and other serious illnesses. finally the truth won out and the truth will win out on this debate, as well. our job is to transform our energy system, work with countries around the world to reduce carbon and to help save the planet so that these young people will have a habitable nation and a habitable world in the years to come. >> thank you, senator. senator fisher, followed by senator cardin and senator inhofe and then senator barrasso. >> chairman boxer and ranking member vitter, thank you so much for holding the hearing today. i want to welcome administrator mccarthy. it is always a pleasure to see you. thank you for being here today. we all share in the goal of clean ker air and can be proud of the tremendous improvements

we have made in air quality over the past several decades. air pollution has decreased even as our population and the number of vehicles on the roads have increased and even as economy h grown. in nebraska, our public power utilities have made significant investments in cold-generated facilities in order to provide an even cleaner source of that low-cost energy in our state. while the regulatory actions that issued today are being pursued under the authority of the clean air act, they are a significant departure from the true aims of the statute. in an unprecedented use of the law, this administration is seeking to reduce u.s. emissions of carbon dioxide. ostensibly to control global temperatures while the environmental benefits of capping carbon in america are negligible at best. the economic consequences are

unquestionably devastating. president obama himself warned that electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket under a plan to control carbon. more than 80% of america's energy needs are met through carbon admitting conventional fuels. last year coal and natural gas provided 66% of u.s. electricity generation. as epa forces carbon reduction, it inflicts higher energy costs on american families and on businesses. while the economic pain would be felt throughout the country, it is america's poorest families that will be hit the hardest. the median family spends about 5 cents out of every dollar on energy costs. low-income families spend about 20 cents. states like nebraska that receive a majority of their electricity from coal-fired generation would also be disproportionately harmed under

this proposal. president guidelines would force the premature retirement of efficient, low-cost, coal-fueled generation. lead to the potential loss of billions of dollars in investments made over the last decade to make coal plants cleaner. and require construction of higher cost replacement generation. and would increase natural gas prices. also troubling sr. the epa-set admission guidelines that are not achievable at the affected source, the electricity and generating unit. energy efficiency and renewable portfolio medicine dates should not come through regulatory fiat. while i do not have enough time to list all the concerns raised by this proposal, you know that i believe there are many. the issues are complex, and the impacts are far reaching. while i appreciate the 120-day comment period that was granted for public comment on this rule,

the challenge presented to the states and other stakeholders to analyze and assess the enormous range of issues that are posed is beyond expectations. the level of complexity of the proposal, the volume of technical documents that are released, the amount of coordination required and the magnitude of energy impacts of the rule, i believe, warrant a 60-day extension of that public comment period. i hope to visit with you about that. i'm pleased we're spending time today examining some of the concerns raised by the proposal. this is an important discussion. this is an important debate. and i look forward to today's dialogue. thank you. >> thank you, senator fisher. senator cardon. >> thank you, madam chair. first, let me think administrator gina mccarthy for being here and taking on the

speedomete responsibilities of the environmental protection agency. it's not an easy task, and you were willing to step forward knowing full well the challenges you would confront. i want to thank you for being willing to do this. the chairman already mentioned that there are children at the hearing. i think that's wonderful. because it's their future that we're talking about. it's the environment they will be living in that's very much impacted by what we do here and what the administration is doing. the impact of climate change in maryland is well understood. the people in my state recognize the risks that are involved as a result of climate change. 70% of the population of maryland lives in coastal areas. and they're at risk. property owners are at risk of losing their properties, and they know the financial impact that is involved. the people in maryland, the iconic shorelines that we have, that's our way of life, that is

at risk. the economics of my state are at risk from the poultry industry that depends upon a reasonable price for corn and the cost of producing the poultry know that the weather conditions have made corn more expensive. therefore, their business more difficult. the loss of our crab population. seafood industry also understands the warmer waters affect all the produce coming out of the chooesapeake bay. the port of baltimore is one of the economic hearts of our state. the climate change, rising sea levels make it more difficult to run the baltimore port click ical -- economically. i could go on and on from the aberdeen grounds to the river in the southern part of the our state to the naval academy. all very much impacted by

climate change. and as my colleagues have pointed out, the science is indisputable that our activities here in our communities are affecting climate change. congress should have acted. madam chair, we tried. we should have provided the framework for the way that we deal with climate change. we tried. but we were stopped. we wanted to use a market-based solution to make it clear and make it more available for private companies to invest. but no, we were stopped in those efforts. so the administration is doing what they're required to do. epa has the authority and the responsibility to act. and three supreme court decisions have made it clear that you're acting within that authority. let me just quote from the case that the chair mentioned. justice scalia, what he said just recently. and i quote, that it bears mention that epa is getting almost everything it wanted in this case. it sought to regulate sources

that it said were responsible for 86% of all greenhouse gas emissions from statutory source nationwide. under our holding, epa will be able to regulate source responsible for 83% of those emissions. and then quoting from the clean air act -- not quoting, but the clean air act gives you authority to have baseline standards, which are talking about achieving a 30% net reduction in carbon pollution from power plants using 2005 as the kbas line by 2030. you have the authority. you have the responsibility. you're acting. and thank you for the flexibility that you're providing. you're putting the states in charge. you're giving them the power they need to do what's right for their community. we can work regional among different states. that's what you've allowed, and i thank you for that proposal. maryland energy companies have acted. constellation and exelon have

taken on this challenge and done it in a cost-effective way and created jobs in the meantime. madam chair, i hope that it doesn't take another cuyahoga river to catch on fire, which we needed before we enacted the clean air act or for toxic air to be breathed by the people in los angeles before we enacted the clean air act. i hope it doesn't take the loss in maryland or the washing away of the everglades or dust bowls to become the regular in our bread basket in this country before we act on this critical issue. i thank the administration for taking action. i hope congress will take action to be your partner in making the reality of america's leadership on global climate change what is desperately needed. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you for being here. very nice to see you. there's so many problems that have been pointed out already by my colleagues with the existing

source carbon rule that it's hard to know where to begin. first there's the issue of the impossible efficiency requirements that will replace some power plants. then there's the question of what should happen with the standard, the compliance for coal plants and how they're supposed to achieve reductions without going belly up. and how epa plans to enforce the rule and to what extent the agency will be allowed to tweak the state's plan if it's not making the progress that it needs to be made during the decade-long compliance period. these are very complex questions. and there are hundreds more, many smart people have been reading this rule for the last two months and they're at a loss for what this will actually look like. in other words, it appears the epa is urging the nation to trust them as they are about to take over the entire electricity market in the black box confines of the comment period. that said, there are a few

things that are crystal clear. first of all, we know the rule will cause electricity prices to go up. we know this from the epa's own logic. epa's rule set out to save the 6% of nuclear generators that have become economically marginal. how will the epa do this? by increasing electricity prices in the absence of regulatory relief from the nrc and the epa, which is not happening, the only way to keep a marginal nuclear plan in business is for it to be paid more for its power. the only way the epa can do that is by pushing the prices up. the second thing that we know is that this rule will end up with the united states looking like germany where the poor and the business community alike are reeling under the high electricity prices. their prices are now three times what they are in the united states. and this is something the administration is doing even though the american people really don't care about this.

talk about all the people joining in and saying that global warming is happening and science is over. they say that because there's nothing else they can say. we've already had this before our united states senate many times. it's been resoundingly defeated by a larger margin each time it comes up. it's come up four times. and so that's the trend line that's there. we all understand that. we know that in a recent gallup poll, it showed -- i can remember when global warming was the number one, or number two concern. as of two weeks ago, it was 14 out of 15 concerns. according to the pew research center, 53% of americans believe global warming is happening. when asked what's causing it, they say there's not enough evidence to show it's because of humans.

he put his $50 million up. he's going to raise the other $50 million. according to politico a couple days ago, he's been able to raise only $1.2 million from outside donors. the third thing we know is that this rule will have essentially no impact on global temperatures which is the very reason because that's ultimately what the rule is supposed to do. and according to one analysis, which was used a model developed by the epa, the esps rule will reduce global temperature. this is using their analysis. by 0.02 degrees celsius as is shown on this chart. it's hardly measurable with all of the costs we're being involved in. combine that with -- the other day i had -- it was monday night. i had dinner with senator coreman who happened to be here in the country from australia. senator coreman is the guy that

was leading the cause after he had one time supported the idea of taxing carbon to repeal it. so they've repealed it in austral australia. so for the -- you stop and think about it, it's china, it's in russia and the other states. even if you believe all this, they're the ones who are sitting back, anxiously hoping we'll somehow tax carbon so they'll be able to draw in our base. the last thing, since i'm running out of time here, is there's a study that's floating around that says this rule will enhance natural gas. you give an argument it would, but i think what they're forgetting to mention is that this is a war on fossil fuels. natural gas is a fossil fuel. as you can see up here, they would be next. the war on fossil fuels is going to come right after -- natural gas right after coal. so that's what's behind the

whole thing. and i appreciate your holding this hearing. we'll see what happens. >> thanks, senator. senator barasso. >> thank you so much. "the new york times" wrote a piece about the outsized role that the national resources defense council, the nrdc, had in developing the epa's new regulations to curb power plant emissions. the article focused on three key senior nrdc officials who "the times" described as washington's best-paid lobbyists who developed the core of epa's plan. washington's best-paid lobbyist developed the core of epa's plan. "the new york times" stated that on june 2nd, president obama proposed a new environmental protection agency rule to curb power plant emissions that used as its blueprint the work of three men and their team. the article says it was a remarkable victory for the

natural resources defense council. for those outside the beltway, the nrdc is $120 million a year lobbying machine backed by hollywood elites. it is absolutely shameful to me that the epa under the direction here of the administrator will allow this powerful group of lawyers and lobbyists to draft their regulations. but yet this same administrator refuses to actually listen to the people whose lives and jobs will be severely impacted by these regulations drawn up by wealthy lawyers and lobbyists. in fact, the administrator refuses to listen to the thousands of americans who will be impacted by this rule. the epa administrator has refused to go out and visit folks in coal country whose lives the agency is upending. the administrator won't hold a public hearing in wyoming, won't hold a public hearing in kentucky. the epa administrator has literally gone out of her way and the epa has gone out of its

way to avoid hearing from unemployed families who have lost or will lose everything. their job, their homes, their retirement savings, issues relating to their health, all because the epa has decided to push a rule that was drafted behind closed doors by powerful, wealthy washington lawyers and lobbyists at the nrdc. let's be clear. the nshlgs rdc is a wealthy, elite, powerful lobbying machine with more than influence over decision making in washington than any ordinary american citizen. they have millions which gives them access. the epa has turned a deaf ear on those who don't. it should come as no surprise that this is how the epa's regulations for new and existing power plant was hatched. in fact, "the times" article argues that the nrdc employs this very same tactic during the bush administration to craft their comprehensive energy

strategy. when the bush energy strategy was released at the time, the nrdc issued the following statement about how it was crafted. the conclusions of the cheney task force are a product of an undemocratic process. when nrdc filed a freedoms of information act request for documents identifying members of the task force and the calendars of task force members, the department of energy denied the request. i would say this is quite a change of heart by this group of wealthy washington lobbyists and lawyers. if i'm wrong, then the nrdc and the epa and its administrator can provide and should provide all records and documents that are requested by member s of ths committee and my house colleagues on how these new regulations for coal-fire power plants were crafted. because right now it sure looks like the epa let a trio of

high-powered washington lobbyists write their regulations for them. if what "the times" is reporting is what the epa administrator has called preposterous, then the epa must comply with any committee and freedom of information act requests for these documents. comply with requests from our house colleagues, comply so that we can then know the truth. if the answer is no, that you will not comply, or that there are more record-keeping mishaps, broken hard drives, lost files, then we'll know the truth about this agency as well. thank you, madam chairman. i look forward to the testimony. >> thank you, senator. now here's where we stand. because we're trying to move on. we're going to accommodate the senators who were here so we're going to move to senator carper, senator sessions, and we'll close with senator merkley at that point. the colleagues that come later

can have an extra minute to do a bit of an opening. okay. so let's move forward. we'll go now to senator carper. >> thanks. welcome, administrator mccarthy. very nice to see you. for a number of years i served as either the ranking member or chair of the subcommittee on clean air and nuclear safety. i remember early in those days, we were meeting with a number of utility ceos from around the country. and we were talking about multipollutant legislation dealing with nitrogen oxide, mercury, co2. after an hour-long meeting, this one utility ceo from some place down south, kind of a curmudgeon-like guy, he said, all right, senators, this is what you should do. this is with respect to multipollutant legislation. he said, you should tell us what the rules are going to be. you should give us a reasonable amount of time to implement

those rules. give us a little bit of flexibility and get out of the way. that's what he said. tell us what the rules are going to be, give us a reasonable amount of flexibility, reasonable amount of time, and get out of the way. that was ten years ago. well, my hope and my belief is that epa is actually not just said these are what the rules are going to be. they said after talking to a lot of stakeholders, including utilities, including coal company, including environmental groups, including state and local governments, epa said, this is what we think the rules should be, and in doing so basically put out a draft of what they think the rules should be. as for a lot of response, a lot of input from people around the country. that's where we are. i think it's great we're having this hearing. great that the administrator is

here. but the way the system works here, epa doesn't mandate what's going to happen. i hope they get input from all kinds of groups, including groups like nrdc. that would make sense. i hope they get input from utility companies. that would make sense. i hope they get input from the coal companies. that would make sense. so i'm glad you're here. glad we have an opportunity to hear what the administration is proposing. and glad that we're going to have an opportunity to provide input to that. delaware and some other states feel the impact of climate change. they're already taking place to reduce our local power plant carbon emissions. unfortunately, a few states like us can't tackle this issue alone. all states have to do their fair share if we're going to make an impact. clean power act unites our country in working to take on the largest source of carbon emissions together. i want to thank the administrator. i want to thank our president for the leadership and for moving forward with this rule.

opponents of this rule are going to say that we have to choose between having a cleaner environment and a stronger economy. i've said a million times, that's a false choice. we can have both. if we're smart, we will have both. in fact, we've done it time and time again. we know the inaction of climate change only costs us money in the long run. inaction could be devastating to our economy. in fact, the government accountability office has already listed climate change as one of the biggest fiscal risks facing our nation. they're not making this stuff up. it is. that's why i believe we need to move forward with the clean power plan. however, such an important rule, we need epa to get it right. we need to have a rule that reduces carbon emissions, protects public health, and grows our economy, which is finally growing quite nicely. we need a rule that does not pick winners and losers between clean energy technologies, and we need a rule that's flexible, legally defensible, so the states can meet their carbon targets. i believe that epa's trying to strike the right balance.

god knows it isn't easy. through unprecedented outreach and hearings from over 300 stake holders nationwide, epa has developed a proposal that builds on what states are already doing to reduce power plant carbon emissions. the epa's proposal recognizes that what might work for delaware may not work for california, may not work for oklahoma, or alabama or mississippi or nebraska. but rather, your proposal allows each state the flexibility to find the most cost-effective way to reduce their own emissions. as my father would say, god rest his soul, that sounds like common sense to me. after working for more than a decade on legislative efforts to reduce carbon emissions from power plants, i applaud the epa's decision to set carbon targets that are meaningful, flexible, and feasible. let me close by saying i encourage the epa to continue to listen to the stakeholders, listen us to, and make adjustments as needed to ensure we get this one right. it's important we do.

i look forward to today's discussion and future discussions on this rule. welcome and thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator sessions followed by senator merkley. >> thank you, madam chair. the american economy is important. i know you know that. we have a decline in median family wages in america since 2007 from $55,000 to 50. we have an employment rate among the working-age population as low as the 1970s. it's been declining steadily. and the decline in energy prices, one of the finest things that helped the american economy in recent years. so lower cost energy clearly creates jobs. it creates wealth. every $10 a family has to pay for an electric bill or more for their gasoline bill does weaken the economy. if it is for no benefit or

little benefit. so we have to ask that. we can reach some accord on a lot of these issues. things that are cost effective, clean, efficiency programs are things that probably do make america healthier and a stronger economy. and there is common ground there we can have. one of the common grounds, i think, is nuclear power. we need to consider that more. last month, our regulatory group versus epa's supreme court said this. quote, when an agency claims to discover in a long statute an unheralded power to regulate a significant portion of the american economy, we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism, close quote. well, we know congress has never voted explicitly to regulate co2

and would not vote today if given the opportunity. by through whole statutes and interpretations of it, you now as an unelected official impacting the economy in extraordinary ways. and i just think we ought not to forget that. co2 emission targets for alabama are a reduction of 27%, but states like arkansas and georgia with 44% reductions are hammered even harder. south carolina with a 51% reduction. tennessee with a 39% reduction. those are huge economically impactful regulations you're putting out that we don't get to the vote on. the american people aren't given a voice in. so i want you to know we're concerned about the problem that you're concerned about and trying to make this environment healthy and positive. but we have to ask, what is the

real world impact on it? we know germany is backing off and reconsidering some of its very green issues. au australia recently skra lly scr carbon tax. additionally, i'm worried about the nuclear industry. we only have a few plants that are going forward now. the tennessee valley authority, which handles most of north alabama, got a part of mississippi, and tennessee, they're building a nuclear plant. under your regulations, they'll spend billions of dollars to bring that plant online and will get no credit for it whatsoever. and in fact, when the impact rule of reduction of emissions occurs, it'll be even more burdensome from them an otherwise would be the case. in fact, i think it's fair to say they are penalized for

investing now to reduce carbon emissions through nuclear power. and they've done it already. they've reduced emissions, carbon emissions, by 17% since 2005. and on level to achieve a 40% reduction by 2020. but they'll be, i think, clearly unfairly impacted by the way you're calculating the nuclear power carbon-free power generation that could occur. so madam president, i'll wrap up. thank you for the opportunity to be here. >> senator, thank you very much. last but not least, senator merkley. then we turn to the administrator. >> thank you, administrator mccarthy, for coming and addressing the clean power plan today. there is no question that carbon dioxide is a terrible pollutant, having profound impacts. we see it on the ground in oregon in multitude nous ways. we see it in terms of the expansion of the bark beetle or

pine beetle destroying vast swaths of our forests because it's not cold enough in winter to kill them off. we see it in terms of our oyster industry that's having great difficulty with the reproduction of the oysters because the water is 30% more acidic in the ocean than it was before the industrial revolution. we certainly see it in the basin where the three worst ever droughts have occurred in less than a decade and a half. thus, carbon dioxide is waging an assault on our rural resources, on our fishing, on our farming, on our forests. it's absolutely right that under the clean air act, we seek to control and reduce this pollutant having such vicious consequences across rural america. so thank you for coming and addressing the details of the plan. i look forward to the commentary. and i look forward to an understanding of how many jobs can be created by addressing

noncarbon sources of power. it's clear that already in just the solar world there are twice as many jobs as there are in the coal world. not counting other forms of renewable energy. but there is huge growth potential to power up living wage jobs across our nation as we take on this vicious attack on rural america. thank you for your testimony today. >> thank you, senator. administrator mccarthy, you've heard from 12 of us, 6 and 6. i really want to say to each colleague, i thought each of you made your points very well and to the point. so we turn to you, administrator mccarthy. >> thank you, chairman boxer, ranking member vitter, and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today on epa's recently issued clean power plant proposal. climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. it already threatens human health and welfare and the economy, and if left unchecked,

it will have devastating impacts on the united states and on the planet. the science is clear. the risks are clear. and the high costs of climate inaction are clear. we must act. that's why president obama laid out a climate action plan and why on june 2nd, i signed the propoezed clean power plant to cut carbon pollution, build a more resilient nation and lead the world in our global climate fight. power plants are the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the united states, accounting for roughly one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions. while the united states has limits in place for levels of arsenic, mercury, nitrogen oxide and particle plollution that power plants can e commit, there are no current regulations on carbon emissions. the power plan will cut hundreds of millions of tons of carbon pollution and hundreds of thousands of tons of other harmful air pollutants from

existing power plants. together these reductions will provide important health benefits to our most vulnerable citizens, including our children. the clean power plant is built on advice and information that we drew out and listened to from states, cities, businesses, utilities, and thousands of people about the actions they're already taking to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. the plan aims to cut energy waste and leverage cleaner energy sources by doing two things. first, it uses a national framework to set achievable state-specific goals to cut carbon pollution per megawatt hour of electricity generated. but second, it empowers states to chart their own customized path to meet those goals. we know that coal and natural gas play a significant role in a diverse national energy mix.

the plan draws to lower pollution and paves a more certain path for conventional fuels in a clean energy economy. the epa stakeholder outreach and public engagement and preparation for this rule making was unprecedented. starting last summer, we held 11 public listening sessions around the country. we participated in hundreds of meetings with a broad range of stakeholders across the country, and we talked with every state. now the second phase of our public engagement has begun. we have already had dozens of calls and meetings with states and other stakeholders in the more formal public process. both a public comment period that runs through october 16th, 2014, and public hearings next week in atlanta, denver, pittsburgh, and washington, d.c., will provide further opportunity for stakeholders and the general public to provide input. each state is different. so each state goal and each path can be different.

the goals spring from smart and sensible opportunities that states and businesses are already taking advantage of right now. under the proposal, the states have a flexible compliance path that allows them to design plans sensitive to their needs, including considering jobs and communities in a transitioning energy world. it also allows them 15 years for when the rule is final until compliance with the final target to consider and make the right investments, to ensure energy reliability, and to avoid stranded assets. all told, in 2030 when states meet their goals, our proposal will result in a 30% less carbon pollution from the power sector across the u.s. in comparison with 2005 levels. in addition, we will cut pollution that causes smog and soot by more than 25%. the first year that these standards go into effect we'll avoid up to 100,000 asthma

attacks and 2100 heart attacks. and those numbers just go up from there. in 2030, the clean power plan will deliver climate and health benefits of up to $90 billion. and for soot and smog reduction alone, meaning for every dollar we invest, families will see $7 in health benefits. and because energy efficiency is such a smart, cost-effective strategy, we predict that in 2030, average electricity bills for american families will be 8% cheaper. this proposal sets targets at a reasonable schedule that can be achieved by every state using measures they choose themselves to suit their own needs. the epa looks forward to discussion of the proposal over the next several months, and i look forward to your questions. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, administrator. i'll start off. i'm going to respond to a couple of my colleagues and then i'm going to ask you a question about how the states' role is so important in your rule.

first of all, senator barrasso was quite eloquent in attacking the nrdc. so for those who don't know the nrdc, this is their very -- this is their goal. and see what you think of it. their goal is, quote, to safeguard the natural systems on which all life depends. sounds like a terrific goal to me. and the further -- the ideas that the nrdc had were actually released at a national press club event in 2012, their plan. it is true that epa borrowed from that, but good for them for putting out some really clever ideas. because i think the notion of states taking the lead and the flexibility was very, very smart. and i know that epa has held public stakeholder sessions before the rule was even

proposed. we'll hear more about that. i'm sure there will be a lot of questions on who epa discussed the rule with. then my friend senator wicker also very eloquently, you know, says the president uses unilateral action. no, he doesn't. he's doing what he has to do. you know, and i'll quote from christie todd whitman, who's a republican and headed the epa. she said this right here. i have to begin by expressing my frustration with the discussion about whether or not the epa has the legal authority to require carbon emissions -- to regulate carbon emissions. the issue has been settled, she says. epa does have the authority. the law says so. the supreme court says so twice. well, i would add that since christie todd whitman said that, the supreme court acted again a third time in a scalia opinion, upholding the authorities of the epa. so i don't know why we have to

fight about things that have been settled three times by the supreme court. i mean, it's interesting and it's always a pleasure to debate my colleagues on these things, but i think, you know, we should move on about that. now, my question is, the clean air act states, quote, that air pollution prevention and air pollution control at its source is the primary responsibility of states and local governments, unquote. how does epa's proposed rule on controlling carbon pollution for existing power plants uphold this cooperative relationship between the federal government and state and local governments? and adding to that, to be a little specific, as you know, california has been a global leader in reducing its carbon pollution, and its landmark climate change program is driving investments in clean energy, spurring new job growth, and improving the state's air quality. and i want to make sure under epa's proposal my state will be

able to continue its climate change program and use the existing program as a key part of its state compliance plan. so if you can expound on the role of the states and also my state. >> i'd be happy to. first of all, let me indicate that there is tremendous flexibility in this rule. and it is because epa listened to every stakeholder. and when we met unprecedentedly in our outreach efforts -- really, they were historic, to reach out to states, utilities, to stakeholders. yes, to the environmental constituents as well. we heard from every one of them that it was important to have flexibility. i also read the clean air act, which said that the law that i'm implementing looks at where states are today and it looks at what reasonable, practical efforts they can undertake to reduce pollution moving forward. the flexibility in this rule is not just the fact that we had

individual state standards, which respected where the energy system was in each one of those states uniquely. but it also provided 15 years as our proposal to move forward. that doesn't even begin until 2020 -- i'm sorry, 2015, in order to achieve these standards. so we're talking about standards being achieved in 2030. so it's a tremendously long timeline. but every state gets to design their own compliance strategy. every state gets to look at what they want for their own fuel diversity, what they want to invest in. and the great thing about this proposal is it really is an inmei investment opportunity. this is not about pollution control. it's about increase efficiency at our plants no matter where you want to invest. it's about investments in renewables and clean energy. it's about investments in people's ability to lower their

electricity bills by getting good, clean, efficient appliances, homes, rental units. this is an investment strategy that will really not just reduce carbon pollution but will position the united states to continue to grow economically in every state based on their own designs. but it also will position us tremendously -- >> can california continue its effort and get credit for what it's doing? >> that's the last flexibility i should mention. we opened it up entirely to individual state plans or to regional plans they want to do. if california wants to continue with its very successful cap and trade program, it can do so. but in the end, what we're looking for are reductions at those fossil fuel facilities but use your own imagination on how to get here. we're doing exactly what has asked epa to do for a long time, which is you set the standard based on science. we'll get there in the cheapest,

most cost effective way that we can. and we're actually telling states to go do that. >> well, thank you very much. senator vitter. >> madam administrator, it appears in the proposals accompanying regulatory impact analysis that climate benefits are calculated using your interagency working group social cost of carbon estimates. previously, i've asked why the estimates do not include a domestic cost-benefit calculation as required versus just a global cost-benefit calculation. so i'll ask in this context. why did epa again not include that domestic cost-benefit calculation in regard to co2? and is it because as under the brookings institution analysis, if that analysis is correct, the benefits are largely enjoyed by other countries while all of the

cost is bourn by the united states. >> well, let me just make a couple of comments and i'm happy to answer your question. the cost and benefits associated with this rule are not just benefits in terms of reduced carbon but also in terms of health benefits. and each of them far exceed the cost associated with the rule. when you -- >> i don't want to cut you off, but i have very limited time. did you all do a domestic cost-benefit analysis as required? >> we did exactly the requirements for omb in the law that we needed to do for the r -- >> did you do the domestic cost-benefit analysis? >> it was considered to be not the most appropriate way to look at it. it's looked at globally. >> you don't think that's required by the law? >> we actually followed all the procedures we needed to do for the office of -- >> i disagree with you about that. >> okay. >> i think it's required. i also think it's useful to know a domestic, a u.s. -- i mean, we're representing u.s.

citizens, a u.s. cost-benefit analysis. let me ask you some louisiana-specific things, which i'm concerned about. in reviewing epa's calculations regarding louisiana performance goals, we discovered it appears epa included at a capacity factor of 70% at least two, maybe more, natural gas combined cycle units that are not operational or not fully operational. it's a significant mistake that makes our burden significantly larger. is that going to be corrected? are those mistakes elsewhere in state plans? >> senator, the reason for the comment period is to take a look at all of the state data as well as the framing that we've put out there. so we're open to comment. but we have not in this rule required any state to operate their ngcc at a 70% capacity. and if, in fact, we have

overestimated the amount of fossil fuel pollution generated in louisiana, it would be a benefit to know that for both the state and us. >> okay. we're certainly going to get that to you. but i just want to note that factored into the epa's louisiana plan are just facts that aren't there. >> actually, that would be a benefit to the state. >> i'm also concerned because louisiana has some major significant job-producing industrial projects coming online in the next five to ten years in particular. so that's going to dramatically increase electricity demand. did epa factor into state emission targets that sort of economic growth and necessary load growth, or did it only factor into state emission targets demand destruction and reduce growth? >> actually, it -- the reason why we did -- we took this

comprehensive approach instead of a within the fence line look at each facility was recognizing the economy needs to grow and making sure that states had the flexibility to design their plans for exactly this reason. so states will be able to continue to grow and to design a plan that accommodates that. >> -- what demand growth did you build in? because again, we don't have average demand growth. we don't have growth that we're experiencing now as a nation, which was very low. we have major industrial projects coming online. so is that specifically factored in? >> well, it is certainly considered. economic growth is part of what's considered when we look at energy prices. and we look at the challenges associated with keeping demand down while the economy grows. >> were those specific major industrial projects factored in? >> i don't believe that --ty really can't answer the question in terms of way you're posing it, senator, because clearly the economy is going to continue to

grow. what we looked at was what efforts can we accommodate for states to take credit for to keep that energy demand down. and we believe that the steps we're asking them to take are pact call and reasonable. >> what i'm hearing is you factored in overall national economic growth. that's not what i'm talking about. i'm talking about huge louisiana-specific industrial projects that require major load growth. and what i'm hearing is that wasn't factored into the louisiana plan. that's a big problem. >> well, we're happy to take a look at it. and i'm sure you're aware, this is about national impacts in the ria that were designed and developed. we're going to continue to analyze that. but the most important thing right now in the comment period is for us to look at this data, make sure that we have it, and i think as you know, epa works very hard in between comment and final to make sure we get this right. >> okay. we will turn to senator cardin.

>> thank you, madam chair. as i indicated in my opening statement, thank you for your leadership on this issue. thank you for following the law. thank you for giving adequate time for comment, which i think is important. we want to get this right. and the comment period is extremely important. i want to talk about a state like maryland. maryland has taken step over the years to try to reduce its carbon footprint. our utilities have been cooperative and have made investments to reduce emissions. they've done that by making significant investments. it's been very positive to our environment. but as i've mentioned previously, we are downstream from a lot of carbon emissions. so we can do only a certain amount. therefore, it's critically important that all states do their share for the united states to make the type of impact that we need to make.

i noted in my opening comments you've given flexibility and allowed the states to come up with the plan they believe is best for their state. in maryland's case, we are part of reggie. we've been there since 2005 and have worked with our regional partners to try to get plans that can benefit the entire region. could you just share with us how the proposed regulation deals with states that have already made progress and have joined with regional partners. how is that dealt with in the pro posed regulation? >> well, the proposed regulation calls attention to the regional partnerships that have already been developed. and we actually allow the flexibility to go it alone or to join other states. and we do recognize the regional greenhouse gas initiative and those states for their leadership in this. we also developed an economic analysis that took a look at the

cost effectiveness of going it alone, nationally, each state on their own, versus these regional partnerships just to show how cost effective those approaches can be. and we have also provided important implementation flexibility so there's a longer window of opportunity to develop plans if states are looking at these regional approaches, which can take a little bit longer to develop and implement. so we're trying to give states flexibility to continue with the programs they have, which have been very effective and have shown significant leadership. or to develop programs as they see fit. but we do see tremendous value in these regional partnerships and we want that value to continue to be basically available to everybody and perhaps expanded. >> so when you have neighboring states that have made progress in reducing their carbon footprint, that is allocated to their individual target under the rule?

is that how it works? or how does that mathematically work? >> yeah, mathematically. we have indicated that if states -- let me give you an example. perhaps one of the most difficult is renewables. if states are using renewables as a way to shift to a lower comp in sources, they can do it in their own home state. so we are accommodating an accounting system that allows regional approaches to be robust, that allows them to be specifically designed, even if you want to do regional just for renewables but want to do the rest in your own state, that's fine too. so one of the challenges with this rule is it is so flexible that states have many choices, and we're trying to work with them individually, which we continue to meet with them, and regionally to explain how the accounting system would work and how these different approaches might benefit their states in a way that they will think is most

important. >> the flexibility issue, the states have pretty much carte blanche as to how they achieve their balances. you mentioned renewables. you mentioned improvements to their power plants itself. what are the parameters in which the states can operate? >> the only obligation that the states have under this rule is to achieve those state targets in a timely way. so we have based those state targets on carbon intensity. basically, it's the amount of carbon pollution you emit per megawatt hour of electricity you generate at those fossil fuel facilities. so you have a wealth of opportunity. you can use a traditional approach, and you can set a pollution requirement for each of those facilities. we do that, that's easy to do. or you can use a different approach in which you actually calculate renewables and you actually look at energy efficiency program investments

and you use those to keep demand down and then you calculate what you're emitting at those facilities and you see whether you made your target. >> this is to me what federalism is about. we'll get states that will make progress in a very cost-effective way. other states will look at, use, and we'll get the most cost-effective way to reduce the emissions. again, i thank you for your leadership and the flexibility you've given our states and recognizing our states can come up with creative ways to deal with this problem. >> thank you. and senator, i think a lot of people -- states are thinking about what reggie's done. i know the western governors are working together. so it's going to be a great opportunity. >> sorry to cut you off, but we have to move forward. senator wicker. >> thank you, madam chair. i hold in my hand a publication from the global warming petition project, summary of peer-reviewed research consisting of two pages, qualification of signers consisting of one page, and

frequently asked questions existing of four pages. i ask they be inserted in the record. >> without objection. >> and i would read a portion of the petition signed by some 31,487 american scientists, over 9,000 of whom have ph.d.s. the proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology and damages to health and welfare of mankind. there's no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouses gases is causing or will cause in the foreseeable future catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. moreover, there's substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produces many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environment of the earth. i say this in response to the continued drum beat from the

other side of the aisle that the science is over with, it's been decided, and everyone who disagrees is somehow, some sort of a quack. to some 31,000 american scientists who signed this petition, it is not settled science. i appreciate them being a contrary voice to get the peer-reviewed facts before us. i would also point out, and i ask my first question about this, administrator, the attorney general of west virginia recently wrote epa and requested the withdrawal of the rule because he says epa lacks the legal authority to adopt it. so while there may have been witnesses before this committee in recent days saying that epa unquestionably has the authority to propose such a rule, the attorney general west virginia disagrees, and he points out

this, ms. mccarthy. he says that the clean air act section 111-d affirmatively prohibits epa from regulating any air pollutant emitted in an existing source category, which is regulated under the national emission regime of section 112 of the clean air act. so section 111-d says, if it's regulated under 112, you can't regulate it any other way. now, epa has imposed extensive regulations on existing coal-fired power plants under section 112. is that correct? >> i think the framing of the legal argument is incorrect, senator. >> well, but let me ask you this. i'm not asking you for that. i'm asking you, does epa impose regulations on existing coal-fired power plants under section 112? >> we certainly do. >> okay. well, thank you for that. so based on that, madam chair

and members of the committee, the attorney general of west virginia says having been regulated under section 112, the epa lacks the legal authority to further regulate these emissions under section 111-d. now, let me ask you this also. time is fleeting, ms. mccarthy. did you tell senator vitter that your cost-benefit analysis was done entirely on a global basis and was not -- >> no. >> okay. please correct my understanding. >> the senator was asking me, and at least this is what i answered, as to whether or not the social cost of carbon benefits are looked at as benefits that are solely gained domestically or whether they are based on global benefits. >> okay. well, good. so perhaps i did misunderstand it. i'm glad i did. you conducted a cost-benefit analysis as required by law.

is that correct? >> yes. >> and this was -- was this conducted on a state-by-state basis? >> no, it was a national analysis. >> okay. it was not done -- >> the challenge here, sir, is we've given so much state flexibility, it can only be illustrative because it really is going to be up to the individual states how to design their strategies to achieve these reductions. >> okay. so you didn't do it on a regional basis. >> we did the analysis -- my understanding is -- and we can certainly follow up with more specifics -- >> okay, well, please do that. >> it looks at national impacts. although, it will over time get more specific as states make decisions and comments come in. >> okay. i see my time is expired. i may submit a question to the record for you, ms. mccarthy, with regard to the costs of two projects that mississippi has undertaken to comply with recent federal relatigulations.

these projects will have to be completely shut down under your proposed rule if it goes forward. >> i'd be happy to look at that, sir. stranded assets is an important issue. >> thank you so much, senator. we turn to senator whitehouse. >> thank you very much. thank you very much, administrator mccarthy, for being here. thank you for your excellent work. carry on. with respect to my colleague's point that the science isn't settled on this, i'm afraid to say i think he's just factually wrong. i think that it's not just me who thinks the science is settled. noaa thinks the science is settled. nasa thinks the science is settled. and they've got rovers driving around on mars right now. they know a little something about science. the u.s. navy thinks the science is settled. the head of our pacific command says climate change is going to be the biggest threat we face in the pacific. every major american scientific

society thinks that the science is settled. the property casualty insurance and reinsurance industry, which bets hundreds of billions of dollars on this, thinks that the science dollars on this thinks that the science has settled and there is what i callec sent ridge fringe which they're entitled to have their views. they're entitled to have their views, but we as responsible members of congress should not be basing public policy onec eccentric fringe views. young republican voters under the age of 35 think that climate denial is and these are the poll's word, know mine, ignorant, out of touch or crazy. so if that's what young republican voters think about this then i really don't think that having this dispute here is very productive. well the me ask you, miss mckargy.

this proposal has been built based on an unprecedented outrage by you and by the environmental protection agency involving utilities, involving republican elected officials and involving a whole wide array of stakeholders. how prominent, in your conversations outside of the united states capital is this outright denial that climate change is a real argument? >> it is not a prominent issue. we -- i have gone to many, many states and there is a vast concern in each state over the the changes in the climate they're already seeing. we're no longer talking about projections of change. we're talking about adapting to the the change that's already happening and the devastation that that is causing. so i am -- there's very little doubt, that at least i see in experience.

the question is right now on the table, what do we do about it? do we actually meet our responsibility and take action or do we not? and in this rule we -- we took very much to heart the fact that when states and utilities were not arguing the science, but instead arguing the actions that we thought it was prudent to look at what the science told us in terms of technology availability and practicality and cost, what we're supposed to do under the clean air act and to say what the target should be and allow each state to get at that target the way they thought was best for their individual state. this is the most respectful rule at the federal level that i have ever been involved in either as a recipient of that rule or as a designer in terms of recognizing the the leadership of states and allow them to continue to lead. >> so i was down in florida not too long ago touring the coasts where climate change is really unbe deniable, sea level rise is something you measure with the

equivalent of a yard stick. it's not subject to much rational debate. people understand it. and i met with the republican mayor of monroe county who has developed her own climate change task force and they're vita willy concerned what sea level rise means particularly to the keys. so in your experience, again, outside of this building and outside of the influence in washington that polluters bear when you're out there as a part of your outreach process, this republican mayor in monroe county may not be an outliar among republicans in your experience. >> no. not at all. republicans and democrats that i come across are worried about climate change and the impacts. they have kids that have asthma. they have properties that they're worried about from flooding, from drought, from fire and they want us to take

action. >> last quick question. is extreme weather, high winds and storms associated with climate change? >> yes. >> and how do extreme weather, high winds and storms do in terms of the electricity grid? >> it's very challenging. we are dealing with climate change is a reason why you would want to continue to invest in electricity in an infrastructure that supports it. the question really is going to -- >> the electric grid reliability and all of the risks that this races, even if you're only interested in electric grid reliability you should still have an interest in climate change. >> the funny thing is when people ask me about the polar vortex, some of them pose it like it's a reason not to take action. it is exactly the reason we have to take action. >> thank you, chairman. >> thank you, senator. we turn to senator fisher. >> thank you again, madam chair and thank you, administrator for being here. >> you, too.

>> these are very complicated issues and i would like to bring the focus back to those issues. i have a question that is a bit long. it's in the weeds. i hope you'll bear with me on it it. i'm going frommread it to you s get all of the facts in here correct. >> okay. >> as i pose it to you. in building block 2, the epa assumes that gas plants will run far more in order to run the coal plants far less. this will reduce the the coal-fired plants on an intermittent basis and always reduce its efficiency. to offer an analogy, i think this is the equivalent of operating a car in city driving where it's stop and go which reduces the efficiency in the form of miles per gallon as compared to when you're on a constant rate of highway driving. what this means is that building

block 2 which calls for running coal-fired plants less is directly at odds with the goals of building block 1 which calls for improving the rate of coal-fired plants. so building blocks one and two are in direct opposition to each other. you can't run both coal plants less, while running gas plants more and then turn around and argue that the heat rate of coal plants should be improved. so did the epa consider that the amount of switching to natural gas effectively required by this rule would require coal-powered plants to operate less thus driving up heat rates substantially? and i think that would just be on li rate any heat rate improve am that we would see at these coal units. >> well, let me give a little bit of an explanation and i don't want to take too much of your time, but the building blocks were really opportunities, practical, affordable opportunities to reduce carbon emissions that

went into the setting of the state standards. none of them are requirements. they are not requirements. states can achieve and comply with those standards in any way they design. so if states are heavily invested in renewables and they need ngcc, or peaking units done in a way that's much more intermittent than the 70% capacity rate they can just simply not do that. none of these are requirements, you need to do none of them, but they actually were our analysis of what we thought were practical and affordable steps that could be taken to get the system more efficient into shifts to clean the sources. so states can use whatever creative approach they want to use as long as they're getting at the reductions in those fossil fuel plants that are required. >> you've talked a lot about flexibility. >> yes. the flexibility for the states, but i think that flexible solution in effect will shut

down coal plants because if you're going avoid that conflict between that bucket 1 and bucket 2 it's going to call for heat improve ams for the coal plants for bucket 1, but under bucket 2 you're going to run it less. so how -- how does that -- how does that make it more flexible? i think the conflict there is just going to mean the retirement of these coal plants. >> let me give you an example. i know the state of west virginia was mentioned. if you look at state standard for west virginia. the state standard is not enormously aggressive. in fact, many have questioned why it isn't more aggressive, but what it says -- yeah. i know. i know. and neither am i. we'll take comment, but we actually looked at the fact they're heavily dependent on coal and their answer may very well be to invest in that goal to make it more efficient moving

forward. in pack, if you look at our analysis it shows that coal today in 2012 actually generated about 37% of the electricity. what we're projecting is in 2030 that's going to be 31%. so it will remain. so we think coal states, heavily dependent coal states will invest in coal. they will most likely not take advantage of the shifting to lower sources and they won't need to. >> i have just a few seconds. >> i'm sorry. >> my concern is it just effectively shut down plans. i did want to touch on another issue just very quickly. i did have the opportunity earlier this week to have a dinner with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. we met with some officials with department of defense. we talked about national security. we talked about global security and the need that we see for that global security especially in europe with regards to the

belligerent moves of russia and our nato allies and what they face there with natural gas. how are we going to address, not just national security, but global security when we have such limb is put on natural gas? >> let me just say if you can make your answer really brief. we have a vote started. my goal was to try to get everybody in prior to. we might be able to do it if we stick to the time so can you speak briefly to that and then we're going to -- >> this is a very consistent strategy to support the president's all of the above energy policy and it does know set specific limits on any fuel and it expects all fuels to continue to be operated at significant levels, but it will provide a more efficient energy supply system and it will reduce the harmful carbon