based on the way that this draft reads, would expire three years after congress passes it. and the president believes that is an appropriate period of time for our military to implement a strategy and for us to measure what kind of progress is being made and whether or not the national security interests of the united states are being appropriately advanced. and if after three years the strategy is continuing to succeed and we're seeing the results we'd like and we believe it is necessary for that strategy to continue to be implemented then yes then congress can take up additional legislation to approve the continued use of military force. and again, if the strategy is demonstrating continued progress and it is determined that that strategy needs to continue to be implemented in the same way, then congress should certainly

be able to pass that authorization to use military force as well. that is, after all, the appropriate role for congress to play in all of this. and it is not appropriate for congress, frankly, to try to sidestep the responsibilities that they have in this matter. >> and just to quickly follow up on yemen there are reports including from cnn that the hutis did not allow the marines to take their weapons with them when they were departh. there were cars and other assets of the embassy personnel that were seized inside the embassy that documents were destroyed and other items were destroyed inside the embassy. is that your understanding of how things unfolded? it sounds like this was a close call. >> jim, this sounds like a delicate situation. and we noted the administration was carefully monitoring the security situation on the ground in sanaa to ensure the safety and security of american

personnel who were there. so obviously, the u.s. government determined that the security situation in sanaa was serious enough that it required the temporary relocation of u.s. personnel that are operating in that country and in that city. so i think it is fair for you to assume that this was a pretty serious situation. i know there are some conflict reports on the ground about what has happened since the facility was emptied. and i can't speak to those specific reports. and i can't confirm them. but we certainly -- i certainly would use this opportunity to reiterate the responsibility that the yemeni government and that the huthi rebels have in ensuring the protection of diplomatic property and other equipment that was left behind. okay. margaret? >> thanks, josh. i have an amf question but i first want to ask you on two

other small but important items. >> okay. >> one is has the president been briefed on the situation in chapel hill with the shootings and the deaths of those muslim students and does he have any reaction, does the white house have any reaction? >> there's no specific reaction from the white house. this is something that local law enforcement is investigating. i know based on published reports they have a suspect in custody. and i know that part of that investigation will include the circumstances that may have led to this act of violence and that will also include the investigation of questions of what motivations this individual may have had. this is the very beginning of an ongoing local law enforcement investigation. we're going to await the results of that investigation before we say anything. >> you haven't been in touch with -- >> no, he has not. >> and yesterday -- no i believe today, actually the

u.s. brought a case before the world trade organization over china's subsidy program and the challenge to it, and i'm just wondering whether that came up yesterday in the call with the chinese leader you gave him a heads-up that was coming and whether there was any discussion or reaction to that. >> i don't know frankly wlornt president brought it up in the context of the call, but i'm glad that you brought up this case with me because it is an appropriate time for me to remind all of you about this administration's strong record of going to the wto to protect the american economy and american businesses and american workers. throughout this presidency 18 different times this administration has taken specific cases to the world trade organization raising concerns about the trade practices of other countries. 18 times the united states has come away victorious in resolving those claims, that they were resolved in the favor the united states and in favor of u.s. businesses and u.s. workers. and i think that is testament to

the kind of commitment this administration and this president has made to ensuring that as we engage in a global economy that the president's going to make sure both that we are protecting american workers and american businesses and that we're going to hold other countries accountable for playing by the rules. and as we consider taking additional steps to enter into trade agreements with other countries, particularly in the asia pacific, that as people evaluate whether or not the president is sufficiently committed to protecting american interests as he does that, i think this is a pretty good example i think he's not just committed to protecting american interests but that he's been very successful in doing so. >> and if you're able to clarify any more on whether it's something they discussed yesterday, that would be great. on the amf it sounds sort of obvious but is this now the package that you believe does have enough bipartisan support to be passed by congress?

how confident are you that the amf ask as it now stands is going to be a go get a green light? >> margaret the text that was sent up to capitol hill today and sent to all of you today does reflect the results of hours of conversations between administration officials and democrats and republicans on capitol hill. and it does reflect a committed effort on the part of this administration to try to find common ground on some of these complicated and significant issues. at the same time i -- i'm not at all going to be surprised if there are members of congress who take a look at this legislation and decide i think there are some things we should tweak here and if we do we might be able to build some more support for it. i think it is fair for you to assume this reflects a starting point in conversations. but this starting point was

arrived at after extensive consultations between senior members of the president's national security team and democrats and republicans on capitol hill in both the house and the senate. justin? >> i'm wondering if you can define the word enduring and what enduring means in the context of the amf. >> i wouldn't have a specific number to assign to that word. but i do think that it is an apt way to describe what the president envisions and what he doesn't. what the president does not envision is a long-term large-scale commitment of ground combat troops that we saw in the context of operations in both iraq and afghanistan in the past. that's not what the president has in mind. there's no question that u.s.

military personnel who served in those countries were there on an enduring basis. they were there for years. in afghanistan more than a decade now. that is not at all what the president envisions as part of the strategy for degrading and ultimately destroying isil. and for the reasons i went on at length to convey to mr. costa, the president doesn't believe -- not only does the president not believe that should be part of our strategy he believes that if we were to make those kinds of commitments it would actually undermine our strategy for success in degrading and ultimately destroying isil. >> i guess what i'm trying to figure out is why that word was insert ed inserted because as you've already discussed there are already all these provisions to explain kind of instances where ground forces could be used for rescue mission orz whatever else they might need to be used for. that already exists in amf. what is the point of the word "enduring" ahead of "offensive

ground operations"? >> right. i think again the reason this phrase is put in there in the way it is is it is designed to be very clear about what the president does not envision. and again, what he does not envision is any sort of large-scale long-term commitment of ground combat operations like we saw in iraq and afghanistan previously. but what he does want to preserve is the ability to react to contingencies. and in some cases reacting promptly to contingencies may require ordering military action that does involve combat boots on the ground. and again the two most easily imagined examples are examples in which the president would order military operations involving combat troops to try to rescue u.s. hostages. the president's already done that once. that put combat boots, u.s. combat boots on the ground in syria in an offensive operation.

they were running toward a target. firing at isil fighters. right? >> it's already set aside in the amf. >> not really. this phrase is to try to codify exactly what we're envisioning. so enduring offensive ground combat operations means not doing what was done under the previous administration in iraq but yet preserving the ability to order military operations like the one the president has already ordered to try to rescue u.s. hostages. that is the way it's described in the aumf. >> so the aumf does include separate language about rescue operations or about -- >> i see where this is -- it does not include that. this aumf text does not itemize specific contingencies that would authorize the president to do certain things. and the reason for that is

pretty straightforward. that when we're dealing in a chaotic situation like a military conflict, particularly like this one, it would be difficult for even a group of really smart and experienced people to come up with a comprehensive list of the kinds of contingencies. there certainly is the possibility that contingency that's none of us could possibly imagine could arise, and it would be important that there not be language in the aumf that would limit the president's ability to quickly react to those contingencies. so there have been previous proposal that's have been put forward by some members of congress that did envision some sort of checklist. that would carve out some specific loopholes, if you will, that would allow the president to respond to contingencies that they were able to imagine. and it is the view of this administration that an approach like that doesn't sufficiently preserve the needed flexibility for the commander in chief.

>> the authorization for military force. i just want to make sure i'm reading it properly. there is nothing in this authorization that would prevent an expansion of this war effort beyond iraq and syria to other countries. >> well, john, there are no geographic limitations included in this specific draft legislation. >> so it would offer this president or the next president to authorize -- this president or the next president tone gauge in an air campaign against isis. isil targets that were in lebanon or if they were in afghanistan or pakistan or if they moved elsewhere. >> if necessary it would preserve the ability of the president, of the commander in chief to order military operations against isil or isil-affiliated groups in other countries. and let me explain to you why. simply we don't want to send a signal to isil that they may be able to establish a safe haven somewhere else. that if we pass a piece of legislation that says congress has authorized the president to carry out out the use of military force against targets

in iraq and syria we don't want anyone in isil to be left with the impression if they move to some neighboring country they will be essentially in a safe haven and not within the range of united states military capability. so that is why we've been clear about not including a geographic limitation in this proposal. >> and the president's letter accompanying this aurth for military force says it does not authorize large-scale long-term combat operations like those conducted in afghanistan and iraq. you would acknowledge that there is a lot of daylight between what's going on now and having 100,000 troops on the ground in iraq or afghanistan as we had at one point in both of those countries. a lot of room for expansion. >> what i would acknowledge is the strategy the president has pursued, in this case against isil, to degrade and destroy them is markedly different than the strategy pursued by the previous administration in iraq.

>> i'm trying to get at what's authorized here because it clearly authorized what's growinggoing on now but it would also authorize now based on that language a rather dramatic expansion of the current operation. >> well, i -- >> because we are nowhere near 100,000 ground troops, you know like we were in iraq or afghanistan. >> that's for sure. based on policy decisions made by this commander in chief. >> but this is going to apply to the next commander in chief. hullry clinton, ted cruz, whatever. this will apply to the next president. >> it will. it will. and the president's been very clear about the strategy he has envisioned here and he's been very clear i think about what he believes is in the best interests of the united states. and you are right that the next commander in chief when that person is elected by the american people will have to pursue their own strategy. but they will face the same limitations and constraints under the authorization to use military force that the president will. >> but the only constraint i'm seeing is you can't conduct an

operation on the scale that we saw in iraq or afghanistan under the previous administration. >> well, it's something that could be described as an enduring offensive ground combat operation. >> a fuzzy term, as you've pointed out. >> i acknowledge that what it does is it does preserve the ability of the commander in chief to make the kinds of decisions that he or she believes is in the best interests of the united states. that said the president believes we should state clearly up front that the kind of commitment of ground troops that we saw in iraq or afghanistan in the previous administration was not in the best interests of the united states. >> now, the president's letter also talks about the places where combat troops, ground troops could be used under this authorization. of course he mentions rescue operations, which have already been done. but there are things here that i believe haven't been done yet. correct me if i'm wrong. special operations personnel on the ground going after isil leadership. combat operations on the ground to gather intelligence or to enable kinetic strikes,

presumably by our partners on the ground. or maybe by our pilots. are those things the president is currently contemplating in addition to ground combat troops for intelligence gathering or to go after isil leaders on the ground? >> the president has indicated in the past and we went through some questions about this when general dempsey testified before congress last fall. that it was on the table for the president to adopt a recommendation when it was made. it was not made. at least based on the last update i got on this. let me start over. if the president's senior military leaders and his national security team recommended to him that it would be beneficial to our strategy and this overall operation to forward deploy some troops to assist in kinetic air strikes, that is something the president would consider. but i think what general dempsey testified before congress is he

had not yet made that recommendation to the president. >> or to go after isil leaders, which is mentioned here. that was not part of dempsey's testimony. >> yeah. i think that's a different -- that is a different scenario. i don't know that anything like that has been floated at this point. i mean i think what the president, or at least what some of us envision in this description is the raid that president obama ordered against osama bin laden. that was a scenario where there were u.s. combat troops on the ground in pakistan in this case to bring osama bin laden to justice. and you could imagine a scenario where the president might find it would be beneficial to our strategy to order a similar raid against a high value target that was a member of the isil leadership. >> and thun other topic quickly. the counterterrorism chief for the fbi in prepared testimony before congress today said one of the new wave of extremism that would blend homegrown

violent extremism with foreign terrorist organizations and he said individuals inspired by foreign terrorist groups could be covertly arming themselves with expertise and tools to carry out an attack on the homeland. does the white house agree with the counterterrorism chief of the fbi? >> well i haven't seen his entire testimony. but based on what you've read and what we've said in the past the president has directed his team including the department of homeland security and law enforcement to be vigilant about the kinds of threats posed both by foreign fighters, these are individuals with western passports and they've previously traveled to the region to fight alongside ice sxl may be considering or may have already returned home and are considering carrying out acts of violence here. we're also mindful of the need to try to counter efforts by isil to use social media to radicalize people and inspire them to carry out acts of violence. that's one of the reasons the president's convening a summit next week at the white house on countering violent extremism to make sure we're mobilizing all the resources we have both at

the federal government but also at the local level, to try to counter that messaging and prevent people who may be expose exposed to that kind of radical messaging. >> one of the things he said specifically is those coming to the country as syrian refugees may not be properly vetted. is there a concern in the administration that we could have people coming to this country portraying themselves as refugees from the conflict in syria who may actually be something far more sinister? >> what i can say is as a general matter the united states government does spend extensive resources to ensure that individuals who have recently traveled in syria are properly vetted before they're allowed into this country. okay. major. >> a couple on yemen. at the top you said that counterterrorism operations are ongoing and they're being coordinated with national security officials in yemen. who are they? >> well, major, i'd refer you to the department of defense, who is principally the point of contact for a lot of these

operations. they may be in a position to tell you a little bit more about who their counterparts are in yemen. but there are -- >> are these u.s. national security officials in yemen you're referring to? >> there are department of defense personnel, u.s. department of defense personnel that continue to be on the ground in yemen, that are continuing to work with their counterparts to carry out counterterrorism missions. >> someone might ask you reasonably, the embassy is closed. you had a pretty serious and somewhat delicate, to use your words, evacuation of u.s. personnel. in what way does this still qualify as a success of u.s. counterterrorism operations? >> well, major it's really important to differentiate between two things. yemen has been a country that has been divided and reassembled on multiple occasions. it is a country with a pretty weak central government. that's been the case for a long

time now. and that is despite the effort of the united states to try to support yemenis in having the kind of central government that represents their people and is able to successfully provide security for their people. that has been a long-running challenge. but what is also part of our strategy in terms of our dealings with yemen is to make sure that we are using our diplomacy and our work, our counterterrorism work with the yemeni government, but also using our own equipment and personnel to carry out counterterrorism operations in yemen. that some extremists including extremists in al qaeda and the arabian peninsula have sought to use the instability in yemen as a safe haven to plan and carry out operations or terror attacks around the globe. and because of our diplomatic work because of our strong counterterrorism partnership, but also because of this president's own determination and willingness to order u.s.

military operations in that region we have succeeded in applying significant pressure to the aqap leadership that's operating in yemen. i'm often not in a position to talk about specific operations that have been carried out. but it is not uncommon for you to read unconfirmed reports that the united states was somehow involved in taking an aqap leader off the battlefield in yemen. >> justin appropriately focused on the word "enduring." not to parse this too specifically but i'd like to focus on the word "offensive." because the joint resolution starts with "whereas isil holds significant territory and has stated it intention to seize more territory and demonstrated the capability to do so," does this not or would this not authorize defensive operation that's could be enduring if in fact baghdad or someplace else strategically important were to

come under sustained threat from isil and the u.s. would need to protect it to achieve its long-term military goals? >> we certainly want anything in the aumf to be construed by anybody as a limitation on the ability of american men and women to protect themselves, particularly if they're military personnel that are operating in a place like iraq. so let me give you a good example of this. right now there are some u.s. military personnel that are operating in bases outside baghdad but in iraq where they are working not in a combat role but to train security forces in iraq. these are individuals operating in a very dangerous part of the world. if their base were to come under sustained attack by isil extremists they would certainly have all the authority they need to protect themselves and protect their position. and we wouldn't want any

language in the authorization to use military force to leave them with the impression they should do anything other than protect themselves. >> right. clearly. and it also seems to me to open up the window for the moving into iraq large numbers of u.s. combat forces in a defensive posture if necessary to sustain and ultimately achieve the other objectives that are outlined here in the aumf. >> that is certainly not contemplated in the president's strategy. the underpinning of our strategy here is to try to build up the capacity of local security forces so they can provide for the security of their own country. i think that the strategy that the president has laid out probably would rule out what you're talking about. and congress is going to have to sort of evaluate this language in terms of trying to strike the right baffle both placing appropriate limitations on the commander in chief while at the same time making sure that they don't interfere with his or her

ability to react to contingencies that may arise in a military conflict. >> why not repeal the 2001 authorization in this process, and why no mention of the assad regime? i know they're different questions. >> yeah, they are. let's do the first one first which is that the -- what the president does mention in his letter to congress is further refinement of the 2001 aumf. as the president mentioned in his speech he gave at national defense university a year and a half ago he noted that the authorization to use military force that was passed by congress in the days after 9/11 is now more than 13 years old. and there is no doubt that the ongoing conflict with al qaeda has changed. it's evolved. the threat we face from al qaeda is much different than it was in 2001. and it is the view of the president that the aumf that authorized the use of military

force against al qaeda should be changed to reflect that. with the eventual goal as the president articulated in that speech a year and a half ago of repealing that 2001 aumf. that eventually we want to be in a scenario where we're not on a permanent war footing. but there's no question that right now the threat that we face from al qaeda is one we take very seriously and one that -- to which the president and his national security team devote significant attention. on assad the policy of the administration has not changed. the president and this administration does believe that assad has lost his legitimacy to lead the nation of syria in fact, it is the view of this administration that because of assad's failed leadership the security situation in syria deteriorated precipitously and allowed a group like isil to gain a foothold and eventually to expand pretty rapidly not just across syria but also

across iraq. so our position to and our concerns about the assad regime have been well chronicled. but our focus and the focus of this authorization to use military force is on isil. >> on behalf of our affiliate in chicago the president welcomed the jackie robinson little league team here and celebrated their success. that success in the little league world series is now under intensifying scrutiny. does the president have any regrets about celebrating that victory or believe this investigation is in danger of delegitimateizing that which he celebrated here with those young men on that baseball team? >> the president invited the jackie robinson west little league team to the white house to celebrate the accomplishment of those young men and the performance that they -- you know, the strong performance that they delivered on a pretty large stage for a 12-year-old. the president is proud of the way that they represented their city and the way they represented the country.

the fact is, you know some dirty dealing by some adults doesn't take anything away from the accomplishments of those young men. >> and the white house believes dirty dealing has been done? >> well, that's just based on the public reports that i've read. so i understand that there is an investigation into this. but -- >> is he going to take any other steps, josh? >> josh -- >> just to follow up on that one, is he -- >> josh -- >> i'll come back to you. don't interrupt sxwlip want to come back to aumf. but you haven't been asked about ukraine yet. in the call youthe president had with russian president putin yesterday. what can you tell bus the chance the president and angela merkel held up at that news conference that wednesday's the deadline did vladimir putin indicate to the president at all that he's ready to deal, he's going to deescalate this? >> well, ed i think that's something that chancellor merkel, president hollande, president poroshenko will find out when they meet with president putin later today. that's scheduled for minsk later

today. and that will be a very important meeting. it will be an opportunity for certainly president putin 20 come to the negotiating table. and it will have an opportunity at least preliminarily to gauge how serious he is about trying to resolve or at least deescalate the situation in eastern ukraine. >> if that does not deescalate -- when the president talked the other day about potentially arming ukraineians what did he mean by a "lethal defensive weapon"? >> well, the united states has provided substantial assistance to the ukrainian military already. in excess of $100 million worth of equipment. on a couple of occasions i've read the long list. i'll spare you this time. >> aren't weapons usually offensive? i'm trying to understand the approach of you're giving a military weapons, a defensive weapon? wouldn't it be an offensive weapon? >> well, there are things like countermortar radars, demining equipment. these are things that could sort of be used as weapons by a

military force to protect themselves. and that's equipment the president has already authorized could be provided to the ukrainian military as they withstand this withering assault from separatists that are backed by the russian military. >> but can you sustain a withering assault with demining equipment? does that make a difference? >> i think what we have seen is that russia has committed significant military equipment to backing the separatists and what the president has said is it's unrealistic to think that the united states can provide signif- -- enough military assistance we can level the playing field between the ukrainian military and the russian military. so what the administration has sought to do working closely with our partners in europe is to apply pressure to the putin regime and change their calculus as it relates to their commitment of military resources to back the separatists.

squla >> a couple quick ones on isis aun. several times you referred back to afghanistan as being a big difference from the previous administration. seems a little awkward to be citing afghanistan when we're seeing more reports and public testimony from ash carter saying the president may be backsliding again on how many troops we're leaving behind in afghanistan. i understand it's not 100,000 p a big difference. but are you leaving the door open yet again to leaving more troops behind in afghanistan that the president has repeatedly told the public about? >> ed, the president has laid out what he believes is a very clear strategy for afghanistan. over the course of his presidency we've seen the president announce a surge of military military personnel. the improvement in the security climate in afghanistan. and since then the president has authorized and ordered in fact a staged withdrawal, a responsible

withdrawal of american military personnel from afghanistan. the president throughout that time has preserved for himself the flexibility to respond to the security situation on the ground. but what has been clear over the last six years is that the president's vision for the strategy has been consistent and i can tell you that over the course of the last two years as we fnd to withdraw our military personnel from afghanistan the president remains committed to that strategy. >> since afghanistan and repeatedly on aumf you talk about the word flexibility. it keeps coming up. if this is all about flexibility why is there any sunset at all? why is there a three-year timetable? why not leave it open? is the president guaranteeing with this that you're going to defeat isis in three years? >> the president is not saying that. the president has made clear that this is a longer-term proposition, that dealing with the extremists in isil, particularly in a region of the world that's as rolt'll as the dplaeft-s going to be a long-term proposition. the president's been very forthright about that. >> why not leave the door open? if it's going to take longer than three years you're

acknowledging up front. >> it will. and let me say one other thing about that. the other thing is this. the other reason this is going to take a while is the president does not believe it's in the interests of the united states for to us commit all our military resources to go in and solving this problem for the iraqi people or for the syrian people. that ultimately a durable solution to this nettlesome problem is building up the capacity of security forces in iraq and opposition fighters in syria to fight for their own country. and it's going to take time fwold up the capacity of other fighters. the united states has the bravest most well equipped best trained fighting force in the world. it is a logical assumption that if u.s. military forces were committed and we're going to go in and do this on our own that the timeline would be shorter. but in this situation building up the capacity of local security forces is going to take some time, but we can do that in a way, and making that kind of

longer-term commitment is consistent with our national security interests. >> last within on kayla mueller. the president in the buzzfeed interview said we've done all we could to try to rescue her. we've been told about intelligence as far back as last may suggesting that the intelligence community had at least some sense of her whereabouts and other hostages. and the president talked about and you talked about the rescue operation happened in july. there's a gap there between may and july. obviously i understand there could be weather, there could be other factors on the ground, other pieces of intelligence, you don't just move in within five minutes. i get that. but how can the president if there's that gap of a couple of months, how can he tell buzzfeed i did all i can when a couple of months did pass? can you explain that gap? >> ed, i can confirm for you there was no delay in the president's decision to order this military raid as soon as and he his military advisers and his national security team had confidence that -- or at least a high degree of confidence about where exactly she was. that is why the president can say unequivocally that he and

his administration and this government did everything we could to try to secure the safe return of kayla mueller. chris. >> thanks, josh. some of the lawmakers involved in crafting or certainly voted on the 2002 aumf have stated since then that they never intended it to be what it became, and that's not just in terms of the timeline and how long it took but in the breadth of it. so when you talk about some sort of intentional fuzziness in the language what do you say to lawmakers today, particularly democrats, who have those concerns about an open-endedness if not in terms of time but in what actually transpires? >> chris, anybody who takes a look at this language that's included in the submission that we put forward would acknowledge that it does contain limitations. it does include this three-year sunset that ed referred to in his line of questioning. it does include limitations that

prevent the deployment enduring offensive ground combat operations. so there are limits, but within those limits the president believes the commander in chief needs to have flexibility to respond to contingencies that often come up in a chaotic situation like a military conflict. and this military conflict in particular has demonstrated -- or has created a particularly chaotic situation. and it's important for the commander in chief to have the ability to order military operations when necessary to protect american national security interests or the american people. but all of that can be done in the constraints we've laid out which is within three years or within at least sort of an enduring offensive commitment of ground combat troops. >> the president said he doesn't believe he needs this legally

but he thinks it sends an important message. what is that message very specifically? and if this aumf passes what's the very practical implications of it in f. it's not necessary legally? >> i think in principle the president believes two things. one is the united states congress when they took the oath of office took an oath to fulfill their duties under the united states constitution. and one of the duties they've been given under the united states constitution is to have a role in foreign policy. and the president believes it is important for congress to step up and assume that responsibility. as i mentioned before the president and his national security team and certainly our men and women in uniform have fulfilled their responsibility to keep the country safe and congress, both democrats and republicans on the hill, have a responsibility to make their voice heard and to take the actions that they have been given or assume the responsibilities that they've been given under the

constitution to take actions that are supportive of the national security interests of the united states. the second thing is and this is important as well, is that it does send a powerful signal to the american people, to our allies, and even to our enemies that the united states government and that the democratic and republican parties inside the united states are united and supportive of the present strategy to degrade sxumtly destroy isil. and that will be an important diplomatic signal we'll send to the members of our coalition that the united states government commitment to this task of degrading and ultimately destroying isil is unwavering and it will send a clear signal to our not miz that if there is any doubt in their mind that the united states of america takes their threat seriously, this would eliminate that threat -- that doubt. >> but would it be fair to say that the impact is largely political and diplomatic and will not have an impact either

strategically or operationally? >> well the president has already indicated and his lawyers have confirmed for him based on their review of the law that congress has already given the president the authority to authorize -- or to order these actions under the aumf passed in 2001. there are some who argue the president has this authority und your the 2002 aumf as well. but the fact of the matter is the president has the authority to order the military operation that's have been taken so far. the president believes that as a matter of principle it's important for congress to make their voice heard and to pass an authorization to use military force that is more tailored to the specific threat that the united states faces today. >> let me ask you. there has been an unusually high level of cooperation between the house and lawmakers on capitol hill. we've heard about conversations air force one conversations.

can you speak a little more about that cooperation what the president plans to do going forward as this debate gets under way? >> well, chris, i can tell you that a wide variety of officials were involved in these conversations, that it's not just officials from the white house who were involved. the secretary of state has previously testified before congress on some of these issues. other high-ranking officials at the department of state, some of my colleagues on the national security council, have all been involved in the conversations with members of congress and their staff about these issues. certainly the white house counsel's office. members of the president's personal staff have been involved in these conversations as well. and it's all been part of an effort to try to find common ground on these complicated but yet very important issues. we've put forward legislative language today. this is language that members of congress requested. to try to help them identify common ground or at least identify common ground as a

starting point for the legislative process on capitol hill. the administration and this president will continue to be engaged in conversations and working with democrats and republicans because ultimately what we would like to see is an outcome that reflects the strategy that the president's pursued so far, that reflects our clear national security interests and that reflects the bipartisan support of the congress. >> i guess i asked the question because as you well know a lot of republicans and some democrats have criticized the president for not being more involved and not doing more outreach and in fact some have been quite complimentary over the last couple of days about the level of discussions between the white house. so would you foresee a more in-depth level of participation direct participation by the president going forward in this -- on this debate in particular? >> well it won't surprise you to hear that the president has a

lot of personal interest in the way this is all resolved. so yes i would anticipate that the president will continue to be involved in conversations with individual members of congress as this issue works its way through the legislative process. >> cheryl. >> thanks. two quick ones. given the difficulties that the senate is having passing funding for the decht healthpartment of health -- department of homeland security, would the white house consider another short-term c.e.r.? >> well, cheryl, we haven't seen a specific proposal like that. i can tell you that the administration believes firmly, as i've said on many occasions that it is pretty irresponsible for republicans in congress to be playing politics with the funding of the department of homeland security. and what's clear now is they have painted themselves into a corner. that they, you know -- i made reference to this in a briefing earlier this week. i don't know if it was yesterday.

maybe it was last week. where back in the fall we were talking about this. this whole cromnibus thing where essentially the congress would pass a full year -- or full fiscal year of funding for every element of the u.s. government except the department of homeland security. and we had a long discussion about how i didn't think republicans were going to think it was particularly smart to hold up funding or at least threaten funding for the department of homeland security in protest over their political differences with the president. and lo and behold, that's actually what's happened. and i do think that it raises questions about whether or not republicans are prepared to assume the responsibility that the american people have given them to run the united states congress. this is a matter that the president can't solve for them. again, the founders of this country conferred upon the united states congress the power

of the purse. they are the ones who have to make the funding decisions and they are the ones who have to make decisions about what the budget of the department of homeland security is going to look like. i don't think there's anybody who thinks it's a good idea, democrat or republican, for us to not fund the department of homeland security, particularly at this time when our homeland faces some pretty serious threats. so it is time for republicans to set aside politics to focus on their core responsibility to fund the department of homeland security. if they do that, i think they will find a lot of willing partners on the democratic side of the aisle and they'll find a democratic president who's eager to work with them to sign legislation to ensure our department of homeland security has the resources necessary to protect the american people. >> and real quick, last night the members of the congressional black caucus came out and said they had discussed trade with the president and that they were looking for creative ways to find job opportunities for the unemployed should trade promotion authority pass. i'm just wondering if you have

any insights into what they're looking at. >> i don't have -- i didn't sit in on the conversation. i know there was a rather detailed read-out of that meet 245g was put out after the meeting concluded. at this point i don't have any specific detail to add to it other than i know there was an extensive discussion of the economy and middle-class economics in the context of that meeting. but as it relates to specific proposals i'm not in a position to read out exactly what they discussed. jessica. >> thanks, josh. quick follow on chris's question about the aumf. and the tangible evidence of what could happen. is there anything from what you understand that you could do under the requested aumf language that you cannot do under the current language? >> well i think it's actually the other way around. i think what the president envisions is more constraints on the executive branch in the isil aumf than exists under the 2001

aumf. for example, the 2001 aumf does not have a time limitation. but yet the isil alternative that we've put forward does. the 2001 aumf we're currently operating under does not include a limit on enduring offensive ground combat operations. that is something that is contemplated in the legislative language that we put forward. i think the way to look at it is there are some things that are allowed under the 2001 aumf that would not be allowed under the isil aumf. this is part of -- this is consistent with the president's approach to these issues. the president gave this speech at national defense university a year and a half ago where he talked about why it was important for congress to play a more hands-on role as the u.s. government confronts some of these difficult challenges. the proposal we put forward i think reflects the president's desire to give congress that role but to ensure that when

congress speaks that they're speaking in -- with a bipartisan voice. zblifn't >> i haven't heard you use that rationale in defending the new request. i've heard unity. i've heard congress needs to step up. is that also part of the rationale for the new draft legislation and asking the congress to vote on this? >> well, the reason -- >> in other words, the restrictions. you that want the restrictions. >> the president said this more eloquently than i could in that national defense university speech. so i would commend that to your attention. but yes, the president's view is that congress should play a more important role in these matters and that he's hopeful they will step up to the plate assume responsibility, and engage in the kind of dialogue on this issue that is worthy of the american people and is worthy of something as important as our national security. zblankz. >> >> thanks. >> alexis. >> i want to ask two questions

on aum.f. is the president saying if congress does not step up to its responsibility the passing of a new aumf will have no impact on his exercising his authority as commander in chief? >> the president is saying he has the authority he needs to authorize or to order the military action that's have already taken place. so the answer to your question is yes because the president believes congress has already given him this authority. however, the president has made the case i think pretty persuasively to all of you at least that the authorization to use military force should be updated and right sized to reflect the threats that america faces right now. >> and the follow-up is as congress engages in this debate which could be prolonged, is the president expecting to be influenced by the debate in terms of his strategy or pursuit

of policy to defeat ice snis. >> i think the president's been clear about what our strategy is, and it's the responsibility of the commander in chief to lay out that strategy. that doesn't mean the president -- well, the president is of course open to the advice and counsel and opinions and insights of members of congress as he assumes his responsibility for implementing the strategy. as i mentioned before, there is plenty of reason for us to feel good about the progress of the strategy so far. as i've done on a couple of occasions let me just give you an update. the coalition's conducted more than 2,350 air strikes against isil targets. 1,300 air strikes have been conducted in iraq and more than 1,050 of them in syria. those air strikes have been successful in taking out isil fighters, their commanders. more than 1,000 vehicles and tanks that are operated by isil. more than 200 oil and gas facilities. this is part of the infrastructure that funds their reign of terror. these air strikes have also

succeeded in taking out at least 20 training camps and more than 2,000 different fighting positions, checkpoints, buildings, and barracks in iraq and in syria. syria. and this has been -- the evidence for this can be viewed in many ways. in the middle of last summer we saw isil was making an advance in iraq and they were closing in on erbil. because of steps this president ordered to support fighters on the ground and carry out military air strikes that advance was rebuffed and rolled back. there was a lot of discussion about the situation in kobani and the advances made posed a significant threat. because of fighters on the ground that were backed by coalition air strikes those fighters succeeded in driving isil out of kobani. i don't want to leave you with the impression that that is a

turning point. i think it is clear evidence that the strategy the president pursued has succeeded in rolling back isil and limiting capacity to establish an islamic state. the president certainly welcomes advice and insight opinions from congress. >> one other element of this. the word enduring, the president is conceding that the risks to u.s. national security as you described it in his efforts as commander in chief will be endured endured. despite the elements that you described of success, he is not arguing that this element of our u.s. foreign policy will be enduring. it will be prolonged. >> i think that what the

president has said is that it requires a serious commitment from the united states and from our government to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. we will work closely with the international community and members of the coalition will have something to say about this. i talk a lot about the aumf today. there is one important point about this three year limit in place from the draft legislation that we put forward. based on what i have just said about the important progress that our strategy has demonstrated it certainly is possible that three years from now the threat posed by isil could look different. so it might make sense, then, three years from now for maybe there continues to be a need for military operations, but the threat that we face could after three years be different. if our strategy continues to succeed we could see that isil continues to be rolled back as

the proficiency of the syrian opposition fighters improves based on training and then take the fight to isil on the ground in syria. we could see the threat change. it might be a scenario where aumf that congress needs to pass could be further limited and further tailored to meet the threat that we face three years from now. that would be the other reason for there to be this three-year limit in place. not because we expect the war to be over or this conflict to be over but because we anticipate the conflict will be different because of progress we have made in degrading and destroying isil. >> i have a science question and lighter question. the president spoke yesterday with not paying ransom. can you confirm that the united states would never pay ransom

for an american hostage. what can you say to the family when asking to pay a ransom? >> it is the policy of the united states to not make concessions to terrorists. that includes paying ransom. that is a policy that has been in place over the course of the six years of this administration. it was also in place in previous administrations, as well. and the reason for that in this case is two fold. the first is we know that isil benefits financially from hostage taking and the payment of ransoms that many of the operations are funded by ransoms they collect. one of the core components of our strategy against isil is shut off their sources of funding. that is one reason that the united states will not be a part of paying ransom to terrorists. the second thing is it only exposes americans to greater risks. if isil can operate under the assumption that every time they take an american hostage they

can collect a substantial sum of money in exchange for that person it only makes the situation more dangerous for americans. that is the reason we have pursued this policy. at the same time i would acknowledge as the president did in the interview yesterday that this is a policy that is terribly painful for families that are in the unthinkable position of having a loved one held hostage in syria or the broader region. and that is why our hearts go out to families that are in that terrible position. it is why the administration works so closely with them. it's why there is deep engagement all across the administration that we use our diplomatic resources, law enforcement resources, intelligence resources and military capability to try to secure the safe return of americans who are being held hostage. but i will not be in a position to deny that this is a very painful policy for the administration to pursue in the

eyes of a family that is desperate to secure the return of their loved one. >> lighter question the french love john stewart. do you have a comment on what is happening with brian williams because it is making news all over the world about what journalism in america might be? >> it is. well, there are a lot of fans in the united states of jon stewart's, as well. as somebody who i would certainly describe myself as a fan and an occasional victim of jon stewart but we will be sad to see him go. he is somebody who brought a really unique perspective to comedy and even to informing the public about what is happening in the country. and he's a really talented guy as others have noted. this is probably not the last we have heard of jon stewart.

i hope that is the case. as for mr. williams, i know this is something that nbc news has been talking about quite a bit in the last several weeks. i don't think that is something i'm going to weigh in. >> april, i will give you the last one. >> back on the cdc did the president or the vice president at all in any way preview this aumf letter today to the cdc? >> april i didn't sit in on the meeting. i know it lasted quite a while. i know they did not hand out paper copies of what was distributed on capitol hill today. i wouldn't be surprised if there might be discussion in the meeting. let me have somebody follow up with you. >> that could have happened last night? >> there could have been discussion of some -- i wouldn't be surprised if it happens. let me have somebody who sat in on the meeting follow up with you about it.

>> with that with the aumf was there discussion about boko haram as there was a topic of africa put on the table at that meeting last night? what was the white house response to the cdc about boko haram in africa? >> april, again i don't know whether or not this particular national security issue came up, either. i can tell you this is an issue that has been raised to the president's attention when he deals with members of congress. i know there are many members of the congressional black caucus concerned about the security situation in nigeria and other countries effected by boko haram. the president restated to them what i have said publically is that there continues to be a u.s. presence in nigeria. these are individuals working closely with our counter parts in nigeria who have specific expertise who are using

intelligence resources and other advice from the u.s. government to try to assist the nigerian government as they carry out counter terrorism operations and fight these extremists in their own country. that coordination continues. >> the new chair congressman butterfield has very high expectations for the remaining two years of the president. he said the first six years were historic but he is expecting more with the last two. is the white house going to in a way marry his expectations with new legislation that effects the targets, black america, particularly as he says black america is in a state of naerges in this country? >> i think most importantly it is the president who has high expectations. the president used this analogy that he is in the fourth quarter. a lot of important things happen in the fourth quarter.

i think anybody who watched the president's state of the union address would acknowledge that he's got a pretty large aspirations for what can be accomplished both by working with congress and by working on his own to make progress for the american people and by focusing on middle class economics we can do most good for most americans including many black americans, as well. >> lynn, are you trying to ask a question earlier? do you want to ask it now? >> thank you very much. in november if there was anything more of a message to the boys about what you said was the dirty dealings of adults? if they feel his trip here was not right or if they have to apologize. do you think they have any message to the boys more than to the adults? >> i think what the president would say is that the actions of

those adults doesn't in any way take away from the accomplishments of those young men who performed brilliantly on the baseball diamond on a pretty large stage. their accomplishment is the product of years of commitment and practice and some skill. they should be proud of what they have accomplished. there is nothing that those adults who may not have done the right thing could do to take away from the accomplishments. the president in the message he delivered personally is hopeful that they will continue to take that sense of purpose and that determination and that patience and apply it to success in other elements in their lives. >> thanks, guys. tonight on c-span 3 a senate hearing on proposed epa regulations and power plant emissions. today's session of prime minister's questions from

british house of commons. followed by director of national drug control policy. supreme court justice hosted graduating students at the georgetown law center. the environmental protection agency has proposed new power plant regulations aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions. the hearing was held on those proposed rules and her testimony from janet mckane. senator james inhofe chairs this 2 1/2 hour hearing. >> get the unpopular stuff out of the way first. let me assure my friends on the democratic side that senator boxer did everything she could

to change the minds of the majority on opening statements. it has been our feeling on opening statements that quite often and i can remember going as much as two hours on opening statements where witnesses came from far away are not the case with you but in many cases and have to sit and wait. so instead of that we are going to have longer times for questions so that individuals want to talk and combine that with opening statements they can do it. we are using the early bird rule. i will go ahead and start with opening statements. acting administrator mckane we are happy to work with you. three separate rules should be introduced before the house energy and power subcommittee on june 19 of 2014 does nothing to save us from global warming.

that's a quote that i will use when it is my turn for questions so that people won't question the accuracy of that. no one should be surprised. we have been here before. nasa dr. james hanson said the protocol will have little effect on temperatures in the 21st century and will take 30 to reduce warming. even when secretary contradicted lisa jackson in july of '09 of course she was the chairman of the director of the epa at that time, she honestly testified that u.s. action would not impact world co 2 levels. you don't have to go back to that time because that question i asked at one time sitting right here i said if we were to pass any of these bills at that time would this have the effect of reducing co 2 emissions world wide? she said no it would not. this is not where the problem

is. the problem is china and india and so forth. we all know that. i am going to go through here to try to get these points across and then we will hear from senator boxer. by mid december your office plans to complete the small business advocacy review issue a model federal implementation plan and evaluate literally five million public comments to your proposed rules. the agency missed the deadline to finalize the proposal by january 8 of this year. i am interested in learning how the epa expects to comply with an ex pedited timeline. it should not be a surprise that 31 states have now opposed the clean power plan. today ms. mckade it iscabe we are

inviting the stakeholders, the ones that have to comply will be having a hearing with them. we have a problem with a number of the proposals. i understand the most expensive regulation in history and failed to achieve your own goals according to the economic consulting and analysis firm the clean power plant alone would cost on existing power plants $73 billion a year and upwards of $469 billion over the next 15 years. it is hard to say on the new source because no one is going to be building a new coal plant, those are the words of the president. he said so if someone wants to build a power plant they can but it will bankrupt it. that is clearly the intent of

this. the thing that we are trying to do right now with regulation is what they tried to do since 2002 through legislation. the first one we remember was the rule that was 1997. they came back and vote on the senate floor was 95-0 not to adopt a kyoto type plan. then we had the mccain lieberman bill in 2002. the mccain lieberman bill in 2005 and another bill with lieberman in 2008 and everyone of them went down in defeat in the senate. these were all senate bills. they went down in defeat by a greater margin. so i just think that you are looking at something now that we want to hear how epa is steam rolling ahead requesting billions of dollars and

proposals which states reject and ignores the will of congress and relies on unreasonable assumption, costs billions of dollars and will increase our energy bill and not impact global warming. senator boxer? >> mr. chairman before we start the clock i want to respond to this idea that nobody can make opening statements except you or me. i think it is wrong. for 15 years we all listened to each other. i want a large official opposition of democratic minority to limiting opening statements. >> let me respond to that before we start the clock rolling. we talked about that in our conference. we are a majority now. i recall you saying elections do have consequences. so some of these things are subject to change. my problem has always been many of the committees such as senate armed services committee only have ranking member and chairman making opening statements. these are large committees.

i can remember sitting as long as two hours listening to each of us talk when we have people coming in from california, from long distances away. and i think with eight minute rounds which is what we are going to have i think each member can take half of that and use that if that member wants to. that is going to be the policy. i know that you don't like it. >> i don't. >> you voiced yourself. >> we don't like it and i don't like gagging members of this committee. but it's just -- i'm sad about it. we have done it for 15 years. and also part of it is you and i get to question first. so now you speak five minutes. i speak five minutes. the witness speaks. by the time we get to members it's noon. >> let's start the clock. >> can i ask consent that my statement be included in the

record? >> mr. chairman today's oversight hearing will examine the critically important steps that the obama administration is taking to address climate change by reducing dangerous carbon pollution from the biggest source power plants. they account for 40% of all carbon pollution released into the air and we are seeing the consequences. let's look at the trends across the country. it's official, 2014 was the hottest year in recorded history. 2014 was earth's warmest year on record. how hot was it? 2014 was earth's warmest year on record, data shows. everyone can say whatever they want and say it is cold and snowing. we all know the facts are the facts. and for goodness sakes how out of step can people be with the scientists and people of this country who are so far ahead. thank you. nasa and noaa found in the 134

years of record keeping no year was hotter around the globe than 2014. the president's proposal 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 to our farmers, businesses, tourist industry to our people. i often say if people can't breathe they can't work or go to school. we know that this particular proposal will avoid up to 3,700 cases of bronchitis in children, 150,000 asthma attacks, 3,300 heart attacks 6,600 premature deaths and 490,000 missed days of school. who are we working for? the people of this country or the polluters? i think that is the question. the obama administration gets it. and so do the american people. let's look at a new staff poll which found 83% of americans including 61% of republicans say

if nothing is done to reduce carbon pollution global warming will be a serious problem into the future. and 77% of americans of all political stripes say the federal government should be doing a substantial amount to combat climate change. last year this committee for four former epa administrators all republicans who served under presidents nixon, george w. bush agree climate change requires action now and shouldn't be a partisan issue. i thought for sure that would change some minds on my republican side. not one mind was changed. now, the president's plan relies on the authorities under the clean air act which was created with an overwhelming bipartisan consensus. in 1970 the clean air act passed the senate by a vote of 73-0, passed the house by 375-1, was

signed into law by president nixon. the clean air act has a proven track record of success. what president obama is doing is building on that success. i often say in all of the years i have been in office it's a long time no one ever complained that the air was too clean. barbara, the air is just clean enough. don't do anything more. they want us to keep cleaning the air. my home state has been a leader in proving you can grow this economy. california households pay the ninth lowest electricity bills and the per person carbon foot print is among lowest in the country. we also added 491,000 jobs in the first year of the state's cap in trade system a job growth rate of 3.3% better than the national rate of 2.5%. and over the last four years we have turned a $26 billion budget deficit into a projected $4

billion surplus. don't tell me that if you move forward on clean air you destroy the economy or destroy your budget. it is quite the opposite. climate change is happening now. we can't afford to wait. and i commend the president and the epa for taking action to protect our families and our children from the worst impacts. in the time remaining i ask unanimous consent to place into the record the article today in the washington post. thank you. it says studies on modifying climate urge geo engineering would be a risky last resort scientists say. i urge everyone to read this. we don't need this brave new world of geo engineering. we can move forward on the policies that the president has put forward and that republican presidents have put forward. let's move ahead and do the right thing for our children and our families and our nation.

>> thank you members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today. climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. it already threatens health and welfare and economic well being and if left unchecked it will have devastating impacts on the united states and the planet. the science is clear. the risks are clear and the high cost of climate inaction are clear. we must act. that is why president obama laid out a climate action plan and why this summer the epa will be taking flexible common sense steps to cut carbon pollution from the power sector. these steps will help build a more resilient nation and lead the world in our global climate fight. starting in january 2014 epa issued three proposals. these rules will set standards

for co 2 emissions from new, existing and modified and reconstructed fossil fuel powered plants. as we announced the epa intends to finalize these rules by mid summer 2015. epa's stakeholder outreach and public engagement in preparation has been unprecedented and resulted in an unprecedented amount of public input. we are reviewing the comments received on the proposal and the more than 3.5 million comments on the proposal for existing and modified and reconstructive sources. as we work our way through the comments what is completely apparent is not only the time and effort that states and many stakeholders have put into developing their input but the importance that we as a country place on moving forward to address climate change. this input is especially important given the important role the states will play in this program. we have received comment on a range of crucial issues from the

investments these rules might require to maintain reliability which is a consideration we view with the utmost importance in implementing all clean air protections to costs to right levels of stringency and establishing a workable path to bring about success in moving to a less carbon intensive energy production while safe guarding a reliable and affordable supply of electricity. businesses and consumers many comments identify opportunities to drive investment in innovative clean technologies as well as reiterating the importance of emissions reduction in addressing climate change. we are addressing and accounting for all of the information and ideas received on the three separate proposals and we are confident that the final rules will be improved as a result of this input. while epa is firmly focused on the work needed to finalize rules that take into account the input we receive we remain

committed to continuing engagement with states, tribes, other federal agencies resource planning organizations and others. as part of this process we know that states are beginning to think about the very real task of drafting and developing state plans used to implement the plan when it is issued. we are preparing to provide states the assistance they need as they begin to develop their state plans. that is why we are also starting a rule making process to develop a rule that both would set forth a proposed federal plan and by providing a model could help states thinking about their own plans. i want to be clear that epa's strong preference is that states submit their plans tailored to their specific needs and priorities and we believe states will want to do that here. we also know that setting out a federal plan is an important step to assure clean air obligations are fulfilled. we believe many states find it helpful to find a federal plan

proposal as they begin to develop compliance plans. that is why we are aiming to issue the federal plan proposal in mid summer, as well. when fully implemented the plan is expected to help deliver 730 million tons of reduction in co 2 emissions, a substantial reduction of the harmful pollution and lead to thousands fewer heart attacks and other health benefits. these reductions deliver tens of billions of dollars in public health and climate benefits that outweigh the costs of the plan. the reductions achieved with the reductions in carbon pollution alone will yield $7 in health benefits for every dollar we invest in meeting the standards. because energy efficiency is a smart cost effective strategy we predict average bills will be 8% cheaper than projected to be without the clean power plan. when he unveiled his climate

action plan in june of 2013 president obama made clear among his goals was not only achieving meaningful reductions in domestic but asserting leadership in the international effort to combat climate change. we believe the clean power plan will fulfill obligations under the clean air act to protect communities from dangerous air pollution. it is a significant component of the administration's broad based set of actions that have achieved and will continue to achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. there is evidence that the clean power plant has spurred progress and commitment from other countries and advanced the international discussion as a whole. we are confident that all of this can be achieved in a way that strengthens the economy and creates new jobs at home. i look forward to your questions, senator, thank you very much. >> thank you very much ms. mccabe . we are using the early bird rule. it is my understanding that senator marquee is under a time

constrain and i think the ranking member is going to let you have her time. it is my understanding also that senator fisher has time constraints and i will be very happy to yield my time to her for questions. we are going to have eight minute rounds, senator fisher. >> thank you mr. chairman for your courtesy and thank you ranking member. thank you for being here today. i am glad to have the opportunity to talk with you about the impacts of your power plant rules on my home state of nebraska. as you know nebraska is the only state in the nation with the wholly publically owned utility sector. public power utilities are cost-based entities with no profit motivation or obligation to provide stakeholder dividends. that is vitally important i believe to keep in mind as epa considers these proposed rules. the compliance cost will be

directly borne by nebraska residents through their electric rates. today i would like to touch on some of the concerns raised in the public comment period by my state's public power utilities and by the nebraska department of environmental quality regarding mandates from existing power plants. our state has written that the building blocks contain quote inaccurate assumptions and unrealistic expectations that will result in goals that may be unattainable regardless of the emission reduction strategies employed, unquote. let's start with building block one. the nebraska deq states quote heart rate improvements of 4% to 6% are not achievable at nebraska coal fired plants. nebraska utilities are required by law to deliver least cost reliable electricity as such they have implemented most if

not all achievable heat rate improvements at existing facilities. i think i said heart rate before. it is heat rate. as you know as a basis for setting the building block one level epa relied on a 2009 study by sergeant lundy. it is widely known that epa misconstrued this study hypothesizing heat rate improvements discussed on the study on a cumulative basis. he has explicitly stated that the ranges presented in the report, quote, do not support the conclusion that any individual coal fired egu or any aggregation of coal fired egus can achieve 6% heat rate improvement through implementation of best practices and equipment upgrades as estimated by the epa, unquote. so our state deqs say that

building block number one is unachievable. is this an area that epa plans to correct before finalizing the rule? how can epa justify emission reduction targets based on building blocks if the building blocks themselves are so very flawed? >> thank you for your question senator. this gives me an opportunity to start saying something i think i will be saying a lot today which is that we have received many many comments on the proposed rules and are looking very closely at all of them. this is just one area where we have received significant comment. we expected to. that is what the public process is about. let me also mention that in designing the proposal and in setting up the building blocks what epa did was look across the range of activities that are currently in use by the power

sector that have the result of reducing carbon emissions. there are numerous. they go way beyond the four that we identified and included in our building blocks and our assumption in going into the proposal was not that every single source would be able to achieve exactly the amount of reductions that we identify in each building block. in fact, we believe that some can do more in one area and some choose to do less in other areas. the kinds of comments that we are getting that suggest that in some states in particular one approach is more suitable than another is exactly the kind of comment that we expected to get. that being said, of course we are looking closely at any comments that suggest that our factual conclusions need to be rethought and we will be looking at that very closely and making adjustments as appropriate as we always do after reviewing comments on a rule. >> i appreciate hearing that

because sometimes the statements that i hear from epa and my constituents and our public power in nebraska the deq in nebraska what we hear from epa is that things are pretty well set and that while there is a public comment period we haven't felt that there will be much accommodation to the concerns that we have in our state with these specific concerns. so you give me some hope here. and i hope you will follow through with that, as well. another question. according to sergeant even with the best maintenance practices in place performance of many of the heat rate improvement methods included in the 2009 report will degrade over time. epa did not take into

consideration the normal heat rate degradation when it applied the heat rate improvement ranges across the coal fired fleet nor did it consider that units are the most efficient at full load and their efficiencies decrease with decreasing loads and with frequent load changes. don't you think those are significant oversights by the epa and an overestimation of the real heat rate improvements that can be achieved and sustained across a coal fired fleet? >> these are important issues that people have raised that we are looking at very closely, senator. >> do you feel that you can work with states in trying to really address that overestimation? >> well, we spent a lot of time talking with states and with the utilities, as well who have

raised these kinds of issues with us. and we have one-on-one conversations with states. we are meeting with groups of states to talk about a whole range of issues. so in particular states have been very forth coming with us about particular concerns in their states as have utilities. so as i say when there are one-on-one conversations that we need to have we have them and then we are looking at these issues as they apply across the whole spectrum of the rule. i do want to emphasize that in the final rule we very much want to maintain the flexibility of the states to have choices as to how they comply. >> would you commit to me that when you're contacted by our public utilities in nebraska or state government in nebraska that you will respond to their concerns and let me know that you have done so?

>> i can certainly commit that we will converse with anybody who calls us from nebraska and will certainly keep you up to date on those conversations to the extent that we have already had those we will be sure to give you information about that. >> i think you will be getting a lot of calls. >> we are happy to get them. >> thank you very much. >> senator boxer, did you want to yield your time? >> i thank the senator from california. i apologize. the police men and fire men who captured the bombing suspect after the marathon bombing in massachusetts in 2013 are about to be honored down at the white house and they were in my congressional district as well. and through your graciousness i am going to be able to make that ceremony and i thank you so much.

i might also make this point that i think from my perspective if each member was given at least one minute to make an opening statement because of the busy schedules of senators and then have the remainder for questions that at least each senator would be allowed in the opening to make their main point if only for one minute. i just make that suggestion, mr. chairman. in the house if you wanted to you could waive your opening statement and then just add it to the question period that you have. only each member at the beginning of the hearing if they are there to make their point if only for one minute. i think it might be helpful given the busy schedule. mr. chairman, it is fitting that we are holding this hearing today. 50 years ago sunday lyndon johnson became the first president to warn about the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

a special message to congress on that day in 1965 he included the emissions of carbon dioxide the main cause of global warming in his warning on impacts of air pollution. 50 years later global temperatures are increasing. glaciers are melting. sea level is rising. heat waves are hotter. rainfall and snowfall are more extreme. as daunting as the challenges seem we have solutions available that can reduce pollution create jobs and aspire new technology. just months before his death president kennedy proposed the clean air act in february of 1963. in december of that year it became the second law president johnson signed as president. the original clean air act created a program in the public health service to address air pollution establishing a public health foundation that has supported the strengthening of the law over the years. the clean air act has succeeded

smog, soot, other pollutants have dropped an average of more than 70% since 1970 even as america's gdp grew by 219%. now president obama is using the clean air act to reduce carbon pollution from power plants and the same kennedy johnson vision that inspired an era of space exploration can spark a new clean energy revolution. since the inception of america's space program solar panels have been a critical power source for missions throughout the solar system. that same technology is now landing on roof tops and fields across the country, the solar industry now employs more than 170,000 people across our country and it is adding workers nearly 20 times faster than the general economy. so this connection that exists between lowering pollution while increasing employment is pretty

steady. let me now turn to massachusetts and the regional greenhouse gas initiative states. those are massachusetts, maine, new york, maryland connecticut, delaware, new hampshire rhode island and vermont. since 2005 those states have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 40% while continuing to see gross domestic product growth in their economy. do you believe that is a model which is going to be used by other states under the proposed regulations which the obama administration is considering right now? >> senator, as you just described, the approach has been quite successful both in terms of environmental improvements and economically and a good investment for those states. and we certainly think it is one model that states might want to look at. i can't speak to whether other states would go down the same path but i think the approach has laid groundwork and shown

other states how this can be done in a way that is successful locally. >> i think it is obvious that the model is there and i'm sure many states are going to use it. let me move on to the question of reliability. there is criticism that the proposed rules of the administration are going to cause a reduction in reliability of the system. we already know that extreme weather, climate change, is in fact impacting the reliability of our own electricity grid in our country. could you deal with that issue of these proposed rules and the reliability of the electrical grid system in the united states. >> we agree the worst thing to do for reliability is do nothing. keeping reliability very much in mind as the president directed us to and as the administrator always reminds us we looked at how to design the proposed plan in a way to make sure that

reliability would not be put at risk and in fact be enhanced. and there are a number of things that are built into the proposal in order to make sure that that will happen. one is the length of time that we put into the proposal for the reductions to be achieved. so there is a 15-year trajectory before the final compliance date. that was intended to be quite consistent with the requests that we have always received from utilities and reliability agencies and others that utilities need a long planning -- >> do you think that the proposed rules will actually drive the electricity system to become more resilient? stronger? >> we think the planning activities that will be going on and are going on now are intended to assure a reliability electricity system. >> the american gas association comments on the proposal were complimentary of the epa's

outreach efforts. they asked whether or not there could be more flexibility in terms of the planning at the state level in order to comply with the carbon reduction goals set for state after state. flexibility beyond the four building blocks that the states might be able to rely upon? >> i will emphasize again that the building blocks were intended to be a starting point. states have ultimate flexibility to decide on what approach they want to take. if they want to rely more than what our proposal might suggest they have every opportunity to do so. >> it is clear it is possible to reduce carbon, to increase the gdp, to enhance the reliability of the system while engaging in significant job growth in our country. so i thank you so much.

i thank you senator boxer for your courtesy. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you senator. i want to use about half of my time and then save some to accommodate some of my members. first of all we'll hear over and over again what science says. we will have a hearing with scientists at a hearing. i think when you don't have science on your side if you science is settled there is this assumption that that is this case. that is not the case. when you stop and realize what we are doing today we are talking about doing through regulation what we have not been able to do through legislation. in other words those of us who are accountable to the people, members of the house and senate, we have resoundly rejected the very thing we are talking about today on co 2 on five different occasions in the last 13 years. now, each time there has been a vote it has been even more

strongly rejected. what they are trying to do right now is do through regulation what they have not been able to do through legislation. so i'm just going to mention a couple of things here today. the recent analysis finds china emits 800 million tons of co 2 in one month and according to epa's proposal the maximum amount of co 2 reduction under the clean power plan is around 550 million tons in one year. question i would have for you, ms. mccabe is how will it impact when china is producing more co 2 in one month than the clean power plan could potentially reduce in one year even when if it is implemented? >> the clean power plan will certainly result in less co 2 emissions as our clean car rules and other measures that we are

looking at. so there will be less domestic co 2 from the u.s. as a result of the clean power plan. this is why it is important for the united states not only to be working domestically but working internationalally internationally internationally. we recognize that this is a global problem and that is why we have been very aggressive and involved with china. >> you don't disagree with this chart? this chart is an ipcc chart, a united nations chart. >> i don't know. >> it talks about what we have here in the global greenhouse gases. that is a total figure. china and india have -- the total and then the green over here is what you're proposing and this is the reductions that we have had. i want everyone to use a little common sense. if your projections are correct then they are going to continue to have these emissions and we would only be able to reduce the

emissions by two tons after what period of time is that? emissions in one year. so at least i appreciate your honesty in looking at that and saying there is the problem. now, are you operating on some kind of a delusion that somehow china is going to change their behavior? is this what it is predicated on? >> we have been working with china and recently an announcement was made on certain actions that china has committed to take that will lead to steps to curb their -- >> let me go ahead and tell you what those are and i'm going from memory so you can correct me if i'm wrong. they had the meeting. they decided china said if you want to do this and have reductions you can have them but we are going to increase our emissions of co 2 until 2030. they admitted that downward to 2020. if you believe china is going to

do something then that wouldn't happen. they are still going to increase as they are doing right now into 2020. in the event that you can believe them -- i have talked to the people from china do you think they sit back and they smile. the thing they would love to have us do in this country is to make our reductions so that we will be chasing our manufacturing base over there. i would like to confine it to this. if you don't disagree with this, where is the logic here? what do you think is going to happen to change that green two tons a year? >> for the first time china has agreed to curb its growth in co 2. that is a significant. >> is there a document they have signed saying they are committed to do that? >> i don't know if there is a document, senator, but they have made that announcement and made that commitment in conjunction with the united states. >> and the commitment is they start reducing it by 2020?

>> that they will peak emissions and invest in significant, 20% of nonfossil fuel generation in the coming years which is a very significant commitment as well. >> i retain my three minutes. senator boxer? >> thank you very much madame chair and thank you ms. mccabe . pleasure to have you here addressing such an important issue. part of the conversation that we are having as initiated by the chair was how the u.s. changes operate in context of a global challenge. this really is a global tragedy of the commons. we are all sharing the atmosphere on this planet. the gases we put in the atmosphere travel everywhere. it is only in the sense that

there is an international strategy that we have some sense, some opportunity to take on this issue. but what happens if each nation among the nations of the world india, china and u.s. are major carbon dioxide polluters if each nation says let's not act until the other two nations act and then we will come along later? what happens to the planet in that situation? >> this is the dilemma the tragedy of the commons. we all have to act. if everybody says we are not going to act because we don't think anybody else will act then co 2 emissions will continue to increase. temperatures will continue to rise. oceans will get more acidic. we will have more drought and heat waves. we will have more suffering around the globe and in this country as a result of the impacts on the climate. >> is there some possibility that by the u.s. taking this issue seriously and being engaged in dialogue with really all of the nations of the world but with india and china that we

can accelerate action among all three nations? >> we absolutely believe so and we believe it is essential for the united states to be asserting and showing leadership. >> we look at total carbon dioxide production and most looks at it in the context of individual foot print. is it the chinese, indians or americans who have the largest per capita foot print? >> i believe it is the united states. >> do you have a sense of the proportion with other nations? >> i don't off the top of my head. >> if i was to tell you that the foot print here in america is more than three times larger than that of china would that sound like that is in the ballpark? >> i think that could be in the ballpark. >> most recent statistics show the foot print is 12 times per

capita that of india is that about right? it is right. thank you for confirming that. certainly we have or benefitted from utilizing fossil fuels on a scale much larger than individual citizens in china or india. in some sense that gives us the obligation in helping leaders in the world in taking this on. china has obligated itself to proceed to by 2030 produce renewable energy nonfossil fuel energy that is equal to the amount of electric energy produced in the united states from all sources as of this moment. were you aware of that commitment? >> yes. >> it is pretty phenomenal. all of our fossil fuel energy from coal, from natural gas from solar from wind all of this combine together china is going to match that amount with

renewable energy in the next 15 years. that's a pretty extraordinary commitment that we didn't have a year previous. >> that's correct. >> that commitment came out of a dialogue with china about the need for all of the nations of the world to proceed to take on this issue. >> that's correct. >> we are all going to suffer in the planet continues on its warming pace. >> currently we are on a path in which our carbon pollution has gone up from 400 parts per million. and the pace has doubled in the last few decades. we were going up about one part per million and now we are at two parts per million which means within the time many members on the panel are going to serve in the u.s. senate we are going to see carbon levels that go up from 400 where we are now quite possibly through 450 and higher. and with that comes a global

challenge in which we will surpass the point where we have a 50% possibility of keeping temperature rise from under 2 degrees. is that something we should be concerned about? >> we absolutely should be concerned about it? >> does that help drive the current policy saying this is why we need to look at the most efficient ways. you laid out a plan saying find most efficient ways to tackle carbon pollution. that makes a lot of sense economically. i'm seeing that carbon pollution is having a huge impact in oregon. we are seeing our oyster production is faced by a challenge because oysters are having trouble forming shells because ocean is 30% more acidic. if the ocean is 30% more acidic now than before industrial revolution what else is going wrong in the ocean food chain? could be a lot more, i imagine. and we are having a fire season that is several weeks longer now than 20 years ago which is doing

devastating impact not to mention the pine beadles. that is a huge economic issue for our state. we are having substantial droughts, three worst ever droughts in the basin in just the last decade and a half. huge impact on our agricultural base. that is an economic issue. it isn't just a matter of some theory about some computer model in the future. this is having a huge impact on our economy on our real way of life, fishing, farming and on our forests right now. thank you for bringing a plan forward that encourages each state to find the most cost effective flexible way of taking on carbon dioxide that makes a tremendous amount of sense. each state will find a different path and maybe learn from each other. your plan allows partnerships to occur between states as another form of flexibility. >> correct.

>> which also makes a lot of sense. huge flexibility. if you laid out the four building blocks these are basically one set of ways to get to these numbers. find the best way payableossible for your state. >> that's correct. sdpl i thank you for a plan that helps put the united states in the leadership role of working with the nations of the world to take on this devastating challenge, a challenge that is having huge economic impact on my state right now, huge impact on rural america right now and a responsibility of our generation to take it on and of each president who serves in the oval office to take it on. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for being with us today. i do believe this regulation we are discussing today is epa's most blatant overreach thus far and there have been a number of them. but first let me just observe

from the poster that the ranking member displayed earlier listing three head lines from national newspapers and saying it is official. i was >> and one of the thichgs lie knoll says is you've got to quit smoking. my doctors tell me smoke relaxes the throat. the king replies, they've all been knighted. and lionel preplireplies it's official. so to say we've got some headlines from the w wa post and that may recollects it official. these were the smartest people in britain at 2 time.

they were england exactly the wrong advice. some of the educated contrary yans will turn out to be vindicated in the end. i think you will agree that when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about carbon pollution, it's a new term that's been coined over the last several years. they're not talking about smog. they're not talking about carbon particles in the air. they're talking about co2. carbon dioxide. it sounds so sinister and polluting and dirty and slimy, carbon pollution. but, actually, they're taurking ingtalking

about carbon dioxide. carbon die o ied does not cause asthma. it hant been shown to cause children to miss school. so when we're using these terms, we're talking about nn none other than carbon dioxide. now, let me ask you, madame administrator, about capital costs and the remaining useful life of coal-fired facilities:

the clean air act says that they are supposed to consider the existing sources that they are supposed to regulate. the mississippi development authority says that the incremental rule is $14.2 billion. your own impact analysis will have to be retired because of the rule. yet, because of the new rules, they will have to retire anyway:

>> so tell me how your proposal krsz the remaining useful lives of these co-plants. remaining useful life is absolutely, something that we are to take into account. and we did so in the proposal.

we were very mindful ot not putting states in the position of stranding also sets. and, in particular, the ones that yourself has just mentioned, ones is that have recently invested and expected to produce electricity in a controlled way into the future. >> houjs is how long is that trajectory? >> the final kpliengs state is 2030. but the states, in planning over that periodover time are able to make their own choigss about what to do.

we expect and asumt that they will continue to operate. >> but fw the only way my state of mississippi can achieve the co dm 2 e mix tar get, are you saying we'll be able to work with your agency to keep those code plantds in juice during their remaining yugsful life? >> i don't know whether that is the situation in your state. but we certainly would be happy to have that conversation. see what our reaction to that is

and see whether the reflerksbleties we have put into the proposal can provide a path for them. >> it's my understanding that among the numerous items of input are from mississippi which people have to comply with this. >> i have to go back to what the people on the ground in mississippi are telling me. we are going to e have to, in short order, close down the entire current coal fire prurks in mississippi.

a lot of theage psi city is about meeting in the interim. that is something we are looking very, very closely at. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i'm afraid king george got too much add viesz than science at the time. but i thank you. it seems to me if you look at the scientific information, it's clear that carbon is a problem. it's official. thank you. we're in agreement then. >> but carbon combined in our environment, causing climate change is real. and it's causing a serious risk. not only to the people in our country, but globally. we have a responsibility to act. i'd also like to point out that the clean air act has been widely layed as being very successful.

where he eve seen incredible improvements, people wo suffer from respiratory problems are cost benefit. we're building on that. and i thank you very mump. >> power plants are the longest single source. so epa not only has the legal authority, you have the response responsibility to act. the deal with that single largest source of carbon emissions. thavs based upon your best judgment vrks is that correct? >> thaekt, senator.