issue that. >> we' e'd be lap pill to do that. >> do you thrill that this regulation dramatically expands your authority? >> i do not. i believer that we are following what the clean air act requires. this is a statute that congress enacted to protect public health department from the air pollution. that determination kwuz upheld and the epa, then, has taken

actions bassed on that finding sdsh. >> i think you're doing exactly what the epa reprimanded you to do. you are tarking cig nef kabltly amousht of power wuz telling. >> you've tried to get this aut ri saigsz before and congress has not passed it. you're not allowed to move forward with the regulation to do want congress won't allow. >> tlfgs tome e testimony by tony clark who said quote

. >> he later said in spite of epa's promise and for exampleblety i states are seeting it mat authority to the epa. j >> i don't agree with it, senator. let me go ahead and give you an additional minute of my time

because you have taken that. more than half of them believe it's not legal under the clear air act. >> thank you very much chairman. we always have an interesting diskugsz.

for the second con sec tifr year there would be no fishing this year. the lobster has been disappearing. the message here is clear. clie malt change is taking dollars and jobs away from new england's fishing communities. we certainly see that in rhode island: she adds the more dramatics potential in which higher sea levers combine with

more sbins wenters. another voice that has come out recently comes from the economy magazine. >> the coal,electric power and all the mat e mote it industries would have had their way, american cities would like

like chinese cities today. ae among them were ford climbing to cut off automobile production e production in the next fiver queers. in 1974 to convince that installing scrubbers on coal-fired power plants would be a disaster.

needless to say, this was all nonsense mplts aadulthood mortality would have increased by 167. that's dead people. over the course of 40 years the author goes onto describe it as a fairly reliable pat earn. in retrospect the industry response to the envierntal regulation can best with described as mendacious, homicidal, kbreed day u kwin rjing.

>> the fact that the carbon is gradually cooking the climate. >> in the struggle for clean air, they made fooms of themselves at the right tile chl it is infur rating to see them cough up the same tired, half-bake bake edd j.

>> and i take that statement from, again, a conserveative bub lip kagsz: this is the economist magazine showing that there is room for a principle, conserve stif position. i cannot have a simpluation in which the other side refuses to knock the reality of what is happening in rhode island. of what is happening in maine

in oregon, and around the world and the country. this stuff is not complicated. you measure it. you see it real: >> if you never want to eat anything from the ocean and you dont think it provides anything useful, that may be of no swres e interest to you.

>> those are not the high points for has beenty. so i support this rule wholeheartedly wholeheartedly. i urjts my colleagues to look at both sides ofrt ledger. not just the sosz fill fuel industry side. >> are you aware as a result of

the 2010 epa sue and settlemented. gina mccarthy says this success is yours as much as mine. that was on the day that the set ltmented was made public. yet e yet, it doesn't apoor that the rum was a success to any of the real e real affected parties like the states or the american people who are facing high e tlek tristy bill tsz and job loss.

would you say that wyoming and west virginia have the same input. >> i speak with states all the time. they have very good access to discuss all of these issues with us. they certainly know how to rooech us. and do.

when the majority of states rook to a rule, you have done something wrong. >> there are actually significant associate benefits. those are all raid out in our ira. >> it dusz seem that most of the benefits comes from reduceing the originals. i wonder if the dmk is double counting and it's taking credit for another rumtle.

in adigsz, it is a standard ands the result of a rule. it would not make sense to 5:00 non. >> i mean, that was the reason given. >> the rule in no way requires

anybody to build in addition in particular. it should not be required under the new sourss sourszs. >> i'll note, since last fall, there's been a plan using it. and that is moving awlong. tech nolgs is out there and used. this else e's certainly not the only kmachl.

so we have to do all of these things. and to make the best efforts and increase the share of nonfossil fuels and primary energy con sungs. they will achieve the reductions of 26-28%. what role did the ep action play in setting these big targets in the u.s. china agreechlt for the

u.s. >> so if question is what rote did the epa play?

>> so it's if administration's responsibility? >> i would defer that to others to speak about. i'm focused on the clean air act and our authorities under that. with regarding to this specific deal, the economists said that the cost to the united states are mump more real than thoer to china. >> it means china won't have anything to do for 16 years.

that's mostly fashion. >> i want to thank you for your very calm preb e presentation. this is a situation where the clean air act requires you to act. it doesn't require us to act. it rooirs you to implement the act unless we repeal the clean air act.

>> is this's about my understanding. >> senator sullivan, and i think in a very aggressive way. >> now, i think -- maybe i'm wrong. i have not -- nikon's 346 executive orders, reagan's 381. >> well, i'm sorry.

the record just disproves your point. i believe this is not an administration gone rogue. the figs case was massachusetts versus epa. and the third was utility air resources group, the epa. >> don't you have to follow the law. >> we do.

>> we've got the largest number of people. we're up to 38 million people. >> i'm going to put in the record the actual votes.

six people were absent. they asked that their sfwengss be entered into the record. we actually had 54 votes at that time. we didn't have the 0. but we had a majority. >> in this recent debate, with the support of the chairman. and 59-40, the hovan amendment that says climate change is caused by human 5:00 tifrty.

it was fit bustered. >> i have 40. let me tell you who's included who aid the same thing. reufers, ap. plit cole. u.s. a today.

there was no question that all of these out lets rorted this. not because they were reported fur any other plan e particular reason other that be this is the truth. this is a fact. you can't make this stuffer up.

we know that climate change increases ozone in some cases. so when you're scleebing uch the carbon, you're really helping the help e health of the people, is that not strew. >> >> thaekt. my understanding is that was put forward in the d.c. and coalition for responseble regulation. versus the epa. >> that's the endangermented finding? >> yes, correct. >> so in the endangermented finding, you found that extreme weather e veblts and we know that happens. we ne that happened in a lake in ohio. which is dech stating.

>> isn't it clear that those of us who believe that carbon pollution does, in fact increase the likelihood that people will have breathing difficulties,hearted attacks. isn't is that, in your mind, a proven fact? mpblt in the year 2012 74% renew ebb owner jill.

we have one krirks oal fire pewered fire plabt that holdsle 30e 820 people. and that's the deer creek station. in your calculation, you calculated at 1 pnt. had the epa considered deer creek under construction, you received a plant.

>> the results of this coal plant running less than half of the time it runs now doesn't work. we'd simple lip have to know whether or not the plant would continue to operation mplt. >> operating a base load coal unit 2,000 hours per year is unek father or mother kal. >> the big stone plan is in the middle of a 400$400 million dlart

e plan. you are now telling if plant that they may not be able to operate at all. and are now being told that they need to do even more to make these additional plans implement e lefted. >> thank you, sfat xx, for your question. and we certain lyly are welcoming.

gh. >> in plar if states think we've got something factually wrong, we urge them to tell us, and many of them have. >> so, again, i presume that dwrour state your state is having that kvrgs with us. and if we got something fact chummily wrong, then we will address that.

we want to make sure that the rule is appropriate and correct. >> we think this can woork. there are large states that are divided in terms ofs energy markts. >> to the best of my knowledge, we've receive ds no suggests on how to fixz the problem that we share with you today. this is a major proposal.

we've got no feed baek. i'm just cure yousz. are we cig e sug jeszing that the fieblg rile -- i'm suggesting as is ushltly the case with epa regulations that the comment e kmentss that we receive may well leads to agistmented ins the final rule. i sdoent have any experience with an epa rule ef role where that has not hatched. that's kwhie the process is so important. so yes to the extent that adjustments are aprep rat, within our authority and needed to make sure that the rule can work right.

>> all of us want clean air. >> i'm going to par sfraz a little bit, but that the cost to the aver rajs american family would be approximately 1400 dlarsz a year to comply with this particular rule mplt. >> did you have or are you aware of what the estimated cost or what the an tis pated cost for a family would be to skplie with this rule? >> we did that here. it's all available for herb to take look at.

i'm nt sure about the spoefk study that you cited, but we did do a formal look: we need to make sure that everybody knows because states will you want you will mat li decide what to do lie ep here, we are confident that states will make the best choices for the families within their borders and that will take into consideration cost. the rule is all built on the things that are happening now in this industry. things that are happening now is that utilities are using less carbon intensive more economical fuels. they are investing in energy efficiency. those things together reduce carbon emissions but overall because of the tremendous impact the energy efficiency could have we expect bills to go down.

>> my time is up. may i read one sentence into the record. some will see their electricity rates almost double as a result of cpp impacting the midwest. thank you. >> thank you. thauj >> thank you for testifying. it's an immediate threat to families and communities in every corner of this country and in the world. our country has been a leader in

creating the problem. now thanks to the hard work of this administration we're on track to solving this problem. the administration's proposed rules are strongly supported by health professionals. i'm sure you're aware the academy of pediatrics public health association, several other associations sent a letter to the epa which stated the changing climate threat is the health of americans alive now and future generations. the nation as a short window to act to reduce the threats. given that statement from some of these leading and well respected public health organizations, can you elaborate on the public health risks american families will face if we fail to reduce carbon emissions from power plants. >> there are some pretty immediate impacts as we see

temperatures go up. those kinds of conditions are more conducive to ozone formation. ozone has well demonstrated impacts on families including exacerbating asthma and bringing on asthma attacks leading to all kinds of medical expenses as well as missed school, missed work and that sort of thing. increases in drought which is severe drought which is occurring that has significant impacts on public health. the changes in temperatures are changing the seasons of various allergens. they are changing the patterns of various vectors that can lead to disease. these are the kinds of things that scientists are seeing as a result of climate change impacks that are occurring.

>> sea leave rise along the coast has exceeded 18" since 1850. the northeast has experienced extreme weather events that are more intense and more frequent than what we have seen before. there's more talk of the potential talks of reducing emissions there are significants costs to the economy if we decide to do nothing. has the epa looked at other costs of failing to enact strong emission reductions. would you agree the cost providing billions of dollars every year from extreme weather far out weigh the costs? >> i certainly would. the greatest cost is to do nothing here and the kind of

impacts that you're citing are ones that scientists are saying are happying and will happen during the future. those are very, very costly events. implementing the rule that provides flexibility in communities to bring jobs and invest in energy efficiency to reduce the need for electricity that those are very positive economic benefits. >> thank you. >> senator bitter. thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my colleagues for letting me jump ahead because i have another commitment in a few minutes. i'll br brief. as you know i submitted requests for documents on these rules and development of these rules last congress. now, epa is still producing some of those documents but from what has been produced there is a

really dramatic pattern of very frequent decal meetings of phone calls and e-mails between epa and nrdc leading outside environmental group. again, the number of these communications is pretty staggering and unprecedented as far as i can see. in addition there are some correspondence between epa and rdc that's not been produced or posted to the docket. why is that and will that excluded correspondence and documentation will submitted? >> i'm not exactly sure of the answer to that question. i'll be glad to get back to you on this. >> if you can get back to us. hope hopefully that will be corrected including that additional kor

correspondence and documentation. it shows a level of communication and detail and consultation that i think is pretty staggering. let me put up one e-mail june 2013 before the rule was proposed and in this rdc attorney dave hawkins advised as long as the compliance date for the limtss is a few years after the sip submission deadline. this is very detailed direction before the rule was even proposed. >> we get a lot of detailed

advice from a lot of people and have many meetings with a lot of different stake holders who weigh in with us. we put the input in a proposed rule. if the rule is not grounded in science and the law then people tell us that. that's how we proceed. >> prior to this e-mail, had epa even considered issuing a model in. >> i can't speak to exactly when we would have had those conversations. i can assure you that the notion of a federal implementation plan is fully laid out in the clean air act. that's what motivating us to think about the need for a backstop federal plan. >> if you can follow up and answer that question directly whether epa considered issuing a model fit prior to the e mail that would be useful. did advice have significant

bearing on the model fit eba is now developing? >> we have not yet proposed a model fit. we're going through that process now. we've gotten a number of comments from a variety of stakeholders urging us to consider doing a model fit. we're be working our way through the process to figure out what the appropriate proposal is. >> is epa planning to issue its model fit before the sip deadline. >> we intended to propose it this summer. >> that would be before the deadline, the other deadline. it will be what we propose is it

would be 13 months after the 111 d rule is finalized. we'll have a proposed fit out in the summer and i would expect we would have that finalized withen a year. >> okay. . i continue to be concerned with these secrets on costs of carbon. i've asked you for the names and titles of those folks the under your supervision that have participated in the inter-agency working group. we haven't gotten that. can you provide that to us? >> senator, there's not been a secretive process at all and the gao has confirmed it was not an inappropriate process and the agencies across the government participated in it.

it's not a process that the epa was in charge of. >> i'll take that back. >> it's not a secretive process but you won't commit to that. >> i will commit to get back to you. >> so you won't commit. thank you. >> let me thank both senators who have been very flexible with their time to accommodate. i appreciate that very much. >> for those of who us live in

states with millions of people, there's states seeing the impact of climate change the epa's proposal to regulate our source of largest carbon pollution has been a long time coming. any substantial reaction there's room for improvement. while we strive for perfection we know it's hard to achieve. had some discussion of this before. it's my understanding the difference the different targets based on feasibility of the systems and other variables. however as written stakeholders

have already made substantial -- require more than states the impact. for example, delaware has made substantial investments in energy efficiency. these stakeholders express if this issue is not addressed early actions may be at a competitive disadvantage. have you heard similar concerns. if the answer is yes, is the epa considering adjusting the state targets to discuss these? if so, what are these possible actions? >> thank you. this is an issue that's been raised in comments from ail different directions and from a number of different stakeholders. something we're paying a lot of attention to. we paid so much attention to it that in the fall we put out a notice of data availability identifying some of these issues

that people have raised so we can be sure to get as much input as possible on it. our final rule has to be founded in our authority under the clean air act to determine the best system of emission reduction for this sector. that's what we will be striving to do. we're looking very closely at all of these things. while i can't speak to what any final decisions might be because the rule won't be final until june other mid-summer. i can assure you we're looking hard at those questions. we want to make sure that we make as many add justments as we can to improve the rule while staying within the legal authority that we have.

>> they were put at a disadvantage. i think we managed to fix that. my hope is we can do the same thing here. i comment on the issue today. it was unique perspective. i don't come from a place called hope. i come from a place called beckley. i still have a lot of family i just live in west virginia but other place is real to me. now representing delaware which is the lowest lying state in the united states of america. if we don't curve our fossil fuel emissions over time that significant push of my staff, state will be lost to the sea. some parts are already starting to be lost to the sea. can you take a few moments to talk about how this rule might

address both concerns and how does this rule help to make sure west virginia ends up being in economic ruin or damage substantially. helping to make sure that my state remains on the map. >> sure. this country and others must take in order to address us and we believe that's the responsible and appropriate thing to do. we are very aware of the impacts

that are occurring in the electricity generating sector today. there are many forces that go way beyond what epa might or height not do in this rule or any other rule that's changing the way energy is produced in this country. as we talk with the industry we understand that from them. we understand also that that can have impacts on local communities that are built up around a certain types of that's happened. we must be very sensitive to those impacts as well. this rule looks to the future. the portion of power still being generated by coal. we see another 30% it's very important domestic industry.

other sources of energy including ones where there's tremendous opportunity for investment in our local community. so we're keeping all of those things this mind and fully believe that the flexibility that this program allows will allow for that range of types of operations and that's good and healthy. >> thank you. one of the major source of electricity generation does not create any emissions of any harm that i'm aware of is nuclear. it provides electricity to about 20% of our needs in this country.

why does the proposal discount nuclear generation and what is the epa doing to address this issue? >> senator, this rule is about the fossil fuel fired electricity generation. that's the sector that missed the air pollutants that we're authorized to address. looking at the types of emission reduction approaches that the fossil fuel fired generation fleet can adopt -- >> say that again. you don't have to. >> thank you. we identified some key approaches that that industry is now taking. this is not this rule is not an energy plan. it should not be an energy plan.

we understand the significant role that nuclear power generation plays in the country and it itself is subject to various pressures and issues. we want to make sure that states who have invested in nuclear energy and wish to do so that that can be a significant compliance option for states and it will be. we have received a lot of comment on the exact question that you ask about how we figured that into the targets and we'll be sorting through all that information and the rule. >> thank you. my time has expired. thank you so much. >> the most pashtstient members. i appreciate your patience.

i think senator kapatoe you're the next. >> i would like to thank the administrator mckay coming before us today and discuss this important rule. i represent the state of west virginia. we have just under two million hard working americans who receive 95% of our electricity from coal power generation. the west virginia coal industry supports family strengthens national security and powers not only my state but provides affordable electricity. we could be keeping the lights on this this room. i have serious concerns about the proposed regulation. we have heard already today that 32 states have raised serious

objections. you predict we will reduce likts electricity prices by 8%. this doesn't add up. our monthly electrical bills are 23% lower than the national aver raj average. i'm concerned in formulating these regulations ep has not considered the impact. you kind of touched on this but i think we need to get into it some more. you don't really have great track record here. if you look at the mats rule, the epa predicted that regulation would result in the 5,000 megawatts. between 50 and 60 megawatts will be taken offline. that's ten times mistake there. the cumulative effect of these regulations can't be overstated. i think there's concern about the reliability if we're looking back to last winter and touring some power stations in first

energy and others in my state. some of these were running at near capacity to keep our homes warm, to keep our seniors warm. our hard working coal miners in west virginia have made our state the hardest working behind wyoming. it has a huge economic impact. one of the most disturbing things and the first question i would like to ask you is you say in your opening remarks that epa stakeholder out reach and public engagement has been unprecedent. you've talked a lot about the, i think you said millions of comments. how many comments a lot? >> a lot. >> i am interested in your definition of outreach. i know that this is not just me. an invitation has been lodged for the epa to come to a coal

producing state like west virginia. none of these were produced in a coal-produceing state. i've reached out and invited the epa to talk about the economic impacts of this rule and these rules in our state. can we count on epa to come and talk to the people of west virginia about how this is affecting their livelihood, their electrical bills and why haven't you come to state like west virginia to come talk about this with the citizens? >> there's a lot in what you just said. i'll do my best to respond. i want to mention a couple of things. you raised some real points. i appreciate you thinking about your state. the estimates and the projections that we include in our ira for this rule are ill

lus ustrative. we understand there could be some differences in how regulations impact local or regional areas that might differ from the national. we're hearing a lot about that in the comments. i want to mention in establishing the targets in the rule, somebody mentioned the targets are different from every state. they are. the one result of that is that states that are very coal intensive remain coal intensive even under our proposed rule. i come from indiana -- >> 90 something percent. >> yes, it's in the 90s. those states as we looked at the application of these different technologies across the country, states like yours and like mine that are very coal intensive remain that way. the targets are not as owner as

some would say as states that are less coal intensive. the design of the rule was to take each state where it was in its power generation and to acknowledge that. some of that is what was prompting senator carper to note that some state receive inequities in the rule because of that. we tried to build this into the design because we recognize there are differences around the country. it's not reasonable to expect in indiana or west virginia to suddenly become a delaware in terms of its energy mix. that just won't happen. where ever the state is whatever its mix is there are opportunities there. there are opportunities in indiana and west virginia and everywhere to reduce the carbon intensity of the power production. that is how the rule lays out

the process. to the extent we haven't gotten it right people are telling us how they think we should adjust it in order to get that right. >> what about the visit to west virginia? why didn't you visit coal-producing states? >> we did have a lot of meetings around the country. we met in many states. we wanted to have those in locations where people were comfortable coming. we used a lot of epa offices. >> that's not really a great answer. i'm not trying to be antagonistic. i don't think it's a great answer. you can get to west virginia. we're not that isolated. it's a beautiful spot. this heavily impact, heavily impacts the economics of our state. our ability to compete. we're getting all the time, you have to transition out of coal. you have to make a change.

all these kinds of things you say technology, you got to use clean technology, it hasn't been proven to be able to be run in a efficient and cost-efficient way. that will help my state tremendously. let's push forward on the research and development. >> quick question in the final analysis. of the 32 states lodged mayjor ob jek objections, what is the plan? >> because this is a proposed rule everybody always tells us things they think we can do better. >> that sounds like us. we get that too. >> we welcome that. i'm not counting states in tally. to answer your question what the clean air act says is if a state

does fotnot submit plan then epa would put in place a federal plan to implement the obligations that we finalize in the rule. >> this is my really last question. you mentioned forming regional alliances in the northeast. if somebody was listening to me and saying that coal provides 95% of the electricity in west virginia who will be in my regional alliance? >> i think states are having a lot of conversations about that. states will need to find mutual reasons to come together. they also don't have to. i'm not sure what conversations west virginia is having with other states. >> again, i feel like because of where we are and what we have and the natural resources we have we are disadvantaged. thank you. >> thank you.

>> he really wanted to be here. he wrote a very interesting opening statement where he quotes the department of defense saying climate change is an immediate risk to u.s. national security. i asked to put that entire statement. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to follow up on senator from west virginia and then also from south dakota in regard to the baselines. i really feel like the 2012 baseline is arbitrary. you have this complicated formula to determine the targets that the states must meet. in arkansas because we have a new power plant that be was online not online until december 2012 it really doesn't accurately represent where

arkansas is at. we're going to be in a situation where we're number six or seven on the list. in reality because of the formula scripts they're really two or three. you talk about opportunities for states to cover emissions and all of this. that's true. the reality is the electricity bill for the average person in arkansas people on fixed incomes, single moms will increase significantly. i guess, what i would like for you to do is look at the 2012 baseline. look at the catch 22 situations that you're putting states in like arkansas and it sounds like south dakota is in the same situation. again, i'd really like for you to commit to work the targets out in that regard and make it such that i disagree toetstally

with the rule but it can be fair. >> thank you. we've had a number of discussions about the arkansas situation in particular. the 2012 issue has been brought up by a number of states. we included information from 2010 and 2011 so people can take a look at how that might make a difference to look at different years. we're very open to hearing those concerns and trying to work them through. >> the other thing i'd like to talk about is reliability. talk a lot about cost and things. are you familiar with southwest power pool? >> yes. for those that aren't that are listening, southwest power pool is mandated to ensure reliable supplies of power, adequate transmission infrastructure and competitive wholesale prices of electricity. i think you'd agree they're the folks when you flip the switch the electricity comes on. as a result of that if they

don't do a good job, if they don't provide reliable power then they pay fines or held responsible to the federal government. i think you'd agree they are nonpartisan. it's an agency doing their best to make things work. they reviewed your mandates and produced reliability impact assessment. have you reviewed that? >> not that one specifically. i'm aware that they have done that. >> i really think you should. i think it's important. they found that the significant new generating capacity not krntlykrnt ly currently planned will be fleedneeded to replace about 9,000 megawatts in our region alone by 2020. significant new transmission infrastructure will be needed. currently takes up to eight and a half years to study plan and conduct, i'm sorry, construct transmission and costs up to $2.3 million per mile of new

transmission. the scenario they're come can go up as such it's going to be very very difficult to do this as you're proposing would you tell us it affecting reliability. they have come up with four things they ask you to do. first i recommend conferences jointly sponsored by the epa regulatory commission focusing on impacts and power system reliability. i guess my question to you is would you agree to do that. that to me is a very common sense approach to actually making sure that we've heard a lot of talk today about we need to do something. we need to do the right thing. would you commit to actually doing that and getting groups together and talking about the unintended consequences that we might see? >> those technical conferences

with already scheduled. the first one will happen next week. then there are several more around the country. >> very good. second. i recommend a detailed comprehensive study of the north american power system conducted by the e lekelectric reliability. would you consider going forward with getting a good study, a good independent study to address the potential unintended consequences that southwest power pool. i think several of the other independent systems are concerned about. >> i believe narc is already doing that kind of work and has put some information out. i want to note that until the states decide what sit that they intend to do by way of

compliance it's very not very possible to do a real reliability study. what's very good about the conversations that are happening and the work that spp and others are doing is they're doing exactlyexact ly what you just described their job to be which is thinking ahead, looking ahead, planning. thinking about contingencyies and how things might roll out. whatever the incoming factors are. whatever it's anticipated weather e weather events. whether it's shifts in use of fuels based on anticipated prices. those kind of conversations are exactly what should be happening and what is happening. >> the study that or the study that southwest power pool coming up with the 9,000 megawatts and

the difficulty in constructing. >> right. >> i would add also just the difficulty in getting easements and all the hassle that goes with that. one of their recommendations is to extend the dom appliance schedule by five years. >> we've heard that. we heard concerns about the interim compliance of 2020. that's causing a lot of anxiety. it's an idea that several people and organizations have raised again. that's another thing that we're looking very closely at.

>> i'm very much opposed to the rule. i really do think you need to look at the reliability and the impact it's going to have and also the significant impact. i know that you mentioned that states will have the ability to reduce their footprint and things. yet, the reality is at the end of the day lots of people will have significantly increased utility bills as a result of regulation. i think pretty good data to show. it's all pain and very limited gain. thank you. >> thank you. i do have two minutes remaining. i want to make a couple of comments. first of all not only is the tax increased it's most regress regressive tax increase that you

can have. that seems to be kind of gone unnoticed of what a regressive nature this is. put that chart up, will you. these are the states who are re rejecting this. these states have said that they cannot comply and will not. even professor lawrence tribe of harvard stated proposal is unconstitutional. she asked you the question, what happens if they don't do it. your response is they would have to take the fifth. >> that's what it says. >> you can't take away their highway funds. what are you planning to do?

>> i would respectfully disagree the program is unconstitutional. there's a variety of programs out there. >> let me just concludes there are certain facts that we have dealt with. number one, this is a proposal that the states reject. they reject it. it ignores the will of congress. you can argue the different times it's come up. it's never passed. the type of regulation that would come through a bill that was introduced and as i mentioned the first one is not by a democrat. it was by a republican in 2002. it was rejected.

they have to go to the unelected bureaucrats. that's why they're trying to do it through regulation. they can't do it through legislation. the third thing is it relies on unreasonable assumptions. you've seen the other chart that we had up here a minute ago. if you just look at it and use common sense this is not reliable. the cost, it will cost billions. it will increase or energy bills. it's going to be on those who can afford it the least and then if all of that happens and if all of that is correct and all of this talk about the science settle, even though if that were true, it still is not going to reduce the emissions worldwide. we heard that not from people really on my side or any other side except we have heard that of course from the first director of the epa in response to our questions and response

again to house member. these things are out there. i know this has become a religion. i know we'll have a lot more discussions about it. we'll do what we can to keep my people in oklahoma from inkiring the largest tax increase in history for something that is not going to be corrected. >> may i put something in the record? >> yes. >> not 30 seconds. sdp you >> you can have the last word after i do my 30 seconds. i will. you can have whatever time you want. >> the answer is no. go ahead. >> i'll have a press conference immediately afterwards to tell you what he's stieffling me from doing. california's electricity bill is far lower than oklahoma and we

are prospering because we have taken on clie mate change and we have cheaper cost than they do. >> without objection. we're adjourned. on the next washington journal, we talk to congressman dana rohrabacher. he will discuss the president's ask for authorization for the use of military force against isis. then representative jerry m mcnerney of california is here to talk about combatting isis. later our bus tour of historically black colleges and universities will continue. washington journal is live every

morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can join the conversation with your phone calls and comments on facebook and twitter. here are some of our futured programs for this president's day weekend. live coverage of the savannah book festival with non-fiction authors and books. former senior addvisor for president obama and on american history tv saturday morning, the 100th anniversary of the release of the film, the birth of a nation. the showing of the entire 1915 film. sunday at 8:00 on the

presidency, george washington portraits focusing artists captured the spirit. find our complete television schedule and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. keep track of the republican led congress. any congress best access on c-span, c-span 2, c-span radio and c-span.com. prime minister david cameron answered questions about swiss banks helped customers evade taxes. this is 35 minutes.

>> order. questions to the prime minister. >> thank you. this morning i had meetings and i shall have further such meetings today. >> does my honorable friend recall the general election of 1983? a conservative land slide win in which i and 100 other conservatives were elected for the first time. is he aware that unemployment was 3 million and today it's 2 million. i inflation was 8% and today it's under 2. does he agree that these comparisons coupled with the trumped card that he and

baroness shared in the form of a left wing opposition leader -- >> i'm very grateful to my right honorable friend. i wasn't a voter in 1983. it is true that this government is cutting unemployment and it's also true that every labor government always puts up unemployment. what we can see is the count has fallen by 55% since the last election. it does speak to a bigger picture which is this government has created a thousands jobs for every day that it's been in office. we all remember the predictions of the leader of the labor party that our plan would cost a million jobs with unemployment

tumbling. perhaps today is the day he should apologize. >> mr. speaker an hour ago we learned that linked the hsb tax scandal are several donors including a former treasury of the party who have given nearly five million pounds to the party. how can the prime minister explain the revolving door between torey party hq and the swiss branch. >> i saw this list before coming to the prime minister's questions. one of the people name second-degreeed is the labor donor. i'm very clear. people should pay their tacks in our country and no government has been tougher than this one in chasing down tax evasion and tax avoidance.

>> let's talk about the difference between him and me. none of these people have given a penny on my watch. he's up to his neck in this. let's take stanley fink who gave 3 million pounds to the conservative party. he appointed him as treasurer of the party and gave him a peerage for good measure. now can he explain what steps he's going to take to find out about the tax avoidance activities of lord fink. >> the difference between him and me. when people donate to the conservative party they don't pick the candidates, they don't clooz choose the parties. the only reason he's sitting there is because of a bunch of trade union leaders dded he was

more left wing than his brother. >> he can't get away from it. he's a dodgey prime minister surroundsed by dodgey donors. he didn't just take the money. >> it's always to be said. the question will be heard and the answers will be heard because this is a democratic chamber. i don't care how long it takes, they will be heard. >> he didn't just take the money. he appointed the man who was head of hsbc as a minister. mr. speaker, it was in the public domain in september 2010 that hsbc was enabling tax avoidance on an industrial scale. are we seriously expected to believe that when you make stephen green a minister four months later he had no idea about these allegations?

>> i'm glad he's brought up the issue of stephen gradeeen who is a trade minister. it's same stephen green he appointed as head of his council. he's the stephen green later welcomed as a trade minister into the government. it's the same stephen green looking a bit coy today invited on a trade mission as late as 2013. every week he gets more desperate because he can't talk about the economy. he can't talk about unemployment. he comes here with fiction after fiction. let me deal while i've got a moment with the fiction we had last week. he came here and if you remember, he talked about something called intermediary tax relief. it turns out, mr. speaker -- as

long as it takes. as long as it takes. >> i said the questions must be heard. the responses must be heard. >> last week the labor leader asked me six times about the tax treatment of hedge funds. now it turns out that the treatment he's complaining about was sgrointroduced in the autumn of 1997 by the government. it was extended in 2007. who was in power in 2007? labor. who was the city minister in 2007? i think we'll find it was ed somberdy. >> i know the prime minister doesn't care about tax avoidance but this day of all days he's

going to be held accountable for answering a question. now, he is pleading ignorance as to what was happening with stephen green. the minister in charge issued a press release in november 2007. does the prime minister expect us to believe that in stephen green's three years as a minister he never had a conversation with him about what was happening at hsbc? >> why did labor welcome stephen green as a trade minister. why were they still booking meetings with him in 2013? my responsibility is the tax laws of this country and no one has been tougher. let me remind him about what we found. hedge funds cutting their taxes by flipping currencies. foreigners not paying stamp

duty. allowed under labor. banks not paying tax on all their profits. allowed under labor. banned by the tories. those two were the friend of the tax dodger, the friend of the hard working taxpayer. >> doesn't this all sound familiar. the prime minister appoints someone to a senior job in government. there are public allegations but he doesn't ask the questions. he turns a blind eye. isn't this just the behavior we saw with andy coleson. >> it is desperate stuff because they can't talk about the economy because it's growing. they can't talk about unemployment because it's falling. they can't talk about their health policy because it's collapsing. what have we seen this week? we can't even go in front of a business audience because he's

offended every business in the country. he can't go to scotland because he's toxic. they can't talk to women because they got a pink bust during the country. they have even offended britain's nuns. no wonder people look at labor and say they haven't got a prayer. >> he took the money. he gave a job to the head of hsbc and he lets the tax avoidance get away with it. there's something rotten at the heart of the conservative party and it's him. >> for 13 years they sat in the treasury. they did nothing about tax transparency. this government has been tougher than any previous government. that's why their desperate. that's why they're losing.

>> orpdder. mr. burns. >> last week it was named as having the fastest growing digital economy in the united kingdom. would my right honorable friend agree with me that the talent of our people combined with the long term economic plan that britain remain a world leader in the creative industry. >> my honorable friend is right. it's a vital part of our economy and country. when we look at film and television and you see the great results of the baftors. the high hopes for the oscars. it's training of some of our digital effect specialists because of many of our creative people is a key part of this vital and growing industry. >> kathy jamison. >> last week i warned the prime

minister about falling wages. this week he said britain needs -- i'm glad to see he's waking up to reality. would you not agree with me that the people who most need it are the families who lost 16 pientsnts a year under his government. >> what the laydy will find it's good that the wages are growing ahead of inflation. because we have raised 10,000 pounds the amount of money you can earn before you start paying taxes, as a result people are better off. in scotland there's 175,000 more people in work today than when i became prime minister. as a result of growth in the jobs market, growth in wages cuts in taxes, increase in minimum wages, things are getting better for families in scotland. >> mr. speaker, for years the

supernational chain aldi has been sitting. does the prime minister agree the supermarket chain should be forced to release assets. >> what we need to see is successful development go ahead and the use of these sites. if they can't be used forretail then they could be made available for other uses. one of the changes we've made is to liberalize the used glasses in planning so we don't have long term planning blight of development not going ahead in towns and cities where houses and jobs and investment are needed. >> given the prime minister's new found concern that employers should give their staff decent pay rises, can he explain why he didn't apply that principle to his own government when they decided not to implement the 1% pay increase for staff? >> what we does with the hs

staff is make sure the lowest paid people are getting pay rise and in the nhs you have progression pay. everyone will get at least a 1% rise. many people because of progression will get a 2, 3 or 4% pay rise. alongside that pay rise they will be paying less in tax. diesel and petrol prices are coming down. people can see standards of living are rising because we have a long term economic plan and we're sticking to it. >> maria miller. >> more than ever before business and commuters and students use the trains to get around. they're increasingly frustrated that our trains are stuck in the analog age. access to the internet can be really difficult and very limited. can my friend consider this important issue and see what the government could do to help commuters and others get access to wi-fi on our trains? >> i think my right honorable

friend is right to raise this. it's vital for businesses and individuals to be able to access wi-fi and do their work and other contacts while on train. i'm pleased to announce plans that trains will see wi-fi on trains across the crutches or sticks, he is deteriorating sadly by the week. i've been told his case will be reconsidered and yet the department for work and pensions

is callously snatching it from you on the 25th of february. will the prime minister immediately rectify this heartless and disgraceful injustice? >> i'm very happy to look at the individual cases that the right honorable gentleman raises but of course, with the replacement of the disability living allowance with a personal independence payments, the most disabled people will be getting more money and more assistance rather than less. but as i said i will happily look at the case. >> given the widespread cynicism about mr. peter lily. give them the wide spread sin cynicism about politician's promises and claims. will my friend remind people however long it takes, that this government has presided over the creation of more than 2 million additional private sector jobs which is far, far more than we ever promised and doesn't that

discredit the claims of the opposition that our efforts to cut the deficit would destroy jobs. >> my friend is right. we have created 2 million additional private sector jobs. if you look at the extra number of people in work it is 1.75 million more people. behind the statistics are families that now have a pay packet and job and chance to have a more secure future all during the time that the opposition claimed that our policies would cost one million jobs. he was 100% wrong. >> they said there were a dozen prosecutions in relation to the

case load. none of them have come to court yet. can you explain why that is the case. >> for prosecutions for tax evasion they have gone up 5-fold since 2010 leading to hundreds of years of imprisonment. in our country, the tax collection agency, hmrc is independent of government, and carry out the investigations and order the prosecutions. it's very important that in a free country that ministers are not given the details of who's being investigated and what the prosecutions are. now this doesn't happen in other countries and we have a word for it. it's called corruption. but it seems to be the path suggested by the party opposite.

>> thank you mr. speaker. my -- the honorable gentleman is entitled to be heard with courtesy. mr. davis. >> thank you mr. speaker. my constituents are not able to see a gp as quickly as we should. does the prime minister agree that we need more it aavailable for my constituents in whales. >> we've made the commitment that we're going to have 7 day opening, 8 dlok 8 in the evening. that's hrthe government in whales,

it is their decision to cut the nhs that has landed and provide gps in whales because it is the right policy. >> the ant yim n and others. would the prime minister be prepared to meet a group from that committee because while the report is a work plan for the next parliament, the issue of security of synagogs in the jewish communal buildings is too urgent to wait till may. >> can i commend the honorable gentleman from prominent areas. i have met with the jewish leadership council and regularly

discuss with them the issue it's. i have made sure to try to ever sit down to hear their views too. >> partnerships have awarded 14 new grants totaling 1.74 if fp 23507b8g9sds will ur78g9z bd iing i we've seen investment in manufacturing ut put increase. that's happening in all the regions of our country which is worth while. we'll be playing our part by investing 10 million pounds in the development of the advance manufacturing research center in south york shire. i think these and other cult

catapults can make a real difference in terms of backing the revileal in our alal in our country. >> as i was reading the report, the fact is the labor government prosecuted more companies than this government has done. it's a major scandal that many and others do not feel the tax of this country. what are they doing? >> when we chaired the ga we put at the head of the agenda tax trancesparency and tax avoidance so the events we're discussing events which by the way and allegations of crimes that all took place when labor were in power were if this to happen again we wouldn't have this situation because we have

the automatic transparent exchange of tax information. >> thank you plk. according to a recent survey the emergency service at our b county hospital in dorchester is the number one in the country. would my friend praise the staff that work there and reassure that the money will follow that good work. >> minister. >> i certainly join my honorable friend in congratulating the county hospital. i think their work shows what can be done when we better integrate social scare and how can we better treat fail people

in the community. the best place for them is often not a and taerks wum treating after their ailments and helping them feel better at home. >> it's a plan that we feel is well under way. >> is this sharon dolling-- >> i said order. i said a moment ago that the honorable gentleman had a right to be heard with courtesy. the honorable lady has a similar right to be heard with courtesy and here no doubt will be heard with courtesy. mrs. sharon hodson. >> i just wanted to know if the prime minister has had conversations with lord green about tax avoidance in hsbc and

if not, why not? tirks when i appointedconsulted the house of ethics. i made the appointment. it was come edd and he was still holding meetings from them. >> what does my friend thinks what britain's families need to get on most of all is the security of a good school place and wee're providing them the security of a good job and safe

community and we're providing them but i have to say the labor's campaign, the wheels are falling off the wagon but i think the wheels are falling off the bus. we now know it's not going to be different by begin by you knight. >> the prime minister may have been briefed that the care quality permission published its report on my local hospital yesterday. it found that we have an extreme deadic yaebt edyaebted meet with me to look at how we can secure the

funds to make our constituents safe it does seem as if the trust zwr zwrtd zwr when there was a problem with the hospital it was swept under the twt regular rather than have something happen. it's important to say this on the day when sir robert francis has come out with his report about how important it is that we listen to whistle blowers in the nhs. unlike the party opposite, we're determined that we will listen to france's report and the health y.

so peter tapsul. >> may i put it to the prime minister that from om fks. for the avoidance of war, it is often wise to acknowledge the concept of traditional spheres of r these things without a shot being fired.

>> it's difficult to answer the father of the house without a historical -- not noifthysterical -- i would argue that it does matter to make sure that we don't reward aggression and brutality with appeasement. that would be wrong. twroz brim on the issue of grease bthe euro zboejd nlt. we have to recognize that our largest market is still relatively stagnant and the

situation in grease doesn't necessarily nep strongly about tax avoidance. will he report -- will he report -- did he have a conversation with mr. -- lord green taxed green? >> i do stwr. under labor people avoided paying tax xd.

i'm proud that the red carpet used tore used and made in my fach of p p. >> mr. speaker s can the prime

minister confirm that between 2010 and december 2013 you never once had a conversation with stephen green about allegations of tax avoidance -- >> b you with about snxt all of

the thing that's labor failed do over and over again. >> t-tt-t.

>> thursday the house foreign affairs commit eye holds a hearing by the threat posed by the militant frup isis. witnesses include a former am bass door to iraq and a former national security council official. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. later, national counter terrorism center director testifies before the senate intelligence committee about the federal's intelligence and counter terrorism efforts. that's live at 2:30 eastern here on cspan 3. >> february is black history month and the cspan to speak with their faculty and discuss public policy issues and highlight their role in

america's education system and during washington journal thursday we will walk the college in atlanta and talk with the college president. >> now a discussion about u.s. drug policy at the center for strategic and international studies. the acting director is among one of the speakers. his speech came days had bcan. >> well, goodafternoon. i'm senior vice president at csi. we're delighted today to be able to host michael boracheli, acting director of the white house office national drug policy and ambassador william brownfield. the assistant secretary in the

inl bureau at the department of state. international narcotic and law enforcement enforcement enforcement this is follows a couple of different opportunities that we have had over the last year, year and a half to focus on policies around domestic and international drug policy. on march 31st of last year we hosted ambassador brown b b sfwr sfwrshlgt

sfwrshlgt. a special thanks to the state department. we're hear really to talk about a drug policy at home and globally. i think what we will hear is that there's quite a bit that thint t. president obama just recently had an skinned b