to get? that to me does not sound like cooperation. that does not sound like partnership. that sounds like the patriot verbal gun to the head of making states act a particular way and it's consist went the comments, mr. chairman that i offered in my opening statement. this epa looks at state implementation plans and says, you can introduce and adopt a state plan so long as it embodies federal will, so long as it em 3w0d ybody that is we which we want to have happen on a state-by-state basis. and when states disagree, that's when the federal implementation plans are forced on the states. i don't think there's much discretion to the state of oklahoma. as i indicated in my comments, we are already in the top four states in the country in generating electricity through renewables and wind. but yet this epa is expecting the state of oklahoma to reduce their co2 footprint by over 30%. the question is how but for

shuddering coal generation in the state of oklahoma. it's a concern 3r5k9ically and a concern legally. >> looking at it as a nonattorney, you look at the tenth amendment which refers to reserving power to the states do you think this is consist went the tenth amendment? >> well, i think this case and i would add this to the comments earlier from a fellow panelist, i don't think it's terribly novel for us to have a dispute or a case about statutory construction. you know, i indicated that it is a traditional police power to regulate power generation and for the federal government to intervene or to invade that, it has to be -- the statute has to be explicit and clear and unambiguous, and i think by virtue of our discussion today, it's demonstrative that that is not the case. so, senator i think it's less about the tenth amendment and less about states rights under the tenth amendment and more about statutory construction and whether the epa possesses the authority that you gave it to regulate in this area. >> mr. martella do you have any

comments about that? >> i would agree with that. if i can mention this theme of flexibility that's come up during our discussion. i don't think anybody would dispute flexibility is a good thing. we all want flexibility but there's a little bit of an apples and oranges going on. epa may say for a coal fired power plant, we're going to reduce to you 2,000 tons inside the fence line. epa is saying we're going to look at nuclear and renewable and because we're looking outside the fence line we're going to bring you down to 1200 pounds of co2 per megawatt hour. what we're saying or what i'm saying is epa has to set the standard. set the standard inside the fence line. if there's flexibility an how you meet the standard, that's fine. we don't dispute -- i don't dispute that flexibility is a good thing, but the distinction

is the flexibility doesn't come in setting the standard it comes in on the compliance side. >> that's a good comment. and general morrisey i was going to -- we'll probably have another round of questions and i might get to that building block three question that i want to pose to you, but i know people in west virginia, and i know what's happening there right now. even though this rule has not gone into effect what has happened is some of your coal plants, some of your utilities in your state already as a result of the threat. >> well mr. chairman, it's clear in west virginia that the harm is already occurring, and in fact, as we were preparing for the lawsuit that we filed last year against the epa, one of the principal arguments we made is unlike many of the other traditional rules that are subject to notice and comment this proposed rule is actually causing real tangible harm in the states and also it's affecting power plant operations currently. if you go look at our

litigation we have at least eight declarations from very experienced environmental regulators who talk about the cost of trying to comply with this rule. the other point that i would raise is that the time frames associated with this proposal are hyperaggressive. you have a proposed rule that was issued june of 2014 a final rule scheduled to be issued sometime this summer, and then quhil while the regulators are suggesting they may need many years in order to try to come up with a plan they've been given one year. that's a very real problem, but there are real costs being expended by the states, and also i believe that this administration is not particularly interested in whether the rule is finalized so long as the marketplace actually moves away from them. if coal fired power plants have to be retired much quicker than baseline then they're going to accomplish their goal even if this regulation never is upheld in the courts.

>> thank you, general morrisey. and i do want to follow up on this. i will wait until a second round. >> senator markey. >> thank you madam chair. madam chair, i'd ask the two articles by jody freedman and richard lazarus be included in the record. >> without objection. >> thank you so much. we're in a big moment. pope francis is about to issue something on climate change. the cardinals named a jesuit who taught chemistry as the pope. pope francis believes actually that science is the answer to our prayers and we have to look at this modest way that is we can deal with this to reduce the danger that growing greenhouse gases is going to pose to god's creation, the planet and i think it's important for us then to find ways to accomplish that goal. so back in 1990 we worked on the

clean air act. i was on the committee to draft it and put that law on the books, and i added actually an energy efficiency section to the clean air act to give more flexibility to the administrator at the epa. and they were way that is utilities could comply with their acid rain requirements by undertaking activities beyond what was occurring at their power plants, and i can assure you that my intent and that of my congressional colleagues was to encourage utilities to look at the energy system in total to find ways of reducing sulfur pollution in the air. miss heinzerling, one objection that's been raised about the clean power plan is that utilities might have to go beyond the fence of their power plants to achieve their emission targets. in addition to the acid rain program that i just mentioned, are there other examples of using energy efficiency

renewables, or other beyond the fence activities under the clean air act? >> yes. very early on something like 35 years ago, the epa issued a rule that included washing of coal before it was burned as a compliance mechanism for dealing with the clean air act. it was something that wasn't within the source. it wasn't a typical end of the pipe kind of measure. gh in regulating interstate pollution or interstate conventional air pollutant under the clean air act epa has for many years included renewables and energy efficiency as potential compliance mechanisms. if i may just extend this just the example a bit further afield, but i think it illustrates what you're talking about. if you look at the program under the clean air act under section 202 to regulate mobile sources, you might if you looked at that

quickly, you might think that is the classic end of the pipe measure, and yet if you look at epa's most recent rules on greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources, epa has in the terms used today i think gone beyond the fence line. they included flexibilities in their rules that made the rule i think a marvel of modern regulation. they included consideration of the footprint of the vehicle and the air conditioning refrigerants used in the vehicle and flex fuel vehicles and so if you look not just at the pollution regulation that we've been talking about of stationary sources but beyond that under the clean air act it's i think become standard -- >> i agree with you. and that was the intent of the '90 act. it was to give more flexibility to use a different model, and i think that's what this proposed rule is going to do as well. it's going to say to each state, move in a way that accomplishes the goal but, you know we're going to be very flexible. let me ask you this question.

the constitutionality of epa's approach to setting public health standards has been challenged before. the supreme court upheld the epa's approach in 2001. in 2011 the supreme court ruled that epa has the authority to set standards for carbon pollution under section 111-d in an 8-0 opinion in american electric power versus connecticut and during the oral arguments the counsel argued on behalf of aep said to the court wep that thee pa can consider as its undertaking to do regulating unmodified sources under 111 of the clean air act. is there any constitutional question of their authority to regulate carbon emission? >> no, i don't think so. i think the constitutional issues have been a distraction. i think they've been used to

make people worry that maybe there is lurking a real constitutional issue so we better interpret this statute narrowly but the constitutional arguments i think are flimsy and the statutory authority under the clean air act, as i have said, i think is clear. >> okay. beautiful. thank you. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you. senator grassow. >> attorney general pruitt, good to see you again. oklahoma is a fossil fuel producing5wx energy state. attorney general morrisey, the state of west virginia, like the state of wyoming is a coal state. all of our states are particularly hit by the slew of proposed epa rules aimed squarely at the fossil fuel industry and the folks that work in that industry. i'd like to highlight a letter from the governor of my home state of wyoming, governor matt immediate, to epa administrator gena mccarthy and i ask the governor's record be entered into the record. he highlights a recent study at

the university of wyoming entitled "the impact of the coal economy on wyoming." it was published in february of this year. and i'd ask also that this study be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> the governor states about the study that the study determined the single largest threat to wyoming's coal industry is epa's clean power rule. in fact, the study says that 111-d climate regulation has the potential to drastically decrease wyoming coal production. production of coal output under the most favorable production circumstances decreases by 32% of the 2012 production by the year 2025. the study goes on to say even the best case impact modeling of the 11-d scenario suggests a loss of over 7,000 jobs across the state by 2025 reg tiff to the employment in 2012. it also says overall, proposed carbon regulations result in a

predicted decline in the state's combined coal and natural gas revenues of between 36% and 46% by 2030. so our state is finding that this rule will cost thousands of good paying jobs will drastically slash state revenue that pays for college scholarships schools medical emergency services road safety programs, environmental protection programs, water quality services veterans services, other vital services. wyoming children seniors veterans, fish and wildlife, they don't deserve i believe this dramatic cut in revenue by the epa. so i find this is recklessly irresponsible, where the costs are so clear and devastating and the benefits are theoretical or unknown. so my question to the two of you is this, are these statistics and findings similar to what you're seeing and you're concerned about in your states and how will essential services, state services for children, seniors, as well as the environment be impacted in

oklahoma as well as in west virginia? >> sure. so i think you raise a very -- a number of very important issues. we have obviously received a great deal of feedback from coal operators, from power plants from coal miners in the state of west virginia about the devastating impact of these rules. but there are a couple other implications as well. for instance west virginia as its tax base relies very heavily on coal revseverance revenues. tu look at the revenues coming into each of the counties from 2011 to now you will start to see a rapid decline. just recently we've seen news publications about a number of people laid off in the counties because the coal severance tax revenue had declined. the regulations here have far-reaching implications well beyond coal operators. the fact is for every job that you have related to coal directly in west virginia, there are probably seven jobs that tie

in indirectly. it has a fundamental impact on our economy, and that's just one of the many reasons why our office has been focused so much on this, because it would be an absolute travesty to finalize a rule that ultimately has a real likelihood of being struck down in the courts. >> so the regulations have a direct impact on the people and the quality of life in the people of your state. >> without a doubt. as you're looking at these issues, there are always a wide variety of reasons that give rise to a particular decision by a power plant operator or a mine operator to change employment status, but regulatory burdens is always very high on that list. >> thank you. >> and, senator if i could add to general morrisey's comments though we do not have a robust coal economy, we do actually have coal in the state of oklahoma. we're vertical in our energy diversity. i think what's lost in the debate at times is the impact on consumers, those that will be consuming electricity in the

future. in the state of oklahoma between coal and natural gas 78% of our electricity is generated. as i indicated in my opening comment, 15% of our electricity is generated through wind. the choices available to the state of oklahoma to comply with this mandate from the epa of reducing co2 by over 30%, it puts us in a position of having to make decisions about the shuddering of coal generation. that's going to increase costs substantially to consumers. this one rule, in the clean air act there is something called the regional haze statute, section of the clean air act. that one rule alone between pso, public service company of oklahoma and og & e in the state of oklahoma have seen 15% to 20% increases in their generation of electricity with just one rule. when we combine all these others, it's going to be obviously substantially more than that in the future for consumers in the state of oklahoma. >> so these regulations would

directly hurt, hurt the people of oklahoma. >> some of the folks that can least afford it. >> thank you. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you. senator whitehouse. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. this is an interesting hearing because the questioners on the republican side and the attorneys general who are present are all from states who have the characteristic that attorney general pruitt just described, ie, they have a robust coal economy and clearly we have a practical problem in that coal -- the burning of coal for electric generation creates some very, very dangerous consequences, but they're not fairly distributed. so where there is a robust coal economy, this creates one kind of problem. in rhode island where our oceans are up ten inches against the shore where our fishermen are seeing fisheries disappear, where house that is have been there for generations are

falling into the ocean we have a very different set of problems, and i think it's important if we're going to address this that we on the one hand recognize that there may very well be economic effects within coal economies from trying to unburden ourselves of the environmental consequences of coal burning, and we are i think very willing to work with you to mitigate those consequences, but we can't allow those consequences to take us to a point where we deny that the problem exists. that's just irresponsible and factually wrong and ultimately i think potentially really quite disgraceful to the institutions that we all serve. so let me ask you first attorney general pruitt, you said one of the problems with the epa regulation was that this issue should be left to the local level. please tell me what oklahoma is doing at the local level to address carbon pollution and climate change. >> senator if i could in response to your question also

say that i did not make a reference to the coal economy in the state of oklahoma. we do not have a robust coal economy. in fact, our percentage of generation of electricity attributed to coal is 40% which is less i think than perhaps maryland as it was referenced earlier. so we are -- >> i thought i wrote it down as you said it and it was robust coal economy but if that wasn't correct i apologize and i stand corrected. the record will be what the record is. >> i think what oklahoma has done is engage in a balancing effort between diverse fuel sources from renewables at 15% of generating electricity so 40% in coal. >> how does climate change roll into that calculation? >> our focus through public utility corporation decisionmaking as well as my focus as attorney general is not to engage in the policy debate about whether climate action is occurring or not -- >> why not? >> it's to look at the statute to determine whether thee pa is engaging in a process that's consistent with the authority you have given the epa.

>> why would you be willing to look at the consequences of the regulation on, for instance, the coal economy, but not be willing to look at the consequences of this regulation on environmental protection? why is that the debate that you think you need to stay out of when you're willing actively to get into the debate on the other side? that doesn't seem baldance. >> i think my comments were concerned with the decision making in terms of balancing generation of electricianity between coal and fossil rules. i would also say to you it's congress that should be jealous about protecting its role and what it has told agencies what they can and cannot do. it is congress that has set up the framework we're talking about this morning between 111 and section 112 -- >> well, we passed the statute that it's following and i'm comfortable that they're following it so i'm not actually jealous at all. i think they're doing exactly what congress intended, and so i'm very comfortable with that.

what i'm concerned about -- i mean we heard from senator brasso here, from wyoming a very important coal state, that the benefits of this rule are theoretical or unknown. they're not theoretical or unknown. they are very clear, very specific, and there are people who are very knowledgeable about it. if i could use the remainedder of my time to quote one very well-known scientist on this who says we know precisely how fast co2 is going up in the sphere. we have made a daily measurement of it since 1957. we have ice core data before that. we know without any question that it has increased by almost 40% since the industrial revolution and that that increase is due to human activity primarily fossil fuel burning. and secondarily bad use in agricultural. there is no debate about that. he continues, there are lots of scientific uncertainties but the fact that the planet is warming and the fact that co2 is a

greenhouse gas and the fact that it's increasing in the atmosphere and that it increases in the atmosphere due to humans about those things, there is no debate. and that is a statement of dr. baron moore iii who is the dean of the university of oklahoma's college of atmospheric and geographic sciences, and i think we need to be a little bit fairer about these hearings if we're going to get to a suitable result. my time is expired and i yield back. >> thank you. i think i would like to ask another question make another statement, and i believe the chairman of the full committee and senator, certainly if you're here still we'll go through another round. i would just react a little bit to some of the comments that were made in terms of the constitutionality and the legal authority that we're looking at here. i think we all need to be mindful that this can swing both

ways in different administrations. just because this time i think the constitutional overreach is too much and it's something that bears terrific scrutiny it's not to say that in another ten years another administration that senator whitehouse would be thinking the same thing because of the direction it's going. so i think this is extremely important to look at the legal implications, and also the comment was made that there was tremendous outreach to the state regulators, and i would reinforce that what i said in my opening statement and that i have said before this committee before and actually testimony was in front of the committee that the primary administrator in charge of this at the epa wouldn't even come into the state, our state, to hear about the seniors whose prices of electricity are going up, the miners who have lost their jobs, the manufacturers who are going out of business or are concerned about the price. so i think, you know, maybe there's been outreach but there

hasn't been enough outreach into" my opinion of the regular folks that are really being heavily impact in those states where i live. i am going to ask quickly a question to mr. martella. we've heard a lot about whether the -- i'm getting back to the legal authority on the four building blocks. what legal authority, if any, does the epa have under the clean air act to impose dispatch requirements on natural gas fired power plants? >> so thank you for asking that question, and the question about the building blocks two, three, and four the dispatching the renewable energy the energy efficiency -- >> i will ask the same question for all of them so just wrap it in. >> maybe i can give you the same answer to all of them. they sync up with your question about constitutionality cooperative federalism in this relationship we're hearing from all the witnesses on the relationship between the federal government and the state. it's something that professor heinzerling said in her testimony. a lot of people make analogies to the esps and the nax program

which is something the committee is familiar with. people say epa has always been able to implement the nax program. it is materially different and i think this is the answer to the question. in the nax program, congress has specifically authorized epa to regulaten ax poll lieu tants and it has authorized epa to delegate that authority to the states. so there's two things that are different there. at the outset there's no doubt that congress has delegated this authority to epa and congress has said you can give this authority to the states or you can take it back. the fundamental distinction with the clean power plan when we talk about blocks two three, and four is epa is saying we now want states to implement a renewable portfolio standard or a dispatching system or an energy efficiency system and the distinction here is there's no debate that congress has never authorized epa itself to run a are you aniable portfolio standard in west virginia or a dispatching system in oklahoma or an energy efficiency program in rhode island.

so congress itself has never given that authority to epa. epa cannot, therefore delegate that authority further to the states. that's kind of just a summary way that i think brings together these themes of cooperative federalism, constitutional issues, and the flexibility questions that have come up so far today. >> >> just so i understand specifically, you're saying in the area of nax there's legislative authority for the epa to go into the direction they've gone. >> that's correct. that's been well settled. the supreme court has addressed that several times and it's very clear what congress set up this cooperative federalism system there. again, if a state decides -- if my colleague here from oklahoma decides not to implement the epa nax, congress has said epa has the authority in the first instance. if oklahoma decides not to implement a renewable portfolio standard, congress has never authorized epa to implement that renewable portfolio standard. >> attorney general morrisey, how many states did you say were joined in the case you just recently -- >> well, right now we have 15

states which includes both attorneys general and governors and obviously in the d.c. sir circuit there were three cases that came together and were consolidated. we led the state effort and then there were other industry efforts as well. >> would you character the 18 states as ones similar to west virginia, wyoming oklahoma, energy-producing states, or are they just heavily reliant on coal or is it all over the board? >> my sense is that these are strong energy-producing states but this is a bipartisan coalition. the state of kentucky is also on board with our lawsuit as well. so we've obviously been reaching out to more and more states because we believe even noncoal producing states or energy producing states should care fundamentally about whether this 111-d rule gets finalized because of some of the legal implications. >> thank you. should i go to -- >> senator whitehouse. >> thank you very much.

attorney general morrisey is climate change a problem anywhere in the world? >> well, senator, my role was to serve as the chief legal officer -- >> a pretty simple question. >> so i'm not going to make an argument today about a climate change and whether the temperature is evolving because regardless of the policy merits of anyone's proposal policies have to be implemented in a lawful manner and that's one of attorney general in the state of west virginia. >> and the -- well, let me just ask attorney general pruitt, is climate change a problem anywhere in the world? >> senator, i think that the process matters that the epa engages in -- >> i get that. but i didn't ask you a process question. i asked you a question about whether climate change is a real problem anywhere in the world. >> i think the question about climate action, the plan of the president, climate change is something that's a policy consideration of this congress. if you want epa to address that

in a direct way, you can amend the clean air act to provide that authority and the statutory power to do so so that the states can know how to conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with statutory construction. >> so to be clear neither of the attorney generals present will concede that climate change is a real problem anywhere in the world. >> senator i think it's immaterial to discussions about the legal framework of the clean air act. >> immaterial or not i get to ask the questions and so it's material to my question. all right. let's go onto something else. we've talked a lot about kilowatt hour cost and i'd like to make a point which is that the price of electricity in rhode island my home state, was 15.2 cents per kilowatt hour. that compares to 9.67 cents per kilowatt hour in oklahoma. and it compares to 9.52 cents

per kilowatt hour in west virginia. however, because of rhode island's investment in efficiency and a whole variety of programs particularly through reggie which has been mentioned earlier which has been able to bring our usage down, rhode islanders paid only $91.48 per month for electricity compared to $110.47 in oklahoma and e @ñ $106.44 in west virginia. will both of the attorneys general from west virginia and oklahoma concedhe real impact to a consumer is the dollar amount that they have to write on the check that pays the bill? >> well senator i think where you're going right now, some of the details in terms of how

electricity prices may vary across the state is a policy question and in west virginia we've heard deep concern from power plant operators, from coal operators about what the impact will be on.t >> can i go back just -- >> in the context of other proposed regulations that have gone through but i think it's important to reiterate right now, to choose a policy objective and try to advance it through unlawful means is something that everyone in this body should reject. >> can i go back to the question that i actually asked? isn't the economic effect of a policy÷ á t real in a consumer's life by the amount of the check that they actually write rather than a per kilowatt hour cost? >> i think, senator, most people look at the amount they're paying when they get in the bill. they don't analyze the kilowatt. >> attorney general pruitt, do you agree? >> i think what is important for utility companies across the

country is to have choices, flexibility in the diversity -- >> but my question was quite specific, and that is when you're a utility consumer in terms of the economic effect on you, what really matters is the amount of the check you write, correct? >> and the long-term economic effect of shuttering coal generation long term will be substantial on consumers. >> well, you didn't answer my question. you segued into your lobbying on behalf of coal but the answer is yes or is it no, that the real difference is made by what the bill is? >> senator, i maintain that the state of oklahoma is 1350er7bsing an increase in cost to consumers because of the epa's heavy hand of eliminating fossil fuels to the energy mix. >> i would suggest you do what rhode island did because we actually took the trouble to invest in a significant way in energy reduction and efficiency. >> senator inhofe. >> thank you madam chairman.

we have been talking about this since '02 and i can remember down on the senate floor they tried to pass a similar thing that this regulation would do but pass it by legislation, and i saw what happened. in fact, that first bill was the mccain/lieberman bill then mccain was a republican. we decisively defeated that bill and every bill since that time. senator markey is not here now. he actually had a bill up also. that's happened, and this discussion about the science is settled, the science is settled the science is settled every time something comes up where ldp he science isn't settled, all they talk about is the science is settled because they don't want to elaborate on that. i want to make it part of the record an article a couple weeks ago in "the wall street journal" called "the myth of climate change 97%." this whole thing they keep saying 97% of the scientists this totally defuses it. it would take me too long to read it so i put it into the record without objection. >> without objection. >> talk about some of the v

scientists. >> i know richard lindson. i talked to him. he was quite upset when then vice president al gore was using this politically for his career. richard lindson iso an m.i.t. professor recognized asñ$6]t being one of the top professors around in the climate in the very thing we're talking about now and people ask him the question, why is it that people are so concerned about regulating the co2. he said it's a power grab. he said and these were his words, regulation of carbon is a bureaucrats dream. if you regulate carbon you regulate life. and so this whole idea that the science is settled, the science is settled, it's just flat not true. now, i:5n- know that people have 12 years of their life wrapped up in this issue as the only issue of our time. they don't like to recognize this fact but nonetheless, this is a problem. in fact, i'll do this from memory because i have said it so many times.

you go back and you see these cycles that take place in the world. it was 1895 we went into the firstkoñ cold spell that has been really talked about, about a 30-year cold spell and that's when they first said another ice age is coming and all of that trying to get people alarmedñ because the world is always coming to an end when this happens. then in 1918 we went into a warm spell that lasted about 30 years, and then that's first time you heard global warming. that was 1918. that was a long time ago. and then 1945 they change and it started going into a cold spell. now, this is the interesting thing about these 30-year cycles, and it goes right up until today. the year that we had the greatest surge in emissions of co2 was right after the second world war you guys knowza(÷ this, it was 1945 and that precipitated not a warming period, but a cooling period.

these things -- these are realities. i can remember speeches i made on the floor in response to things that my good friend from rhode island has said when i'd talk about what is the reality of what's going on today. now, and so we're going to hear more of this, and i know that there's an effort now to have this bureaucratic thing that this my opinion is doesn't have what it's supposed to have and the only thing i want to get back in and get the response from both attorneys general is a matter of what we've been talking about in flexibility. senator markey talked about it. miss heinzerling talked about it, thee pa often talks about the flexibility and would say that the epa simply is hiding behind the flexibility while in reality forcing states to figure out how to make the least economically devastating decisions. i would just ask the two of you does the clean power plan

provide states with any real flexibility? every witness has talked about flexibility. >> i think if you look at this concept of flexibility, this is a -- it's a false concept. the reality is that states arek

that's fv=2 new source performance standards, that obviously does not rely on outside the fence technology when they develop their best system of reduction emissions it's much more narrow. >> i think my colleague my fellow panelist roger addressed it well earlier. flexibility with respect to how plans are adopted is something that states endeavor to possess and have, but flexibility with respect to performance standards inside the fence versus outside the fence that's what we're really facing here is that the epa has taken an approach ofv forcing performance standards outside the fence. they're providing less options in the few furuture as far as how to comply. >> thank you. and senator carper. >> thanks so much. if i could, i'm not a lawyer either. i've got an mba and i'm not a

lawyer and i don't understand all this -- some of this discussion when we get into these technicalityies but i do know this. i have seen us pass legislation when i was in the house with senator inhofe and in the senate where we were put in bill conflicting approaches to the same issue, and in some cases we're just unable to resolve our differences so we like put both in and say somebody else will figure this úq) out. and i think in a way when i saw the discussion around section 111-d of the clean air act it reminded me of that kind of behavior, and i'm looking at your testimony, lisa where you say based on the text of section 111-d alone epa has persuasively defended its proposed view that the statute is ambiguous and its interpretation is reasonable.

explain this so i can understand. i think i do but we have these two amendments. i'm told it still lives in another life. explain this to us please. >> congress in 1990 passed two different amendments to section yes 111-d. one seemed to look to poll lieu tants, one seemed to look to sources. but as epa has explained, they're not entirely clear either one of them standing aloin and the combination is not entirely clear coming together, and so what epa has tried to do is try to take( ÷ from each amendment something, and what it said is you cannot regulate the same pollutants from the same sources under both programs, section 111 and 112. that is the kind of judgment as you're suggesting that agencies make all the time. there are many times when statutes aren't entirely clear. they may contain provisions that are in tension with each other and agencies resolve them.

and this usually a straightforward application of what i call the chevron deference which is the case in which the supreme court said if a statute is notr policy judgments are left to the agency to make, then the agency gets deference to a reasonable interpretation of the statute. and here i think the text allows epa's interpretation and i would also say in light of the comments earlier about the problem of global warming, just imagine if the epa said no, we'll take the interpretation that does not allow us to regulate the sources of greenhouse gases that emit the most greenhousei&tñ gases in the country and attack the problem of climate change with that. that would be quite strange. >> yesfpy(÷ it would. question if i could, miss

backman, i want to go back to thean issue of whether science of climate change is settled law, and just very briefly do you think it is? do you think it's not? >> i'm sorry? >> the question on whether or not the science of climate change is indeed settled law. do you believe it is? do you believe it's not? >> well senator -- >> microphone. >> microphone. >> i'm sorry. i thought you were asking me. >> no no i am. i'm asking you to use your microphone. >> is this better? >> that's good. >> okay. thank you. i'm also not a lawyer and i am not a climate scientist but i do choose to believe the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who say it is real and it is caused by humans and so now we need to act. i can tell you also that there is a cost to action, but there is also a cost to inaction, and i can tell you as one who is responsible to consumers,

electricity consumers who depend on reliable, affordable energy, that certain ways to help the system include renewable energy include energy efficiency include demand reduction to help with those reliability issues and to help are the resiliency of our system. >> that's fine. just hold it right there. one last question, if i could for lisa. are epa proposed carbon standards supported by the three supreme court decisions in massachusetts versus epa and american electric power versus connecticut? >> yes. >> tell us more. >> yes. massachusetts versus epa, of course, held that greenhouse gases are air pollutants within the meaning of the clean air act. much of what we hear is an attempt to relitigate that case, to tell us carbon dioxide is not

an air pollutant. that case clearly holds that these poll lieu tants are reg labl under the clean air act. court made law of global warming pollution. that's significant because if this regulation goes by the boards, then all the reasons for that common law come back to force. and the last, the utility air regulatory group it seems to me that case can be understood most generally first as a victory for most of epa's greenhouse gas program that was at issue there and, secondly it asked epa to look section by section and make sure that regulation under a particular provision of the clean air act made sense for particular pollutants. that's exactly what epa has done here.

>> madam chair, i would just say this is a good panel and i commend you and our staff for pulling they will together. thank you all for coming and if i ever go to law school, i'd like to have you be my professor, okay? >> thank you very much. i'd like to thank the panel and thank the senators. >> will there be questions for the record allowed? >> yes. leave the record open for two weeks and you can submit questions for the record. >> very well. we'll do that. >> thank you all very much. appreciate it. appreciate your patience when we had to leave. this hearing is adjourned.

and on capitol hill today both the house and senate beginning legislative work at 2:00. about 15 minutes away from now. this week in the house taking up the highway trust fund and spending in

legislation in the senate? >> that's a lot more complicated than it was in the house. the house passed it to the senate with an overwhelming number of members supporting the usa freedom act but that legislation is not being picked up in the senate. mitch mcconnell wants a clean reauthorization of the patriot act. there's critics there of the patriot act and the bulk collection of american data who want to see their usa freedom act or a bill like it put up on the floor instead of a straight extension. >> and then senator rand paul finding themselves on opposite sides of this issue? >> yeah. the two members are on the opposite side. senator rand paul said he would likely filibuster if mitch mcconnell put up just a clean extension of the patriot act. he is very worried about the privacy concerns that the government can collect data from

americans without warrants or without proper notification. so he could filibuster that bill if it came up to the floor. but mitch mcconnell is pushing heavily on other republicans to supply the votes needed for a clean reauthorization so they can move on to other pressing deadlines. >> and then let's turn to the highway trust fund. that's another one that's facing a deadline. delaware democrat tom carper tweeted about the bill calling for a two-month extension. he said today senator boxer and i are back with a bill to compel congress to fix the trust fund this summer. what's the status of the funding for this short and long term? >> funding will run out and right now the current authorization for the highway trust fund ends the end of this month. and lawmakers are on a very strict deadline with the upcoming construction season. there needs to be money available to keep the infrastructure projects going forward and building. so what is happening here as you see in the senate and in the house, a two-month extension of

that authorization to give lawmakers much more time to figure out how to pay for a long-term extension. mostly everyone involved wants a five-year or longer extension of the highway trust fund. the question and kind of the sticking point is how to pay for it. democrats are advocating for an increase in the gas tax but that's not a popular proposal among republicans. >> and then this senate moving forward with trade promotion authority. politico reporting dems look to start senate trade war next week. what do you think we can expect in floor debate and will the senate finish this by the end of the next week when they're supposed to be out? >> you can expect a really contentious week in the senate and then in a lesser extent the house over tpa if that fast track trade promotion authority. you're going to see democrats really -- there are some democrats who want it, but they went with senator reed earlier this week to stop it from going forward until there was currency debates and other bills considered, but now that it's

going to be on the floor you're going to see democrats really railing against fast track authority and the qualms they have with the upcoming transpacific partnership, that larger trade deal.deal. there's no guarantee that trade is dealt with by the senate. it is on the agenda for the next week, but they might not get to it. they might not vote on it or it might not pass. it's very much in flux. of course, if it does pass, it goes to the house or the future of tpa, fast track authority, is much more uncertain. >> affecting also the tpp, the transpacific partnership as well. let's move on. former secretary of state clinton was supposed to testify before the committee about benghazi as early as next week. as you write, the chair of the committee says he's not going to allow her to testify until certain documents are turned over. what's happening here? >> you saw the switch was flipped and turned attention away from clinton and turned to

john kerry. what he's saying in the letter is without the documents, without all of the documents they've requested in a letter and subpoena over the last year, he can't have hillary clinton testify because he doesn't have the edvidence he needs. she's insisting she'll only appear before the panel one time. the fear is that if she comes in and new evidence comes out when new documents are made available, they will have missed the opportunity to question her. now, he's saying, without all of the documents, she won't be appearing. really, trying to amp up pressure on the obama administration to get those documents ss they've been waiting for in some cases for six months. >> thanks. we'll continue to follow you on twit. @lauren n. french. and politico.com. >> thank you so much. the house and senate gaveling in for legislative work in nine minutes. follow the house live on c-span and the senate on c-span2. take a closer look at trade

promotion authority with the chair of the house, paul ryan. >> congressman paul ryan is the chair of the house ways and means committee. thanks for being with us. >> my pleasure, steve. thanks for having me. >> as the trade bills move through the u.s. senate and expect to be in the house after memorial day congressman why do you think these measures are good for american workers? >> i think getting a level playing field for american workers so we can make and grow more things in america. send them overseas is very important for jobs. the reason basically is 95% of the world's consumers don't live in our country. they live in other countries. it's vitally important we open up markets for our products. after all, one in five jobs in america is tied to trade. most of the jobs pay more on average than non-trade based jobs. it's really a function of getting more economic growth, more job creation and better wages. the fact of the matter is we already give many of these countries decent access to our

markets, but they don't give the same kind of access to their markets. that's why you need trade agreements to open up the markets and get those countries to play by our rules so we can have free and fair trade and more jobs. it's all about that. the last point i'd make is, the global economy is here. it's always constantly changing. the question is, do we lead and guide the change or do others write the rule book? it's a race to whether or not america and our allies run and write the rules, or does china. i, for one don't want to see china writing the rules of the global economy. i don't think it's in our interest. it's important for america to be in the front seat, leading and guiding this, so we can have more american jobs. >> you said that china is rigging the rules in its favor. how so? >> china rigs the rules in its favor because it takes our intellectual property rights. it subsidizes government corporations to unfairly compete

against american workers. china does not play by the ordinary rules. what we get with trade agreements is getting other countries around china to play by our rules. so we can set the standards. the goal is not to lower american standards. the goal is to get other countries to trade by american standards. you can't do that if you don't get trade agreements. >> as you know, a big part of the debate, what this means for organized labor and workers in general. it's being claimed the trade bills allow you and others to go after the demands of deregulation. they si it'say it's going to give tax breaks and financial advantages to big businesses and hurt the advantage worker. >> i fundamentally disagree. trade-based jobs pay almost 18% more on average. one in five jobs in america is tied to trade. by the way, if we're not getting trade agreements, that means other countries are going around the world getting better agreements for their countries and freezing america out. we can't just make and sell to ourselves. we have to make things and sell

overseas. without trade agreements what companies inevitably have to do is manufacture in foreign markets to sell in the foreign markets. by getting a trade agreement to lower the basier se ier barriers we can make things here and send them overseas because the barriers have been lifted. that's why it's bipartisan. you have president barack obama pushing for trade along with republicans in congress. we know in the final analysis, when you strip out the uncertainties and all the misperceptions, it's really in america's interest to do this. trade promotion authority, we're saying we need to have high standards. we need to have transparency. we want to make sure the american people can read a trade agreement. 60 days before a president can even sign an agreement, and then send it to congress for congress's consideration. we think we're getting it right with transparency. we're getting it right by putting congress in the driver's seat. making sure that people's voices are heard. good quality trade agreements. again, if you're not getting trade agreements, that means

other countries are and america will lose. >> congressman, we learned from senator rand paul that the text of these agreements are not available to the public. it's 800 pages long. he's saying that it should be made available to everyone. why isn't it? >> it's not finalized yet. the agreements are still being negotiated. there isn't an agreement yet to look at and to release. what trade promotion authority does under the bill we've written, the bipartisan bill moving through congress, is when these agreements are done when the negotiations are completed, then the whole entire agreement should be made completely public for at least 60 days before any president can sign an agreement. then send it to congress for congress's consideration. so we don't have a trade agreement yet. we don't have a trade transpacific partnership or european trade agreement yet. you need tpa, trade promotion authority, in order to get a trade agreement. what we're saying with tpa is we

want more transparency. we want to be able to have people read negotiations. members of congress like rand paul, if he wants to under tpa, can participate in the trade negotiations. once the negotiations are concluded, then you make it public. we don't have yet a trade agreement to make public because the negotiations are still ongoing. because we have not yet completed tpa. >> congressman, as you well know there are many in the house republican conference who don't support the trade bills in large part because they don't trust this president. will you and speaker boehner be able to get the votes you need to get this through the house in. >> i think we will get the votes and it'll be a bipartisan bill like it will be in the senate. to my friends who are very suspicious or untrusting of this administration -- and i share many of the concerns -- trade promotion authority binds the administration to congress's will. trade promotion authority puts congress in charge of the process. there's nothing that stops the president from going out and negotiating within agreement and sending it to congress.

what we're saying is, we are putting out the guidelines for what agreements need to include. 150 guidelines that congress is opposing. new transparency requirements. making sure the text is made available to the public before we vote on it. those are the things we're insisting upon in trade promotion authority. i would argue that by passing trade promotion authority, you have congress asserting its prerogatives asserting its control of the process at the front end. instead of sitting back, waiting for the president to go negotiate something in secret and send it to congress. >> finally, congressman, what's a bigger challenge, chairing the house budget committee or the ways and means committee? >> ways and means because the jurisdiction is bigger. it's in charge of the trade laws, tax laws, welfare laws, and it overseas our vital entitlement programs like social security and medicare. >> congressman paul ryan joining us on capitol hill. thank you for being with us. >> thanks for having me, steve. on capitol hill, the house

and senate gaveling in momentarily, a couple minutes away, in live coverage of the house on c-span and the senate on c-span2. a look this morning now at the former deputy director of the cia who talked about a recent article by hersh on the capture and death of osama bin laden laden. >> it was just said that the pakistani intelligence knew about the raid beforehand. do you have any comments? >> he alleges a lot of things. in this london review of books story, 10,000 words. he alleges that the pakistanis were keeping him prisoner at that compound. he alleges that we learned about bin laden's presence at the compound from a senior pakistani walking into our embassy in islamabad and telling us that in

return for $25 million. he alleges that the pakistanis were aware that we were going to do the raid and in fact, allowed us to do the raid. it is all rubbish. almost every sentence in that article is wrong. i was in the room for every discussion about this at the cia, and i was in the room for every discussion about this at the white house. i was there when our guys came in and said we have followed somebody that we believe to be bin laden's courier to his home. i was there when our guys watch td compound for months. i was there when our guys said we've come to the conclusion that he's there. there was no information provided to us by the pakistanis or anybody else, by the way. i see that in the media this morning, some confidential

german sources are claiming the germans provided us information. not true. i was there when the president of the united states decided that we were not going to tell the pakistanis in advance. not because we didn't want to. there would have been nothing better so the relationship between the united states and pakistan could work together on this. we couldn't trust the pakistani system. not the government but the pakistani system not to leak the information and get back to bin laden and have him leave the compound before the raid ever hand. i was there when the pakistanis learned about this. they were deeply angry with us. i was sent by the president of the united states to pakistan to begin to put the relationship back together after the bin laden raid. so everything seymour hersh said is wrong. he said that he got this information from a former senior intelligence official, who was very close to the operation. whoever that source was was not

in any room that i was in. on the campaign trail, democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton will be in mason city, iowa today. her second visit since announcing candidacy. she's expected to talk about jobs, the economy and small businesses. live coverage scheduled for 3:45 p.m. eastern time on c-span3. presidential candidates often release books to introduce themselves to voters. here's a look at some recent books written by declared and potential candidates for president. former secretary of state hillary clinton looks back on her time serving in the president obama in "hard choices." in "american dreams," machikok marco rubio talks about restoring opportunity. mike huckabee "god, guns, grits and gravy."

rick santorum argues in his book. in "a fighting chance," elizabeth warren recounts the events in her life that shapes her career as a educator and politician. scott walker argues that republicans must offer bold solutions to fix the country and have the courage to implement them in "unintimidated." rand paul calls for smaller government and more bipartisanship in "taking a stand." more potential presidential candidates with recent books include former governor jeb bush in "immigration wars." he argues for new immigration policies. in "stand for something," ohio governor kasich calls for return to traditional american values. former virginia senator james webb looks at his time in the military and in the senate in "i heard my country calling."

vermont senator bernie sanders recently announced his intention to seek the democratic nomination for president. his book, "the speech," is a printing of his eight-hour long filibuster against tax cuts. in "promises to keep," vice president joe biden looks back on his career in politics and explains his guiding principles. neurosurgeon ben carson calls for greater individual responsibility to preserve america's future in "one nation." in "fed up," former texas governor rick perry describes that government must get ouá of the way. another politician expressed president is former rhode island governor, lincoln chafee. in "against the tide," he recounts his time as a republican in the senate. former ceo of hewlett-packard shares lessons from her difficulties and triumphs in "rising to the challenge."

louisiana governor bobby criticizes the obama administration and describing why conservative solutions are needed in washington and crisis. in "a time for truth," ted cruz recounts his journey from a cuban immigrant's son to now. tonight on the communicators, members on congress of nsa collection of phone records, privacy. >> section 215 authorizes the metadata collection the bulk collection. last week, we found out that the second district federal court agrees with justin and i that this patriot act never really authorized these programs. that the programs are illegal. but the nsa would tell you that these programs were authorized by section 215.

then the fisa court proceeded to write a warrant that covered every american citizen. i think our founding fathers would be appalled. >> i think our policy is far from being up to date. we have policy that is actually out of date. we have copyright policy from 1976. a lot has changed since 1976. we have the electronic communications privacy act which was done in 1986. i started working on e-mail in 1989 when mostly people could send an e-mail to somebody else they worked with. now, we have e-mail as a standard form of communication, one of the most popular forms of communication. yet, we still have a situation where a piece of paper in your desk drawer is held to warrant standard. law enforcement would need a warrant to access that information. but an e-mail you have that's been stored in the cloud for 180 days or more is not subject to a warrant standard. >> i think the issue that really the fec brought out is we're not

making a comment at this point on specifics, but we are saying "táhat it needs to be open and free. any time the government gets involved, there's this open-ended pandora's box. what is it going to lead to next? we've had hearings in which they really can't answer some of the basic questions about what even their own rules are. we're saying at this point, let that be an issue for congress. let it be an issue for the elected officials, which it's on the radar but not be put in place by bureaucrats who have no really consequence from the elected populus. tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators, on c-span2. west virginia senator at the brookings institute today to talk about improving government performance and efficiency. introductions are underway. then shortly, senator manchin. >> i'd like to thank c-span for being here and i'd like to

invite everyone watching on the webcam to follow along or social media using #send manchin. it's no secret that the american government is in a period of serious dysfunction. gridlock and polarization have crippled our elected institutio's, trust in government has plummeted and the public wants solutions but all it get it is more and more problems. what's worse, it seems too often, our elected officials adapt to a dysfunctional system rather than trying to work in a way to reform it. that's a serious problem. the result is a system that per perpetuates ills rather than find cures. here at brookings, we are engaging a lot of scholars in and out of house to look at the types of reforms that will help rejuvenate the system. get it back to work. get public policy moving in the right direction. it's a robust debate here at

brookings. sometimes it's a divisive debate at brookings in-house. it's one we feel is vital to american democracy and what the public expects from its government. today, we're joined by a member of the united states senate who is often engaged in similar types of debates with his own colleagues in his own institution. we're pleased to welcome an additional voice in this discussion. joe manchin serves on the united states senate and comes to congress with a unique perspective. he's one of ten senators who formerly served as governor. these ten members bring a criticp& perspective. they're problem solvers. they were charged by their state to govern. their residents expected action. they oversaw state agencies. they oversaw cryisis. they overall a public that command demanded a lot out of them and the expectation was to deliver. together, these ten members

formed the former governor's kau sus -- caucus. bringing this experience to the new institution they serve in the united states congress. i'd like to offer a brief introduction. joe manchin is the senior senator from west virginia. having been a senator since 2010, previously as i said he served as governor from 2005 to 2010. over the course of more than 30 years in public service senator manchin served in the west virginijáuáq f delegates, the state senate and as west virginia secretary of state. it's my pleasure to welcome senator manchin to brookings. [ applause ] >> first of all i want to thank brookings for hosting this event. more importantly, helping to tackle this issue of how to make government work better. i want to thank you, john, for

the brointroduction and your hard work on this effort, and all the people at. [ brookings. i know it's not sexy and doesn't grab headlines like other things. it gets people fired up. making government work more efficiently and effectively is critical to getting our country back on track. in 2010 when senator byrd passed away in june that summer, i had to make one of the most difficult decisions of my political career. i had to decide, should i try to go to washington and lead the office that i love being governor, the great state of west virginia. i was two years into my second term. in west virginia two two four-years, you're termed out. you can come back maybe if the people want you. but two consecutive terms. i made the decision and it was the toughest decision i made. i made it on this premise. i felt like we had contributed so much.

brought people together. we had a super majority of democrats in the state senate and legislature. i wouldn't let the democrats beat up on the republicans. by the grace of god, it could be us. we're going to need everybody working together. we'd work together and identify problems we had for the state of west virginia. we didn't make them political. it wasn't a political victory if we did something. we did our job. we took that premise and did everything in the state that needed to be done. it was critical. when i made the decision that i said if i can take the experience i've had and the successes we've enjoyed in west virginia and bring that experience level to washington, maybe i could be of some help. i could contribute something. so i made the decision. i felt good about what i left in the state and the job we had done. i kept remembering senator byrd all the time would tell me how the senate used to work. of course, he was a master of the senate and wrote the book. he truly loved this place. he had the utmost respect for

the u.s. constitution and the tradition and procedure of the senate. we still abide by a lot of that. we have broken a few of his rules, which i'm sure would not favor too well with him. he served in the senate when it worked. when relationships were built to form bonds of trust, not for political pay back. when members sat down for a meal together and knew each other's families and their children and what they liked and disliked. unfortunately today in washington, we live by the concept that you are no longer guilty by association. you're guilty by conversation today. if someone sees you talking to the opposite side or somebody that might not have your same thought process or philosophical belief, it's almost like you've gone to the dark side. i said, my goodness, how can we learn what our differences are if we can't talk to each other and find a kmomcommonality. gone are the daying the ings the senators

break bread together in the main dining room. senators would have their meetings. when i first came here, i said, my goodness i don't know why they're not doing that anymore. it's something we should do. they'll go -- every tuesday, we have the caucus launch. both the democrats and the republicans will go their separate ways for lunches in two different parts of the area. seldom do we get together for a bipartisan meal. when you see us on c-span on the floor, that's about the most time we spend with each other. is when you see us during a vote on the floor, working back and forth and talking. or going back and forth to committees. sometimes you might -- when you serve with one member on one committee or another you don't have all of them at one time. i've tried to break that. we started a bipartisan lunch. it has worked. we've been fairly successful at

it. you can understand that most of the former governors are the ones that show up quite a bit because they understand that basically, we have the same problems. no matter what your state is. if you have an education problem, highway problem medicaid problem, we want to find out who had done something that worked and how could we do the same. it was something we exchanged back and forth. i would call. i had no problem calling mitt rock knee when rom rom romney. we have five democrats, one independent and four republicans. we have cain carter alexander, brown, rish and the independent senator. we bring a more common sense approach to governing. while we don't meet as a group as much as we'd like, we naturally gravitate toward each other to make deals and work on

common sense legislation. when we ran our states, basically what we had to work -- most of us had 46 states i believe had budget amendments. balance budget amendments. that means the first thing you want to know as governor when you get elected and sworn in that day they take you immediately and tell you and show you the revenue of the state and what you have to work with. you have to work on your budget. you work on the budget for the comeing year and put things together. basically, i would always say, what's the revenue. every tuesday afternoon, i would have the budget analysis and all my budget people would come and meet with the governor, meet with me. they would tell me what our forecasts were, how the collections are going, and how much we had to work with. or areas we had to change and make adjustments. that was something always cognisant on our mind. can we pay for what we promised or would like to do? you pick your priorities based on your value. what's the value of the people my constituents, in west virginia? i knew exactly where we were. about our children getting a

good start in life. it was about education and attaining an educational degree that gave you the skills to compete. taking care of our veterans and seniors. there were other things that i couldn't do. people asked, how did you balance the budget? i said i had to pick things. everybody wanted all these things to do. i said, fine. tell me which group you want to tell we can't do it anymore. if i picked one that's wasteful show me and we'll pick one that's more resourceful. we had to make these decisions on budgets and we're trying to bring those approaches to senate now and make government work. it's a challenge here because i'll share this with you. the first day i came to the senate, i said what's our revenue? i was told immediately, we're going to spend about $3.5 trillion to $3.7 trillion. i said, how much money will we

have? we don't think we can cut much out of the $3.5 trillion. i said, you want to spend $3.7 trillion. i saidhow much do you think we have to pay? about $2.2 trillion in revenue. i said, we're not high in math me ma tigss but you're about $1.5 trillion short. oh, it doesn't work that way in washington. i haven't figured out this new math in washington. i'm trying. everyone is confused about the new math. i'm having a hard time myself. we also had a fiscal season of using taxpayer dollars. i'll share as a governor what we did. it can be done but revenue positive office. what is it? it's one that we would have that basically would do budget reviews, general accounting offices, that says if you do

this, this and this, you can save $100 billion. you can save this. you have a redundancy in government that these things have happened. every president, like every governor, has a platform. every legislature wants to -- the first honeymoon session -- wants to give the new president or the new governor basically a honeymoon and oblige. what we had is a layer on top of layer, adding up over the years. every now and then you have to have a correction. you have to change and you have to consolidate, get rid of some that aren't working. no one is looking at that. it makes governing harder and hurts our country and our government when we don't do this. most people don't realize, many offices in federal government particularly the inspector generals, can identify the waste and abuse in inside and outside agencies. perfect example for mine. when we used to have to cut back and they'd tell me, the revenue will be short in west virginia. i said show me where i'm making

money. they said, what? show me where you have an agency returning more than we're investing into the agency. department of revenue. for all of my outside auditors, i had outside and inside. inside the state and outside the state. for every dollar i spent on outside, i got $100 return if i would audit the company. a lot says, this is a gray line. we'll stop it right there. if they say something, we'll say it was an honest mistake because we interpreted it differently. you have to have auditors watching continuously. when we used to cut back budgets on flat line them i would increase the outside auditors budget because they can help me get out of the hole quicker. common sense. no different than how you'd run your business or household. spending in these offices are often positive investments. unfortunately, when we try to cut funding we do it as net loss to the government. when the offices have cuts the federal government loses money. since we lose out on their ability to save money from other

programs. that's why i'll be introducing legislation to require the general accounting office to designate the federal offices that have saved more money than they've spent. i think it would be an eye opener for all of us. that's common sense. as governors we looked at the bottom line. we needed to know the taxes we imposed, if they helped or hurt. we need to know if we reduce taxes and accelerated the reduction, if the revenue would catch up to it. we would watch it and put triggers in. we'd put triggers to stop and take a pause and see where we were. i always said there are certain things that people would do. first, if you're running out of money, the first thing they'll rob the piggy bank. sweep the accounts in the agencies so it's not noticeable to the average public. then they'll make cuts within government. they'll cut back and lay people off. the last thing they'd want to do, oh, my god, they don't want to do this is raise taxes.

then somebody has messed up. that's what they believe. basically, what you have to do is look at the wholistic approach to how you run the place. then you say, well, we can afford this. can't afford this. we'll eliminate. this we won't. we'll increase this. everybody is afraid to talk about taxes. you wouldn't -- we can't even agree on the definition of revenue. is that hard to believe? if your revenue is reduced to 33, you'd think we cut the taxes. if we got rid of the junk in the box, the give aways and the programs that every lobbyist in this town has been able to get a tax provision put in an offset. every one of them for the special interest groups. with all that being said that's a tremendous draw on the revenue. no one basically ever says, okay, how much did that cost? when you introduce something, how much is it going to cost me? that's what we need to know.

and that's what we'll be working on. ifo kus to tack focus the comprehensive tax reform. i felt the president missed the golden opportunity to take it in a bipartisan effort. tweak it the way he wanted to. had a three-prong approach on how to fix this. you fix the revenue, you can take care of anything. if you have the revenue under control, you're in great shape. when you don't my grandfather said, endebtedness that is unmanageable, cancels out the decisions you make. they do. tax expenditures have the same budgetary effect as spending increases. while we know about the mortgage tax reductions the charity tax reductions corporate tax deductions, we don't appreciate the cost of these tax expenditures. with full knowledge of the costs, we can start the process of overhauling the tax system.

do it in a calculated way so we're not harming our own constituents or business. i will be introducing legislation to require cbo to include tax expenditures in budget materials. the same way that discretionary spending are line items in the reviews today. they're going to have to take those the same as we do in our appropriations. as a former governor i wanted to know whether the actions we took were work and be we needed to amend or improve them. in washington, it feels like everything that i guess when we do something we think it's exactly what needed to be done. we never acknowledge we made a mistake. it didn't work. if that's the case, why do you need us to come back every year? if we're that good, heck we fixed everything. but if we didn't, the reason i think our founding fathers had us coming back, is to make adjustments. you have to make admissions. i made a mistake. it didn't work out. the information i got was wrong.

we're going to fix this. that's what we're trying to say in washington. it's no different than back home in west virginia. i've always told people if i have something wrong, i made a mistake, i can fix it. i sure didn't do it intentionally. i was trying to make things better but it didn't work out so let's correct it. one way to address this is to reform the regulatory system. i'll be introducing legislation also to reestablish the office of technology assessment. up until 1995 this office provided nonpartisan information to congress on cost benefit analysis of regulations and regulatory changes. the only source for the information is the white house's office of information and regulatory affairs currently. this is not -- whether you're democrat or republican but it shouldn't come from the white house's office when it comes to make decisions in congress. that's why we have three branches of government. congress needs retrospective review for various regulations.

there are already common sense bills out there that help to identify ways the government can work more efficiently. last congress, i introduced a legislation called duplication elimination act to save billions of taxpayer dollars by making it easier for congress to eliminate duplication and overlap across the federal government. the bill would require the president to submit a proposal proposed joint resolution to congress each year on how to carry out recommendations outlined in the government's accountability office. or the gao. give an example. some years it can be as much as 3 to $400 billion theyduplication. we do nothing with this. the president must provide congress in 90 days with a draft proposal and report that explains which gao recommendations are excluded and not included.

why, mr. president, did you pick some didn't take the recommendation to consolidate or eliminate, and give us your reasoning. make it transparent so we understand. we think that would work very well. both chambers of congress must vote on proposals within ten days and any savings achieved any dollars achieved through the duplication elimination act must be used for deficit reduction. we're making no attempt at all and no one seems to be worried about an $18 trillion deficit. we have to earmark dollars for that. this is a win-win bill. only gets rid of government waste and holds our government accountable for unnecessarily and unacceptable redundancies. now, i know the fixes won't change all the dysfunction but it's a start. we're seeing a glimmer of hope, and it's the one reason i've decided to stay in the senate and not return back to west virginia. if it was about personal politic politics and not public politics, i'd be out of here. i'd be out, first to tell you that. no place like home.

with that being said public offices and public sir viservice is what it refers to. it's public. i looked at it from the standpoint, i don't have the same feeling. if i'd leave today and try to be governor again, i don't have the same feeling i left when i left governor to come here. i kept like i accomplished something back home. i left the state in better shape than i received it. i don't feel i've accomplished enough here. i see the changes but i don't feel good enough that i've actually done something. i think there's more to be done. i feel like we can make a difference and we are making more of a difference. we're having more bipartisan talks, debating legislation and working on amendments. i feel like there's more to do. i know the campaign season is ramping up and we will likely see negative ads coming from all over and the political knives coming out sharper than ever. i'm hopeful my colleagues will join me in a pledge i've taken. me personally. i'd love to see everybody take

it. why does the place not work? i said, human nature is this. it's hard to say no to your friends. it's truly hard. with that, we have no relationships so you don't have many friendships. that's my friend. i'll work with you. i said, on top of that, every day i come to work, they expect me to make phone calls and raise money so that money can be spent against my colleague. i'm a democrat. they expect every penny i raise to be used against the republican. they expect me to even go on the trail and campaign against a republican. they expect all my republican colleagues and friends to do the same against me. how in the world on monday can you come to me and say, joe, let's sit down and work on this. i have a good idea here. when i know last week you raised money spent money on ads against me and went to my home state and told people not to vote for me. what makes you think i'm going to want to sit down with you on monday and work something out? doesn't make sense. i took a pledge. i will not raise a dollar and

not campaign against any colleague. i will not. no matter whether we agree or disagree. it makes a horrible atmosphere and a horrible situation we live with up there. if you want to know why we're so dysfunctional and don't get along, it's because everybody is afraid to talk. guilt by conversation. they're afraid to talk and tell them what you're working on because it could be used against them in an ad. that's one pledge i'd like to see this whole town engage into. we cannot campaign. used to be an unwritten pledge. i heard that nobody campaigned against each other before. boy, it's not the case anymore. that's what i'm trying to do. there is not one colleague of mine, even the ones i disagree with, who i can't work with. there's not one colleague that can look at me and say joe manchin tried to defeat me and take my job away. not one. it makes it easy for me to cross over the aisle and work with them. i always tell them, i'm the bellwether person. they bring it to me and i said,

i'll talk to my colleagues and see if it's something they can agree on. then we start moving from there. we try to find the commonality. and the governor's caucus is one we work closely with. i don't be&ieve this place is working as senator byrd used to tell me it did. i have to commit i'm not going to stop fighting. i thini it's well worth the fight we have in us to make this place work. we've had a lot of other challenges that have been r(t&háhp &hc% greater than this for our country and overcome them all. i think we can overcome this one, too. i want to thank you all, and i appreciate it. i guess we're going to have some questions now. thank you. [ applause ]

>> senator manchin and senator byrd was on my mind. you're so much -- >> [ inaudible ]. >> we've been talking to senator manchin's staff about the interesting and valuable perspective that former governors bring to the work of the united states senate. one of our brookings advisers here is former governor from ohio. we were just on the phone with him the other day. he was thrilled to hear that you're doing this. he was a former governor former mayor and a senator. when he left the senate, we lost a champion for sensible government reform in the senate. so i'm very proud to see senator manchin stepping into that role today, with his other former governors, both democrats and republicans. and i must say i'm very

impressed with the reform agenda we has outlined here. from process agendas like returning to bipartisan lunches and the governor's caucus itself, to substantive reforms, like including tax expenditures in the budget process, something that we have talked about in the think tank world for a long time. it needs to be something people are grappling with politically. to the return of the office of technology assessment. one of the few truly valuable small, i think the whole thing had 90 people in it or something. small pieces of government that was well worth its weight and somehow got chopped. i'd like to open senator by asking you a sort of general question. why is it so hard to get the united states congress interested in these common

sense, non-partisan reform issues? >> as i said in the speech they're not sexy. it's not something that makes you want to go out and vote. or makes you want to write a check to help somebody. right now, they're chasing the almighty dollar in the vote where it may be. there is a never ending inging cycle. whether it's the six-year cycle in the senate. two-year cycle for congress. four-year cycle for the president. everyone is in the election cycle. if you notice, when people say outrageous things, and people of responsibility that you would think, that doesn't make any sense. why would you say that. the country is so divided with the 24/7 news cycle. we're on overload. people don't know what to believe. paranoia is running rampant. they get all fired up. i get people talking to me about stuff. the last thing i heard about was

special forces are going to take over texas. remember that one? >> yeah. >> i couldn't believe when i heard that. i said, what? they said well, we've got to have the national guard in texas watching the united states government special forces come in and do training. which they've been doing for quite some time. i just kind of nonchalantly said, you know what, if you're that worried in texas about the federal government and the special forces, we'll take them all in west virginia because we still trust them. this is what it's gotten to. how do you get out of that? i don't know. i mean, i can honestly tell you, i don't think citizens united did us any favor for our country. we're individuals now. when they talk about a wealthy individual, he might be having his own primary. they're all catering to this one individual to see if that's where his money is going to go. that's not how we do it.

it's not how we do it back home in west virginia. we don't have anybody that wealthy to go after. if we did, it wouldn't be the right thing. we still have limits of $1,000. no corporations. $1,000 is the maximum you can give to any candidate. it works well. >> good. let's go to tax reform for a minute. this whole notion of tax expenditures for many of you in this room, i'm sure, know that over the last several decades as the discretionary part of the budget has strun khrunk, we've legislated via tax expenditures. they've gone way up. obviously, because then, somebody can go home and they can say, well, we gave you this. but we didn't increase government spending. so tax expenditures are obviously seductive to politicians. do you think we can break that

habit? it was such a -- it sort of snuck in there almost with no one -- they snuck up almost with no one knowing what was happening. >> people knew what was happening. just not the general public. let me tell you when i said we can't even agree on the definition of revenue, i'll tell you what i meant by that. i talk to my friends all the time. as a governor, first thing you look at as an individual, you do a budget. you know how much money you have coming in and how much you can spend. you know what the fixed costs are and what the variables are. you know what you have to play with. you try to stay within the balance. we do the same here. we got to the point, 1997 basically, the author of writing for working with the republican congress at that time, under president clinton. put a budget together and a tax reform. it basically put us on a path of i think, solvency.

we would have been debt free as a nation by 2012 if we would have stayed on that, i believe. we had two tax cuts that came. two wars unfunded and it pummelled from there. i tell democrats, if you want to blame republicans, go ahead. they're at fault. i tell republicans you want to blame the democrats, go ahead. we're at fault. we all added to it. how can we fix it? when you can't agree on revenue, when you get a tax code -- and this is where simpson too a three-prong approach -- revenue expenditure and reform. you have to look at everything. everybody has to take a haircut to get this in place but no one is willing to sacrifice a vote for this or a bad ad on tv against you. i think what we ought to do is get a bunch of senators who are thinking about retireing, who could care less about getting reelected and say listen we'll

sacrifice ourselves. we'll be the ones that will fix this for the nextgen ration generation. we haven't done major tax reforms since 1986. i tell my republican friends who have taken a no-new tax pledge. i said i understand it's going to be hard for you anything we do. how are we going to pay down $18 trillion without revenue? if i reduce the tax 39% to 33 tkt.%. get rid of a lot of the junk in the box, the credits, the offsets, the goodies you had written in over the years those go away. at the end of the day we spin off $1 trillion. you'll have dynamic growth. when that happens when you have confidence, there is a fair system. when you know the system is fair and you're treated fair, sky is the limit. then you have confidence. you'll do things. with that being said how do you spend the trillion?

i talk to my republican friends. why don't you take this position. we have a global comepetitive rate, personal and corporations. can't hide money, can't go offshore, have to pay here. we do that. now we have money coming in. even though we reduce td rate. a few of your friends will say, my rate was 39.6%. i'm paying more at 33% than before. that could be true to some. with that being said let me tell you how i made the democrats spend it. 60 cents of every new dollar went to debt reduction. that'll conduction until we get to 65% of debt to gdp, which is manageable. it's what the economists tell you is manageable. the other 40 cents of every dollar goes to an infrastructure bank. only used for infrastructure in the united states of america. nowhere else. that's it. you rebuild america. you have a cash flow into a

bank. it's an 80/20 match coming off of it. 60 cents of every new dollar goes to debt reduction. the republicans held the democrats feet to the fire. you can't expand the entitlement programs. we were able to, as democrats, put a fair system in. we were able to dedicate toward getting rid of the debt. you could have a balanced budget in 10, 15 years. that's why -- i mean, i talked to them, can you go home and defend yourself? i think i can. i said let's try it then. let's do something. didn't step that far over the line. >> when you talk about retiring senators, it reminds me of the famous movie of ab lincoln just out a couple years ago. when he was counting up votes to pass the 13th amendment, what was the first thing he did, found everybody who was getting ready to retire. >> more courage then. >> that's right. we have a great audience here. couple of questions? we have time before the senator

leaves. let's see, yeah, right there. say who you are, please. >> my name is graham vice, with the policy news website, inside sources. senator, last week, mayor bill de blasio came to washington and outlined a different policy agenda than the one you outlined. he called for a $15 minimum wage, paid sick leave closing the carried interest loophole. why are he and elizabeth warren wrong to advocate a liberal agenda. what do you think is the future of the democrat party if it goes down that path? >> they're not wrong, first of all. that's the biggest loophole we have. there's not a hedge fund person who benefits from it who will defend it. it should be done away with. we agree on that. the $15, you know, this -- minimum wage i'm for raising minimum wage. i think it would be indexed. a lot of the things should be indexed once we get them back to

where they should be. it's not going to raise the middle class. we're not going to be able to. we're ready to pass one of the largest trade deals in the history of this country. if we do that without looking at what we're doing and understanding what's happened to us hindsight is 20/20. go to 1992 when nafta came in. my little state of west virginia lost 32,000 jobs since nafta. it's hard for me to go home and say, this is going to be different. so much better for you. if you look at where a lot of our jobs were lost it was in the inner cities where a lot of the textile -- we had a lot of things going on. we lost all of it. it's become rampant with crime, high unemployment. how are we better off? we need to look at that. minimum wage is what they think is a way to raise any type of quality life, we're in trouble. the other thing is no one -- you haven't heard anybody talk about drug abuse on the campaign trail. it's not sexy.

you know why? there's not one of us in this room that doesn't know somebody in our family who hasn't had a prescription drug problem. it is rampant. we can't find people that are clean enough to work. our education is not pushing them to get skill sets where they can compete. there's a lot going on there. i know these -- i'm fine. i can look at a progressive and look at a conservative. somewhere in between, you have to -- i said this i'm not right on every issue but i'm not wrong on everyish ishsueissue. i have something to contribute. when mayor bill de blasio came, bless him. we want to hear your ideas. elizabeth warren is a good friend of mine, and we've teamed up on a lot of amendments together. trying to put some balance to this thing. on the other hand, you can't chastise everybody that's out there investing and out there trying to get a return on investment, that's out there

willing to take a risk. we have to make sure we can continue for this system of ours. this unbelievable system of ours. the economy we have is $18 trillion. closest to us is china, $10 trillion. everything falls from there. everything falls off from there. nobody rises above $5 trillion after that. it tells you. we are the big people. we are the super power. we have a super economy. people want in this marketplace. we should protect some of the jobs we have here and grow some jobs. that's the problem. i don't -- lot of things i agree with and others i disagree with. i want to find the balance. i've talked to the people on the far left and the far right and tell them, sounds good but doesn't make sense. i can't sell it back home. >> let's see, right here. right here. >> that's okay. >> right back. >> i'm john. here by myself.

i was wondering kind of how you see the trend of your state over the long term. i've noticed in previous election cycles it's gone very hard to the right. i know lots of that is probably in reaction to obama. i was wondering, do you see things improving maybe after obama? after, i would like to hear your thoughts on mr. justice, who is going to -- yeah. >> first of all, my state has since bill clinton was the last presidential candidate to win as a democrat in west virginia, we've gone -- states kept going progressively republican since then. even though we have 62% of all citizens registered democrats. you would think with that many -- i tell them we're a little different democrats in west virginia. it's -- i try to describe myself and tell people, i say, i'm

fiscally responsible and socially compassionate. i think that's most people. whether you're a democrat or republican. gathers a lot of people in that arena. with that being said social our social agenda basically, is much more conservative than the national democrat agenda. with that, we have to be able to articulate that a little bit clearer. justice is a -- he was a republican, just turned democrat to run for governor. jim has been republican and democrat. jim is one of those guys who crosses over. he's a great person created a lot of jobs. he'll be a job creator. he thinks outside the box. that would be good. the democratic voters need to be looking more now that president obama brought in a climate agenda that we differ with. it's not because we don't want a clean climate.

we want clean air and clean water and all that. there is a balance between the environment and the economy. only thing i've said if it's not attainable, it's not reasonable. he put some things in play here that we don't have technology in place. if the federal government wants to invest and find the technology that does a certain thing, and you decide not to because it's going to cost too much, sorry, you're out of business. if the technology hasn't been developed and you're doing the best with what's available, we that's what's happening. when a cole mineral miner is in a family, and all they have looking him in the face is a service for $20,000, $25,000, this is personal. it's got -- there's just deep animosity toward the president and his policies. all the democrats are suffering from it. >> let me ask the senator something i've been thinking about since you brought up this revenue positive jobs -- or

offices. it's very interesting. i wonder how your republican colleagues will feel about this. if you do, in fact, go identify these, the argument then is made medicare fraud investigator we ought to hire more. it actually would be an argument for increaseing the federal work force which of course, the republicans seem to be completely allergic to. do you think that if, in fact, you could prove that there were in fact revenue positive offices, you would get some momentum for helping them bring in more money? >> i would like to think that they would look at it that way. i would true and i sure think they would accept it. it makes sense that if we can show you rather than changing the makeup of social security, medicare and medicaid -- president clinton reformed medicare reform.

sends a positive message. five years and you're out. you have to find a job. we're not rehabilitating anybody. the culture of america is we don't want to hold you responsible for accountable. we accountable. it's not like -- why didn't it work? why do you go to doctors visits. when i was governor i asked for a waiver. i couldn't keep up with the cost of medicaid. and i had a lot of people that needed help. and i went and told the federal government, you should not make me take care of a healthy poor person the way i think i have a moral responsibility to take care of a sick poor person. if i can get them back in the work stream, mainstream, they can get on their feet and go back and do something. i rewarded you. because, you know, pain and suffering for dental and eye care. and i said if you went to vá

doctors visit and not go to the emergency room. if you joined a healthy choice, healthy lifestyle, ate properly and you exercised, and you did things, i'd have you ready to go back into the workforce. federal government fought me tooth and nail against that type of responsible, reasonable approach. and just makes sense. so if we can't hold people accountable and responsible, i would tell my republican friends, let us try. i said before you want to privatize this or that, you can't privatize you know social security or medicare. and i'm 65, 70 years old now you want me to go out and make my best deal. my negotiating days are probably over by then. i'm not as good a negotiator as maybe i was a little while ago. don't put me in that position because i'm going to get hurt. and that's just just the humanistic approach to some of these things. doesn't even ring true. so we keep looking for fraud. social security we've got more

people signing up for total disability than ever before. and there's people that know i go anywhere in the country you know somebody receiving a government check you don't think should be. yeah, i know somebody. i know somebody. how come we're not -- why aren't we rechecking? why don't we make them come back to evaluate whether they're totally disabled? you're getting lifetime award lifetime check, that's the jackpot. you done and hit the lottery. and those types of things, you know, we need to look at that, and, you know, tell me why on social security that we've capped it at 112 now? capped 112? >> yeah. >> all we have to do is get that up to the average of 250,000 and index it from there and we have cash flow to keep us going for quite some time. that's not offensive.

at 174,000, you can see our pay changes about 7, 8 months into it. the 7 or 8 months, i've learned how to live off of what i was getting for the six or seven months. it wouldn't hurt me. keep taking that out. i mean, it just makes sense. and, yeah, we talk about these things and people just have a hard time understanding it. and i threw this out. social security, they talk about cost of living increases. let me tell you there's some people that have to have a cost of living increase because it's all they got. and there's other people that might not. my parents didn't need a cost of living increase. my parents would have been fine with no call. my aunt wouldn't have been fine. so you start thinking okay, in real world, how do you make this work? do you say anybody with income of greater than 250 or 300% of the poverty guidelines might be

60,000, 70,000. should they be exempt from getting the call? you're going to get your check. but if you're below a certain level, you get. we've got all this other stuff, the fights and arguments going on. no one's having the real hard discussions on this stuff. >> yeah. >> i think we -- >> right there. >> yes, ma'am? >> hi i'm sharon, voice of a moderate. last wednesday ross roland had a meeting with me. he's the trained legend that did the american freedom train and bicentennial. he was reagan's appointment. and he basically said our coincidental meeting was god's way of acting anonymously because there are republicans that want to fund amtrak infrastructure. and they're scared. i mean, they're actually

nervous. and so, there are people that are experts that are both parties that want to help provide information to the senate and the congress. but what avenue would they go to? is there like a list of politicians that will be open to hearing from a bipartisan coalition that would like to -- >> what we'll do on that any time you have somebody that wants to get a point across and really has something look at the committee that it basically would adhere to. if it's commerce, that's commerce committee. get a senator, myself, to ask them if they can present the public hearing. they can come to a public hearing or come to a subcommittee hearing. they can get their point across much better that way and see if it's worthwhile than trying to run the halls and find a couple of people sympathetic toward them. i would recommend them coming to any committee member and ask to be on a panel to present their views. that'd be the best way.

>> great. senator, thank you so much. you've laid out an amazing reform agenda today. i'm hoping that the former governor's caucus is going to become a real force in the united states senate. and remember, it is a bipartisan caucus because there's some republican reform governors as well as democrats. and therefore, those of us at brookings are at your disposal to help you make government as good as it could possibly be. >> we have used you extensively. all of us find that common sense in the middle of the road, if you will. it's going to have to be people speaking out. i mean before we hit the proverbial wall. lose confidence, you'll see a

big switch. when that switch happens, you see a lot of people that are very reluctant and scared. and when that happens, you have serious problems on your hands as we did in 2007. so we're watching it closely, and we're going to be involved but i encourage all of you keep involved with our offices all of us have web pages. our staff monitors that and gets it right, any of the concerns you might have and great ideas that we get from you all. still the government of the people, by the people and for the people. stay involved.