gsa leverages technology such as advanced metering and smart building system to uncover deeper energy savings opportunities. we also use rapid building assessments to perform sophisticated energy audits that require no on site work or new device installations. another valuable tool is energy savings performance contracts. these are public-private partnerships where the private sector provides the up front capital to make energy efficiency upgrades in a facility and is paid by the federal agency from the guaranteed energy savings under the contract. once the contract ends, the agency continues to benefit from the reduced energy costs. the president's climate action plan sets new goals on the use of renewable energy, increasing the currents goal from 7.5% to 20% by 2020. in fy 201346.1% came from renewable sources and enough renewable energy to power nearly

2,600 homes came from our own facilities. gsa is also working to improve our partner's understanding of their energy use as directed in the december 2013 president memorandum on federal leadership on energy management, gsa is partnering with the department of energy and epa to prepare a green button initiative that will increase our partners' ability to reduce energy consumption, reduce greenhouse emissions and meet sustainability goals. taken together these efforts have led to a significant reduction in the energy use intensity. in fy 2013, gsa reduced energy usage per square foot by 20.8% ahead of statutory targets. since 2011 these reductions saved $192.7 million in avoided costs. also in fy 2013, gsa achieved an approximately 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, exceeding our 2020 target.

this amount of energy we no longer use is enough to power over 60,000 homes for one year. gsa is also preparing for the potential impacts of climate change as part of the president's climate action plan. while it's impossible to predict the precise occurrence and cost of each and every climate risk, it's imperative to develop a robust risk management approach. the president's climate action plan represents a commitment to reduce and respond to the impacts of climate change. gsa is responsible for buildings and offices throughout the government and across this country. this means we play a vital role in mitigating and preparing for these adverse effects through improved energy efficiency and risk planning we hope to continue to make progress on both these critical efforts. i appreciate the opportunity to be here today and welcome any questions you have. >> thank you so much to our patient panel. i'll start the questioning and comments. sometimes the more things change, the more they stay the same. and let's take the often repeated charge that scientists

are divided on climate change. let's take a look at that. so we've quantified it. there's 98% of the scientists -- i'm sorry -- i'll correct myself. 97% of the scientists who say that human activity is causing carbon pollution, and there's 3% who fight that. so it's 97% of the scientists on one side and 3% on the other. and my colleagues act as if it's 50/50. it's just like the scientists were divided on whether or not smoking caused cancer. it was 97% to 3%, and when you looked at the 3%, they were somehow connected to the tobacco industry. and i can tell you that most scientists who say no to climate change have ties to big oil and coal polluters, including the scientist mentioned here today by senator wicker. we checked it out. he's from a think tank funded by

the koch brothers. again, when people say there's a split, let's say what the slit split is. >> madam chairman -- >> i'm going to continue and then i'm happy to call on you on your turn. there's also predictions of economic gloom and doom, gloom and doom if we address climate change. and if we move to clean energy. we're already hearing the money we're saving by going to energy conservation. let's go back 40 years. 40 years, when in this committee we had a robust debate -- i wasn't here then -- on the clean air act.

107. and what they said then contrary to something senator session said, which he has a right to believe, he said that carbon wasn't covered. while the supreme court said, and i quote, that the statute i unambiguous. the clean air act coffers carbon dioxide, hydro floor carbons without a down. so then my question is -- >> madam chair. >> i will continue my -- you will have your time. you will have the time. >> i would like to correct your interpretation of my you can tae entire five minutes. i don't care. now could you stet the clock back and give me another 30 seconds? thank you. here we are in clear court case supreme decisions followed by another one in 2011 that said absolutely you have to move on

these power plans. isn't it true if you did not move forward with the action plan, if you did not try to regulate this carbon pollution which is so damaging and covered by the supreme court, that you could be sued and harmed if you didn't do this. >> madame chairman, we have been petitioned and we are in litigation about raising common pollutants. >> sued because people think you're not doing enough? >> that's correct. >> because what you decided is a pollutant, epa is obligated to look tatd tat the public health environmental impact. >> so you're willing being sued by those in the public who think epa is not doing enough. while people here say you don't

have a right to do anything. it's very clear if you read the case. >> but the president made the sensible and common day decision to tell us to focus on power plants first. power plants represent 33% of the carbon emissions thatting are bemitted edbeing emitted f. so we're trying to be deliberate and careful in how we apply the clean air act. >> and i believe that you are. the remanding was found under george w. bush. that was completed under the obama administration. so that was common ground. >> thank you, madame chair. administrator mccarthy, i'm going to have five or ten minutes talking with you.

i want to focus on the very new consequential regulations. but i first want to ask if they call a separate hearing on the investigation and circumstances, and if you're invited to testify along with other appropriate witnesses, would you come and testify then? >> whatever the chair wishes, sure. >> whatever. is it fair to say whatever the committee wishes? >> if i'm invited, i will always appear, yes. >> so you have no hesitation talking about that subject. >> none at all. >> thank you. miss mccarthy, i want to focus on one area where i think there's a clear overstep. that's the greenhouse gas new source performance standards. now you've said as you relooked at that, quote, we did what democracy demanded. we paid attention. we read the comments.

we thought about them and decided we needed to update the proposal, closed quote. talking about the initial wave of comments that came in about that. you further stated, quote, our best defense is to do it right, to do it correct under the law. closed quote. however, the energy policy act of 2005 clearly prohibits epa from considering certain federally funded projects, when setting the standards. and yet, three such projects formed the majority of epa's discussion regarding new plants. there's mention in the over 400 pages of the proposal. a recent press reports you were unaware of this conflict with the epa act requirement until it was pointed out by colleagues in the house of representatives.

how did the epa miss this? >> senator, i will advise you that epa is -- understands that concerns have been raised. about epa. to address the concerns we have provided to interagency, we did review a notice of data readability so the package is very clear. we believe having this specific consideration of epa makes no change in the standard as proposed but it's important that the public have this information and provide us more clarity on the issue. >> is all of this since issuing the new rules, or did you evaluate that before the issuance. >> i can't say what the individual staff was aware of or not. i was not aware that we should raise that issue specifically. we're going to address that issue specifically.

we are looking at evidence in data well beyond what's associated with the epac funded projects. we're very comfortable with the stan dpards proposed. we're looking at the facilities in constant with all of those. which is perfectly appropriate. >> as you know, these three projects that you can't consider, they form tmajority o your discussion. you said they read all of the comments. they underscored this particular issue. they pointed out this law is in direct conflict with what you're doing. with your evidence and support for doing this.

i wanted to point that out. this is very concerning. this is direct. this is underscored by the fact that litigation has been filed over the direct legal filings, clearly by the epa's own submissions and writing, the mf majority of the backing. >> but, senator, our understanding of the reading is we can't solely make a determination on epac funded facilities. nothing in the law procluds us from considering those in the context of a larger, more robust data set, which is actually what we are doing. >> i want to move to the social cost of carbon process. many of us have written you and others at the epa.

we were in september of last year. we wrote another high ranking deputy in november with detailed suggestions. we got a response at 8:18 a.m. this morning. i appreciate that. i think the timing of that response says a lot. we're going to be -- i'm out of time. so we're going to be submitting detailed questions as a follow up to you and the other witnesses for a record regarding the social cost of carbon process. because it's being used to justify all sorts of regulations we believe without adequate backing. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, chair madame. i thank all the witnesses for their public service and strong leadership on the issue. i want to ask you a question

concern i concerni concerning one specific consolidation, but buildings play a huge role in dealing with the carbon emissions. we had the president taking swift action so the president as a leader of reducing carbon in our buildings. the committee on the consolidation of the fbi, our resolution makes it clear that the practical administration should require that they efficiency or storm water management in accordance with the executive order, this is the largest public works consolidation probably of this decade. we also want to consolidate the fbi. it's also causing excess energy used in a larger carbon foot fingerprint than we need.

the committee is pretty clear when we say we want a consolidated headquarters facility. giving 2.1 million rentable square feet and up to 55 acres. the appropriations committee just recently in its report accompanied me made it clear that the fbi headquarters consolidation is expected to resolve in full consolidation at the fbi headquarters. can you assure this committee that passed the resolution that you'll be in full compliance with both the environmental issues as well as the plan that is ultimately selected? and that's going through a competitive process but will provide for a full consolidation. >> that's definitely in our interest, having these employees spread out over more than two dozen facilities is not helping the ability of the fbi to meet the needs of that agency, but

certainly causing undo expense. but damage because of the additional environmental impacts. it's our effort to cooperate fully with the fbi. we also have to see what resources are available to us through the exchange process and what resources we would have to bring into the project. so as we've talked about, we are at the the beginning stages of identifying the value of the current facility, identifying sites, competing a fair, transparent, competitive proces process. >> i fully support that. i think it's pretty clear that they expect full consolidation. i would hope you work with congress. we expect full consolidation. let me make a point that you

raise raised on the administration's actions. we tried a few years ago to pass a different framework. framework that would give more flexibility and then how to reach the caps. an alternative to the regulatory process under the clean air act. we couldn't get that done. our friends on that side of the aisle decided that was not how they wanted to move forward. clearly the american people want clean air. the clean air act is important. you have the responsibility to carry out that law. we should help you. we try to do that. we didn't get cooperation. now we're getting complaints. so i would hope we'll find ways to define the common ground and you quoted one of the members of

the committee, that i don't want to quote. but let me, in the 40 seconds i have remaining, the failure to deal with this causes us to concentrate on adaptation and resill generalsy. significant resources were made available through the sandy appropriations, et cetera. you talked generally about it. could you supply us with specific programs that you're dealing with you should your jurisdiction to deal with in light of the realities that we now have a different climate pattern? >> let me be very brief because i think others may want to interject. all of the agencies that developed climate adaptation plans that have been publicly commented on. we're taking the plans to develop implementation strategies. clearly epa has a number of

issu issues those are of primary importance and raise the concern about moving towards green infrastructure, which keeps water local, and can help provide more livable and safe communitie communities. >> i think probably the most cig capital relevant piece is we received $102 million under the sandy supplemental funding for resilience. to look at building resiliency into that middle atlantic coastline, as we do restoration from hurricane sandy. so it provides us really for the first time the opportunity not just to rebuild, but to rebuild it in a way where we're thinking about making our coastal infrastructure and our human and natural infrastructure more resilient in the future.

>> thank you, madame chairwoman. in the opening statement i brought up something that i told you before. it seems to me the delay of placing on the registry was done for the political purposes that i outlined. you can remember, and i can remember back in 2012, prior to the election i named all the rules and regulations, no matter how damaging they would be, would come out. so this is not a new issue with me. is there any time that during this process that you or the epa had a conversation with the white house in terms of the timing of the release on the the

federal registry. >> sir, i will assure you that as soon as that proposal was released we had submitted it to the federal office. the delay was solely the backup in the federal registrar office. we frequently asked when it was going to come out and how quickly. because it was available on our web page, we wanted to start the formal public process. >> if you started it, wouldn't that start the clock run sng. >> it would have started it. >> let's assume if you submitted that before, wouldn't that start the 12-month clock are upping? >> it would have started the obligation. >> so that would actually end up then, in october as opposed the

to in january when it actually comes out. >> senator, we had every opportunity to put out a reproposal when we wanted. we tried very hard to get it published. >> so that gives us something to look at. under the unemployment insurance bill i had an amendment that kind of reemphasized section 321a of the clean air act. you're familiar with that. that's the one that says the administration will continue evaluations of potential shifts of employment, which may result from the administration and enforcement of the provisions of this chapter in application of implementation plans. it's very specific that the reason for this is we wanted to make sure way back in 1977 this place, not knowing who would be

in office in the future, that we would know what affect they have on jobs. and this is something that, do you feel you can comply with section 321a? in spite of the fact that my amendment didn't pass? >> when we look at major rules we do look at employment impacts to the extent that peer reviewed science and modeling allows because of the senator and his efforts to have us relook at whole economy modeling, we're pulling together an expert panel to continue to look at these issues. >> that's good. can we say we will not implement the rules until we have the information? >> well, we actually provide a significant amount of information. whole economy modeling is

appropriate for some rules and not others. we believe we are complying with that portion of the clean air act at this point. >> and from this point on, and maybe you've done it in the past. we are not going to activate the regulations until such time as we know the effect it will have on jobs and the economy. >> senator, when we do rules, we'll do it to the full extent that the analysis can be done in a way that's consistent with the requirements. >> that's good. we will be looking forward as the clock moves onto make sure that is being done. mr. ash, first i want to thank you on the record again for all the cooperation you've been on your word to approve the range wide plan on oil and gas. we have talked about this for a long period of time. you were kind enough to make two

trips, not one, but two trips out to oklahoma, talk to these stake holders, and again, i just appreciate it very much. i know senator udal was here earlier. they are working very hard to enroll this into their program to success flu conserve the species in a way that's voluntary. like the partnership i'm so fond of, it doesn't assume that the stake holders don't want to clean up their system. and protect endangered species. do you think that range-wide plan can preclude the need for listing under the endangered species act? >> senator, i think i met with the members of the partnership two weeks ago in texas. and i think they're poised to make some significant steps forward.

they already signed up between a million and a half and two million acres of oil and gas lands. and they're working on the possibility of several million more. so the question is, you know, can the implementation of the plan potentially address the threats to the species? will it? i think it's a question of performance. and we have a little bit of time left to see if that will work. >> sorry to cut you off, but we've gone over quite a bit. we're going to turn to senator whitehouse. >> thank you very much, chairwoman. let me first say to my cleeks on the other side as we solve the problem of carbon, i'm prepared to accept that there are going to be impacts on families and it's important in the resolution that we address the concern. because that's la legitimate concern. what i can't accept is the coal

and iron jobs are the only ones affected. not when the ski season in the northeast and all around to utah is shortened. not when foresters in oregon and across the west are losing their jobs to the pine bill and to the loss of having a vibrant national forest. not when we have the impacts throughout the economy. that's just economic impacts. we also have health impacts in rhode island as these increase. we are losing our state at the the coastal verge. the houses are falling into the ocean. i am not going to ignore those factors out of a desire to protect coal and oil jobs. i will work with you to a solution that solves our mutual concerns and helps those industries, but i'm not going to ignore this problem. the suggestion that climate change has stopped, i think,

flies in the face of realistic evidence. and when that claim was made, it refers to surface atmospheric temperature. one specific measure. but this is not debatable. this is something math me tigss do all the the time. you plot a trend line and that's what you get. it's clearly going up. what you can do is cherry pick. you can pick different periods in the rising step process. then it will look like it's flat through that period. but it doesn't last. the underlying trend is upward. step after step after step is always up. there are one, two, three, four, five, six separate occasions when a denyer could say climate change isn't happening because

it's gone flat and every single time they would have been wrong. in light of that, on the spectrum between wisdom and recklessness, where would you put placing a bet that this evidence shows that climate change has stopped and that we should stop worrying about carbon? >> climate change is happening, and i've been worried for a while. >> and one of the reasons that might explain this is when you look at what's actually happening in climate change, the carbon pollution is hitting our oceans pretty hard. 30% of the actual carbon goes into the ocean. that's why the senator talked about the wipe outs of the oyster hatches in his state. acidified water came in in which

oysters could not build shells. 30% of the carbon. 93% of the heat. 93% of the heat. the atmosphere, 2.3% of the heat. so if anything changes just a tiniest bit in the ocean, imagine what affect that has in the atmosphere. something is happening that creates that long-term friend oscillation, that creates those steps that if you cherry pick them can create the false impression that this thing has stopped. but if you really look at the problem, you have to look at the role of the oceans, and i'm telling you now, it's very hard for me. let me ask you. does anybody on this panel doubt that the oceans are in fact warming. that sea levels are, in fact, rising and that the ocean is becoming more acidic. is there any legislatimate deba on those three subjects? there is none, correct?

there is none. >> for the record, reflect unanimous agreement from the witnesses. >> record reflect nobody spoke up. okay. let's go ahead and have them all say if that's what the senator wants. >> i don't believe on those points that you raised. those are based on observations. >> it's measurement, not theory, correct? and does everybody agree it's correct. speak now or else i'm going to count you as yes? >> i defer to my colleagues who actually know something about the subjects. >> general services administration is not expert in this. i can appreciate that. a ton of carbon is released from a power plant, does that do more or less harm than it released from a boiler? >> same. >> so at some point we should look at boilers that release tens and thousands of tons of carbon as well. >> point taken, sir. >> thank you.

>> thank you, senator. we're going to call now on senator baruso. i'm going to give the gavel to senator whitehouse while i step out for just a moment. >> thank you, madame chairman. miss mccarthy, i would like to follow up on what the senator has asked on the carbon cap sequestration and your new proposed rule. this week a news story ran entitled epa assertions on c carbon capture viability sparked concerns by white house officials. the article quotes the the white house about saying about your new rule that epa's assertion of the technical feasibility of carbon capture relies heavily on literature reviews, pilot projects and commercial facilities yet to operate. it goes onto say we believe, this is the white house saying we believe this cannot form the

basis of a finding that ccs on commercial scale power plants is quote, adequately demonstrated. and as you know and is stated before, the law requirements emission control performance standards must be, quote, adequately demonstrated. so the white house is saying the carbon capture sequestration is not adequately represented. so my question is, what does the white house know that you haven't acknowledge d. >> senator, i don't know what you're referring to. you can be assured this proposal went through interagency review. you can be sure omb cleared the proposal, and i am very confident that you will see that ccs is prove on the be technically feasible in the day that that we have provided. >> i'm going to have to disagree with you. the white house disagrees with

you as well. it's not just one person. you look at other testimony in the house. the administration testifying that commercial technology is currently not available to meet the epa's proposed rule. it's much to high to be commercially viable. it just goes on and on about the lack of viability and availability of what you're proposing. it seems to be a level of denial by the epa as to what is actually available, and the the white house seems to have called you on that. so i would be interested in you getting back to specifics. i would like to read you to a report saying e-mails show extensive collaboration between epa, environment alist organization. help groups gather petitions. the article stated the deputy

epa administrator attended in april 24th meeting with leading environmentalist groups including environmental defense funds. the defense council. according to a notice of the meeting sent by his assistant terry porterfield. upa porterfield's e-mail to the environmental groups. the purpose is to create a photo op and narrative beat for the gathering efforts on the issue. porterfield wrote. groups will use the material from the event to communicate with supporters. via news letters, e-mails and social media. is this the standard practice of the epa to work with environmental groups to coordinate on getting comment

signers that are favorable to your proposed policy? >> it's very common practice for epa to meet with a variety of stake holders. the meets are public. if you look at the history of the epa you meet with history groups and environmental groups. it's our job to understand what preserves people and how we work with them to make sure we're doing the job appropriately. these e-mails that have been found seem to say your goal is to recruit additional kmebt comment signers to generate support for positions that you're taking and the most liberal of all environmental activist groups, rather than just bringing in input. >> i'm happy to take a look at that, senator.

>> is it proper behavior -- is it prop per behavior for the epa to go out with these groups for the sole purpose of recruiting additional comment signers to then go ahead and support this? >> i certainly don't want to interpret what you just read, senator. i don't know what the occasion was. i'm sorry. >> do you believe it's proper activity on part of the epa? >> it's appropriate for epa to connect with all of our stake holders. >> thank you, madame chairperson. >> i would just say to my colleague from rhode island, i mentioned it. i don't know if you were here. i was at a place that i have gone for a long time. builds more cars per capita than any other state. we lost them both within months of each other. i still go to the detroit auto show. as you know, a major source of

air pollution is our motor vehicles. we're there from the top companies all the way down. that's the thing i commend you for doing. had you been with us and i want to invite you to go with us next year. i have a question. maybe just one or two here. administrator mccarthy, with respect to new performance, i want to take a minute or two to focus on epa's efforts to implement carbon collusion standards for power plant. i believe in the 1970 clean air act, nothing new. and your agency had a long history of implementing this standard. is that correct? >> that is true. >> tell us what the agency's

experience has been with these type of standards. how has the industry worked with stake holders already and expects to do so into the future when it comes to greenhouse gas standards. what has the past experience been when determining what is adequately demonstrate d technology when determining new source standards? >> senator thanks for the question, first of all the agency has had a long history of developing new standards. we've done dozens and dozens of industry sectors. there's two types. one is looking at new facilities and is very clear that it is intended to make sure that we continue to develop advanced technologies moving forward. so we take advantage of the best and brightest technologies and move innovative technologies more broadly into the market.

the work has been ro bust. our challenge is to work with states to develop guidance, and then they develop plans to do their job. when i looked at the standards, the proposal that we put out for 111b, which is new sources, it was done the same way we have done dozens and dozens of those. we looked at data available. we looked at technologies. we made a determination that ccs was the best system for emission of coal facilities moving forward. because it was technically feasible. it would amount to significant emission reductions an it would continue to promote the development and deployment of advanced technologies. so we did it the same way we always do.

which for a long time we've been doing vsh successfully and businesses continue to grow. >> and a question if i could for sully. i think you mentioned in your testimony when i was out of the room the president's task force and climate preparedness and governor jack markel is a member. i suspect this it will be passed down and implements throughout the federal government. >> thank you, senator. the president directed us to establish a task force of state, local leaders and we're great to have the participation of the governor. this is a very important task force for us in helping to ensure that the kinds of policies and programs that the federal government as a whole is considering in terms of making sure that we're prepared and resilient in the face of a

changing climate will help states, tribes and municipalities to prepare their communities to deal with the impacts of climate change. so we had the inall ral meeting and a lot of good ideas. having the second one very shortly. and so the input and the recommendations that we gather from that group will be very helpful in helping us to look government wide at the the resilience council at the thing the federal government can do, not only to prepare the federal government to deal with the impacts on climate change. >> my time has expired. nice to see you again. thank you for your testimony and for the good work that you're

doing. >> senator sessions. >> thank you, madame chair. i would agree with the 97%. the action caused more co2 to be admitted into that. and i don't think any scientists do. the clean air act did not prohibit carbon dioxide. global warming was not considered at the time. i don't believe any debate considered that question. it came before the supreme court and what the supreme court said, miss mccarthy is epa should make an endangerment finding. you've made that endangerment finding. that was a 5-4 decision, by the way. only 5-4. and it's coming back before the court. # and i would note congress is never, since then, every passed

legislation that prohibits co2 into the atmosphere, directly doing so. and the white house used a chart that showed surface temperature data that he described as surface atmosphere. and i'm not sure, but what the ipcc models used, what scientists have referred to over the years as atmospheric temperatures. # the kind of data we showed the models aren't the heat around many land stations that record temperatures and they're not as accurate as the tropisphere temperatures. second, the chart suggests 93% of the heat is absorbed by the

ocean but it doesn't the answer the question about the amount of temperature change in the ocean. evidence on panel two suggestion the oceans may have warmed, but only by .05 of a degree over the past ten years. he's a democratic witness and he testified here today. and mr. ashe you strongly stated more than your written statements said, that we've had more in america. and if we're going to have common ground. and if we're going to reach and discuss them together, we have to agree on the problem is. we have to be honest about the facts. he supports president obama. and this is what he said about disasters and storms. it is plain incorrect to claim disasters associated with

hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate time in the united states or locally. you said directly opposite of that. have you conducted any investigation yourself of storms and disasters? have you done an independent review of that? yes or no? i presume you haven't. he went onto sigh the losses have not increased since 1990. u.s. hurricanes have not increased in frequency or intensity sbins 1900. he said that since at least 1950 the intensity and frequency of floods in the united states have not increased. he went onto say the frequency of tornadoes have not increased since 1950 do you still standby

your testimony? >> i'm not a researcher. i have not done independent research. i was speaking of observation. >> well, i will just say that i hope you will review that and be accurate when you discuss as a public official the facts when you relate them to the american people. and i believe your facts are wrong. now miss mccarthy. the president has said that we -- repeatedly. at least three times that the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than predicted ten years ago. >> i do know some of the facts. >> i'm asking you, has it

increased faster than predicted or not? >> i do not know what the president's context was for making that. you believe that the temperature in the united states has increased faster than predicted in the last while? more than ten years ago? >> i believe 2012 was the warmest year. >> i want to know whether or not you believe the data shows -- >> the long-term data clearly shows that. >> do not interrupt. please let me ask you. do i not have the the right to ask the director of the epa a simple question? it's relevant. so i want to ask, is the temperature around the globe increasing faster than ten years

ago? >> i can't answer that question. >> why can't you answer that? >> because it's a narrow statement in a large wealth of information. zbr do we not have the tropesphere temperature reports and do they not show that it's increasing anything like what the predictions were? >> senator, i don't dissect the information and provide it to you in a way that claims that i'm a scientist. >> you are asking us to propose billions of dollars in cost on the economy and you want to question whether this is an accurate statement or not. >> i just like at what the client scientists tell me. i don't dissect the information in ways that would impress you. but certainly i'm not qualified. >> not me. climate scientists are telling you it's not warming to the degree predicted. in fact, it hadn't really warmed

at all in the last 15 years. >> thank you, madame chairman. my time is up. >> i'll give everybody an extra two minutes like i gave senator sessions. so you're going to get seven minutes senator fisher, senator boseman and then each an extra two minutes to close. >> thank you, madame chair. i hope i won't take that amount of time. >> we're happy to have you do it. >> you staid the united states should have a global response. in your testimony you recommended working in through the united states. what specifically can you tell us that the obama administration is doing in that regard? in working through the united states in your words? >> well, with we participate in the convention on climate

change, which involves, i believe, over 190 countries. the u.s. continues to be a participant in that, and the current activities are around developing the post agreement for post 20/20. addressing climate change with the aim of reaching agreement in 2015 about what that might look like. so the united states says many other countries are engaged in those discussions right now. >> you know, what i'm looking at are specific actions. you say to leverage more ambitious action by other countries that the administration needs to step forward. i know it's always helpful to work with other nations. it's always helpful to have

conversations, but i want to know specifics. what are we doing to help other nations? are we investing in resources? are we providing scientists, or what are we doing? and what's involved in the cost? or are we just in conversations right now? >> there are a number of different efforts under way, both bilaterally and unilaterally. for example, perhaps the administrator can talk more about this working through existing international forms to deal with hydro fluoro carbons that have a global warming potential, as well as working on issues around clean energy and

promoting clean energy and technologies around the world. >> perhaps you and the the administrator could provide me with examples, and if there are costs involved, i would be interested in thoughing that as well. >> certainly. >> thank you. the epa regulations on coal fired power plants are required by law to be technologically viability and commercially available. while the epa insisted publicly that carbon capture technology is technologically viable, there's serious doubt that epa officials actually believe this to be true. i'm going to highlight a 2012 e-mail exchange that was produced through a freedom of information act request between joan cocuet and michael and alex baron, both in the agency office policy at the time.

he forwarded an article regarding your comments on proposed ccs regulations. in the article you were quoted as saying, while it's a significant economic lift, the proposed standard will provide investment for new technologies. ccs is technologically viable. the headline read coal to remain viable says mccarthy. in forwarding the article, mr. coquette wrote hands on fire. do you have any idea why he would say pants on fire? we all know the saying that goes with that. do you have any idea what that is supposedly about? >> no, i don't. >> do you standby your statement that i believe you said earlier today that the ccs is viable? >> very much so. >> the epa redacted the very

brief comment in response to another article five months earlier from politico with the headline, will epa's greenhouse regs wipe out coal? epa did redakt the comment. on its face is a curious use of that project exemption. keep the information from the public under the freedom of information act. the epa is indicating whether it deliberates that the climate regulations will wipe out coal. i think the american public deserves to know. does epa believe that the ccs is viable again? could you answer that? >> senator, when i was assistant administrator i believe the

information supported that ccs was viable and appropriate as a basis for the system reduction. as an administrator i retain the same assessment of the facts. >> can you tell me why the e-mail was redakted? >> i have no idea. >> could you look into that and provide me with a copy of the issue. >> i will certainly look into the issue. if they were appropriately redacted, that would be fine. there's a lot of gibber jabber in an agency that large. the people making the policies and judgments were the people investing their time and providing input into this role. >> i know we all received e-mails and we have no control over that. but it is disconcerting when information like that does become public, and then we have

a government agency going through a process of really blocking that freedom of information that i would hope would clarify statements like that. >> senator, we certainly want to be as forthcoming as we can. it's an issue that has come up before on the chee. we'll do our best job to provide you these e-mails regardless and only redact when it's appropriate to do so. >> okay, that was seven minutes. senator, you have seven. >> thank you, madame chair. there was criticism by a conservative study. my problem with that is you look at the product and it's peer reviewed, this and that. and dough you have studies that

rely, that are being done by environmental groups? funded by environmental groups? is that a criteria for you for good paper or bad paper? >> we looked at the study itself and try to look at whether the analysis is correction. >> i think all of you have people that have worked for environmental groups in the past. different administrations, but environmental groups, and the idea that you can't produce a product. in fact, we have witnesses coming up that, you know, are funded by, you know, outside groups. one way tor the other. but the idea that the testimony or paper can't be produced because it's, you know, that you're a consultant for a various entity or whatever, i think it's really not a good situation. and we really need to push back from that. the other thing is, and in

regard to just studies in general, it's really hard. we really do want to be helpful in the sense we got some real problems to solve in the environment. it is helpful, though it's difficult to do that if you don't have access to the materials, the scientific studies that allow you to make wide sweeping decisions this that record. will you commit to have those studies available so you can see what the basis of your rational is? >> senator, i assume you're talking to me. >> yes, ma'am. >> okay. >> we have been providing information to the extent that we have it. you've already provided information that you've requested. >> okay. so you will, and the studies that we lould like, and this and that, you will give us those

completely? >> to the extent that they're in the control of epa, of course. and to the tex tent that we can work together on those, we're more than happy to do that. >> okay. senator white house talked about the oceans, which are having real problems right now as a result of the fishermen. is it your decision that if you passed the policies that the president is proposing or you're proposing, would that solve the problems of the ocean that he was describing? >> me again? i'm sorry. i keep thinking you're looking at him. i don't want to be rude. climate change is a global problem. it requires global solutions. there's no question that international effort is required. the issue is should the united states take action on its own that makes sense, that can be cost effective and help us grow economically? the president indicated that

answer is question. >> the reality now is in order for that to be effective, we're depending on the chinese and indians and people like that who said they're basically not going to participate. mr. ashe? >> first of all with regard to what senator white house sahous when we look at the oceans we have to realize that climate change is an overriding effect. it exacerbates many problems that already exist within fisheries management and wildlife management, contaminate loading and invasive species. and so it adds another level of stress. so i think the things that we are dealing with in talking about climate change will address a major source of uncertainty and disruption in the there and will secure the fishery resources for the

future. and i think it's an important step for us to take to learn more and reduce the level of uncertainty surrounding this issue. >> miss mccarthy, are the models that were relied upon in developing the social cost of estimates published and available on the epa's website? >> i don't know the answer to that question, senator. i can get back to you. that was work that was primarily organized by the office of management and budget. i'm sure our technical folks participated in those discussions. i do know they're available. the models are public and have been appropriately peer reviewed. >> okay, so the part that you did, it's not available on the website either? >> any work that epa would produce would be publicly available for sure. i just don't know whether those particular models appear on our

website or whether they are part of the omb website. >> all right. the other thing, mr. ashe, and i guess one of the problems i have also is we hear a lot about forest fires. we hear a lot about beatles and things like that. the reality s and i've heard many, many hearings and testimonies through the years. the reality is a lot of that stuff is poor management. in the sense we had a hearing not too long ago, and there was testimony to the fact that the areas that were privately managed managed out west where you had fire, some of the areas that are publicly managed are tinderboxes. the beetle infestation has been going on for a long time. certainly climate has stuff to do with that. but i do think that there's a tremendous -- you know, let's jump on this. the reality is when you have a

forest, instead of ten or 20 trees, whatever it can support, if you've got 150 trees taking up the nourishment, that makes it more susceptible to disease and things like that. can you comment on that, and -- >> just quickly, i would say that management can have a role to play and certainly can make a difference, but you have to realize that public lands are managed for a much broader range of use. so if i have a private forest that's managed for short rotation, so i'm just cycling those trees off and harvesting that timber on a regular basis, then mountain pine beetle is going to be less of a concern for you. where in our public lands and wildlife refugees and national forest where we're managing lands for longer term, then pine bark beetle and other infestations can be more of an issue. but i agree with you that management is part of the solution. we have to understand what that proper management is. >> thank you, madam chair.

-on want to get gavelled on. >> well, you have 28 more seconds if you wish to continue. >> no. i will get some credit out of you. >> oh, need your credit, that's true. now we're going to complete this first panel, which started a very long time ago, seems like yesterday. and we're going to do it this way. i'm going to give senator whitehouse -- take my two minutes. senator vitter -- okay? senate inhoff, senator sessions and then i'll close. everybody has two more minutes, okay? so let's start with senator whitehouse. >> i'll just take a little bit of my time to respond to senator sessions' suggestions that one scientist says that climate change isn't really happening and that there really isn't an

association with storms. and i just want to put that into context. there actually is a peer reviewed scientific consensus out there about this. it is massive. it is not unanimous. sometimes is rarely unanimous. there are eccentrics. there are outliers. there are people who have nonmainstream opinions. and to be blunt, there are people who are in concert with the polluting industries and delivering phony science, the way they did on tobacco. >> can we have some quiet? our colleagues are talking here. >> so when people pick out what one particular scientist said, it's important to look at that in a context of where the bulk of the science is. and if you don't believe science, then perhaps my friends from the other side will believe in big corporations. and one really big corporation that cares a lot about the

climate's effect on storms, the entire insurance industry and the property casualty industry are virtually up in arms about what climate change is doing to their risk profile, and here is a graph that munich reed puts together showing the increase in natural catastrophes worldwide that are associated with climate change, a, in the sense that they're happening while climate change is happening. but b, and that we know some underlying science. we know, for instance, it is not disputed, that if you warm the oh, it creates more energy going up into storms, and that makes stronger storms when they hit the shore. so much of the science is way past debate, and if you simply take the sciences way past debate and apply it, you draw the same conclusion. are there eccentrics outliers

that can be quoted? sure, there are. but for this committee to rely on anything other than the massive consensus of peer reviewed science, but let's look at the people that are asking us to take action. coke and pepsi. ford and gm. nike, walmart, apple. the joint chiefs of staff. the u.s. conference of catholic bishops. the garden clubs of america. at some point, people have to come to the realization that the scam that is being perpetrated has got to come to an end. and i hope that that time comes soon. >> thank you, senator. senator vitter? >> thank you, madam chair. i just want to make a brief kme comment about science, too. i think it's a useful transition to the next panel. i want to underscore senator wicker's comments. i think we do a real disservice to science and facts the way we

often do a cartoonish gloss over these issues, which are often very complicated and subtle. doesn't mean we don't need to figure it out, but we need to understand the real facts, and i would urge all of us to try to do that. let me just use a couple of examples. senator boxer said 97% of scientists -- clearly, it's a clear consensus, 97%. well, 97% is very catching. but what's the underlying question? human activity is causing increased co 2 emissions. well, i don't know why that's not 100%. i think everybody on this panel agrees with that. so let's mark it as 100%. that's not the issue we're debating. give you another example. dan ashe said in his testimony average surface temperatures are increasing. interestingly, that is not in your written testimony. is that true since 1998?

>> i think that average surface temperatures are increasing, as senator whitehouse said -- >> is that true since 1998? >> i don't know. i'm not looking at the records since 1998. >> what are you looking at? >> i'm looking at the temperature record, the historical temperature record average surface temperatures are increasing. >> over what period of time? because since 1998 -- >> over a period of time that's relevant for a natural resource management, which is looking at since the beginning of the industrial revolution -- >> again, my point is we need to be precise. we don't need to gain words. you also said sea ice and glaciers are melting. did you mean that and did you include continent, or is that not sea ice? >> it is indisputable, senator vitter -- >> are you saying that? >> i'm saying sea ice and glaciers are melting. >> well, they're always melting.

>> it's indisputable. >> are you claiming that that's net and are you counting antarcti antarctica, which is a continent. >> we really need to move on. >> if you could provide that for the record, because that's the level of detail and disciplined discussion that i think we need. >> senator inhoff. >> let me try to get this out real fast. when considering the environmental impact of a co-export facility license to the west coast. they said it would be outside the corps's control and responsibility for the permit applications. now, conversely, as you know, i believe at columbia university's center for climate change law released a report in august saying that increased sales in coal and asia are in effect the corps's decision, meaning that

they should be the scope. do you agree with columbia or do you agree with the corps? >> thank you, senator, for the question. the -- we agree that agencies need to look at greenhouse gas emissions when they're looking at analysis. >> i'm really sorry, but we're two minutes and i need to have that answered for the record. i'd like to ask you this to see if you would be in a position to let us know. is there a date certain for finalizing the guidance for including life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions and the analysis? >> senator, we continue to work based on the draft that we put out in 2010, we're working on revising that, but i don't have a date certain yet. >> all right. if you decide you're going to have one, will you try let us know for the record. >> yes, we will. >> preeshlt thaappreciate that,

feel we should have one. i know people get hysterical on all this stuff. but when senator whitehouse talked about the just one scientist, i have sev700 scients i listed on a speech on the senate floor probably eight years ago, and these are scientists -- you have richard linzen from m.i.t. these are top scientists around totally refuting the assertion that is being made on which we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars. just the bills that they try to do through legislation on cap and trade, that range. no one disagrees with this. it will be between 300 and $400 billion a year. now through regulations it will be etven more than that. in accordance with your predecessor lisa jackson, i asked the question when we pass these things is it going to lower worldwide greenhouse gases, the answer was no. because this only affects the united states. this is not where the problem

is. it's in china, in india, in mexico. so in other places. so i just want to say that we're talking about the largest tax increase in the history of this country, if we were to go through with what they're trying to do through regulation they could not do through legislation and not get anything for it. that's my question. >> well, there's no question time. we have two minutes, you've gone over by a minute. senator sessions. two minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman. one of the things that we've heard today is carbon pollution. that's sort of a new phrase we're seeing a lot. you might wonder why that's happening. i think there's a great deal of unease in the pro-global warming community about what the supreme court is going to do. the clean air act of 1970 -- i said earlier '74. 1970. did not ban co2 and did not even consider the possibility of

global warming. so now, the supreme court said you should make an endangerment finding and you have. without any explicit express authorization by the elected representatives of the american people, under this decision you've made, the environmental protection agency can go into any american's backyard, prohibit their barbecue grill, eliminate that. you have that power. it is one of the greatest expansions of federal power without explicit congressional authorization in the history of the republic. you're able to go in any place, where any carbon is produced and regulate that because you say it's a pollutant. and supreme court ruled 5-4 that you should make a formal finding on that. they have not ratified your decision. and with the altering of the

predictions and the global warming projections that are not coming true, i would hope that they would not allow you to have that power finally, when they finally rule on it. so i want to say congress has never authorized such an action. they would never authorize it today. and you should be really careful about the assertion of power that you have. i thank the chair. >> thank you. just for the record, the d.c. court recently upheld the ruling of the supreme court, so let's just stop relitigating something -- >> going back to the supreme court. >> i don't want to be interrupted. please. i didn't interrupt you. >> well, you used the power of the chair to dispute what i had said. >> i will use freedom of speech to correct folks who i believe are wrong, and i will defend your freedom of speech to do the same.

now, let's be clear. d.c. court upheld this. period. and it's moving forward. and if you don't act, you're going to be sued. and the american people want this done. i just looked at the polling. only 3% of younger voters don't believe climate change is happening. you look at republicans. the latest poll i saw said that vast -- well over 50% said that if your climate denier, you're out of touch. i wish this committee would find the common ground with the american people. because when you deny, you're doing just what people said when they said cigarette smoking doesn't cause any harm. a couple of other things. 1980 to 1990, hottest decade on record until 1990 to 2000, which became the hottest decade on record, until 2000 to 2010, which is now the hottest decade on record.

that's not me. that's not epa. that's noaa. in 2008, the bush administration used a social cost of carbon on fuel economy rules. they used it on air conditioner rules, efficiency rules, and frankly, i never heard a peep out of anybody at that time. now, i don't know why my clock isn't moving, but it should be down to a minute. let me just close with this. we know what happens when the environmental is thrown under the bus. it's called china. i'm going to put in the record today air -- how do you say this? air apocalypse hits beijing. on thursday, rez dsidents of beijing woke up with splitting head aches.

1.2 million chinese died because of air pollution. i will do everything in my power to make sure that this clean air act, which passed in this very sacred room, so many years ago, in a bipartisan way, that that clean air act is upheld. and that everything we do is consistent with the law. and this one went all the way to the supreme court. and the fact of the matter is we have to make sure we uphold it. now, that's the end of this panel. what i want to make sure -- because senator vitter is very anxious to have another hearing about mr. biel, and i am not. >> to have a hearing. >> we had a briefing. he wants a hearing in addition to the briefing in which he asked 50 questions. it is his right to ask that. what i'm going to ask you, administrator mccarthy, since no one asked you about that, although it was in the scope of the hearing, would you please answer the question and take a

week to do it, what is in place now. we know that this con man is going to jail. but what's in place now at the epa to make sure this never happens again. if you would get that to us, the chairman and the ranking and members of the committee in about two weeks -- can you do that? >> yes, sure. thank you. >> and then we'll look at whether or not we need a hearing. i want to thank the panel. it's been a tough morning for you. you handled all the questions i think with great integrity. and please now go back to your normal work and we will call up the second panel. >> david fincher, who was the ranking republican on the senate environment committee, held last week, announcing today he is going to run for governor in louisiana in 2015. the senator saying that after

much thought, prayer, and discussion with our children, i have decided to run for governor of louisiana. q said he would have the power to appoint a successor to serve out the final year of his term. announcing he will run for governor of louisiana in 2015. former virginia governor bob mcdonnell and his wife have been indicted on federal corruption charges. a spokesman for the justice department says the former governor and his wife were indicted today. the 14 count indictment includes conspiracy, wire fraud, and other charges. the federal investigation over showered -- overshadowed the final months in office, looking at the gifts he and his family received from a political donor. >> c-span. we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white

house events, briefings, and conferences, and offering complete double to gavel coverage of the u.s. house, as a complete public service of private industry. and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. >> former joint chiefs of staff chairman mike mullen spoke today before a group called concerned veterans for america. here is a look at what he says are the five things that keep him up at night. >> i list five. one is the debt. 12 education- system. in my life, we have been talking about fixing that for 20, 30 years. there have been efforts taken with charter schools.

it is in bad shape. there is a parallel to the debt issue. you have to have resources to invest in the future. if you do not have them, you are not going to have much of a future. we have to have an education system which is functioning at a very, very junior -- at the beginning, if you will. i think the competitive advantage america has is right here. if we invest in that, we will be ok. if it continues to erode, we are not going to be competitive. i spent some time in the education sector. you cannot scale charter schools to the public school system. i do not know what the answer is. i believe you have to do this with teachers, that they were the most impactful people in my life as a kid, among coaches and arents and pastors, etc. somehow, we have to channel that. we do not pay them very well. i taught for a year.

graduate run into a who was going to teach. that does not mean there are not any. but it is not a path many choose, because it is not valued. i think we need to turn that around. or, again, this very slow erosion -- we will wake up one day and wonder what happened. the third thing is, the political paralysis here. i have been in washington since the mid-1990's. i asked friends, historians will stop some say we have been through this before. two years ago, i said when. 1939. that was not overly uplifting, in that conversation. about a year ago, i asked the same question of another historian. he said, the civil war. , this is really

tough. i think everybody knows that. i do not know how it gets solved. i worry that we will continue to dig the hole. i hope that somehow the willrship in the country figure out a way to get us moving in a much more positive direction before we have some catastrophic event. that piece concerns me a great deal. is cyber. i will not talk much about ciber, that cyber scares me a bit. i thought that threat when i was chairman. i understand how capable it is, how lethal the potential is, not just from a pentagon perspective, but literally from a national perspective. it is capable of shutting down power grid, shutting down our financial system, impacting significantly our logistics. no host limit.

the target incident speaks to the scale of the capability in the cyber world, that many, that quickly. i talk about it in terms of leaders need to understand this, not the tech types. you have to have them. leaders make decisions on investments in people and our policies. that is a huge concern. the last one is veterans. we are not doing very well for our veterans who fought these wars. just because i was chairman in ie iraq and afghanistan war, focused not exclusively but heavily on iraq and afghanistan. they are coming back to very tough employment numbers. the economy is bumping along and getting a little better. hiring throughout the country is very difficult. their unemployment numbers are olds,nally, 18 to 24-year- about half the national average.

half of them are married. they need to put food on the table. i am not convinced you can do it in washington. there are issues associated with that. i have tried to engage local leaders in communities through the country. someone has to lead in an urban community, a rural community, to customize the support for veterans, focusing on health, education, and employment. and remember that these spouses have been asked ordinary as well in these wars. ethically, they are two income families. they have -- typically, they are two income families. they have a lot they can offer. i find a sea of goodwill. you just need local leaders to galvanize that. . do worry they are coming home. they are leaving the military at about a thousand a day, which is normal. and we are hiring about 100 a day. it is better than it was in

vietnam, and better than the past in many ways, that we are just beginning. i think as we come out of afghanistan, america did not have to buy into these wars. america does not have a stake in these wars. combat troops are out in a few months, and america will accelerate. giving visibility to this, making sure this young group, 2.2 million young men and women, the best i have ever seen -- i did a few decades. hands-down, they are the best. they are going to make a difference to the future. i see them by the thousands. they are going to make a huge difference. investing in them is a great investment. that is where i spend a lot of my free time. can see admiral mullen's remarks in their entirety on our website, and in a little less than an hour at 6:20 eastern, here on c-span. chris christie was sworn in today for a second term. in his inaugural address, he

said the garden state must avoid becoming like washington, where he says compromise is considered a dirty word. >> good morning. i am the cochairman of the inauguration, along with my partner, todd kristi. i want to thank you for braving the elements to join us this morning. as i was driving down here, my job this morning is to introduce our master of ceremonies, as you can see by your program. -- i was driving down here, the

master of ceremonies and i were, telephoning and texting back and forth among making sure one of us will be here. i want the record to show i beat him. when chris christie and i were practicing law for many moons ago in cranford, new jersey, there was a young lawyer at the end of the hall who was always there before we got there and always there when we left. it is a great lesson to you young warriors out there. the lawyer at the end of the hall went on to be an assistant u.s. attorney, general counsel to the governor to my attorney general of the state of new jersey, and is now the former united states senator for the state of new jersey. it is my honor to introduce our master of ceremonies today, the honorable jeff. [applause] >> good morning, everybody, and thank you, bill, but you did not beat me by much. ladies and gentlemen, thank you

for being here today. it is my honor to look at new to the inauguration of governor chris christie and the lieutenant governor, kim guidano. it is my pleasure to introduce to the state, lieutenant governor and his family. [applause] [applause] and now, ladies and gentlemen, before you sit down -- [laughter] would you please join me in welcoming governor chris

christie and the christie family? [applause]

[cheers and applause]

>> to introduce the pledge of allegiance, it is my pleasure to welcome the president of the new jersey state senate, senate president, steve swinney. [applause] >> governor, a heartfelt congratulations and i get the honor of calling up the governor's youngest daughter bridget to lead us in the pledge of allegiance. bridget?

[applause] >> [all together] i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> good afternoon. i am the speaker of the general assembly and i want to welcome you today to trenton, for governor chris christie's inauguration. it is with my distinct honor i announced the playing of the national anthem by the 63rd army band. ♪["star-spangled banner"]

[applause] >> everyone can be seated. i would like to call up the governor's son, patrick christie. [applause] >> good afternoon. my name is patrick christie and i have the honor of introducing the former headmaster of the joe barton school. please join me in welcoming him to deliver the invocation. [applause] >> as you can tell, patrick, by that applause that your dad got, that he is loved. let us now bow our heads and

pray for god's blessing. lord, we gather today to ask your blessings on our governor, lieutenant governor, senators, and members of the assembly, jurists, and all citizens of this great state of new jersey. we ask your blessings on all who serve the common good for the people of this state. we ask you, lord, with the author of the first book of kings, to give your servants an understanding mind to govern your people, able to discern between good and evil, and to seek justice and peace and security. we ask your blessings on all who govern and protect us, and all who serve us in any way in public office. we ask your blessings on all gathered here. on our families, on the christie

family and on all families in this state. and lord, we ask your blessings on those most vulnerable, and on all the children of this world. may the lord bless you and keep you. may the lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you. may the lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace. amen. >> please, be seated. it is now my honor to introduce stuart radnor, the chief justice of the supreme court of the state of new jersey, who will administer the oath of office to governor christie. [applause]

>> i, chris christie, elected governor of the state of new jersey do solemnly promise and swear that i will support the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of new jersey, and that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and to the governments established in the united states and in the state under the authority of the people and i will diligently, faithfully, impartially, justly, and to the best of my knowledge

and ability execute the said office in conformity with the powers delegated to me, and that i will to the utmost of my skill and ability promote the peace and prosperity, and maintain the lawful rights of the said state, so help me god. [chris christie repeats] congratulations. [applause] [cannons fire] [applause]

♪ ["stars and stripes forever"] ♪ [applause]

>> congratulations, governor. now the lieutenant governor fulfilling her dual roll as the new jersey secretary of state will present chris christie with the state seal of new jersey. lieutenant governor. [applause] [applause] >> good afternoon. i am tom kaine junior, the minority leader of the new jersey senate. and it is my honor to introduce

the chief justice who will administer the oath of office. [applause] >> i, kim guidano do solemnly swear that i will support the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of new jersey and that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and to the governments established in the united states and in the state under the authority of the people and that i will faithfully, impartially, and justly perform all the duties of

the office of lieutenant governor according to the best of my ability, so help me god. [kim guidano repeats] [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the 55th governor of the state of new jersey, governor chris christie. [applause] >> thank you.

thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you.

lieutenant governor guidano, senate president sweeney, speaker panetta, republican leaders cain and brenna, all the former governors, members of the supreme court, members of our congressional delegation, members of the new jersey state legislature, family and friends, today, once again, the people of new jersey have given me the opportunity to serve. [applause] and i thank each and every citizen for that honor. and once again, i have taken an oath where i have sworn to protect the peace and prosperity

of our great citizens, and a long oath it is, a long one. it is an oath i have lived by for the last four years, and it is the oath i will live by for every day i am privileged to call myself your governor. [applause] the oath, though, is just a symbol of the bond that we have created with each other over the last four years. we have endured the worst economic recession of our lifetimes, and we have begun to triumph over it. we have confronted entrenched interests and their stream of money that have previously stood in the way of fiscal sanity for our state and educational excellence for our children. together, we have pushed those interests back and put our children's interests first.

we have survived the worst natural disaster in our state's history and we have worked together to restore, renew and rebuild the state that we love. [applause] each of these challenges have been met by a new unified force in public life, by new jersey setting the tone for the entire nation, a tough new jersey, a resilient new jersey, a proud new jersey. [applause] a new jersey that has put aside political partisanship on the important issues to our people to take advantage of the opportunities each of these challenges has presented us with every day, a new jersey that has brought pride to our people and leadership to our nation. finally, this past november, new jersey has had the chance to

decide if the bonds we have formed were strong enough to endure the heat of today's political campaigns. would our elections confirm that the change we said had arrived on this stage four years ago truly had been beneficial for all of our citizens? because you see, elections are more about tv ads, debates and rallies. each vote cast is an act of faith and trust, faith in the strength of the bonds we have built, trust in the hope that tomorrow will bring a better future for our people, better education for our children and a better day for all citizens. [applause] now the people have definitively

set the course for the next four years. they have affirmed the decision to take on the big problems. they have validated the idea that our answers to our problems must be bold. they have rewarded the principle that we must tell the truth about the depths of our challenges and the difficulty of real solutions. and it wasn't just some of our people who affirmed this course. it was not a vocal plurality like four years ago. this time, it was the largest and loudest voice of affirmation that the people of our state had given to any direction in three decades. [applause] suburbanites and city dwellers, african-americans and latinos, women and men, doctors and

teachers, factory workers and tradesmen, republicans and democrats, and independents, together, they have demanded that we stay the course. the course they have helped set. to stand up for what is right. [applause] to fight the fights worth fighting, and most of all, to work together to make government work for each and every one of those voices of affirmation, for each and every one of our people. you see, the people of this state know that the only way forward is if we are all willing to take on what is politically unpopular, if we are willing to share in the sacrifice, if we are all willing to be in this together.

we have no moral option, in my view, but to heed the voice of the voters, and that is exactly what i intend to do. [applause] today, i thank all of those who have once again placed their faith and trust in me and i make this promise. i will not let up. i will insist we work together, and i will make this government truly work for those who pay for it. you see, i do not believe that new jersey wants a bigger, more expensive government that penalizes success and gives opportunity to a few. they want an equal chance at the

starting line, not a government guaranteed result. why? because through hard work and being rewarded for that hard work they know that they are part of their own success. we should make sure that government creates policies that reward the effort and talent of everyday people, not in the almighty power of government to fix every problem, real or imagined. so, let's be different than our neighbors. let's put more money in the pockets of our middle-class by not taking it out of their pockets in the first place. [applause]

one of the lessons i have learned most acutely over the last four years is that new jersey can really be one state. this election has taught us that the way we divide each other, by race, class, ethnicity, wealth and political party is neither permanent nor necessary. you see, our dreams are the same, a good job, a great education for our children, safe streets in our neighborhood and core values which give lives real meaning. those dreams are not unique to any one group in our state, and while government has a role in ensuring the opportunity to accomplish these dreams, we have now learned that we have an even bigger role to play as individual citizens. we have to be willing to play outside the red and blue boxes

that the media pundits put us in. we have to be willing to reach out to others who look or speak differently to us. we have to be willing to reach out a helping hand to a neighbor or a friend suffering from drug addiction or depression, or the dignity stripping loss of a job. new jersey came together as one community when it mattered most, and now we must stay together. people of every background and beliefs, the government, and our people, to help our fellow citizens reach their dreams. there are times when we need to get along to just get things done because as joe carter said just this morning at the new hope baptist church, all of us

may be one yes away from our own miracle. that is true for our state and our nation. one yes away from our own miracle. the fact is that every person, no matter what challenge they are facing in their lives, must believe that they have inside of them all of the god-given ability to be happy, and they will not believe that if all they hear from us is that life is unfair and that only government can fix that unfairness. they must first believe that self worth comes from inside each of god's beings. [applause] government cannot solve every one of these problems. government can only be one part of the solution.

the unity our people have felt in the last year plus as we have confronted tragedy and challenge must be a unity that we build on to give every person a chance to reach their dreams. those dreams begin for everyone with a growing economy. this growth will not happen by following the path our neighbors seemed to prefer to pursue. for those that are for government redistribution and higher taxes, i have this to say. come to new jersey. you will be welcome here. in addition to a growing economy, here is how our government, our government, our government will lead the effort to create opportunity in new

jersey. we will make it a priority to have every child in new jersey get a good education, no matter what adult you have to offend, where you came from, what sacred cow we must slay, how we have to change the conventional thinking, we will no longer stand for the achievement gap that exists between our best and least educated children. [applause] this government, our government, we will end the failed war on drugs that believes incarceration is the cure for every drug abuse. we will make treatment available to nonviolent offenders when we can and we will partner with our citizens to emphasize this truth.