his? >> i think it is safe to say that americans in this conflict and elsewhere put themselves in harm's way on behalf i don't think the decision to seek incomplete can since the -- in complete consistency with our history with release of a pow alters that at all, any more than when we exchanged -- engaged in exchanges with north koreans or japanese or others in our history. >> it appears that in the release the sergeant walked away from his base without his weapon and was not involved in actual combat. it was said that he served with honor and distinction. how did he serve with honor and distinction?

>> you are citing a circumstance with a lot of asterisks attached. i would refer you to the investigation about that and i would point you to what the joint chiefs said about his successful recovery and the dose that has long been held here in the united states and by our military. >> my question is not about whether or not there should have been a deal to release him. my question is about the words used to describe him. he was promoted during his captivity. and susan rice said he served with honor and distinction. is that true? >> i would refer you to the

defense department who -- and you noted his promotion. since this goes to questions about his initial detention, the defense department is the body that has been reviewing that and will continue to review it. now that's art -- sergeant board -- now that sergeant bergdahl has been recovered. the fact of the matter is, he was held captive by an enemy force in an armed conflict with the united states and our allies. for five years. and consistent with centuries of past practice, we thought to recover him and successfully recovered him. >> on the other subject, the epa, there is a lot of debate today about how much it is going to cost. what is true? regardless of the benefits to society or to the environment, how much will this cost me in my home electric bill? >> i would point you to economic analysis that shows these standards will actually shrink electricity bills roughly 80% by increasing energy efficiency and

reducing demand on the electricity system. -- roughly eight percent by increasing energy efficiency and reducing demand on the electricity system. opponents of those steps have made dire productions about destroying jobs and harming the economy, and throughout our history they have been wrong. when we passed the clean air act to combat small, they said new pollution standards would decimate the auto industry. not true. in 1990, when we took steps to stop acid rain, they claimed the lights would go out in businesses across the country and they would suffer. at the facts tell a different story. the epa has been protecting air quality in the united states for more than 40 years, and in that time we have cut pollution by more than 70% and the economy has tripled in size. what that demonstrates is that we can in a smart way take steps to reduce the amount of pollution in our air so that our

children are healthier, and do it in a way that allows our economy not only to continue to grow, but to grow more effectively and efficiently. and in the case of the kind of developments that will be a partial result of this proposed rule, we will see an increase in investments in renewables and the like by cutting fewer jobs here in the united states in the future. we have seen that already and we have made significant increases in renewable energy here in the u.s. in the past several years and we expect to see that in the future. >> did the president believe bo bergdahl could be killed by his captors and that was the exigent circumstance you're referring to? >> anyone who is held captive as long as he was, that is always a risk. >> was it an immediate risk?

>> it was also the case that his health was a concern, and justifiably so. i cannot give all of the information we had available to us, but i think you've seen reports now out of germany that he is getting health care for conditions that require hospitalization. that was a concern. the package of concerns, including the opportunity to recover him after five years, and given the past history of understanding that opportunity may not present itself indefinitely, and the fact that his health was deteriorating, the fact that his circumstances of captivity were by definition threatening, it was the right thing to do to take action to secure his release.

>> do you disagree with the characterization of releasing detainees that it will harden the hearts of many? >> i would say that we have a long history of exchanging prisoners in an armed conflict, especially when that armed conflict is coming to an end. as you know, the president announced recently that we are bringing our combat mission in afghanistan to an end. we have also put forward a plan whereby we will sustain a significantly reduced military presence in afghanistan after the end of the combat mission to continue to train combat forces and maintain a counterterrorism posture there as we wind down to zero in several years. >> did that make it all easier? and was nevertheless a difficult call to release these five? >> i will not get into specifics, except to say that the individuals you are referencing, as the chief of staff noted earlier, the five have been identified as potential transferees as part of this release of sergeant

bergdahl for some time. it was the assessment of the secretary of defense in consultation with the full national security team that there were sufficient mitigation steps taken and assurances deceived by the united states that these detainees do not pose a threat to u.s. national security, and were therefore in our interest to take action to recover sergeant bergdahl. >> to what degree were those assurances solidified when the president talked to the mayor wednesday at west point? >> the president had been a couple of conversations, i think more specifically a phone call to the mayor. and he did have a meeting at west point, but this was a process that was ongoing for a

long time. >> nothing was solidified their that was not already understood? >> i do not want to get into too many details about presidential conversations. this process was fairly completed by them. >> one last question. the international red cross said that it was not in any way, shape, or form brought into seeing the transferees before they were moved out. which is something that was happening with their participation and awareness before. can you explain that? >> i'm not sure about all the questions around that. i can simply point you to the general approach we took here, which was to make sure that we were able to recover sergeant bergdahl once he was safely -- and once he was safely in u.s. custody, we began notifications and began to transfer the five detainees.

>> i want to follow-up on the question about susan rice's comments about sergeant bergdahl's service. there was some question [indiscernible] >> there was no question about his initial the tension by the taliban. i would echo what chairman dempsey said. i would echo what national security advisor rice said and what the defense department has done with regard to sergeant bergdahl. and i would point you to the initial information surrounding the initial captivity by the taiwan -- the taliban. it is something the department of defense is reviewing. but it is a fact that a uniformed member of the u.s. military was held captive by an enemy force in an armed conflict. and in keeping with a long

history in our country, backed by any toes that's as we don't leave our men and women in uniform behind, -- by an ethos that we don't leave our men and women in uniform hunt, the president made his decisions. >> does the president stand by -- nine clicks -- >> does the president stand by -- >> the president stand by his decision to secure the release of a pow. but you are not going to -- >> you are not going to answer? >> i stand by what the chairman of the joint chiefs has said, the defense department has said. >> [indiscernible] what was in the national security interest beyond that

year? >> what i can tell you is that with the mitigation with this transfer, there's a travel ban and monitoring that is associated with it. and altogether, the secretary of defense and national security team concluded there was enough and sufficient mitigation of the threat that this was the right thing to do. the transfer of these detainees did not pose a significant threat to the united states. but enough mitigation for how long, though? >> enough mitigation. i don't have the exact details of the circumstances of how they will follow and monitor the detainees. and all the aspects, obviously of the interaction we had with the qatarees around this matter. -- with theqataris around this matter. >> one more question on the epa. can you characterize how many

jobs will be specifically created you or you have a benchmark echo >> -- created? do you have a benchmark? >> the jobs created will be in areas of renewable energy. we have seen already in solar energy, wind energy, biofuels. and that growth has occurred already in the past several years. the growth in renewables and renewable production has contributed to the reductions we've already seen in carbon emissions. we've also seen a significant fashion -- expansion in the approach to energy production. and we seen an expansion in natural gas production in the united states.

and as you know, natural gas burns twice as cleanly as, for example, coal, and other fossil fuels. >> do you think it will cost jobs in the coal industry echo >> it is worth noting, and i don't have anybody from the national journal here, but i will quote the national journal who said, "mining jobs in appalachia fared far worse under the clinton, bush and reagan administrations than they have under obama." we have taken steps to approach our energy security -- energy and security needs. that includes increase production across the board. it includes aggressively investing in noble energy. it includes taking advantage of our natural gas deposits in a way that enhances u.s. national

security and energy independence. and we will continue that approach. again, i would point you to all of the history in this country of actions taken by administrations of both parties to improve the quality of our air and the quality of our water. every time such actions have been taken, industry has said that doom is upon us and that jobs will be limited and the economy will crater. when these kinds of actions are done wisely, consistent with the science, the opposite has been true. >> speaking of sergeant bergdahl's parents being invited here friday, and his father's statement about the taliban's commitment to free all of the prisoners of guantánamo, what do

you make of that? >> all i know is that these are the parents of sergeant bergdahl. their son was held in captivity for five years. it was the right thing for this administration to take action to secure his release. the last prisoner of war in the afghanistan and iraq wars. but i'm not talking about that. -- >> i'm not talking about that. i'm talking about bringing him here. there are some that felt they were in -- there were communications he had that were improper. >> i don't know about that. as far as closing gitmo, we believe we ought to" guantanamo bay because the costs are excessive and the harm to our national security -- to close guantanamo bay to cut the costs are excessive in the harm to our

national security are there. >> the commitment was to free those detainees at guantánamo bay. >> whatever that position is does not pertain to this issue. sergeant bergdahl was held captive by an enemy force in an armed combat with the united states. an inconsistent with -- in consistency with past practice, we brought him home. >> secretary shinseki is out. what is the next step? is the president of waiting more reports -- awaiting more reports? what is the next step? >> when it comes to the secretary of veterans affairs, it is a top priority to find a successor. i cannot predict an exact timeline right now.

but we are going to look diligently for a new v.a. secretary and we hope to fill that post as soon as possible. the fact is, and we discussed this last week, the acting secretary has a significant background to take on this effort and fulfill an important role until -- as research for a new secretary. reviews are underway. they continue. rob neighbors is under review, and the initial report was provided to the president last week. and of course, there is an independent inspector general investigation ongoing. >> does gibson wait until a secretary is confirmed?

>> the process began with secretary shinseki offering his resignation. he himself took steps aimed at accountability once it became apparent how systemic the problem was regarding falsified reports on wait times, or mr. presentation of wait times -- or the misrepresentation of wait times. and rob neighbors began a broader review of vha operations and it is ongoing. he will have a full report is month -- this month for the president and the leadership of v.a. >> i have a question about this conference call. i think they have moved it up to 1:50 p.m. why is he choosing the law association in order to talk about this? is a health issue? is it a law issue?

does he think that people will understand it better if he talks about it that way? >> he has talked about and will continue to talk about the broader issues of the challenge posed by climate change and global warming. but when it comes to carbon emissions, which are not regulated, they do direct harm to our public health. you can see the instances of asthma and the huge increase that we have seen in this health. you can see the instances of asthma and the huge increase that we have seen in this country when it comes to asthma attacks, especially among children. we have taken steps to cut emissions of lead and make --

and mercury and arsenic. this is consistent with those efforts and consistent with the public health objectives of those efforts. that is what the president will be highlighting today in his conference call. >> are you worried at all about the adverse effects politically in november? >> the president thinks this is the right thing to do and it is consistent with the actions taken to reduce pollution caused by lead or mercury or arsenic. and the positive health effects are clear. i think that is independently established. and the long-term benefits when it comes to reduce electricity bills and increased job creation are clear. this is the right thing to do, and the president is confident that there will be significant benefits to our public health and to our economy as the years pass. >> is there a policy that bars u.s. negotiating with terrorist groups? >> on the issue of negotiating

with terrorists, i would point you that we are in an armed conflict with the taliban in afghanistan. we don't get to choose our enemies when we go to war. the taliban held sergeant bergdahl and we successfully recovered him, consistent with past practice and consistent with an ethos that says we, the united states military does not leave our men and women in uniform behind when they are held captive. and it is consistent with that principle that we have had for years that we security his recovery. >> does the u.s. still regard the taliban as a terrorist group? >> we regard the taliban as an enemy combatant in a conflict

that has been going on, and in which the united states has been involved for more than a decade. and in this case, although we dealt with the qataris to secure his release, it was the right thing to do. he was being held in captivity as a prisoner, not a hostage. we saw his recovery and succeeded in recovering him. >> so the negotiation to obtain sergeant bergdahl's release was not a breach of that policy, of not negotiating with terrorists? >> it is absolutely consistent with decade, and i would venture centuries, because we have more than two now of past practice when it comes to exchange of prisoners. i think people want me to and in time for the conference call. >> [indiscernible]

the conference call. >> [indiscernible] >> nobody is offering the job. but can you assure the american people that the taliban will not be involved in -- that they will not be right back doing what they would have been doing? >> what i can tell you is that the secretary of defense in coordination with the full national security team made the conclusion that the mitigation efforts were sufficient warning came to the greek -- the assurances we received from theqataris --the qataris and the assurances that we have received. >> i hear that, but you cannot say that they won't be back with the taliban. >> [indiscernible] what i can tell you is that consistent with past practice, we have received assurances and are confident that there is sufficient mitigation.

>> one more quick question. you are sort of setting this up as a routine -- maybe not routine, but within the tradition of prisoner of war >> one more quick question. you are sort of setting this up as a routine -- maybe not routine, but within the tradition of prisoner of war exchanges. the people you are exchanging our legend mass murderers and abettors of terrorism, proven abettors of care resume against the united states. can you describe a previous time when people of that caliber were exchanged as prisoners of war? >> what i can tell you is there have been prisoner exchanges in our past that have been consistent with this action by our allies, and with the united states in conflict where there was a great deal of loss of life on both sides. >> [indiscernible] >> all i can tell you is that sergeant bergdahl is an american member of the military held

captive by our enemies for five years. and it is the right thing to do bergdahl is an american member of the military held captive by our enemies for five years. and it is the right thing to do consistent with u.s. history and with an ethos identified by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff that it was the right thing to do. thank you all very much. >> what do you make of the u.s. the ministrations support of the ukraine? we will discuss the administration's climate change bailey at and paul the american coalition for clean coal electricity. and we will mark the 25th anniversary of the crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in beijing square. washington journal is live on c-span everyday at 7:00 eastern. you can join the conversation with a phone call or through

facebook or twitter. >> several live events to tell you about this morning. the center for strategic and international studies has a discussion on intelligence and national security. that is on c-span3 at 9:00 eastern. 10:00, thepan3 at impact of climate change on wildlife and agriculture. here on c-span, in response to recent supreme court decision on campaign finance, the senate judiciary committee will consider a constitutional amendment that would allow congress and the states authority to set limits on raising and spending money and political campaigns. 10:30n see that at eastern.

sundays at new book, eight, includes financial services michael lewis. >> we are at the beginning rather than the end of a. period. there will be real structural problems. i'm not an economic forecaster, but everything i read would suggest that we're going to be living with unusually high levels of unemployment, a lot of pain from over indebtedness. a court of the countries and food stamps. i saw on tv. it is not a great depression, we are not reprising exactly what happened in the 30's, but it is a version of that. >> read more of our conversation with michael lewis another featured interviews from our book notes and q&a programs. from public affairs books, now available for a gift is your favorite bookseller.

>> now, jenny mccarthy announces the administration's proposal to reduce carbon output from existing power plants. co2new rules will cut emissions by 30%. this is one half hour. >> it is great to be here. thanks everybody. bob, thank you for accompanying me in and all the leadership you bring to this agency. i wanted to begin by telling you a little bit of a story about a month ago, i took a trip to the cleveland clinic.

i met a lot of really great people. but one person stood out even if he needed to have a stand in a chair to make himself seen while he was talking. he's ten years old. he struggled with severe asthma. his mom said that despite his challenges, he's a tough active kid and a really good hockey player. sometimes she said, the air is too dangerous for him to play outside. in the united states of america, no parent should ever have to have that worry. that's why epa exists. that's our job. we are directed by our laws and it is reaffirmed by the court that we are here to protect public health in the environment.

today, climate change that's fueled by carbon pollution is super charging risks. not just to our health but to our communities, to our economy and to our way of life. that's what epa -- that is where epa is delivering oan vital piece of president obama's climate action plan. i want to thank janet mccabe who is our acting assistant administrator. and all of the entire team and teams across epa who worked so hard to deliver this proposal. they should be incredibled proud of their hard work. i know i am incredibly proud of it. [applause]

but today, the epa is proposing a clean power plant that will cut carbon pollution but using clean energy source. although we limit pollutants like mercury, sulfur, currently there are no limits on carbon pollution on power plants. for the sake of our family's health and for our kids future, we have a moral obligation to act on climate. when we do, we'll turn risks of climate into business opportunities. we'll spur innovation in investment and we'll build a world-leading clean energy economy. the science is clear, the risks are clear and the high cost of climate and action keep piling up. rising temperatures bring more smog, more asthma, longer allergy seasons.

if your kid doesn't use an inhaler, you should consider yourself a lucky parent. one in ten kids in the u.s. suffers from asthma. carbon pollution from power plants comes packed with dangerous pollutants. they put our children and our families at even more risk. climate inaction is costing us more money in more places more often. 2012 was the second most expensive year in u.s. history for natural disasters. even the larger sectors of our economy buckle under the pressures of a changing climate. when they give way so the businesses that support them and local economies that depend on them. as our seas rise so do insurance and property taxes and food

prices. if we do nothing, temperatures can rise ten degrees and seas can rise four feet. climate change will continue to affect credit risk worldwide. this is not just about disappearing polar bears, although i like polar bears, this is about protecting our health and it is protecting our homes. this is about protecting local economies and it's about protecting jobs. the time to act is now. that's why president obama laid out a climate action plan to cut carbon pollution. to build a more resilient nation and to lead the world in the global fight against climate. today's proposed clean power

plan is a critical step forward. before we put pen to paper, we ask for your advice. our plans were built on that advice from states, cities, businesses, utilities and thousands of people who provided us comment. i want to thank you for that comment. you will see that those comments made a difference. today is about kicking off what we see as a second phase of critical engagement. shaped by public input by present trends by technologies as well as a healthy dose of common sense, our plan aims to cut energy waste and leverage cleaner energy sources by doing two things. first, by setting achievable and enforceable state goals to cut

carbon pollution per megawatt hour. second, it's laying out a national framework that give states the flexibility to chart their own path on how they meet their goals. in 2030 when the states meet their final goals our proposal will result in 30% less carbon pollution from the power sector across the united states in comparison to 2005 level. just to put that in perspective, that's as if we are canceled out the annual carbon pollution from two thirds of carbon trucks in america. if you add up what we actually avoid before 2030 even comes, it's more than double the carbon pollution from every power plant in america in 2012.

it's double what every power plant in america generated in terms of pollution in 2012. in 2013 we'll cut pollution significantly that causes smog and soot by 25% or more than if we didn't have this rule in place. that's a great added bonus. all of that means it's going to result in lower medical bills, fewer trips to the emergency room, especially for those most vulnerable. those kids, especially those kids that have asthma. our elderly. this is also about environmental

justice. because lower income families and communities of color are hardest hit. let me get into the details of the proposal. this plan is all about flexibility. that's what makes it ambitious but also achievable. that's how we keep our energy affordable and reliable. the glue that holds this plan together and the key to making it work is that each state's goal is tailored to its own circumstances. states have the flexibility to reach their goal in whatever way works best for them. to craft state goals. we looked at where states are today and we formed and looked at where they are heading. teach state is different so each -- each state is different so each goal and each path can be different. the goal springs from smart and sensely opportunities that states and businesses are taking advantage of now. let me tell you about the kind of opportunities that i'm talking about. we know that coal and natural

gas play a significant role today in a diverse energy mix. that this plan does not change that. it recognizes that there are opportunities to modernize aging plants to increase efficiency and to lower pollution. that is part of an all of the above strategy. states also have the opportunity to shift their alliance to more efficient and less polluting plans. instead, low carbon sources. there's always the opportunity to shift to no carbon sources. like nuclear, like wind and solar. since 2009, wind energy in america has tripled. solar energy has grown ten-fold. home grown clean energy is posting record revenues and creating jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. those are all opportunities. what about the plug? existing technologies can squeeze the most out of every

electron. helping us use electricity more efficiently in our homes and businesses. more efficiency means that we need less electricity to cool our refrigerators or to charge our phones. for the fuel we burn, let's get the biggest bang for our buck. all of these options are not now ideas. -- new ideas. in fact, they're based on proven technology, proven approaches and they're part of the ongoing story of energy progress in the united states of america. our plan doesn't prescribe, it propels already technologies that are available in the

progress that is under way. like i said, there is no one size fits all solution. states can pick from a portfolio of options to meet regional, state and community needs from one dimension in any combination they choose. it's up to states to mix and match to get their goals. if states don't want to go it alone, they can hang out with other states. we can do multistate market based programs. we're doing them today. or, they can be creative and make new ones. more players means more flexibility. when you look at the proposal, you'll see more flexibility means lower costs.

states have flexibility not just in the means and the method but in the time line too. under our proposal, states have to design plans now and they have to start reducing so they can be on a trajectory to meet their final goals in 2030. that kind of flexibility means a smooth transition to a cleaner power that doesn't leave any investment opportunities behind. the flexibility of our clean power plant affords the choices that lead them to a healthier future. choices that levels the playing field and keep options on the table. doesn't take them off the table. choices that reflect where they are today and that look to seize the opportunities that are here for us tomorrow. choices that are focused on building up not on shutting

down. so we can raise the common denominator for a cleaner, low carbon economy that will fuel growth for decades to come. what's special about the flexibility of our plan? it doesn't just give states more options. it gives entrepreneurs and investors more options to play too. it will deliver the certainty that private investment is looking for that will unleash market forces, that will drive even deeper reductions through innovation and investment. it will spur cleaner technologies and power of all sorts. so that we can bring new low carbon technologies to the table.

our plan will pull private investment off the shelves and into our clean energy revolution and send it in every direction not just the one or two that we know about today. because the opportunities are endless. the good news is, state, cities and businesses, already blazed this trail. we are not doing cutting edge work here folks. we are just opening up the door for cutting edge to happen. our clean energy revolution has been unfolding in front of us. just in the past few weeks, i went to salt lake city with a mayor and the utilities are teaming up on building efficiency.

i went to st. paul where there was a science center that is recycling energy waste, saving money and it's actually teaching kids what we adults are just beginning to learn. i've seen fortune 500 companies revamp strategies by meeting the demands of a carbon constrained future. i want to give a shot out to all of the local officials, all of the rural co-ops, all of the public power operators and investor owned utilities that have been leading the charge on climate change. you know who you are. i thank you. it's clear that you act not just because it's reasonable but because it's the right thing to do for the people that you serve. governors and mayors of all stripes are leaning into climate action. they see it not as a partisan obstacle but as a powerful opportunity. we know that successful breads success. those of us who work in states and local governments have seen healthy competition. push states to share ideas and expertise. that is how everybody ends up winning. epa has had a long standing partnership with states to protect public health. we set goals and states are

always in the driver seat to meet them. so releasing the clean power plan actually shifts much of the conversation to the states. if you're a teacher, a scientists, a mechanic, a business person, or just someone who has a good idea, share your thoughts with your state leaders. help them see that they can build a plan that will better all of our futures. i know people are wondering, can we cut pollution while keeping our energy affordable and reliable? sure we can. we can and we will. critics claim that your energy bills will skyrocket. well, they're wrong. [applause]

any small short term change in electricity prices would be with a normal fluctuations, the power sector has already dealt with for years. any small price increase that we see is about the price of a gallon of milk a month. it's dwarfed by the huge benefit. this is an investment in better health and in a better future for our kids. just like these kids here. are they girl scouts? just hanging out? in 2030, the clean power plan will deliver climate and health benefits of up to $90 billion. for soot and smog reduction alone, that means that for every dollar we invest in this plan, families will see seven dollars in direct health benefit. if states are smart about taking advantage of efficiency opportunities and i know they are, when the effects of this plan are in place in 2030, average electricity bills will be 8% cheaper. that is how you write a rule.

this plan is a down payment we know to be a more 21st century power system. it will cut energy waste, cut pollution and cut cost. think about it like this, we set historic efficiency standards that will double the distance cars go on a gallon of gas. many of you were engaged in that wonderful rule making with d.o.t. that meant you fill up less often and you saved more money.

in the auto industry, that's what it will do for you in the power sector. given the astronomical price that we pay, the thing we can do is nothing. the most costly thing that we can do is to do nothing. the critics are wrong about reliability too. for decades, power plants have met pollution limits without risking reliability. if anything we're threatening reliability and causing blackouts is the devastating extreme weather that we're going to see that is fueled by climate change. i'm a little tired of people pointing to the wall of vortex as the reason not to act on climate. it's exactly the opposite. it is a wake up call. climate change heightens risk

from extreme cold that freezes our power grids. super storms that drown our power plants and heat waves that strip our power supply. it turns out efficiency upgrades that slow climate change actually helped cities insulate themselves against blackouts. that's how it works. we know it, they know it. despite all that, i will still for sure see special interest skeptics who are cry that the sky is falling, who will deliberately over estimate the cost and deliberating undervalue the benefits. the facts are clear. for over four decades, epa has cut air pollution by 70% and the economy has now more than tripled. all the while providing the power we need to keep america strong.

climate action doesn't actually dull america's competitive edge. it sharpens it. it spurs ingenuity in innovation and investment. in 2011 we exploited more than -- we exported more than 33% more cars than we did in 2009. that is the clear sign of a competitive industry. our fuel efficiency standards helped to make that happen. companies like best buy are investing in low carbon operations. bank of america pays its employees to cut carbon pollution because investors see climate risk as business opportunities. this is good news. any business will tell you, eliminating waste, means more money for other things. like hiring employees, corporate climate action is not bells and whistles.

its an all hands on deck call. even without national standards, the energy sector sees the handwriting on the wall. businesses like spectra energy are investing billions of dollars in clean energy. all of this means more jobs, not less. we'll need thousands of american workers in construction, transmission and more to make cleaner power a reality. you've heard me say this before but it is worth reiterating again. the bottom line is, we should never have to choose between a healthy economy and a healthy environment.

there's a reason why empty allegations from critics sound a little bit like a broken record. it's because it's the same tired play. from the same special interest playbook that they've been using for decades. in the 1960's, you remember the 1960's, some of you do when smog choked our cities, critics cried wolf and said epa action to put the brakes on the auto production. they were wrong. instead our air got cleaner and our kids got healthier and we sold more cars. thank you to the folks at epa. in the 1990's, critics cried wolf and said fighting acid rain will make electricity go up and

our lights go out. they said industry would, i quote, die a quiet death. they were wrong again. industry is alive and well. our lights are still on and we have dramatically reduced acid rain. so time after time when science pointed to health risk, special interests cried wolf to protect their own agenda. not the agenda of the american people. time after time, we followed the science, we protected the american people and the doomsday prediction never came true. now climate change is calling our number. right on to the same critics, once again scare tactic -- tactics and to meet our moral obligation as stewards of our natural resources. their claims that scientific actions that protect families

will somehow flies in the face of history and shows and decided lack of faith in american ingenuity and entrepreneurship. i don't accept that premise. the president of the united states doesn't accept that premise. we should not accept that premise. we can lead this fight. we can north our way -- north our -- -- innovate our way to a better future. that's what america does best. [applause] yes, our climate crisis is a global problem and it demands a global solution. there is no hail mary play we can call on to reverse its

effects. we can act today to advance the ball. we can limit the dangers of punting this problem to our own children. it's no accident that our proposal is a key piece of president obama's climate action plan and key to america's leadership in this global climate fight. although there's still more work to be done, i am hopeful. i'm hopeful when i see the progress that was made. i'm hopeful because i see the patent of perseverance that defines america. from the light bulb from excels to your cell phones, america has always turned small step into giant leaps. we've cured diseases. we have explored the stars. because when critics say it can't be done, we say, you watch

us. that's what america is made of. we don't settle. we lead. that's how we'll confront this climate crisis. when it comes to our plan, we may not agree on the details of how we do it but i sure do hope we can all agree on why we do it. when our kids ask us, if we did everything we could to leave them a safer and cleaner world. we all want to say yes we did. when we think of our children, it's easy to see why we have to be compelled to act. as governors, mayors and ceo's, school teacher, nurses, factory workers and most of all as parents and in mom who are here, we have a moral obligation to ensure that the world we leave behind is safe, healthy and vibrant. just like the one we inherited. our clean power plan is a huge

step towards delivering on that promise. thank you very much. i have some signing to do. this is the opening of our second round of engagement.

i'm looking forward to it. whoever said the -- the sword is mightier than the pen. thank you very much. [applause] done. thank you, everybody. done. [applause] >> several live events to tell you about this morning. ,ur companion network, c-span3 that is that 9:00 eastern. at 10:00, a senate environment subcommittee will be hearing on

climate change on wildlife and agriculture. the head of the fish and wildlife service will be among the witnesses. in a few moments, a look at today's headlines, plus your calls, live on washington journal. in response to recent supreme court decision on campaign finance, the senate judiciary committee this morning consider a constitutional amendment that will allow congress and the states authority to set limits on using and spending money in political campaigns. you can see that live that 10:30 a.m. eastern. the brookings institution holds a form on the results of the european union elections. speakers include the british and insh ambassadors to the u.s. about 45 minutes, we will discuss administrations climate change initiative with david don

iger and paul whaley of the american coalition for clean coal electricity. >> epa is reposing a clean power plant that will cut carbon pollution from our power sector by using clean energy sources and cutting energy waste. ♪ good morning. with the official announcement yesterday by the epa administrator, the debate over climate change, coal and other energy forces is now front and center. we will begin with your reactions to the white house plan. the president has arrived in warsaw, poland. the first stop in a five-day trip in europe that will conclude with friday's d-day ceremonies in normandy.