and that is changing the jurisdiction. on reorganization. it is a vote on national security. you wonder whether or not whether they are incapable or unable to do this. it will have to call from the -- for the leadership of the white house and leaders of both parties. >> i want to take a moment to refine the point. tom stated it and his eloquence drives home the point. let me look of the department of defense and special forces, army, navy, marines, coast guard , all of the special programs and defense we have a handful of committees overseeing roughly a $500 billion budget? then we have the department of homeland security with a $60 billion budget, $80 billion

budget. >> now. have that.'t you are telling me the department of homeland security should have eight times the number of subcommittees and full committees when we are both with this? the department of homeland security is dealing with issues peopleradicalization of coming into the country but maybe some that are already here that our homegrown terrorists, something in effect of what happened in the boston marathon bombing. there are so many people up there fighting for jurisdiction. that has to change. >> can you talk some about the costs of all of this? ? am excessive oversight

wondering if you could rate the quality of the oversight of homeland security at this point, a report card. i will look at it by comparison with my experience. the oversight of the justice department was quite effective when i was therefore eight teen-19 years. 18, 19 years. for ,t was vibrant, strong knowledgeable. you do not see that when it comes to dhs. i was dealing with it when i was homeland security adviser and it was not any of those things. not because there were not members who cared a lot because it was a part-time occupation. it was not the focus of the the membersively or and that's an important point, by the way, the members and the

staff as well. is really thet watered-down oversight you get which is not probing. i think we've all been there, those of us who have testified to, you know that you can give a standard answer to some questions without worrying about the follow-up. it might just be that particular exchange but it typifies the whole relationship. who's don't have someone really on the case on congress's side, you are not really going to get asked the tough questions. keep in mind these are people, jeh johnson has a few balls in the air right now. oversight is just one of them. that makes itself seem really important in the eyes of that official, that oversight will get shorted. there is a real cost to the oversight service congress is providing the american people

of thethe quality introspection that agencies are forced to do by that oversight. rate theow would you quality of oversight of homeland security by congress at this point? >> i think they confuse quantity with quality. i think the point my colleagues have made is a legitimate one. there is a lot of really talented people up on the hill on both sides of the aisle and i do believe my colleagues with whom i have served and with those i'm serving now to a certain extent would rather have specific subject matter expertise than be all things to all people. i think at the end of the day, while i admit that homeland security is one of those multitask, itis is a border-centric agency. you worry about goods and people

going back and forth across the border, immigration, natural security, cyber critical infrastructure, ongoing terrorist threats. they are all related to the border. of focusan epicenter that i think lends itself to the aggregation of the right groups within that department. you suddenly diffuse the oversight across multiple a sensetions, you lose of both urgency, and to my colleagues point of view, the notion that on a day to day, month to month, year to year basis you develop the expertise to answer those tough questions and it only comes from experience. you don't want to turn that over to a staff member. you need aggressive oversight. or cost to shin requires a at least demands, suggests it.

you do not get that. write end of the day, large it is antiquated and we are really talking about homeland security but i think congress in the aftermath of 9/11 confuse quantity with quality. it's tough to give up jurisdiction but there's plenty of jurisdiction and a lot of other areas to make committee chairman happy, although that should not be the function of leadership. it should be too can shut the oversight capability to make sure your country is safer and more effect if. tim, your assessment of the quality of oversight? >> i would agree with the criticisms and valuation that both of my colleagues have made. as a former member of congress and someone who loves the institution and deeply respects

the first ranch, one of my dreams going up -- growing up in indiana was to someday run for congress and represent my hometown community. having lived abroad to represent our country to one billion ofple in india, i'm so proud our country, it is an exceptional place. and yet, when we look down the road and we think about what -- notobs are to make even that difficult of a andsion to give up turf serve on one last subcommittee or full committee and move from serving on 6 to 5, 4 to 3. that should not be a tough call. oversight does not happen suffers. our security suffers. our safety as a country suffers

because they are not acting on these things. in their support --and our report, siobhan, goes into the the departmentof of homeland security. we talk about developing a new authority as to how we send our troops, our men and women to war and of dating the 2001 resolution so that decision reflects the american peoples interest in their opinions. we talk about congress passing a cyber security bill that will better protect the country. there are many things we talk about that congress should be doing and they are not. what we on the 9/11 commission that we are past frustration on this. especially when it is a national security issue.

congress must do something and do it soon. >> one of the other areas the report covers is an area where there may not be enough congressional oversight. ken, you alluded to your experiences working with intelligence committees. i was trapped when i was talking with congressman hamilton a few days ago when he said that having seen the fallout of the snowden revelation, he is concluded congressional oversight of the surveillance programs has not in robust enough. i'm curious what you're sentiment was. -- what your sentiment was. that is definitely an issue that has come to the fore thanks to mr. snowden'. areintelligence committees

tasked with a very difficult job. they are tasked with being the ones who, day to day, look at these highly classified programs, assess those programs, and do so without them being this close to the rest of the world. if you look at some of the programs that have been controversial in the wake of the snowden disclosures, like the telephone metadata program where it was all gathered and put in one place held by the government and then searched for indications of terrorist activity, that has been one that caught the most controversy and it was completely classified. you had members of the intelligence committees being briefed by this on a regular basis. committeesgent themselves were sort of focused on a but not allowed to talk about it more broadly. i think senator wyden raised that before it came out. that's a problem. there's no way around it, frankly.

there are large parts of our surveillance, if not most of our surveillance activities that need to be done in total secret. they cannot be disclosed publicly. , howes raise the concern does the public have confidence that the oversight is being conducted effect believe when they cannot see what the oversight is? they cannot see weather the tough questions are being asked. if congress and the body of the intelligence committees are asking how we calibrate the balance between liberty and privacy -- i mean between security and privacy. that will always be there. one of the lessons of this whole thatsnowden situation is it is incumbent upon the executive branch to expose more if they can when there is a program that can be disclosed in part to do so and not have a reflexive reaction on the part

of a lot of us who have been in the intelligence community. piece oft one information now, it might lead to more coming out. that argument is viable but the problem is that it sometimes gives way to recognition that the more the public can know about these programs, the more he andoday have that it done appropriately. in the absence of that knowledge, there is an absence of that trust and then there is doubt about the oversight. im, having sat on the committee, do you agree with that? always agree with congressman hamilton. he always has that wisdom and insight. i always associate myself with the gentleman from my home state of indiana. when we talk about oversight, we are talking about condensing, on theng, streamlining

department of homeland security, the oversight of congress. it's a very different issue on the intelligence committee. one is finding members, the select committee. it's not called the select committee because hopefully members selected but the select committee because the leadership goes and picks specific people that they now have an expertise in national security that will devote significant time before committee hearings, after committee hearings, that these people are going to travel not , butto langley, the farm internationally to visit our chiefs of station to see what issues they're dealing with overseas. servepeople are going to on these committees and develop a sense of expertise and devotion to these issues, as

kenneth said. they will penetrate and ask tough issues. why is there problem with over budgeting on this particular set of systems that we are buying? why is that happening? who do we get up. we have accountable -- who do get up here to have accountability? i do not get the sense today ist kind of thoroughness taking place by all of the senate and house committee. >> by enough of the members? >> i would like to see more of the members participate in that dedicated fashion and that is why you cannot have six or seven different committees you think you are serving on. if you are truly serving on a

committee, you are going to be on two, 3, 4 to develop the time necessary to travel, study, oversight. this whenlked about we both served on the intelligence committee. it's not only a function of what we just talked about, getting the right people, the right staff working on these issues but it is also terribly important that the executive branch briefs all members of the committee and they do not keep narrowing down the briefings to the gang of eight, gang of four, gang of two and members on these intelligence committees, which are supposed to be select it, 25 dozen, out of 435 or a 15 from the senate, 100, they are picked because there is confidence in these people that they represent the entire body. it is very top-secret kinds of

information. >> do you feel there currently representing the entire body? >> lee, do you want to answer that question? >> feel free to weigh in. on homeland security and intelligence, we need to vastly improve our intelligence oversight capabilities. i just want to make a quick comment here on behalf of the department which i was privileged to help form and lead . does notsecurity generate its own intelligence, folks. accountable for intelligence failures and they have been blamed from time to time when those things have happened but they rely on the alphabet agencies to get them the information to either act upon or disseminate. i just wanted to make that known

to everybody in this. this notion that somehow the has competitive intelligence capability but by and large, they still have to rely on the alphabet agencies in order to make decisions in terms of disseminating information or acting on relevant and timely information. i'm just throwing it out there as an and though. .- as an anecdote 20th century structure is not good for a 21st century challenge. the argument could be made that the select committees on intelligence might be the only committee you said on - you sit on. your burden this in another committees could be greatly reduced. everyone can argue about jurisdictions, but one could argue that if you accepted the committee assignment on the

intelligence committee, perhaps that ought to be your reason for existence the four or six years you are on it. just a thought. >> 20th-century government, 21st bigger oversight, much government, more complexity and challenges and we still have jurisdiction the same way in the negative sense. >> let's open it up to questions. >> how're you doing? my name is abraham scott perry this question is not directly related to the oversight, but i do believe oversight and transparency go hand-in-hand. in the armyd intelligence for three years, i used we tend to loosely

the national security classified documentation when it should not be classified. a perfect example, 9/11. we have had a number of classified documents that calls the family members -- which causes the family members not to get a complete picture of what happened. i would just like to ask tim commission,the 9/11 how would you rate the classification of the documents now? the twoalso ask gentleman from homeland security. how would you rate the transparency of homeland security? nice to see you here. thank you for all your great work helping him in 9/11 commission and on the pentagon memorial for 9/11. i think you bring up some great

points. first of all, one of our reportndations in the today is about transparency and encouraging the national archives and the executive branch to release more and more of the documents from 9/11, the the transparency, this openness so that the american people have even more access to what we found, why we made the recommendations that he did. we make a very, very strong set of recommendations here to change that process and open up the system. secondly, over-classification. we have also seen that there is a tendency in our government over-classify all kinds of information and it really hurts us in many ways. about sharing information across government

horizontally between the federal government, the departments, breaking down the silos, but also vertically and making sure local and state officials get information and that they pass it accepted the federal government. when we over classify and say it's top-secret and it probably is not, then those local authorities often times, maybe they do not get access to a critical clue or something they could pick up. that's improving but i know in our recommendations that we continue to recommend changes there. >> i think it's really a very important question. in spite of what happened on 9/11, you still have an institutional bias based upon a cold war mentality on distributing information on a need to know basis. by and large, a lot of these

entities, in my judgment, how decided you don't need to know until they are ready to tell you, not the barometer that i think is appropriate. overclassification is a way to shield information and a reason not to share. i would defer to my colleagues, on i have seen top-secret documents that if it was redacted in a certain way, the information could have been shared without divulging sources. i think we're looking at the whole question of classified and overclassification which is critically important going forward. missing in this conversation between the federal government and the rest of the country -- trust. you have secret and top-secret information, it is a beyond belief that somehow we cannot figure out a way to share that with either the governors, , orland security advisers

other people out there on the ground. you cannot secure the country from inside the beltway. and yes you are willing to share more this information even if it is secret or top secret and trust people who get it that they will not leak it and not necessarily act upon it, we will never maximize our ability to defend ourselves. i just want to inject one more , we into this conversation need to look at the classification system but do not use it to withhold information to do not be so reluctant share even that kind of information. i don't want to hear about leaks. leaks more town that than washington, d.c. don't tell me you are worried about people out there who have day-to-day responsibility for the safety and security of their friends, neighbors, community. at some point in time, the people in this town need to be a lot more trusting of those who wear the same uniform.

we need to start trusting one another if we're ever going to take advantage of the intelligence we have to put in a position where we can be preempt it rather than react if. >> did you have something you wanted to add -- preemptive rather than reactive. there is one issue less sexy than congressional oversight, it is overclassification. [laughter] on -- one of the things that should on -- siobhan toted, they are devoted addressing this issue. it's not a very sexy topic. it's a fundamental problem. the problem is one of human nature. you are writing a document in the executive branch and you have concerns about whether it might have information if

released could be damaging to the national security. people tend to err on the side of classifying. it really requires a comprehensive sort of all-out effort. to push back against the human nature. he came in,t, when he issued an executive order addressing this issue and there's been a lot of talk about it. as much as we can generate through your reports and public discussion of this issue of the need for making sure there's not overclassification the better. you need to get a groundswell to really push back against what i said is really just a function of human nature. is cold ware.w need to share is now. one thing that governor kane

mentioned a few days ago when we were talking about this report, are lotsned that there of commission documents and papers and still remain classified including a chunk of their report on the national security agency. he did not believe that any of them needed to be classified today. this has been an extraordinarily articulate discussion by my pals here on the dais. the myriad of reasons why we need to reorganize and reform congress, 10 years ago, we said when we made our recommendation that it would probably be the hardest of all recommendations to realize. we were right. we are not being smug about being right here. we are unhappy about how right we were.

the question i have -- and i will direct its first two , in yourridge extraordinarily candid and of whyate exposition turf is the primary reasons for the resistance to sensible , theanization and reform homeland security issues, the toional security component why we are not only wasteful but counterproductive in the current regime, can you unpack what it means for there to be a turf issue that seems to be resistant to reform? citizens, can force

for the refusal to accept these recommendations which we have made and reiterated, reiterated again, with support from all of the different avenues you talked about over the past 10 years. like i did not articulate it as well as you just did. thank you for the kind words. oft i think of in terms turf, i think in terms of almost historical inertia up on the hill over decades. committee and we've always had jurisdiction over these issues, and natural instinct to preserve it. i do not think the institutions of government are different than the institutions of the private sector, maybe us personally.

change is difficult. particularly when it's a fundamental change in your life, company, committee structure. having said that, it does not justify. that, it in time is doubt very seriously if you will ever have too many chairman regardless of party affiliation, chamber, who are willing to surrender jurisdiction may have had for years, if not decades. it is at that point in time, and i think this is where you're going with the question, how do you activate the body politic to effect the change? i cannot think anything better than what we're doing now in these multiple agencies, groups, think tanks to continue to put pressure on the congress. ultimately, it comes down to five people, maybe four. leaders in the house and senate

and both parties. it's at the caucus level. ladies and gentlemen, we've met. in bipartisan agreement. it's a national security issue. easier said than done. i think it's about a leadership issue. at least that's the way i see it because as i said before, early on, i think most men and women in the house and senate would tell you they respect the committee structure. i cannot believe they feel fulfilled given the level of their engagement at a spread across multiple committees and jurisdictions that they are actually doing their job in an effective way as they would like to do it. you need a little support from the white house but there are four people to effect these changes before january.

>> is there a fund-raising component? we know how much time is spent on fundraising and the congress by individual members. demand on their time and energy. there a fund-raising component that is associated with the failure to reorganize and streamline oversight on homeland security? question, coming from the families of 9/11 victims, whether in your view the 9/11 families could again be onive proponents for change the congress if they were to and again rededicate

their efforts to this issue. think with regards to the fund-raising component that it would have any effect. i do think governor's in the 9/11 families around this very important issue would have a far better, greater effect. i like that a lot. i don't think there's any question about that. bothchard, if i can answer of your questions, i think there is a fund-raising effect because of the bandwidth on almost everything that happens up there. if the number out of a 24-hour day is spending six hours a day fund-raising and two hours a day and oversight hearings, is that the right ratio that we need to protect our country today? would be interesting for some of the median to do a survey on members of congress. how much time do you spend in your committees, not just in

markup when you have to be there and your votes are recorded on amendments and final passage. how many hours are you in that committee when they are doing how thesight of department of homeland security is working these days and what problems they are encountering? you have three members in that hearing for the entire time or do you have 20? let me go back to your first question. i think three things need to happen for this the past and i think it's possible. it's hard, but not impossible. it needs to be defined as a national security issue. it is not a reorganization of congress issue. to trybout what do we do to make sure that our committee structure is appropriately aligned with the threat and with

the solutions in america today? 92 subcommittees and committees does not do it. way too many. it's wasteful. the second thing that needs to happen is third-party involvement. should1 family members he involved. be groups that reach out to the leadership and tell the leadership in our congress, ms. loc, mr. boehner, mr. reid, mr. mcconnell -- ms. nancy pelosi. we want this to happen for national security reasons. it needs to be focused on the leadership and if they are hearing from other members in the senate and house that they would give up jurisdiction, they would give up a subcommittee and they tell their leadership and are willing to do that, it may happen. it has a better chance. lastly, i would say the great thing about our system in

is when the people weigh in. not just a third-party interest groups but the people. c-span viewers, if they call and say we are not going to take this anymore, we want congress to do its job. we will not reelect 95 cents of the congressmen and women if they are not doing basic national security issues. they do their collins and they weigh in, that -- if they will do that, then i think you would see an even bigger chance for this change. >> those are great thoughts to end on. i'm sorry. we've run out of time. i'm very sorry. unfortunately we do have to move yourcause i know most of probably very hungry. i just want to make a few comments. [no audio] i would be happy to talk to

you off-line. we need to continue the program. i don't think this lady knew you were a family member. we would be happy to talk to you. i do not know you are a family member until i showed you -- until you showed me the sign. >> i appreciate not everyone is getting the opportunity to speak. thank you, richard, for volunteering. i think we are probably all happy to participate alongside our 9/11 commissioner friends. wanted tosaid, i recognize a few people in the audience who made all of this possible. corporationarnegie support for the homeland security project. without her, we would not have this project and we are very grateful for her support. i would be remiss if i did not talk about the people who made this possible.

jonathan yen. we thank all of you for your hard work. the homeland security program summer fellow has been invaluable through this process. thank you very much. and of course i have to thank ashley, our director of communication and her incredible who, alyssa, abby brandon has been communicating with the press to make sure you all knew about it and lindsay who put together this report and made it possible to be here in front of you. at this point, i'm happy to break for lunch. it is directly behind me, doors over here and we will be coming back together in about 25 minutes to begin the next part of our program. thank you all. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> coming up, epa mccarthy talks onut proposed regulations power plants. a house foreign affairs committee hearing on violence in iraq. and later, "washington journal," live with your phone calls. 40 years ago, the watergate scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. we revisit 1974 in the final weeks of the nixon administration. house administration committee considering impeachment in the charge of abuse of power. >> what you have here are questions about what the framers had in mind, questions whether the activities that have been

found out by the committee, by the senate watergate committee, where indeed impeachable, and thirdly, can we prove that richard nixon knew about this and even authorized it? years later on american history tv on c-span 3. the environmental protection agency has proposed new regulations for carbon emissions from power plants. ina mccarthy discussed this a senate environment committee meeting. this is two hours and 40 minutes.

everybody.ing, this is an important step to address carbon change by reducing carbon pollution. today, we focus on the proposal to reduce dangerous pollution from the biggest source, power plants. just this last week when i i ammed the miners, pleased to welcome the mom's clean air force with your kids in tow. account for nearly 40% released into the air but

currently there are no limits on the amount that they can release into the air. the president's plan, in my view , is a win-win for the american people because, by addressing climate change through carbon reduction, we can cut many toxic air pollutants that also threaten human health. climate change and rising temperatures would lead to increased smog which could worsen respiratory illnesses like asthma, increased air pollutants from wildfires, and more heat related and flood related deaths. when the president announced his powerpoint proposal at the children's national medical center in washington, he visited with young asthma patients to highlight the impact of pollution and to underscore how important addressing dangerous carbon pollution is to our children's health. a vitalposal will play role in protecting health and will save thousands of lives. it will void bronchitis in

children, asthma attacks, heart andcks, premature deaths, 490 thousand missed days at school and work. we all benefit from having clean air to breathe. it literally saves lives. we need to protect from the mounting impacts of climate change and carbon pollution. a recent congressionally required national assessment report tells us we could see a 10 degree fahrenheit rise in temperatures if we do not act to limit dangerous pollution now. the president's new proposal will not only protect public health and save lives but enable america to lead the way to avert the most calamitous impacts of

climate change such as dangerous heat waves and economic disruptions. we must safeguard our children, grandchildren, and future generations. we have a moral obligation to leave our children a planet that polluted orocably damaged. the obama administration gets it . a recent washington post abc poll, a bipartisan majority of the american people want federal limits on carbon pollution. approximately 70% say the federal government should require limits from existing power plants. 70%. 70% support requiring states to limit the amount of pollution within their borders. just last month, we heard from four former epa administrators who served under republican presidents, from richard nixon to george w. bush, and they all agree that climate change

requires action now and it should not be a partisan issue. the president's plan relies on the authorities under the clean air act with a bipartisan consensus in 1970. it passed by a vote of 73-0 in the senate and in the house 375-1. i don't know who that one was. it was signed into law by president x and. in 1990, a revision past 89-11 -- was signed into law by president nixon. into90, that was signed law by george herbert walker bush. pollutants have dropped while the u.s. gdp has grown by 219% and total private-sector jobs have increased by 101%. while pollutants have dropped by 72% since 1970, private sector

jobs have increased by 101% in the gdp increased by 219%. all this fear mongering we hear, my friends, about job losses is disproven every time. they match up with the quotes that we heard both in 1970 when nixon signed it and then again bush signed it. the president's proposal, i believe, will create thousands reducing dangerous pollutant contributions to climate change. epant to thank administrator carthy for being with us. we have a vote at 11 so we have two options. we can ork as hard as then come back.

either way is good with me so we will see where we are. senator vitter. >> thank you, chairwoman boxer. i look forward to hearing from administrator macarthur on the epa proposed existing source rule. really a truly unprecedented outside defense set of regulations that will have major negative impacts on our nation's electricity system. i hope we talk about this very directly. the epa proposal doesn't number of things, but fundamentally it hijacks the electricity system all in the name of flexibility. in reality, it epa usurps the role of state government and public utility commissions as well as ferc, doe, and other agencies that do have the expertise inr and electricity generation issues. unfortunately for epa,

electricity is not directly under its jurisdiction. changing dispatch rules to require the most expensive power be delivered first, mandating efficiency and the use of renewables are old of intrastate generation, transmission, and distribution matters reserved to the states by the federal power act. to dump, the epa wants the politically unpopular decision making of having to pick winners and losers on state regulators and legislators. the epa's proposed rule to turn states into either hostages or unwilling accomplices in its effort to impoverish families, businesses, communities. in its existing source proposal, epa goes beyond the plain reading of the clean air act, section 111 directing states to achieve questionable emission reduction targets from a limited menu of economically damaging and legally questionable options.

mentioned before, electricity prices and regional greenhouse gas emissions states in california are 45% higher than in my home state of louisiana. familiesf louisiana already at the lower louisiana rate spend an average of 21% of after-tax income on energy. they simply cannot afford higher electricity bills that will inevitably result from this rule. the epa is also setting up states to fail. to deliver on the president promised that electricity prices all for virtually immeasurable climate benefits. this rule is all pain and no gain. friendsto look to our in australia who just last week repealed their carbon tax and recognition of this sort of lesson. it is also noteworthy that the

epa blueprint is fundamentally nrdcar to an rdc -- toewing portfolio standards replace fossil fuel energy whether they like it or not and in states like louisiana where wind and solar are not feasible or not at all practical, we are supposed to divert economically valuable timber into fuel for electricity generation. to:'s a very expensive stop natural gas. in defense of a tax by the new york times and others, the administrator also readily admits that her agency must revisit nuclear energy since right now it encourages the closure of nuclear plants. basically, epa is insisting that states rational electricity and limit consumer choice especially if that choice involves using more electricity.

as 40 of my republican senate colleagues and i have stated in our june 3 letter, the epa proposed rule will increase cost to families, schools, hospitals, and businesses and in doing so, as always, hit the poor, the elderly, those on fixed incomes the hardest. it's a federal takeover of the american electricity system. i for 1 am not at all with this dramatic epa takeover, this dramatic expansion of the role and authority. neither are the people of louisiana. i look forward to this discussion. it's very important. there are a lot of important states on the line. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, senator vitter. according to arrival, senator whitehouse. boxer andou, chairman

ranking member would her for hosting this important meeting and administrator mccarthy, thank you for being here, for your continued leadership on this vital issue. my state has a very different point of view than that expressed by the ranking member. ofare in the losing end carbon pollution in a lot of respects and we urge you on. mission to protect human health and the environment is one of the most fundamental -- and popular -- responsibilities of the government and there is no greater environmental threat today than climate change. epa has a duty to respond and the mandate to respond. forward a critical step in this fight when it exercised its existing clean air act authority as established by congress and as affirmed by the supreme court to propose carbon pollution standards for existing power plants. it was based on unprecedented of the engagement, more than 300 public meetings with stakeholders of all kinds and

across the political spectrum. the plant to put states in the drivers seat to come up with their own best plans to meet state specific targets. they have a wide variety of options to cut pollution like boosting renewable energy, establishing energy-savings targets, investing in efficiency or joining one of the existing cap in trade programs like ours in new england. states can develop plans to create jobs, plans to cut electricity costs by boosting efficiency, plans that achieve major pollution reductions. as proposed, the rule will provide as much as $93 billion in public benefits -- $93 billion in public benefits -- per year by 2030. abccent washington post news poll found 70% of the public supports federal standards to limit carbon pollution. last month, the wall street

journal and nbc news released a poll showing two thirds of americans support president obama's new carbon pollution standard. more than half say the u.s. should address climate change even if it means higher electric bills -- but it want because efficiency can reduce your bill even if the per unit cost can go up. this is supported by major utilities like national grid, faith organizations i could conference of catholic bishops, the american lung association. there's also support from nameplate american corporations nike, starbucks. i would like to asking animus consent to enter in a record -- a letter from more than 125 companies supporting the record. >> could you freeze the clock? if there are babies talking, it's important that you consider that we have an overflow room in g50. because it's kind of hard to

hear over that wonderful sound that we are hearing from the back. your call, but we do have a room -- g560. thank you. >> we have four former republican epa administrators who testified before a subcommittee on clean air and nuclear safety last month. they agreed, all four, that epa rule is a decent way to reduce pollution in the industry has a history of overstating the compliance costs of environmental regulations. the clean airf act according to a 2011 epa assessment will outweigh the 30 to one.a ratio of $30 in the value of the lies of americans for every one dollar they had to pay in cleanup costs. that's a good deal for america. administrator mccarthy, the carbon pollution standards will health tremendous

benefits for americans. do not be deterred by the polluters and their republican allies in congress who attacked the proposal. they are fighting to protect the edgest status quo polluters polluting at will and profiting a public expense. do not worry. popular thanore they are. the american people have far more confidence in you. states are already achieving greater than those assumed in the proposed standards. factor those in. raise the bar. develop carbon pollution standards for cement kilns. the people are behind you and counting on the epa to stand strong against the polluters. stand up for the american people and go further as we develop the final standards in the months ahead. judge your efforts favorably. thank you very much. you.ank

this morning, we have an opportunity to discuss the serious implications of the administration's unilateral move to execute its oppressive climate agenda. some of my friends on the other side continue to speak of carbon pollution which suggests to some people that they are talking about particulate emissions. of course we know what is being talked about with this proposed rule is carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. co2e regulations regarding could negatively impact every single american. the president seems determined to wage an all-out war on coal launching regulations that would have little effect on changing the climate. over the past 10 years, coal consumption has soared by 65%. exports have skyrocketed by more than 200%. coal is burned to provide 40% of the world electricity needs in a

reliable, economical way. although the coal consumption has soared, global average temperatures have stagnated. this is a fact worth repeating. there has been no rise in global average temperatures over the last 17 years. regardless, the administration continues to defend its heavy-handed climate regulations with assertions by global average temperatures are on the rise. the regulation we are here to discuss today is the most blatant overreach thus far. under the guise of the clean air proposed mandate entities that are far outside its regulatory authority. to reduce simply want emissions for existing plants but for the first time, they have gone beyond power plants with a regulation that reaches the powerincluding meter. epa is relying on the talking point today, but this is fiction when it comes to many states.

this is a regulatory news for electricity providers in my state of mississippi. it states like -- in states like mississippi, we are being punished for having a diversified port allele of electrical generation. 100% of current coal production will be forced to close down under this rule. the epa of coal, suggests an increase in renewable energy resources of more than 250% of renewable energy resources you epa on technical support document shows type ofential for this for noble energy resource in mississippi. what it is flexibility if there is no chance of flexibility? many parts of the country have been experiencing a manufacturing renaissance in part due to the great success of american energy innovation and

the shale revolution. epa rules do not account for future economic development and halt new growth. the so-called flexible regulation would mandate states put co2 emissions above all else. movee proposed rules forward, and i hope they do not, our economy would be put at an economic disadvantage. utilities will be handcuffed by the epa mandate because they have to rely on uneconomical resources the power american homes and businesses increasing the cost for everyone. the consequences of the administration proposed rule would be disastrous for our economy and, again, miniscule impact on the environment. summary, my friends, this is a breathtaking regulatory overreach. it is a job killer based on questionable science, of dubious

legality under the clean air act. it amounts to a run against congress. it is inflexible. it will have no effect on the climate and is therefore pointless and is punitive to name a few. thank you, madam chair. >> that was very sexist and i was trying to lighten up the atmosphere. senator sanders? >> is that right, roger? all right. administrative mccarthy, thank you very much for being here and thank you very much for the work you are doing. we are in a remarkable moment in american history. and in fact, in world history. and that is that for the first time to the best of my knowledge, we have a major political party which by in

large is rejecting what the scientific community is saying. we can disagree about funding for education and health care and all that stuff. but if we cannot accept what the overwhelming majority of scientists are taking and there is no more debate. the overwhelming majority of scientists are saying, a, climate change is real. climate change is caused by human activity. climate change is already causing devastating problems in the united states and around the world and if we do not get our act together by significantly reducing carbon and methane emissions that situation will only get worse. that is not really a debate anymore in that we have a major political party that is rejecting that is extremely frightening. now the evidence is overwhelming. according to the u.s. national

climate association released in may, the average global temperature has raised to 1.5 degrees farn height in 2012. and in my state of vermont and n new england have increased 2.5 degrees farn height. it could be up to 10. nobody has all the answers is how do you deal with this crisis? how do we work with countries around the world to reduce carbon, to transform our energy system? how do you do it? that's tough stuff. nobody has the magical answer. but that should be the debate. the idea that we're debating that this is a real issue when the scientific community tells us this is the planetary crisis our time is extremely

distressing. planetary warming is causing sea levels to rise. noaa reported that the sea level has increased 18 inches since 1980. several sights have experienced 18 inches in the past several years whasm we are talking -- major jor city cities in the united states being under water. being under the weamplet -- water. as a result of increasely intense storm, storm surges have been rising -- people talk about financial issues. i will remind you that hurricane sandy cost this government alone over $60

billion. and all over the world -- all over the world there are projections that we will be spending trillions of dollars in order to deal with rising sea levels, extreme weather disturbances and other manifestations of climate change. i would remind my colleagues that in a certain sense this is -- this debate that's taking place today is very similar to a debate that took place 50 or 60 years ago right here in congress. and that is we had tobacco industry coming in here and heads of the tobacco industry saying tobacco-causing cancer, oh, no, that can't be the case they brought doctors putting ads on television and they were spending huge amounts of money trying to convince the american people that tobacco had nothing -- o with cancer, emp emphysema.

finally the truth won out. and the truth will win out this debate. we will work with countries around the world to reduce carbon and to help save the planets so these young people will have a habitable nation and a habitable world in the years to come. >> thank you, senator. senator fisher called by senator inhofe and senator baraza. >> thank you so much for holding the hearing today. and i want to welcome the administrator mccarthy. thank you for being here today. we all share in the cleaner air and can be proud of the tremendous improvements we have made in air quality over the past several decades. air pollution has decreased even as our population and the number of vehicles on the roads have increased and even as our economy has grown in nba, our public power utilities have made significant investments in

coal generated facilities to provide an even cleaner source of that low cost energy our state. while the regulatory actions here today are being pursued under the authority of the clean air act, they are a significant departure from the true aims of the statue. this administration is seeking to reduce u.s. emissions of carbon dioxide. us a tenseably to control global temperature changes while the environmental benefits of capping carbon in america are nedgeable at best, the economic consequences are unquestionably devastating. president obama himself warned that electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket under a plan to control carbon. more than 80% of america's energy needs are met through carbon-emmitting conventional fuels. last year, coal and natural gas

u.s. ed 66% ofist -- of electricity generation. emissions . lowers it inflicts higher costs. while the economic pain would be felt throughout the country, it is america's poorest familys that will be hit the hardest. the median family spends $5 cents on energy cost. low income families spends about 20 cents. states like nebraska that receive a majority of their electricity from coal-fire generation would also be disproportionately harmed under this proposal. e guidelines would force retirement of coal fuel generation the lead the potential loss of billions of dollars in investments made over the last decade to make coal plants cleaner and require construction of higher cost

replacement generation and with increase natural gas prices. also troubling is the e.p.a. emission guidelines that are not achievable at the affected source, the generating unit. energy efficiency and renewable portfolio mandates should not come through regulatory fiat. while i do not have enough time to list all the concerns raised by this proposal, you know that i believe there are many. the issues are complex and tim packets are far reaching. while i appreciate the 120-day comment period that was granted for public comment on this rule, the challenge presented to the states an other stakeholders to analyze and assess the enormous range of issues that are posed is beyond expectation. the level of complexity of proposal, the volume of technical documents that are

released, the amount of coordination required and the magnitude of energy impacts of the rule, i believe warrant a 60-day extension of that public comment period. i hope to visit you about that. i am pleased that we are spending time today discussing some of the concerns raised by the proposal. this is an important discussion. this is an important debate. and i look forward to today's dialogue. thank you. >> thank you, senator fisher. senator carter? >> thank you, ma'am. >> first let me thank gina mccarthy and for being willing to take on the responsibility of the environmental protection at si at this critical moment in the history of our country. it's not an easy task. and you were willing to step forward knowing full well the challenges that you would confront. and i want to thank you for being willing to do this. the chairman already mentioned

that there are children at the hearing. i think that's wonderful because it's their future that we are talking about, it's the environment that they will be living in that's very much impacted by what we do here and by what the administration is doing. the impact of climate change in maryland is well un. people at stake recognize the risk involve as a result of climate change. 70% of the population of maryland lives in coastal areas and they're at risk. property owners are at risk of losing their appropriates and they know the financial impact that is involved. the people of maryland, the atomic shorelines that we have, that's our way of life that is at risk. the economics of our state are at risk from the poultry industry that depends upon reasonable price for corn and the cost of producing the poultry know that the weather conditions that make corn more expensive. therefore their business more

difficult. the watermen understand the loss of crop population. the sea population know that it affects all the produce coming out of the chesapeake bay. and the climate change rising sea levels make it more difficult to run the port of baltimore economically. i could go on and on and on about the impact. our military installation from he aberdeen proving grounds to the river. and to the capital and the naval academy, all very much impacted by the climate change. as my colleagues have pointed out, the science are indisputable that our communities are affecting climate change. congress should have acted. we tried. we should have thought of the brain work for the way that we

deal with climate change. we tried. but we were stopped. we wanted to use a market-base solutions to make it clear and make it more available for private companies to invest. but no, we were stopped in those efforts. so the administration is doing what they're required to do. the e.p.a. has the authority and the responsibility to act. and three supreme court decisions made it clear that you're acting within that authority. let me quote what the chair mentioned. justice scalia what he said very recently and i quote "that if there is mention that the e.p.a. is getting everything that it wanted and sought to regulate sources that are responseable for 60% of reenhouse emissions from statutory sources nationwide. they will be responsible for 83% of those emissions. and then quoting from the clean

air act or not comboting, clean air act. they give you plans for this rule are talking about achieving a 30% net reduction in carbon solution using 2005 as the baseline by 2030. you have the authority. you have the responsibility. you're acting. and thank you for the flex blingt that you're providing. you're putting the states in charge. you're giving them the power they need to do what's right for their community. we can work in regional, among different states. that's what you have allowed and i thank you for that proposed rule. maryland energy companies have acted. consolation and exalon have created jobs in the meantime. i hope that it doesn't take cuyahoga river before we enact the clean air

act. i hope it doesn't take the loss of smith holland in maryland where the washing away of the ever glades or dust bowls to become the fleg our breadbasket in this country before we act on this critical issue. i thank the administration for taking action. i hope congress will take action to be your partner in making the reality of america's leadership on global climate change what is desperately needed. >> thank you, senator. senator inhofe. >> thank you, chairman and senator. it's very nice to see you. there are so many problems been pointed out by my colleagues with the existing source cor bonn rule that it's hard to know where to begin. first, there's the issue of tim possibleer efficiency requirement the rule on power plants and there's the question of what should happen with the standard and how they're supposed to receive reducks without going belly up. and there are bigger questions

like how e.p.a. plans to enforce the rule and to what extent the agency will be allowed to tweak the state's plan if it's not making the progress that it needs in the compliance period. these are decade-old questions. and there are hundreds more. many smart people have been reading this for the last two months and they're at a loss for what this will actually look like. in other words, it appears that e.p.a. is undering the nation to trust them as they are about to take over the entire electricity market in the black box confines of the period. there are two things that are crystal clear. the rule will cause electricity prices to go up. we know this from the e.p.a.'s own logic. they set out to save the 6% of nuclear generators that have become economically marginal. how will the e.p.a. do this?

by increasing prices in the about says of regulatory relief from the n.r.c. and the e.p.a. which is not happening, the only way to keep a marginally nuclear plant in business is for it to be paid more for itself power and the only way the especiala can do that is pushing the price up. the second thing that we know is that this rule will end up with the united states looking the poor and ho rich alike their prices are three times what they are in the united states. even though the american people really don't care about this. talk about all the people are joining in and saying that global warming is happening. the science is over. they say that because there's nothing else that they could say. we've already had this before our united states senate many times. it's been defeated by a larger margin each time it comes up.

it's come up for times. that's the trend line that's there. we all understand that. we know that a recent gallop poll it shows -- i can remember when global warming is a number one concern. it's now 14 out of 15 concerns according to a pew research center, 53% of americans believe that global warming is happening. when asked the cause of it, either they belief it's man or believe by a natural variation. it makes claim why it's difficult for tom to put in $50 up ads to try to put and try to kill the excel pipeline. he put his $50 million up. he's been able to raise only $1.2 million from outside donors. >> the third thing is that this lule have no impact on global

temperatures which is the very reason because -- because that's what the vule supposed to do according to one analysis which was used a model the ped by the e.p.a., esps lule reduce global temperature by 0.02 degrees celsius. it's hardly measurable with all of the costs that we're involved in. combine that with the -- the other day i had dinner with min who happened to be here from australia. he was the guy leading the cause after he had one time supported the idea to repeal it. so they repealed it in australia. so toward the -- and if you stop and think about it, it's china and russia and other states even if you believed all

this, they're the ones that are sitting back anxiously hoping that we will tax carbon so they will be able to draw in our base. the last thing since i'm running out of time here, i want to mention that there's a study that's floating around that says that this rule will enhance natural gas. and either you can give an argument that it would. but i think what they're forgetting to mention is that this is a war on fossil fuels. and natural gases and fossil fuel as you can see up here, they would be next. the war on fossil fuels -- natural gas right after coal. that's what's behind the whole thing. and i -- i pressure you holding this hearing and we'll see what happens. >> thanks, senator. senator barraza. >> thank you very much, madam chair. >> the new york times wrote a iece about the outsized role

that the national resources defense council has in developing the regulations to curve power plant emissions. the article focused on three who enior nrdc officials at times were described as washington's best paid lobbyists who developed the core of e.p.a.'s plant. washington's best paid lobbyist developed the core of e.p.a.'s plan. the "new york times" stated that on june 2nd, president obama proposed a new environment protection agency rule to use carbon emissions to use a blueprint the work of three men and their team. it was a remarkable victory for the defense council. now for those outside the beltway, the nrdc is $120 million lobbying machine back bd hollywood elites. it is absolutely shameful to me that the e.p.a. under the direction here of the administrator will allow this

power group of lawyers and lobbyists to draft their regulations. but yes, this same administrator refuses to actually listen to the people whose lives and jobs will be severely impacted by these regulations drawn up by wealthy lawyers and lobbyists. in fact, the administrator refuses to listen to the thousands of americans who will be impacted by this rule. the e.p.a. administrator has refused to visit folks in coal country. the e.p.a. administrator won't hold a public hearing in wyoming. won't hold a public hearing in kentucky. the e.p.a. administrator has literally gone out of her way and the e.p.a. has gone out of its way to avoid hearing from unemployed family who will lose everything, their homes, their retirement savings, issues related to their health all because the e.p.a. has decided to push a rule that was drafted behind closed doors by powerful, weal think washington

lawyers an lobbyists at the nrdc. et's be clear, the nrdc is a wealthy, elite lobbying machine with more influence on decision making than any ordinary citizen. they have millions which gives them access. the e.p.a. has turned a deaf ear on those who don't. it should come as no surprise that this is how the e.p.a.'s regular lages for new and exiting power plan was hatched. the nrdc employees these very same tactics were used during the bush administration. when the bush energy strategy was we leased a the time, in nrdc issued the following statement. the conclusion of the chaney task force are a product of an undemocratic process. freedom nrdc filed a

of information act request for documents identifying members of the task force and the calendars of task force member of the department of energy deny the request. i would say this is quite a change of heart by this group of wealthy washington lobbyists and lawyers. if i'm wrong the administrator can provide all records and documents that are requested by members of this committee and how these new regulations were crafted. because right now it sure looks like the e.p.a. led a trio of washington lobbyists write their regular laces for them. if what the "times" is reporting of what the e.p.a. administrator has called preposterous then they must comply with request from our

house colleagues. comply so that we can then know the truth. if the answer is no that you will not comply or there are more record-keeping mishaps, broken hard drives, lost files then we'll know the truth about this agency as well. -- madam u, mad chairman. the answers.d to >> we will close with senator berkley. unless there's a serious objection we're going to move to administrator mccarthy. and then they can do a little bit of an opening. if that's ok with everybody? ok. let's move forward and we'll go to senator carper. > thanks, madam chair. thank you. very nice to see you. >> if many years i served a the

ranking member on clean air and nuclear safety. i remember early in those days i think me and a number of utility c.e.o.'s around the ing try and we were talk it. this one c.e.o. from a southern state. i don't remember which one. he said at the end of our long conversation, he said, all right, senator, this is what you should do. this is with respect to multipollutant redgetration. you should tell us what the rule is going to be. you should give us a reason on the time. give us a little bit of flexibility and get out of the way. that's what he said. tell us what the rules going to be. give us a reasonable amount of flexibility. reasonable amount of time and get out of the way. that was 10 years ago. belief is e and my

that e.p.a. is actually not set. these are what the rules are going to be. they said after talking to a lot of stakeholders including utilities, including coal companies, including environmental groups. the e.p.a. says this is what it should be. and doing so basically put out a draft of what they think the rules should be. ask for a lot of response, a lot of input from people around the country. and that's where we are. -- the e.p.a. doesn't mandate what's going to happen. i hope they get input from all kinds of groups including -- nrdc. that would make sense. that would get infrut the utility companies and the coal companies. that would make sense.

i'm glad we have an opportunity here with the administration is proposing. i'm glad that we're going to have an opportunity to provide input to them. delaware and some other states feel the impact of climate change that are taking place to reduce our local power plant carbon emissions. unfortunately, a few statements like us cannot tackle the issue. all states have to have their fair share if they want to take this on. they will take on the largest carboner mies regulationsing to i want to thank our president and for the leadership and for moving forward with this rule. opponents to the rule going to say we have to choose between having a cleaner environment and a stronger economy. i said a million times that is that's a false choice. we have will both. in fact, we've done it time and time again. we know it only costs us money. an action could be devastating

to our economy. atbility office is if biggest risk facing our nation. if we move forward with a clean power plant, however such an important rule, we need the e.p.a. to get it right. we need have a rule that reduces carboner -- carbon emissions and growing our economy. we need a rule that does not losers.ners and i believe the e.p.a. is trying to strike the right balance. god knows it isn't easy. the e.p.a. has developed a proposal that builds on what states are already doing reduced power plant emissions. the e.p.a.'s proposal recognizes that what might work for delaware may not work for california, may not work for

oklahoma or alabama or mississippi or nebraska. but rather your proposal allows each state the flexibility to find the most cost effective way to reduce their own emissions. as my father say, god rest his soul, that sounds like common sense to me. after working for more than a decade on legislative efforts to reduce carbon emissions from power plants, apply the e.p.a.'s decision to set carbon targets that are meaningful, flexibility and feasible. i will continue to listen. listen to us as needed to insure to get this one right. and i look forward to today's discussion and discussions on this rule. welcome and thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> senator sessions followed by senator merkley and then administrator we're going to turn to you. >> thank you, madam chair. economy is

important. i know you know that. we have 55,000 to 50,000. we have unemployment rate among working age population as low as the 1970. it's been declining steadily. and the energy has been a declining prices. we're in the finest things that helped the american economy in recent years. so lower cost energy creates jobs, creates wealth, and every $10 a family has to pay for an electric bill or more for their gasoline bill does weaken the economy. if it is for no benefit or little benefit. so we have to ask that we can reach an accord on a lot of these issues. ms. mccarthy, i don't think there's any doubt about it. hings that are cost effective.

i think they do need to make america a stronger economy. one of the common grounds is nuclear pow we were and we need to consider that more. last month, you talked about our regulatory group. the supreme court said this -- when an agency claims to statue an un long heralded power in an american economy, we usually treat that announcement with a feesh of skepticism. >> we know the congress has never voted especially to regulate co2. and would not vote today if given the opportunity. t through old statutes and interpretations as an official, with the impact and the economy -- forget that. t to

co2 targs for alabama are at a reduction of 27%. but states like arkansas and georgia with 44% rejections are hammered even hard. -- that we th a don't get to vote on. the american people aren't given a voice in soifment want you to know we're concerned about the problem that you're concerned about and try fog make this environment healthy and positive. but we have to ask what is the real world impact on it. we know germany is backing off and considering system of its very green issues. rethey scrapped carbon pack. so i just -- as a man that we need to concern ourselves with. additionally i'm worried about

the nuclear industry. we only have a few plants that are going forward now. the tennessee valley authority which handles most of north alabama. urn your regulations they'll spend billions of dollars to bring that plant online and will get no credit for its whatsoever. and in fact, when they're rule, the impact rule of reduction of emissions occurs, it will be even more burdensome for them. and the fact -- i think it's 10 -- say they have they reduced carbon emissions although e 2005 and i achieve a 44% reduction by

2020, but it will be clearly unfairly impacted by the way you're calculating the nuclear power carbon-free power generation that could occur. so madam president, i'll wrap up and thank you for the opportunity for being here. >> senator, thank you very much. >> thank you for coming and addressing the clean power plan today. there is no question that carbon dioxide is a terrible clue ten having propose impacts. we see it on the ground in oregon in many ways. -- the t with if pine pine beatles. it's not cold enough in went tore kill them off. we see it in terms of our oyster industry that's having great difficult with the reproduction of the oyster. because it was 30% more acidic.

the industrial revolution. certainly see it in the climate basin where the three worst droughts that happened raging an dioxide is assault on our farming. it's right that urn the clean air act we seek to control and reduce this pollutant having such vicious consequences across rule america. so thank you for coming. and addressing the details of the plan. i look forward to the commentary and i look forward to an understanding of how many jobs can be created by addressing noncarbon sources of power. it's clear that already in just the solar world there are twice as many jobs in this world. but fls huge growth potential to power up living wage shops

across the nation. thank you for your testimony today. >> thank you, senator. administrator mccarthy, you've heard from 12 of us. 6 and 6. i >> i thought each of you made your points very well and to the point. so we turn to administrator mccarthy? >> thank you, jim and ranking member vitter and for 2 opportunity to testify today on e.p.a.'s issues recently issued power plant propose safment climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. it already threatens human health and welfare. if left unchecked. it will have a devastating impact. the science is clear, the risks are clear and the high costs of climate in action are clear. we must act. that's why president obama laid out a climate action plan. and why on june 2nd, i signed

the proposed power plant. leave the world in our global climate fight. power plant is a larger source of carbon die ooks side. 1/3 of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions. nitrogen mercury, oxide. and that power can emmit. there is no national limit on carbon pollution levels. the power plant will cut hundreds of millions of tings. from existing power plants. together, these reductions will provide important health benefits to our most vulnerable citizens including our children. it's built on advice and information that we drew out and listened to from cities,

. sinesses and thousands the plans to cut energy waste by doing two things. first, it use as national framework to set achievable state specific goals to cut carbon solution. but second. it empowers hem to chop their own cust miced shot. >> we know that coal and natural gas play a significant role in the energy mix. the plan builds on actions already on the way. to increase efficiency and lower pollution and it peaves for a more certainly path. the e.p.a. stakeholder in public engages in preparation for this rule making what's unprecedented? starting last summer we held 11

public listening sessions. there was a broad range of stakeholders across the country. now the second phase has gun. we've already had dozens of calls an meetings with states and other state holders in the and public hearings next week in atlanta, denver, pittsburg and washington, d.c. >> further opportunity to stakeholders and the general public to provide impocket. >> each day is different. and each pass can be different. the goals spring from snot and -- seasons. under the proposal the states have a flexibilities come plinets path this will allow them to design senses with

their needs including in a transitioning energy world. it allowed them 15 years until compliance with the final target. to consider and make the right investments to insure energy reliability and to avoid stranded. our proposal will result in a 30% less carbon solution from the power sector across the u.s. in comparison to 25. in addition -- by more than 25%. the first year that these standards go into effect will and those deered 100 numbers just go up there there. the cleaned power plant was held benefits of 90 billion. for every dollar we invest families will see $7 in health

benefit. predict that in 2013, average elect triss building will be 8% cheaper. this ses targets and can be achieved by every state using measures they choose themselves to suit their own needs. the e.p.a. looks forward to the discusses of the and i look forward your questions. thank you very much. >> thank you very much administrator. i'll start off. i'm going to respond to a couple of my colleagues. and then i'm going to ask you a question about how the state growth, it's so important in your rule. >> first of all, senator barraza was right on point attacking the nrdc. this is their very -- this is their goal. and see what you think of it. their goal is to "to safeguard

the natural systems on which all life depends. sounds like a terrific goad goal to me and the further the at the t the nrdc had national press club event at 2012. and it is through e.p.a. powered from that. but good for them for putting out some really clever ideas. i think the notion of her taking the lead and the flexibility was very, very smart. and i know that e.p.a. has helped public stakeholder sessions before the rule was ven proposals. then my friend also very eloquently says, you know, the mt. likes unilateral action. no, he's doing what he has to do.

and a quote from christie todd bhitman who headed the e.p.a. >> she said this right here. i have to begin by expressing my straugs about he has the legal authority. to regulate carbon emissions. the issue has been settled she says. e.p.a. does have the authority. the law says so. the supreme court says so twice. i well, i would cede that the complete court acted again in a casilla pregnant. so i don't know why we have to fight about things that have been settled three times by the supreme court. i mean, it's interesting. t i think we shouldn't believe -- now, my question is

the clean air act states that pollution control at its source is the primary responsibility of the state and local government. w does e.p.a.'s controlled uphold this cooperative relationship wean the federal government and state and local government. adding to that -- as you know california has been a globe leader and reducing it is carbon solution afpbled the climate change is driving investments. and improving the state's aurr air quality. >> and i want to make sure under the proposal, my state will be able to continue, it's climate change for wednesday. and -- of the state compliance plan. so if you could expound on the road to states. >> oh, so my state.

>> i'd be happy to you. first of all, let me indicate there is tremendous indicate. and when we met in an unprecedently in our outreach efforts. yes, to the environmental constituents as well. we heard from every one of them. i also read the clean air act. which seens it look at me we're. they can under take to reduce. oh, wow the sflecksibility in the room is not just the fact that we have individual state standards which respected we're where the energy system was in which one of these states, uniquely. but it also provided 15 years until 1828. al

so we're talking about standards being achieved in 2030 so it's a tremendous long time line. ut every state gets to look at what they want for their own fuel diversity. what they want to invest y. and the -- and the great thing about this proposal. this is not about splution control. it's about redutions the masses. it's about investment ps an renewables and clean energy. they have the ability to lower their electricity bills by going fishing, appliances. rental units. this is an investment strategy that will not move the lution. to continue to grow, economy and in every state based on

their own designs. but it also will position us tremendously -- >> continue his effort and get cred for what itself doing. >> we opened it up entirely to individuals. the regional plans. they want to do. if california wants to continue with his very suck setful 6789. it can do so. sbu in the end what wire looking for are the facilities. i can't imagine on how to get. they're doing everything for a long time. and you set the standards based on sign. we'll cheng there for the way that we can. we actually till you to do that. >> well, thank you very much. it appears that the regulatory impact analysis that they're calculated using the

international agency social group carbon estimates. previously i've asked right. they do not include domestic chat. versus just a global so i ask in this question, why did e.p.a. again not include that cole benefit. 102. ard to because. they've done analysis. correct. they arely enjoyed by other countries. well, let me just -- make it -- a couple of comments. i'm happy to answer your question. the cost and benefits associated with this rule are not just benefits in terms of reduced and coco benefits. and they ooh each of them far

xcept the cost of >> i don't want to cut you off ut i have very limited time. . we did exactly what we're and we needed to do for the power -- >> did you a domestic cost benefit? >> it was considered to be not an appropriate way to look at t. >> i also think it's useful to know a domestic and u.s.. representing an analysis. let me ask you about specific things. in reviewing e.p.a.'s calculations in the performance goal we that it appears that e.p.a. include at a capacity

depacktor of 7078%. at least two maybe more natural gas combined, cycle units that are not operational or not fully operational. it's a significant mistake that makes our burden significantly larger. is that going to be corrected? are those mistakes elsewhere in state plans? >> we're open to comment. but we have not in the rule required any state to operate their ngcc at a 70% capacity. and if in fact, we have overestimated the amount of fossil fuel generated in louisiana. it would be a benefit to know that for both the state and us. >> we're certainly going to get that to you. but i just want to know that factor in for the louisiana plan or just facts that aren't

there? >> that would be a benefit -- >> i'm also concerned because louisiana has some major significant job producing industrial projects coming online in the next five to 10 years in particular. so that's going to dramatically increase electricity demand. did e.p.a. factor in stateer miss target? that sort of economic growth and load growth. did it only factor in state emissions target and reduce growth? >> actually it does. the reason why we took this comprehensive approach instead of within the fence line look at each facility is making sure that states have their flexibility to design their plants for this reason. you will be able to grow -- >> what demand growth did you

build in? because again, we don't have average demand growth or we don't have growth that we're experiencing now as a nation which is very low. we have major industrial projects coming online. so is that specifically factored in in? >> it is certainly considered economic growth -- what's considered when we look at energy prices and we look at the challenges associated with keeping the man down. >> i don't believe that -- i really can't answer the question in terms of the way you're posing it, senator because clearly the economy is going to continue to grow. what we looked at is what efforts can we accommodate for states to take credit for to keep that energy demand down. we believe that they were asking to factor it. >> i'm talking about huge

louisiana specific industrial projects that require major load growth and what i'm hearing is that wasn't factored into the l.a. plan and that's a big problem. >> well, we're happy to take a look at it. as i'm sure you're aware this is about national impacts in the i.r.a. that were designed and developed. we're going to continue to analyze that. but the most important thing is to look at this data, make sewer that we have it. and the e.p.a. works very hard to make sure we get this right. >> ok. e will turn to senator mccarthy. >> as i indicated in my opening statement, thank you for your leadership in the issue and thank you for following the law and thank you for giving adequate time for comment which i think is important. we want to get this right and the comment period is extremely important.

>> -- i want to talk about a state like maryland. maryland has taken steps over the years to try and reduce its carbon footprint. our utilities have been cooperative and made earths to reduce emissions. they've done that by making significant informsments. it's been very positive to our environment. but as i mentioned previously we are down from a lot of carbon emissions. so we could only a certain amount and therefore it's crit ically important that all state doss their share for the united states to make the type of impact that we need make. i noted in my opening comments that you've given flexibility and you've allowed the state to come up with a plan that they believe is best for their state. in maryland's case we are part of reggie. with our ave worked

regional partners to get plans that could benefit the entire require. >> could you discuss about the states that have already made progress and have joined with regional partners? somehow that dwelt in the proposed ree regulation? and we actually allow the flexibility to go it alone or to join other states and we do recognize the regional greenhouse gas initiative. we also developed an economic analysis that took a look at going -effectivelyness at it on their own. witness stand have also provided important implementation flexibility so there's a longer window of

opportunity to develop plans. which can take a little bit longer than develop and implement. and so we're trying to give states flexibility to continue with the programs they have, which has been veryer ticketive and has shown leadership or to develop programs as they see fit. we want that value to continue to be basically available to everybody and perhaps expanded. >> so when you have -- snabing states that have have made progress in reducing their carbon footprint, that is allocated to their individual target. turned roll. is that how it works? how's that? >> yeah, we have independence capetted that if states -- let me give you an example, program one of the -- and if states are using renewable as a way to ship to a lower comeen source.

we they can build na their home state and i'm not going to take credit for that. so we are accommodating aning system that allowed regional approaches to be rebust. if you want to do one in your own state? that's fine too. >> states have many choices an we're trying to work with them individually which we continue to meet with them regionally. to explain how they work and how these different can an they're staying in a way that they will think is most important. >> flexibility issue, the states have pretty much carte blanche as to how they achieve their balances. >> that's right. >> you mentioned improvements to the power plant itself. what are the parameters in which the states can operate. >> the only obligation that the

states have under this rule is goals. ve those >> so we have based alaska in time. per mega watt hour. at those fossil fuel estimates. so you have a weament of opportunity. you can't use a traditional approach. and you can seat splution requirement. we do that. that's easy to do. or you can use a different approach in which you actually calculate renewables and you look at the energy efficient program. and then you calculate what you're admitting at those facilities and you see whether -- >> i just want to comment this is to me what federalism is all about. in cha we'll get states that will make progress in a very cost effect -- and we will get

the most cost effective way to reduce the emotions. i thank you for the leadership and for the leadership that you've given our states in recognizing our states can come up in creative ways to deal with this problem. >> thank you. i think a lot of people aritying about what reggie's done and i know the western government -- governors work together. >> we've got to move forward. >> senator wicker. >> of theld a proclamation project. frequently asked questions of petitionl warming project, four pains and ask that inserted into the record. i would read a portion of the 31,487n signed by some american scientists, over 9,000

phd's. have the proposal limits on green house gases would harm the environment. hinder the advance of science not and there is no convincing scientific evidence of carbon release dioxide, methane or other gases is causing or will cause in the foreseeable future catastrophic heating of earth's atmosphere. more over, there's substantial thattific evidence increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produced many beneficial effects on the natural earth.ment of the i say this in response to the continued drum beat from the side of the aisle that the science is over with, it's been decided and everyone who