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 disagrees is somehow some sort

of a quack. to some 31,487 american scientists who have signed this is not settled themce, and i appreciate being a contrary voice to get us.pier review facts before i would also point out, and i asked my first question about madam administrator, the attorney general of west lastnia recently wrote month, and requested the withdrawal of the rule. he says e.p.a. lax the legal authority to adopt it. may have been witnesses before this committee in reason days saying that e.p.a. unquestionably has the authority to propose such a the attorney general of west virginia disagrees, and out this, he says that section 111d act

prohibits e.p.a. from regulating polluted and existing source category which is the nationaler emission regime of section 112 act.e clean air so second hundred 111d says if regulated under 112, you can't regular it it any other way. e.p.a. has imposed extentive regulations on cole fired power plants under section 112. is that correct. that the framing of the legal argument is incorrect, senator. this.l, let me ask you i'm not asking you for that. i'm asking you, does e.p.a. regulations on existing coal fired power plant under 112?on >> we certainly do. >> thank you for that. so based on that, madam chair the committee, the attorney general much west virginia says having been thelated under section 112, e.p.a. lacks the legal authority

to further regulate these emissions under section 111d. let me ask you this also. is fleeting, ms. mccarthy. iterou tell senator have that -- benefitthat your cost analysis was done entirely on a and was not -- >> no. >> please correct my understanding. >> the senator i think was me, and this is what i answered, as to whether or not of carbon cost benefits are looked at as benefit that are solely gained domestically or whether they are based on global benefits. >> so perhaps i did misunderstand it. you conducted a cost benefit correct? is that >> yes. >> and this was, was this conducted on a state by state

basis? >> no, it was a national analysis. here sir is we've given so much state flexibility illustrated,nly be because it really is going to be up to the individual states how their strategies to achieve these reductions. >> so you didn't do it on a regional basis. >> we did the analysis of -- we canrstanding is and follow up with more specifics, it looks at, national impacts. although over time we'll get more specific. >> my type is expired. may submit a question for the record to you with regard to the two projectss of that mississippi has under taken recent federal regulations, these projects will have to be completely shut down under your proposed rule. >> i'll be happy to look at that sir, stranded asset is an

important issue. >> thank you, senator. senator white house. much.nk you very thank you for your excellent work. carry on. respect to my colleague's point that science is settled i, this i'm afraid to say think he's just factually wrong. not justnk that it's me who thinks the science is noaa thinks the science is settled, nasa thinks settled, ands they've got rovers driving around on mars right now, they know a little something about science. the u.s. navy thinks the science is settled. our pacific channel says climate change will be the biggest threat we face in the pacific. every major american scientific society thinks that the science settled. the property casualty insurance and reinsurance company, which ofs hundreds of billions

dollars on this thinks the science is settled. there is an, what i would call an eccentric fringe that to deny, and nay are views.d to have their but we as responsible members of congress should not be basing public policy on eccentric fringe views. even are views that don't hold traction with young republican voters. young republican voters under of 35 think the climate denial is and these are the not mine, ignorant, out of touch, or crazy. what youngs republican voters think about this, then i really don't think this dispute here is very productive. ms. mccarthy,, this proposal has been built unprecedented outreach by you and by the environmental protection agency

utilities, involving republican elected officials, array of a whole wide holders. how prominent in your conversations outside of the states capital is this outright denial that climate change is real argument? >> it is not a prominent issue. to many, manye states and there is a vast each state over the changes in the climate they're already seeing. talking aboutr projections of change. we're talking about adapting to the change that's already happening. and the devastation that that is causing. very, there's very little doubt, that i see and experience. really is right now on the table, what do we do about it. we actually meet our responsibility and take action? or do we not?

rule we took very much to heart the fact that when arguingilities were not the science, but instead arguing thought it, that we was prudent to look at what the science told us in terms of availability, tocticality and cost, and say where the target should be and allow each state to get at thoughtget the way they was best for their individual state. this is the most respectful rule level that i have ever been involved in, either as that rule or as a designer, in terms of recognizing the leadership of states and allowing them to continue the lead. too was down in florida not long ago, touring the coast, rise isa level something you measure with a yard stick. understanding. i met with the republican mayor

of monroe county who has developed her own climate change task force, they are concerned means,hat sea level rise particularry to the keys. so in your persons, again, outside of building, and outside of the influence in washington that polluters there, when you're out there as a part of your outreach this republican mayor and monroe county would not be an outlier among republicans in your experience. >> no, not at all. republicans and democrats that i come across are worry about climate change and the impacts. they have kids that have asthma. thathave properties they're worried about from drought, from fire. and they want us to take action. >> last quick question, is extreme weather, high wind and storms, associated with climate change?

>> yes. >> and how do extreme, high do on terms ofs the electricity grid? >> it's very challenging. dealing with climate change is a reason why you would to invest innue electricity and in infrastructure that supports it. question owe. >> even if we're only interested evenectric grid liability, if you only interested in electric tbrid liability, you should still have a concern climate change? >> absolutely. funny is had people ask me about the pole polar vortex, some of it pose it like a reason not to take action. it is tweak the reason we have to take action. chairman.ou, >> thank you, senator. we turn to senator fisher. madam chair, again, and thank you administrators for being here. these are very complicated and i'd like to bring the focus back to those issues. that is a bition

long. you'll the weeds, i hope bear with me on it. i'm going to read to it you so i get all the facts in here correct, as i pose it to you. two, theng block e.p.a. assumes that gas plants tol run far more in order run coal fired plants far less. heat ratereduce the efficiency of coal fired plant onrunning any plant less and an enter mit ent bases wades reduces efficiency. i think an analogy, this is the equivalent of drivingg a car in city where it's stop and go, which reduces the efficiency in the form of miles per gallon as a constant rate on highway driving. when what this means is that two, which calls for running coal fired plants with is directly at odds

building block one. so block one and two are in other.ion with each you can't run both coal plant and gas plans more and then turn around and argue that the heat rate of coal plant should be improved. consider that.a. the amount of switching to natural gas effectively required this rule would require coal operate less, to thus driving up heat rates? wouldthink that obliterate any rate improvement we could see at these unit. >> let me give a lit lil bit of an ects plpation, and i dop want too much of your type. but the billion blocks were really opportunities, affordable to reduce carbon emissions that went into the standards.the state anyone of them are requirements. they are not requirements.

can come fly with those standards in any way they so if state are heavily invested in renewables and they piking units done in a way that's much more intermittent capacity rate, they can simply not do. that none of these are requirements. of them. do none but they actually were our analysis of what we thought were affordable steps that could be taken to get the something more efficient and to shift to cleaner sources. so states can use whatever creative approach they want to as look as they're getting at the reductions in those fossil fuel plants that are required. >> you've talked a lot about flexibility. the flexibility for the states. i think that that flexible solution in effect is going to plants, because if you're going to avoid that don flick between that bucket bucket two, it's going for thefor improvements

coal plants with bucket one. two, you'recket less.to run at so how does that make it more flexible? there ishe conflict just going to mean the retirement of these coal plants. you an example. i know that the state of west virginia was mentioned. if you look at the state standard for west virginia, the state standard is not enormously aggressive. in fact many have questioned why it isn't more aggressive. -- what it says is that we actually looked at the fact heavily dependent on coal, and their answer may be to maket in that coal it more efficient moving forward. cole inysis shows that 2012 actually generated about

electricity. what we're projecting is in 2030 31%.s going to be so it will remain. coal states will invest in coal, they will most of thenot take advantage shifting to lower sources and they won't need to. muchhave just a few second my concern is that it just effectively shuts down plants. on another touch issue quickly. hi the opportunity earlier this dinner with my colleagues on both side of the with somemet officials with the department of defense, we talked about national security, we talked about global security, and the need that we need for that global security especially in europe, with regards to the moves of russia, and our nato allies what they gas.there with natural how are we going to address not

national security but global security, when we have natural gas?ut on >> if you can make your brief, wes really have a vote started. my goal was to try to get everybody in prior to. to do it if wee stick to the time, so can you speak briefly to that, and then going to -- veryain, this is a consistent strategy, this is what the president's all of the above energy policy. it does not set specific limits fuel, it expects all fuels to be operated at signature levels, but it will a manufacture efficient energy supply system and it harmful carp the bond plowtion. >> hope youfully we can work on that. thank you very much. some idea ofve us what percentage of electricity

nuclear ind about i this country today? is it not 20%? is.ink it any idea of what percent of zero jepperred by nuclear in our country today? >> zero. >> what percentage of the that has zero emission is generated by zero.r, it's not it's got to be closer to 350%. 50%. my staff and i have her concerns that e.p.a. does not treat all sameemitting resources the in your proposal. and specifically we're starting to hear that nuke rear energy could be disadvantaged by this rule because of specific benefits that renewables joan i. some plantss that

nay be forced to chose down bought of the way the rule is structured. you and i have talked in the i believe nuclear and that it has to be part of the mix if we're going to meet our climate goals. make sure we're on the same pinch, do you believe that be on annergy should equal footing as renewable their to help state meet car gone goals set in this proposals? that's the first part of any question. second, have you her similar concerns from the nuclear industry? can you tell us what you believe crux of the problem and the proposal and to commit today issue.lving this >> sure. first of all, as you indicated, is a zeroergy emitting carbon energy generating technology. and for that reason, we have actually gone to great lengths proposal to make sure that states are aware of that, and that nuclear energy is

into the standard setting process. we've all the called atension to there are some nuclear facilities that seem to be on the fence, as to whether not they're competitive today in a way that would allow them through the relicensing process and make that process worth it, if you will. so we have been highlighting that issue in this proposal and encouraging states to really pay attention to this. because the replacement of a capacity unit that is zero carbon emission, emitting, significant challenge for states who are right now relying on those nuclear facilities. have heard that maybe we didn't go far enough or we went too far. listening to those comments, because we have heard them. >> okay, thank you. now to proposals released beyond the nuclear concerns. have you heard feedback from

industry and states that you are valid concerns? is there any positive feedback to share with us today? >> i think a lot of the comments that we're hearing are valid. we need to look at them, some of them are whether or not understood certain state circumstances or whether or not the framing of the rule is as good as it should be. we've heard from leadership states that we didn't give them enough credit for their leadership. stateseard from other that were given too much credit. so there's a lot of valid here, and we're going to pay attention to each and every one of them. great head we got a start with this proposal. because of the listening we did put pen to paper, it gave us a tremendous opportunity to pout out a i think for all intents and purposes has been very well received. know that state and utilities are rolling up their sleeves, trying to see whether

workt they can make this and how they can make it work to utilities,tage and and we'll keep working with them every step of the way. thought.ing a huge economic opportunity here. an economice's opportunity in diesel emission reductions to cray jobs, just as an opportunity in arecing emissionings, there similar opportunity here. who ever can figure out how to safely smartly reduce the emissions from these coal fired plants, we're off to races. so thank you very much. >> thank you. >> let me tell you what's happening. the floor has said if we got there 11:25 we'd be okay.

but i think what we're going to hear from the senator, is if it okay with everybody, we'll break and then come back, who can because i know senator markey will get extra time because he this, he missed the opening statement, and senator brasso wants to have another i would love to have another round. so we'll come back. but we're going to end this on a very high note with my good friend, the for from oklahoma. you want to go ahead and oh go on over there, a tell you on the floor what i said. >> we don't want to miss it. >> there we go. all right, there has been a lot to what your as authority is to do some of these things that are perceived to be done. let's just suppose that say state, say oklahoma, does not submit a state plan and you develop a plan for the state. how could you develop that rule

using only existing authorities? authorities, can you currently require a state to gas dispatch at 70% of capacity? way ahead ofou're me much those are considerations that aren't even on the table right now. looking ate're proposing a rule, and i have work hopes that we'll effectively -- >> i'm talking about existing authorities today. under your authority today, do something like that? this rule were passed. >> okay, that's fine. no then.r would be under the existing authority do a state toly require reduce electricity demand by 1.5%. under current authority. >> no, sir. existing authority, could you currently mandate the use of renewables in a state? >> we do not.

>> okay. now, let's say that a state does submit a plan and their renewable portfolio standard does apply. i would ask you if you could it.rce >> actually, sir, we wouldn't be requiring any of those things here. we're requiring is a certain level of carbon dioxide electricityom generated by fossil fuels. would beat e.p.a. requiring and mandating. how the states get there is choice.y their >> well, all right. but so you're saying that under theent law and policies e.p.a. couldn't enforce a state renewable portfolio standard, under the esps rule they may be able to. that accurate? >> i'm not -- that is one of the issues that e.b.a. oftencause has things in state plans, some enforce, some much which we don't. >> under current law, you may be

able to under the esps -- >> actually the one certainty i be able tot we will enforce the amount of carbon fossil fuel facilities, if this rule goes as proposed. >> what i'm trying to get to would be a broad expansion of the authority of the e.p.a.s over states that has a broad political imexpak oh could reshape the entire sector of the economy. isn't that what the supreme against in the uarg case? the expansion of authority that you would be having. >> actually i don't think that the supreme court indicated that expanding our authority. in that case. but sir, the questions have been about what we do with plans and what's included and how that can be implemented, and we're working through those issues with the states. but all e.p.a. is doing here is pollution from sources that --

that we regulate. to interrupt, but you are proposing a rule that you don have the authority to today. >> no, i believe we have clear authority to do the rule as we've proposed it. the'm talking about authority you had under the current system. expanding think we're our authority with this rule, sir, no. >> well, it appears to me that are. but in the short period of time let me try to get this other way. out of the from what i understand, the e.p.a. relied on an academic e.i.a. study, that about 6% of the nuclear fleet is at risk of down.ng then the e.p.a. made an ajustment to the rule to help out the nuclear plants accordingly. now, the ferc has authority under power crises, power reliability, power transmission, didquestion i'd ask you, the e.p.a. talk to anyone at ferc about the adjustment of

whether the rule would actually men nuclear mants. in other words, help these 6% that we have found are going to have problems. >> actually i don't know what direct conversation e.p.a. might had with ferco. i know that our staff was working very closely with them, d.o.e. in particular in terms of our administrative actions. but -- >> okay, i know there's no way that you can tell me today or tell this committee what your do.f wants to but you personal did talk to issues.about these >> with actually meeting with -- >> i'm talking about you personally. meetings with had the commissioners and with -- >> on this subject. thank you very much. >> so we're going to recess briefly, come back, and zero time left on the clock, so i'm when we come back we're going to have senator

up.ey open it barasso.senator thank you. we'll take a brief respite. we are now going to turn to our newest member, who i am so our committee, senator ed markey. minutes.six >> thank you. toinistrator mccarthy, just

clarify, you have the authority, is that not correct, under the a carbon act to set pollution standard for power plants, is that correct? correct.s >> now, when you were developing lookedte targets, you afour different types of actions. but a state does not have to follow these exactly. a state can figure out the best their assessment to reach tigers -- reduction targets. >> that is correct. >> so you have 50 states, have you 50 different approaches. >> that's right. may.es we >> but we're not in a position to tell them what to do, they decision.ke the >> that's right. you anotherk question. a lot of times you hear from people saying that it really hurts the economy of the united clean airn there is a

law that goes on the books, that too dangerous to run the risk of trying to make the air cleaner, to reduce the number of people who get sick, to reduce the number of people mo die from dirty air. and they say pretty much the air enough, don't make it any cleaner, but we're seeing this huge increase in the number don't die or don't get sick because of the clean air act. so what i have over my is a chart from 1929 to reflects the growth in the g.d.p. of the united states of america that the 1970, 1977 and 1990 clean air acts, and with the exception of a period of around and 2009 when there was a complete failure of regulation industry, we've seen upward g.d.p. growth.

aboutu talk a little that, the connection between this clean air journey that we've within on and the growth in g.d.p. we have tochase make? >> i think chairman boxer e oh consequently stated the kind of g.d.p. growth we've seen while we've than able to significantly reduce air pollution. basically over 70% reduction in air pollution under the clean air act. so every time we put a new rule that is what we often, i'm see fromat we always some small groups, but it really has never come true. we don't expect that this will have an impact jobs grow,to have the economy to grow, the u.s. to toome under stable, the u.s. take change of have you neck nothings, i novation and that will make us stronger over time. sayo i just would like to

that, and senator white house is part of this, we've been in this the in massachusetts for last six or seven years, and something quite remarkable has now happened. massachusetts i now fourth in solar deployment in the united states. perfectlynot the sunny state, we're more lick the perfect storm state, put we'll forward on the on that front. we've created 80,000 clean massachusetts, 10,000.ed another while electricity rates have gone up 13% over the last six years, actually gone down in assachusetts by 6%, eve than we've in a system that's not too dissimilar from the one that pounding for the whole country. and eve wean say 23% expansion in the massachusetts economy, we'll we've had a trade system in place in massachusetts. so i just think it important for

that the understand models are already there, it can be made to work, it's degreesible. but it does in fact have a lot of evidence that shows that it be done. staterstand that some will vr surpassed the renewable levels builttion into the state targets. are you considering building into the state targets, where the states can or already going further in the levels assumed in the proposals. all commentoking at that we received. we have a long comment tedder, days. we are looking forward to four public hearings next week. to thosebe listening and making appropriate changes one way for the other. >> and following on the massachusetts model, isn't it very possible that the proposed rules that you're considering

loweringd up electricity it a for people all across the country. think to some people that's contradictory from the way they issue.bout the but we've seen in pass what happened much talk about nationally what you could expect seen by consumers. >> we're projecting that consumers will see a lowering of bills and that'ss because we're getting waste out of the system. and that's the cheapest way to been these reductions is to efficient. >> in massachusetts we have awe funny accent and we just say smarter, notg harder. so explain the angle.ncy >> there's two ways -- >> do this as fast as you can, with your accent. >> okay. there's two ways to get reductions at fossil fuel facility in terms of the pollution they emitment you can themhem ladies or make more efficient when they run.

no both of those are part of the billion blocks here. so you can that by increasing facilities at the facility, also by consumerrers and many will income consumers, support codes, building today weatherizing mouses. more efficient appliances they why. when those things happen, their dollars go down in terms of how need to spend every month. >> i think your plan is smart, and it'sective, ultimately going to be cost effective. thank you. >> you mine smart. okay, we're going to turn to barasso. >> mismccarthy, why did you let high powered washington lobbyists with the national resources defense council reach essentially.a. and write your climate change rules for you? >> i did not. >> welsh not according to the nrdc, they had a blg on july 8, and i'd like to have the into the record, it

nay where, the "new york times" ran a very nice about the.terday in r. d. c.'s proposal for car month pollution for go onto sayn they we're prouded to have played a role. they're proud of what they wrote. are you going to attend u. n. change conference in paris 2015 as your predecessor did when she attended the client change conference in 2009. >> i have not made a decision on that, senator. the president's climate stream is to have us believe that he and his and diplomatic all-star team can arrive in paris in 2015 at the u. n. climate change kps and convince the world to follow his lead. plan hinges on president obama foreign policy prow west.

porn cold record is a series miscalculations, lee from behind failures in syria, libya and iraq. after all those miss steps he in 2015 to believe that he and his team can demand that would stopndia burning fossil fuelses. if the president was able to reach an grate, it would have be ratified in the senate. we're going to be left with his domestic climate action throughs your rules for new and existing coal fired power plants. stateing to secretary of kerry in i column he wrote last month, he said even as we strive do better, we recognize that no describe with solve this

problem alone. even if the u.s. eliminated all e makeses, it gas would still not be enough. the rest of of the world is spewing too much carbon pollution. that means the president's whiche action plan, included the e.p.a.'s rules, do not produce global temperatures or prevent any of the sear just impacts that are predicted by the u. n. a department. so the question is can you guarantee success in paris? and around these climate change policies all paying for america and the citizens of this and little gain globally? what know know about this role is that it will leave standards with a more efficient energy supply system energye jobs and clean which are the jobs of the future. so no water what ispens internationally, this of scigz benefit to the united states.

>> so you admit that it has no global climate. impact on global climate though, you admit that, you do. anything withid how this will impact global climate. >> just a moment. a minute.freeze for i don't think we should be putting word in anybody's mouth. never said what you said she said. so can you just refine what you said? in other word, you take from her response something, it's just not right. madam chair. take from your response and from secretary of state's comments matter that these proposals that you are putting onth will have no impact global climate, as a result of the failure of others to corroborate as sent of state has stated. but this can't be some rich person's gamble, in has a really people.n

we're anding coal miners, seniors on fixed incomes, suffers and children who higher length tripping bills and the unemployed to make this expensive 'bed that you're putting forward, and i have problems with doing that to around the country because some rich lobbyists and powerful lawyers in washington are now reaching into the e.p.a. to right their regulations. countries around the wold are already abandoning fossil fuel forcies because of the need affordable energy. we're seeing it in australia, just repealednt their carbon tax. the associated press last week the australian prime minister who says a useless destructive tax which damaged hurt families cost of living and which didn't environment. the why aren't we following his lead? action is, climate in what threatens our seniors and

our kids, that's what's our communities today and that's what's threatening threatening the viability of the the future. so -- going to --s >> if you want to stay for another round of questions you may, please stay if you want. i would like to ask unanimous con send to place into the record two documents. poll just recently taken that shows that 70% of the your plan.ort so not with tanning the fact that other senators say that are defending the people, you're defending the people in my opinion. put iny, i also want to the statement made by william ruggleshouse who appeared before this committee, who worked for reagan, nixon, and quote, we like to speak of american exceptionalism. be trulyt to exceptional then we should begin the difficult task of leading theworld away from

unacceptable effectings of our fossiling appetites for fuel before it too late. and i'd like these two to go back to back with senator barrasso's. we're going to turn to senator jill e brand, and then we'll i will close, so i'll withhold and we'll go to senator and senator markey. >> thank you, madam chair woman. am so grateful for administrative mccarthy for here. climate change is one of the biggest crises we face, and the destruction after super storm sandy, it is costly, butremely people are losing their lies because we are not acting fation or bold enough. to do more, we have to do better. the cost of enormous, we can continue or try to pay for or weer after disaster,

can make really smart especially fosterto reduce pollution and foster more not.ced tech so is there a perk of success here that we have to grab a hold of. i think with your leadership we will achieve that goal. member oftate is a the green house gas initiative, you're familiar with it. today the emissions are 40% lower in 2005. it's projected to produce 1.6 billion in net economic myefit, which i wish colleague was still hear to hear these numbers. jis.is economic en # that's a huge success. so from your experience, can how can other states use the reggie example to implement

a successful program to cut green house gas e moitions, and can other states and regions type of benefit as we've seen in new york as a program. our >> i'm proud of the work of the green house initiative in all i think its because was designed to take the waste out of the system and continue to bro the economy much those are great, senator, thanks. the individual states can develop their own plans or they join otherly regional approaches like the regional green house gas initiative. provided information as to why that's inexpensive, why that's a good thing to do and an opportunity for them to have additional time if that's what they so chase. importantk the most thing for the leadership states moving out in front is that there areown us that cost effective practical ways in which you can make this work significantly to address climate change and to grow the economy. it, but not hurt actually provide an impetus for

basis. that has been the of this determination of reduction. the leadership states, frankly states, but reggie all across the united states we're seeing states show tremendous leadership. we just want every state to come to the table and look at the theythings and see how design it with the same idea of success in mind. werehad read that there challenges when other regions have tried to do this. were fraud that undermined the results. can you talk with why they were and why they weren't, and how do we expand this across we everes and should have a national reggie? >> i think we learned from some directly, and i think we also learned from a lot of the work that congress did in design a cap and trade program for the u.s., those are things that you learn from and mistakes.repeat so i think we very well

understood how we could make sure that the reductions we were trying to achieve were verifiable. accountable. we could do it in a way that provided the flexibility to thatnvestments and things were actually going to be beneficial economically. like energy efficiency. the best designs of reggie is that money was actually going to support the kind of programs that are going to lower costs for individual consumers. energy costur savings are mazing. so how can you, in your position, urge over governors, other states, other regions to try to adopt this and be successful as well? what tools do you have, what help do you need from us? expand this? >> i think we're just trying to make sure that there's a table every state to look at these issues and to work together. i don't think e.p.a. is trying this point, nor should we meetstates how they should these goals.

we're trying to provide them an opportunity to get as much technical information as they can, to look at all the options available to them if they want our help doing that. been having meetings that bring energy and environmental regulators so they in every state, can understand how they can design the strategy that works for them. most important thing for me is that they roll up their sleeves and start working, isause action right now essential. >> so we talked about all the cost savings. there is also obviously the health benefit that we can from these types of reforms. can you talk a little about some of the health benefits we can from the implementation of the new clean power plant proposed rule? can.certainly the health benefits in this rule are actually quite large. reducing carbon pollution, you actually have an opportunity to keep temperatures from more -- zone from being formed, which asthmaresults in more

attacks. but this rule also is going to particulatereducing emissions, so2 emissions, look atemissions, as we the regional, the r.i.a. that was developed. to name a few things, we're actually avoiding 2700 premature in 2030, up to 6600 premature deaths. just inlking already 2020 reducing more than 100,000 asthma attacks in our kids. u.s., one out of 10 kids .ace asthma you worry about minorities, you worry about those on the front climate, changing those numbers matter. >> senator, thank you. sessionings. >> thank you. ms. mccarthy, the supreme court statement that when an e.p.a., claims to discover in a long ebbs tanlt

statute an unheralded power to regulate a significant portion economy, wecan typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism. what the american people need to know is that you have not statutory explicit power to do what you're doing, by a 5-4 ruling some years ago by the supreme it ought to be viewed with skepticism. american people run this country. run this country. each p.a. does not run this country. you are accountable to the the west interest of this entire nation. the congress will never approve this and that's face. the problems you the e.p.a. has proposed emission that wouldma'am require 27% reduction in the rate of co2 emissionings relative to 2012 level police. it reaches the target by

is technicallyt feasible for alabama to retire 10 million megabought hours of coal fired generation capacity, which is significant. increased natural gas generation by an equivalent amount, generate over 14 million megawalt hours from renewables, as preserve existing nuclear capacity, not an increase. so first, you've been talking about consulting. did e.p.a. consult with the state of alabama about those assumptions? achievable assumptions. >> we have been working with both the energy and environmental regulators in every state. specifically you whether or not we've had individual meetings with the folks from alabama. certainly check and get back to you. >> i don't think you've been orl that accurately completely with them on these

assumptions. a hugere talking about 14 million megawalt hours from renewables. >> senator, i am not sure about those numbers, so i'm more than them.to go through >> would you promptly respond to an inquiry from a question from me on those? will.course i >> thank you. the section s11d at proposed rule that's been extremehere, references weather. six times at least. and claims projections have increased severity hurricanes and tornadoes. do you have any doubt that you can show this community to can expect an we increased number and severity of tornadoes?and new am well aware that the national assessment indicates that we should be expecting more intense storms, more heavy

precipitation. there is, i don't believe any assumption made about the at thisy of hurricanes point. but certainly the severity and of those storms is expected to increase. days it'sw how many been since the united states has had a category 3 hurricane? not have that sir --tion but, >> it's 3200 takes. that's almost 10 years. we haven't had a category 3 hurricane. i don't remember when frederick my town of mo beam. 10 years before that we had a 5.le, which was frederick i think was 3. increased,ot having the data is clear on that. ourou're asking us to alter policies economically at great cost and one of the base tess of charges the increased stars

allwe're not seeing them is i'm saying. it may happen, i don't know. i don't believe you have a basis to, and i'd like to see any science you have position. that finally, you suggest that by in youru predict written statement here, quote, forage electric bills american families will be 8% .heaper as i understand it, you assume that we'll have a 1.5% energy every singlecrease year during that decade. and where as the average today i .5%.stand is are you confident? so how can you have confidence that that will occur? that we would have an actual cost of electricity for americans much. >> sir, we feel pretty confident that the data indicates that

thegyish en sit is one of least expensive ways of reducing carbon pollution. totally agree that energy efficiency is a bipartisan issue. that if you say maintain that and don't do the wouldthings, we might, we have a much lower cost of electricity. >> thank you snorks. , senator. >> thank you very much, madam chair. free friend senator sessions was pulled up aer to from the birmingham news. it's two years old, it's from august, 2012. and at the time, about a guy named bart who was only one of residential customers of lamb power who are telling solar back to grid.

the story goes on, across the country and across the globe, spreading,y is spurred by falling polices for equipment, environmental sensitivity and generous incentives from governments and utilities. drive across the border to tennessee and solar arrays are sprouting the fields. georgia, the first large scale line development came on this summer, with planned future projects expected to boost that generation by 2015. policeman finishes at or near in solar surveys. so it would seem there might be there --ntial >> it would be great if we could it work. but the experts tell us because of our cloud cover we're not thely as efficients most of states further west mo have very sunshine and it's not effective. seeell, we'll certainly about that and certainly the costs are coming down.

theoncern is that when alternative to solar is to burn there are costs to that that the rest of us have to bear that decision anywhere. accountant and you're doing the books for a business, you've got to look at two sides of the lentor. the costs are,t and you look at what the income is and then you get to a bottom line. and a lot what my colleagues have been saying during this believe has only looked at one side the ledger. specifically the narrow side of thelentor that relates to costs to the coal industry. if the most important goal in this exercise was to make sure running. plants kept i think that e.p.a. has tried to the ledger. side of looked at costs and looked at

benefit. and on a net basis, when you for the do accounting cost of this looking at both side of the ledger and not just what do youview, get as your net assessment of whether this is going to be good or bad for our economy and people. >> in 2030 it's a net benefit of somewhere between 48 billion and $84 billion. >> between 48 billion with a b and 84 billion -- >> that's correct. >> per? year.t's per >> so in that year. so in that time perfect presumably we'll have added up than that over time. check.ll double >> but that would be the minimum obviously. >> yes. number get is a lot doing it you're annually. there's a positive net benefit. >> very if so. the appreciate very much concern of my colleagues here.

that senator barrasso is representing the state of stateg, i know that the of wouldn't has a significant coal economy. i believe that a billion dollars state ofvenues of the wyoming come in to its kawfers its fossil fuel industry. so if there's going to be an interruption of that, then senator barrasso has every reason to be concerned and has reason to expect the rest of us to listen to his concerns to work with him to help those concerns. what i can't have is to have a in which coning gets no concerns ventilated, has interest whatsoever in what's happening in rhode island. kids with ozone, problems, we have the

sea level rise why our winter fisheries are preab practically gone the evidence appears to be from the estimate, that we've seen that connecticut and new york to massachusetts are going lose there, so if they lose theirs it's unlikely rhode sanctuary ofe a snow down there south of them. so we've got real costs on our hope that you will are in mind that there costs on both side of this ledger and i contend that the leneron our side of the ofually outweigh the costs the other side of the lentor by a lot of. >> those were >> the net benefits are tremendous but do not far and

away capture all the benefits that we will achieve by addressing and stepping up on climate. >> if there is that kind of benefit that we could find a way through the politics of this body to deliver some of that benefits back to the states of west virginia and wyoming to balance what is going on here but we can't do that if they pretend this problem isn't real, that the other side of the ledger doesn't exist, if they continue this pretebs that coal isn't harming people around the country as well as benefiting people in their states. >> thank you very much for your contribution. i see senator sanders here. i am going to do my round and then turn the gavel to senator sanders. now, senator sessions told you that you don't think you run

america. do you think you're running america. >> i'm not taking the blame. >> let the record show you don't think you're running america. >> are you implementing the clean air act? >> yes. >> was there an endangerment finding that said that too much carbon pollution is a danger? >> yes. >> can you sum rise for us the major dangers? >> the major dangers identified in the endangerment finding were the dangers related to increased temperature, increased floods, increased droughts, disease that is related to this, heat strokes, there are a number of impacts associated with a changing climate. >> isn't this your job?

>> yes. >> for all the bluster on the other side about how what administer mccarthy is doing, people don't believe it. 70% of the people side with the e.p.a. and let me just read the groups that support e.p.a. carbon pollution standards. and what i want to say to everyone in the audience, i want you to think when i mention these names who do these people really fight for? ok? the alliance of nurses for healthy environments, the american academy of pediatrics, the american lung association, the american medical association, the american public health association, the american thorsic society, the asthma and allergy foundation of america, chicago physicians for social responsibility, the cleveland clinic asthma center, health care without harm, national association of county

and city health officials, national hispanic medical association, national medical association, national nurses united trust for america's health. unanimous consent to put this into the record. i think if everyone listened to this they would say they represent the american people, the children, our families, so that is very, very key. and i also would like to note i'm sorry senator sessions had to leave, that hurricane katrina in 2005 cost taxpayers $125 billion and hurricane sandy as senator sanders has said cost $60 billion. now, i think this whole country lived through those disasters and we want to mitigate those disasters. and that's what your rule is all about. lastly, i want to make a point for my colleagues -- my

colleagues, i want to make a point. this is my point. and i think this gets overlooked and i want it because my colleagues are so informed on this. i just think this is one other huge piece of information that is rather new to the debate. der this proposal in 30e air pollution benefits not carbon put that aside. the other pollution benefits will total $62 billion per year. what does that mean? reduction of plat matter, 50,000 ton rematter. reduction of sulfur dioxide. nite jen dioxide, 410,000 reduction. this is huge. and this speaks to the issue that senator white house spoke to that we can move to clean

energy or clean up the energy we have which i believe is possible, and save our kids, save our families, save our health, premature death, asthma, missed work, missed school. so i want to say administrator mccarthy, i can't tell you how much i appreciate your taking this job as one who kind of suggested it. you had a little hand in it. >> i want to say i knew that you would step up to the plate, that you had the experience of working across party aisle, that you really had in your heart exactly why you wanted to do this work, to help our families. and, frankly, our economy. and our leadership in the world. and i just can't think of anyone else who could do it better. you proved it today. and i want to say even though my colleagues aren't here from the republican side i felt they

were very respectful of you. i appreciate that. i really do. but i also agree with senator white house and senator sanders. we shouldn't be having the argument about what is as clear as can be. and i'm very pleased with this hearing. i'm pleased with this plan. i know my people at home support you and so do 70% of the american people. with that i am going to hand the gavel over to senator sanders. senator white house wants another round great. i need to go to a meeting. and i thank everybody and i especially thank the young people here today, the little ones they actually were pretty good. they were pretty good considering all the hot air all of us are putting toward them. but no, i appreciate everybody being here. it means a lot. and senator sanders the gavel is yours, the time is yours.

>> thank you so much for what you are doing on this issue. now we know that jeana does not run the world or run america because if she did she would not have to sit here for 2-1/2 hours. right? i just want to make a few points and then give the mic over to senator white house if he would like it. just two points. and i'm sorry my republican colleagues are not here. i understand that when i was not here there was some argument i think by the the senator from wyoming about how wealthy liberals have coerced you into moving forward in this direction. i find that is really remarkable that my republican colleagues would dare to raise the issue of campaign finance and the amount of murn folks are putting into the political process. so let me just recite a few facts for the record.

according to the center for responsive politics, in 2013 the oil gas and coal industries invested at least $170 million in lobbying the federal government. according to the center for responsive politics in the 2012 election cycle the same industry spent more than 93 million in recorded campaign contributions and enormous number which is itself dwarfed by the amount of money invested in doc money super pac spending. then we go to another level. it is hard for me to understand these guys would raise this issue. we have the koch brothers who are today as a family worth 80 billion who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on political campaigns and setting up think tanks and in fact are doing that in this election as

well. according to the "washington post" and the center for responsive politics the koch brothers -- where do they get their money? they are a fossil fuel industry. and they have invested $407 million according to the "washington post" supporting conservative fossil friendly candidates. so is there money coming into the political process? the answer is yes. but that money is clearly dwarfed by the amount of money coming in from the fossil fuel ndustry. i would also add that i do find it remarkable that some of my republican colleagues in this debate have expressed their deep concern about the needs of low income people and the elderly. i would remind the people of this country that these are the same folks whose compassion and

love of low income people prevents them from working to raise the minimum wage so people can have a living wage, allows them to make massive cuts in the lie heap program which provides fuel assistance to low income people. many of them are on record as making massive cuts in medicaid, medicare, trying to end social security privatize social security. so i think that their concerns today about the need of low income people might be held up to some question. senator white house, did you want to add anything to that? >> one last question for the administrator. i take the position that the costs of this regulation are dwarfed by the benefits and i think that is e.p.a.'s judgment

as well. i also take the position that it is not fair for people to only look at one side of the ledger in evaluating this legislation. they can't just look at the interests of the coal business. they need to look at america more broadly and there are lots of us on the other side of that equation for whom coal really is a harm. and we can work in rational ways to try to balance that but please don't pretend that my side doesn't exist. e third is that there is legitimate concern and then there is concern that is for rhett torquele purposes. and there's probably a little bit of a blend between the two. but if we look at the history that e.p.a. has seen of

industry reaction to proposed environmental regulations, all four republican former e.p.a. administrators who testified in those very seats ms. mccarthy and over hat over the industry concerns were exaggerated. they did not prove true in the actual fact. whether that was because they were exaggerated for rhetorical purposes at the beginning or because innovation was brought to bear to reduce costs, both can be true, but let me ask you. you've been in this business for a long time at the state level as well as the federal level. you have worked for republican governors before. what is your view on what the track record has been of

industry projections and warnings about the costs and consequences of environmental regulation by e.p.a.? >> history tells us that they always exaggerate the costs. they always project environmental benefits as somehow being contrary to economic growth and goals. and it just simply hasn't come true. it never. and so one i think one of the points that we haven't talked a little bit senator that you hit on is one of the great benefits of looking at setting a cost for climate change that is long-term and flexible is that what we're actually sending is a tremendous investment signal in what the united states values and cares about. it will unleash innovation and investment money. this is not about a scrubber at the end of a pipe or a smoke stack.

this is really about investing in things people care about. investing in things that people will make money on. one of the great things, frankly, about regulating is seeing how the regulated community grumbles during the process but in the end figures out how to make money the great old american way. and you'll see this. this proposal is designed to be derate in its ask based on it's practical and affordable. but the vision behind it, the direction that it's going to take, i think we will get significantly more benefit than we are requiring because we're asking for the thing that is the american public actually wants to spend money on -- less waste, cleaner energy, jobs, economic growth. that's what this is all about. and as you can tell i'm pretty proud of it as a proposal. and i know we will listen to folks but in the end this is going to be something i am

hoping we will all be proud of. >> if i could pick up on senator white house's question. what i hear you saying is that you believe the united states could be a leader in the world. >> yes. >> in new technologies, which help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions and in the process see significant economic development. >> that's correct. >> all right. i will tell you just in one area in vermont we have put some federal money into weatherization. do you know what was done? we've reduced fuel bills for people, poor people, low income people, cutting their fuel by i think 32%, cut greenhouse gas emissions. we've created jobs in the area. and i suspect your point is that once industry gets moving in terms of sustainable energies, et cetera, we can be a leader in providing that technology not only in the united states but all over the

world and in the process getting worldwide companies moving as well. is that kind of what you're saying? >> that's what i meant to say yes. >> you said it better than i did. >> my very last question and i will give it back to senator whoust. again, the issue of money in politics has been raised at this hearing with the suggestion that environmental folks are pouring sums of unin and i would argue that their money is being dwarfed by the industry. do you have any thoughts on that by the amounts of money we're seeing in lobbying, campaign contributions is not your issue but in lobbying that comes from the big energy companies? >> senator, let me just hit the issue directly because i know it had to do with a "new york times" article which has been given surprising credibility. but i think i know how hard the great staff at e.p.a. worked to

design this rule basically from whole cloth, listening to states and utilities and energy regulated and environmental regulators and stake holders from all walks of life. i am extraordinarily proud of the work they put into it. i know they didn't sleep for virtually any night well for months. we worked weekends. i can tell you i had two hours of meetings on this rule alone every week for the past i don't know how many months. and i think it's a discredit to them to suggest that somehow this was designed miraculously by one group many months ago and we just had it in our pocket ready to unveil. this was the result of hard work, result of lots of listening, and a result of more than 40 years of history in that agency of getting the science right, understanding the law, and doing the work we need to do. and that is what this is all

about. >> and the result of a process in which the electric utility industry, the coal industry, the fossil fuel industry, the chamber of commerce and others all also had their input. correct? >> i would also guarantee you that i have met many more times with utilities than i have the nrdc. >> thank you. by way of brief closing statement, i just want to thank senator sanders for raising this issue. i do a climate speech every year on -- every week on the senate floor at least every week that we're in session, and this week i am going to be talking about precisely the point that you raised. if you look back at our history in this body there has been a very constant strong heartbeat of bipartisan activity on climate. and many of our colleagues who

are still here have had proud histories of engagement with climate t bipartisan legislation. after 2010, you see that heartbeat of bipartisan activity flatline. if you look at what happened in early 2010 that might explain hy it suddenly ended, you find a supreme court decision called citizens united. that allowed unlimited corporate money, unlimited billionaire money to bombard our politics. and what people often think about that is that, oh, they all came in and they beat up the democrats on behalf of the republicans.

and this is a partisan thing. but i've heard over and over from republican colleagues, what are you complaining about? they're spending more money against us than they are spending against you. and there have been times i believe when actually the unaccountable anonymous dark money that citizens united unleashed was being spent more in republican primaries and against republicans than it was against democrats. that i think has suppressed debate and had a corrosive effect on our politics and it has ended what was for many, many years a proud bipartisan tradition. so i am very glad that senator sanders raised that and i thank administrator mccarthy for being here and for all of her leadership and courage. >> thank you. administrator mccarthy, thank you very much. and with that we adjourn the hearing. constitutional

timeline. this morning we consider the u.s. response to the terrorist takeover in iraq. nearly six months ago, the committee held a hearing. the title of that hearing was al qaeda's resurgence in iraq, a threat to u.s. interests. then the administration testified at that hearing isis had become to shift resources from syria to iraq in early 2013. that it had tripled its suicide attack in that year and that it planned to challenge the iraqi government for control of western iraq and baghdad. that's what we heard six months ago. the administration testified

that it had become aware that isis had established armed camps, staging areas and training ground in iraq's western desert in the summer of 2013 and that isis leader had again threatened to attack the united states of america. the administration told us that isis must be, in their words, constantly pressured and their safe havens destroyed and that its objective was to ensure that isis could never again gain safe haven in western iraq. however, what the administration did not say was that the iraqi government had been urgently requesting drone strikes since 2013. that there had been the opportunity to use drone strikes on those camps both in eastern

syria before they came over the border and to use drone strikes as their units moved across the desert. as you know, drones can hone in and can see what's going on on the ground, can see these yupts traverse from city to city. these repeated requests, unfortunately, were turned down. i added my voice for drone strikes as convoys raced across those deserts from city to city, and since that last hearing, isis has done over those six months precisely what the administration predicted it would. it has taken over most of western iraq. it has turned its sights on baghdad and it may be e preparing to launch attacks against the u.s. but again, no drone strikes

against those calms. never has a terrorist organization itself controlled such a large resource-rich safe haven as isis does today. never has a terrorist organization possessed the heavy weaponry, the cash, personnel that isis does today, which includes thousands of western passport holders. the iraqi population is terrorized. they have suffered mass executions and harsh law. last week the remaining members fled on foot in face of isis demand that they convert or face death. to be clear, isis's takeover has been aided by prime minister maliki's malfeasance and incompetence. maliki has disastrously failed to reconcile with key sunni grou

groups. many, including myself and ranking member engel, urged him to form an inclusive government and this was quite some time ago and on several occasions so that isis could not exploit legitimate sunni grievances. maliki has only proven himself to be a committed sectarian certainly no statesman. it is time for iraqis to move forward in forming a government that serves the interest of all iraqis. what started as a crisis in syria has become a regional disaster with the global implications including credible threats to terrorism, humanitarian disaster and upward pressure on energy prices in a fragile global economy. meanwhile terrorist forces and the iranian government are gaining power at the expense of friendly governments. of course, only iraqis can control their future.

only they can make the decision to replace maliki. and the performance of the battlefield of certain iraqi yupts was abysmal. that's to be expected when you put the son in charge and replace them with cronies. americ americans have spent enough blood and treasure in iraq. that's exactly why the administration should have taken the opportunity to inflict decisive damage on isis from the air, through drone strikes while its fighters were encamped in the desert months ago. this morning we are joined by a senior state department official who has been in baghdad for several weeks and an official from the department of department of defense involved in iraqi security forces to learn of the path forward in dealing with this national security emergency. and i'll now turn to our ranking

member, mr. engel of new york, for any opening comments he may have. >> mr. chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing about latest developments in iraq. in recent months chaos has burned across the middle east. the unrest has left thousands of dead in its wake and driven tens of thousands from their homes. a civil war in syria has spilled across the border and now iraq teeters on the brink. since december the islamic state of iraq has marched across iraq. cities have fall on to their control. hundreds of soldiers have been killed or have laid down their weapons and the military equipment they left behind. some supplied by the united states is now in the hands of these fanatics. the border between iraq and syria is gone. isis is advancing towards the border and isis's leaders have declared to rule with a band of

barberism in some of the darkest chapters in human his ris. isis is a threat to our region and a threat to the united states. we have seen this story before and know how it ends. when russia withdrew in the '80s, that country was allowed to become a no man's land. it has trained recruits and plan attacks on the united states. we can't allow iraq to follow the same path. to become another safe haven for another september 11th could be launched. how are we going to meet the challenge? we need to use all the tools at our disposal because in the end there's no solution to the problem. we need to see political changes in iraq, plr inclusive policies and a greater effort to avoid conflict. i have real doubts that prime minister maliki can lead iraq

into this new era. maliki must go and the sooner the better. i have real concerns about iran's support for the iraqi regime. even if the united states and iran seem to share a mutual concern over isis, i don't see how iranian and american goals can be aligned in the short-term or long-term. i don't think the u.s. should deal with iran in this regard. we also need to bear in mind that this is not solely an iraqi problem. while isis grew out of iraq, isis grew in strength and numbers while fighting in syria. isis is a regional problem. this is a spillover from the syrian civil war and fight iing isis will require a regional solution. the right time to train and equip the syrian opposition is well over a year ago. that's when i introduced the free syria act that would have assisted rebels to fight against both the assad regime and opposition like isis. i'm glad that a few weeks ago the administration announced its

support for a $500 million training program for the syrian opposition, but we waited so long and by now isis has gained so much territory and momentum they are far more difficult to stop than they were a year or two years ago. i cannot help but wonder if we had committed to empowering the syrian opposition last year. would isis have grown as it did? would the opposition have been able to apply enough pressure to compel him to a diplomatic transition? and by the way, we passed a bill in the house yesterday unanimously slapping sanctions on hezbollah. hezbollah has moved in as a puppet of iran and moved into syria on the side of assad and have helped tip the balance in assad's favor.

the hypotheticals and the what-ifs break my heart because even if we do the right thing, it will mean a small consolation to the family in a refugee camp in syria. i support the president's doegs send teams to iraq, but i'm cautious in our future action. . we can't end up in another quagmire in iraq. i'm grateful to our witnesses for testifying today and for consulting with congress about our next steps. we must be partners moving forward as we determine what the u.s. role should be in iraq and the congress must play an important role. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. engel. we do go to a minute now to the chairman of the middle east and north africa subcommittee. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. today's hearing is on the terrorist march in iraq. this is not something new or something that caught us

unaware. this is the second time this committee has had this witness testifying on the deteriorating situation since february. it's clear that the situation wept from worse to just about as bad as it can get and i'm interested in hearing in how the administration has adjusted its policies since then because the three steps that he outlined for us last time pressing the government to develop wholistic policy to isolate extremists, supporting iraqi security forces through military systems and information and intelligence sharing and mobilizing the sunni population against isis have all failed to stop the near collapse of iraq. isis continue to advance its cause of an islamic state and christians are being targeted either fleeing, forced to convert or be killed. we have been inadequate in our response to this crisis. the committee has repeatedly

called on the administration to do more, to get more engaged and to be decisive because it has been paralyzed by inaction. the threat is very real for iraq in the region and it won't go away by wishing it away. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. we now go to mr. ted deutsche of florida. >> thank you, chairman, for holding today's critical hearing and for the witnesses for appearing today. i know that you just returned from several week it is in iraq. i hope you will be able to provide an update on efforts for political reconciliation. the request to establish in iraq is terrorizing nations. according to the u.n., 1,500 people were culled in the month of june in iraq and the news of this weekend's horrific persecution of christians in mosul adds another layer.

they answer to no one. having disavowed even al qaeda and it's hard to imagine a terrorist organization being so vile that the vile al qaeda did you want want to be associated with it. but as isis continues its march toward baghdad, how confident are we that the shia stronghold can withstand regional attacks? and what are we doing to ensure the stability of our regional partners? also i hope you'll address what more we can or should do to convince prime minister maliki that isis can't be defeated without some sort of reconciliation process that reverses his attempts. is he willing to do that? will he ever be willing to do that? how does this proceed if he doesn't? and i'll look forward to testimony from both of you and i'll yield back. >> we now go to mr. ted deutsche

of -- >> he's not the chairman yet. >> thank you, mr. chairman. they have their sights set on baghdad. ist cyst made up of bad outlaws and a hearing i held on this issue last week our witnesses were unanimous in the belief that prime minister maliki just cannot lead iraq out of this crisis. he needs to go. the sooner, the better. the united states should not strengthen maliki's hand for military assistance. that's not the answer. i want to know what the plan is to prevent the vise of isil.

mending relations with the saudis would be a good place to start and finally they are still held hostage in iraq. i want to know why we have failed to settle them in third countries including our own while the u.s. has people in liberty have been murdered. i yield back. >> go to brad sherman from california, ranking member. >> we see emerging from beirut and infertile where militias loyal to ethnic or religious groups are more powerful than governments where there is warfare, but even when there is peace it's an unstable peace with militias in real control no matter what the map says by nation states. it's a three-way contest between the sunni, shiite alliance and extremist sunni.

i believe that the shiite alliance led by iran is the glaeter threat to the united states. this does not mean that we should not seek to weaken isis. maliki is not a good guy just because we installed him. his approach to governing is as responsible as any other factor for isis's emergence. in the absence of isis pressure, he would not have changed at all. and now we need a new prime minister in iraq. a distance second best would be some sort of radically changed maliki platform. maliki allows his air space to be used for planes flying to syria from iran carrying weapons and thugs. he's increasingly dependent on iran. we do not want to be his air for force. we do not want to see isis expand. we have a tough problem. >> indeed. we're joined this morning by the

deputy stapt secretary for iraq and iran mr. brett mahmoud gerk and the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. thank you. prior to his current assignment, he served as a special adviser to the national security staff and senior adviser to ambassador christopher hill in baghdad. he also served as a lead negotiator and coordinator during bilateral talks with the iraqi government in 2008. since july 2013 alyssa has been performing the duties of the principle deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. previously she worked at the state department on iraq policy and served on the council staff as director of iraq.

without objection, the witnesses' full prepared statement will be part of the record. members will have five calendar days to submit statements or questions or any extraneous materials they wish to put into the record. and if you would please summarize your remarks, we'll have you testify first. >> thank you, good morning. chairman, ranking member and members of this committee, i want to thank you for invite megato to discuss the situation in iraq. since they attacked mosul seven weeks ago, let me first review the bidding on why this matters as this committee well knows. isil is al qaeda. it may have changed its name, but tz al qaeda in its doctrine, ambition and increasingly in its threat to u.s. interests. it is worse than al qaeda. should there be in question o about the intense, read what

their leader says. it's important to pay attention who to what he says because we can't risk underestimating the reach of this organization. baghdad in may 2011 the death of osama bin laden and promise to violent response. training camps are named after osama bin laden. in his audio statements, he issues threats against the united states promising a direct confrontation and in his feud, he clearly is seeking to lead the global jihad. they are no longer just a terrorist organization. it's a full blown army seeking to establish a self-governing state through the valley and in what is now syria and iraq. it controls much of eastern syria. it took control of fe lieu ja and moved on mosul. i arrived about 80 kilometers east of mosul and i'll begin

there. in meetings with local officials and kurdish officials, we received indications isis was moving and staging forces in western mosul. we immediately asked to receive permission from kurdish leaders to deploy forces in the eastern side of the city, but the government of baghdad did not share the same sense of urgency. military commanders, we stressed that the forces would not arrive in time. on june 9th the situation remained extremely tense and we continue to urge the deployment of additional security forces to protect against an attack from west to east. in the early mornings of june 10th, isis launched a bomb attack against the bridge and poured forces into eastern part of the city. resistance totally collapsed which led to a panic and a snowballing effect through the valley and through several

cities. the result was catastrophic. five iraqi divisions nearly dissolved and the approaches to baghdad were under threat. i flew to baghdad first thing that morning with the focus on e ensuring that our people were safe and the northern approaches were bolstered. bymy written testimony sets knot detail the critical response. we first made certain that our people would be safe including contractors working on bases outside of baghdad who were evacuated with the help of the iraqi air force. at the embassy, we rebalanced staff to manage the crisis and brought in additional department of defense resources to en. sure the security of our facilities. in parallel importantly and at the president's direction, we worked to you are jntly improve our intelligence picture throughout western and north central iraq surging surveillance flights to 50 per day, establishing joint operations centers and e deploying forces to assess yupts particularly around the capital

of baghdad. these intelligence and security initiatives were taken with r j regional diplomacy led by secretary kerry to better focus attention on the serious threat. we finally sought to stabilize the political process recognizing it took place at the most vulnerable most in the process, following elections that 14 million iraqis voted but before the formation of a new government. this process of forming new government remains extremely challenging but now has some traction. a a new speaker of parliament was chosen last week with the support of all major communities in iraq and the iraqis are now proceeding along the constitutional timeline to choose a new president and prime minister. the current situation in iraq remains extremely serious. isil remains in control of mosul and is targeting everybody who

dise agrees with its twisted call fate. it's also joined in an alliance with militant wing, and with some former groups such as the isis. going forward, the iraqis must seek to split the latter groups and isolate isil from hard core militant groups. the platforms that we have established through the immediate crisis response are now providing additional information to inform the president and our national security team as we develop options to further protect our interests in iraq. any future decisions in this regard will be made in full consultations with this committee and the congress. any efforts we are to take must be in conjunction with iraqi efforts to isolate isil from the population. what we have a serious counterterrorism challenge in iraq, iraq has a very serious koupt insurgency challenge and the two are linked. based o on my last seven weeks on the ground in iraq, there's a

clear recognition by iraqis that substantial reforms must be undertaken and undertaken urgently. this will require the formation of a new government together with the restructuring of the security services. the e emerging consensus in iraq chrks we can fully support, is a functioning federalism consistent with iraq's constitution, adaptive to the new realities on the ground and based on the following five principles. first, local citizens must be in the lead in securing local areas. second, local citizens defending their communities, however, must be provided full state benefits and resources, perhaps modelled along the national guard structure to secure areas. third, the iraqi army should focus on federal functions such as protecting international borders and rarely deploy inside cities. it should provide support for local forces where they con front isil which is able to

overmatch areas. fourth, there must be close cooperation between local, regional and national security services to reduce operational space for isil. finally the federal government through a new parliament and cabinet which will be established must work on a package of reforms to address the grievances and ensure adequate resources to security services. these five principles can begin to address many of the core grievances in the areas of iraq while importantly denying space for isil to operate and protect groups from attacks. restoring stability will require smart integrated, provisional approach led by a new iraqi government with an appropriate level of assistance. i can report that iraqi leaders from all communities have asked for this assistance in implementing such a program and general austin will be in iraq tomorrow to further assess the

situation and discuss concrete ways in which our assistance might be effective. this model of a functioning federalism is achievable and is essential if we hope to deny space within the borders of iraq. i look forward to discussing more details and once again i want to thank this committee for allowing me the opportunity to address you here today. >> thank you. alyssa? >> thank you, chairman royce, ranking member, distinguished members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to come and talk about the department of defense role particul particularly. i won't cover too much ground other than to foot stomp the point that brett has made. the u.s. has a security interest in assuring that they do not become a safe haven for terrorists who could threaten the u.s. homeland, u.s. citizens, u.s. interests abroad, partners or allies. as the president has said, isil's advance across iraqi territory and particularly its

ability to continue to establish a safe haven in the rejoan poses a threat to u.s. interests and to the greater middle east. and we do not restrict that view just to the specific geographic boundaries that are on the map. just to go over the things that the department of defense is doing. the situation on the ground as brett described is extremely complex and fluid. we are therefore taking a responsible, deliberate and flexible approach to the crisis, but i want to be clear there will not be a military solution to the threat posed. iraqis must do the heavy lifting. in the meantime, the department of defense remains postured should the president decide to use military force. our immediate goals as announced on june 19th are to protect u.s. people and property in iraq, two, to gain a better understanding of how we might train and assist security forces should we decide to do so, and three, to expand our

understanding plrly via intelligence. all three are critical to any future u.s. strategy in iraq and to that end we have done the following things. one, we have added forces to protect our people. the safety of u.s. citizens and personnel throughout iraq is our highest priority. the department of defense is meeting all the requests that have come in from the department of state for security for our embassy and at the airport. as described in our war powers notifications, we have sent a security team, a crisis response element and additional assets and personnel to reenforce security at the diplomatic facilities. the secretary of defense also ordered the transport ship u.s.s. into the gulf. its presence adds to the other naval ships that are there including the u.s. aircraft

carrier and provides the president additional options to protect american citizens and interests in iraq should he choose to use them. isr intelligence surveillance assets, so as part of our ramping up effort, we have significantly surged capabilities into iraq. over 50 a day compared to one a month in previous months. at the request of the government of iraq, we have ramped it up as well as our information sharing initiatives with the iraqis. these over iraq provide us a much better understanding of i isil operations and disposition and allow us to help. we are capable of under a the clock coverage and have been focusing particularly on isil-controlled activities -- territory, excuse me, as well as in and around baghdad.

u.s. assessment teams, we have put in nearly 300 additional u.s. military advisers who have gone in specifically to assess and evaluate how we might better train, advise and assist the iraqi security forces. these are small teams of special forces, members who are working to evaluate the iraqi security forces particularly in and around baghdad. they are armed for self-defense, but they do not have an offensive mission. the two joint operation centers have been established to help coordinate and support efforts on the ground, give us a better picture of what's happening. one quick word about the assessmen assessments, secretary hagel and chairman dempsey received the draft assessment last week. department leaders are taking a deliberate approach and reviewing this pretty lengthy assessment. these assessments will inform

recommendations to the president. meanwhile, additional assessing work goes on in and around baghdad with respect to the developing situation on the ground. in closing i want to reiterate again that we belief that we have a vital security interest in ensuring that iraq does not become a permanent safe haven for terrorists who can threaten the homeland. i look forward to your questions to uu

in terms -- in terms of questioning, if we could start now with mr. mr. mcgert. as i mentioned in my remarks you testified before the can he in february and you told us of isis' plan to take control of western iraq and to challenge the iraqis' government control of baghdad and you reported that it was the administration's objective to prevent isis from ever having a sanctuary in western iraq again. there were countless other warnings signs and i know that you as deputy assistant secretary and others in the u.s. government were sounding the alarm and your testimony was absolutely correct. we did see this coming.

and that makes it even more troubling that the administration didn't do what was necessary to prevent isis from taking over such a large swath of iraq and specifically the iraqis asked multiple times for drone air strikes against clearly identifiable isis targets in the desert. some in our embassy brought this up as well. theagetation was for strikes on terror camps and we know that the administration rejected those requests. that the administration r ected those requests. now, no one likes maliki. given this isis threat and given the administration's stated goal of preventing an isis sanctuary in western iraq, why didn't we

support, at least in this limited way, attacks that would have done damage to these columns, or to the encampments? >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me try to correct the record on a few things. and, again, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the committee in february. i think what i described was when we really started to see this problem emerge over the course of last summer. and the first principle and the president's policy is that we want to enable local actors to be able to secure their sovereign space as best we can. that was also the desire of the iraqi government. the iraqi government wanted to act on its own with our assistance in enabling functions. we worked through the summer and fall, through our own surveillance and also by showing iraqis how they could use their capability to be able to target some of these sites. they have a platform called a

king air. they have a platform called a caravan that can fire hellfire missiles. and we could jerry-rig those. direct usair support did not come in a formal way until may, and it came on a formal visit with general austin and subsequent phone call between the prime minister and the vice president. since that time, obviously, we've been looking at various options. but the first principle was to enable the iraqis to deny safe havens in camps and sanctuaries within their sovereign space. of course, they faced a significant problem across the syrian border, which was increasingly in control of isis over the last three months of last year. and the border increasingly became under threat. the first principle is to enable the iraqis. that was something the iraqis also wanted and that was through the hellfire missiles, through the caravan aircrafts and through the persistent isr.

but the formal request for direct usair support came in may. >> let me just say that we already have experience in afghanistan with the fact that when you're dealing with suicide bombers or people who want to ma martyr themselves in the attack, one thing afghans are looking for is air support. traditionally secular militaries run away in the face of people trying to lose their own life in an attack and call in air support. it's been a problem -- i've talked to the italians about this. what do they want? what do they ask for? drones above that could give air support for their troops in afghanistan. so you have a situation like this, yes, you've got hellfire missiles, but the iraqis were trying to fire these from retrofitted cesna airplanes.

in an environment like that, when you see this coming and you know that air support, psychologically, for infantry on the ground, in this kind of environment has been such an issue in afghanistan, you know, when you're up against jihadists, why -- why wouldn't we? it wasn't just that the request was coming from the iraqi government. as i say, some in the embassy in the embassy pushed for this. certainly i raised this a number of times. i'm just trying to figure out why, when you can monitor something with the eyes of a drone that can go in and actually see below it, you know, that you have in the jeep the flag of al qaeda waving and a column moving across the desert, why that asset wouldn't be deployed as these troops are coming out of syria or why y