but a little different. we had an organizer in iowa. we had an organizer in new hampshire. they are meeting with local party officials and elected leaders, asking them to keep their powder dry. >> i'm pleased to have this opportunity. i enjoyed by governor dan malloy of connecticut. the chair was not able to make it, but governor malloy, we appreciate it. the national resource committee legislative director, we appreciate all your work will stop as -- all of your work. the briefing materials were sent out in advance of the meeting and i hope you have all had a chance to get through them. so let's begin. i will start with some opening comments. they will be brief because we're so pleased to have the administrator here and i imagine

there will be a number of questions. severe drought, expanding domestic energy production and aging water infrastructure have introduced significant challenges for the state. they have also demonstrated the close connection between energy and water resources. population growth strains water infrastructure. developing state policies that address these challenges and collaboration with the federal government can help maximize the efficient use of resources and better prepare states for energy and water challenges. today possible work session will examine how states are responding to energy and water challenges while identifying opportunities for greater collaboration between the state and federal government on these issues. the session will help show why state perspectives are vital for successful regulatory action. governor malloy, -- governor

malloy and i hope that it will introduce these discussions into the conversation. the fact is states are not waiting for the federal government to develop solutions. rather, states are moving forward with their own legislative and regulatory solutions. in wyoming, we have developed our own long-term energy and water strategies. the energy strategy is called "leading the charge" and was issued in may of 2013. we are two years into implementing it. our wyoming strategy, which was released in january, provides for the development, management, conservation and protection restoration of our water resources. we are approaching these issues with a problem-solving mindset and increasing coordination and efficiencies within and between agencies. for wyoming, this is a big issue. we are the number one energy supplier for the rest of the

nation and we have vast energy resources like coal, oil, and asked, uranium and wind, for example, and we believe all should be used to stop further we believe it is not the government possible to pick winners and losers. businesses have to be able to make a profit and when regulatory actions prevented it's a problem. in wyoming, we are focused on regulations that balance the needs of industry while establishing proper safeguards. we lead the nation in requiring disclosure of hydraulic fracking components and water baseline testing. we are home to the largest habitat mitigation bank in the united a them largest planned wind energy project. we are leaders in the conversation of -- conservation of key species like the sage grouse will stop we spend millions on these efforts each year. we know it, because you can -- because we do it that you have

both development and conservation. we do not accept it is an either or proposition and in wyoming, we believe we are striking the right balance. states recognize federal agencies have an important role to play in ensuring the safe and responsible use of energy and water resources. this role should be filled in collaboration with the states. to that end, governor brown as chairman and i as vice-chairman sent a letter to the eca and the u.s. army corps of engineers -- the epa and u.s. army corps of engineers that required clarification on the rules and encouraged the agent to continue consulting with the states as they go back and take a look at the proposed rules. the clean water act and clean air act recognized the states have a statutory authority to establish that within their borders. they last week take the lead and

we do. states must have a strong voice in the development of any rule gated under these particularly in the early stages of rule development and for significant momentum precludes state participation or renders it not meaningful. opportunities to gain federal perspectives are important and informative. so we appreciate you being here today, but the fact is it doesn't take the place of a consultation process with the states. now i will pass over to governor malloy. q. it's great to be with you once again. i am not new to the city. in the four years previous to being here, i was either chair or vice chair of the committee three times, so i am happy to be back end was more than happy to comply with governor brown's request. when i took office is passed january, or a number of challenges demanding immediate attention. i focused on jumpstarting our

state economic growth, expanding the economy and opening the state for business -- that continues to be our priority and i'm determined to tackle the high cost of living in connecticut will stop we could not afford to wait for congress or anyone else to solve our high energy problem. it needed to be addressed if we wanted to create high-value jobs and protect the air we breathe and water we drink. we need to do our part to preserve -- reverse carbon pollution and preserve the environment for our children. connecticut is moving toward cleaner and more reliable energy and kinetic is making this move by using limited government funds to engage private capital. connecticut's energy capital has benefits for the economic future of our state as well as our environment will stop we can do two things at the same time. we are implementing a long-term energy strategy that will not only reduce carbon pollution but bring down energy costs and

bring young and by reducing the level of luton's, increase jobs and grow the economy. the key elements are reducing demands through energy efficiency, encouraging the diploma of more renewable and clean power sources through creative financing programs, and leveraging private capital. bringing private investors freeing ourselves from the reliance of skates -- scarce taxpayer funds these investors have responded enthusiastically because of the opportunities we offer and because they make good economic sense. promoting alternative vehicles and fuels on our roads because the gasoline powered cars we all drive for most of us drive every day are a major source of carbon emissions of air pollution stop reducing carbon pollution from power plants we have a first in the nation plan known as the regional greenhouse plan

initiative. administrative mccarthy was instrumental in launching it while serving us in the state of commission -- the state of connecticut. succeeding in reducing emissions and funneling back dollars for renewable energy programs in connecticut and the other participating states are in a fitting. we applaud the fact that the clean power plan proposed by epa offers other states the opportunity to replicate reggie and doing so would reduce carbon emissions in an economically sound manner. this type of approach speaks to the healthy state of federal collaboration and that will ensure our nation takes decisive action to address climate change. with that, i turn it back to you, governor mead. >> demonstrate her mccarthy, we appreciate you being here. the administrator was appointed by president obama as assistant administrator for the epa office of radiation.

administrator mccarthy has been a leading person in gathering information on the environment working on environmental issues, helping to coordinate energy, transportation and the environment. administrator mccarthy served as the commissioner of the connecticut department of environmental protection. i would also note as a side note that the administrator met with some of us governors at 7:00 this morning. we appreciate you taking your sunday and taking time to meet with us individually as we requested. you certainly made yourself available to us. we are pleased to have you here and i will turn it back to governor malloy. >> it is an honor and pleasure to introduce my friend gina mccarthy. i got to know the administrator not quite two decades ago when i was serving as the mayor of stanford and she was involved in

environmental issues at the local level in massachusetts. it wasn't long before connecticut had a good sense to importer to be our commissioner of environmental protection. she did an extraordinary job in connecticut reinvigorating and modernizing our agency and demonstrating environmental protections and economic growth are complement tree, not across purpose. in fact administrator mccarthy was such a positive presence at our state that i tried to leeward her back when i became governor. she had already established yourself as an extraordinary and minister at the epa and it was certainly understandable. she was reluctant to leave the administration and has stayed here in washington dc, bringing real change and international recognition to her efforts. those of you who know her, know what i mean when i say few people can measure -- who can match her candor her humor and understanding of issues and her capacity for hard work stopped

as they say in boston, she is wicked smart and her passion for leaving this planet in a better place and she found it in is only exceeded by her love of the red sox. where i draw the line. [laughter] administrator mccarthy, welcome and the floor is yours. >> thank you for that wonderful introduction. thank you for trying to entice me back. it was a very kind gesture on your part and i know you are doing just fine because you have a great team there. thank you to all the governors who joined me today. more are coming all the time. it was another opportunity to establish a deeper relationship with one another, which i think we need in times that are difficult as these.

we work really hard and i know there are challenges and as someone who has worked at the state level for 25 years, i know you are facing just as difficult a challenge as we face at the federal level and i know how hard you work and i know the value you bring to the table and i respect and appreciate the time you've given me to be here. i know i met separately with most of you and met with governor malloy and spent some time with him yesterday, but i also met with governor branstad on friday, so we are all caught up. i'm not sure what we are going to talk about that won't be boring to all of you. >> we will find something. >> i knew you would think of something. it is my pleasure to be here and i'm really excited to be able to talk about some of the things that are going on that i know we all care about and some of the ways in which we can continue to further our partnership. i probably no more than anyone

that in order to address the challenges we are facing to protect the health and the environment, which is epa's mission, it has to be a partnership with the states. we must work together if we are going to meet these challenges effectively for the people we both serve and you will find epa willing and able to be your partner and seeking to do that more and more as much as we can. i really believe the work we are doing together is important for the future of the people we serve and for the public health of american families and am excited to be working on these issues with you. since epa began working in consort with the states to address our natural resource challenges, our public health and environmental protection challenges, we have been quite successful together and i say that, meaning together.

we have reduced air pollution by 70% and have been successful in tackling about half of our nations polluted waterways and at that same point in time, we have had our jobs grow an economy has gotten stronger. it's impressive but it's a record we need to continue and it's one that's going to require us to collaborate more and more because the challenges we are facing today are even more complicated than those we have been facing for the past 30 to 40 years postop i want to start by talking about the clean power plan. we have had some tremendous conversations. you are right to tell us we need to converse with the states at every opportunity before we start on any new venture and we are working hard to make sure that happens. but i don't think there's any better example than the clean power plan. you all know the president

considers climate change to be not just an environmental problem but a public health challenge and national security challenge and it is of the utmost importance that the epa move forward on the actions the president has asked us to undertake to address the challenge of climate change. and we did that with the clean power plan but before we put pen to paper we had listening sessions all over the country. they begin within 18 months of before we even started drafting the rule. there were utilities, states individual stakeholders because we knew this role was going to be important. it's a role that will reduce carbon pollution and i think the most important thing i want to indicate to you is i am very well aware the reason why our discussions have continued so fruit only and with such energy

is not necessarily because we all agree the clean power plan should happen or that climate change is real. we are working together because we respect one another and we do see the climate is changing and we have to take action. the way we are working together has been successful because we've designed this rule to be entirely flexible to allow states to develop their own pathway forward that is consistent with where the transition in the energy world is going and what teacher they want to have in the economy because i believe states will always be better in designing those plans than the federal government ever could be. we are continuing with the idea of collaboration with the states, recognizing the glue that holds us all together is the flexibility we have offered here.

in this particular portion of the clean air act, we have flex ability to do this and we are going to maximize that advantage so we can keep our opportunities for emission reduction as high as we can get them reasonably, but we want to make sure we are keeping the cost of those reductions low, that we are not stressing individuals for additional costs associated with energy but instead are maintaining a reliable cost-effective energy supply system. if we continue to work together we will succeed. we've achieved 3.5 million comments on the proposal and there's apparently some interest across the u.s. on that. many have been from industry, ngos, and the power sector themselves and many of them have been states. i want to thank you for the detailed comments many of you have provided. you can be assured we are listening to those comments.

we are already through the process and having dialogue on where to put out notices and share more broadly comments that have come in that we think the manic we want everyone to be considering as we move forward and we've heard reliability cannot be threatened. frankly, no one needs to tell us that what we are glad you did because we know it and we can't do it. we know that time is precious but we need to give the states time enough to put together this plan and do it in a way that allows them the opportunity to take a look at what they want their energy futures to be. these are concerns that we will continue to keep in mind as we continue the dialogue moving forward. i think you will still see us showing up at your door, talking to your folks, knocking on your window if we can't get in the front door just so we can keep

these discussions going because it's important and this will beginning done along with the rule for new sources in modified in the state model rule. we will be pulling those together in a package for final in midsummer. there's a lot of work to be done but there's not a lot to think about how to get this done well. the second thing i would like to talk about is a little bit about the drought situation which we talked about a little bit this morning with some of you. this is one issue, particularly in the west, that we are all concerned about. i am happy we have pulled together the natural -- the national drought resilience and you will see it reflected in the president's fiscal year 16 budget proposal to continue to work together. we believe there are tools that states and your local

communities that they need to have available to them and we are trying to work together knowing what ferc's -- what folks are concerned about so we can understand the changes and the prediction is they may be -- there may be longer and more severe drought seasons moving forward but what we already see is enough to bring us to the table and make us realize we need to address the issue of climate adaptation or resiliency more effective together. and we continue to put out tools that the agency has developed to allow people to plan together and hopefully will be providing technical assistance across the administration to continue that effort moving forward. governor mead, you mentioned water infrastructure. that is a challenge for all of us. we see this all across the united states, not just in terms of our aging infrastructure, which is a huge venture to try

to catch up with infrastructure that is old, but how do we recognize we are getting more in tens storms and we need to do that together and it's a challenge not just for us but for sectors across the u.s. including our agriculture sector. i know governor branstad and i have spent time talking to the farmers and i spent some time with some of the young farmers this last week and we talked about the different technologies and ways you can keep soil and keep the storm water running off the farm fields, adding to the challenge of luton going into waterways as well as the challenge of continuing to provide valuable agriculture moving forward. these are the things we have to talk about together. you will see us starting up some water investments this year and our fiscal year 16 budget as our

way of trying to be held to bring public-private partnerships together and think about new ways we can fund these and the president has been good enough to increase from his presidential increase of over half $1 billion and we are shifting a little more resources into drinking water than our wastewater this year recognizing we have new drinking water challenges that we need to get on top of an faced together. but we do have opportunities for water reuse and recycling, for storm water and rainwater capture, all of these are ways to save money and making communities even more beautiful than they were before but using nature instead of cement to address these issues more effectively. the clean water rule was mentioned. i know it was designed as a way to address challenges we have

been facing for the past two decades, working with the army corps to try to provide a lot more clarity on the jurisdiction of the clean water act. it is an enormously challenging task, but one that is essential if we are going to allow science to tell us what river -- what rivers, streams and water bodies need to be protected so we can make sure if there are pollutants being put in those that we can make sure the protections are there for our drinking water supplies. that is what this rule is all about to provide clarity and certainty and we've already received a million comments on those. apparently, only one out of three people that care about the power plant care about clean drinking water. >> we can get you more. >> we will be taking a look at

those and making sure when it will is finalized that we have thoroughly consider the comments and we've been out in your communities, using a local government advisory committee that has been great at holding hearings across the u.s. and we will work through this because we know it's an area of uncertainty and i do not want to raise more uncertainty. i want to provide more clarity. the last issue i'd like to bring up is the issue of oil and gas because i went to an industry reading of a number of oil and gas leaders and i spoke to them about this challenge because epa does understand and respect the sensitivity of the oil and gas industry and we know how valuable it has been to the united states. the president is committed to

and all of the above approach and epa's actions we look at how we reduce methane or talk about the water challenges we are seeing coming out of our research projects, we have to do that in partnership and make sure the inexpensive natural gas an increase in oil this country is enjoying is providing more domestic stability and that it is protected and the industry is moving forward and epa moves forward to understand it's done in a safe and responsible manner. ensuring we understand states are the primary protector of their water system. we also have opportunities for reduction in methane that will actually save money and reduce

the need for flaring and that will hopefully get us moving forward to ensure we can continue to enjoy these resources moving toward stop i think i should probably leave it there, but i will tell you we have lots of things going on beyond this. i wanted an opportunity to be able to hear from you and respond to those issues. again i want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here and have what i believe have a very frank and honest and open dialogs and i want to make sure we continue whether it is today were in the future. epa is only as successful as our engagement with the states in a collaborative way and i think what i do, i'm honored to do it for this country, but frankly, mine is just a job of rallying us so we are on the same page together and hopefully moving forward together to serve the

people we serve will stop so, thanks. >> thank you for your opening comments. it's staggering to think about 3.5 million comments. a million comments is a lot of comments, so at least you know you are working in a job everybody cares about. everybody's got an opinion. i do want to have a conversation, as you and i have discussed before, wyoming is the number one exporter of btus. we do believe in and all of the above approach. we are number one in coal and number one in uranium will stop we supply coal to about 35 states and we are proud to that. it's good for wyoming and it's good for the country because it keeps us competitive. when you think about coal providing roughly 39% to 49%, when it comes to 111 the, you

have people who talk to you about numbers and i have people talk to me about numbers. i would just share one thing that caught my attention, which is that if everything is carried out as proposed by 2030, it would remove 555 million metric tons of carbon from the atmosphere. that's the equivalent of about 13 point five days of what china puts in. there's a cost associated with 111 d and on the cost benefit analysis we are not going to get into climate change in people's belief on climate change, but if we are going to go forward with this, my question is, are we getting the benefit for the cost, including the cost associated not just with the heating and cooling but because energy is tied to the cost of everything we do, what is the cost benefit analysis?

part two is i would just like to hear because i've heard the administration say they believe in and all of the above approach. it's the future of coal 5 10, 20 years from now? should it continue to be part of our energy portfolio? >> thanks for your question and let me see if i can tackle that stop this is about reduction in carbon pollution. it is done in a way that recognizes epa is not choosing between different energy sources. any plan we do should accommodate the use of all energy sources and leave it up to the states in the market to determine what quantity. when we took a look at what we expected from an impact from our role, which i think is reflective of much of the work we are doing, we see coal as being quite a significant part of the energy mix in 2030 and we see natural gas as a significant

part of the energy mix and we certainly see a growing investment in renewables which we are seeing already. renewables have been significantly increasing over the last years since this administration came in and we see that continuing. we see energy efficiency being the least cost halfway to achieving reductions reductions. there are many states that have documented that. it is really great to be able to provide customers with an opportunity to save money without reducing carbon pollution. while the proposal has a cost-benefit analysis, one of the things that would sort of like to challenge is the idea that these are actually going to be cost sustainable as opposed to investments in the future. the state that is using the flexibility the optimum way that we have provided could find a

way to make this enormously beneficial from an economic development perspective and a job growth perspective. i do bullet -- i do believe that people should be recognizing that the climate is changing in that there are costs associated with that already and that the test thing that we can do is protect our communities by taking action. to do that it is not about putting an end of pipe controls. it is deciding what your energy supply ought to look like in the future and what is best for your state. because you are provided with so much flexibility, every state gets to dictate. i don't think that any state was asked to do more than they could achieve in a cost-effective way. we also propose looking at regional programs that provide maximum flexibility. let me address the issue that you raised, it is one of the really big points that we sought

comment on, the idea that many states have built utilities and host them, supplying energy to other states. the last thing in the world that we want to do is to tag all of the pollution from that facility to the host state without recognizing that other states benefit and should be looking for a cooperative relationship on how you move forward and make investments that can reduce the carbon from those sources. we have keyed up a number of strategies to do that and we even put out additional information on how that may be looked at. so we know that this is an issue and there are ways of handling that that we will make sure we put on the table. the last issue that you raised was china. the president made it really clear, when we put together the climate action plan for each part of the administration, we look at where their place was

and what we could do to help reduce carbon pollution that fuels climate change. the president was clear that we were moving forward with domestic action moving forward with climate resilience, but also to show that when the u.s. takes strong domestic action we can get international action. the international joint agreement that the u.s. put out with china was a very significant step forward to the work that we are doing in india is a significant step forward. we know that we have to take action. we also know it must be an international solution that is brought to the table. there is no intention to move this forward in a way that would significantly increase energy cost as opposed to really looking at what you want to invest in that is consistent with your own energy mix and mixture of natural resources and jobs the want to grow and how we work together to make those all part of the same package instead

of seeing one as a burden and the other is not, because i think you can look at this as an open opportunity for investments to you may want to invest in. >> with respect for your time, i know that you have to be out by 4:00 so i will just ask one more question for now. you suggested that there may not be a cost to the states. if this goes through, do you anticipate it raising electricity costs for all taxpayers? >> we have an economic analysis and what it currently says is that the price, the average price increase over the course of the early stages of the role would be about three dollars per month on average for a household. in terms of the energy bill. it shows that over time that

will decrease because of the significant amount of the investment gang and how you decrease energy demand and how you bring more energy efficiency to the table so that in 2030 it is actually going to be an eight dollar per month savings on average for families. >> thank you. governor malloy, any questions? >> thank you. thank you, administrator. i just want to touch on one of the items that you happened to mention. right now the balance that the epa is trying to strike between the states that generate power for others and the environmental implications for the hosting state as you know, we do not burn coal in connecticut. but we get a fair amount of pollution from coal-fired plants coming to us from illinois kentucky, ohio indiana and

western pennsylvania. it all comes by my neighborhood. particularly in my neighborhood, actually, in fairfield county, where i get to enjoy what is being generated in those states at a profit for other people. as a result, not only can we not earn coal, or we would not be permitted to burn coal but citizens during the summer months enjoy anywhere from 20 to 65 days where the air is out of compliance with standards. so, i understand the necessity of balancing those interests, to keep fairfield county and the rest of connecticut in mind. when you are trying to find the right balance. thank you. >> let me speak to that issue for a few minutes, if it is ok. i think that you've probably all know that it is no secret that i come from boston.

maybe that's why i like the red sox and they are so much better than the yankees. >> [laughter] >> i think that the issue of transported pollution is one that we have been working really hard on. i think that you will see that there has been remarkable success in lowering the amount of traditional air pollutants from upwind states the downwind states. clearly there is more work that needs to be done to ensure that everybody is working on this issue and taking care of their own pollution. i think that what made tremendous success, and one of the things that we would encourage in the carbon pollution plan that states developed is to look at those synergistic opportunities. to look at opportunities for developing a carbon pollution plan that is consistent with what you need to do for other commitments that are either here or coming up. one of the great things about moving forward with an air toxic

standard lowering the sulfur content of gasoline and all of those rules is that it is actually providing a national opportunity to reduce these emissions so that the burden is not left up to the states to potentially have to go for more expensive reductions in their own state as opposed to providing a national framework for getting a cost-effective reductions across the u.s.. so, i think that the dynamics are changing, but i do see the states collaborating on these issues. i know that the northeast is continuing to work together. i know that there are groups talking in the midwest. i know that there are governors in the pacific northwest to have been talking. and out on the west coast. i just hoping that we can continue those discussions taking a look at how we treat this issue fairly and how we

turn this into a continued economic opportunity. the united states is wonderful and has always in wonderful in that when they face a problem they have run forward and turned it into economic opportunities for growth. i think that is the same kind of attitude we need for the climate change challenge. >> governor branstad, thank you. >> thank you. i want to thank the current administrator for meeting with me and my secretary of agriculture on friday. we really appreciated the opportunity to visit with you. as you know, renewable fuel standards are very important to us in the midwest. the epa has been a great partner and 2005. we had some of our best farm years ever until the recommendation came out in 2013 to reduce the renewable fuel standard. we have seen a precipitous

decline in the value of corn since that time. 2014, we had a reduction in farm income, the usda is estimating we will see a $.30 reduction in farm income in 2013. in my state, farmland values, i was the governor in the 1980's when they dropped precipitously. i was there when they dropped 63%. i don't want to go back to those days. that is why i am so strong on this issue. but, we are concerned and have even seen layoffs, with john deere and other farm machine manufacturers, we still do not -- we are appreciative that you did not go forward with that proof those, but the uncertainty of not having a rule in place for 2014 has meant that many of

the renewable fuel makers, and we have 43 f hansen iowa, 12 biodiesel, we are getting into the next generation of area low sick ethanol. and yet because of the uncertainty, people are very fearful about making huge investment in that area. we would obviously like to see as soon as possible hopefully a restoration of the robust renewable fuel standard. i would point out that oil companies have always been against us, but the reason we have our affairs is they use something that pollutes groundwater in this country. we, the nation, the consumers on the east coast and west coast the midwest you use ethanol that people had to face the pollution of the groundwater and they really turned against the oil companies, which is the reason they did not set and they

continued to try to find a way to put up barriers and prevent it from really working. we think it has really been not only great for farm income and getting the jobs, but it has also helped us to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and reducing pollution, be it care of the groundwater. i want to encourage you to do whatever you can. we will do whatever we can to support the epa, as we always have, in restoring this robust renewable fuel standard. >> thank you, governor. it was a conversation that we had the other day and you can bet that i would like nothing better to move the renewable fuel standards forward to provide the kind of certainty that will bring investments in in advance, because that really is the gold star for what we're looking for.

we will do what we can to keep this moving as could -- as quickly as we can. i appreciate all the work you have done some universities and others to help the advanced science around this. and the commitment to renewable fuels it has been important as part of the overall strategy. we are just going to be very careful to follow the law and make sure that advanced fuels get the kind of certainty that they need moving forward. it was a challenging year for all of us. >> thank you. governor? >> thank you very thank you very much, administrator might be, for meeting with us. when i returned to north dakota people will ask me if i had a chance to meet with the president, they will ask me if i

set down with the administrator of the epa. not only did i meet with her three times, and even on a sunday so that says a lot about your accessibility. thank you very much. i do not write to you every month by governor mead it, but that does not mean -- >> just as a point we are just penpals, that's all. >> only 11 out of 12 months. [laughter] >> almost 12 -- every month. it does not mean i have any less interest in our relationship and the things we have to work on together. i just want to emphasize, as i did earlier today, that i really think that we need to form true partnerships with the epa. we have a lot of confidence in the environmental scientist and

administrators in the state of north dakota. we think that they do an outstanding job and are true professionals who worked very hard at what they do. we think that we can do a good job, we want to do a great job. we appreciate that you can help us. and we hope that we can continue that spirit of partnership in everything that we are doing. i am not going to point out any individual complaints or anything like that today. one thing that i will mention that i think is peculiar to north dakota as really the heart of the prairie pothole region, i have to mention the proposed rule on defining the waters of the united states. the state of north dakota is covered with small wet areas.

on every farm in north dakota there are spots about the size of this horseshoe right here that might be considered a wetland i usda. but 95% of the time they are bone dry. we have a road ditch along the edge of every square mile in north dakota. we have areas that will always flood for a couple of days in the ring time, but after that they are farmed or used in a very normal way. i think that this notion that somehow you as epa would need to be in charge of every little spot, that really is just not common sense. the people of north dakota, especially the farmers, when they hear that this is what is being proposed, they really react to that. they really just sort of feel that it makes no sense what so

ever. i hope that we can keep that dialogue going. you have been good enough to come to north dakota couple of times. i hope that you will come again. i will show you some rope ditches. -- road ditches. i will show you some from the map so that you are sure of what we are talking about. thanks, thanks again for being here. we really appreciate it. >> thank you. you know how to show a gallagher time. ha ha? [laughter] if i never hear the word ditch again, it will be such a happy day, it is an issue that we really need to resolve in this final role. you have been a great help thank you. >> other questions? governors? >> i want to express my

appreciation for your work, my state is just getting hammered by carbon pollution. we had our largest forest fire burn out half the town this year and they are sticking to three times the concurrency of these because of carbon pollution. what we have more frequently is no snow. i know it sounds like a non-problem here today, but half of the areas are shut down in the state of washington today. you cannot go skiing. the base of the food chain, the little critters in our western waters are melting because of the acidity caused by carbon pollution. it comes out of our stacks and creates acidic conditions melting the small critters of the base of the food chain. we are seeing this now firsthand and we are getting big costs in the industry.

the cost of want to ask you about our the health costs. this was really brought to bear -- i was talking to some students along the river in south seattle, and industrial area. they found that the rates of asthma were incredibly intense along these highways and in the strip areas. a 14-year-old student call me that she was 11 until she found out that some kids did not have asthma. her neighborhood, it was just chronic. i think that you said that this would be like three dollars per month in the beginning and then go down to an eight dollars savings over time as we become more efficient. how does the administration look at the health costs associated with this? when i talk to people they think that the health problems are as big as the climate issues.

>> well, the cost benefits i was eking out were narrowly related to energy and cost impact. the benefits would be tremendous . one of the benefits would be to co-benefit of reducing traditional pollutants. the impact with climate change is real. it is not only a matter of seeing some of the pests and the disease carrying insect, seeing those impacting fresh populations. it is also about more ozone. with those higher temperatures comes sunnier skies and he. right now we are seeing one out of 10 kids having ads much in the united states.

if you look at the puerto rican population, it is to out of 10 kids. we have a serious problem that will be exacerbated in a warming climate. we know that the costs associated with that are very large. it is a cost that every family now pays. not one that you can avoid. someone is paying it in terms of lost jobs, lost days at school more emergency visits with higher health care costs. just the cost of knowing that you are not able to take care of your own child. it is a difficult situation and the more the learn about air pollution, the more that you don't like it. carbon pollution is one of those that we need to fight the most to make some really concerted efforts. that is why we are trying to do this. >> questions?

>> just a few follow-ups. on the 111 d rule? outside the question of whether we agree with it or not, there is an opportunity for the states to develop a plan. we have a few agencies that weighed in on a few different plans that were very complex. added on top of those 3 million comments for the states to develop a plan, particularly when you talk about regionalization and how it works with the credit it is very complex and i wonder about the timeframe. >> it is complex. there are simple solutions, but depending on how you want to design your own unique situation, it can be complicated. i think it is important, what

you are suggesting, having a lot of people at the table talking about this. the energy folks are just as engaged in the rulemaking as our environmental colleagues at the state level. the most important thing to keep in mind is that in the proposed rule we understood that this would be a challenge for the states. we actually put in a whole section that talked about implementation. it talked about the fact that if you are going to join a regional group you need longer periods of time in order to develop a plan and we provided for that. we also talked about how to make the process more adaptive so that if the states are doing projections for how successful they will be in an efficiency program and if it does not quite work out there is an opportunity to replace it with something else. there is a whole section in there where we are getting significant comment on how we

can do as you suggest, which is to allow the states sufficient time to access any opportunities that they see here. we have tried very hard to do it in the rule itself as opposed to a secondary plan that we might do after the fact, talking about what needs to be on the table and when, providing opportunities for the additional states that need it. we have been getting a lot of comment on that and hopefully we will come up within a data strategy that allows states time to try new ideas and whether this works for them. >> one of the things, as you and i have discussed before, we have in talking about the leading exporters of coal, trying to develop science and innovation using slipstream off the plan for chemicals, for the auto -- artificial food sweetener.

we have been putting state money forward to find the solutions. i guess as we look at some of these rules as you have heard there is a target on coal. i know that you disagree with that, but my question is that as the federal government looks at this on the whole if there is a problem that you want to address there is the environmental side of it but also innovation and technology. we have moved from the panel to the lightbulb because of the regulations. we had innovation, technology, and an atmosphere where people wanted to invest money because they saw a future for it. your agency and others, looking at it from both sides how do we

find scientific solutions for some of this and turn it into something more useful rather than a liability? >> let me mention a couple of things. doe in the president's budget as you will see, has significant investment in carbon capture and sequestration. in understanding how we can provide the coal industry with the opportunity to move forward with this technology in ways that allow you to take the carbon in and make it useful, if you sequester it, maybe you don't, there are actually facilities in the u.s. doing just that. that is at low concentrations with low amounts of slipstream. when we went and designed our rule for what we call 111 be

that is the rule for new facilities, we did look at what they were projecting for investments in coal. there was no anticipation of significant investment moving forward. our interest was to try to put a moderate level of carbon capture as a goal for new facilities moving forward so that we could provide emphasis and supported boe to try to get interest in new coal facilities that could be retrofitted over time to be part of a lower carbon strategy. because it simply was not there in the market when we were designing it. we have received comments about whether it is too much, but we believe it is not working alone. we are working in concert with boe to make sure that we are providing support and incentive

for exactly what you are talking about, the technologies of the future. coal will be around, not just the future, but elsewhere. certainly for opportunities in other countries as well. for other countries in this fiscal year proposal, it also put together an incentive for the states that is a $4 billion fund for the states that want to move faster or further than a clean power plant might require. right now that is a wide-open opportunity that we will be talking to the states about, it could be used for infrastructure or to support these efforts. we just need to figure out how to be continually reasonable for every state target so that there is an opportunity for more to be done, providing you the

opportunity to access significant resources that advance the technologies moving forward. but there will be nothing better than to use a rule that provides a signal to the market between now and 2030 about the direction in which the country is heading towards a low carbon future. that is the signal that we want to send. >> thank you. i think that coal is the fastest-growing global energy source. it is not just a question for the united states, it is a question for around the globe. i know that you have about two minutes -- i'm sorry. >> i just want to say that market competition with respect to the use of fuels in the united states is vitally important. as is the ability to use any fuel safely. particularly with respect to the residents of my state. universally, across the country

the right way to look at it is producing energy using any fuel generally is as safe as any other >> the market will account for that. we have accounted for that in our region, where coal fire units need to be retired. when i started discussions on this topic at this committee for years ago, so i think striking the right balance is is important. with as much input as you have received over the last year they have provided you with a roadmap to do that, and i want to compliment you for all the hard work that you're doing, as well as the team you assemble to

do it. >> you have any closing comments? >> know. thank you for your graciousness and letting me spend time with you. all the work that we are doing at epa, we are going to work hand-in-hand with the states moving forward. even if we disagree, we will certainly listen, we will take everybody's interests into consideration. we will be out there when this is done to make sure that we can do it together. >> you are accessible. we appreciate that. we will keep commenting and we appreciate you attending the national governors -- for making yourself and your staff available. thank you for being here. >> thank you. [applause] >> before you governors get out

of here, we have votes to do. >> it will only take a minute. >> you don't want me in here by myself voting, because it will not turn out the way you want. ok. the committee now has considered policy proposal located at cap g in the briefing book. you should have received these in february 2013, that's when they were last approved. we have slight modifications. we have natural resource one natural resource to, natural resource three. your staff is looked at these the you have had a chance to look at them. quickly, because we can only have them for two years. we need to renew these. can i have a motion question mark -- motion? motion is been made. further discussion. all those in favor say, i.

aye. thank you for attending. i appreciate it. [applause] >> national governors association wrapped up its meeting today, talking about energy security. it was covered and another session in the last couple of days including the economic challenges facing the states. coming up later today, we will hear more about issues affecting states with gary herbert of utah. he is our guest on newsmakers.

that airs at 6:00 p.m. today on c-span. the governors are headed to the white house tonight for a dinner with president obama and first lady. vice president biden will also be there. the president will be meeting with the governor's tomorrow after the nga finishes its winter meeting. we would hear that live here on c-span tomorrow afternoon. >> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress not only are there 43 new republicans and 50 new democrats in the house and 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate, there's also 108 women in congress, including the first african-american republican in the house, and the first woman veteran in the senate. keep track of the members of congress using congressional chronicle on c-span.org. the page is left of useful information there, including voting results and statistics about each session of congress. new congress, best access on

c-span, c-span2, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> a look at how foreign policy is factoring into the 2016 presidential race. this is 50 minutes. >> 01 a welcome daniel i want to welcome daniel. he outlined his foreign-policy agenda. he was quick to make the difference that he was not his brother. mistakes were made in iraq. what was your take away? >> he's beginning to lay out what he believes in. i think that's great. i think all the candidates should get out and try to give serious foreign-policy addresses. iso is light in terms of the

substance of the actual speech. he did not get into the nitty-gritty of what mistakes were made. how he would avoid this kind of mistakes. i thought those a little lacking, but i thought the q&a was close. it was very good. he's going to be a real contender, despite the fact that he has a very unpopular last name and despite the fact it will take a certain amount of work. >> let's go back to that speech. here's what jeb bush said in chicago at the chicago international council. >> mistakes made in iraq for sure. using the intelligence capability that everybody embraced about weapons of mass destruction turns out to not be accurate. not creating an environment of security after the successful taking out a hussein was a mistake. iraqis wanted security more than anything else.

my brother's administration through the surge, which was one of the most heroic acts politically that any president has done, because there was no support for this, it was usually -- hugely successful and created stability that when the new president came in, he could build on to create a more stable situation. the void has been fill because we created the void. the lesson is engagement whether that's always the united states, that's another subject. when you have a failed state, or a weak state and you leave, the , first thing that happened was -- it was fragile, who did he turn to? he turned to iran. iran has replaced the united states in the significant way. if you are serious about protecting the status of nationstates, you have to be

able to protect the integrity. steven: his first speech was a detroit. as you indicated, in chicago last week, focusing on foreign policy. "the new york times" reacting. he called it jeb bush's brainless trust. it is pointing out that some veterans, including jim baker who served for george bush and ronald reagan are the people advising jeb bush on foreign policy. these are the people advising jeb bush when it comes to foreign-policy. is that good or bad for jeb bush? daniel: i think he is in a tricky spot. if you're running for president who'd you turn to. you turn to people with experience. it just turns out that his brother and his dad have experience. he is dammed if he does, dammed

if he doesn't. he can't really connect or have advisers they don't have this experience. it is a little bit of a problem and is reminiscent of previous a administrations. i do think in a way that is unpreventable. in the same way that hillary clinton will have advisers from president obama as well as her own husband. those of the two less presidents. that can be avoided. those are people with experience whether you like it or not. steven: "the old gang of warmongers back together or co how does -- how does jeb bush deal with that? daniel: that might make a nice column, i don't think it's quite correct. i think we should give the guy a chance. listen to what he has to say. if he is gunning for war, maybe there is a good argument for it. maybe it is in the blood. we don't know. let's give the guy a chance. let's not jump to conclusions.

steven: daniel halper, as you look at the republican field scott walker a likely candidate, chris christie, marco rubio, rand paul, ted cruz from texas where do you see the debate going? daniel: i think it depends. if the media is in control of the debate, it devolves into garbage. we have seen that today. "the washington post" has a silly story about walker the fighting obama's religion. it is kind of inappropriate. i'm in favor of reporters being able to ask candidates whatever they want. it is silly. it is not really telling. i think republican candidates will have to rise above and be aspirational in a way that the media might not allow them to do, or encourage, because they want to play this game of gotcha.

it drives a lot of interest in the story. giving big speeches, talking about big ideas, not taking anything for granted, not pretending like they are definitely going to be the party of the future because they will be against hillary clinton, and old faith. it requires a lot of thought and policy ideas. i hope they will do that and rise above what is happening. steven: your response to this sentiment from another viewer responding to what jeb bush had to say. "someone tell jeb that it was a desperate effort to save face." daniel: that's not true. it was a heroic decision. the easy decision would have been not to surge. he took the hard decision, the politically unpopular decision , and he did it because it was right. granted, other things that happened since then that have

made the surge look not as good but i do not think that is the fault of george w. bush. i think it is the fault of the personn that followed them. from "defense one" -- "how hillary's hawkishness could cost her the presidency." daniel: i ." daniel: i don't know. libya, we don't have troops on the ground. we don't have the same thing. obviously, hillary spearheaded the libya intervention, such as it was. she does take some blame that we did not do anything to help reconstruct libya afterwards and sort of default into -- overrun by terrorist. obviously, she takes the blame. i don't think it will have the same same resonance as iraq

at the time. americans are not dying in libya . for the most part, with some exceptions such as the ghazi. i don't the will have the same residence, politically. steven: her plan to have the reset button. one of her early initiatives will that come back to haunt her? daniel: absolutely. it was shocking last summer when she said it was a brilliant idea and defended it on her book tour. i think everyone sees russia as an aggressor. they see russia supporting terrorist states. they see hillary clinton as someone who failed in resetting relations and sort of gave them a free pass on doing things around the world. look at ukraine. i think ukraine is a perfect illustration of this. back in the clinton the administration, there was an agreement signed for ukrainians to give up their nuclear weapons. under the assurance that the united states, great britain and russia would not be an aggressor. they have obviously been invaded

in crimea. i don't think it has borne well that hillary clinton has reset with russia. yet, we have provided no covered cover at all for the ukrainians. steven: our focus is foreign policy on the 2016 presidential race. our guest is daniel halper, the online editor for "the weekly standard." you are also the author of a book that we've talked about in the past when you have been a guest on the program. a lot of stores this past week on the amount of money that the clinton foundation has been able to raise. and whether there's a connection between what hillary clinton did and their foundation. where is the intersection. daniel: they are raising money for from foreigners. my question is, what do you people want in return for their investment in the clinton foundation. they are giving money, obviously they want something in return. if you look of the clinton foundation, it is not the most

charitable foundation. if it was clear charity these groups were looking at, they would probably look elsewhere. it is basically a donation and in kind for hillary clinton. and for hillary clinton's upcoming election. i think that raises a lot of ethical questions, a lot of campaign finance questions, and things that i hope we will get to the bottom with. we need more cooperation from hillary clinton. we need to be able to ask her questions. steven: as you look into this, what are your questions? daniel: what do the people expect return. what is the foundation doing. how has the foundation been financing their own lavish lifestyle. last year, they paid $8.5 million in travel. for what? is that what a charity is for? there are numerous questions on those lines.

steven: our guest is daniel halper. first up is mike from ohio. good morning. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning, steve. how are you? as i think back on this, i remember butler whose spilled the beans under fdr. hello? steven: yes, we can hear you. caller: he spilled the beans so-called. that is where that saying came from. if you think that, or had a history lesson on that, it pointed out that the big bankers tried to bribe butler into a coup d'etat. talk about drunk on money today . then foreign policy the summer before 9/11, james baker the third set up offices throughout the middle east before 9/11. could you point that out because

at the end of the bush administration, halliburton and blackwater also set up their offices in the middle east. i just wonder how that corporate international fascism bribe money is working out? host: is there a connection? guest: i'm not sure what the question is. obviously rand paul would have you believe that there is a question but the facts don't really back it up. host: what about rand paul and his approach to foreign policy? how is that going to play out? guest: i think it might have resonated better a couple years ago. the fact that he is to the left of foreign policy doesn't help him in a republican primary. i think the fact that he is willing to give president obama benefit of the doubt but various republicans such as dick cheney and what not he's questioned their motives throughout the years. i don't think that sits very well with republicans. i think his moment has in a way passed. he is obviously clever and

intelligent politician. obviously somewhat gifted. i just don't think his moment is there any more. guest: absolutely. that's why we have various disclosure laws. and we should. it's a problem. obviously domestically as well. look, there's a lot of wall street bankers giving hillary paid speeches as well as huge donations to her campaign. they obviously want something in return. republicans are not immune to this. the question is whether it's foreign interests, oman, saudi arabia, notoriously repressive towards women. as the first woman president someone who would be, if elected, i think that hurts her credibility as such a stallwart for those values when indeed she's willing to take their money. host: many of these candidates

will be in the national harbor just outside of washington, d.c. next week. we'll have live coverage here. our guest is daniel hall pert. patrick is next from canada. good morning. caller: i'm from florida. that's ok. host: quite a difference. go ahead. caller: a couple quick questions for your guest. with jeb bush, the guy that supports common core and amnesty, don't you think that -- that's the number one and two issues with us conservatives that we're passionate about and this guy supports this. i have no clue how this guy thinks that he is going to win a primary. even if he was to win, thing about the general. over 4 million conservatives didn't vote for romney and that was against obama. what makes this guy think that he is going to win with a bush

name by the way, because most , people are -- that's a damaged name for the war in iraq and . and what do you think about the chances of senator marco rubio winning a primary? i think this guy is really smart. he's got really new ideas. he's hispanic from a swing state. i think republicans want a fresh new face. i was just wondering what you thought about those two questions. thank you. guest: so i basically agree. rubio has i think a much better shot than bush. bush does have problems with common core and his support of immigration reform. i think that's a problem for him. i think if he wins the primary he will obviously come off as a stronger candidate. and so in the general election it will be a different ballgame. but i do think that he has weaknesses that might be

exploited by other republican candidates and those are two very good ones. one advantage that he clearly has is he will post the best fund-raising numbers in the first quarter, probably the first two or three quarters of any candidate. i think that will give a lot of momentum in the press. nonetheless he will get that. i think a lot of the elites both in d.c. and in new york seem to be rallying around jeb bush because they believe that they can work with him. and a lot are in favor of immigration reform and even common core. so there is a little divide that i think bush is sort of emblematic of between the donor and elite class and conservative voters. so he will have to bridge that if he is going to be successful. rubio, a lot of people are quick to write off his chances. i think he has an immigration problem because he worked with the gang of 8 and chuck schumer. that is a bit of a problem. but rubio is an enormously eloquent speaker. he is a very talented

politician. he can be a very strong candidate also for the reason that you suggest. hispanic from florida i think would appeal to a lot of conservatives. so we will have to see how it plays out. it's very early. but it will be interesting. >> new efforts to pass a bill to fund land the homeland security department. mark zandi talks about the state of the economy the u.s. housing market, and possible action by the federal reserve. and beth akers examines the cost of the student loan program. we will take your calls.

you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> the new america foundation hosted a cyber security conference. watch it live at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two. the democratic national committee released an interim review saturday examining democratic losses in the term elections. it showed the democrats lack a single election strategy. kentucky governor and democratic victory task force member outline the report of the winter meeting. this is about 90 minutes.

>> police rise for the presentation of the colors.

join me in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. join me in thanking the color guard. [applause] the colors are retired.

at this time, i would like to introduce derek harkins. reverend harkins served as senior chapters of the 19 street baptist church. he just recently accepted a position as vice president of the illogical seminary in new york city. he is no stranger to the committee. he served as art national director of faith outreach. that was at the dnc during the 24 presidential campaign. it was responsible for all aspects of engaging the faith community. prior to beginning in 19 street, he served as a senior minister of new hope baptist church in dallas, texas. he began his career at a baptist church in harlem, new york. they join me in welcoming

reverend harkins. [applause] [laughter] >> would that i could pray away the snow this morning. shall we join our hearts? eternal god, call is too high purpose. not the negative and smallmindedness of division. give us eyes that see the vision of a just society for all americans. give us years they hear the pleas of those who are far too often in the margins and in the shadows. give us hands that work for what is right and just and fair. give us voices that are never

still when the call for what is loving and caring should go forth. give us feet that move and not dissuaded by the challenges of the day. give us finally hearts that the with a passion for this great nation that we all love. we asked the things, asking for your abiding presence as we go stand beside us as our companion , sustain us as our strength loom above is as her inspiration. always grow within us. amen. >> well said, as always great before i introduce our first speaker, i want to take a moment to recognize all of -- policelea take

your seats. se i was have the pleasure of introducing my colleagues and fellow officers out in the trenches and crisscrossing the country hoping is make sure that we can send a message to voters all across the united states and this morning is no exception. i will do that and apologize on behalf of our vice chair who is light was canceled and had to reschedule it. i believe he had to leave already. feel free, we understand if you're trying to get home and your flight has been canceled and we are going to go to the meeting is morning. we will still have the closing session because we want to give everybody an opportunity who was able to remain a chance to interact with the task force has been some time giving them feedback asking questions. know that this is not the last time. if you believe, there are many

opportunities between now and when the final report is developed. starting from my right, our incredible treasure. [applause] national finance chair. [applause] our amazing secretary, the mayor of the city of baltimore. [applause] the incomparable donna, who is the vice chair for voter registration of dissipation. [applause] -- and participation. and our vice chair, the chair of the new hampshire democratic party, who also is the leader of leaders. [applause] one of our vice chairs and has also been reelected as the chair