you have bigger problems with that. the militia may have something to say about it. >> that was part of today's senate foreign committee hearing. on c-span 2, remarks from tom wheeler on telecommunications policy. he told open internet advocates that february's fcc vote on new internet rules was the proudest moment in his public life. he spoke to an audience at the senate for democratic -- democracy and technology. tomorrow on washington journal david mcintosh will discuss his group's recent look at congress and how members vote on pro growth and limited growth legislation. will marshall looks at the recent policy agenda released by the house new democrat coalition, and your phone calls,

facebook comments, and tweets. now to london, for today's question time. he talked about the upcoming united kingdom general elections set to take place on may 7 and whether or not he will participate in candidate debates. this is 35 minutes. >> order. questions for the prime minister. >> thank you mr. speaker. i had meetings with colleagues and others. i shall have further meetings later today. >> thank you. our allies are warning of a dangerous gap between us in america. can the prime minister tell us what is more important for him protecting our armed forces or introducing tax cut's? >> combining economic security

and national security. and the two go together. we inherited a 38 billion pound black hole in our defense problem. by this chance for this government, we have filled that gap, where our economy is strong and our country is safe. >> in the mediation scheme, the post office has just sacked the independent investigators, and told them to destroy all their papers. does my right honorable friend agree that it is essential that the second sites second report should not be suppressed, but should be surprised to postmasters and mps starting with the honorable member and the this select committee?

>> my friend makes an important point. it is an issue the committee is taking evidence on and they should begin in the relevant information. the government should not interfere with the process, i will ask the business secretary of right about the concern and make sure the business committee can do its job. ed miliband. [applause] >> the primary said in this house he wanted a head-to-head debate between me and him. he said it was game on. when did he lose his nerve. if he wants a debates, i am offering a date.

the 23rd of march. why will he say yes. i'm going to be at the debate. i'm asking him about the two-way debate between me and him, and him and me. the original proposal for a two-way debate didn't come from me. it came from him. he said this. i have suggested we need a debate where two people directly debate each other. it is a good proposal then, it was a good proposal now. what will he say for debate? he said any time, anyplace anywhere. i've told him the 23rd of march. i tell him what has changed. we have a situation where it is obvious, you can't win without the s&p. he says we need the two leaders

who can call a truce the we examined. let's have the debate. >> he says it is all about leadership. he said it is about him and me. >> nobody in the house of commons, and nobody in the house--order -- nobody in the house of commons should be shouted down. i have news for members, however long it takes. it is not going to happen. members will be heard. >> these are pathetic feeble excuses. there are no circumstances debate me head to head.

>> he has no plans. he's got no team. he's not got a clue about how to run the country. they cannot win the election. here is the leaflet they put out in scotland. the s&p might be interested in it. we need to stop the tories being the largest party. what he's got to do is prove that he is not a chicken and rule it out. >> there's only one person preparing for defeat and it is this prime minister. he is not going to be able to wriggle off this.

this is what he said before the last general election. he said this. we have the opportunity to debate a prime minister's question. that is a different matter to a proper television debate during a proper campaign. he said one parliament is not sitting. when people will be most receptive to engage in discussion. why doesn't he just cut out the feeble excuses and admit the truth? he wants to talk about the future of a television program. i want to talk about the future of the country. more questions three weeks ago talked about jobs. and he can't talk about an employment to cut his is because it is falling.

and he can't talk about inflation because it is at a record low. and to examine pockets. and is so confident why is he chickening out of the debate? everyone can hear. >> mr. speaker. i tell you why this matters. because it goes to his character. it goes to his character. the public will see through his feeble excuses, instead of these ridiculous tactics, why doesn't he have more backbone and turn up for a head to head debate with me anytime anywhere any place. i will tell him what goes to character someone who is , prepared to crawl into downing street, an alliance with people, what a despicable and weak thing to do. risking our defenses, risking our country, risking our united kingdom.

if he had an ounce of courage. >> there is only one person with the integrity of the unaided -- united kingdom, it is this useless prime minister. >> that question will be heard. the noise calculated lead being made by some members on both sides of the house is a disgrace to the house of commons. the right honorable gentleman will be heard and the prime minister will be heard. that is the end of the matter. >> there's only one person who is a risk to the integrity of the country and that is the prime minister. on a head to head debate, we learned something about him because like all bullies when the heat is really on he runs for cover. >> he won't take it. anytime anyplace anywhere but he won't take it.

the truth is they have nothing to say on politics, nothing to say on the economy. their only way into the downing street is on alex hammond's coattails. it is an alliance between people who want to bankrupt britain and people who want to break a briton and the british people will never have it. >> thank you, mr. speaker. on the 26 of march, the inquiry which has been knocking at the issue of blood in scotland will finally report, likely with implications for the united kingdom. it is highly unlikely there will be up response. with my right honorable friend who has taken a personal interest over 100 members of the house, given assurance the

matter will not split from his agenda or the government's agenda and as soon as possible in the new parliament there will be an intent at closing down this tragedy in our country. >> let me pay tribute to the right honorable gentleman who has led on this issue, but i suspect every constituency in the house have constituents who had hepatitis c from all age ivy -- or hiv because of contaminated blood coming to their surgeries and tell their moving stories. it is right to wait for the inquiry and that is not an excuse because i want us to take action. not sure the deal will never fully satisfy those who want this wrong to be rated but as a -- wrong to be righted, but as a wealthy successful country we should be helping these people more, we will help these people more. we need heroes first.

>> before the last election, the prime minister said he would cut immigration. immigration is three times higher than promise. why has he failed? >> migration from outside the european union but inside the european union we created more jobs than the rest of the european union put together and so now what we need to do is to reform welfare to make sure the people and come to other european countries cannot claim unemployment benefits, leave after six months without a job and have to work four years before they get tax credits. that is when you get if you get a conservative government after the next election. >> barry mccloud. >> celebrating international women's day, the prime minister is to be congratulate in making it happen for women. more at work than ever before. more females than ever before.

given that women are poor for the long-term economic plan, support the women and equality to make sure future governments do that. >> i join her in integrating -- in agreeing to that, but there is still disadvantage and barriers we have to breakdown. there are more women in work and then ever before. the pay gap has been eradicated. there is more we are doing to help with child care and people with caring responsibilities and also try to help women around the world not least by campaigning and working to cut out fgm and in the horrors of forced marriage. we have a good record in women's rights not just in the u.k. but right around the world. >> let me share my admiration the charity that gave out 6000

food parcels to local families, and will he tell those families why 30 years after the miners strike, our community is having to compensate for its heartless, hopeless government. is that why he won't go head-to-head in debating? >> i tell the lady what we inherited, because we have seen unemployment come down by 44%. in the northwest we have seen 124,000 more people in work. those are people able to provide for their families. that is what is happening. a growing economy, left by the hon. lady and her party. >> thank you, mr. speaker. we could be rightly proud of our technology research base, but government spending in this important area is falling behind. when my right honorable friend is returned as prime minister, a

a commitment to a increase in maintaining saving in sciences helping to create high-paying jobs we need to deliver our long-term economics. >> my honorable friend is right to mention science. we read the science budget during this parliament because it has been essential to fuel the modern manufacturing in the economy that we want to see. you will also see x initiatives, the alan turing institute all of , these big investments in science and the next parliament. >> caroline lucas. >> entrenching market structures in the nhs pandering contracts into the private sector, and the 10 billion pounds a year, why don't you think that money would be better spent on patient care? >> what we have than is saved money by cutting out bureaucracy

so we are seeing 4.5 billion pounds go into the nhs, but if the honorable lady is saying if there is no location at all where anyone from the independent sector or the charitable sector or the voluntary sector can help in our in age as i think she is wrong. the mary kerri cancer care helping the end of life, the idea that there's only one way to deliver health care in our brilliant and age as expanding under this government is completely wrong. >> despite record numbers of new jobs people with a learning disability can still find it tough to get into work. will the prime minister join me in welcoming low as zone which will recognize the commitment of local employers to people with a learning disability, and the ability that is too often hit. -- hidden. >> i certainly join my right

honorable friend in praising the great work of the inclusions on which is launching this friday. we need to build on the success we have already with the employment of disabled people up 141,000 over the last year. but this is where we need not only a change in action but a change in culture which is why the visibility campaign is so important to encourage employers to give in and give employment to opportunities to disabled people. i want to see this go across the country. >> i am sure the prime minister will want to join me to congratulate [indiscernible] which the competition from the london i of the eiffel tower become the best international attraction. does he share my frustration and anger, the much bigger stability of economic progress is being jeopardized by promises made by the agreement.

>> let me raise the titanic project exhibition. i have been to see it myself. it is brilliant in terms of a visitor attraction and another reason to visit belfast for people not just around the united kingdom but around europe and around the world. i agree with her that what matters is implementing the agreement and everyone should do what they signed up to do in that agreement. i know that my right honorable friend and secretary is working hard to make sure everyone fulfilled their pledges. >> mark hunter. >> thank you. will the prime minister join me in paying tribute to the many dedicated health professionals who work at st. john's hospice and does he agree with me that the decision to do full -- diebold 6 billion pounds of nhs spending prisons a tremendous opportunity to better integrate healthcare services and secure a

more positive, long-term funding arrangement for local hospices. >> let me agree with my honorable friend and the hospice movement is another example of some thing that provides vital health and social services in our country which is not necessarily owned and operated by the nhs. i am not parent who used to -- i'm amazed by the work that they do. we have allocated 100 billion of funding since 2010. this is in addition to the children's hospices. i would welcome both nhs money made of able to hospices, and the manchester decision, the greater manchester decision making sure decisions are made between local authorities and the nhs, and made closer to the patients they are serving. >> thank you mr. speaker.

a recent report shows a looming deficit of two under million dollars in forfeiture in three years time. 10 more of these were commission last year. and local help economies around the country. after repeated stonewalling, health ministers are saying, quote, consultant found were not in commission to the local health summit as described in the questions. can i ask the prime minister election or no election why is , the government engage in a cover-up of what lies in store for large parts around the country. >> there's a pattern which is labor in staffordshire are determined to frighten people about the future of the n h a -- nhs, and they are the last people who should do it. after the appalling mess they made in staffordshire. we are seeing more money going into the nhs, a strong future which we continue as long as we are in this place. >> mr.

speaker, this is the third time in four months i have raised a question. letting down the 180 or so people with diseases that are outside the house today who were failed by a flawed process. some of those children lose access to their drugs from may and their conditions will deteriorate irreversibly. we have two questions. can you tell me in that time will he announce if there will be funding for these drugs for children and people need? >> my friend's right to raise this issue. these are very rare and debilitating conditions and there are drugs that can help the children who have these conditions. my understanding having looked at this, and the health and science ministers, and i met with the families and drug

companies, and my understanding is that nhs england is holding a review. the review will be completed by the end of april and the companies are currently funding these drugs until the end of may. i don't see any reason why there shouldn't be continuity of care and continuity of drugs. >> 2% of gdp on defense is not only significant as part of our next commitment but an important commitment to be a reliable ally. only last september the prime minister still thought he was important and other countries in meeting britain's commitment, is it not just a little bit embarrassed about that? >> this country met nato commitments not only for 2% but to spend the money on deployable equipment and forces which is just as important a commitment. what i would say to the hon. lady is how does she feel about her leader contemplating a deal

with the s&p to strip the country of their defenses? that is what they're prepared to do. he says very clearly they are only trying to be the largest market, not to win a majority. that is the risk we face. no protection for our country. [indiscernible] >> with unemployment falling enterprises withstanding, 310 new businesses being created. will my right honorable friend described to the house which government policies will see this recovery continuing so that the irresistible and unstoppable case actually happens? >> i commend him on the consistency of his campaign to be recognized in this way. he asked me what policies will

make a difference and bring businesses cutting the jobs tax , of businesses and charities, that is helping, the lowest rate of corporation taxes in the g-7. that is helping. we are abolishing national insurance contributions for under 21s, extending doubling the small business rate relief. all of these things, sticking to our long-term economic plan as the imf and the visit fis, to make sure the south end can continue to grow and perform well. >> thank you, mr. speaker. in protecting universal benefits the prime minister says there is -- pensioners deserve dignity when they retire. retired consistency, what is the point when the losses are even -- when there are no buses or even trains? [laughter]

or even trains, as the conservative pro-counsel pocketed the additional money which would have been used. will the prime minister do the right thing? >> the honorable lady needs to bring her question to a close but that question notwithstanding a display of considerable rudeness, will be heard. that is the end of it. i don't care how long it takes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. will the prime minister do the right thing and ensure concessionary travel for all pensioners is fair and equitable? >> buses are the responsibility of the county council. i think the point made was a fair i talked about dignity and one. security in retirement because we have kept our commitments and

upgraded the pension so pension -- the pension by the triple lock, so pensioners in her constituency will have 950 pounds more in terms of state pensions than when i became prime minister in 2010. we committed to keeping the free bus, and we cap each and every one of those promises, or gone beyond that by saying to pensioners they don't need to buy an annuity, it is their money, their savings, they can spend it as they choose. this has been a government that recognizes people reserve the dignity and security and we delivered in full. >> 75% of our schools contained asbestos. 20 teachers a year are dying of exposure to asbestos. children are known and to be particularly vulnerable. will the prime minister ensure the government publishes is completed policy review toward the solution.

>> the honorable lady raises a very important issue, which was well broadcast and covered on the media in the last couple of days. that is why we are carrying out an asbestos review going through all of the schools and we will publish it in due course and action will have to be taken. >> mr. speaker, i was thinking of raising with the prime minister the conservative long-term economic plan. [shouting] >> which like pinocchio's nose grows longer every day. i thought we would just put two questions to go, i would ask the prime minister whether he shared my imminent release that neither he nor i will have to pencil in 12:00 noon on wednesday any longer.

>> can i take this opportunity as he will be shortly leaving this house, to pay to be to the right honorable gentleman. i will never forget as a new backbencher in 2001, seeing him in the light of the appalling terrorist attacks that have taken place across the world the strong leadership he gave on the importance of keeping, a -- keeping our country safe. he is a remarkable politician, a remarkable man. i remember once in the home affairs select committee even though he couldn't see what we all work, what who was concentrating and who wasn't. i don't know how he has this extraordinary gift but he is an externally politician. i pay tribute to him. >> the prime minister warned those flirted with you cap -- yo

ukip [indiscernible] can i put it to the prime minister the outcome could be more unpleasant. and go to bed with the bar raj not only wake up with the lead but also end up and snuggled up next to alex sammond. >> who knows what you could wake up with, it may be nigel, it could be any one of the people. of course, that is an option. at all points to the difference between the confidence of the conservative and the chaos of the alternative. >> gregory campbell. >> people in northern ireland once more have the section abuse issue put on the spotlight as members of the ira stand accused of holding candor and courts,

will the prime minister helped to establish a cross border inquiry with the power to call key witnesses to bring some form of closure and justice to young people particularly web and abused >> i will look carefully at what the honorable gentleman has said. there are proposals to deal with the issues in an accountable way. >> we have a proud history of supporting the armed forces. the recent contracts to service a helicopter fleet will have aerospace companies preserve those links. will the prime minister reassurance of spending in the defense industry?

prime minister cameron: the 160 billion pound program over the next decade will grow in real terms. new docs will welcome the queen elizabeth aircraft shelter. a new older -- a new order will pump money into our defense industry. >> a couple with two children with a man earning 25,000 pounds will be worse off and tax credits if they stay together as opposed to if they break up. if this attack on working families another reason you will

not go head-to-head in reelection debates? prime minister cameron: this has lifted those first pounds out of tax -- i seem to review voted against this. he should be voting with us. >> i am proud that -- in that time, crime in my county has fallen. the number of schools rated as needing improvement has have. unemployment in north work sure has fallen to the lowest levels since 1983. does the prime minister agree that this is not just empty

rhetoric? prime minister cameron: the count in north warwickshire has come down by 64%. if i know tracy, he will work very hard to make sure they benefit from our long-term economic plan. >> this will be my last prime minister's questions after 20 years. prime minister cameron: i congratulate him on his service in this house and in winning his by election. we all have lands for after may

7, i have a little list, i suppose you have one too. [laughter] >> one of the two main parties -- will the prime minister confirm that if he is still prime minister, that people ensure that the main gate contracts are signed? prime minister cameron: trident and his replacement are nonnegotiable. they are absolutely a vital part of this nations security. this is the leaflet going out

across scotland. it says that at the general election, we need to stop the tories being the largest party. they want to crawl into downing street on the coattails -- british people will never have it. >> 17,000 police officers -- another 30,000 would go under the spending plan. it is said that it would not be possible to protect the public from criminals -- is he right? prime minister cameron: we have made difficult decisions on police spending, but crime is

down. as for the shadow chancellor's dossier, i have heard of him briefing against the leader, but he briefs against himself. [laughter] >> order! [shouting] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, >> at the beginning of the hearing, protesters interrupted opening remarks. here's a look. >> it would be a mistake to

communicate to my soul -- isil -- >> the united states is killing innocent civilians with drones -- >> we live in a country where people have the opportunity to express themselves in a democratic way. we would hope that you would allow this hearing to proceed in an orderly way and respect citizens rights to be here. in a civil manner. i do not think you are helping your cause. i think you are hurting your cause. hopefully you remain in an appropriate manner. >> that was just part of the relations hearing committee on using military force against isis.

on c-span2 remarks from the fcc chair. he told advocates that the new internet rules was the proudest moment of his public life. we will show you those comments at 8:00 on c-span2. tomorrow, david mcintosh discusses pro growth and limited government legislation. plus your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. washington journal, tomorrow morning. earlier today, martin j. o'malley spoke about his approach to decision-making and government. he discussed ways to improve education.

the former maryland governor says he is considering a presidential run in 2016. >> good evening. it is my pleasure to welcome martin j. o'malley. here in the brookings government studies program. one of the problems we analyze is how to make government work better for average americans. martin j. o'malley has been a trailblazer in doing that as governor of maryland from 2007-2015. under his leadership, maryland recovered 100% of the jobs lost during the recession. it was one of just seven states

to maintain a aaa bond rating. the state also had the best public schools in america for five years in a row. governor o'malley compiled a distinguished record as the mayor of baltimore, where "time" named tim one of the top five big-city mayors. he will talk about the tools he pioneered as governor. in particular, ways that he and his team use data to eat -- to make government work better for everyone. he will focus on the city-stat

programs. after he speaks, we will open the floor to your questions. it is my pleasure to introduce governor martin j. o'malley. martin j. o'malley: thank you. thank you for setting the wheels in motion for this event. this is fun. thank you all for being here. the people who work at brookings have done outstanding work on analysis, and government performance. it is a pleasure to be here to talk about data-driven governing. it is an issue near and dear to my heart. our country and world faces big

challenges, whether it is making our economy work again or confronting security threats or climate change. all of those challenges will require a government that actually works. you and i see a world where our creativity -- it has helped make progress possible. creativity and imagination are not the first words that come to mind to most citizens today when we think about government. the question i want to explore is, what if they were? what if we tackled our biggest problems by using data-driven strategies? what if we could make our communities safer by knowing

where crime was actually happening? what if we could put an end to lead poisoning of children instead of ignoring it? what if we improve public safety by using big data, and the experience to actually identify that small percentage of probationers and parolees who are truly the greatest threats to public safety? what if, by sharing medical records, he could actually cut avoidable hospital readmissions by 10% each year, every year? imagine if the overall performance of every school

could be measured so that citizens and parents could see where we were headed. imagine of one platform measured the job skills and demand in a given metro area, but also allowed employers to find skilled workers they need. as you might have guessed, in baltimore and in maryland, we did all of these things and more. this is the new way of governing. it is not about excuses and deflecting blame or ignoring problems. it is about transparency, openness, and accountability. it is not about left or right to it is about doing the things that work. it also is about setting clear goals, measuring progress, and getting things done again.

the old ways of governing bureaucracy, hierarchy -- these things are fading away. a new way of governing is emerging. it calls for a new way of leadership at every level. leadership that embraces a culture of accountability, and braces entrepreneurial approaches to problem solving and braces collaboration. leadership that understands the power of technology like smart maps and the internet to make the work of progress open and visible for every citizen. this new way of governing has taken root in cities and towns across our country. it is happening in blue states as well as red states. it is -- it holds the promise of a more effective way of

governing at every level of our public life -- local state, and federal. our approach to this was born in the subway system of new york city. in the early 1990's, there was a man named jack maple. lieutenant jack maple believed there was a better way to deploy his police officers than the way they had always done it. with nothing more sophisticated the maps and markers jack started plotting where and when robberies took place on his section of the subway. he called these maps of the future. he sent officers to stop criminals where they were most likely to strike at the times they were most likely to strike. he put the cops on the dots.

jack and his officers drove robberies down to record lows. the media came calling. the new police commissioner came calling. soon, jack was not plotting a strategy for part of the subway, he was made deputy police commissioner of the entire new york city police department, and developed the system called comstat. the nypd under his command went on to reduce violent crime to levels that very few people ever would've thought possible in new york city 20 years ago. new york's ongoing success in reducing crime quite literally led to a revolution of performance-measured policing in cities and towns across the

united states. one of the first of those major cities was baltimore. when i was elected mayor in 1999, our city had allowed herself to become the most violent and abandoned city in america. with more population loss over the prior 30 years than any major city in our country. at the beginning of our administration, we were able to put an additional 20 police officers onto the streets, which presented us with an important question. where do we send them? we could have deployed them equally to each of the six council districts. or, if we wanted to be political, we could deploy them to the council districts with

the highest numbers of primary voters. if he wanted to be real, real political, we could deploy them to the districts with the greatest number of people voted for me. or,, or, we could deploy them to concentrated hotspots where the greatest number of citizens were being shot, mugged, or robbed. this is the option we closed. we repeated this every day and we, constantly looking for better strategies. over the next 10 years baltimore achieved some of the biggest crime reductions -- in fact, the biggest crime reduction of any major city in america in those 10 years. there is an equivalent of this

comstat strategy, some call it moneyball. you put your hitters were passed performances say they are most likely to hit the ball. with your police, you put them where crime is most likely to happen. that is the deployment of resources to maximum effect. that is data-driven. it helps make the city safer and makes ballgames. we became the first major city to do this. we created a new culture of higher expectations in city hall. one of accountability, transparency, centered around results. and the constant search for better ways to get things done. the leaders started to emerge,

and be recognized them and their colleagues were able to see who their leaders were. we sat -- we set high goals to see whether or not the things we were doing were working. our city stat approved like comstat. accurate information shared by all, rapid deployment of resources, effectives strategies, and relentless follow-up. every two weeks on a constant rotating basis, my team and i would hold city stat meetings with agency or department heads and there leadership teams in city hall, and they groom with the big boards and the screen

protectors that would project what the people had submitted. everything was mapped out and indexed to the previous reporting periods. so that everybody could see and know. ideas were shared and questions were fired. if we failed to hit a goal, we wanted to know why. if we hit a goal, we wanted to know how so we could do it again. it worked. we brought crime down by 42%. we reduced the number of children poisoned by led by 71%. the former mayor, my mentor and tormentor, accused our administration of having no vision.

we responded with a 48 hour pothole guarantee. our cruise actually hit that guarantee. each of the members of those crews got a thank you note from the mayor. the kennedy school give us an award in 2001. our innovation is that we started measuring output as well as input. we did not do city stat to win awards, we did it to survive. that -- by the way -- if the international mission statement of every mayor the world over. for many years, it seemed like the drug dealers were more effective than our own government. thanks to city stat, that reality was starting to change. when i was elected governor of

maryland, we took this approach statewide and we called it states that. the premise was essentially the same. it was data driven system making with follow-up and results. we shared this online so that every citizen could access it and see where we stood and where we were going. with this approach, we achieved like a public safety triple crown. we drove crime down incarceration to a 20 year low at the same time reducing recidivism.

they are not many states that did that. those in our school systems made them the best public schools in the nation for an unprecedented five years in a row. that had never happened before, and we did it in the middle of a recession. we have the number of children placed in foster care to the lowest numbers on record. we reduced infant mortality by 10%, and when we hit that goal, we kept going to 17%. we took on the big challenge of health care costs. with a commitment and goal of driving down preventable hospital readmissions by creating a platform for health care providers to share patient information by mapping the incidence and locations of

chronic conditions and people who suffer from them, and by aligning profit incentives, we drove down hospital readmissions by more than 10% in just the first year of trying. it used to be, in maryland, the governors of maryland with said a goal of cleaning up the chesapeake bay. we started to measure actions and results. we identified the sources of pollution and the actions we can take together on land to halt the flow of pollutants into the rivers and streams of the chesapeake. we set two-year milestones. we reduced storm water runoff and expanded the number of acres

, clean technology and our sewage treatment plants. we made it possible for citizens to click on every to be jerry basin where they live, to see whether we were making progress. for all of that effort, we reduced sediment levels by 18%. we restored hundreds of acres of natural wetlands. we doubled the number of native oysters. did we meet every goal we set? no, we did not meet every goal we set. with true performance-measured government failure has to be an option -- albeit a temporary option.

if we met every goal, we probably did not set or height -- our sites very high. after six years of steady progress, saving lives and increasing drug treatment maryland experienced and deadly spike in heroin overdoses. we set a new goal, we set the goal of reducing drug overdose deaths by 20%. we made some progress reducing prescription drug abuse. we got more people into treatment than we ever had, but it was not enough to prevent or reverse this spike. when what you are doing is no longer working, you have to come up with new approaches. so we did, and so we must.

what i have learned in 15 years of executive service, taking comstat to citystat taking citystat to statestat the larger the human organization, the more important management becomes. we should never accept excuses that because it is so big, i cannot be managed. that is a copout. we did not set out a nation that gets by with less. we get together to form a more perfect union. that is driven through performance management. making government work is essential to pursuing a more perfect union in these modern times. some of you may know, the problem at the federal level is on a black of goals. we had agencies with dozens of

goals and performance metrics. what are the big goals for our nation? but of the actions that allow us to achieve those goals? too many federal goals are about process, not outcomes. having meetings is not a goal. all of this process means very little to the public's lives. at the federal level, we have to have a better view of what our government is setting out to accomplish. this requires clear goals that reflect what we the people actually value. the difference between a goal and a dream is a deadline. without a doubt, there is no progress without jobs. job creation should be our highest goal.

that may give you three examples that speak to our values. the infant mortality rate in the united states is the highest of all the developed countries in the world. if we value reducing infant mortality, our goal at the federal level should be to do that by a measurable amount by a certain time. if we were to reduce infant mortality at the same rate we did in maryland, we would save more than 4000 american babies each year. that is 4000 families that would be spared that unfathomable loss. it is so easy to become lost. we must measure what we value, and value what we measure.

second example, if we increase kindergarten readiness, we would have it hundred 25,000 -- 82 5,000 more children ready to start school that would not start out behind. 825,000 taking their first vital steps toward their education and life. if we reduced preventable hospitalizations across the country at the same rate that we did in maryland, we would keep 600,000 more americans out of the hospital each year. that is 600,000 of us on our feet and said of our backs and expensive hospital beds. americans should know what our top objectives are.

job creation, improving the security, improving education improving sustainability, improving health and wellness of all americans. federal employees should know how their work contributes to the achievements of those objectives. everybody should know whether we are making progress and where work remains to be done. coming to the table at the federal level cannot be a box checking exercise -- doing this because somebody says we are doing this. what good are policy goals without follow-up on the ground in the small places close to home where it matters? what we need is nothing short of a new method of executive management. a method that becomes central every day to the work of our

federal government. our federal government's objective should be a reflection of what we value most. early in my administration in baltimore as mayor, we would hold regular town holes -- town halls, community meetings. we came together as a community to talk about our fears, our frustrations, our hopes. i invited neighbors to ask me anything. at one of these meetings -- i will never forget -- in east baltimore, a 12-year-old girl came up to the microphone and said -- mr. mayor, my name is

amber. there are so many drug dealers and addicted people in my neighborhood that the newspaper refers to my neighborhood as zombie land. i want to know if you know they call my neighborhood zombie land and i want to know if you are doing something about it? the question she asked of me was really a question that she was asking all of us. do we know? and are we doing something about it? behind all of our data, there are real people living lives shouldering their struggles working hard every day to give their children a better future. they deserve a government that works.

thanks very much. [applause] thank you. you guys are very quiet. [laughter] bill galston: i want to

congratulate the governor on his speech. i cannot imagine a more appropriate speech. let me also add that if you could find a way of bringing your pothole guarantee to washington dc, i would follow you to the end of the earth and so would 500,000 other people. [laughter] that caught my attention. martin j. o'malley: hard to do in the middle of the snow. bill galston: we have close to half an hour for the question and answer. .

period. i will ask you one question first taking press questions then moving on to this audience that has gathered to hear you talk. if there is time, i will wrap it with the question, if not, i won't. let me begin with my question. as you know, there is a pretty long history of trying to bring effective goal-based performance measures to the federal government. to bring it more in line with the sorts of government you talk about in baltimore and in maryland. it is fair to say that those have been met with incomplete success in the current trust of government reflects that.

what is your analysis of why these prior efforts have not gotten the job done, and have you think that your approach would have a higher chance of actually being able to bring goals to federal government? martin j. o'malley: it is important to realize that the ability to collect data in real time is relatively recent -- a relatively recent phenomenon. 15 years ago 90% of the request for service came on paper in the city of baltimore. the internet and excel spreadsheets and those sorts of things are relatively recent technology, in terms of making government work. one of the great variables in

all of this -- there are many mayors who visited our citystat room and saw how effective -- they love the picture but they lacked the commitment when they got home to do it every day. it requires the leader not to shout with a megaphone from the top of the organizational triangle, it requires you to be in the center of the search for truth and to be there constantly in the middle of a collaborative circle. there is more literature command on this. john bernard just published a book called "government that works" that discusses this. the work that mayors do is

visible. everybody knows whether the city is becoming cleaner or safer. there are a lot of governors that are heading in this direction. they were slower. it has popped up in moments in the federal government. the great variable is executive commitment. you need the executive head committed to this, not sort of a one-off press conference. he or she has to be committed to this. bill galston: thank you very much. i will turn to the press questions.

if you raise your hands and identify yourselves -- yes. let's wait for the microphone. do we have another one? this one does not seem to work. >> do you think congress should fast-track the transpacific partnership? martin j. o'malley: i think they have to read it first. we have to be careful of lowering our standards, whether it is environmental or how we treat workers. i think when we enter into trade deals, it should be with the

goals of breaking down barriers and bringing up standards. >> would you have any objections from having your e-mails from your tenure of government as maryland -- martin j. o'malley: i have many times answered that we abide by our state rules concerning e-mails. we have many times turned over e-mails in response, even if, for language may have caused my mother embarrassment. we had a retention policy,

unless there was open litigation, we would hold onto those for a number of weeks and then delete or purge them from our system. we always abided by whatever the state laws were. >> there is also no archiving requirement in maryland. we archived a ton of statestat operational memos frolic you to peru's -- for all of you to peruse. >> i have a question related to

the former question, do you agree that an official should use a personal e-mail account for officially duties? martin j. o'malley: i am not an expert on federal or state requirements frankly i am a little sick of the e-mail trauma. in our state, whether you use personal or public e-mail or carrier pigeon, it was a public record subject. you're not going to ask about e-mails, are you? >> the message you brought -- is this something you want to share with the national audience as a presidential candidate? >> i am seriously -- martin j.

o'malley: i am seriously considering running. if we want to continue healing our economy and congress, we will have to make our government work and do a better job of making our government perform for the dollars people pay. i think those three things link together. there is not a doubt in my mind that this is the new way of governing and getting things done. you see it emanating out over the last 15 years. this is how our federal government should operate. some departments already operate this way. it is coming with the rising tide of expectations of americans under the age of 40. they see it from retailers.

they want their government to actually work and perform and function. yes, i intend to talk about this whenever i can. >> this sounds a terrific stuff but perhaps may not fire up the democratic primary electorate. how do you propose to do that? martin j. o'malley: and will give a number of talks over the next few months, including a discussion of how to make the economy work again. with wages declining, it is hard for us to say that our job is done. we need to get wages going up. there are many challenges. i appreciate brookings having an

interest in effective government performance management. in order to meet the big challenges we face, whether it is security or climate change, whether it is still what is not working in our economy, it will still require government. people are more interested in a functioning government and people with executive experience. bill galston: one last press question, and we will move to the audience. martin j. o'malley: forgive me, an e-mail question. were you satisfied with hillary clinton's response yesterday that she or her attorneys personally went through her cash of e-mails and determined which

ones were personal and which ones are government and turned that question over to the state department? do you think there is a public interest in having an independent person figure out whether proper e-mails were scooped out? martin j. o'malley: i respect your interest in this issue, and i did not watch the press conference yesterday. i will leave that to you to figure out, i do not know. i did not watch it, because i was working. [laughter] [applause] bill galston: that seems like an excellent note. in my experience, the people at the back get shortchanged, so i will start back there.

>> i am a fellow with the department of housing. you spoke about having real-time statistics in fighting crime. did your administration also measure community policing police training, and building trust with citizens and communities? martin j. o'malley: thank you. in 1999, our whole campaign was about community policing comstat we had a robust conversation about all of that. our strategy was that we needed to improve the effectiveness of our police, we needed to do a

better job of policing our police, which includes some the things you mentioned -- training, integrity, internal affairs -- we staffed independent detectives, and we put the money in to get their own detectives said they could investigate cases. we openly tracked and reported the number of this courtesies and excessive force reports. the third part of that strategy was to intervene earlier in the lives of young people. we put the numbers out there all of the time. we took the plan all around the city. we did town hall after town hall in every district. when bad incidents happened, as

they do and will, we address them in a forthright way. we continue to put those numbers out there with transparency. some of the strongest proof that we were able to maintain that level of trust and consensus was in the fact that in that first campaign, we won every council district, including the two of my two opponents, which were the areas hardest hit by crime. even then, the rolling back of

open-air drug markets, i was reelected with 80% of the vote four years later. there is no issue around which there is greater fear and pain in america over our racial division. there is no substitute for leaders waiting into the center of those fears and leading the conversation and the dialogue and making these institutions of policing and policing the police, more open and transparent. thank you. bill galston: there is a hand right there. i cannot tell who's hand it is, but i will recognize that there are. -- the bearer.

>> what is your definition of a high-value data set? does it include politically sensitive data. as mayors open their data sets, there tends to be omissions with politically sensitive data. three press questioners asked about e-mail, and you responded that state e-mail is public record. that is not quite true in the way it sounds. in my district, they rotate the archives every 30 days. bill galston: i will have to to cut you off there. >> my point is, this type of

loophole is widespread in maryland with a variety of databases. martin j. o'malley: maryland was named a leader in the open data movement. we received some award from somebody that watches this. i'll is looked at the operations of our government as genies that needed to be released from the bottle. it was my hope that as much data as we can get out there, it would be hard when people started using it to see -- like with the river keepers organization or pta or advocates for whatever -- it would be hard

to put those genies back in the bottle. we were a leader in that open data movement. i hope my successor has kept that going. we also got better at putting it out there in ways that was not so dizzying. making it easier for people to manipulate and use it to make charts and graphs and things. on the e-mail stuff yeah, we had a retention policy. we do not have an archiving requirement, and it is an open question of public policy all over our country -- how long should governments retain? an interesting question in the age of electronic information

sharing your it i think the most important information is about the operations. i thought that's where you were going with your question. when mayors saw the citystat room, i could see the looks in people's eyes saying, we have to get out of here. newly elected mayors have fresh opportunities. it is also why -- you see people moving back to cities. nobody wants to live in a place becoming more dirty and dangerous and violent. conversely, when cities become more livable, you see younger people moving back to them and cities are starting to function.

it is causal and not coincidental that people -- particularly younger people -- are returning to cities. because they see them operating in transparent ways. bill galston: the woman in the red dress right there. >> i am with the data quality campaign. i will focus on education. what kind of measures did you take to address graduation rates ? did you have success in raising graduation rates? martin j. o'malley: yes we did. we also had tremendous success in getting more students to take

s.t.e.m. related ap exams. a greater percentage of students in maryland take and pass those kinds of ap exams than any other state in the country. another rendition of this can be found on "letters to the people of maryland," which you can find on tumblr. it has strategies that we pursued on education. on the post-secondary side, we increased by 37% the number of associate degrees that were awarded, compared to the benchmark year of 2006. all of this is on there, as

well. we didn't buy a number of different strategies. each of these goals, we developed a delivery plan for achieving those goals. that delivery plan laid out the actions we needed to take in order to drive towards goals. we greatly increased funding for we greatly increase funding for these schools, but we also went for years in a row without an increase to -- four years in a row without an increase in college tuition. we provided better training for a lot of our high school teachers particularly in the stem field. we greatly increased the readiness of kids entering kindergarten to learn.

i wrote about four entries a day , and it's 380 exciting pages. >> governor, as i promised, i would reserve the question. i will wait until after governor o'malley have finished answering my question, to remain seated until he has exited the room. let me preface. namely i did work in bill clinton's white house. a statement you made a couple weeks ago touches on your vision

of leadership. i would like to give you a chance to comment on your comment. you said triangulation is not a strategy that will move america forward. history celebrates profiles in courage, not profiles in convenience. let me ask directly. is it your view the country did not move forward during bill clinton's terms? strikes our country -- >> our country can only move forward on the power of our principles as a people. whether you're talking about foreign policy leadership, we should always be leading with principles rather than

expediency. when it comes to leadership here at home, when it comes to immigration, when it comes to the need for continued reform on wall street instead of offering dog frank light -- dog frank -- dodd frank lite, i think we need to continue this job, and we need to continue on the principles that unite us as a people. when refugee kids risk starvation and all sorts of suffering to arrive at our doorstep, we should stick to our principles and treat them as the generous and compassionate people we are. that's what i mean when i say the triangulation will not allow

us to solve our problems, splitting the difference between the way things have always been done and an extremist view of the way things might be is not going to move things forward. we have to speak the truth about the challenges faced and what leads to be done to overcome them, and that's what i mean. >> thank you very much for your answer and for your appearance at brookings today. [applause] >> thank you all. >> earlier today, secretary of state john kerry and defense secretary ashton carter

testified on president obama's request to use military force against isis. secretary kerry defended the obama administration's negotiations with iran when marco rubio question whether the president is going soft to pacify ironic -- iran. >> there is no grand bargain being used. the president has made it clear they will not get a nuclear weapon. the presumption has been that we were not aware of that goal even as we negotiate that goal. our negotiation is calculated to make sure they cannot get a nuclear weapon. it's a most insulting that presumption.

>> i'm not saying there's a grand bargain. i'm saying our strategy is influenced by our desire to cross red lines. >> absolutely not in the least. there is no consideration as today or anyone else. we will do what is necessary in conjunction with our coalition. we have 62 countries including five sunni countries that for the first time ever are engaged in nuclear action in the region. >> general dempsey outlined the need to have a broader coalition that involved sunni countries. for example, the jordanians and others. these are countries deeply concerned about iran. is it not right they feel we have kept them in the dark about our negotiations with iran? our negotiations have impacted

our trust level with these critical allies. >> that is wrong also. it is flat wrong. i just came back from a meeting in the gulf. i met with king sulman. i met with all of the members. they all sat around the table and articulated their support for what we are doing. they believe we are better off trying to prevent them from getting a bomb, providing it actually events them from getting that bomb. that's the test of this. all whole bunch of us are trying to get that before the test is taken. >> you say our allies are sunni allies and others are perfectly comfortable? >> i did not say that. they are not perfectly comfortable. they are apprehensive. they want to make sure, just as members of congress want to make sure the deal that is struck

will prevent them. >> have you shared the details of where they stand? >> we have shared considerable details. >> are they apprehensive of that are comfortable with what you have shared? >> they're comfortable with what we have shared. the senior foreign minister publicly sat with me at a press conference in which he articulated their support for what we are doing. >> that was part of the senate foreign relations committee hearing on using military force against isis. >> here are some of our featured programs for this weekend. saturday starting at 1 p.m. eastern, book tv is live from the university of arizona at the tucson festival of books featuring discussion on race and politics, the civil war, with colin throughout the day with

authors. sunday at one we continue our live coverage of the festival with panels on the obama administration, the future of politics, and the issue of concussions in football. we are live from longwood university and farmville virginia, for the 16th annual civil war seminar with historians and authors talking about the closing weeks of the civil war in 1865. we continue our coverage with remarks on the surrender of the confederacy and the immigration of confederate to brazil. find our complete schedule at c-span.org and let us know about the programs you are watching. collis, e-mail us, or send us a tweet. -- call us, e-mail us, or send us a tweet. >> next, state environmental officials testified on the challenges and

successes of the greenhouse gas emissions rules for power plants. this is close to two hours. >> we are going to be using it. whoever is here we will go by seniority. those who come in after the gavel we will get to them after everyone was already taken care of. with that i will make note of who is here. we will bring this meeting to order. it is great to have the panel. i think the most important thing is the state perspective because they are the ones who have to pay for all this stuff. we are here today with state officials.

on the co2 regulations for power plant, the clean power plant is unprecedented in scope, complexity, and requirements it will impose on state governments. that is what you will have to carry out. the proposal undermines the long-standing concept of cooperatives federalism under the clean air act where the federal government is meant to work in partnership with the states to achieve underlying goals. instead the underlying goal forced the states to redesign the waste they generate, manage, and use electricity in a manner that satisfies president obama's extreme climate agenda. we have 32 states to have opposed this role. there is the chart. you have 32 states who oppose the rule. 12 states are suing the agency over lack of authority. nine states have passed resolutions in their

legislatures that express limits to the proposals application. five states passed laws that would limit the application. the agency would not be rushing ahead to impose such an unfair and likely illegal regulation. while the apa -- epa is busy implementing it, we know this role will have impact on the environment. last year administrator mccarthy admitted the agency has yet to do any modeling that would measure the impacts on temperatures and sea level rise. there is a reason for that. the reason is the highly respected group on economic modeling and analysis uses the epa models and found that after spending 470 $9 billion over 15

years we would see the double-digit electricity prices increase in 43 states, reduce grid reliability. however, the clean power plant would reduce co2 concentrations by less than 0.5%. global average temperature rise would be reduced by 0.01 percent. sea level rise would be reduced by 0.3 millimeters which is the thickness of three sheets of paper. further benefits would be perceived pointless by continued emissions growth in india and china. hold that up a little higher. that's a good chart.

this is the whole point administrator jackson was talking about. what we do unilaterally isn't going to have much effect. these results show the role isn't about protecting the environment or saving lives of local citizenry. this is about expanding the government's control into every aspect of lives. richard linson is noted to be one of the foremost climatologists. he said controlling carbon is a dream. if you control carbon you control life. the mandates pay no mind to the fact this will be damaging to state economies and local residents. the proposals are nothing more than a selfish power grab. we have been through these arguments multiple times most

recently when the president failed to garner enough support. we will talk about that when nancy pelosi was a majority so they had the white house and the senate. they couldn't get a majority vote to support this. i appreciate all the people coming. it's nice of you to take the time to be here. >> thanks so much. i want to welcome all of our witnesses. she is a legend in our state and has worked on the environment her whole adult life. she now is executive director of the air resources board. i am proud my home state has been a leader. we are prospering. we have to reduce carbon emissions to address simon

change. we cannot wait longer because we are seeing impacts all around us. the 10 warmest years on record occurred since the year 2000. 2014 was the warmest year on record. people can put their head in the stands, but that is a fact, and facts are stubborn things. according to research, and i trust my colleagues respect the national academy of sciences -- record temperatures are driving the drought. scientists riddick it will get worse over coming decades. just two weeks ago scientists found if we fail to act aggressively to cut carbon pollution, we have an 80% chance of a mega-drought in the entire west. and the face of all the peer-reviewed science showing the impact from uncontrolled dangerous carbon emission, states should be working together to find solutions to prevent climate change.

we know the american people want action. this is not a guess. this is a pole. 83% of americans including 61% of republicans say if nothing is done to reduce emissions, global warming will be a serious problem in the future. you can sit here and say it's not an issue, but the american people are in disagreement. ultimately, climate change deniers attempt to attack the clean air act. senator mcconnell told state governments to a nor the clean air act. ignore the law of the land. -- ignore the clean air act. we know we can reduce carbon while growing the economy. i want to talk about california and the greenhouse gas initiative, where new york is prospering as well.

we will hear from our witness. california is on a path to cut carbon emissions by 80% as required in our state. the people who tried to overturn that lost. during the first year and a half of the states cap and trade program, california added 491 thousand jobs, growth of almost 3.3%, which outpaces the national growth rate of 2.5 percent. we are living proof that growing the economy and the state environment go hand in hand. this has benefited the middle class. it is interesting they found last months the electric bill averaged $90 compared to oklahoma's monthly bill, which averaged 100 $10.

under california's climate program, many consumers are receiving a twice a year climate credit of $35. that further lowers their utility bill. california, new york, and other states should be proud of their leadership in putting forth real solutions to climate change in showing that meeting the goals of a clean power plan will benefit our states and people. i look forward to hearing from today's witnesses. >> thank you, senator boxer. we're going to have some introductions by the request of some members of the panel. >> thank you very much. it gives me great pleasure to bring greetings from the committee to one of those witnesses this morning, who is the director of the wyoming department of quality. he has a long history working in

the state of wyoming and working in this department. you will remember our former quality director spoke here and testify at a number of years ago. todd worked closely with him and succeeded him and is now our director. it's interesting because he will have worked with the democrat ever and are and a republican governor in wyoming and has always put wyoming first, has done what is best for our state and our environment, so it's a privilege today to introduce one of those testifying directors. thank you, mr. chairman. >> anyone else here for introductory purposes? we would like you to do your best with the time required. we will start with you and work

to the end. you are recognized. >> thank you, chairman. i am michael myers from the new york attorney general's office. my perspective is slightly different from those of other members of the panel. as an environmental lawyer i work for the past 15 years counseling state regulators on legal issues relating to air pollution and climate change and also litigating those issues in the courts. it's particularly appropriate the committee should seek to hear state perspectives because under the provision of the clean air act, states are in the driver seat. for us to succeed in this critically important area, each state has to be willing to take the wheel. from the perspective of the state of new york that has

already taken action to cut greenhouse gas emissions i have good news for other states. you can significantly reduce these emissions from the power sector and do so in a way that helps grow your economy. new york and other states in the regional greenhouse gas initiative have reduced greenhouse gases from the electricity sector by 40% from 2005 levels and reinvesting the proceeds in renewable and energy efficiency project has kept down electricity costs in our region. it would build off the work other states have done. it would cut greenhouse gas from power plants equivalent to the emissions powering half the homes in america. the shift would also result in substantial public health

benefits. back to the point i started with. for this plan to work, states had to be willing to step up. my written testimony highlights why such arguments are meritless. first, under 111 d, the law requires epa to ensure states achieve a missions. second, the epa regulations of hazardous air pollutants from existing power plants under one provision of the clean air act is not the glued the use of section 111 d to require the plans to cut greenhouse gas

emissions. the implication of that claim is the epa had a choice. or it could combat climate change by using the provision the supreme court said speaks directly to power plant emissions. it's wrong as a matter of law. it is clear the epa has the authority soon -- to set limitations for states to meet. states have a lot of flexibility on how to achieve their emission projects in a way that best suits respective circumstances. it's also clear that he be gay has the best system of emission

reduction to reflect -- that the epa has the best system of emissions reduction to reflect the authority. the building block approach appropriately recognizes successful strategies such as cap and invest programs, renewable enforcement standards and energy efficiency, that states and utilities have already shown can significantly reduce carbon emissions and do so cost effectively. here is what i would urge state regulators to consider. we need to act now if we are to avoid catastrophic harm from climate change. our state regulators say we have an imperative to act. the epa and your fellow states are open to working with you on

how to cut emissions in your state. the time is now for state leadership so take the wheel. thank you for the opportunity to testify, and i look forward to answering the committee's questions. >> thank you. the chairman is recognized. >> thank you chairman imhoff half, ranking member boxer members of the committee. thank you for inviting me to be here. i'm honored to be here to support the epa's proposed clean power plan, which we believe will unlock state innovation across the country to protect people and grow our economy. the framework imposed is a workable, practical plan that will cut carbon pollution along with other forms of pollution with a focus on increasing energy efficiency and the use of cleaner domestic energy sources. it prevents an opportunity for a

better future. our success story has been of bipartisanship. the act was signed by our republican former governor arnold schwarzenegger and jerry brown, who has reappointed me and has put climate change at the core of our agenda. ramping up clean energy programs and working to spread solutions that will protect older opel solutions, are extremely about -- our industry, coastline and they have moved california

towards cleaner sources of energy. i'm here today to share some of our successes with you and to emphasize the epa is using the clean air authority in the way it was meant to, to spread success and encourage each day to develop its own plant it to cut carbon emissions. i am going to skip the prepared testimony because i really want to focus on the fact we believe working together not just as an environmental agency but under the direction of our governor with the public utilities commission as well as the independent system operator that controls the transmission wires we can deliver not only a more

resilient energy system but we can meet and even exceed the targets the epa has set. we're on track for a third of energy needs to be met by the year 2020. governor brown established the goal of getting to 50% of our energy. our carbon wide emissions have already fallen by 5% since 2009, and it will keep falling. that's also due to cleaner fuels and cleaner vehicles. it's only one piece of the overall presidents climate land, but it's an important one. the main thing i want to emphasize is this is happening at the same time california is prospering.

we are growing our economy faster than the rest of the country. we have grown our jobs by three point 3%. personal income and wages are up, growing well above the national average. our power grid livers power reliably and efficiently thanks to the emissions officers. californians pay the ninth lowest electricity bills in the country. states across the country -- it pays big dividends. a policy has issued the leads of dollars in investment in that state and to