. 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 help cut pollution.

california and oklahoma are not alone. we know texas leads the nation in industry. many states in the midwest as well as the west and south are taking action to ensure ratepayers and citizens against risk to reliability that come from 30 and inefficient coal plants by replacing them -- wordy -- dirty and inefficient coal plants by replacing them. we think the clean power plan will encourage states to date broader advantage of strategies they're are already using saving money, and invigorating economies across the country and to the extent they choose to work together around their regional grids, they will do even better because we know the regional approach will be more cost-effective for all. we believe the net benefits of this plan amount to something

like $48 billion to $82 billion in 2030 as well as greater productivity, lower cost, and a more efficient and secure energy system. the bottom line is it builds on 40 years of success. it now confronts us with an opportunity to address one of the most severe challenges of our time in a way that can also create new jobs and increase energy security. >> thank you. the commissioner of the department of environmental management. you are recognized. >> thank you. good morning. i am the commissioner of the department of environmental management.

i appreciate the opportunity to share the current perspective on the environmental protection agencies. the proposed regulations will detrimentally impact indiana for a number of significant reasons. we are the most manufacturing intensive state. more than 80% of indiana's electricity comes from coal. we have a 300 year supply of coal in our state, and 28,000 hoosiers are employed in the industry. they are developing an energy plan that will continue to foster greater use of renewables and other energy sources. at the same time we know that coal is a crucial hoosier energy resource that must continue to be utilized. following the release of the

proposed rule, i office carefully examine the proposal. we also engaged in that sector stakeholders in an extensive review of the proposal and potential impact. our analysis came to one conclusion. this will cause significant harm to his or's -- to hoosiers without providing offsetting benefits. the office of utility consumer counselor, department of natural resources utility regulatory commission and my agency filed joint comments urging the epa to withdraw the proposal. the copy of joint comments sent a letter that a copy has been shared with the committee. the most ironic impact of proposed regulations is a are likely to increase greenhouse gas emissions by increasing competitiveness of u.s. benefits

. competitive businesses have been investing in cost-effective energy savings activities for decades. under this proposal the cost of the products produced in the united states will need to increase eroding our competitiveness, and resulting in the loss of manufacturing jobs in indiana and across the nation. when these close, u.s. emissions will decrease. worldwide greenhouse cash -- cap emissions will increase. indiana once held the competitive advantage due to the low cost of electricity but not anymore. the low cost of electricity advantage has slipped, and epa regulations have contributed to that change. the state utility forecasting group in indiana has forecast a 30% increase. electrical costs in part from regulations already in place

and the proposal will add additional costs on top of 30%. they predict the proposal will increase the cost of natural gas and the cost per hour of residential electricity by about 10% in the next six years. furthermore increases in energy cost hit the most vulnerable in our society first. at a time when indiana is doing all it can to grow the economy and create jobs, the proposal creates a real possibility that the increased energy cost will raise people's utility bills. indiana is obviously concerned about the economic impact of the proposed rules on business and consumers, but we have also filed 31 pages of technical comments. we want to make sure the rule does not result in unintended consequences such as reduced reliability resulting in brownouts are not yet having all of the necessary infrastructure in place to convert from coal to

natural gas. indiana is evaluating all available responses to the proposed regulations from submitting estate plan to participating in a regional approach or simply refusing to comply at all. the fact the misguided policy will harm hoosiers and other people in our country well actually increasing the worldwide level of the very emissions it is designed to increase compels indiana to oppose the proposed regulations. thank you for the opportunity to share our views and welcome your questions. >> thank you. the director of the wyoming department of environmental quality, you are recognized. >> good morning, chairman and ranking member boxer, and members of the senate environment and public works committee. i am the director of the wyoming department of environmental

policy. i thank the committee for inviting the state of wyoming to share its perspective of the clean power plan. the state of wyoming has provided extensive comments to the environmental protection agency on its proposed rule. we take great ride and how we manage our natural resources providing for environmental stewardship in energy production. as our governor has stated, it is a false question to ask -- do we want energy production or environmental stewardship? we must have both. wyoming sends electricity to both the eastern and western power grids, reaching from iowa to washington. wyoming generated 49.6 million megawatts hours of electricity in 2012 with 66% of the electricity consumed beyond our borders. this electricity generation includes 88% coal and 9% wind. the epa's proposal impacts states differently. each state has unique

characteristics in energy portfolios that drive the application of each of the four building blocks. for wyoming, the proposed goal is automatic and unrealistic to achieve. the epa is proposing a compressed timeline in which states are asked to submit state plans. considering the perplexities of the proposal and developing a compliance plan along with needed legislation, the timelines are problematic if not unrealistic. iomega's emission reduction required by 2020 -- wyoming's emission reduction requirement by 2020 is far greater. this disparity is referred to as the cliff. wyoming's evaluation identified data errors or incorrect assumptions. a focus on key concerns with renewable energy, since it has the largest impact on the proposed goal. 100% of co2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants

regardless of end user, will be attributed to the energy producing states. 66% of electricity generated in wyoming is consumed outside its borders. according to the epa, renewable energy credits will be contributed to the consuming state, not the producing state. 85% of 4.3 million megawatts hours of energy generated in wyoming is consumed outside its borders. when epa calculated the state goal, they applied the 6% escalation factor to all 4.3 million megawatts hours generated in wyoming. more than half the land in wyoming is owned and managed by the federal government. subjecting many renewable projects. while the intent is good, the process is slow. the high-priority wind project took over four years.

now the fish and wildlife service requires an additional decision. two federal fast-track transmission projects in wyoming are in their eight-year of the process. both are still awaiting a final decision. finally the epa's assessment of available land in wyoming for wind development failed to consider environmental conflicts such as greater sage group habitat, other critical habitats, and protected areas of cultural and historical significance. factoring these considerations reduces land for renewables, as proposed by 83%. these factors lead to an unrealistic goal for wyoming. directing your attention to the drafts -- graphs. graphs one depicts wyoming's path as proposed by the epa. >> which one? >> it is on the right. graph one depicts a bar graph of wyoming's

path as proposed by the epa. one can observe the dominant influence of the renewable's component as shown in green. after review, wyoming determined what is practically achievable even epa's proposed avenues. this is shown in graph two. -- given epa's proposed avenues. this is shown in graph two. the colored bars were derived through extensive analysis by the state, representing what may be possible in wyoming. as can be seen, there is a wide gap between the analysis. based on the proposed goal and with limited options, the simplest illustration to meet the goal is to consider how many coal-fired power plants must a close. this would result in four plants closing, representing nearly 4200 megawatts of the states total coal fleet of over 6700

megawatts, strength and investment would be nearly 1.5 billion dollars and does not include the cost of replacement power. we look forward to continued dialogue with the epa and other states as the epa considers our comments and reconsiders their proposal. thank you for allowing me to provide for the committee. >> thank you. the commissioner of the service commission of wisconsin is recognized. >> good morning, members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to speak and provide you with a summary of our state assessment. i am the chairperson for the public service commission of wisconsin. last fall i was intimately involved with the construction submitted to the epa, and i submitted those comments

together with my written testimony for the record. wisconsin is a manufacturing heavy state with customers representing over one third of sales and over 60% of our state's power generation comes from a call. if the problems are not remedied, the work wisconsin has done -- come from coal. if the problems are not remedied the work wisconsin has done will be threatened. i also remain concerned about the reliability of the grid, considering the fast shift in energy production required by the proposal. with that background and because of the far-reaching impacts of the epa's clean power plan, we brought together an interdisciplinary team. this team consisted of public service experts and utility rate modeling, economics, environmental regulation, and engineering, along with

department of natural resources experts in environmental regulation. using a standard modeling program, we forecast the cost of this under a number of scenarios about the future. our team felt that taking into account the impacts of these regulations is a kind of analysis that should have been done by the epa before making such a proposal. the result of our analysis have been provided to the committee. here are the highlights. this regulation will cost ratepayers between $3.1 billion and these are on top of what ratepayers have paid for since 2000.

not only did we not receive credit, but the proposal actually penalizes wisconsin for being an early actor. as our assumptions about the role became more realistic -- would you assume this reliance on natural gas would drive natural gas prices higher? that real assumption raises the cost of this. we question the very foundation of this proposal. the epa constructs four building blocks, each of which was evaluated independently. to determine the foundation for the target reduction, the best system for emission reduction, they added the carbon dioxide reductions resulting from those building blocks. unfortunately, the epa eight north the building blocks would affect each other when all four were implemented together. increasing reliance on natural gas would severely decrease too

far below the 6% required. the epa used indiscriminate and unsupportable approaches to secure building blocks. building block one applies a heat rate to each plant regardless of the ability to realize those gains. in contrast, building block three takes a regional approach and is driven by portfolio standards found in states arbitrarily grouped together. as currently written, under previous interpretation, the system proposed by the epa is actually not a system at all. first, the building blocks are outside the control of the omission owner and operator. second, they are not recognizable systems that can be applied to an emissions unit

and they cannot guarantee certain greenhouse gas emission reduction when implemented as a whole. engineers of the public service commission concluded the building blocks would generate a 15.6 billion dollar reduction in harbor and a oxide emissions. this is a far cry from the 34% the epa claims is necessary for wisconsin to comply. the timelines are unrealistic and unworkable. the lead time required for permitting and construction will require the full proposed compliance period through the end of 20 30. i sincerely appreciate the opportunity to speak to this committee today. you will find my submitted written testimony dives much the per and it's -- much deeper into the issues and the technical aspects we find troubling. we can agree on the need to

protect our environment, but this proposed rule does not strike the right balance in protecting public health reliability of the grid, and economic security. thank you very much. >> thank you. the first question i was going to ask, the problem you submitted in compliance with voting block one and they say they have to fit the federal program, would that create a problem? north carolina proposed a delay until a final ruling. i think it was to hire a bunch of new attorneys.

you could end up taking steps to comply with the clean power plan the state came back and found it was out of compliance. what kind of problem would that be for wisconsin? >> it creates a lot of uncertainty. as a regulator the ratepayers want -- have uncertainty about what we may do. when we become commissioners they don't give us crystal balls. we cannot look into the future, but we have to make the best decisions based on the information before us. we ran into a similar issue with the air pollution rule, and utilities were starting to make movements to comply. we have to do the best to allow them to try to recover, and we have to be judicious in spending ratepayer dollars.

we will work closely to monitor legal proceedings wisconsin is involved in so we do not unnecessarily pay ratepayer dollars. >> in your written testimony you elaborated a little bit more about how the clean power plant proposal could actually increase the cost -- increase the amount of emissions. this is a position i have held ever since lisa jackson said doing something unilaterally in the united states is not going to affect it. did you want to elaborate any more on the concept about the increase instead of decrease in emissions? >> most of our businesses the basic bottom of our economy the steel industry and the auto

industry rely on energy costs, and they are internationally competitive. you can buy steel from brazil and india and russia and use it. why would you bother to bring the steel to the united states? you bring the finished product here. the emissions will happen in those countries. some of those countries decided -- i understand china signed an agreement to consider stopping the growth of their emissions by about .230, but between now and 2030, those emissions are much higher -- by about 2030 but between now those emissions are much higher. i am concerned total emissions will go up. >> thank you very much. ms. novak have you done an analysis as to how much of a rate increase would the psc have to approve to implement this plan? >> we expected to be in the

double digits, depending on which method of compliance we use. it could be in the upper 20% of an increase. right now we have more of an aggregate number for the state to comply. how that is broken down on her ratepayer increase would be fleshed out. as they come in and ask for recovery, but this is going to be a significant increase on ratepayers across the board. low income to large manufacturers. >> i'm going to be asking you on the record or if there is time at the end of my six minute if you would agree with the position many have taken but wouldn't it be better to wait until this controversial legal issues are cleared up before requiring them to comply.

i want to hear your answer to that, so i would say to you what parts of the clean power plan will require enactment of new laws in your state, and how long would it take to develop and implement these laws? let's start with you. >> mr. chairman, as far as legislation that may need to be put into place, anything that would relate to a multistate plan if there were to be one developed would need some legislative discussion. anything dealing with a renewable portfolio standard -- basically building block three and four would likely require some legislation. the timing of that is our legislature needs for a 40 day session and a 20 day session, so alternating. our next session is a budget

session. there are some timing concerns relating to when something can be brought to the legislature in a meaningful way as well. >> our legislature doesn't meet year-round. the next time they could consider things is 2016. we don't have authority for building blocks 2, 3, and four. we have an 18 month rulemaking process. ask any further comment? >> we have at least a three-year rulemaking process on a controversial rule. we don't have authority over building blocks three and for if we were to increase or change energy efficiency standards which adds to the timeline. >> thank you. senator boxer? >> i am stuck with some of the states attitude.

we have states during this prospering far more than your states. that is what stuns me. it's ok. i respect your view. i want to ask this question. when you listen to mr. easterly respond to my chairman, actually these rules could mean we would be increasing carbon worldwide because some companies will leave the state. they will be so upset. have we found companies leaving california? last i checked silicon valley was booming. we have increases in manufacturing. am i wrong? >> you are not wrong. we have experienced growth across the board. particularly in the clean energy sector or her in california because of our policies. we are the leading state in

terms of technology and renewable energy in the country. solar energy in particular is booming. there needs to be transition time for all industries in all states. when we implemented our cap on carbon emissions with a trading program, there were many who were concerned about the rising cost of electricity. no governor can afford to take risks. that's job one. no matter how much we care about greenhouse gases, we know our job is to make sure the lights stay on. i think it's important to

recognize this proposal does have the flexibility and the time needed. i recognize the concerns, and i think they are legitimate concerns, but i would assert the proposal they will be monitoring as they go forward can address those concerns. >> i think that's an important point. you make it very clear we made a transition time. i think she does get that. she is sensitive to the states. last year christie todd whitman testified before our clean air subcommittee it was settled the clean air act can be used to control carbon pollution. our proposed carbon standards in massachusetts in 2007, 2011, and

the utility air regulatory group in 2014. >> the massachusetts versus epa case recognized the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. the connecticut versus american electric power case was a case new york was involved in where we sought to get at the same emissions the epa clean power plan is going to get out. the supreme court in that case told us federal common law did not apply because it speaks directly to the power plant emissions. the supreme court reaffirmed to

regulate greenhouse gas emissions and found under the station i permanent -- stationary permanent program if you're a limiting certain pollutants you have the best control technology for co2 emissions. those decisions provide sound emissions. >> last month the council which owns a dozen utilities across the stated about the compliance with the power plant, and i would like to get your reaction, if the state wants push back against the plant that is ok, but we need to have a backup plan. if we do not, we will be caught in a situation without any options. she also stated the clean power

plants targets are achievable and urged wyoming to collaborate with other states to achieve them. do you agree with rocky mountain power that wyoming would be best served by completing a compliance plan? >> i can't speak specifically to the comments of rocking on power. what i can say is, our evaluation, when we look at the entirety of the plan, it does not work for wyoming. as i showed in the charts, the options in building blocks presented by epa in the proposal do not work for wyoming. we would say, no. we have more than one utility. >> last question. have you told epa your concerns? have you given some options to the epa? they want to work with the

states. have you let them know how you feel and what is wrong with what they are doing for wyoming? >> we have provided comments and have had discussions with >> thank you. >> thank you, senator boxer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. during the time we were on the campaign trail and i am new to the committee and process, one of the items we talked about a lot was the anticipated cost to the average american family with regard to an increase in their costs for electric rates. the chamber of commerce estimated the average cost to the average american family would be approximately $1400 more per year in their electric

rates. i was curious, a recent statistic that comes in the case of my state, south dakota. our rates would increase probably about 20% or more as a result of the clean power plan. this is significantly more than the 8.8 since per kilowatt hour that we pay now. compliance costs could well exceed $50 per ton of carbon. what impacts will this have on ratepayers in surrounding states? i know people in south dakota receive power from wyoming. wyoming supplies power because of your location. you have been an exporter of power.

can you sure about what impact this will have four the rates in other states -- for the rates in other states as well. let's we>> we do provide power to other states. if it results in the increased closure of plants, it would likely result in the raising of rates for all customers. not just those in wyoming. >> what does the epa propose how do they propose you respond to those stranded costs? what is their expectation? >> this is an issue we raised with epa before the proposal was put out to notice. in hopes that would be taken into consideration.

in our view, it has not been taken into consideration. we do not see, at this point, the offramp. we have expressed this concern in our comments every in our comments. we are waiting to see how they might respond in june 1 make about with the final proposal. >> you have not had a, and back -- a comment back? or have not gotten a response? the places where your organization contracts to provide ongoing electoral power? those stranded costs you don't know how they will be handled? >> epa has not handled how they will address this particular comment. the conversation we have had has been primarily to get clarification on some of the corrections we pointed out within the proposal. >> the epa claims the rules give

states flexibility to create their own plans. it appears that it overlooks the fact that electricity transmission does not stop at state orders. many states including south dakota dependent on neighboring states. the modeling suggests under the proposal, wyoming could cut generation by men .5 million megawatts. -- 7.5 million megawatts hours. how will you continue to power the regional economy with cuts like this? is that an accurate statement? >> as far as how we would continue if we are looking at closing down existing power plants it would create a reliability issue.

this is getting out of my expertise. as well far is how to maintain reliability. >> thank you, i appreciate your time. >> senator carver. >> thank you for the work you do. presenting your thoughts and responding to our questions. i come by these issues not as a sitting senator but recovering governor. i want to assure yo -- sure the perspective from the state of delaware and someone who was born in west virginia, whose father was a coal miner. we would have been out of compliance in delaware. the folks who are creating cheap electricity put that stuff up in

the air. we are the end of america's tailpipe. i'm a believer in the olden rule. the concerns you are laying out i think they are important. but we have to be mindful of them. epa needs to be mindful of them. i want to let you know there are other folks have been adversely affected are ability of some people to develop cheap and dirty electricity. i don't like it. we have gone to court to try to resolve that. i want you to get in a car with me. use your imagination. we are in southern delaware. we are driving to the east. to the delaware bay. we get to the delaware bay. there used to be a parking lot there. it is not there anymore. it is underwater.

there was a bunker, sticking out of the water. 500 feet out commitment there used to be -- it used to be 500 feet in the land. now it is any water. something is going on here. we don't make the step up -- s tuff up. the key for us is, how can we have cleaner air? delaware is the lowest lying state in the country. it is a problem for us. we need to figure out how to do it together. i'm not interested in seeing epa jam something down your throats, but we need to figure out how to work it out together. it sounds like you export electricity. you don't get a lot of credit for that. the credit goes to california and other states. we have to be able to do with that. -- deal with that.

i want to ask a question read the lady from california. sounds like your economy is doing pretty well. is it possible to have a cleaner environment and stronger economy? we think the answer is yes. it is a false choice. the folks from california are in a situation where you acted early and have been good citizens, good stewards. my sense is you are going to be punished for it by epa. we are in the same situation. >> your comment about states needing to work together is correct. to my friend from wyoming, my local utility, the los angeles department of water and power concluded an agreement from a wyoming wind company to import wind generated electricity from wyoming to replace some of the

coal fired energy they have been relying on. they are taking responsibility for being the largest demand are in our state, even though the electricity were were using was coming from utah. there will be costs associated with transitioning into the wind. overall, the net of it is los angeles ratepayers will still be doing ok because the utility is taking steps to help their customers become more efficient. that is the critical ingredient. if rates go up because of new investments we are making, that has to be offset in some way to shield ratepayers from rate shocks. things that would make it

untenable for them to move forward on this cleaner plan we are on. given some time for the transition we can do it. i do think it was right to come up with a crediting mechanism. epa needs to do this if they want to encourage regional cooperation as they say they do. they are going to have to allow states to work together on either a bilateral or regional basis to come up with programs where they can share the cost and benefit. that is what we are doing right now through our agreement with the canadian province of quebec. where we now run a binational trading program with emissions allowances. not everybody is going to want to go that far afield. the concept is one that has been proven to work. >> can you give me what you

think is a fair compromise. wyoming generating clean electricity by wind, not getting credit for it. the credit, iit sound like goes to california. >> i did not fully understand your question. >> can you try to answer this? you must have thought about it. >> as it pertains to the clean power plant, the two or three issues at play. the attribution of fossil fuel emissions, 100% to the energy producing states. the other issue at play is the renewable energy generated in wyoming, 85% which is shipped out of state. applying an escalator to that, 100% of that to the producing

state, is unfair. >> we have to figure out a good come from eyes. you will have to help us. -- a good compromise. you will have to help us. >> i would like to thank the ranking member. let me say a few words about my home state of west virginia. our own epa has called the plan illegal. it has been put forward with the finesse of a bowl in a china -- shop -- bull in a china shop. i would note that 32 states have commented in concern. i would like to talk about the reliability issue. west virginia has joined with other states to block this plan.

we will be hearing about this in the next several months. the epa -- the dep has said these goals are unattainable. i would like to talk to this gentleman. we have a lot in common. 95% of our electricity is generated by coal. we have a lot of coal, although not as much as wyoming. last week, pgm interconnection release a new analysis that the new powerplant -- could -- the equivalent of electricity

that could power 50 million homes. it calls into question the reliability issue. ms. nichols did mention the reliability issue as an important one for the state of california. >> we are. we have a group that deals with reliability. here is the fundamental problem with the plan. it has more fossil fuel -- it will necessarily reduce the flexibility of our electric supply. you add this to the fact we have had record pjm demand days. they are better handled this year than last year. we have increasing demand. decreasing supply.

the renewable supply is valuable but is not reliable. sometimes the solar poweranels have clouds or snow. their name plate capacity is higher than stated and they are not always available. i am concerned we will see catastrophic results sometime during the implementation of the plan to read we do not know where or when. >> you have a comment on the reliability issue? >> we have significant concerns from the perspective of system reliability. the modeling program used by the epa to evaluate the bu ilding blocks. they are responsible for maintaining our grid. unfortunately, the epa never

asked to do any studies of the grid prior to releasing the proposal. work we think needs to be done involves gathering work about the gas firing units. the increase on renewable resources on reliability. the network deliverability of units to be expected to be retired. the modeling used to buy the epa does not appear to consider these fundamental and necessary vectors. >> i would note, in my state, we are reliant on coal. we have a lot of natural gas. to transition these older plants to gas is not a realistic endeavor. it is exceedingly expensive. to build new ones takes a lot of time and energy. you are going to expend energy to move forward on this as well.

you have recently closed one of your nuclear plants. the plan put forward for you under this clean power plan does not take into consideration your loss of nuclear powerr. >> the loss of that plant is huge for wisconsin. we think, eventually, that is going to have to be replaced by a carbon neutral source. that was not taken into account for. it will increase the cost for wisconsin to comply. >> had a hearing on ozone. the new regulations going into effect. is every county in compliance with the current regulations? >> know, senator, we are not. we have remaining challenges in both southern california and the central valley meeting ozone standards.

the new ozone standard will add an extra challenge as well as time to that effort. >> you put that on top of what we are doing with clean power. >> we care about the health of our citizens. >> i care about that as well. >> we rely on science. >> in terms of how we are going to meet this challenge the extension of timelines and measures i will ask the gentleman from wyoming. what will be the easiest thing to knock down on this clean power plan that will help you meet the challenges? deadlines, timelines lower standards less reductions? >> certainly timelines are a big component of this when you consider developing a plan

anytime involved. -- and the time involved. the amounts of agencies and states involved in the discussion. let alone the legislation and rules we have mentioned. >> thank you, senator. senator murphy. >> thank you very much. underlying this entire discussion is the challenge we have with carbon pollution methane pollution. the impact it is having across the world. we don't have to look across the world. we can look to my home state of oregon. we are seen that the fire season has grown by 60 days over the last several decades. the number of acres of forest burned has increased dramatically. we have a oyster industry having great trouble because baby wasters have -- oysters

have trouble forming shells. the snowpack in the cascades is declining. this year is a trouble. brain can fill a reservoir, but if you do not have the snowpack, you are in trouble in august. we are not talking 50 years in the future to read we are seeing it right now. just like delaware, the sender talking about land underwater. -- the senator is talking about land underwater permit should the entities damaged by carbon pollution be able to sue? >> i'm not a lawyer, so i can not answer who should

be able to sue. remember that the environment is changing. indiana used to be under ice. the things you are talking about are due to -- likely to continue. ?>> would you like to answer? >> i would echo those comments. this is a legal question. i'm not an attorney. >> a legal question, but the principle of polluter pays, when you do some damage to your neighbor, shouldn't you bear responsibility? as a fundamental principle? >> i think it's a couple located -- complicated question. you have users that have responsibility as well. >> you don't want to answer the question, that is fine. >> if the utilities and entities are following law and

regulation, i think it would be a very chilling effect to have been subjected to legal claims. >> everybody in their first year of economics learns about externalities. image done by activities. -- damage done by activities. libertarians would say, when you do damage, you should compensate. carbon and methane produced in a million different ways, there is no state that does not produce a lot of them. we are seeing a differential and how states are taking this on. oregon is now 70% nonfossil format. mr. nichols, you were talking about a goal of one third. if you include hydro, what would that be? what's we would already be at above the 33% goal.

-- >> we would already be above 33%. or nuclear. they were trying to push for new solar, wind, geothermal. >> say what that percentage would be if those other non-fossils would be included. >> we would be about 40%. >> 40%. >> you have to aim for oregon, where it is 70%. >> week and the oregon -- we envy oregon. >> we often respect greatly the examples you are sitting. you set up a marketplace. if we turn back in time, there was a proposal from right-wing think tanks about using markets to take on acid rain. it was not to regulate every smokestack but proceed to set up a marketplace and find the most cost effective solutions.

how did that work out? do you have a memory of that? >> i was the assistant administrator at epa when we implemented the acid rain program. it did reach its goal. it did so less expensively. we relied on that plan in designing our cap and trade program in california. >> the marketplace used extraordinarily well. faster results than anyone anticipated. it was an off the charts success. why would that strategy worked well with carbon dioxide? >> we believe it would. it was defeated here, but within california, it was put on the ballot. the voters chose to keep that system.

they became convinced it would lead us to a cleaner energy environment. >> they wanted to see carbon dioxide produced in the most cost effective manner. isn't the clean power plan based around that same principle? with a range of different choices. >> it is clearly allowable. i know epa was familiar with our program, but i understand they tried hard it doesn't seem like they have succeeded it yet, to indicate to states that they would have the ability to design a plan that fit their own unique situation. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator merkley. senator bozeman. >> thank you very much.

ms. nichols, following up on senator merkley's question, you are out of compliance for ozone. the regulatory impact says the annual cost to california would be 800 million dollars-two $.2 billion a year. to think individual should be able to sue for noncompliance? -- do you think individuals should be able to sue for noncompliance? >> under the clean air act, they have the ability to sue epa or the state. california has submitted an implementation plan. we are moving forward steadily bringing down levels of ozone. we have come into compliance. >> your argument is the same as hers. if you are doing things as

required by law, you should not be sued. >> one of the regions we are here to defend the carbon plan. the epa plan. it helps us with our ozone standard. we need all the help we can get. >> with regard to the question you agree with the testimony that if you are in compliance you should not be sued? >> i went to law school, too. we were taught anybody can file a lawsuit. sometimes they can win. >> i am an optometrist. >>when do you are going to be ozone compliant? >> at this point, we are projecting off into the future.

we wereare working as hard as we can to read it will probably be as challenging if not more challenging to meet the ozone standard as greenhouse gas. that is why we are supporting the epa rule because it will help us with oath. >> to agree it will cost you $800 million-$2.2 million? >> i can't verify that number. the analysis by epa use the same tools. >> thank you, chairman. thank you to the panel for being here. let me ask first, the commissioner, in 2013, the milwaukee sentinel published an editorial that said, and i will

quote, climate change is happening. human activity plays a huge role in that. the consequences of doing nothing could be dire. and expensive. do you agree with the milwaukee journal sentinel? >> thank you for the question?. my role as a regulator, and economics regulator we insure the reliability of the grid. i do not endeavor to take on policy behind what is before us. my role is analyzing it. rules that come before us. in environmental rule, doesn't compromise the affordability safety, and reliability of our great? that is the lens i see through. >> no amount of environmental cost would figure into your analysis. >> that is not what i said. >> that is exactly what you

said. >> the environmental rules cannot unduly compromise -- >> no matter how great the environmental cost? >> there is a balance that needs to be struck. >> how do you strike that balance if you don't know whether climate change is happening and whether human activity plays a role in it? and the costs could be dire and expensive? >> we look at what the impact on our great payers would be and the benefits to the environment. >> the impact could be felt through climate change as well as the rate they pay? that is not part of what you looked at? >> the benefits have been put fourth by the epa.

we are weighing it against the costs the epa has proposed. >> the executive director of the wisconsin business alliance has called renewable energy and economic up opportunity. she said, we should look for opportunities to promote jobs and the environment. the clean power plan is a great way to do that. there are other voices from wisconsin. rocky mount power's owner, the spokesperson, has said multistate approaches are likely to be less costly ways to meet the clean power plan's targets. the casper star tribune in wyoming, they held earlier discussion -- consistent with the multistate approach.

the wyoming counterpart continued, -- montana, also a rural state that generates a significant torsion of the -- portion of electricity from coal, has come up with five draft options including those that would not buy a montana to shutter coal power plants. is montana can do it, why can't wyoming? if wyoming will work with other states, why won't wyoming? >> let me address montana's alternatives. the assume -- the assume they will get credit for 100% of the wind energy. that is not what has been conveyed to epa. we were told we would get

no credit. as far as the multistate discussions, we have been involved with the same group the center for the new energy and environmental. participating in those conversations along with montana and 13 other states. there are challenges with the multistate plan. particularly when we do not know with the end goal is going to be. all we have is what has been proposed. we don't know how epa is when to change it based on the comments that have been received. >> do you agree that climate change is happening? human activity plays a role in it? the consequences of doing nothing could be dire and expensive? >> i am here to talk about the clean power plan. if we are going to do something to address co2 emissions whether or not this is a good plan and workable for wyoming

could be the answer is it is not. >> irrespective of the amount of damage co2 might do. there is no number from co2 harm that could cause you to change your point of view. >> not on the proposed plan and what that does. >> mr. easterly, how have you built the costs of climate change for indiana to your analysis of the value of the clean power plan? >> i don't think you can quantify in the cost of future climate change. let's go back to your other question. >> why don't you think you can? >> there is nothing concrete. there is speculation. >> there was a report that says 8-20 3% increase.

>> those are from the clean power plant. >> this is not from the clean power plan increased cooling load. you are not familiar with that report. >> not that one. >> when you're talking about the cost of electricity, are you talking about on a per kilowatt hour basis? i am sorry to go over. can i make a rhode island point? >> how long is it? >> less than a minute. average monthly bills in wisconsin are $95. in indiana, $110. wyoming, $90. rhode island, they are lower then two of the states even though the kilowatt hour costs are higher. we have invested in energy efficiency. that is the number that matters

for the pocket book. >> affordability reliability and safety, are those what you consider? >> correct. >> just to review, when it comes to how the epa credits renewable energy, wyoming, which produces a significant amount, stands to be disadvantage. you talked about how much wyoming could produce in terms of wind energy. 85% of the wind energy is exported. i heard chairman nichols say california wants to buy more. but the epa has said, no. renewable energy is only going to be credited to the state where it is consumed. not where the energy is created. which means wyoming gets no

credit for the wind energy and develops. i present the senator saying this needs to be addressed. how is this going to impact wyoming's plan to meet the target? >> this makes it difficult for wyoming to achieve its target. the estimate of renewables would be somewhere around 9 million megawatts of wind energy that would have to be developed. right now, wyoming consumes 600,000 megawatts. that equates to a 14-15 hundred percent increase. >> you mentioned a lack of flexibility from the epa in giving wyoming what we would

need to continue to produce renewable sources. more than half the land is federally owned. this has a significant impact on meeting mandates coming out of the epa. you referenced permits requirements. of which wyoming has no control. it does not seem the epa is proposing any sort of relief in plans to address these. only 1/6 of the total area the epa has identified is available. due to sage grouse considerations, permitting requirements. it seems that epa is telling people to move faster while refusing to a knowledge washington's foot is still on the regulatory breaks. can you go into detail about federal land ownership and the red tape going with developing

energy resources? it is a washington roadblock epa ought to address if they want wyoming to develop clean energy faster? >> what we have seen for wind energy projects, you have to go through the need the process -- through the process, they have taken anywhere from 4-8 years. there is an additional fish and wildlife process for eagle permits. the other part of it is transmission. you need transmission to move energy out of the state. we have two projects that have taken up to eight years to get through the permitting process. they are still in that process. >> we had previous discussions and debate about transmission lines under the democrat controlled line. democrats voted to block

transmission lines on public lands. that has played into exactly what you're talking about as well. you also talked about potential closure of four coal-fired power plants. that is lost investment. who knows how much it will cost to replace lost power in prayer that will be passed on to citizens in the six state territory. would that mean folks, not just in wyoming but california, washington state, oregon, idaho, and utah or are going to get a

big energy tax increase? >> that is correct. the costs would be just to be did among the states involved with that system. >> california would have higher electric bills as a result of the epa mandate? >> there is a portion of northern california part of the system. >> a growing number of states are raising concerns any project will become federally enforceable. making a state vulnerable to sue and settle lawsuits. unlike most sue and settle arrangements, which deal with a single plant, a state's entire electricity system could become subject to environmental lawsuits. epa agrees with this concern. during question and answering in february the acting chief says

she sees potential for this. we have heard it from the texas public utilities commissioner as well. if there is time, i would like to ask a couple folks if you believe epa can promise some sort of addiction? -- protection? >> we think the very foundation in troops on states rights are read to have any state plans subjected to federal authority is a concern of ours. state energy policy should be left up to states. in connection with the department of energy not the environmental protection agency. we have concerns about losing state authority over existing laws. >> mr. easterly? >> do not believe epa can protect us from lawsuits under

the clean air act. they can happen and they do. >> we don't believe we can be protected from lawsuits from third parties. as the proposal has been written. >> i am out of time. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. commissioner easterly, when we had the acting administrator here earlier in the year, i asked her some questions about the heat rate efficiency assumption. we know epa relied on an analysis for that 6% eight rate. -- heat rate. in their own terms they said they misapplied the data.

do you have any other concerns with how the epa developed that heat rate assumption? >> part of their thought process for building block one assumed you would operate the plants in a way that gained efficiency. it means you have to operate them at a steady state output. you have building block two coal plants are your last resort. you need to develop gas cycle plants first career there are also emission controls. -- plants. there are also emission controls for coal plants. there is a huge load for controlling those omissions. a bunch of reasons the plants will be less efficient on a per megawatt hour basis.

>> do you think improvement is achievable in your state? >> we are hoping, hoping is a strong word, we might be able to get 2%. if everything is done. anything that is cost-effective, you have a reason to do anyway if you are the utility. the things that will be left will only be cost effective because the cost of not doing them under the plan is more expensive than the incremental thing you will get. >> that is exactly right. when compliance with other environmental regulations have an impact on your state9 ♪'s ability to meet the 6%? >> it will. we will have some utilities that have to add more energy that are not there now. that will decrease their efficiency as captivated under

the rule. >> i support and all of the above energy policy. many of my colleagues also support the all of the above. we need a balance in our energy portfolio. i think that is important for a number of reasons. security reasons. cost reasons. it is the wise thing to do. do you think this clean power plan encourages diversity within our energy sector? >> not in the long run. in the long run, it basically is the plan to continue to shut down coal-fired power plants and have natural gas and renewables. those are fine sources of energy. once you get close to a monopoly, you have pricing power.

that gas suddenly will not look like it does now in price. when i worked in the utility industry, we had a natural gas price spike. it was very disruptive to our customers. i am worried those are going to happen in the future. >> let me go to another panelist. i will ask another question. do you think we are encouraging states to look at a balanced portfolio when it comes to energy needs with this plan before us? >> from our view, the answer would be no. it seems like the purposes to go to a re-dispatch of other types of energy sources. to replace coal. it is not looking at a mexican. it is aimed at reducing coal. >> i am from the only public

power state in the country. nebraska, we rely on public power. it is a different -- definite strength for ratepayers. we are concerned on the impact it is going to have on families, when and if the plan is implemented. we rely on coal-fired electric plants. we have a diversified portfolio. we continue to develop them. to have a requirement, a mandate, to have those implemented in a short. rt time will impact families. how do you view that in wyoming? how are your families going to see what is coming to them? >> we share the same concerns in terms of what the proposal will

do to utility rates. particularly with our compliance pathway, as we see it. we would see an increase in rates due to the mature closure of coal plants -- premature closure of coal plants. >> i don't know what your energy portfolio looks like in wisconsin. i would assume some of your rate payers will not be pleased when they have gotten their bills. >> ratepayers have invested more than $11 billion to clean up air. we have reduced emissions by 20% since 2005. we have done that. we are not getting credit for it. we are a coal state, like indiana. we are a manufacturing state. this will have a large impact.

our modeler has estimated between $3 billion and $13 billion or generation alone. that does not include natural gas were transmission infrastructure. that will hit every ratepayer. >> it will hit every family in wisconsin and across the country. thank you. >> senator sessions, you were the first here and last to speak? >> had a little budget committee hearing. i came here, i remember thinking i don't like this idea that there should be a mix of sources of power. we should just have more nuclear power. that was my simple idea. as i have been here, i am of the belief if you become too

dependent on one source of power, you are not able to have the competition that keeps costs down. you think that is still a valid concern? >> we do not have nuclear, but it is so hard to build. it is not likely to come in my lifetime. >> it is disappointing, i have to tell you. natural gas rates have fallen. the cost of plants are up. the nrc is more regulated than ever. we are almost killing it off, which would be a disaster. i think the unifying issue we can agree on, republicans and democrats, more healthy environment. less mercury, things that make people sick. kill trees. that kind of thing. i think can do better about that. in the course of that

there will be a benefit for co2 emissions. but i do not want to press billions of dollars of costs on the co2 issue, frankly. we need to balance it out and be reasonable. i believe you said that you believe these regulations passed , the cost of electricity will go up. in your state, do you think it will go up? >> yes. >> mr. easterly? >> we are not sure how much come about more than double digits. >> do you think if these pass, it will go up or not? >> there has been a trend for the cost per unit of electricity

to go up what we think is important is the bill. what the customer sees. in that event, we are able to hold that study. >> even if the new rules are passed? >> i believe so. >> i would concur that you can reduce emissions and keep prices down. >> you indicated, you have spent a lot of money to make coal cleaner than it has ever been. if those plans are closed, are you saying those are, stranded costs? damaging to ratepayers? >> the costs for new generation

only do not take into account paying for units that have been recently built. power plants are paid for over many years. ratepayers will be paying for plants run much less while at the same time paying for new electricity. >> i would ask you to see if you can say yes or no on that. let me ask a simple question. it seems to me mandates, regulations, drive up costs. in an economic sense, they are the same as raising taxes and having the government do it. the government could raise taxes on everybody and then pay for cleaning up power plants or whatever they want to do. i just want to translate this into reality for the people

buying electricity. these mandates require greater expenditures to produce electricity. they are the cleveland of a tax on their lifestyle. isn't that correct -- the equivalent of a tax on their lifestyle? >> yes, it is. different people benefit and don't benefit. if the price goes up, -- if you are a co-op, your customers are your owners and they really see it. there is no net benefit. >> that is the question. is the tax on the economy worth the benefit that is achieved? dr. longboard -- the doctor from the copenhagen institute says

the increase in co2 would not be a detriment. he said it would be a benefit. he says if it increases for 100-150 years there would begin to be a cost. he questions some of the expenditures. i think that is a fundamental thing. he talked about how many lives could be saved, helping poor people. thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate this hearing and the good wishtnesses. >> senator boxer wanted to have some into inter- -- some time to enter something into the record. and then it is over. >> it is never over.

i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record h hart that shows the california -- a chart that shows californians are paying $20 less as we reduce carbon emissions. >> without objections, so ordered. two documents, saying california has the highest u.s. poverty rate. and secondly, from the manhattan institute, migration from california to oklahoma increased by 274% in the 2000s. >> you are lucky. >>

>> this headline from the boston globe. kerry blasts senate gop letter to iran. he said he was in utter disbelief when he red a letter from 47 senate republicans to iran. he called the letter on unprecedented break from centuries of congressional action and a threat to united states and its foreign policy. in the letter written by tom cotton of arkansas, the signatories threatened to undo any deal to curb iran's nuclear program between the two countries if the agreement is not approved i congress. again, that from the boston globe.

secretary was testifying at the senate foreign relations committee. here is part of what he said. >> during my 29 years here in the senate, i never heard of nor even heard of it being proposed anything comparable to this. if i had, i can guarantee that no matter what the issue and who was president, i would certainly have rejected it. i think no one is questioning anybody's right to dissent. any senator can go to the floor, any day, and raise any of the questions that were raised in that. to write to the leaders in the middle of negotiations particularly to the leaders who have criticized others. to write them and suggest that they are going to give a constitutionalism, which, by the way, was absolutely incorrect, is quiet stunning. this letter ignores more than

two centuries of president in the context of american foreign-policy. formal treaties require the advice and consent of the united states senate. that is in the constitution. but the vast majority of international arrangements and agreements do not. and, around the world today, we have all kinds of executive agreements that we deal with. protection of our troops, the recent agreement we just did with afghanistan, any number of noncontroversial and broadly supported foreign-policy goals. the executive agreement is a necessary tool of american foreign-policy. it has been used by presidents of both parties for centuries literally.

and, it is recognized and accepted by congress from the earliest time of american history. now, with respect to the talks we have been clear from the beginning, we are not negotiating a "legally binding plan." we are negotiating a plan that will have in it the capacity for enforcement. we don't even have diplomatic relations with iran right now. the senator's letter erroneously asserts that this is a legally binding plan. it is not. that is number one. number two, it is incorrect when it says congress could ask a modified the terms of agreement at any time. that is flat wrong. you don't have the right to modify an agreement reached executive to executive between leaders of the country. now, sure good another president come in in with a different attitude? no president, i think meets its

task and does what it supposed to do in conjunction with china, russia, france, germany, great britain all of whom are going to sign off or not sign off on an agreement. i would like to see the next president, if all this country said this is good and working, turn around and nullified on behalf of united states. that is not going to happen. >> coming up we will show you all of today's senate foreign relations committee, joined by ashton carter. after today's hitting -- hearing, ashton carter met with his counterpart, michael phelan they spoke to reporters. later, john mccain talks about the murder of rushing opposition leader boris nemtsov. now, today's foreign relations committee hearing which looks at the authorization request for the use of force against the militant group isis, committee members talked about nuclear

talks with iran. protesters from the group "code pink" attended this three-hour hearing. bob corker chairs the committee. >> welcome to our distinguished witnesses today. thank you for taking the time to be here. this is an important topic. we know that each of you have been traveling extensively, and was again want to thank you for being with us once again today. i think everybody on this committee cares first and foremost that we have a policy a strategy to deal with isis that is in relation to our national interests. and that is paramount to what

most people in america care about, and certainly everyone in this committee. secondarily to that, from my perspective, is the authorization process itself. and yet we find ourselves in an interesting place. the president, which i appreciate, has sent to us an authorization for the use of military force. that was welcomed, i think, by both sides of the aisle. as we have received that authorization for the use of military force, what we have come to understand is that -- and this is not a pejorative statement, it is an observation -- we don't know of a single democrat that supports that authorization for use of military force. on the other hand, the authorization for the use of military force that has been sent up is one that is limited in some ways, both in duration and relative to the activities that the commander-in-chief can carry out. and so, what that does on this

side of the aisle is put republican senators in a position of looking at a limited authorization for the use of military force that in some ways ratifies a strategy, especially in syria, that many people did not believe is effective. one that shows -- does not show the commitment necessary to really be successful in the short term. so i think this hearing today will be very helpful in trying to come together and to understand, number one, that we have a strategy in syria that is in our national inches. -- national interest. that have a strategy in iraq that is in our national interests. and we understand that isis is propagating in many other places. i was in baghdad three weeks ago. and regardless of how we have gotten to where we are today and i know a lot of things have been said about decisions that have been made along the way one of the things that jumped

out at me very glaring is that in many ways every single thing the united states is doing right now in iraq, things that i support, i might add, to deal with isis -- every single thing we are doing is benefiting iran. in other words, we are making iraq a better place for iran. and iran, and no doubt he is looking for our assistance in looking to us for balance. but when you look at the way iran has permeated parliament's there, and the fact that he is a celebrity in a row now, leading the efforts, it is something that jumps out. i hope that during today, all of you will be able to eliminate how we feel about that.

i know that we have had a number of people getting exercised about the fact that we have iranian led shia militia dealing with isis. because of the observation that i have made, i am not sure that should even be an issue. in essence, we are working towards the same in but i would , love to hear your thoughts on that. and in the event there isn't an agreement with iran over the nuclear program, how that will affect the shia militia who are in very close proximity to our own men and women in uniform how that might affect them. and in closing, i hope that what you will do today is also delineate to us some of the decisions that are key. i was in ankara with art turkish friends. i know a decision memo has been in front of the president for some time relative to an air exclusion zone. and decisions about how it may or may not deal with protecting those that we are training and equipping right now to fight

isis. i don't think we have made those decisions yet. too many of us here, that shows a potential lack of commitment if you will, to do with isis in -- deal with isis in a more significant way. i hope we will be able to understand more fully the lack of those decisions being made. what that means relative to the overall efforts. so i welcome you here. , i think all three of you have been highly regarded by members of the united states senate on both sides of the aisle. and we trust her testimony today will be very beneficial to us as we move ahead. with that, i will turn to are very, very distinguished member, senator bob menendez.

senator bob menendez: thank you, mr. chairman. make your for being with us here today. on last december, this committee reported a resolution to authorize the use of military force to counter isil. many of us shared a view, then and now, that we stood with the president to defeat idsil. that was not and is not intended to reply to our current engagements in iraq and syria. we believed then, as now, that it is imperative that congress authorized any further military action against isil. it is important that we don't shoehorn this conflict into an old umf. it may be convenient, but it is not right. we have an obligation to the families were sending their children into harms way to authorize or not authorize the use of force. this committee had extensive discussions of many of these issues last year. in the aumf, we passed a

restriction on the number of forces, including search and rescue pilots. the use of forward air controllers with iraqi units. it also repealed the 2002 aumf in iraq and set a three-year timeframe for congress to consider the 9/11 aumf. what it didn't do, and what i think democrats are not willing to do, is to give this or any other president in open ended authorization for war. a blank check. as someone who opposed the 2002 iraq aumf, and who has seen the 2001 authorization that i did support go far beyond where anyone would have contemplated this is the critical question moving forward. so i look for to getting some

answers from our witnesses that will allow us to move forward in writing and pass in authorization. but we need to know what combat operations may be undertaken by combat troops on the ground. we need to know whether associated forces that come under this agreement could include forces affiliated with isil. we need to know whether a new administration could revert to relying on the 2001 aumf in three years, as this aumf would expire. and we need to know how long we expect to be there, and what our exit strategy will be, what metrics will indicate success. or tell us it is time to bring troops home. we have heard from general alan two weeks ago that under the president's proposed language, that u.s. troops to be deployed for as little as two weeks, or as long as two years. before they would trigger the restriction on no enduring offensive operations. on the other hand, general dempsey said last week that he does not give this language as time restrictive, but as mission specific.

general dempsey believes the language in this aumf would allow, for example, u.s. ground forces to accompany iraqi ground forces into mosul. clearly, there is in need to define what would be a loud. -- allowed. it would seem to me that legally, there is at least the potential for large numbers of u.s. troops to be deployed in iraq and syria, and maybe beyond, with the authorization as submitted. so, mr. chairman, i look forward to hearing the answer to these and other questions from our distinguished witnesses. i thank you for this opportunity. senator corker: absolutely. thank you for your comments. again, we have three outstanding witnesses. we want to welcome you here. as i understand it, secretary kerry is going to begin, followed by secretary carter followed by chairman dempsey. we are honored that you are here before us. we look forward to your testimony. you all know the drill. keep it to about five minutes, if that is possible. and we will ask questions after. take your for being here. secretary of state kerry: senator corker, members of the

committee, we are pleased to be here. i am pleased to return here, and particularly so in the distinguished company of defense secretary question carter and our distinguished chairman of the joint chiefs of staff martin dempsey. from my 29 years of service on this committee, i have nothing but respect for the committee's prerogatives. particularly, the role he can play on a critical issue like this. we are very simply looking for as i think both of you mr.chairman, ranking member, have said, the appropriate present-day authorization. not, as you said, senator menendez, 2001, but 2015 statement by the united states congress about the authority with which we should be able to

go after, degrade, and destroy as the president has said, a group known as isil. now, mr. chairman, in our democracy, there are many views about the challenges and opportunities that we face. and that is appropriate. that is who we are. but i hope we believe there is an overwhelming consensus that isil has to be stopped. our nation's strongest, always has been, when we act together. there is a great tradition in this country a foreign policy having a special place. that politics and at the waters edge -- end at the waters edge and we will react as a nation, without regard to party politics or ideology. will not allow these murderers and thugs to achieve their ambitions, which includes, by the way, most likely the death

or submission of all those who oppose them. the seizure of land. the theft of resources. the incitement of terrorism across the globe. the killing and attacking of people simply for what they believe, or for who they are. and the joint resolution that is proposed by the president provides the means for america and its representatives to speak with a single powerful voice at this pivotal hour. when i came here last time, i mentioned that -- >> the american people are speaking out. secretary kerry, we are tired of the endless war. senator corker: the committee will be in order. look, we appreciate -- >> another endless war and the killing of innocent people. senator corker: if this happens

again, i would ask the police to escort people immediately leave people out of the room. >> killing more innocent people? i wonder how are journalists who were beheaded and the pilot who was fighting for freedom burned alive, what they would have to say to their efforts to protect innocent people. isil's momentum has been diminished, mr. chairman. it is still picking up supporters in places. obviously, we have all observed that. but in the places where we have focused, and where we are asking you to focus at this moment in time, it is clear that even while savage attacks continue, there is the beginning of a process to cut off their supply lines, to take out their leaders, to cut off their finances, to reduce the foreign

fighters, to counter the messaging that has brought some of the fighters to this effort. but to ensure its defeat, we have to persist until we prevail in the broad-based campaign along multiple lines of efforts that have been laid out over the course of the last months. the president already has statutory authority to act against isil. but a clear and formal expression of this congress's backing, at this moment in time, would dispel doubt that might exist anywhere that americans are united in this effort. approval of this resolution would encourage our friends and our partners in the middle east. it would further energize the members and prospective members of the global coalition that we have assembled to oppose isil. and it would constitute a richly

deserved vote of confidence in the many women of our armed forces were on the front lines prosecuting this effort on our behalf. your unity would also send an unmistakable message to leaders of isil. they have to understand, they cannot divide us. don't let them. they cannot intimidate us. and they have no hope of defeating us. the resolution that we have proposed would give the president a clear mandate to prosecute the armed component of this conflict against isil and associated persons or forces which we believe is carefully delineated and defined. and while the proposal contains certain limitations that are appropriate in light of the nature of this mission, it provides the flexibility that the president needs to direct a successful military campaign. and that is why the administration did propose a

limitation on the use of "enduring combat operations." i might add, that was after the committee -- then committee chair, senator menendez, would forward with their language. we came up, testified and responded basically to the dynamics that were presented to us and the congress itself. so, the proposal also includes no geographic limitations. not because there are plans to take it anywhere, but because there would be a mistake to

communicate to isil -- >> the united states is killing innocent civilians with jones. -- drones. senator corker: i would just ask those in the audience, we live in a country where people have the opportunity to express themselves in democratic ways. we would hope that you would allow this hearing to proceed in an orderly way, and respect other citizen's rights to be here and observe what is happening in a civil matter. i don't think you are helping your cause at all. i would say you are hurting your cause. hopefully, you will remain in an appropriate manner. thank you. secretary of state kerry: mr. chairman, thank you. the point of these no geographic limitations is not that there are any plans. i think the president has been so clear on this. but what a mistake it would be to send a message to isil that there are safe havens. that there are somehow just a two country limitation, so they go off and put their base, and then we go through months and months of deliberation again. we can't afford that. that is why there are no

limitations. mr. chairman, we know that there are groups in the world, affiliated terrorist groups, who aspire to harm the net is dates, our allies, our partners. isil is, however, very distinctive in that. because it holds territory. and it will continue if not stopped to seize more. because it has financial resources. because of the debilitating impact of its activities in the broader middle east. it is already been culpable in the violent death of americans and others. and i don't need to preview for this committee the full impact of the outrages that are committed by isil, but among them, scratching the surface are atrocities against syrian christians and religious communities. the crucifixion of children.

the sale and enslavement of women and girls. the hideous murders of captives. from as near as jordan and as distant as japan. and the destruction of irreplaceable cultural and historical sites. the plunder and destruction of cities and towns in which followers of islam worship. and raise their families. now, i testified before this committee just a couple of weeks ago regarding our strategy for disrupting and defeating isil. that strategy continues to move forward on all fronts. secretary carter and general dempsey will touch on the military elements, but i can say from a diplomatic perspective that the world is strongly united in seeking isil's defeat. our coalition is receiving help from governments throughout and beyond the middle east. governments that may disagree on other issues, but not about the need to take decisive action against isil. and to date, we have a coalition of some 62 members, including 14 nations that are contributing directly to the operations

against isil. in iraq or in syria. 16 of which have committed to help train or otherwise assist iraqi security forces. since the coalition came together less than half a year ago, we have stopped isils's surge, we have forced it to change its communications and its movements and tactics, and heavily damaged its revenue-generating oil facilities. if you have a classified briefing, i think you'll get a very good grounding in the progress that is being made to date. we continue to see progress in governance in iraq. new leaders are working to strengthen and reform the country's security forces through the purging of a competent or corrupt officers, and more extensive inclusion of sunni fighters. there are nearly 1000 sunnis taking part there.

so, mr. chairman, just to respond and move rapidly here, -- senator corker: we are not moving that rapidly, actually. secretary of state kerry: that is why i'm going to cut the chase. spotting to the threats posed by isil is just not a partisan issue. at least it shouldn't be. it is not even a bipartisan issue. it is really a task that transcends political affiliations. and it is a tremendous challenge to the security of our nation, and to the values of our citizens. so, it is really the kind of challenge that this committee is here to deal with. and my hope is that we will live up to the tradition that we have never failed to meet in the past. that when we had this kind of challenge, the congress came together. the senate particularly i think , in this format, and i'm

confident we can do so here again today and in the next few days. i am happy to respond to your questions, but first i will turn to secretary carter. defense secretary carter: thank you for giving me the opportunity to be with you here today on this important subject. before i begin, i am sure your are all aware that a uh 60 black hawk helicopter was involved in an accident last night in florida. we know there were four aircrew -- army -- from a national guard unit in louisiana, and seven marines assigned to camp lejeune from north carolina onboard that helicopter. with me, our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families as the search and rescue continues. just as i know we are all proud to have the finest fighting force the world has ever known

that is why, at the end of my first week as secretary of defense, i have traveled to afghanistan and kuwait, where i thanked our men and women in uniform for their contributions to important missions. and in kuwait, i talked with our ambassadors and our military leaders about the campaign against isil. the trip confirms, for me, that isil represents a serious and complex threat. especially in our interconnected and networked world. but it also confirmed to me that the enemy can be defeated. we will deliver isil a lasting defeat. and i'm happy to share my thoughts about that campaign with you, but let me turn to the subject of this hearing, which is the authorization for the use of military force. and in reviewing the president proposed aumf as secretary of defense, i asked myself two

questions. first, does it provide the necessary authority and flexibility to wage our campaign , allowing for a full range of likely military scenarios? and second, will it send a message to the people i am responsible for, our brave men and women in uniform, severe -- and civilian personnel who will wage this campaign, that the country is behind them? i believe the president aumf does both. and i urge congress to pass it. and let me explain why. first, the proposed aumf takes into account the reality, as secretary kerry has noted already, that i sold asisil as an

organization is likely to evolve strategically. morphing, rebranding, and associating with other terrorist groups, while continuing to threaten the that is its and our allies. second, the proposed aumf wisely does not include any geographical restrictions. because isil already shows signs of metastasizing outside of syria and iraq. third, the president proposed authorization provides great flexibility in the military means we need as we pursue our strategy, with one exception. the proposed aumf does not authorize long-term, large-scale offensive ground combat operations, like those we conducted in iraq and afghanistan. because our strategy does not call for them. instead, local forces must provide the in during presence need