i've seen it twice. despite how inaccurate was, i still liked it. second of all, the iranian support terrorist and extremist groups. they absolutely do. there was an attack on the jewish community center of buenas aires. these were things that iran has done. they denied the holocaust. i was invited, by this jewish middle-class kid, to a meeting in tehran that the holocaust did not happen. the guest of honor was david duke.

there was a holocaust denier. i cannot make it. i had a conflict. [laughter] there are people that do deny the holocaust. they threaten to destroy israel. the american people wish to support israel. it is american policy. i used to live in texas. they love israel more than we did. it was astounding. this is an american issue. not simply an american jewish issue. we are the great satan. they are the axis of evil. there are competing narratives. both work in mobilizing negative energy.

what is going to happen? what do we know? this is the one i think is the most important. i have spent my life, i'm reading things about iran and written by my learned colleagues. there's a certainty with which they tell us about iran and one another. it is belied by reality. nobody really understands what is going on in iran. it is impossible. the political system in iran is intentionally designed so that it is opaque, it is obscure. iranians don't know what is going on. very smart iranians -- it is the nature of the system. they want to avoid what happened to the shah. they want a political system in which it is difficult to

overrule the current political order. part of it is the uncertainty that comes in the wake of a resolution. no one wants to make a decision or be at risk. no one wants to take a chance. it is not clear how it works. there's this murkiness. you know, i feel like helen keller. there's so much that is not evident to us. it is not clear. we lack information. north korea is sort of the old -- gold standard of ignorance but iran is not far behind in terms of the iranian system. i read endlessly and i get frustrated. i did not know about that.

political actors. the one that you hear about all of the time is the supreme leader. the supreme leader is many things, one of which is that he is not supreme. he is sort of the political act for, but is a political actor. he is not some autocrat who snaps his finger and things happen. his problem will continue to get

worse because he is not the previous leader. there is this unique role that [indiscernible] occupied. it is not transferable to someone else. the supreme leader resigns over the islamic republic. not only the spiritual leader, but also the political leader. they need to engage and he really needs to get political interest in iran to support him and work with them. certainly he is very influential. he is not the only game in town. it is a challenge. second of all, the religious sector. it is extremely diverse. not that they all agree. there is race diversity and differences of view within the religious sector. some are generally conservative and orthodox and some are actually very enlightened and they get it. they get it. they're working within a difficult system. the third is that revolutionary guard. the revolutionary guard is not only a military organization but also an economic entity that is sort of comparable to the people's liberation army in china.

the interest are extraordinary. they are very wealthy. they have built an airport in tehran, for example. there is a battle of another group that wanted to build the airport and they lost. they did not have as many guns. they are again another political entity, which is very influential. none of them are dominant. all of them are important. you cannot discount any of them. the part about the iranian politics that is so fascinating which none of us have access to is that these people has been a lot of time with one another and aging tea and a read poetry. they do politics, if you will. it is a constant series of negotiations. horse trading and politicking. it is how iranian politics always works. it worked this way under the shah.

there were groups of people who would go to school together in a similar industry. i'm sure in congress you had -- that group, the people you work with. in the good old days, they could even be with opposite party. you would do a deal. it is very interesting. they used to do business all the time. iran operates that way. the idea that there is this one source and they are behind everything. that is simply wrong. forgive me, but there is a lot to cover. i want to have time for questions. this era was special because they were basically able to do

pretty much what they wanted to do. if we were sitting in either know, tehran, before the revolution and some secret confab, most of these people in the room would have supported him. it is not because we like them but because we do not like the shah. people like me who are snooty professors -- this old guy, he has got people. we'll use him to get rid of the shah. now sitting in beverly hills drinking tea, and wondering what went wrong.

that era was one of the most difficult times. there was the invasion of iraq -- of iran by iraq. there are fountains shooting up red water to symbolize the blood that was shed. this was sort of a 9/11 equivalent to the iranians. it deeply affected the people of iran. it still does today. ultimately, do you remember a liberal guy week that we could do business with? it was the rouhani of his age, if you will. all my colleagues were swinging from the chandeliers. a wonderful opportunity. the deal never got made. why? he could not deliver iran. part of it was that the time was not right. it is sort of synonymous.

with reform. the fact that it was not successful does not mean there was no room for reform here it is simply means that it was unsuccessful. then there was the ahmadinejad run. he had a vision of the bad guy. he never failed to deliver. i used to call him israel's secret weapon. the israelis must have loved him. so off the charts, that all he had to do was sit there and watch. it was very easy to deal with iran. sanction it. it was easy to deal with iran, to expel iran from the world community and sanction it because ahmadinejad was so inattentive to the issues. he was concerned with the domestic constituency in iran. he wasn't only u.s. sanctions that destroyed the economy, a lot of it is what ahmadinejad

himself was doing, ridiculously liberal concessions and subsidies and other sorts of things. and ahmadinejad in a sense may have been a necessary evil because he may have teed upper -- teed up iran in the era in which yet again we are presented with an opportunity for negotiation which is further -- is made further urgent by the development of the iranian nuclear program which upsets everybody as well it should. as well it should. the idea of a weaponized iran -- iran having nuclear weapons, appeals to nobody, appeals to nobody. it really is not something that would benefit the world and frankly i don't believe it would benefit iran. the problem with iran -- not the problem, the challenge with

iran, iran is not the country which you can bully. it simply doesn't work that way. if you look at what iran excels at at the olympics, it's wrestling and weight lifting. really, i'm serious. this is a country that's very very nationalistic but has a strong sense of self. i told people if you go to teheran, i'm sure you all will at some point, your host will take you to something called a zuhrhana. it's a house of strength where people do sort of synchronized weight lifting. it's very, very interesting. the point i'm making is culturally this is not a country that gives in well to -- they -- in well to bullying.

they have a strong sense of themselves. they're very nationalistic. there's a sort of a marshal quality there. it doesn't work. what's so interesting about the collection is yet again an opportunity for some type of peaceful resolution of our differences with iran emerges. again, i'm skeptical because i'm always skeptical. we middle east specialists are kind of the oncologists of middle east studies. invariably, we're wrong, we can't do anything, we have no good news. the stakes are so high, they're so important, that i think i certainly supported president obama's attempt to meet the initiative in the spirit in which we would like to believe it's been given. there are no guarantees, no guarantees. having said that, the planet

earth is less of a place with iran in a box, with iran in a box that we need to try to find a way without giving away the farm the way we did in syria, i might add, but to try to find accommodation with iran. maybe it won't work. maybe it won't. but the irony about this and the sort of unusual characteristics is that the initiative to the u.s. and president obama's response has driven iran and saudi arabia to the same corner. that's quite an achievement that israel and saudi arabia are very, very uncomfortable with the possibility of the ongoing negotiations with iran. some israelis -- some -- you can't say the israelis. they're too interesting and diverse to be the israelis. what some believe and many more

saudis believe, is that the iranians are doing this to buy time and they are not sincere. they don't mean it. they will not be able to deliver. iran will do what i believe assad is doing with a chemical weapon's program. in a sense if you accept that accusation about syria, it deserves to be considered about iran. it is my view, my personal view that the risk is certainly worth taking. and indeed if we are right, the big beneficiaries are likely to be both israel and saudi arabia who will not be under the sword? what if i'm wrong? if you're a schlomo six pack sitting in tel aviv or in riyadh. he was living in los angeles, we

get nuked, he won't even let us stay in his guest room. i understand that. i really do. i believe in our form of government, i have some trust in the elected officials, maybe more than angela merkel does than others. this is a serious issue the united states government has been involved in since day one. the first set of negotiations in geneva went very well. wendy sherman who was leading our negotiating team didn't provide any details. the iranians showed up with a detailed power point presentation. this wasn't ahmadinejad clowning around. they showed up with some serious suggestions and everybody walked away from the meeting feeling that this was time well spent.

in both countries, this, again is going to be interesting. they're going be naysayers in both countries. there are people in congress say, aha, see, the sanctions are working. it squeezed iran into compliance. let's ratchet up the sanctions got them on the ropes, they're on the run. elevate the sanctions more. wendy sherman, again, the person from the state department overseeing the negotiations said she does not believe it would be helpful to increase the sanctions now. she said the duplicity is part of the dna -- the iranians didn't like that. so there is something from everybody. but i think the nuclear issue is important. i don't think it's the only issue. where it's going to get sticky is on levels of enrichment, that iran believes it has the right enrich plutonium for uses.

-- peaceful uses. the level of enrichment is very, very significant. and we -- the isrealies and the saudis and others are afraid of is that iran will be so close that they can enrich quickly and weaponize. i would not dismiss that. it's too serious to say it's not a possibility. it's got to be factored into the thinking. the obama administration and the department will say they have this -- they understand it and they have it under control. each country has its own tea party. there are tea -- the iranians invented drinking tea. there are naysayers in iran who will make this very, very difficult. just as there are naysayers who argue we're being tricked. this is not going to work. so the challenge for obama and

ruhani, they need to sell one another, they have to sell their own people. they've had such challenges in the middle east, that one of the issues it has to contend with is the credibility on the middle east issues. these issues were all related, were all related. we're having a little discussion that i purposely stayed out of on does the palestine issue matter? at the end of the day, the symbolism of the palestine issue matters a lot. if it's resolved tomorrow, we're not going to be able to retire to a warm climate and not worry about anything ever again. but having said that, if the palestine issue is resolved, satisfactorily in the way to promote israeli national security and gives the palestinians their own right, it gives one reason to dislike and distrust -- one reason to dislike and distrust this in the middle east will go away.

there's a list of others have -- having to do with egypt and so on and so forth. the palestine issue does matter. fwheed to understand how does it matter. what's the nature of the mattering? there i think we need to be realistic. all of the issues are related. and president obama has all sorts of domestic issues. obama care, the endless list of things. so the question is if we are able to make a deal with the iranians that satisfies him and secretary of state kerry, will he be able to sell this deal to the american people and their elected representatives in congress. it's a real consideration. the same is from iran. it's a two-stage challenge. one is to get a deal with the other. the other is to get the camps to accept the deals. the supreme leader commented.

it went well. there were some imperfections. what the supreme leader was criticizing was the phone call between ruhani and obama. if they can't have a phone call, it goes to the level, it shows you how difficult it is to make a deal. let me end by advocating extraordinary humility when it comes to understanding iran. the data is just not there. we're stumbling around in the dark and trying to make sense of things with fragmented information. and things change a lot. so these are all my personal views. the longer i study iran, the longer i think i should have been a switzerland specialist or something. the longer i do it, the more -- i am always discovering new nuances and new complications and just things that i hasn't

-- hadn't figured. the record of middle east specialists, i'm looking at the professor, the real deal of serious political scientists our record is one of uniform failure. you name it, we failed to predict it. it was an extraordinary wreck. i say don't come to las vegas with people like me. but we're in las vegas. that's normally what i say. we didn't predict the arab spring -- you name it, we didn't get it right. be aware of experts from out of town or even in town, this is not for the faint of heart. let me stop with that. i would be delighted to have questions or contrasting views? yes, sir? [inaudible question] did everybody hear the question?

>> let me just -- so for the purposes of a c-span taping, we need every question to be made from the microphone in the center of the room, please? >> the question is, if we make this deal you spoke of with the islamic republic, are we not selling a six pack down the river. jerrold green: i think it depends on what the deal looks like. and i think we as americans and emigre iranians in the u.s., some of them need to realize, that the islamic republic is here to stay. it was a country born of a revolution, something we should understand. legitimate, it's done things

that are not in accord of our values or many iranian's values but this is it. bringing iran back in to the world economy, reintegrating it, opening the country up so that people can visit the country and they can get visas and come here and go to the university of southern california and study engineering or unlv or whatever will benefit the six pack significantly, significantly. >> before we go to the next question, let me ask you to devote a couple of minutes? can you hear? >> one right here. yeah, ok. there's one aspect of iran's role in the middle east that you might want to touch upon given our limited time, we do so much. -- we can only do so much. this is critical in understanding what is going on in the arab world. which is iran's role as the

emerging guardian of the global shia community. and this is what's getting the saudis to react the way they do. the saudis are reacting the way they do less because they're concerned that iran was going to nuke them than cause of the rise of iran as the major voice in the traditional world that's gone to arabs and islam. this is a direct challenge with saudi role in the world and how they look at themselves. i wonder what your comments are on that? >> a very, very important and good question, paul. thank you for raising it. the iranian revolution if you think about it has failed. it was meant to sponsor a series of islamic revolutions around the world. it was supposed to be the model

for muslims to throw off the yoke of oppression. other than various groups around the world, no country has gone the way of iran, iran is the good advertisement of creating islamic republics ala iran. the shia-sunni imperative. it's one that's not going to go away. it's very, very important. we can pick our poison. we can line up with saudi arabia where they are toying with letting women drive cars. that's a remarkable achievement in the 21st century. or we can make a deal with iran. at the end of the day, i go to saudi arabia a lot. i get it.

the saudis don't have a lot of alternatives. they're not going to start sending their kids to beijing to the university. i think in a perfect world, we have relationships with all major poles in the middle east. with iran, with the sunni arabs. with the israelis, and with turkey, which i think of as a middle eastern state. what you're talking about is not going to go away. it's very, very important. the question is how will that play in terms of broader opportunities for economic development and integration into the world and so forth? i mean, these are countries that are involving. we haven't talked about it at all, we don't have time, is the arab spring. events in egypt, events in syria. this is a region which is undergoing changes and areas of instability. they all feed on one another. >> excellent.

>> make questions as brief as possible. jerrold green: make answers as brief as possible. for that, i apologize. >> you pointed out how all these unexpected things happen. don't you think we were helped by that by starting history in 1979 rather than in 1953 and -- or 1952 when alan and his brother got together and overthrew the government. you didn't mention anything about that. another thing that you talk about the danger of iran having nuclear weapons. what about the danger of israel having nuclear weapons. or the united states having nuclear weapons. we're the only ones that have purposefully killed people with nuclear weapons. i wonder if you could look into the future and see what is going to happen when china becomes the dominant country in the world.

it takes over from the united states. how do you think that will affect iran and israel which seems totally oblivious to the fact that this is going to happen? jerrold green: i'm a simple guy. and i don't disagree with particularly 1953, part of the iranian narrative. you're exactly right. that's part of the story. one of the reasons they don't like us is we brought the shaw back, we kept him in power. israel has nuclear weapons? what are we going to do? call them and, you know, not sure what we can do about it. i don't even like us having -- i don't want to talk about people who are not here. let's talk real issues where we can have an impact.

at the end of the day, if you are too ambitious, you get nothing done. i give my staff the f word lecture. the f4 is focus. -- the let's pick our issues and do it. all of these other things you have mentioned may not get dealt with, but the world will be a better place if we are realistic in our ambitions. that is the "f" word. >> jerry, i have loved your presentation. it was informative, charming and witty, and most enjoyable to listen to. the only thing i liked that are was our conversation around the table which was a lot of fun as well. that are was our conversation around the table which was a lot of fun as well. i don't think anybody in this room would accuse or mistake me for being a tea party person. quite the contrary. but i come down on the side of those that think a deal with

iran right now is an impossibility. i'm going to tell you why. i was part of the original cosponsors of the iranian sanctions bill, both of them, and worked closely with the europeans ensuring they voted for sanctions and the e.u. and at the united nations. this is something i have been involved with for quite a while. the reason rouhani is reaching out to the united states and europeans is because the sanctions are actually working. we are bringing their economy to its knees. and i am of the mind that if we start loosening up those sanctions and granting concessions before the iranians agree to end their nuclear ambitions, and i do not believe for a minute they are attempting

to use nuclear for peaceful purposes, there is only one reason they are working so hard and spending so much money to acquire enough material to make a nuclear bomb. it is my understanding from the latest intelligence information that they are within a month of having enough material to make one bomb. i think that would be very dangerous for us to lift those sanctions now after all of the time and sacrificed and efforts on the part of the united states and europeans. let those sanctions work. the way they will work is to leave them in place until the iranians come back and come over to our way of thinking and actually agree to end their nuclear ambitions. i find it extraordinary in this

day and age that rouhani is considered a moderate when he has been the advisor and right-hand man of the supreme leader. in addition to that, ahmadinejad was a total lunatic and said israel should be wiped off the map. it was acquiring nuclear capability to do that, or so he said. he was a holocaust denier. now you have rouhani when asked the same question, did he holocaust occurred, he said i'm not an historian and everyone applauded him as being a great moderate. to me, that is not being a moderate. jerrold green: the question? >> why would you possibly think lifting sanctions now would be a help with iranians given their history and proclivity? jerrold green: i did not say we should lift sanctions. i was quoting wendy sherman

who said they should not be increased. i don't think we should lift them now. you will disagree with me. i believe we should signal to them a willingness to consider lifting the sanctions in ways that will satisfy your view, which is actually an important view. it is not like you are the only person. you represent an important segment of congressional and public opinion in this country. your view is not a review. -- weird view. i don't fully agree but i get it. i hope they -- you did not think i was calling you a tea party ier. obama is going to have to satisfy people that hold that view. it is going to be very difficult for him. the question is, how can he address the sanctions issues in a way that will have an impact on the wrong while at -- on iran while at the same time being able to persuade people who hold your view, which is important

view, that your concerns are being met? i have heard so many statistics about when in iran can weaponize, including from the israelis, which are wildly different. that is part of what i am lamenting, is how little we know. what you can say to me is how can you afford to take the risk if there is a 1% possibility, how can you do it? my response is you are right. but having said that, the more desperate iran becomes, the more likely they are to feel painted into a corner to do something that is in our collective detriment, including a wrong thank you iran --including iran. >> you just answer the question i was going to put to you. very briefly, can the iranians be forced to give up their nuclear option?

call it that because that is what it is. at any level of sanctions the world will agree to invoke beyond where we are today? jerrold green: it is not only that. iranians are going to have to be willing to submit to intrusive inspections. they will regard that as infringement on their sovereignty and other things. the bar is going to be high for them. i am not sure if they will meet it. this is not a bad discussion. it is not like i am right. we may not agree, but that is not mean you are wrong. that is what i mindful of. history kind of favors you more than it does me, certainly recent history which is worrisome but it is what it is. >> dr. green, i have a twofold question. first on christian persecution in iran how does the average person feel about that?

also the person in prison, is that also on the minds and hearts of the people of iran? how do they feel about it? jerrold green: i think the situation of christian minorities is not good. the situation in egypt was terrible under morsi. one hopes that under the new regime, it will be better. in terms of iran, being a religious minority is not a lot of fun in an islamic republic of anything. it is not only christians. it is jews and bahais. bahai are at the top of the heat in terms of being discriminated against. christians have had issues. jews have had issues. tribal groups, persians are a minority in a ron -- iran, believe it or not. there are always tribal and linguistic groups. this is not a country that has shown great respect for

diversity or pluralism. it is a very important question. the news is not good. in terms of the person in prison, unclear. we don't know. sir? >> generally, i like elephants. but there might be another elephant in the room that might be of concern. would you please comment on interaction between iran and iraq as you see it currently? jerrold green: that is a really good question. the relationship between iran and iraq, nothing good. the situation in iraq is deteriorating. iran generally believes it has interests in iraq, which it does. it is a neighboring country. to go back to paul's sunni question. the iranians have a shia inferiority cleared -- complex

be of these -- complex via iraq. the two holiest cities are in iraq. iran wants a seat at the iraq table. the iraq table is very wobbly and unsteady. i understand their desire to be part of it. but having said that, iraq is not out of the woods. certainly, we are not on the same side as the iranians. there have been instances on which we and iran have agreed. afghanistan, believe it or not. there was a time when we collaborated effectively with iran. but these things are fleeting and not forever. you are exactly right. certain. -- sir. >> i had a question about iranian domestic economics. we talk a lot about sanctions and how that affects them and their economy. i was wondering what you think about how severe some of their own domestic policies how severe is the recovery going to be from that, particularly the

hyatt -- highly educated and severely underemployed young population. you mentioned the city 5% under 35 years old. what is the way forward for them? is that going to involve reprioritizing the massive amount of industry nationalized in iran? jerrold green: iran economically looks worse than it should because it still has a sophisticated business sector, highly educated people, very good labor force, and a tradition of being an economically very healthy country. they are petroleum producers which we often forget. i think if they continue on this track, we keep the sanctions. it is american law and we have no choice and we need to do it. it will continue to contract. i agree with the congresswoman. i am not sure rouhani would have done this if the economy was healthier. he did.

the question is, is very deal to be made? the jury is still out on that. the economic recovery is absolutely possible in iran. but the right circumstances need to be in place. unemployment youth, all of these things, the environment is a terrible issue. if any of you have been to tehran lately, it is like mexico city. the air is foul, water shortage, there are endless problems in iran which are not being dealt with because they don't have the will or resources or both. >> we have been talking about this as if it were strictly middle east issue. what about their role in northern africa and closer to home with hezbollah in central and south america? jerrold green: i mentioned the bombing of the jewish community center in buenos aires. any of you watching "homeland"?

i take back what i was going to say because i don't want to be a spoiler. you are right. iran is involved in all sorts of things globally. this is what paul was saying, sort of the center of a global shia political, religious-based, inspired political movement. it is not constructive. but having said that, if we remain on this course, is not going to get better. is going to get worse. the question is, will the guys in tehran fullback -- pullback on this if we reach an accord with them? these are desperation moves by a country dealing with a failed revolution, a stalled global role, and is looking for a mission. you're absolutely right. this is not inevitable. it does not have to be forever. it would help us by the way if

we would be more attentive to latin america as well. it is interesting the degree to which the united states takes latin america for granted. the chinese are all over the caribbean, all sorts of places. ma'am. >> i have a question and statement. we talked about iran and you said they want to be a leader in the middle east. we are forgetting completely they are also taking over turkey. turkey is one of the biggest allies in west. they are the right arm of nato. last week, turkey passed a law. you cannot sell alcohol in shops. you cannot sell in any restaurant anymore. between 10:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. selling alcohol is

completely banned. jerrold green: it sounds like texas, by the way. it is like that in texas. >> texas can do that. turkey is a secular country. today, october 29, is a day turkey celebrates because they believe they are secular. my question is, what is your opinion with the involvement of the iranians and the turks? for the first time after the ottoman empire, one more time they are together and taking control of the middle east. what is your opinion? the statement was the congresswoman was absolutely right. i am half persian. i was born in iran. i left very young but i still have my cousins, and i did see all of them this summer. all of them, even though they

are very hurt from the sanctions, they are saying it is the only way to bring [indiscernible] islamic republic of iran. jerrold green: i don't think turkey needs help from iran. turkey is a big, independent country. the movement towards islamization is partly a result of the rejection by the european union. turkey mistakenly wanted to join the e.u. for years, was never made sense to me. turkey is the only country in the world that is central asian middle eastern, and european. they should leverage all three of those rather than going in the e.u. direction which benefits nobody. i don't think iran is a particularly significant actor in turkey. the turks don't love the iranians. they are not going to listen to them. they don't really need any help. the idea they are together? i don't see turkey coordinating

its foreign policies with iran. it is a very different country with different expectations and different needs. what it does show is the middle east is a mess. it is an undercurrent of your entire question. if iran is the only good news coming out of the middle east, what does that say about the middle east? nothing very good. >> there is one issue where iranians and turks come together. that is on the kurdish issue. that is where they help each other to keep curbing rising kurdish nationalism. this will become even more of an issue if the kurds set up an autonomous zone in northeast syria in combination with northern iraq. which brings me to a question from our former president of the council, and his question has to do with iran's role in the syrian mess. if you can address that for a second. jerrold green: the

syrian-iranian relationship was always bizarre because if iran is really all about islam and shiism to support the assad family is the antithesis of everything the islamic republic stands for. it is an aggressively minority area -- minoritian, secular order, but it gave iran entrée into the arab world which it valued and was very important. the idea the iranians are wild eyed zealots is completely undermined by its relationship with syria. it is my view that by not responding quickly to the deployment of chemical weapons by assad regime and delaying, taking it to congress, making a deal with russia, basically assad should send the united

states government a thank you note for buying another year or two. you would know better than i do, but you cannot tell us. i always felt the iranian role in syria iranian influence in lebanon and syria was somewhat exaggerated. i think they were striving to be influential. but the lebanese and syrians are not willing to be dominated by the iranians, so it was sort of a marriage of convenience in which they collaborated. but i never got the feeling iran was pushing the buttons in tehran as things happened in lebanon and syria. having said that, it does not change the fact their involvement in both places is not constructive and is very serious. >> hezbollah in lebanon is totally dependent on iran as a supplier of weaponry and dependent on syria as the

channel through which these weapons arrive in lebanon. this whole set up is very critical to the survival of hezbollah's power in lebanon which now rivals that of the lebanese military. they are real power in the country. it is very critical in that respect. jerrold green: i agree with that. i just never know who needs who more. >> i would say they need iran more than iran needs hezbollah. >> how about russia? russian media portrays iran as a friend were ally -- or ally. how about iranians? have a they feel about russia? do they take russia seriously? jerrold green: everybody sort of takes russia seriously. there are long historical relations between iran and russia. the shah's father was a member

of the classic -- cossack military brigade. i think russia is desperately looking for a role in the middle east. the iranians are cynical. they get it. russia might be a useful counterpoint to the u.s. and those forces marshaled against it but russia is not eager for iran to develop a nuclear weapons capability. russia is concerned about islamic-based political activity, primarily in chechnya but also along the southern border through central asia. they will tolerate certain iranian behavior, but probably not too much. iranians i don't think have great expectations of russia, nor should they. >> i would add to that and also ask you to comment as far as iran is concerned, in a sense russia is a rival on the oil and gas export front.

far more critical to the iranians is the budding relationship with china. china is becoming very aggressive in its purchase of natural resources and in establishing channels for the future. india also derives a lot of its oil imports from iran. that has been seriously affected by the sanctions. it is tired of them and finding ways of getting around the sanctions. in a sense, we should not think iran is isolated in a box that comes to the sanctions. there is a rising number of emerging major powers that find it in their interest to work with iran and get around the sanctions. that is also part of the picture. jerrold green: absolutely right. i agree. >> anymore questions? yes, please. >> [indiscernible]

>> the question has to do with whether there are other intermediaries which could work with iran other than the united states. germany might be a candidate. jerrold green: for talks in geneva is not bilateral u.s.-iran. the e.u. is involved in a number of other powers. i think at the end of the day we don't need mediators. we need mediatees. the countries need to decide to make a deal. once they do, it will happen or it won't happen. the iranian foreign minister got his phd at the university of denver which is where condoleezza rice got her phd. you know, it is simply the

ability of these countries to agree. what paul mentioned and others in your questions are all of these other collateral issues which feels bilateral but really is global because there are all of these activities elsewhere which impinge on our ability to make a deal, >> a senate hearing on epa regulations concerning carbon emissions and that oklahoma senator james and off talks about the regulation. then a takata recal hearing. >> on newsmakers, julainian castro on the obama administrations housing policy the supreme court's decision on housing discrimination and recovery. newsmakers, sunday at 10 a.m.

and 6 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> on tuesday, the senate environment and public works subcommittee held a hearing on the epa greenhouse gas regulations. the subcommittee examine how the epa's proposed regulations on our plans could impact the cost of energy. this is one hour and 15 minutes. chairman capito: welcome to the hearing. i'm going to go ahead and begin. and i know senator carper is planning to be here so we'll make time for him to make his opening statement but in the interest of the panelists and others, and other senators, i thought we would be best to ahead and move on. so, i want to welcome everyone to the hearing of the clean air and nuclear safety subcommittee.

and the hearing is entitled the impacts of epa's proposed carbon regulations on energy costs for american businesses, rural communities and families. and a legislative hearing on my bill, s-1324, which is better known as the arena act affordable, reliable electricity now act. i introduced arena in may and am proud to have more than 30 co-sponsors, including leader mcconnell and all my fellow epw republicans. i introduced arena and holding this hearing today because of the devastating impact that epa's proposed regulations will have on the families and businesses, my home state of west virginia and across the nation. i am not exaggerating when i say almost every day back home in west virginia there are new stories detailing closed plants, job loss and price increases. i have a letter here today sent to me by amars incorporated. which is a family-owned company that operates 19 magic mark stores in west virginia, virginia and eastern kentucky.

the letters accompanied by a petition signed by 26,000 magic mart customers calling on epa to end the war on coal and catastrophic impact on local economies. they've been active in the region for 95 years and according to this letter, the present economic crunch is the most difficult challenge this company has faced. let me quote directly. "there was a time when your greatest obstacle was your competitor. but if you worked hard, took care of your customers and offered quality merchandise at a fair price, you could compete successfully." unfortunately, that is not the case now. the largest impediment we have now operating our business successfully is our own government, particularly the epa. the rulings issued by the epa have devastated our regional economy. coal provides 96% of west virginia's electricity last year and west virginia had among the lowest electricity prices in the nation.

the average price was 27% below the national average. but that advantage will not survive this administration's policies. studies have projected that our electricity prices will rise from 12% to 16%. earlier this month, 450,000 west virginians learned of a 16% increase in the cost of electricity. while there are multiple factors that contributed to this compliance with epa regulations played a significant part. if we allow these plans to move forward, last week's rate increase will only be the tip of the iceberg. affordable energy matters. the 430,000 low and middle-income families in west virginia, which is nearly 60% of our state's household, take home an average of less than $1,900 a month and spend 17% of their after tax income on energy. these families are especially vulnerable to the price increases that result from the clean power plant. but this isn't just about the impacts on coal-producing states like west virginia. this is about impacts across the country. it's important to note that all electricity has to come from somewhere. in many states, odds are, it is

being imported from a state that relies on coal. but no one is talking about that. we're going to learn in some of the panelists' testimony from reggie, which is the regional greenhouse gas initiative. one of the witnesses we'll hear from today, mr. martens, and thank you for coming, is affiliated with reggie, a program of nine northeastern states that uses market principles to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector. mr. martens may not mention that the nine states consume five times more energy than they produce. and my little state of west virginia produces twice as much energy as all of the nine states in reggie combined. there are energy-producing states and energy consuming states. only 13 states produce more energy than they consume. west virginia ranks second and wyoming ranks first. and for the 10 of the 13 states that export energy, coal is critical to have a net positive result.

put simply, there is no way that this massive, largely epa driven reduction in coal-fired electricity generation is going to impact only coal states. it is going to impact the majority of states, the families and businesses within them. often, the poorest and most vulnerable of our populations will bear the brunt. i look forward to hearing in greater detail from our witnesses about these impacts and the need for clean air policies that don't overburden our states and cripple our economy. so with that, we'll just go ahead and begin our panelists, our first panelist is mr. eugene trisko. and i welcome you, mr. trisko. thank you for coming. mr. trisko: thank you very much, chair capito. chair inhofe and distinguished members. i'm eugene trisko. energy economist and attorney in are private practice. i'm here today to discuss the findings of study of impacts of energy costs on american families. i've conducted these household

energy cost studies periodically since 2000 for the american coalition for clean coal electricity and its predecessor organizations. the study i will summarize today, energy cost impacts on american families, estimates consumer energy costs for households in the year 2016. the principal findings of the study are, one, some 48% of american families have pre-tax annual incomes of $50,000 or less with an average after tax income among these households of $22,732, or a take home income of less than $1,900 per month. two, the 48% of households earning less than $50,000 to vote an estimated average of 17% of their after tax incomes to residential and transportation energy. energy costs for the 29% of households earning less than $30,000 before taxes represent 23% of their after tax family incomes before accounting for

any energy assistance programs. now, this 23% of income is more than 3 times higher than the 7% of gross income paid for energy by households earning more than $50,000 per year. three, american consumers have benefitted recently from lower gasoline prices, but higher oil prices are now reducing consumer savings at the gas pump. meanwhile, residential electricity prices are continuing to rise. residential electricity represents 69% of total

household utility bills. a 2011 survey of low-income households for the national energy assistance directors association reveals some of the adverse health and welfare impacts of high-energy costs. low-income households reported these responses to high energy bills. 24% went without food for at least 1 day. 37% went without medical or dental care. 34% did not fill a prescription or took less than the full dose. 19% had someone become sick because their home was too cold. the relatively low median incomes of minority and senior households detailed in the study attached to my statement indicate that these groups are among the most vulnerable to energy price increases. recent and perspective increases in residential energy costs should be assessed in the context of the long-term declining trend of real income

among american families. the u.s. census bureau reports that the real pre-tax incomes of american households have declined across all five income quintiles since 2001. measured in constant 2013 prices. the largest percentage losses of income are in the two lowest income quintiles. in 2014, the average price of residential electricity in the u.s. was 32% above its level in 2005. compared with the 22% increase in the consumer price index. d.o.e. projects continued escalation of residential electricity prices due to the costs of compliance with environmental regulations and other factors. moreover, d.o.e., epa, nera and others project that electricity prices will increase even more because of epa's proposed clean power plant.

lower income families are more vulnerable to energy costs increases than higher income families because energy represents a larger portion of their household budgets. energy costs reduce the amount of income that can be spent on food, housing, health care and other basic necessities. fixed income seniors are among the most vulnerable to energy cost increases due to their relatively low average incomes and high per capita energy use. senior citizens and other low-income groups will bear the burden of higher energy costs imposed by epa's clean power plant but be among the least likely to invest in or to benefit from the energy efficiency programs that the proposed rule envisions. thank you for the opportunity. chairman capito: thank you very much.

our next witness is paul cicio who is president of the industrial consumer producers of america. welcome. mr. cicio: thank you. chairman capito, ranking member carper, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity. the industrial energy consumers of america is a trade association whose members are exclusively large companies who are energy-intensive trade exposed. these industries often refer to as eite consume 73% of the manufacturing sector's use of electricity and 75% of the natural gas. as a result, small changes in energy prices can add relatively large impacts to our global competitiveness. we use as a manufacturing sector 40 quads of energy. and this has basically not changed in 40 years. meanwhile, manufacturing output has increased 761%. this is a true success story. the industrial sector is the

only sector of the economy whose greenhouse gas emissions are 22% below 1973 levels. these industries are very energy-efficient. ieca supports action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so long as it does not impair our competitiveness. we must have a level playing field with our global competitors. several countries that we compete with control electric and natural gas prices to their industrials. and two of them are china and germany. they provide subsidies and practices to give them competitive advantage. if we were military, one would say that we are engaged in hand to hand combat in competitiveness. all costs of unilateral action by the united states through the clean power plan will be passed on to us, the consumer. as proposed, the clean power plan will dramatically increase the cost of power and natural

gas, accomplish little to reduce the threat of of climate change and provide offshore competitors and economic advantage potentially creating industrial greenhouse gas emission leakage with harmful effect to the middle class, the economy and the environment. the epa cannot look at the clean power plan in isolation from the significant cumulative cost that it will impose on the industrial sector either directly or indirectly through a number of recent rule makings. since 2000, the manufacturing sector is still down 4.9 million jobs. since 2010, manufacturing employment has increased 525,000 jobs. we are still in the early stages of recovery. we do fear that the clean power plan and also the ozone rule is going to threaten this recovery. in contrast, for example, china.

our primary competitor has increased employment by 31% since 2000. and u.s. manufacturing trade deficits since 2002 has grown $524 billion, 70% of that is with one country, china. china's industrial greenhouse gas emissions have risen over 17% since 2008 alone. china produces 29% more manufactured goods than we in the u.s. and emits 317% more co2. that's over three times the amount of co2 than the u.s. industrial sector. but despite our low greenhouse gas emission levels, the epa will increase our costs and will make it easier for china's carbon-intensive products to be imported. which means the clean power plan will be directly responsible for increasing global emissions.

there are consequences to increasing energy costs on the industrial sector, and it's called greenhouse gas leakage. and the epa has failed to address this issue, and thus the costs are underestimated. for example, when a state's electricity costs rise due to the clean power plan, companies with multiple manufacturing locations will shift their production to states with lower costs. along with the greenhouse gas emissions creating state winners and losers. and when they do, it will increase the price of electricity to the remaining state rate payers, including the households. if these companies cannot be competitive, they move offshore, moving jobs and greenhouse gas emissions accomplishing nothing environmentally. one only needs to look at california. since a.b. 32 to our knowledge there is not a single energy intensive trade exposed company that has built a new facility in california. and the same goes for the eu

under the etus. california is importing their energy-intensive products and they are losing or forfeiting jobs. it is for this reason we would urge policymakers to hold offshore manufacturing competitors to at least this same carbon content standard as we in the united states. thank you. chairman capito: thank you very much. our next witness is mr. harry alford who is president and ceo of the national black chamber of commerce. welcome. mr. alford: good afternoon chair capito, ranking member carper and distinguished members of the subcommittee. my name is harry alford. i'm president and ceo of the black chamber of commerce. the nbcc represents 2.2 million black owned businesses within the united states. i'm here to testify about the environmental protection agency's proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and the potential impacts of those proposed regulations on energy costs for american businesses, rural communities and families. in particular, i would like to focus on the potential adverse

economic and employment impacts of the clean power plan on low-income groups and minorities, including individuals, families and minority businesses. while increased costs often come with increased regulation, the clean power plan, in particular, seems poised to escalate energy costs for blacks and hispanics in the united states. according to a recent study, commissioned by the national black chamber of commerce, the clean power plan would increase black poverty by 23% and hispanic poverty by 26%. result in cumulative job losses of 7 million for blacks and nearly 12 million for hispanics in 2035. and decrease black and hispanic median household income by 455 and $550 respectfully in 2035. for these minority and low-income groups, increased energy costs have an even greater impact on their lives, jobs and businesses because a larger percentage of their incomes, revenues are spent on energy costs.

what may seem like a nominal increase in energy costs to some can have a much more harmful effect on minorities and low-income groups. our members are very concerned about these potentially devastating economic impacts of the clean power plan. and we appreciate the opportunity to highlight them for our committee. for the committee. in light of these concerns, the national black chamber of commerce undertook an effort to examine the potential economic and employment impacts of the clean power plan on minority's low-income groups. on june 11, 2015, the nbcc released a study on the threat of the epa regulations to low-income groups and minorities. the study finds that the clean power plan will inflict severe and disproportionate economic burdens on poor families especially minorities. in particular, the rule will impose the most harm on

residents of seven states with the highest concentrations of blacks and hispanics. the epa's proposed regulation or greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants is a slap in the face to poor and minority families. these communities already suffer from high unemployment and poverty rates compared to the rest of the country. yet, the epa's regressive energy tax threatens to push minorities and low-income americans even further into poverty. i want to highlight some of the key findings of the study. epa rule increases black poverty by 23% and hispanic poverty by 26%. and 2035, job losses totaled 7 million for blacks and 12 million for hispanics. in 3035 black and hispanic median household income will be $455 and $515 less respectively. compared to whites, blacks and hispanics spend about 20% and 90% of the income on food. 10% and 5% more on housing, 40% on clothing and 50% and 10% more on utilities respectfully. the rule will especially harm

residents with the highest concentrations of blacks and hispanics. arizona, california, florida georgia, illinois, new york and texas. the study demonstrates that the epa clean power plan would harm minorities' health by forcing tradeoffs between housing, food, energy. inability to pay energy bills is second only to the inability to pay rent as leading cause of homelessness. business groups like the nbcc are not only the entities expressing concerns about the pleen power plan. states which would be responsible for implementing the clean power plan have criticized the plan for numerous deficiencies. officials from 28 states said that the epa should withdraw its proposal citing concerns as higher energy costs, threats to reliability and lost jobs.

officials from 29 states have said that epa's proposed rule goes well beyond the agency's legal authority under the clean air act and 15 states have already joined in lawsuit. the nbcc totally supports the a.r.e.n.a. act, s-3124, and we certainly encourage all members of this committee to put the bill to vote and make it law. thank you so much. chairman capito: thank you very much. our next witness is joseph j. martens, commissioner new york state, department of environmental conservation. welcome, mr. commissioner. thank you. mr. martens: thank you. chair capito, ranking member and members of the subcommittee, thank you for providing me with the opportunity to testify this afternoon. my name is joe martens and i'm the commissioner as dec as was already pointed out. i'm also the vice chair to the board of directors of reggie inc.

a program of nine northeastern states that uses market principles to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector. i thank the committee for providing me the opportunity to discuss the success that we've had in reducing carbon emissions in new york while creating jobs and keeping energy bills in check. i've spoken with many of my colleagues from other states across the country, and i've heard many of them discuss their concerns about the rule. i recognize that each state faces different circumstances, but i think that in reggie, we have a successful model in reducing emissions while creating jobs and reducing energy bills. other states can use similar approaches to comply with the clean power plan, tailored to their own circumstances. reggie was started in 2005 by a bipartisan group of northeastern and mid-atlantic governors. it sets a declining cap on emissions and allows the market to determine efficiently where the emission reductions will occur. in addition to their participation in reggie, each of the states has aggressive energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.

the reggie cap collects the cap of these efforts under a single emission cap and ensures that the carbon reductions from these programs are realized and accounted for. in proceeds from reggie allowance options helps fund many of these initiatives creating a virtuous cycle. our program has been a resounding success. the state greatly exceeded their original 10% reduction target achieving a 40% reduction by 2012. to achieve even greater reduction, the reggie state acted to further reduce the cap to 50% below 2005 levels in 2020. we achieved this reduction in an economy that grew 8% over the period from 2005 to 2013 adjusted for inflation. in new york, we have realized economic benefits from reggie and associated programs, including creating jobs and reducing energy bills. for example, governor cuomo's new york sun program has made new york fourth in the nation for solar jobs.

as of the end of 2014, we've committed more than 550 million in proceeds from the auction of reggie emission allowances to programs that will provide energy bill savings of over $1 billion or other benefits to over 130,000 households and 2,500 businesses. beneficiaries of programs funded by reggie proceeds include low-income families and businesses. for example, two energy efficiency programs that are targeted specifically at income-eligible families are providing 100,000 low and moderate income families with more than $80 million in cumulative energy bill savings. and to those who say that reducing emissions will cause electric rates for businesses to rise, we've actually reduced industrial electricity rates while reducing carbon emissions from 50% over the national average to 13% below. we've enjoyed similar outcomes across the reggie region. an independent analysis undertaken by the highly respected analysis group concludes that the reinvestment

of auction proceeds from the first three years of the program is reducing total energy bills in the reggie regions by 1.3 billion, adding 1.6 billion to the regional economy and creating an estimated 16,000 jobs. reducing emissions also provides substantial public health benefits, including saving lives, reducing illness, health care costs and lost workdays. our experience demonstrates a group of states can reduce emissions substantially and grow the economy at the same time. therefore, instead of asking whether we can afford to reduce that pollution, a more pertinent question is whether we can afford not to act now to reduce the emissions that are causing our climate to change. in new york, we are already experiencing a destructive effects of climate-driven extreme weather. three years ago, hurricane sandy decimated many communities and tens of thousands of homes in new york and new jersey at a cost of $67 billion. over 70 lives were lost in the area struck by the storm.

a year earlier, hurricanes irene and lee caused 66 deaths and $17 billion in damage. these storms disproportionately harmed low-income families and smaller businesses and communities located in low-lying areas, most vulnerable to flooding. our nation -- our choice as a nation is straightforward. we can invest in clean energy, creating jobs as a result at little or no net cost and reap the benefits of better health, lower health costs and reduced risks of climate change. or we can ignore the science and expect more frequent storm events causing tens of billions of dollars in damages. to new york, the answer is clear. we have demonstrated that it's possible to use energy more efficiently, stimulate economic growth, provide healthier air and reduce the potential damage for climate change. that concludes my testimony. thank you. chairman capito: thank you. and our final witness is dr. mary b. rice, instructor in medicine, harvard medical school division of pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine.

welcome. thank you. dr. rice: thank you. my name is dr. mary rice. i'm a pulmonary medical care physician. and i care for adults with lung disease. most of whom have asthma and emphysema. i also care for critically ill adults in the critical care unit. my message is simple, climate change is becoming the worst public health crisis of modern medicine. hundreds of research studies have demonstrated that greenhouse gas emissions have already changed our climate over the past several decades causing heat waves that last longer and happen more frequently dangerous spikes in ground level ozone, increased wildfire activity, and longer, more potent pollen seasons. and these effects hurt american families. my physician colleagues and i are already seeing these health effects among our patients. the american thoracic society recently conducted a survey of our u.s. members who are doctors from all around the country caring for children and adults.

and we found that the vast majority of doctors said climate change is affecting their patients today. let me describe just a few of the health effects that my colleagues and i see. consider heat waves. several doctors commented that their patients with emphysema who are already struggling to breathe can't handle extreme heat. studies have found people with asthma and emphysema visit their doctors more often and get hospitalized more often during heat waves. extreme heat also increases ozone to levels that are harmful to the lungs of people. not only people with asthma and emphyzema but also the lungs of babies and young children. they have been found to contribute to premature mortality. the hot conditions promoted by climate change favor forest fires and grassland fires which

are at great cost to human health. during a heat wave in may of 2014, for example, multiple wildfires broke out simultaneously in san diego county. and that caused at least $60 million in damage. but this estimate doesn't capture the damage to the health of families who are affected by those fires. wildfires can travel great distances and release a mixture of toxins that are especially irritating to the lung, making it harder for people to breathe. a colleague of mine in san diego told me that he advised all his patients to stay inside and keep the air-conditioning on. is this the future we want for american families? one where it's not safe to go outside? there's no doubt that wildfires increase hospitalization for asthma in children and adults and for respiratory illness among the elderly. climate change is also bad for people with seasonal allergies. about 30% of all americans and roughly 10% of americans with asthma. warmer temperatures lengthen the pollen season because plants

bloom earlier in the spring and also higher levels of carbon dioxide increase the amount of pollen produced. in the northern states of the u.s., pollen seasons have lengthened by more than two weeks today than they were in 1995. and they are also more powerful. studies have found that when pollen levels are higher, people use more medications and visit their doctors more for allergy. emergency room visits for asthma among children and adults go up. and one of my patients who is a single mother with a teenage son, both of whom have severe asthma, called me on a weekly basis this spring because of trouble breathing. and between the missed days of school for her son and missed days of work for her, this allergy season was a disaster for her family. i'm a physician and a researcher, but my most important job is my role as a mother to three children under the age of 6. one of them, my 1-year-old son has had two emergency room visits and a hospitalization for respiratory illness.

when my son develops a cough or wheeze, i'm terrified this could mean the next ambulance ride. and when he's sick, i can't go to the hospital and take care of my patients or my husband can't work. we're more fortunate than many americans, many of whom risk losing their job or struggle to pay for the next emergency room visit when they or a loved one suffers an acute respiratory illness. my son and every american deserves clean air. i've only described a few of the threats to the health of americans from climate change. experts predict that we can avoid the most frightening scenarios if we reduce greenhouse gas emissions. and better yet, when we address climate change, we redeem immediate health benefits right here in the u.s. when we reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we also reduce air pollutants that trigger heart attacks, asthma and emphysema attacks, stroke and death. as a mom, a doctor, and a representative of the american

thoracic society, i favor taking firm steps to address climate change because i support clean air and a healthy future for all americans. thank you. chairman capito: thank you doctor. i want to thank all of you all and we'll begin the questions and i will begin. mr. trisko, you mentioned in your remarks about the impacts of the conservation. building block of the clean power plan and how elderly citizens and those on fixed incomes would probably be least likely to be the ones to be the beneficiaries of that or to be able to afford to make those changes. it says that energy information administration projects that consumer energy prices will go up by 4% by 2020. which seems rather low since we just had a 16% rise in our prices in west virginia. how do you see these two converging?

the rising price and the really the lack of the conservation and efficiency aspects of this clean power plan for the elderly citizen and those on fixed income. mr. trisko: senator, excellent questions. let me first address the observation that i offered with respect to senior citizens being least likely to benefit from the energy efficiency aspects of a clean power plan. that observation derives from two facts. one, the payback period that is required to support major investments such as replacement of windows, replacement of heating and ventilating systems, those paybacks, payback periods typically are too long to be economically feasible for lower income senior citizens.

it's also true in general for the population that american houses tend to be owned for a period of about seven years on average. if you're a homeowner looking at a let's say $10,000 window replacement project, that's going to save a few hundred dollars a year on your energy bills, that payback period is not consistent with the period that typical homeowners expect to live in those dwellings. secondly, and i've heard this from senior utility executives as well, that one of the difficulties in securing energy efficiency gains from lower income consumers is the quality of the housing stock. that is, the relatively poor quality of the housing stock will not support investments in fairly high cost energy efficiency upgrades.

such as windows and hvac systems. certainly, lower cost options, the simple things, such as better attic insulation, weather stripping and the like. those have short payback periods and they're feasible. but the magnitude of the energy efficiency investments that epa is projecting in the clean power plan, which nera estimates to cost some $500 billion for american consumers, those investments simply will not be made by the elderly and by lower income consumers. i hope that's responsive to your question. >> thank you. mr. alford, the energy information administration concluded the plan could reduce

the gdp by $1 trillion. based on the analysis that you did and explained, could you just re-emphasize how you think that's going to impact low-income or minority citizens across the country? >> it's going to be very critical and tragic. it's going to hurt as far as 2.1 million black owned businesses we represent. their customer base is going to wither. and i think the quality of life is going to hurt in our communities and i think people are going to start short shrifting moneys that would be used for health care or education. and i think people who would resort to crime and violence because they're poor and broke would increase. i think it would hurt our communities severely. >> thank you. and final question, very quickly, mr. trisko, part of the a.r.e.n.a. act says that we shouldn't move forward with these regulations until all the legal aspects are settled. as you know, states are challenging this, and will challenge when the final rule comes out.

but if states begin to make changes, in the meantime, what kind of scenario does that present to you in terms of how states are going to be able to react not knowing whether the legal issues have been settled as yet? mr. trisko: senator, you've hit upon one of the most desirable aspects of the a.r.e.n.a. act. and let me just put it in the context of the current situation that the electric utility industry faces with respect to epa's 2011 mercury and air toxic standard rule or the mat's rule. the mats rule is currently before the supreme court. a decision is expected shortly within a matter of days. it's possible that the supreme court decision could result in vacature of the rule. and yet, utilities in order to comply with that rule already have retired dozens of power plants across the united states and are scheduled to retire even more over the course of the next

year. wouldn't it be advisable as a matter of public policy before implementation of the most expensive rule ever imposed on the electric utility sector, $9.5 billion a year, to know upfront whether the rule is legal? >> thank you. ranking member senator carper, fellow west virginian, i want to say welcome and also ask if he had can do his opening statement and do questions, which most certainly you can. so proceed. sen. carper: thanks for holding the hearing and all of our witnesses, it's great to see you, and thank you for joining us again. some of you not for the first time. ms. rice, thinking about your son and just hoping he grows up to be 101 or 102 years old and has a great life. ok. one of the issues we always wrestle here with, is it possible to have cleaner air cleaner water and a stronger economy?

i go back to -- i used to be governor and for much of my life, retired navy captain. for most of my life after the navy i really focus on job creation, job preservation, what do we do to foster a nurturing environment for job preservation? you go back to the -- a week in january 2009. actually the week that barack obama and joe biden were sworn into office and our country we lost that week 628,000 people filed for unemployment insurance. think about that. one week. january 2009. 628,000 people file for unemployment insurance. and the previous six months, the last six months, 2008, we lost 206,000 jobs, in 2009, we lost another 2.5 million jobs, 5 million jobs literally in a 12-month period of time. since 2009, actually since 2010, we have adopted regulations new mercury regulations on power plants.

that's one. we have adopted new carbon pollution or fuel economy standards on cars and trucks. that's two. and we've also adopted across state air pollution standards. that's three. and since 2010, we have added 762,000 manufacturing jobs. millions more other jobs. three quarters of million manufacturing jobs. what leads me to believe maybe it's possible to have cleaner air and cleaner water and at the same time, actually, do better. by virtue of our economy and economic growth. so i just ask this to keep that in mind. as the chairman said i was born in west virginia. coal mining town. and grew up there in virginia. and now representing state of delaware. that's the lowest lying state in the country and we see every day what the effect of climate change and global warming is. sea level rise creeps up higher and higher on the east coast of my state. so it's something that is very very real to us.

for decades, for the cost of combat, since coming here i've tried to work on climate compromise that would use market forces. harness market forces to reduce carbon pollution and reduce the cost of compliance. and as part of that compromise i work with senator verd, and a handful of other coal state senators on language that would have provided more than $10 billion in incentives to support deployment of clean coal power plants. this language along with other language intended to buffer impacts to the coal industry was included in the kerry/boxer bill which regrettably was not enacted into law. instead, coming to a compromise on climate change, congress came to a stalemate. all the while it's becoming clear that price of inaction is much greater than the price of action. the epa just released a comprehensive report that outlines the alarming truth that failure to act on climate change

will result in dramatic costs. critically concern for low-lying states like florida and like delaware and others up and down the east coast. without action on climate change, we're going to need to spend billions of dollars on this century to protect our states from rising sea levels and extreme storms. study also projects inaction on climate change could lead to extreme temperatures and cause thousands of deaths throughout the northeast and mid-atlantic regions of our country. it's clear, at least, it's clear to me that as each year passes without the action, the more severe, the more costly and perhaps irreversible the effects of climate change are becoming. and for those of us who come to states being impacted by climate change, i think the message is clear and that's we can no longer afford inaction. many states such as new york represented here today, thank you, welcome, and delaware, have already taken action to reduce the largest emitter of carbon pollution and that's power plant emissions.

we'll hear the economics of these states continue to grow at a faster rate than the states that have yet to put climate regulations into place. however, we need all states to do their fair share to protect the air we breathe and stem the tide of climate change. the epa's clean power plant attempts to do that. and under the clean power plan states are given their own carbon pollution targets and allowed to find the most cost effective way to find cost reductions. in fact, it sounds similar to the compromise, i tried to foist on my colleagues a number of years ago. i believe instead of undercutting the clean power plan, we should be working in good faith with the agency to find ways to improve the regulation. for example, regulation could be improved several ways. one, to ensure early action states are not penalized for being climate and efficiency leaders. number two, to ensure that all clean energy, including nuclear is treated equitably. and three, to ensure we meet our carbon reduction goals. no compromise is ever perfect. the worst thing that we could do is to do nothing while we try to

find the perfect solution. must act now while the ability to mitigate the most harmful impact is within our grasp. choice between curbing climate change and growing our economy is as i've suggested many times a false one and instead we must act on curbing climate change in order to protect the future economic prosperity of our country. all right. madame chairman, thank you for letting me give a statement and ask questions. i was delayed here today. we had a caucus lunch today. part of the lunch discussion was about the transportation bill. secured transportation bill authored by chairman inhofe, senator boxer, senator ritter, myself, and i think going to be well received and we're excited about that. and so, we had a little discussion of that before i came. so i got here a little bit late, and i apologize for that. i thought i would joke and i like to joke around a little bit. and thought i was going to come here and say i was delayed taking a call from the pope. but i'm not catholic.

and he rarely calls me. but if he did, we would talk about -- you know, i must say i'm impressed with this guy. i'm impressed with, one, i think he's read the new testament and has a real commitment to the least of these in my society. when i was naked, did you clothe me, when i was sick in prison, did you come visit me? he gets that and calls on us to do the same. the other thing that he gets and those of white house are familiar with the scripture, most of you probably more than me, but the other thing that he gets is we have a moral obligation to make sure we will have a planet a decent quality of life and he believes and a lot of folks believe that there's a real serious problem here. and we have a moral imperative to do something about it so we can talk about all those these studies and everything but i would have us keep that thought in mind. now, a couple of questions. i'd ask consent to have submitted for the record two items, one is a latest report of

the lancet and commission on health and climate change of health and climate change policy responses to protect public health for the record. that's number one, madame chair and ask consent t0 submit the epa's recent peer reviewed report of climate change in the united states benefit of global action to the record. >> without objection. >> thank you, madame chair. okay. dr. rice, mother of three, i -- you mentioned in your testimony that many different -- the many different ways that the climate change has already impacting the health of americans. who would you say are the most vulernerable to the affects of climate change and what will have the most to gain from reductions of carbon pollution please?

ms. rice: thank you for this question, senator carper. a number of groups are especially vulnerable to the health consequences of climate change. the ones that i would identify would be the elderly because many of them already have chronic health conditions like heart and lung disease that makes them especially vulnerable to high heat and high air pollution levels and low-income people. people who have less income have less access to air conditioning during heat waves. there have been a number of studies looking at cities which suffer the most in some ways from extreme heat because of an island effect of the buildings in the cities and the poorer neighborhoods of cities have been found to have the worst urban heat problem. and people who have low income also are the same people who are often exposed more to higher levels of air pollution to begin with. and have less access to health care and resources to help them manage climate change. >> all right.

ms. rice: and there's a third group i would identify. i know i'm short on time but that's children, especially prevalent in children and at all of the issues, high heat high ozone levels, air pollution from wildfire. higher pollen levels is a major consequence for american children. >> good. thanks. one quick yes or no question if you will. study by the lancet, concluded that the impacts of climate change threatens to undermine this, listen this, last half century of gains in global health. would you agree with this conclusion. just say yes or no. >> i certainly agree. it's major health problem facing the planet. >> thank you. my time expired. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. madame fischer? >> mr. cicio, nebraska's public power state and 100% of our power is owned by the people of nebraska.

we're going to be hit especially hard by these regulations that are proposed in the clean power plan. and we're going to see rate increases that i believe will be substantial. what do you believe will be the impact on our increase that we're going to have in these electricity rates on business operations like manufacturing? what's going to be the impact there? mr. cicio: you know, all of these companies compete globally. there's almost no exception. and as i alluded to, specifically, the competition is very fierce. companies win or lose business based on a cents a pound or pennies on the ton of the product that they make. and so all of these costs are additive. and when we get to, like this clean power plan, it's not just the cost of the clean power plan. there's, you know, in the,

embedded in those electricity rates that give your state a problem, there's already the cost of pm 2.1, 2.5. there's already the mercury rule cost. for us industrials, there's already the industrial boilerman cost and the clean power cost and then ozone. it is a cumulative cost of doing business that our competitors don't have overseas. and it, there's no way around a higher cost and loss of competitiveness and eventually it impacts jobs. >> exactly. >> and most of our jobs are middle class jobs. >> so what's the impact then on american families, when we see these costs continue to increase on businesses. that has a direct cost on american families, correct? and how would you say the arena act will address some of these issues? what specifically is in the proposed legislation?

>> well, i'd like to say from a common sense standpoint, everyone in the country that has followed this, knows that this is going to be litigated, 100% sure. there's no doubt about it. and we know, including the epa knows there's costs. and the epa does not want to hurt people by higher energy costs, but this rule will. and so it is just common sense to say, let's wait till we have this settled out by the courts before states act to technically shut down as the eia report of last month said that they are not going to shut down 40,000 gigawatts, it's now 90,000 gig awatts of coal-fired power plants prior to 2020. that will have an increase on producing electricity costs.

>> thank you. mr. alford, i think most of us in this room take our ability to have electricity for granted. but, as you mentioned, there there's a large number of americans who are balancing whether they can afford an electric bill or whether they can pay rent or whether they are able to put food on the table for their families. that's going to, as you mentioned, lead, i think, to those hard choices that people make and send some of them to the streets when they become homeless. can you talk about more about those tough choices that low-income families have to make when they look at their electricity bills and why you think the costs that are going to be driven up through this action by epa will be so harmful? >> yes, i'm a father to six. >> i think you have to turn on your microphone, sir. thank you. >> i'm a father of six. i guess i'm up to 11 grand children.

but my wife and i have been the godmothers and godfather of the very extended family. and there are a lot out there who need help, and we do all we can to connect them, connect them with some of our members who can create jobs for them but it's an ongoing task, and it's rough out there, and i have children in mobile, atlanta, los angeles, and it gets worse and worse and worse. and lord knows what happens to someone who does something wrong and gets into the judicial system. they'll never have a job. unless i create a job for them. it is very rough out there. and i think we need a government that is sensitive to what's going on in these communities and to come up with some policy that builds a greater america and a more secure america. not put people on thin ice.

>> well said. well said. we all, we all want clean air. we all want clean water, but we need to be aware of what these regulations will do to american families. thank you, sir. >> i've been having discussions with the omaha black chamber of commerce too. >> good to hear. thank you. >> thank you very much, madam chair. i wanted to follow up, dr. rice. the statistics that i've seen say that 78% of african-americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired plant. and that an african-american child is more likely to go do the hospital for asthma than a white child. is there a connection between the coal-fired plants and the higher death rate for african-american children in. >> the health effects from

coal-fired plants are very well documented. and it's now well-established in the scientific community that air pollution causes increases in hospitalization for asthma, asthma attacks, more medication for, to treat the asthma symptoms. and there are also inequities in where people live and where the services are located. that's environmental injustice and communities of color and low-income communities are disproportionately exposed to the emissions. if reduce the emissions, those communities stand the most to benefit, right there where the pollution is emitted. >> so to summarize, you're saying yes there is a connection between the coal-fired power plant pollution and the illnesses and deaths that are disproportionately occurring?

i think you said -- >> i don't like to answer yes or no questions. >> ok. well, it certainly sounds like you were drawing an explanation of why that is indeed the case. the, and you ended on the note that disproportionate benefits from changing the quality of the air go to those most affected. and that would be those closest to the pollution. so public health benefits are estimated to be 55 to $93 billion per year, 15 years from now. that's compared to the estimates of $7.3 billion to $8 billion for the rule. so on the order of 8-1 or 10-1 health benefits versus cost, that seems a pretty good tradeoff for an investment when you can get an eight-fold return, and it's a huge quality

of life issue. would you share that opinion? >> the public health benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions are tremendous. and they've been looked at in a number of different ways including the report that you just cited that showed that the public health benefits from mortality and other health issues far outweighed the i am mplementation costs. that's just one study, but there are many other studies. there was one done by jason westman, a group at unc chapel hill looking at the benefits of the better air quality from reducing greenhouse gas emissions. not even looking at all the health effects i was talking about from climate change, just the air pollution benefits that would be gained right away. and estimate thad those mortality benefits would exceed abatement costs by 2030. >> in your testimony, you noted the impact on forest fires.

this particularly is a concern to us out west where we have large forests. we have seen a huge correlation of more acres of timber burning. you were pointing out in your testimony, i believe, the health impacts of that smoke and that smoke plumes can basically travel across the nation. >> yes, senator, could i give an example. the wildfire from wildfire smoke can travel very far distances. so there's health effects for communities right there where the fires take place, but there's also respiratory and heart health effects in very distant places. so the wildfires that affected russia some years ago, those plumes traveled the distance from chicago to san francisco.

that equivalent difference. that means that thousands and thousands of people in the regions of wildfires are experiencing health effects due to the reduced air quality. >> and since the prevailing winds go from west to east when our fires are burning out in oregon and california and washington state, the rest of the nation is experiencing those, those impacts it's also an impact on a rural economy. because when we lose both to fire and to beetles. and i understand that's not your expertise. i'm over my time, so thank you very much for your feedback. >> thank you. i'd like to turn it over to our chairman of our full committee chairman inhofe. >> thank you, madam chairman. i remember in this room when we had the first appointed director of the epa, lisa jackson, was in

the room, and i remember it was right, i tell you when it was. it's when my friend senator markly, it was right before, during the hearing or the c.o.p. thing in copenhagen. and i asked her the question at that time, i said, you know, if we, if we were to pass the legislation that has been proposed here, let's keep in mind it started way back in 1997 when they said we passed a thing, the bird-hagel rule by 95-0, that if you come back from rio de janeiro or one of these places with a treaty that either hurts our economy or does not require the same thing from china and other countries as it does here, then we will not ratify it. and consequently, they never ratified it.

gore and clinton never put it forward for ratification. now what she was saying at that time, i asked her the question. i asked her if we to pass either by regulation or legislation these reductions, isn't this going to, is this going to have the, the effect of lowering co 2 emissions worldwide, her answer was no. because it only affects here in the u.s. but that's not where the problem is. it's in china, india, mexico and other places, wouldn't you say that it would actually have the effect of increasing co2 worldwide emissions if we were to you unilaterally reduce our emissions, where are they going to go? they're going to go where they have the least restrictions. am i missing something there?

mr. cicio: no, you are not missing anything. as a matter of fact, under the i testified before the house energy and power sub committee and one of the key points i made is if we want to be serious about reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, the single most important thing we need to do is increase the manufacturing of products in the united states versus china, for example. >> exactly. mr. cicio: we manufacture goods on average that has over, less than, well, turn it round the other way. when china produces goods they emit 300% more co2 than we do here. so if energy cost goes up here then it's going to result in more imports of these energy-intensive products. and as a reminder, 70% of our imports is from one country -- china. >> good to see you again. i had not seen what you, and i asked her to give me the printed copy of your study that you did,

key findings, it's just fascinating. i've never seen, it concentrates on the regressive nature of this type of legislation or rules. is that, is that -- mr. alford: that's absolutely correct, sir. >> i hadn't seen it done before where it's specific like this. so this is something that we will use. was this done for you by an outside group? >> roger, dr. roger bessdeck whom we have been using oh, we do about a study every two to three years with that group, and they're very, very on the money. >> thank you. appreciate that. i think you made a vague reference to a study of decisions of middle to low income people. so i ask for a written copy. could you elaborate a little on that? i don't think you had a chance to do that in your opening statement? >> yes, chair inhofe. this study that i attached to

the statement is one in a long-running series if you will, going back really to the time of the kyoto protocol. we wanted to know what american families spent on energy defined as residential utilities and gasoline. and i've been updating that study more or less on an annual basis ever since. and what we found is that as a general matter, the percentage of after-tax income that american households spend on energy has more than doubled over the course of the last 10 to 15 years. now you mentioned the regress ive aspects of costs and increases. the study i've attached today, let's look in particular at the percentage of after-tax income for energy that is spent by households with gross incomes of $30,000 or less.

that's about 30% of our population. those households are spending 23% of their after-tax income on energy. >> their expendable income. mr. trisko: 23% of their after-tax income goes to residential utilities and gasoline. now that compares with an average 7% for households earning more than $50,000 a year. so it's three times greater for of $30,000 or less. it's three times greater for those households than those households making $50,000 or more a year. >> that's almost exactly what you're saying, mr. alford, that it is regressive in that respect. mr. alford: yes, it is. and they brought up asthma. you know, and if you, if you

look at the mayo clinic, there's no prevention for asthma. and there's no correlation of asthma and air. asthma has been increasing, even though through the clean air act we have been good stewards in decreasing and decreasing ozone and all the emissions, but asthma continues to rise, and no one knows why, but there's this big, false projection that it's global warming causing asthma. we don't know what is causing asthma. in most the people who have it get out of it by the time they are adults because there lungs and their bodies are strong enough to fight it off. but i'm getting sick, very sick of people saying asthma and dirty air or global warming. it's a myth. >> thank you. my time has expired.